2013 Mean Green by quarters

[Texas Stranger]

1st Quarter: North Texas 31, Opponents 46 - You probably could have guessed this. The only 2 opponents to not score are Tulane and MTSU. NT didn't score against Georgia, Tulane or LT.

2nd Quarter: North Texas 70, Opponents 52 - The second quarter has been a track meet. Only Idaho didn't score, NT didn't score against Ohio or Tulane

First Half: North Texas 101, Opponents 98 - Slow starts and fast finishes to the first half have been the norm for the Mean Green so far.

3rd Quarter: North Texas 50, Opponents 28 - Only Georgia has scored against the defense (14) in the 3rd. Tulane had the other 14 points off the pick-6 and the FG block. NT scored every game except MTSU.

4th Quarter: North Texas 48, Opponents 22 - Only Georgia reached the end zone in the 4th, and only Georgia and La Tech have kept the Mean Green from the end zone in the 4th.

2nd Half: North Texas 98, Opponents 50 - The North Texas defense has allowed 3 second half TD's, all to Georgia. The Mean Green have 2nd half offensive TD's against every opponent except Georgia, usually multiple (exception Georgia and MTSU)

Overall: North Texas 199, Opponents 148: Two bad-luck plays from being 6 - 1

Edited October 20, 2013 by Texas Stranger

[jdennis82]

Didn't realize this thread existed when I brought up the defensive second half dominance in the second half but obviously it seems to apply across the board.

To me, this speaks to:

- Coaching/gameplan adjustment success

- Team leadership refusing to let either success or failure in the first half shake confidence

- Physicality causing teams to crumble/give up in the second half

This defensive unit makes the opposition want to tap out late

[Got5onIt]

This team should have only one loss with the way Defensive unit is playing. Brings back memories of the great Big Booger days.

[Eastwood Eagle]

This does a good job illustrating that, in fact, football is four quarters and that the knee-jerk "we suck" "fire mac" "same old same old" threads in the first five minutes of the game should stop.

[H-towngreen]

This does a good job illustrating that, in fact, football is four quarters and that the knee-jerk "we suck" "fire mac" "same old same old" threads in the first five minutes of the game should stop.

90s pot is spot on for the first halves. We continue to dig a hole for ourselves to dig out of. What would our record be if we weren't down 10-0 or 14-0 at the end of every first quarter?

[Eastwood Eagle]

Substance may be right, form is obnoxious.

Also, as meangreenminer posted in another thread, I think there is something to our game plan. Pound the rock early in the game to wear the D down, and then exploit in the second half. This is a game plan we can do given that our D is shut down in the second half.

I think we would all like to see us ball out in the first half, but if playing "not to lose" means we don't lose, then stick with it.

[BillySee58]

90s pot is spot on for the first halves. We continue to dig a hole for ourselves to dig out of. What would our record be if we weren't down 10-0 or 14-0 at the end of every first quarter?

Exactly. Just because we are capable of getting out of these holes we are digging ourselves in doesn't mean we should keep doing it. Rice, and even Tulsa are games that it will probably be pretty tough to get ourselves out of a big hole, should we dig one.

[Andrew]

In the beginning it all came down to one big play. Idaho, Ohio, Ball State. I think in all of those games we gave away on big play on the first drive.... At least we have ended that! I thought the Tulane game was in the bag when we did not allow that big play on the first drive of the game...

[UNT90]

Substance may be right, form is obnoxious.

Also, as meangreenminer posted in another thread, I think there is something to our game plan. Pound the rock early in the game to wear the D down, and then exploit in the second half. This is a game plan we can do given that our D is shut down in the second half.

I think we would all like to see us ball out in the first half, but if playing "not to lose" means we don't lose, then stick with it.

So what I say is correct, but you just don't like to hear it? Got it.

Carry on .

Any gameplan that includes intentionally getting down by 2 scores so you can "figure out what they are doing" is a completely failed game plan in my book.

But that's just me.

Edited October 20, 2013 by UNT90

[KRAM1]

But that's just me.

Yep.

[casual fan]

It's about 2 different coaching philosophies.

1. Throw early and often. You try to score as many points as possible.

The downside is it's more likely to create turnovers, you don't give your defense time to rest, and you may never get your running game going. It also makes it harder to hold a lead late in the game. When it's not working it's a train wreck. This is wat happened to Dodge.

2. Run early and often. If the running games gets going you control the ball and the clock. It takes pressure off the QB and later in the game it sets up your passing.

The downside is you may not score as often and you become more predictable. When it's not working you lose a boring game. This is what happened to Dickey after the 4 bowl years.

Mac thinks he's built a better team than other teams in CUSA. He's going to try to run the football down their throats. If we don't score, he forces the other team to make long drives against his defense. He has this team convinced they can win. The hard part is trying to convince the fans.

[FirefightnRick]

I've never seen a defense get worn out in the first half by getting three and outs and getting off the field to the point that it shows up as fatigue in the second half. But Im sure it's happened somewhere before?

