Rutgers is now 2-0, the record they should have, and pretty much by the final margins everyone should have expected, winning mostly in the style expected. Which is a fine start to the season: Good, solid job by the team and staff, IMO. In college football the 1st couple of games are often strange, with strange results. See how many other Big 4 teams either struggled against MAC level and FCS level teams - or worse, even losing. Rutgers did neither.
So ... I will discuss, mainly focused on the Akron game, but some two-game thoughts sprinkled in.
Overall: RU DID start slowly in each game, true enough. But in the end held serve, and did so the RU style: Run, run ... pound ... pass short (but in stride), ... defend. As I said, solid, though there are still some cleaning up of some things, and improvement in various areas will be required - but RU has a bye week - and Schiano is often very, very good with extra time to prepare ... and with the team hopefully getting healthier in that extra time.
OFFENSE:
Overall - Grade = B+: I may be underrating the offense, but I am cognizant of the level of the competition. The BTN in the show the Final Drive did point out this was the 1st time in RU's history they have scored over 40 points in EACH of their 1st 2 games of a season. So, the offense does deserve that credit. The run game was outstanding and the pass game was more open and therefore showed more than it did vs Howard. I'd like to see more consistent pass protection (which will be needed against better teams), improved decision-making by the QB and steady improvement by RU's young receivers.
1) RB - Grade = A+: Well, this is easy to start with, right? Okay, you cannot read too much int crushing Howard and Akron on the ground. Still ... very strong, Monangai has been outstanding - better than last season, even against this level of competition (tying, then setting his own personal game best record, and all without playing any of the 4th quarter). Brown was hurt against Akron, but DID show good change of pace power vs Howard (he still runs a bit too much with a high pad level, but definitely played well in game 1. Benjamin, the supposed speed and receiving change of pace 3rd down guy hasn't yet played. Which opened up junk time for Raymond in game 1, then #2 role backing up Monangai vs Akron - and he gets a B- (excellent speed and quickness, good power for a true frosh, good lowering of pads, good ball security ... BUT ... 2 flaws that can be fixed with experience and coaching: a) pass protection blocking - he got absolutely humiliated, practically pancaked on a key pass rush, #22 of Akron bull-rushing through Raymond as if Raymond was barely there, killing a pass attempt; and b) He does not yet have - maybe hasn't yet learned - the patience to properly use RU's zone-blocking scheme to his advantage ... At least 3-4 times Raymond bounced to the outside - or headed to the outside - when the zone-blocking on the play offered terrific cutback lanes that would have led to nice or even big gains. Monangai has great patience and excellent cut-back vision and execution (more expe4rienced) - Ray Rice was the master of this also. Though ... Willis never really learned that patience (which makes his 3,000 career rushing yards that much more impressive). If and when Raymond DOES learn this, he will be very, very good.
2) OL - Grade = B to B+: Run blocking against Akron was really good - maybe an A. Pass protecting was less good, but okay. Schiano and coaches have 2 weeks to shore this up a bit. The problem I see, with my inexpert OL eyes, is not blocking against the base defense, but handling pass protection against blitzes and stunts. They were okay, but IMO need to get better - especially the right side of the OL. At this stage I would say the OL is slightly better than last season's OL - certainly better with run blocking.
3) QB - Grade = C+ to B-: Some good, some holes, some errors ... But, still a material QB passing improvement over the last 2 seasons ... significantly better. Kaliakmanis' performance against Akron was more diverse in his passing attempts (i.e. more types of passes thrown), opening up the passing game a bit. Athan struggled for most of the 1st half, but really got into a rhythm sometime in 2Q, which continued throughout the 3Q. I believe his struggles in the 1st half were tied to 2 different issues: a) some occasional, but important, pass protection breakdowns, and b) Trying to throw into coverage too often (i.e. decision-making). Even his TD pass to Duff was a bad decision - he locked into the TE at the right hash mark at the goal line - Miller was WIDE open in the right flat at about the 2-3 yard line - no one within 7-8 yards of him, or between him and the endzone. However, once he got into a rhythm, he was very good ... very good. I do not think he has a big/huge arm (Wimsett had a big arm - but no touch), but when in a rhythm he has enough zip and throws a catchable ball. While in that rhythm, Athan showed excellent accuracy and touch on a deep ball, good leading and touch - and enough zip on several sideline throws, accuracy - hitting a WR in stride - on a couple of throws over the middle, patience and reading his progression on slow-developing crossing routes ... the full package of throws.
