SportsChatPlace UNT vs UAB

[AustinFromUNT]

https://sportschatplace.com/cfb-picks/2017/09/23/north-texas-vs-uab-9/23/17-college-football-pick-odds-and-prediction

Hint: Take North Texas.

[greenminer]

UAB leads the conference is rushing/game.

Someone make me feel better about this.

[NeonGreen]

21 minutes ago, greenminer said:

UAB leads the conference is rushing/game.

Someone make me feel better about this.

Against Alabama A&M, Ball State, and Coastal Carolina. Feel better now?

[MGNation92]

1 hour ago, greenminer said:

UAB leads the conference is rushing/game.

Someone make me feel better about this.

Our DLine has contained the run very well this season. Up until the fourth quarter in Iowa where they were completely worn down.

[UNTFan23]

North Texas has yet to allow a rusher to gain more than 100 yards in a game. Iowa game the closet with three players in the 70 yard range.

 

Opponent	FirstName	LastName	NetYards
Iowa	Toren	Young	78
Iowa	I.	Kelly-Martin	74
SMU	Xavier	Jones	74
Iowa	James	Butler	74
Lamar	Kendrick	King	37
SMU	Ke'Mon	Freeman	31
Iowa	Akrum	Wadley	24
Lamar	D.	Colbert Jr.	14
Lamar	Myles	Wanza	13
Lamar	Andrew	Allen	12
Lamar	Kirkland	Banks	10

[Ben Gooding]

3 minutes ago, UNTFan23 said:

North Texas has yet to allow a rusher to gain more than 100 yards in a game. Iowa game the closet with three players in the 70 yard range.

 

Opponent	FirstName	LastName	NetYards
Iowa	Toren	Young	78
Iowa	I.	Kelly-Martin	74
SMU	Xavier	Jones	74
Iowa	James	Butler	74
Lamar	Kendrick	King	37
SMU	Ke'Mon	Freeman	31
Iowa	Akrum	Wadley	24
Lamar	D.	Colbert Jr.	14
Lamar	Myles	Wanza	13
Lamar	Andrew	Allen	12
Lamar	Kirkland	Banks	10

Not sure this graph is something to compliment. It really just means that Wadley would've had 150 had he not been injured. 

[UNTFan23]

3 minutes ago, Ben Gooding said:

Not sure this graph is something to compliment. It really just means that Wadley would've had 150 had he not been injured. 

We can't help it if the other team pulls their player for whatever reason.

[Ben Gooding]

Just now, UNTFan23 said:

We can't help it if the other team pulls their player for whatever reason.

Not the point. Iowa could've had a 100 yard back with ease vs us. That's the point. They end the game with 3 guys with 70+ and their best player/RB only has 24 due to injury. 

[UNTFan23]

3 minutes ago, Ben Gooding said:

Not the point. Iowa could've had a 100 yard back with ease vs us. That's the point. They end the game with 3 guys with 70+ and their best player/RB only has 24 due to injury. 

True, they could have but they didn't. There isn't a special column on the stat sheet to tell everyone that a player was pulled because he was injured, or the coach wanted to rest him, or whatever.

You, as an individual, can discount every single stat that exists for whatever reason but the fact still stands ... there has not been a single opposing rusher that has run for more than 100 yards.

Edited September 19, 2017 by UNTFan23

[Aldo]

15 hours ago, greenminer said:

UAB leads the conference is rushing/game.

Someone make me feel better about this.

North Texas leads the conference in passing/game

and in total offense/game

North Texas leads the conference in scoring/game

North Texas leads the conference in - wait a minute - yards per play??

and only behind UAB rushing/game

 

 

[southsideguy]

if we play man we need our cb need to stay on the receivers and the linebackers better come to play.  

[Mean Green 93-98]

6 hours ago, Ben Gooding said:

Not sure this graph is something to compliment. It really just means that Wadley would've had 150 had he not been injured. 

Not so sure about that at all.  It looked like the D came prepared to stop Wadley.  It was when other backs came in with a different skillset that you started seeing them pop off longer runs into the second level and beyond.

[MeanGreenTexan]

35 minutes ago, Mean Green 93-98 said:

Not so sure about that at all.  It looked like the D came prepared to stop Wadley.  It was when other backs came in with a different skillset that you started seeing them pop off longer runs into the second level and beyond.

I really think it was because Wadley get benched for "taunting".  He just got finished shredding the defense, and likely would have kept going.

[Mean Green 93-98]

20 minutes ago, MeanGreenTexan said:

I really think it was because Wadley get benched for "taunting".  He just got finished shredding the defense, and likely would have kept going.

If you look at the box score, the other backs had a far better per-carry average.  It was obvious watching them play, too.  In fairness, Wadley was going against a fresher defense.  But to say that Wadley was guaranteed to match the other backs combined is false.

