Re: Army Game Thread
Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2017 5:41 pm
I saw a tweet and I'm currently looking for it, but I believe Banks is starting tomorrow.
Yes. Fritz stated it on the radio today.GreenPuddleSplash wrote:I saw a tweet and I'm currently looking for it, but I believe Banks is starting tomorrow.
I posted above that Fritz said that on the radio today.GreenPuddleSplash wrote:I saw a tweet and I'm currently looking for it, but I believe Banks is starting tomorrow.
I think Navy is better than Army but the bigger factor is this game is at home and that game was on the road, and winning games on the road in college football is a lot tougher than people give credit for. It's just hard to give the effort and focus you need for a full 60 minutes, and the travel cuts into your routine. I know there are formulas out there that people like to apply 3-4 points or whatever, but I think when you have college teams traveling across the country and being taken out of their routine, the gap is probably considerably larger. There are several top ten teams that are about to figure out how hard it is to make that "first conference road trip of the season" tomorrow evening.DfromCT wrote:Robert, we're on the same page. I think the team is well ahead of where we were with CJ and Buffet Bob, even in the season that we went to the N.O. Bowl. That team should have won 10 games minimum with the ridiculous schedule they played and playing certain decent teams without key starters.
At the same time, the areas for concern, IMHO, remain special teams (which Fritz coaches himself) and the passing game. I'd like to think we can pass the ball on many of the teams remaining on our schedule, particularly Army and Tulsa. Having watched all or parts of Army's three games, I know they don't pass well, but are quite capable of hitting a deep pass over the middle when their opponent overplays their triple option running game. They are well coached, but beaten down by injuries. If we lose tomorrow, I will be worried.
I thought we'd beat Navy and lose to Army but based upon the health of Army and the fact that it's a home game against a team whose offense we know inside and out, I think we pull out a win.
ROLL WAVE!
I don't see your point being backed by your stats. Small sample, and not a huge scoring margin between the first and second halfs. We're a team without enough quality players, and depth is a concern. The difference between 150 pts in second half and 190 pts in 1st half equates to 2.7 points difference/half per game. SHOW ME, because I fail to see your statistical analysis. If you want to look at our opponents outscoring us in the second half, they do so by less than a TD. We're underdogs in most games we play. The superior programs should be taking control in the second half. The numbers your produce are surprising....because there's not a more dramatic difference. And we're underdogs in almost every game we take the field.Ruski wrote:So I ran the numbers, under CWF:
Opponents Score:
First Quarter: 97
Second Quarter: 96
Third Quarter: 91
Fourth Quarter: 118
Tulane Score:
First Quarter: 103
Second Quarter: 87
Third Quarter: 72
Fourth Quarter80
Whether you want to chalk it up to coaching or lack of depth there is a serious problem in 2nd half of games, especially the 4th quarter. I think the numbers are interesting and support the gut feeling I had about us under WF. Actually outscoring teams in first quarter, keeping it very very close first half and then falling apart 2nd half.
If you go quarter by quarter, (Tulane - Opponents)DfromCT wrote:I don't see your point being backed by your stats. Small sample, and not a huge scoring margin between the first and second halfs. We're a team without enough quality players, and depth is a concern. The difference between 150 pts in second half and 190 pts in 1st half equates to 2.7 points difference/half per game. SHOW ME, because I fail to see your statistical analysis. If you want to look at our opponents outscoring us in the second half, they do so by less than a TD. We're underdogs in most games we play. The superior programs should be taking control in the second half. The numbers your produce are surprising....because there's not a more dramatic difference. And we're underdogs in almost every game we take the field.Ruski wrote:So I ran the numbers, under CWF:
Opponents Score:
First Quarter: 97
Second Quarter: 96
Third Quarter: 91
Fourth Quarter: 118
Tulane Score:
First Quarter: 103
Second Quarter: 87
Third Quarter: 72
Fourth Quarter80
Whether you want to chalk it up to coaching or lack of depth there is a serious problem in 2nd half of games, especially the 4th quarter. I think the numbers are interesting and support the gut feeling I had about us under WF. Actually outscoring teams in first quarter, keeping it very very close first half and then falling apart 2nd half.
I'm open to a rational explanation of the point you're trying to make. I just don't see it with the numbers you posted.
This is REALLY reaching for finding something to complain about.Ruski wrote:So I ran the numbers, under CWF:
Opponents Score:
First Quarter: 97
Second Quarter: 96
Third Quarter: 91
Fourth Quarter: 118
Tulane Score:
First Quarter: 103
Second Quarter: 87
Third Quarter: 72
Fourth Quarter80
Whether you want to chalk it up to coaching or lack of depth there is a serious problem in 2nd half of games, especially the 4th quarter. I think the numbers are interesting and support the gut feeling I had about us under WF. Actually outscoring teams in first quarter, keeping it very very close first half and then falling apart 2nd half.
