-
Re: UND post-game thoughts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tony
Well, none of my dire predictions came true. Where are the whiny GFH new stories calling NDSU fans racists because the student section chanted "Sioux suck shit?" Doesn't sound like Heitkamp has gone down that road either. What the heck? Has the world gone crazy?
BTW, I heard the Doc on 740... the worst I can say is that, like many UND folks, he just doesn't have much understanding of the realities of DI. For example, we aren't going to be able to reform the NCC as a brand new DI conference - and wouldn't want to even if we could. He also seemed to think that UNI might leave the Missouri Valley to join the new NCC. More encouragingly, I thought that he was saying that NDSU should be compensated for scheduling UND... either by getting more of the gate or by a fat check from the state.
Pinto nailed it: The answer for UND is joining the MVFC/Summit. That said, if the SAT had a section called "Going DI", UND would get every answer in it wrong, including the part where they have to fill in their name (obviously) so I suspect that UND will cling to idea that the Big Sky is awesome for them just as desperately as they cling to their other delusions.
Finally, Jack was off on the stadium location... build that big stadium in Fargo on the condition that NDSU schedule UND every year. Now that's a plan that NDSU folks could get behind.
You know? I wouldn't hate it if the state gave us a half million for every time we had to go to GF. I could get behind that.
-
Re: UND post-game thoughts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bison 4 Life
You know? I wouldn't hate it if the state gave us a half million for every time we had to go to GF. I could get behind that.
I was there last week. 1/2 million aint enough.
These people like the good doctor live in the past (seems to be a ND malady). Its never the same as you thought. Why not move forward and enjoy the fun you had.
-
Re: UND post-game thoughts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
StL Bison Fan
I was there last week. 1/2 million aint enough.
These people like the good doctor live in the past (seems to be a ND malady). Its never the same as you thought. Why not move forward and enjoy the fun you had.
Oh come on. That would be delicious. "Yeah, we'll play you but only if your dad pays us."
-
Re: UND post-game thoughts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bison 4 Life
Oh come on. That would be delicious. "Yeah, we'll play you but only if your dad pays us."
Yeah..........then split the money among the fans that go..............you know........COA.....:rofl:
-
Re: UND post-game thoughts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IzzyFlexion
Yeah..........then split the money among the fans that go..............you know........COA.....:rofl:
Gawd, Izzy, how do you come with lines like this ? I bet your wife writes your material for you; if she does, she's funny !!! I, for one, hope the Bison don't see the inside of that shed in GF for a long time......... like the next decade or later.
-
Re: UND post-game thoughts.
We need a better running game if we plan to win the Valley and go deep in POs.
Sent from my iPhone.
-
Re: UND post-game thoughts.
Need to do a better job picking up pressure on the line. Remember seeing a few double teams then a Und guy would come through free.
-
Re: UND post-game thoughts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CAS4127
We need a better running game if we plan to win the Valley and go deep in POs.
Sent from my iPhone.
I think we will do just fine. In the conference, we will rely more on King and Chase up the middle and the youngsters on the edge. Our rushing stats look more skewed right now because Anderson and Dunn took a lot of carries up the middle against un_, for example, which isn't their game. If the game was closer, King would have been out there eating 5+ YPC between the tackles. King is more like a pinball who just runs straight ahead through the hole and bounces off guys until they gang tackle him. Anderson and Dunn need more space to use their quickness. Chase just needs the ball wherever and he eats up yards. The second half against un_ was just pounding the ball with guys who aren't your normal pounders. Defenses won't be able to stack the middle so much when the games are tighter and Dunn and Anderson can burn the edges. un_ sold out to stop the inside run and we were perfectly happy just giving it to them and burning time.
-
Re: UND post-game thoughts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CAS4127
We need a better running game if we plan to win the Valley and go deep in POs.
Sent from my iPhone.