4) Receivers (TE and WR) - Grade = B: Am I being too harsh here? I don't know, but I do not think so. There is potential for the RU receivers to improve (which is good), and a LOT of potential in the young receivers. But there are still 2 issues that have yet to be proven: a) Can the RU receivers get more consistent separation with their pass routes; and b) Can they help their QB more by coming back for the ball when they ARE covered. The RU receivers definitely showed more separation vs Akron than against Howard - is that because RU's offense ran more types of pass routes intentionally, or are Howard's DB's better, or did RU's receivers improve (very possible) ... or all of the above? Still, against a lesser opponent one might have expected receivers getting more open more often than they were ... am I too harsh? Miller IS good - he is going to be a steady factor, and will be solid to better than solid in more games than any other single RU receiver this year, IMO. Long - where ya been, buddy? I know, he has been hurt - he ran really good routes, showed excellent speed, and did not drop any - excellent game. Ken Fletcher did fine - he will be a decent receiving option in the right situations throughout this year (not a star, which would be unreasonable to expect for a newcomer to the position of TE) - he does have to work on his blocking, as he missed a couple of important blocks. Each of the 3 young receivers (the sophomore Strong and the 1 true frosh) also had very good moments. You can tell Strong has improved, and will continue to improve - but he has got to learn to come back for the ball on some of those medium sideline passes (twice he did not, nearly leading to interceptions). Duff showed reasonable speed considering how big he is (oh my gosh, is he big or what!), good route-running,, etc.. And Black also caught a pass in a simple but well-run route. These 3 are GOING to be REALLY good, assuming they stay ... IMO. We will see flashes all season, but by next year Strong, Black and Duff have a chance to be RU's best WR corps since 2007 (not necessarily in yards gained - Teel really threw the ball around the field, while RU seems likely to remain a run-first team - but in terms of talent and effectiveness). One last thing: Dremel was healthy enough to return punts - and I think he played in the offense also ... but it seems clear to me that Miller, Strong, Long are well ahead of Dremel - and Duff and Black might be as well. Brantley is not even on the radar - is he hurt, or just passed?
DEFENSE:
Overall: Grade = B to B+: Solid but still need to improve things - the grade is carried by the DB's and the defensive play-calling. It would help a lot when Wes Bailey and Powell return - and Rainey also. The back-up players replacing those injured players have been solid, but are simply not the potential impact players (especially Bailey and Powell). The reserve DE's have been particularly good filling in (Thompson and Jordan). Walker has been ...okay .. but has not yet shown the impact he may yet develop, that Powell has. Same with Abrams. The defense did get more pressure on the QB vs Akron - but used blitzes most of the time, rather than rely only on the front 4 - this is where missing Toure (which RU will have to compensate for all year) and Bailey hurts. For example, the 32-yard TD in the opening drive of the 3Q for Akron was off a corner blitz, and no safety rotation to provide coverage. In all fairness, the game announcers stated their sideline reporter overheard snippets of a conversation between Schiano and the Def Coord: Apparently there may have been a problem with the helmet mics, so that the safety did not hear or receive the defensive play call, so did not know the CB was blitzing - hence out of position to cover. Still, tough to complain when you only give up 230 total yards (outside of that 73-yard run vs RU's 3rd and 4th teamers on defense). Even so, last season RU was amongst the bets in the country last season in both 3rd down defense in in limiting 20+ yard plays. They gave up 3 20+ yard plays against Akron, and allowed Akron to convert 7-14 on 3rd down. Also, RU had just 4 TFL's in this game - that does not sound great to me (though 2 sacks). Generally, I would think you'd want to see 7-8 tfl's per game.
1) DL - Grade = B-: To be honest, I was watching with my elderly Dad and was not able to focus as much on the DL play as usual. Still, RU had just 4 TFL's - though 2 were by DL's, and 1 of the 2 sacks was by a DL. It just FELT like the DL, though okay, did not make a major impact. Maybe I am wrong. I did not see, but would interested in seeing, how many "pressures" there were. It did seem Lewis was creating some havoc with pressures, even if he could not complete any with sacks or TFLs. And, again, as I said above, vs Akron the defensive play calling relied on blitzes to get pressure on the QB.
2) LB's - Grade = B-: The LB's did not have the impact they did vs Howard. I did not notice many mistakes (though I did see all 3 of the LB's who played in the 1st 3Q over-run, or be in a slightly wrong position a few times). But they were solid, made the tackles when they were in position to do so, and other than the 4Q 73-yard run vs the 3rd team players, only give up 85 yards on 24 carries. Cannot have that quality rush defense without the LB's doing something correct.
3) DB's - Grade = B+ to A-: I thought the DB's played very well for the most part. If the 32-yard TD was because the helmet mic did not work (as explained above), then I cannot blame the safeties (Loyal, likely) on missing that play, and the grade tilts towards an A-, otherwise that is a BOIG error, and lowers the grade to a B+. Other than that TD play, Loyal was really good. Longerbeam also appeared to have an excellent game - very consistent. No one else really stood out (well, Dixon made 1 mistake, I think) - which is good, since often a DB stands out due to a pass interference call or a mistake that lead to a big play,
SPECIAL TEAMS:
Overall - Grade = INC: I'm only doing an "overall" here. The kicker had only extra points - made them all. There was only 1 kick off return, which was fine. There was one punt return, by Dremel - a very good return, half of which was wiped out by a block in the back. The punter ...l not sure he has shown himself to be better than last year's punter. The jury is still out on him.
jobs.rutgers.edu
rutgers.rivals.com
Kyle saw his recruitment reach new heights this off-season after committing to Rutgers, then camping and collecting an offer from in-state Georgia. Kyle fills out his uniform as a true defensive tackle at 6-foot-3 and 320 pounds, and plays big, too.