[Ben Gooding]

1 hour ago, Mean Green 93-98 said:

If you look at the box score, the other backs had a far better per-carry average.  It was obvious watching them play, too.  In fairness, Wadley was going against a fresher defense.  But to say that Wadley was guaranteed to match the other backs combined is false.

It's not false at all. It's an opinion, much like yours. But it's much closer to factual than yours. 3 backs split carries, mainly due to injury, but the best one wouldn't have punched out 100 yards when the other 3 splitting topped 70 a piece? Your logic makes 0 sense. Just homerism. 

[Mean Green 93-98]

11 minutes ago, Ben Gooding said:

It's not false at all. It's an opinion, much like yours. But it's much closer to factual than yours. 3 backs split carries, mainly due to injury, but the best one wouldn't have punched out 100 yards when the other 3 splitting topped 70 a piece? Your logic makes 0 sense. Just homerism. 

You didn't present it as an opinion at all.  You said, "It really just means that Wadley would've had 150 had he not been injured."  You didn't say "probably"; you didn't say, "I think"; you claimed a graph proved something that it did not prove.

And no, I didn't say Wadley wouldn't have had 100 yards.  I just said that your supposed knowledge that he would have had 150 yards was unverifiable.

[Ben Gooding]

17 minutes ago, Mean Green 93-98 said:

You didn't present it as an opinion at all.  You said, "It really just means that Wadley would've had 150 had he not been injured."  You didn't say "probably"; you didn't say, "I think"; you claimed a graph proved something that it did not prove.

And no, I didn't say Wadley wouldn't have had 100 yards.  I just said that your supposed knowledge that he would have had 150 yards was unverifiable.

Safe to say. I wouldn't put money on it, but safe to assume he'd flirt with that number. Either way, they rolled up 238. 

[greenminer]

I'm not gonna read the entire thread.

It appears that we could stop the run, but we get gassed because we can't get our way on third down plays.  Offensively, we're not converting them.  Defensively we are not stopping them.

Everything just starts to add up in a very bad way for our defense.

[UNTLifer]

2 hours ago, Ben Gooding said:

It's not false at all. It's an opinion, much like yours. But it's much closer to factual than yours. 3 backs split carries, mainly due to injury, but the best one wouldn't have punched out 100 yards when the other 3 splitting topped 70 a piece? Your logic makes 0 sense. Just homerism. 

Awesome.  You criticize him for posting his opinion, then post your own and claim it is superior.  And you wonder why people get tired of your constant b.s.

[Texas Stranger]

Wadley's long almost-TD wasn't a run, it was a wheel route that wasn't covered.

[Ben Gooding]

9 hours ago, UNTLifer said:

Awesome.  You criticize him for posting his opinion, then post your own and claim it is superior.  And you wonder why people get tired of your constant b.s.

Superior, no. Closer to reality, how could you not agree. 

And you can f*ck off and block me any old day now. Oh, and I don't wonder about that at all. Silly of you to think so. 

[MGNation92]

9 hours ago, Texas Stranger said:

Wadley's long almost-TD wasn't a run, it was a wheel route that wasn't covered.

Yeah against Josh Wheeler of all people. I understand it's a zone blitz and you're trying to cause misdirection but good lord why do we have our pass rushing defensive end in coverage? So stupid

[Aldo]

5 minutes ago, MGNation92 said:

Yeah against Josh Wheeler of all people. I understand it's a zone blitz and you're trying to cause misdirection but good lord why do we have our pass rushing defensive end in coverage? So stupid

Not sure what happened there. It looked like Wheeler had a fake blitz which allowed the other defender to shoot the B gap and Wheeler didn't time it right or he just didn't expect a wheel route.

 

[MGNation92]

Just now, Aldo said:

Not sure what happened there. It looked like Wheeler had a fake blitz which allowed the other defender to shoot the B gap and Wheeler didn't time it right or he just didn't expect a wheel route.

 

Yeah I see what you mean. Made the tackle pay attention to Wheeler long enough to shoot the gap. It looks like they've got 1 deep on the back end too. Seems like it would've been a better idea to shade the safety over on the back end and play cover 0 but that's just me.

[Aldo]

1 minute ago, MGNation92 said:

Yeah I see what you mean. Made the tackle pay attention to Wheeler long enough to shoot the gap. It looks like they've got 1 deep on the back end too. Seems like it would've been a better idea to shade the safety over on the back end and play cover 0 but that's just me.

The wheel route was on the weak side so I understand why the McClain covered the far side. We brought 5 on that play and had two defenders ready to strike, but we were too slow. I think we should have taken what we could get instead of attacking so much. We keep getting exposed attacking on 3rd down after a successful 2nd down attack.

It was a great play opening the field up for Wadley, but Wheeler should have reacted to the wheel route quicker