Nothing negative about this game...

emmitt01 · October 30, 2005

Save the cliff jumping folks, this was just a matter of a better team beating a team that made some strides.

Danny looked better.

We made some drives that I didn't expect.

DD grew a pair and went for it on 4th and 1 from the goal line.

This game was not ugly from the get go. We got worn down.

Save the negativity.

Oh yeah, and screw UT.

untbowler · October 30, 2005

if there are any remotely negative things it is our pass defense in patches and our lack of production in the Red Zone is still a problem.

Overall good game and I think the referee screw-up on the 4th and goal took the sails out of the team.

B+ for the game, now just carry the momentum into the next 4 games.

Monkeypox · October 30, 2005

Yeah, this game was pretty good overall.

Positive: Run game. Meager. Offensive line facing a blitz all night. Quinn. Weathers. Baz. Gillmore.

Negatives: Pass defense. Miles running up the score. Not getting backups any meaningful time. Red Zone offense.

untbowler · October 30, 2005

I must have missed something why did PC only carry the ball 3 times?????

Monkeypox · October 30, 2005

I must have missed something why did PC only carry the ball 3 times?????
←

He banged up his ankle last week and it was bothering him. That's what I heard, but there hasn't been any real confirmation.

GoMeanGreen1999 · October 30, 2005

Does anyone think that one of the reasons we looked somewhat better is because DD knew that we had nothing to lose so he went away from his conservative game plan, and that once we get back into conf. play that he will go back to conservative with more on the line?

Cajun Tigah · October 30, 2005

If ya'll play like that the rest of the way you should have conf. wrapped up. Ya'll played a very good game. Hope to see ya'll in a bowl after winning conf.

SouthBendGreen · October 30, 2005

Miles running up the score.
←

Miles didn't run up the score. You said it yourself that not getting backups any reps was a negative. That's what Miles did! Just because they threw the ball doesn't mean they were running up the score. They were getting their backups reps in a game situation doing what they would do. I had absolutely no problem with Miles tonight.

GreenFlag · October 30, 2005

Uh, we just lost 56-3. Is that how far our expectations have fallen?

Yes, we had some decent drives. We still lost 56-3.

Are we now relegated to seeing positives on specific drives and individual performance when we don't score a touchdown? I guess we are because I did.

Losing 56-3 is a bad, bad loss. But hey, if you see nothing negative in this-good for you. I saw some positives but a whole lot more negatives like not having a chance when we stepped onto the field. This just isn't the LSU's of the world but the La. Tech's and Tulsa's.

We are bad, bad, bad. We are Ball State/Buffalo/Idaho/NMSU bad.

This program needs a serious shot in the arm.

SouthBendGreen · October 30, 2005

Uh, we just lost 56-3. Is that how far our expectations have fallen?
Yes, we had some decent drives. We still lost 56-3.
Are we now relegated to seeing positives on specific drives and individual performance when we don't score a touchdown? I guess we are because I did.
Losing 56-3 is a bad, bad loss. But hey, if you see nothing negative in this-good for you. I saw some positives but a whole lot more negatives like not having a chance when we stepped onto the field. This just isn't the LSU's of the world but the La. Tech's and Tulsa's.
We are bad, bad, bad. We are Ball State/Buffalo/Idaho/NMSU bad.
This program needs a serious shot in the arm.
←

Overall I agree with this post.

It's tough for me to log onto GMG after a 56 - 3 loss and see a topic that says nothing negative about the game!

However, the reason why my topic talks about positives is because I know that we are a truly bad football team right now. However, NT did some nice things tonight that I didn't expect.

But, it is a little comical to see a thread that has the title of this one. If you can't see any negatives, I need some of that Jonestown kool-aid.

Edited October 30, 2005 by SouthBendGreen

Monkeypox · October 30, 2005

Miles didn't run up the score. You said it yourself that not getting backups any reps was a negative. That's what Miles did! Just because they threw the ball doesn't mean they were running up the score. They were getting their backups reps in a game situation doing what they would do. I had absolutely no problem with Miles tonight.
←

To some degree i agree with you. I didn't complain until it started getting ridiculous. I think you do have to get the backups meaningful time, and it's up to us to stop them, but i do not believe that their backup QB was learning much of anything airing it out up 40 points. It was also a fairly minor quibble, and not that big of a deal to me.

Coffee and TV · October 30, 2005

Utterly amazing. Have you guys been totally blinded by beating a bunch of I-AA teams 4 years in a row that you find nothing negative about losing 56-3? Pathetic. You should expect and demand better.

NT80 · October 30, 2005

Utterly amazing. Have you guys been totally blinded by beating a bunch of I-AA teams 4 years in a row that you find nothing negative about losing 56-3? Pathetic. You should expect and demand better.
←

Agree.

ipEAGLE · October 30, 2005

While I saw some positives no way am I happy with getting beat by 53 points.

