Evyn Roman

[Eagle-96]

IT'S BEEN TWO WEEKS!

TWO FREAKIN' WEEKS!

Could we at least hold off on the juvenile belly-aching and run-em-out-of-town mentality for just one season? Or are some of you just too impatient to do that? Are you so blinded by your knee-jerk need for immediate satisfaction that you cannot see that in just two games, the new coaches and system have gotten more out of Dan Meager, Casey Fitzgerald, and a lot of these kids than the previous group did in two years?

Let's just run them all out of town, huh? Put in Vizza, but if he loses his opener then cut loose, too? Same for Riley Dodge? And if Coach Dodge doesn't go to a bowl this year, fire him?

Sheesh.

Smitty, I'm not sure everybody gets it and I just don't understand why. I guess I'll reiterate it. This is the SECOND GAME in this new system. I don't know how many times it has to be said. It is gonna take time to jell on offense and defense. When we we're at the one yard line, I knew we were gonna score. I can not say that of any DD offense. This team has heart and determination. It does not quit. Roman is coached when to actually take the fair catch and when to signal and then get away. He is signaling with no intention of catching the ball when he is inside the 15. THAT IS HOW HE AND EVERY OTHER RETURN MAN ON EARTH IS COACHED. If you are one of the ones that didn't like how Roman handled it, then blame coach Dodge not Roman. He is gonna do what he is told. Don't like the 10-15 yard cushion he is giving to receivers? Blame coach Mendoza cause that is the play that is called. Do you guys really think that they call a play and Evyn just goes out there and says," Hmmm, I think I'll defy my coaches and jam the receiver on this play". Get real. And another thing. Justin Willis is a damn good quarterback so let's not take anything away from him.

Edited September 9, 2007 by Eagle-96

[Cr1028]

Roman played with heart...he has my support, as well. So does Jamario. Why didn't he play last night?

He practiced Thursday as the 2nd or 3rd back while they were in shells, They might just be trying to get him healthy again, or maybe at this stage in the game, they just think Micah is better.

[the real grad88]

Again, it all starts with the Defensive Tackles. If you get no penetration, the entire defense is in jeapordy. We haven't had dominating DT play since 2002-2003. Boy do I miss Booger! If the DTs are average it makes the linebackers and DBs average or subpar. If the DTs are in the QB's face or getting penetration on almost every down, then everyone plays mopup and the entire defense looks like studs. During the OU game, I blamed Ramon. I now think that is a mistake. I blame it on our DT play, which is very average at best.

Dodge, get us some DTs!

[foutsrouts]

Obviously the guy either hates Italians or still has vivid memories of watching "The Robe" as a child. Then again it could be that he hates Tony Romo for his slippery fingers. Either way, I think Dodge will figure out soon enough if the guy can contribute or not.

[risinggreen]

Obviously the guy either hates Italians or still has vivid memories of watching "The Robe" as a child. Then again it could be that he hates Tony Romo for his slippery fingers. Either way, I think Dodge will figure out soon enough if the guy can contribute or not.

Nice way to put a cap on a thread!

[Will to Win]

Does Roman need to go? NO because he is a new Mean Green Player just like the Fr.!!

Thank You for proving my point.

[Dodge2007]

Leave Roman alone. No CB is doing anything better than he is. He is a competitor and just a young kid. Get off his back.

[Got5onIt]

He practiced Thursday as the 2nd or 3rd back while they were in shells, They might just be trying to get him healthy again, or maybe at this stage in the game, they just think Micah is better.

Micah is probably the better blocker. He just lacks the explosion a singleback needs to have in these types of offenses. He's a hard nosed runner, but moves a lot like a FB, IMO. Look at TT's RB's Ricky Williams, Taurean Henderson, etc., for perfect examples of what I'm referring to. Cam has a very quick first step, but apparently hasn't grasped the offense yet.

I just hope Jmo didn't play for injuries reasons. I haven't given up on him yet.

Edited September 10, 2007 by Got5onIt

[Guest Aquila_Viridis]

It's the hair. No seriously, if you think SMU QB Justin Willis' freedom was all Roman's fault you're dead wrong. That's one of the things that killed us, but Willis is a good athlete, and I have to think that some of the tentativeness on defense is about keeping things in front of them. Problem is, they are leaving too much room to work, and that is a coaching decision, and SMU did a good job of exploiting it. Some manageable systematic adjustments would have made the difference in this game, but we are building from scratch; the adjustments are in progress, and I expect good results. If you want to pick on Roman cause of his hair, I'll get behind that until the Mean Green start winning (at which point he could have a giant mohawk sticking up out of there* for all I care), but not about his playing.

*may require helmet modifications

[greenminer]

I've made jokes and comments about this kid, nicknaming him "Toast" and such, BUT, I'll be the first one to give him credit if he turns things around. I don't think any of us have anything against him personally, but like any fan, we're looking for better results.

