Indiana is 4-0
- Thread starter rucook08
- Start date
Of course they're going to "acknowledge" the fact that they "have stuff to clean up," that doesn't mean they'll do better. We simply are a BAD team with serious depth issues in most position groups.
Absolutely nothing wrong with being worried about Indiana, Shift. Right now, IU is favored at home, on HC, without question.
All games RU still have on their schedule are winnable ( upsets happen), but some are less winnable than others and it looks like,
most of the more winnable games could and should be considered toss-ups .
MSU is a winnable game before game starts, but don't count on it happening after 8pm on 10/10
10/17 in Bloomington, Ind is a winnable game, but a toss-up at best game time . Don't count on RU being Road Warriors, just hope they are
OSU and Wisconsin can be upset, so they're winnable games, but don't count on RU being the type of team to be able to do that against either school
Michigan should be a winnable game, but doubt RU can do that at their house.
RU with home field advantage makes beating Nebraska a bit easier , so winnable game, but Nebraska might be a little too good for a Flood led RU team and the ink a dink a do RU passing attack could spell disaster for the Scarlet Knights
Army should be a totally winnable game, pencil it in as one
Maryland is winnable, the winner will prove whose worse Flood or Edsall, not whose a better HC.
The edge should go to RU because of it being a home game, but Flood can turn the sharpest blade into a dull knife attack ,
leaving the door open to counter attack by someone equally inept.
most of the more winnable games could and should be considered toss-ups .
MSU is a winnable game before game starts, but don't count on it happening after 8pm on 10/10
10/17 in Bloomington, Ind is a winnable game, but a toss-up at best game time . Don't count on RU being Road Warriors, just hope they are
OSU and Wisconsin can be upset, so they're winnable games, but don't count on RU being the type of team to be able to do that against either school
Michigan should be a winnable game, but doubt RU can do that at their house.
RU with home field advantage makes beating Nebraska a bit easier , so winnable game, but Nebraska might be a little too good for a Flood led RU team and the ink a dink a do RU passing attack could spell disaster for the Scarlet Knights
Army should be a totally winnable game, pencil it in as one
Maryland is winnable, the winner will prove whose worse Flood or Edsall, not whose a better HC.
The edge should go to RU because of it being a home game, but Flood can turn the sharpest blade into a dull knife attack ,
leaving the door open to counter attack by someone equally inept.
Michigan? The same Michigan team that looks better and better each week, blasting a BYU team, 31-0, which almost knocked off UCLA a week earlier, whose only loss is to the same Utah team that whipped Oregon at Autzen Stadium last night, 62-20? Michigan will easily be favored by 2 TD's and we may not score a point against them.
MSU is not a "winnable game," either, they may shut us out as well.
We SHOULD beat Army but no way I would consider it a guaranteed win.
I think that we have a chance vs. MD, Indiana, and Nebraska, with the latter being a longshot, but it is at home and if the stars align correctly ...
So, I see anywhere between 2 and 5 wins, with 3 being the best estimate.
I think that we have a chance vs. MD, Indiana, and Nebraska, with the latter being a longshot, but it is at home and if the stars align correctly ...
So, I see anywhere between 2 and 5 wins, with 3 being the best estimate.
Yes, "any given day," and upsets happen, but there are likely 3 "winnable" games left on the schedule and we'll be favored in only 2.
Did you read anything I wrote.
Where the f do you get I think MSU will win from what I posted. I put "" so you can see what I think about the chances of RU winning:
"MSU is a "winnable game before game starts", but don't count on it happening after 8pm on 10/10
As for Michigan, giving credit to upset possibility without saying it , but again you fail to notice "doubt RU can do that at their house."
Your so quick on the trigger to put RU FB down, you don't see the subtal insults I put in about this Flood led teams chances of winning.
Also all games are winnable, just some are not as winnable as others and some can be considered a lot less winnable than others.
.That is why it is imperative that everything goes well.There are only 12-13 games to watch and then it's wait until next year.
First off, I'm not hear to "put RU FB" down nor am I. Do you realize all the things I've done, do, and will continue to do, for RU FB? What an idiot comment. I'll put Coach Flood down - damn skippy - but please keep it real, which is all I'm trying to do, okay? Funny how you mention your own "subtle insults," however, while attempting to rip me apart LOL!
Anyway, you state, and I quote, "MICHIGAN SHOULD BE A WINNABLE GAME..." ....I was simply making a point regarding "should" part of that comment. Not really sure where it's coming from MAD.
MSU, again, isn't a "winnable game before it starts," so despite your 2nd comment - which we all agree with - I just didn't understand where the "winnable game before it starts" comment is originating from?
Yes, in the end, EVERY game is "winnable" - you're right, my bad, geeze.
Agree. If everything went right for RU against MSU, and they play very badly, the game is winnable. Those are two very big IFs. . . . . We agree more and more every day.
Because of the chance of an upset every game is a winnable one, just some are more winnable than others I put "winnable" in every game before it starts.
Michigan should have been a winnable game,but again I pointed out why a win shouldn't be expected.
Yes the Wolverines are playing great and you made a good point of why I shouldn't have put should in my saying winnable.
But if the stars align just right and instant karma gets Harbaugh, RU should win:p
Stay pissed at the way I replied, seems like you jumped down my throat because you deemed my message to positive
and I pointed that out while showing you where you were wrong.
Look at my post and you'll see I was keeping it real and you didn't understand so jumped on what you thought was a positive message, or had positive parts in it.
I admit you are a great fan, but that doesn't mean you don't act like a butthead on this board at times.
