We beat a team that looked like Alabama? Cool.
Football GAMEDAY THREAD: Rutgers vs. Temple
- Thread starter Richie O
- Start date
Oh I just realized you're the guy from this thread https://rutgers.forums.rivals.com/t...ff-purdue-and-refs.238407/page-2#post-5626244 lol have a nice life
Statement is factually incorrect. If we go 6-6, we will go to a bowl game. Full stop.
Style points are irrelevant to us. Or for that matter to any P5 without playoff aspirations.
I understand that.
The point is that if the XP is missed/blocked they don't have to score twice.
If we missed XP it was an 8 point game (our kicking game is not automatic). You give Temple a chance. Run out the clock there is no chance.
What part of the fact that we have a kicker who struggles with chip shots do our fans not understand? Extra points are not automatic to begin with. What Langan did was hugely mature for this reason. If not, you put a kid whose already missed a PAT and several short FGs in a position to make one under pressure on the road. Then if he misses, Temple has 50 seconds to work with to tie it. That’s enough time for 4 pass plays. Are you really comparing those odds with the chance of a fumble recovery on a kneel down?
I don’t think Langan scoring or not scoring made one bit of difference.
I do find it a little amusing so many people are saying “But Temple had 50 seconds to score!”
Is HC Schiano really worried about his defense in Year 3 legitimately giving up a TD to temple in 50 seconds? If so then we may have more issues than expected.
We missed the 1st PAT of the season at Boston. Not 100%, not even 90%.
No, it’s just that if you have a choice between a 99.999% chance of victory and a 99.99% chance of victory you should take the former.
Temple can’t kick a field goal if RU never has to put the ball in play again, other than taking a knee - which they didn’t. RU ran the clock out and Temple never saw the ball. That gave Temple effectively zero chance to win. Which was always the smartest choice.
Versus giving them the ball with a minute left. Which opens up possibilities to score. All they need in that case is one kickoff run back for 7, one onside kick and a FG. Low odds, sure, but not as low as zero.
I agree it is wasting brain cells. It's splitting hairs on two very low probability things. But I will say this and I commented about it in one of these threads. I can't remember a time I've seen as many missed XPs as I have this season and it's only week 3.
BTW the Cuse nearly returned a blocked XP for 2 yesterday against Purdue. Got it down to the Purdue 20 and a good hustle play by a Purdue player saved it.
Hope you're right. I know .500 makes us eligible, but a) there could be a number of teams @.500 the bowls might take over us, and b) let's shoot for the highest quality bowl game available.
This thread makes me embarrassed to root for the same team as you guys.
No it’s not wasting brain cells. Langan deserves recognition for his maturity.
If he scored we weren't likely to lose that game and if he went down like he did we weren't likely to lose that game. So if you want to discuss it, that's up to you.
It's the same. It's splitting hairs about 2 avenues for an outcome that was very unlikely either way hence my agreement with that post about wasting brain cells. Lot of other things to talk about with regards to the game or CFB in general. But if one wants to talk about this, well then that's up him/her.
If he scored we weren't likely to lose the game, but by going down he eliminated any realistic possibility of losing the game. That is a non-trivial distinction.
Part one is because Simon throws the ball 5 yards out of bounds lol.
Part 2 I don't disagree with.
I was a Snyder fan but that's water under the bridge. And frankly, after seeing play so far I would have to admit Noah is the best option. Heck. Langan can throw as good enough to be the real run-pass option QB.
unfortunately I have to admit you are right. Why can't Rutgers source a decent guy back there. Same thing year after year. We're a solid QB away every year. Constantly "under construction". frustrating.
Showing a clip of one instance of something so rare it;s occurrence has to be rounded up to get to hundredths of one percent of the time isn’t meaningful. Comparing the percentage of kickoff returns for TDs or that get within easy FG or TD range to percentage of taking a knee and fumbling to the other team is the stat you need to compare.
You’re not gonna win this argument by the numbers. But feel free to try if you have the time to waste.