I am not sure you would say "out of shape" ,,,but lack of depth...I do not have the stats, but I bet Army ran twice as many plays as TulaneShow Me wrote:WHY do we have two Army game threads?
Anyway I thought we’d beat Army. But my biggest concern was our lack of conditioning. The defense labored throughout the second half. We need to give them the Bowden treatment and get these guys in shape. That was my only complaint from yesterday. Looks like we are headed to a bowl if this success continues.
Yes maybe both. But many Tulane players either had cramps or faked them to get a injury TO. Looked bad from the stands. Yes it was hot as hell but Army seemed the better prepared team physically.golfnut69 wrote:I am not sure you would say "out of shape" ,,,but lack of depth...I do not have the stats, but I bet Army ran twice as many plays as TulaneShow Me wrote:WHY do we have two Army game threads?
Anyway I thought we’d beat Army. But my biggest concern was our lack of conditioning. The defense labored throughout the second half. We need to give them the Bowden treatment and get these guys in shape. That was my only complaint from yesterday. Looks like we are headed to a bowl if this success continues.
Show Me wrote:Yes maybe both. But many Tulane players either had cramps or faked them to get a injury TO. Looked bad from the stands. Yes it was hot as hell but Army seemed the better prepared team physically.golfnut69 wrote:I am not sure you would say "out of shape" ,,,but lack of depth...I do not have the stats, but I bet Army ran twice as many plays as TulaneShow Me wrote:WHY do we have two Army game threads?
Anyway I thought we’d beat Army. But my biggest concern was our lack of conditioning. The defense labored throughout the second half. We need to give them the Bowden treatment and get these guys in shape. That was my only complaint from yesterday. Looks like we are headed to a bowl if this success continues.
Those Army guys are literally trained to fight in desert warfare with full packs. You are damned right they are better prepared physically. I have no problem with that.Show Me wrote:Yes maybe both. But many Tulane players either had cramps or faked them to get a injury TO. Looked bad from the stands. Yes it was hot as hell but Army seemed the better prepared team physically.golfnut69 wrote:I am not sure you would say "out of shape" ,,,but lack of depth...I do not have the stats, but I bet Army ran twice as many plays as TulaneShow Me wrote:WHY do we have two Army game threads?
Anyway I thought we’d beat Army. But my biggest concern was our lack of conditioning. The defense labored throughout the second half. We need to give them the Bowden treatment and get these guys in shape. That was my only complaint from yesterday. Looks like we are headed to a bowl if this success continues.
That was going to be my comment as well, Engineer. I'd be pretty damn worried if these guys weren't better prepared physically. As for the conditions, it was brutally hot, and as for time of possession, Army won that 39:18 to 20:42. Now take into account that our last drive was 5:09 seconds, and you're looking at a 39 to 15 minute TOP advantage for Army prior to our last drive. Army ran 74 offensive plays to our 52. So prior to the last drive, we're looking at a 74-33 disadvantage. I think there was a legitimate reason why we cramped up.anEngineer wrote:Those Army guys are literally trained to fight in desert warfare with full packs. You are damned right they are better prepared physically. I have no problem with that.Show Me wrote:Yes maybe both. But many Tulane players either had cramps or faked them to get a injury TO. Looked bad from the stands. Yes it was hot as hell but Army seemed the better prepared team physically.golfnut69 wrote:I am not sure you would say "out of shape" ,,,but lack of depth...I do not have the stats, but I bet Army ran twice as many plays as TulaneShow Me wrote:WHY do we have two Army game threads?
Anyway I thought we’d beat Army. But my biggest concern was our lack of conditioning. The defense labored throughout the second half. We need to give them the Bowden treatment and get these guys in shape. That was my only complaint from yesterday. Looks like we are headed to a bowl if this success continues.
Agreed. This is a "I am glad we won" game. Not an upset or big win. We need to stack this W on our record and keep rolling.greenphantom wrote:It was a good win but I refuse to make too big a deal about barely beating Army at home. We have a lot of work to do. Great job though by the team to gut out the win.
We agree on that.Wave QB wrote:Agreed. This is a "I am glad we won" game. Not an upset or big win. We need to stack this W on our record and keep rolling.greenphantom wrote:It was a good win but I refuse to make too big a deal about barely beating Army at home. We have a lot of work to do. Great job though by the team to gut out the win.