Hey CAS, Does it seem like we've gotten away from drive blocking? Seems like we either try to zone block or pull both guards which is really slow to develop
-
Re: UND post-game thoughts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
td577
I think we will do just fine. In the conference, we will rely more on King and Chase up the middle and the youngsters on the edge. Our rushing stats look more skewed right now because Anderson and Dunn took a lot of carries up the middle against un_, for example, which isn't their game. If the game was closer, King would have been out there eating 5+ YPC between the tackles. King is more like a pinball who just runs straight ahead through the hole and bounces off guys until they gang tackle him. Anderson and Dunn need more space to use their quickness. Chase just needs the ball wherever and he eats up yards. The second half against un_ was just pounding the ball with guys who aren't your normal pounders. Defenses won't be able to stack the middle so much when the games are tighter and Dunn and Anderson can burn the edges. un_ sold out to stop the inside run and we were perfectly happy just giving it to them and burning time.
I'll believe all of this when I see it. Understand what you are suggesting but, meh, not seeing it happen as of now.
Also, the who got way (+100?) more positive yards than the 61 credited with. TFL and sacks count as negative. I'd venture a guess they had 200+ positive yards. That's too much IMO.
Sent from my iPhone.
-
Re: UND post-game thoughts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BadlandsBison
Hey CAS, Does it seem like we've gotten away from drive blocking? Seems like we either try to zone block or pull both guards which is really slow to develop
Yes, and traps. Our blocking schemes seem to have changed for sure; and with the size we have on OL, that's a shame. Recall peeps were saying preseason this is best OL we have ever had?! Have not come close to proving that IMO. I know there have been some injuries, but will stand by my position that we have had several better lines than this version. Haeg even got his ass kicked/burned by no-name this weekend.
Sent from my iPhone.
-
Re: UND post-game thoughts.
Yeah it seems we are getting away from the west coast offense and replacing with that zone read stuff. I'd rather see the 2006-2007 or 2013 Bison offense and keep that zone read stuff in the hip pocket.
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
-
Re: UND post-game thoughts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CAS4127
Yes, and traps. Our blocking schemes seem to have changed for sure; and with the size we have on OL, that's a shame. Recall peeps were saying preseason this is best OL we have ever had?! Have not come close to proving that IMO. I know there have been some injuries, but will stand by my position that we have had several better lines than this version. Haeg even got his ass kicked/burned by no-name this weekend.
Sent from my iPhone.
So...is this the OC making these changes? If so...why this year or were we seeing this last year too?
-
Re: UND post-game thoughts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CAS4127
Yes, and traps. Our blocking schemes seem to have changed for sure; and with the size we have on OL, that's a shame. Recall peeps were saying preseason this is best OL we have ever had?! Have not come close to proving that IMO. I know there have been some injuries, but will stand by my position that we have had several better lines than this version. Haeg even got his ass kicked/burned by no-name this weekend.
Sent from my iPhone.
That has been my impression with the blocking. We trying to be gimmicky when we don't have to be. But, we were still using more straight ahead drive blocking type stuff last year with the same staff, I say bring it back
-
Re: UND post-game thoughts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CAS4127
Yes, and traps. Our blocking schemes seem to have changed for sure; and with the size we have on OL, that's a shame. Recall peeps were saying preseason this is best OL we have ever had?! Have not come close to proving that IMO. I know there have been some injuries, but will stand by my position that we have had several better lines than this version. Haeg even got his ass kicked/burned by no-name this weekend.
Sent from my iPhone.
I haven't seen much in the trap business yet. Last year, we didn't trap and pull much until the conference schedule either. I think we have been about as vanilla as you can get on offense and only introducing a little bit here and there to get guys moving their feet. I have a feeling our line will look a lot different come October. Averaging 36+ points in OOC hasn't given the Bison any reason to do anything more. A lot of young guys playing on the line as well and I think the coaches have been introducing them to stuff slowly rather than pushing them in the deep end. Just get their feet wet and work from that. I will be concerned if our run game and blocking schemes still look the same in Brookings but I am confident there has been a method to the madness. I don't think there is any question we need to win the TOP game by a lot, so there shouldn't be any punches pulled starting out the conference schedule.
