Monkeypox

As I pointed out earlier, the only thing our offense was GREAT at was putting up a lot of passing yards between the 20s. Scoring has been a problem all year. The inability to get large chunks and sustained drives has been a problem all year. Being too predictable has been a problem all year. Blocking has been a problem all year. And, honestly, it's made fewer adjustments over the course of the season than the D. But all that passing sure is sexy!

Funny to read reports from people who only look at stat sheets. I mean, I consider myself a stathead, but this doesn't even look like someone who's read recaps.

i was gonna say the same thing.

I think it will be hard for this offense to score that much on so few possessions. Not that we can't, but our percentage isn't nearly that high this year. Perhaps your idea of an increased ground game would keep us from going backwards as much on the opponents' side of the field, but, realistically, I don't think that's a plan that can be implemented well for this team right now.

Casino El Camino on 6th for some burgers Ruby's BBQ Kerbey Lane Cafe Kismet Cafe on 24th for the Mediterranean/Greek type food El Chilito for some tacos

yeah, I'm sure that, until this last week, our head coach had paid no attention.

intensity.

http://web1.ncaa.org/d1mfb/2007/Internet/r...7000000497.HTML Stats and rankings there as well. Scoring offense ranks #100. Scoring defense still ranks #119. Shame those late game scores had to happen.

actually, it has. it puts up yards, but not enough points. tonight was a perfect example. they had one good drive all game and it came towards the end. there have been COUNTLESS opportunities from within the opponents' 30-yd line where we move backwards, and we have had a real problem with turnovers. the only thing the offense has done exceptionally well is pass between the 20s. it's the passing equivalent of DD ball. "Look at all the rush yards" has simply become "Look at all the passing yards." it's just as one-dimensional, and ULM was able to take advantage of that for most of the game. by the time we mounted a drive, we would've already been behind had our D not stepped up like they did in this game. i guess the thing is that i'm not really that worried about it. i think it will come together, but the people who harp on the defense are (not) surprisingly silent about the O.

i doubt anybody WAS happy with it, BUT some people are reasonable about things. i mean, AGAIN, i don't see anybody calling for the OC's head despite some serious problems with the offense.

A solid offensive drive ending in points. Man, what's this thing we're doing where you hand the ball off and a guy runs up the field with it?

i'd rather we stop backing up when we get into opponent's territory. it shouldn't have been a field goal attempt at all when you start with 1st and Goal at the 6.

Where are all the "Fire the OC" threads for us being one of the worst in the country in scoring offense? Oh, I forgot... yards between the 20s are sexy when you're throwing the ball.

SMU, FAU, and ULL are a combined 13/41 on 3rd downs vs. us. 31.7%. that would rank us around the top 25 or so. including Arkansas and OU, we have allowed a 39.4% 3rd down conversion rate, which ranks us at #70. of course, teams haven't had to convert a whole lot of 3rd downs vs. us for the most part, as they bust huge plays on 1st and 2nd down.

i can't add anything other than: agreed. going for two that early in that situation is stupid, and hurt us in this game.

Yeah, I've been barking up that tree this season, to no avail. I understand not being angry about the offense, but I wouldn't be overly thrilled with one of the lowest scoring offenses in the NCAA, which also turns the ball over at a ridiculous rate. A bunch of yards between the 20s might look sexy on the stat sheets, but that's about it.

yep. this board sure is full of those. there are a few things Lonnie says with which i agree. however, for the most part i think he just likes being argumentative, and while he COULD CHOOSE to present his arguments in a straightforward and reasonable manner, it's rarely the case. most of the time it appears his goal is simply to incite the overly optimistic crowd. to the point at hand. every coach everywhere argues with the refs. they get on them about late hits, bad calls, good calls, etc. good coaches, bad coaches, NFL coaches, Div. 1-A coaches, Div. 1-AA coaches, high school and pee-wee coaches. thus, his argument here is pretty stupid, and should probably just be ignored. don't feed the troll.

Favorite comment: After the game, Michelle Tafowhatshername: "Tony, you threw four interceptions in the first half. What were you thinking at that time?" Romo replies "Was it only four?"

Well, that was Folking fantastic.

You mean 5. Well, there was that trap game.

The problem doesn't seem to be wearing down, since they're giving up big plays early and often. It's just that they give up HUGE, BIG, MONSTROUS plays. That's partly a result of conditioning, sure, in not being able to catch people, but it's a lack of speed and being out of position to make plays.

Being frustrated and angry at the craptastic defense isn't kneejerk. Calling for a coach's head is. Armchair defensive coordinating is fun.

Just because they were recruited for a 4-3 base defense doesn't mean it's the same. That's just the alignment, and doesn't necessarily define a player's responsibilities or techniques.

For a true freshman playing his first game as a starter behind an inconsistent O-Line on an 0-4 (now 0-5) team playing in wet conditions... I think a B+ is probably about right. I'm willing to bet that most true freshman, disregarding the other info, fair worse than that in their first start.

Yeah, there was something about it posted on here. Our games are longer. More passing stops the clock more, as does giving up 70 yards at a time.