KAjunRaider · October 30, 2005

Nothing negative? Ouch..........

Well, at least ya'll whupped our sorry arses........again

But, once again, nothing negative?

You shouldn't lose to the Colts 56-3. We would have, but ya'll should not.

ipEAGLE · October 30, 2005

I think many of us were just happy to see our OFFENSE actually move the ball against the #7 tigers.

meangreendork · October 30, 2005

Hearing about Danny making some sharp passing tonight lets us feel there's a light at the end of the tunnel. A lot of us think he can be an incredible QB if he can combine great passing with his great speed/agility. Tonight was a glimpse of that in what is pretty much the hardest place to play.

If he can carry that through the rest of his UNT career and improve on it, we'll have a new legend at QB. Danny could join leadership with an accurate and strong arm as well as great speed. That is the definition of a star QB.

rcade · October 30, 2005

Without buying into the farcical notion there was "nothing negative" about a 56-3 loss, I was glad that Meager led a few sustained drives and Jamario was able to find some running room for one of the first times this year. We're going to need that to beat La-La next week after they just knocked off Troy in overtime.

Meager still throws an ugly duck most of the time, but he is getting better, and I feel like we're getting closer to the point that he's a serviceable quarterback. I do wish we had someone like that LSU backup in there, who the LSU TV announcers said had been recruited by UNT.

Our pass defense is disappointing. The D line didn't get pushed around in spite of being much smaller than the O line for LSU, so I put the 56 points largely on our defensive backfield. (Some of those TDs were unstoppable -- LSU has a nice receiving corps and some excellent passers.)

It's tough to be too critical of UNT when they play a team like LSU, but you'd like them to at least be good enough to put a first-half scare into them.

Bottom line: I hate money games. Every time UNT plays the sacrifical lamb it sets the program back.

rcade · October 30, 2005

If he can carry that through the rest of his UNT career and improve on it, we'll have a new legend at QB. Danny could join leadership with an accurate and strong arm as well as great speed. That is the definition of a star QB.

Where are you seeing this? I see a QB who might be the team's starter next year, though I'd expect Dickey to recruit some challengers because he can't be confident that Meager's the guy to hang the program on.

GoMeanGreen1999 · October 30, 2005

though I'd expect Dickey to recruit some challengers because he can't be confident that Meager's the guy to hang the program on.
←

I think Dickey is happy with the QB's he's got there now, and I am not sure that he will go out and get another good QB.

As for the game itself, I really think that we should be past the point where we get beat by 50+ points to a D-1 opponent. If we are in fact building a better program, then this should not happen each year. I keep saying that if we were in fact getting better each year with better and better talent, then it would start showing up in the OOC games, but it doesn't. I know we have titles in the conf., but when do we decide that isn't so much what our goal is all the time?

untbowler · October 30, 2005

What are the chances that DD and RF forget that a 3-step drop and quick passes actually worked tonight against a stout Def?

If we play offense like this and make sure we take advantage of Red Zone Opp. then there is no reason we should lose any of our next 4 games.

greenjoe · October 30, 2005

I fell asleep. Were there any "tecnical" difficulties to prevent an interview with DD from the lockerroom ?

GO MEAN GREEN

GoMeanGreen1999 · October 30, 2005

What are the chances that DD and RF forget that a 3-step drop and quick passes actually worked tonight against a stout Def?
If we play offense like this and make sure we take advantage of Red Zone Opp. then there is no reason we should lose any of our next 4 games.
←

You are right on, but unfortunately, I think DD will go back to his ultra conservative game calling due to the fact that we will be playing in games that are totally ours to lose.

DeepGreen · October 30, 2005

The D line didn't get pushed around in spite of being much smaller than the O line for LSU,
←

Huh? The LSU QB's could have boiled a pot of water back there they had so much time.

October 30, 2005

I more or less agree with Emmitt. Until we get back the $75 million a year that is being diverted to the state's two 'flagship' institutions, there is no hope of competing with another state's flagship institution. The fact is your state legislature has decided to put UNT in a lesser league.

The residents of one of the nation's most significant metropolitan areas deserve a PREMIERE public university in their area. And as big as Texas is relative to other states, for it to shine academically, it must offer more than two flagship state institutions. The state of Texas should not compare itself to Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina and Virginia in this regard. It is a much, much bigger state in all respects. The population and economy of the metroplex alone are as significant as each of those other entire states. So it is a pitiful shame that the Texas legislature is offering so little, and we should all do whatever we can to bring about a very significant change in its direction. Until that happens, what you saw is about as good as it will get against this type of competition.