-
Re: UND post-game thoughts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CAS4127
I'll believe all of this when I see it. Understand what you are suggesting but, meh, not seeing it happen as of now.
Also, the who got way (+100?) more positive yards than the 61 credited with. TFL and sacks count as negative. I'd venture a guess they had 200+ positive yards. That's too much IMO.
From gobison.com
Here are the stats that confirm that the whioux did not reach 100 yards no matter how the numbers are manipulated.
UND:
61 total net yards on offense.
57 through the air &
4 yards net rushing.
TOTAL YARDS LOST (RUSHING):
38 yards
TOTAL GROUND YARDS LOST BY SACK:
27 yards
TOTAL GROUND YARDS LOST BY TFL:
11 yards.
I wouldn't add the TFL yards back in. But adding the sack yards back in only gives them a total of NET 88 yards. (COMBINATION OF BOTH RUN AND PASS)
If the TFL yards were to be added (TFL being the result of great defensive stops not related to kneel downs, sacks or whatever.)
then their total would be: 99 yards.
-
Re: UND post-game thoughts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bisonville GasMan
So...is this the OC making these changes? If so...why this year or were we seeing this last year too?
Yes, OC. IMO, we are putting this season on the back of CW rather than a total team approach. We have literally change our offense in an effort to do so. We saw what happens in MT if he gets hurt. Y not have his running be an additional feature rather than first option feature.
I'll be very surprised if we go deep in POs with this offense ... unless out D keeps improving like it appears it is.
Sent from my iPhone.
-
Re: UND post-game thoughts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IzzyFlexion
From gobison.com
Here are the stats that confirm that the whioux did not reach 100 yards no matter how the numbers are manipulated.
UND:
61 total net yards on offense.
57 through the air &
4 yards net rushing.
TOTAL YARDS LOST (RUSHING):
38 yards
TOTAL GROUND YARDS LOST BY SACK:
27 yards
TOTAL GROUND YARDS LOST BY TFL:
11 yards.
I wouldn't add the TFL yards back in. But adding the sack yards back in only gives them a total of NET 88 yards. (COMBINATION OF BOTH RUN AND PASS)
If the TFL yards were to be added (TFL being the result of great defensive stops not related to kneel downs, sacks or whatever.)
then their total would be: 99 yards.
I said total positive yards. Not arguing, just sayin'!
Sent from my iPhone.
-
Re: UND post-game thoughts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
td577
I haven't seen much in the trap business yet. Last year, we didn't trap and pull much until the conference schedule either. I think we have been about as vanilla as you can get on offense and only introducing a little bit here and there to get guys moving their feet. I have a feeling our line will look a lot different come October. Averaging 36+ points in OOC hasn't given the Bison any reason to do anything more. A lot of young guys playing on the line as well and I think the coaches have been introducing them to stuff slowly rather than pushing them in the deep end. Just get their feet wet and work from that. I will be concerned if our run game and blocking schemes still look the same in Brookings but I am confident there has been a method to the madness. I don't think there is any question we need to win the TOP game by a lot, so there shouldn't be any punches pulled starting out the conference schedule.
We'll see. Polasek last spring and pre-season said we were gonna have a big playbook because of CW. Again, we'll see.
Sent from my iPhone.
-
Re: UND post-game thoughts.
Regardless of how you figure the yardage the bottom line is that we only gave up nine points. If there had not been the breakdown in special teams they probably would not have scored period.
-
Re: UND post-game thoughts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CAS4127
I said total positive yards. Not arguing, just sayin'!
I'm not sure what you're getting at.............
4 rushing
plus
57 passing
plus 27 (adding back in the sack yards) so, in essence 31 forward yards not counting sack subtractions.
AND
plus 11 (adding back in TFL yards) so the very most yards in a positive direction is 99.
-
Re: UND post-game thoughts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CAS4127
Yes, OC. IMO, we are putting this season on the back of CW rather than a total team approach. We have literally change our offense in an effort to do so. We saw what happens in MT if he gets hurt. Y not have his running be an additional feature rather than first option feature.
