For the excuse of lack of DB's
- Thread starter RUsilencer
- Start date
seems like some man coverage might be in order, at least you don't get beat by not understanding what your cover responsibilities are. Not saying that the freshman/sophs wont get beat, but they shouldn't get beat on missed assignments and coverage.
we're going to be fine. There couldn't be a worse matchup for us than a whole new secondary vs that type of pass offense. We'll be way better for it in the future.
If on their last drive that means we have a minute left with our offense only needing a FG to tie the game then I'm good with that. Especially given their offense not being optimal in an OT environment when the field shrinks.
I happen to believe we still have a good shot at a bowl game this year so I don't disagree with you. I just think our HC and DC failed our guys yesterday.
When you have a young team is when good coaching makes the most difference. Sometimes doing something like telling your young CBs that I'm going to man you on the WR for this play and telling them that you trust their athletic ability can go a long way toward success. Instead we saw a DC that told them he has no trust in them.
Last edited:
We will be better but the future will be at least 2 years from now if at all.
And I have to disagree that WSU was a bad matchup being everyone in the stadium knew they were going to throw every down unlike what OSU and others are going to do to us. Just imagine if WSU had a running game.....
I'd have to go back and look at the game tape, but most of the throws came out in 3-4 seconds. When it took longer, it was generally due to better coverage downfield.
The "slant to the middle of the field where there are zero defenders" play didn't take long to develop.
The "slant to the middle of the field where there are zero defenders" play didn't take long to develop.
Rutgers does not have the personnel to play man-man in the secondary they are all too short and not physical enough for tight coverage. Blame Rossi for not blitzing more but Rutgers does not have the players. Gonna be another long year with this bunch.
The guys we should have been playing zone with are sitting in the lockup. Both are smaller than what we had out there yesterday. Austin, Hampton, and Wharton are all bigger and longer than they were.
I agree on the blitzing part though.
We lost 4 guys that likely would have been on the two-deep this year in the secondary, 3 in starting roles. One due to ineligibility/arrest, the other three just due to arrest.
Our likely starters ending last year would have been Stephenson and either Hester/Jacobs at Safety, and Barnwell/Boggs at CB. With Barnwell likely out due to academics, Peele was moved over to CB and would have been on the two deep. The guys back there just don't have the chops yet to do much.
Even so, I'd have liked to have seen at least *some* effort to correct the gaping hole in the middle of the field that Leach/Falk kept punishing us for. They hit that on the first drive and the last drive, and nearly every drive in between.
Our likely starters ending last year would have been Stephenson and either Hester/Jacobs at Safety, and Barnwell/Boggs at CB. With Barnwell likely out due to academics, Peele was moved over to CB and would have been on the two deep. The guys back there just don't have the chops yet to do much.
Even so, I'd have liked to have seen at least *some* effort to correct the gaping hole in the middle of the field that Leach/Falk kept punishing us for. They hit that on the first drive and the last drive, and nearly every drive in between.
Washington state lost to Portland state and only scored 17 points. I'm willing to wager our worst DB would be the #1 DB on that Portland team. This tells me maybe it's not talent, but a scheme problem.
I don't think Peele would have amounted to much as aDB but you left out Dailey who I thought was the most talented guy we had.
Similar threads
