A ball on a receiver's hip, another way out in front, another behind a head. It keeps going on. Our D was forcing the QB to move on every single throw. One could say it was amazing he was in the vicinity of any receiver with the pressure, but he wasn't anywhere near where they were going to catch the ball. Those receivers deserve a little more credit, as well as a dialed in defense. It is easy being accurate when the QB movement is planned or it is drop back and plant. It is also easy when receivers are creating serious separation from defenders. None of these were happening with any frequency. Even when separation seemed to be there, there were defenders in throwing lanes effecting throwing trajectories. You have to be very careful against a Bison defense in Texas. So far, ISUr has had the most success because they shifted defenders around with their read option.
I think the injury definitely affected Kunce. He gave up like 1-2 punt returns in two years and all of a sudden almost every punt was returned in that game for big yardage. I was fine with his 35-40 yard puts with no return yardage. If he would have done that in the NC game I believe we probably win by more. Also, after watching the game it also appeared out punt coverage unit was lethargic and just slow.
Another note after watching a replay of the game is I believe Brooks would have made a big difference in this game. We had some nice creases to run on a couple plays and brooks and Dunn got caught from behind or the side. Pretty sure Brooks gets through and does not get caught for some really nice gains.
I am not saying they are thinking its the reason they lost the game, just that it did everything they wanted it to except win the game.
You don't give good teams extra downs no matter how good your defense is. If you just look at NDSU's punting game, JMU couldn't have asked for a better outcome if their intention on the first punt was to roll through the punter block or not (which is what I think was their intent). It isn't like they weren't close to blocking the punt anyways, so they saw something that made them go for broke. The injury was just a bonus. So to be more clear, JMU's intent was to do everything to block the kick with no concern about pulling up for the punter. They thought their defense was good enough if they happened to draw a penalty.
I don't think they had a "well, we're going to do everything we can and will live with a penalty if we get to the punter. Afterall, he might get hurt." After that one I think they only made a concerted effort to really try to block one more punt (I have watched the game a couple times and was looking for these attempts). I think they saw that penalty as a mistake, and an extremely costly one at that because NDSU went on to score a TD on that drive and took an early lead. I am guessing central to both teams game plan was "1. Get the lead in the game." When they finally did try to block another one the blocker ran behind the punter. I think it was at least partly to avoid getting another penalty which would have given NDSU another 1st down and, because it was now late in the game, likely would have sealed their fate. I don't think they were trying to hurt Koonce. I believe that was the effect but I think if you asked Mike Houston, "Would you be OK with absorbing a roughing the kicker penalty if it meant his effectiveness as a punter would be diminished" I think he says, "No, it isn't worth it." Especially if he found out that it would result in a TD rather than a punt. Points were going to be too hard to come by in that game.
From a strategic perspective only, if team "A" knows team "B" has no backup kicker it would be worth trying to injure the kicker and taking the 15 yards. In this case, if that were the plan you must assure the kicker is injured. The defenders intent would be obvious.
JMU did not intend to injure our kicker.
Case closed.