Rick

[UNT90]

It's about 2 different coaching philosophies.

1. Throw early and often. You try to score as many points as possible.

The downside is it's more likely to create turnovers, you don't give your defense time to rest, and you may never get your running game going. It also makes it harder to hold a lead late in the game. When it's not working it's a train wreck. This is wat happened to Dodge.

2. Run early and often. If the running games gets going you control the ball and the clock. It takes pressure off the QB and later in the game it sets up your passing.

The downside is you may not score as often and you become more predictable. When it's not working you lose a boring game. This is what happened to Dickey after the 4 bowl years.

Mac thinks he's built a better team than other teams in CUSA. He's going to try to run the football down their throats. If we don't score, he forces the other team to make long drives against his defense. He has this team convinced they can win. The hard part is trying to convince the fans.

I don't want throw early and often, I simply want an even ratio between 1st down runs and passes in the first half. Translation? Balance. Don't let the defense know what you are going to do on just about every 1st down in the first half.

If people don't understand the advantage that the opposing defenses get by knowing you will refuse to throw the ball on 1st down in the 1st half, well, I think comedian Ron White might have something to say to them about their football knowledge (because apparently our 1st half road scoring deficit just doesn't say enough):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7a/YouCantFixStupid.jpg

Edited October 20, 2013 by UNT90

[FirefightnRick]

I don't want throw early and often, I simply want an even ratio between 1st down runs and passes in the first half. Translation? Balance. Don't let the defense know what you are going to do on just about every 1st down in the first half.

If people don't understand the advantage that the opposing defenses get by knowing you will refuse to throw the ball on 1st down in the 1st half, well, I think comedian Ron White might have something to say to them about their football knowledge (because apparently our 1st half road scoring deficit just doesn't say enough):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7a/YouCantFixStupid.jpg

Would you stop it? Because every time you mention this I can't help but remember that Tulsa offense that routed us in Fouts in '05 and that tightend of theirs.

Damn that was something else!

Rick

[H-towngreen]

Not asking for A. or B. we're asking that there be some type of balance. Asking that it not be so predictable.

[BillySee58]

So what I say is correct, but you just don't like to hear it? Got it.

Carry on .

Any gameplan that includes intentionally getting down by 2 scores so you can "figure out what they are doing" is a completely failed game plan in my book.

But that's just me.

No, not just you. I don't agree with you about everything, but I do think it's ridiculous why you're getting blasted.

So would fast starts hurt our team because we wouldn't be able to "wear down the defense" by pounding our heads constantly into 8 and 9 man front early in the game? Especially on first down. We still only scored 21 offensive points yesterday.

We have this outstanding line that received as good praise as you can get from an opposing player, some dynamic receivers including chancellor and smith, and some darn good backs. Just because we are beating teams that are vastly (yes, vastly) inferior doesn't mean we should be satisfied with being down 10-0 late in the second and only putting up 21 points from our offense.

People keep saying "just win." Of course that's all that matters. But what results in an ugly, "just win" type win against La Tech could easily result in losses against teams like Rice and Tulsa. And for those who haven't seen those teams play, we should beat those teams, especially since Rice is a home game.

[UNT90]

No, not just you. I don't agree with you about everything, but I do think it's ridiculous why you're getting blasted.

So would fast starts hurt our team because we wouldn't be able to "wear down the defense" by pounding our heads constantly into 8 and 9 man front early in the game? Especially on first down. We still only scored 21 offensive points yesterday.

We have this outstanding line that received as good praise as you can get from an opposing player, some dynamic receivers including chancellor and smith, and some darn good backs. Just because we are beating teams that are vastly (yes, vastly) inferior doesn't mean we should be satisfied with being down 10-0 late in the second and only putting up 21 points from our offense.

People keep saying "just win." Of course that's all that matters. But what results in an ugly, "just win" type win against La Tech could easily result in losses against teams like Rice and Tulsa. And for those who haven't seen those teams play, we should beat those teams, especially since Rice is a home game.

Preach.

There is a certain faction on here that view any legitimate football strategy debate as a personal affront. Weird. It's like Coach Mac and his staff have 50 accounts on GMG.

So far, I've been accused of "wanting Coach Mac fired", being "disgusting", along with many other things from people who are either just plain juvenile or can't argue back with a football point.

Kinda funny.

[BillySee58]

Preach.

There is a certain faction on here that view any legitimate football strategy debate as a personal affront. Weird. It's like Coach Mac and his staff have 50 accounts on GMG.

So far, I've been accused of "wanting Coach Mac fired", being "disgusting", along with many other things from people who are either just plain juvenile or can't argue back with a football point.

Kinda funny.

I've been accused of clinging onto Berglund and Trussell's respective jocks because someone didn't agree with me. Funny how personal people can get if they don't agree with your OPINION on sports.

This season has a chance to be a special one. Anything that prevents it from being so is going to frustrate the fans who really do care and don't want to settle.