I'll be very surprised if we go deep in POs with this offense ... unless out D keeps improving like it appears it is.
Sent from my iPhone.
I always appreciate the perspective of people who played. I don't know as much about football X's and O's as some of you...but like you were mentioning earlier our O-line should be just dominating...It doesn't seem like we are...I don't get it. I'm hoping it's more like td577 mentioned that we are just kinda easing into things before conference play.
But, I just feel a little uneasy regarding this year's play, running game in particular (or maybe I'm reading to much B'Ville crap).
-
Re: UND post-game thoughts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bisonville GasMan
So...is this the OC making these changes? If so...why this year or were we seeing this last year too?
We ran some of this stuff last year as well. I am guessing a lot of it is coming from NIU where Polasek spent some time. When he was at NIU they had a QB that more or less dominated the offense.
-
Re: UND post-game thoughts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GFBison
Hockey, he was a goalie. Graduated from Fargo south. Was a Qb for the Bruins started as a freshman in hockey and football. Could of played bb to.
USA Hockey seems to like him as a doctor: http://worldjuniors.usahockey.com/pa...r-phil-johnson.
I'm a bit surprised though, no mullet.
http://assets.ngin.com/attachments/p...il_2014WJC.jpg
-
Re: UND post-game thoughts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
westnodak93bison
Yeah it seems we are getting away from the west coast offense and replacing with that zone read stuff. I'd rather see the 2006-2007 or 2013 Bison offense and keep that zone read stuff in the hip pocket.
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
I love zone read blocking, but you have to recruit for that. This line wasn't. With zone blocking, you use smaller, quicker lineman who overload zones in a hurry. This line should be moving the line of scrimmage and letting the fullback and h-back create holes in the second level. I just don't know how you introduce zone blocking with the limited time you have and with guys you brought in to man block with the gap scheme for the backs. In a man block scheme, if the defense is stunting, a blocker's man isn't there anymore and they find someone to block, so it can look like a zone block with the TE worrying about the backside. Whatever scheme we are using, I do know that Dunn is getting caught from behind a lot, so I think he doesn't hit the hole fast enough. With a zone scheme, someone should be there for a backside cut so he would be more effective in a zone blocking scheme. When you boil it down, I don't think we have moved away from a man blocking scheme, it is just everyone is stunting against the Bison so much, it looks like zone blocking. It will start getting really brutal when we catch them with counter runs. The way Anderson, Dunn, and a little bit Morlock run, zone blocking would probably help them. They seem to want to look for holes rather than run to the prescribed one assigned. Frazier is all about going to where the play is designed. The bottom line is either blocking scheme has been statistically shown to be about evenly effective over the long haul. You just have to train your backs when to cut.
-
Re: UND post-game thoughts.
I'll just say this. We haven't proven shit by losing to a now 1-2 MT team and beating up on 2 cellar-dweller BSC (lol at BSC) teams. We don't actually even know what we have yet, other than the best team we have played beat us fair and square.
Sent from my iPhone.
-
Re: UND post-game thoughts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
td577
I love zone read blocking, but you have to recruit for that. This line wasn't. With zone blocking, you use smaller, quicker lineman who overload zones in a hurry. This line should be moving the line of scrimmage and letting the fullback and h-back create holes in the second level. I just don't know how you introduce zone blocking with the limited time you have and with guys you brought in to man block with the gap scheme for the backs. In a man block scheme, if the defense is stunting, a blocker's man isn't there anymore and they find someone to block, so it can look like a zone block with the TE worrying about the backside. Whatever scheme we are using, I do know that Dunn is getting caught from behind a lot, so I think he doesn't hit the hole fast enough. With a zone scheme, someone should be there for a backside cut so he would be more effective in a zone blocking scheme. When you boil it down, I don't think we have moved away from a man blocking scheme, it is just everyone is stunting against the Bison so much, it looks like zone blocking. It will start getting really brutal when we catch them with counter runs. The way Anderson, Dunn, and a little bit Morlock run, zone blocking would probably help them. They seem to want to look for holes rather than run to the prescribed one assigned. Frazier is all about going to where the play is designed. The bottom line is either blocking scheme has been statistically shown to be about evenly effective over the long haul. You just have to train your backs when to cut.