So is this your routine? Lash out at players until they turn things around and then give credit?

[Coach]

Problem is, they are leaving too much room to work, and that is a coaching decision, and SMU did a good job of exploiting it.

Here is the problem...when the receivers are faster or bigger (or both) than the defensive backs, if they play up, this post would be about our DB's getting beat over the top repeatedly and why didn't we back them off. SMU had more speed than we did on the perimeter, and when you factor in that the pass rush was sporadic at best, and when there was one, Willis bought himself more time, it was a bad combination. The thing is, we were essentially doing the same thing to SMU though they were a little more two dimensional.

A pass rush makes the secondary look good, no pass rush makes the secondary look bad. If you go man and they have time, they will get open. If you go zone and they have time, they will find the holes in it. It ain't rocket science. But neither is this simplistic cover 1 scheme which is apparently the root of all our problems. I guess we should have an elaborate coverage system that makes the kids think and not react, and then at least we can talk about how complicated and division 1 worthy our scheme is when we are getting burned.

[greenminer]

Here is the problem...when the receivers are faster or bigger (or both) than the defensive backs, if they play up, this post would be about our DB's getting beat over the top repeatedly and why didn't we back them off. SMU had more speed than we did on the perimeter, and when you factor in that the pass rush was sporadic at best, and when there was one, Willis bought himself more time, it was a bad combination. The thing is, we were essentially doing the same thing to SMU though they were a little more two dimensional.

A pass rush makes the secondary look good, no pass rush makes the secondary look bad. If you go man and they have time, they will get open. If you go zone and they have time, they will find the holes in it. It ain't rocket science. But neither is this simplistic cover 1 scheme which is apparently the root of all our problems. I guess we should have an elaborate coverage system that makes the kids think and not react, and then at least we can talk about how complicated and division 1 worthy our scheme is when we are getting burned.

nice.

one of my favorite posts the last two weeks.

[Guest Aquila_Viridis]

Here is the problem...when the receivers are faster or bigger (or both) than the defensive backs, if they play up, this post would be about our DB's getting beat over the top repeatedly and why didn't we back them off. SMU had more speed than we did on the perimeter, and when you factor in that the pass rush was sporadic at best, and when there was one, Willis bought himself more time, it was a bad combination. The thing is, we were essentially doing the same thing to SMU though they were a little more two dimensional.

A pass rush makes the secondary look good, no pass rush makes the secondary look bad. If you go man and they have time, they will get open. If you go zone and they have time, they will find the holes in it. It ain't rocket science. But neither is this simplistic cover 1 scheme which is apparently the root of all our problems. I guess we should have an elaborate coverage system that makes the kids think and not react, and then at least we can talk about how complicated and division 1 worthy our scheme is when we are getting burned.

OK, I'll just tune back in after a few weeks when the players have grown more and successfully appealed to God for some more basic abilities. Or maybe there will be an Invasion of the Body Snatchers and the substitutes will be bigger and faster. Then it will be interesting. That will be good too cause it beats 'waiting til next year'.

[Green to the Bone]

Leave Roman alone. No CB is doing anything better than he is. He is a competitor and just a young kid. Get off his back.

Right, Dodge2007. Let him play a year or two before he qualifies for the special love you consistently show the veterans who don't fit your particular mold.

[NT03]

THIS THREAD NEEDS TO END

[Green to the Bone]

THIS THREAD NEEDS TO END

You're very, very, very right.

But that other guy started it, and everybody knows he's an idiot and I'm right, and if people would just realize I'm always right, and besides ...

ad nauseam.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

Your wrong, yoy never call for a fair catch on the 20 and do not field it. If the SMU players are in his face that is fine. He can catch the ball and they do not touch him. I did not know you can get tackled during a fair catch? I will give you the first one, he was about on the 14 and the kick was great. The second was was not good! Luckily our offense turned it into a score but 99/100 times that would have killed us. If he is scared to field the ball then he does not need to be back there.

anyway, I do not want to cause a argument, we are all in this for the Mean Green. I just thought it was a fair point!

GMG

No.. you are ( not your) wrong .. it makes sense to call for a fair catch when you are planning to let it go... the defense may slow up and give the ball time to bounce or roll into the end-zone. With no call they will keep coming and and may down it near the goal.. We just got unlucky... the ball got near the goal and then went sideways.... He did nothing wrong.

Edited September 10, 2007 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[island eagle]

No.. you are ( not your) wrong .. it makes sense to call for a fair catch when you are planning to let it go... the defense may slow up and give the ball time to bounce or roll into the end-zone. With no call they will keep coming and and may down it near the goal.. We just got unlucky... the ball got near the goal and then went sideways.... He did nothing wrong.

Most coaches expect that. Either catch the ball or call fair catch and let the ball roll (hopefully) into the end zone. That's standard procedure.