Either decision, on Langen’s part, had high odds of success. Nobody disputes that. But he showed excellent application of logic, in a situation most young players wouldn’t, to choose the path with the greatest odds of success. Which is, IMO, commendable.
Except where he threw it out the side of the end-zone, I was totally fine with his throwing the other balls OOB. The WRs were well-covered in each case. And the way the game was going, an INT could well have meant losing. RUs’s OL and WRs we’re not getting the job done yesterday. But the D was, except for a few plays or so.
So, IMO, the smart thing was to have great patience and make ball security the highest priority.
On of the only couple times we had a WR wide open, Simon put the ball right on target. One other time, the WR had a DB on his back, and had the ball been on target, it would’ve been maybe 70/30 our guy gets a well thrown ball, but Simon under-threw it, probably intentionally, to make it 100% un-interceptable.
I would love to see better passing play, but first the the OL and WRs, and maybe play designs, have to improve such that we have much better passing opportunities. Otherwise we’ll see a bunch of forced throws to well-covered players and lots of INTs.
Made the game ugly, but also meant we won.
To me, the biggest, problem with the passing game right now is the WR group. They need to reliably get good separation and they need to be WAY better at realizing when the QB has no time and break early to give him an easy pass for 4 yards, rather than no good options at longer distance leading to an incomplete or sack.
Part of that might be route designs or WR coaching, I don’t know enough about the called plays or what goes on in practice to know.
I didn't expect it to. As I said, I understand the math. Viscerally, I wanted the points.
Nuance is a difficult thing, I get it. Still...
nice summary clip. I counted 3 good throws downfield. That one to Crushank (right side not the OOB that got the penalty) he should have made better efffort to catch. Was there. . Rest were pretty ugly IMO.
Of the passes downfield, I counted only two where the receiver was actually reasonably open. Otherwise, there were a lot of plays with tightly covered receivers where it looked like the throws were intentionally long and/or wide. There were a few bad throws thrown behind a little. And a few or so decent throws on target.
I think, between the coaches and WRs and TEs, the team needs to develop a better ability to get open more open more quickly. If Temple was able to hurry our QB, think what Ohio State or some other Big Ten elite teams are going to do.
If we have our QBs force throws to tightly covered receivers, then no matter how good the throws, some will get picked off (because DBs are sometimes going to win the ball in tight coverage).
This strikes me as an inexplicably weak spot in RU teams over the past decade. The WRs have the element of surprise, so they ought to be able to get open enough for quick 4 yard gains more often than they seem to do.
I agree with everything you said except that those deep timing passes that were WAY overthrown were programmed passes thrown to a spot well before the receivers get open or not. Rutgers has been doing it for years , especially on critical short 3rd downs lol. Drives me nuts.
Perhaps his best throw was on that quick slant (the first one not that second one). That's what I'd like to see more of. Especially with this O Line. I don't think he has good touch on the long ball BUT does on mid-range. And also the tight end who should be bigger targets over the middle.
Wimsatt has better potential with long balls because he has the stronger arm, so he's not just heaving it - he's throwing it with precision (albeit clearly not always on target yet). I think Simon's long throw game is tenuous - he can make the deep throws but with less control so the WR better have a few steps gap to any coverage or it'll be a field day for any DBs in the area.
Vedral, should he get healthy soon, seems more like Simon, arm strength-wise. He kind of just heaves long balls. Both Simon and Vedral are a risk for trying to throw deep into tight coverage and, if I were the coach, I'd avoid trying it unless there was no other choice due to being down in points. I'd tell them to throw when the WR is behind the coverage, and be sure to throw slightly long if anything, never slightly short.
yes, my comments were about Simon. Gavin clearly has the arm . Noah was pretty good on dropping those long one's in there but he had Bo making the catches. There's a reason crushank is big time returner and catches those quick outs. He's not developed into the downfield guy like J. Grant did.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Football VIDEO: Rutgers Football HC Greg Schiano talks 2024 Spring Game- Latest: -RUFAN4LIFE-