Otherwise avoiding the balance of your post on purpose, you don't "train/teach" a back when to cut. That's called vision/feel/instinct. You can suggest/point things out, but training/teaching at this point is game over. I'm sure the Vikes have worked with AP over the years-->see results.
Sent from my iPhone.
-
Re: UND post-game thoughts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CAS4127
I'll just say this. We haven't proven shit by losing to a now 1-2 MT team and beating up on 2 cellar-dweller BSC (lol at BSC) teams. We don't actually even know what we have yet, other than the best team we have played beat us fair and square.
Sent from my iPhone.
I feel cheated our whole OOC schedule was against the big fluffy.
-
Re: UND post-game thoughts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CAS4127
Otherwise avoiding the balance of your post on purpose, you don't "train/teach" a back when to cut. That's called vision/feel/instinct. You can suggest/point things out, but training/teaching at this point is game over. I'm sure the Vikes have worked with AP over the years-->see results.
Sent from my iPhone.
I agree. I didn't know how else to put it.
-
UND post-game thoughts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IzzyFlexion
I'm not sure what you're getting at.............
4 rushing
plus
57 passing
plus 27 (adding back in the sack yards) so, in essence 31 forward yards not counting sack subtractions.
AND
plus 11 (adding back in TFL yards) so the very most yards in a positive direction is 99.
Second edit: I'm wrong, you're correct! My bad.
-
Re: UND post-game thoughts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
td577
i feel dirty our whole ooc schedule was against the big fluffy.
fify .
-
Re: UND post-game thoughts.
-
Re: UND post-game thoughts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
StL Bison Fan
fify .
Not much of a measuring stick for sure.
Sent from my iPhone.
-
Re: UND post-game thoughts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
td577
I feel cheated our whole OOC schedule was against the big fluffy.
I agree with you. I also don't like how we play SDSU & UNI consecutively to start conference play.
It...imo...is an off year as far as scheduling is concerned.
-
Re: UND post-game thoughts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CaBisonFan
I agree with you. I also don't like how we play SDSU & UNI consecutively to start conference play.
It...imo...is an off year as far as scheduling is concerned.
Our AD really had things laid out perfectly. This year not, but I assume they didnt have much say in the way the conference schedule lays out. Or the ESPN season kickoff.
-
Re: UND post-game thoughts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CaBisonFan
I agree with you. I also don't like how we play SDSU & UNI consecutively to start conference play.
It...imo...is an off year as far as scheduling is concerned.
Well, I guess I see it differently. Could be an advantage to get what appears to be our two toughest games out of the way early. In theory, the team should be starting to gel by now after 3 OOC games, there's no real tape from how we play our conference mates for them to look at, and the team should be fairly healthy at this point instead of hobbling into the last few weeks. I like it personally. Hope it works out for the team.
-
Re: UND post-game thoughts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BisonNation11
Well, I guess I see it differently. Could be an advantage to get what appears to be our two toughest games out of the way early. In theory, the team should be starting to gel by now after 3 OOC games, there's no real tape from how we play our conference mates for them to look at, and the team should be fairly healthy at this point instead of hobbling into the last few weeks. I like it personally. Hope it works out for the team.
All of this.
-
Re: UND post-game thoughts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CAS4127
Second edit: I'm wrong, you're correct! My bad.
Can you go back and change your other 13,193 posts to reflect this statement?
-
Re: UND post-game thoughts.
Get real. Why does this sports reporter think UND is the flagship university of the state? I am not saying NDSU is, but to prop UND on top is ... well ... just being a homer.
http://www.inforum.com/sports/384551...-unds-nickname
-
Re: UND post-game thoughts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PlainsBison
If you say it enough times...