And yes I think you have an itchy trigger finger when you think you see something positive being said about what you feel is a negative.and jump in to correct that positive thought.
I don't like arguing with other RU Fans, but won't back down when I feel someone is not being respectful and I try to show respect without resorting to name calling, even when disagreeing .
I just asked where the f you got I was claiming MSU was going to be a win .
Again all you do doesn't give you the right to treat those you disagree with with disrespect.and insult them by calling them silly names.
The team before the disaster right before the season had solid shot of going 8-4. Do you deny that if everyone was here we would have had a very good chance of being 4-0 right now? That team would have also been favored in the Army, Maryland and Indiana games. Thats 7 wins right there. Then all they had to do was go 1-2 against Michigan, Nebraska and Wisconsin. I am not saying that it was a guarantee but you make it sound like it was insurmountable which it was far from that.
I do agree that 9-3 was a tall order even with the team we expected to have mid August.
Guys
Let's be real here
I'll keep saying this
Need to score 30 points to win game
Last year...we won with score of 41, 38, 31, 31. 26, 45, 41 and 40. We won one game scoring less than 30 last year
Ditto 2013
With how we are playing offense...how many times will we score 30 plus this year?
Even last year...we won one game...one, where the defense gave up less than 23 (Tulane)
So unless the defense gets awesome quick...and starts to cause turnovers (take a good look at that) and the specials starts to block kicks again (take a look at that)
who is the offense going to outscore to win.
I would sign up right now for 6-6 in 2015
Let's be real here
I'll keep saying this
Need to score 30 points to win game
Last year...we won with score of 41, 38, 31, 31. 26, 45, 41 and 40. We won one game scoring less than 30 last year
Ditto 2013
With how we are playing offense...how many times will we score 30 plus this year?
Even last year...we won one game...one, where the defense gave up less than 23 (Tulane)
So unless the defense gets awesome quick...and starts to cause turnovers (take a good look at that) and the specials starts to block kicks again (take a look at that)
who is the offense going to outscore to win.
I would sign up right now for 6-6 in 2015
1) where did I treat you with "disrespect" or "insult" anyone by "calling" you "silly name"???
2) I don't think I wasn't showing you respect, in any way whatsoever, it was simply a response to your post which, as far as I can recall, is WHAT we do on here lol!
3) we ALL act like "buttheads" on this board (and anyone who thinks they don't, for one second, must be named "Beavis" lol...)
4) I brought up the things "i do" for the program due to a comment you made, about me "hating" all things "RU FB" which is, in a nutshell, mind-boggling for anyone to ever say about me.
5) we're gonna need an upset this year PLEASE let it happen!!!
Okay thanks that's it let's move on.
Sorry Rutgers would not have beaten penn state..lets clear that one up...sure we could be 3-1 but the problems on this team are not just in the secondary. No 8-4 was a pipe dream and it turns Michigan went from tossup to likely loss.
I would have signed up for 6-6 back in July and said as much
I guess we will have to agree to disagree. The team was better than 6-6.
I think RU had a chance at 8-4 before the suspensions and Hamilton's injury keeping him off the field.
But since the suspensions happened and Hamilton won't be playing, 6-6 might be too optimistic the way it is now.
I dont know that Id say its a sure win - but I think if we had played the same four teams, we would also be 4-0.
As for us - we have four teams left that aren't sure blowouts - MD, Indiana, Army, and Nebraska. The other four - Wisconsin, Michigan, Michigan State and OSU won't be close. I suspect we win two of those games - Army almost for sure (they are worse than Kansas - who we beat easily despite losing the turnover battle) and one of the others.
Anyone who watches this team play offense and tackle in the front 7, coupled with the benefit of hindsight still thinks 8 was a legit number, is watching from the lounge at Bergen Pines...
The Top 10 programs in HS in NJ run more complex stuff then we are running now. You don't win 8 games at any level with our current playbook.
And the defensive fundamentals are offensive.
yes, the issues have been a hit to morale and team confidence and continuity. But 8 wins, before seeing Michigan and PSU play a single snap, was crazy talk.
And as Shack points out, if we don't score, we don't win. Even when we were MUCH better on defense.
The Top 10 programs in HS in NJ run more complex stuff then we are running now. You don't win 8 games at any level with our current playbook.
And the defensive fundamentals are offensive.
yes, the issues have been a hit to morale and team confidence and continuity. But 8 wins, before seeing Michigan and PSU play a single snap, was crazy talk.
And as Shack points out, if we don't score, we don't win. Even when we were MUCH better on defense.
Could have been 2-2 easily in Game 1, Eastern Ill went for two to win the gave and lost by 1- they missed a PAT. if LC is on the field that is a winnable game. I also expect them to start to implode after Ohio State plays them- the first B10 team normally physically beats up IND and they lose 2 starters.
But they're NOT 2-2, Joe, so that's a non-start for me and, yeah, everyone gets "beat up" by OSU. We're gonna get "beat up," next week, by MSU, too, so "all's fair...," right?
Rutgers would be 4-0 against the hooiser schedule also. Indiana's first real game is this week.
Some of us predicted 3 wins this year before the off field fiascos with an "everything breaks right ceiling" of 5 wins. Last year, before the first game, some of us predicted 9-10 wins, while many were predicting 3-4.
Next year, 3 wins will probably be the high ceiling.
Indiana's 4 wins haven't been against the strongest of foes, but it is hard to predict whether they will be a good team or not. They now have lots of confidence about their ability to come out on top in tough games, so they might do well throughout the season.
Because of our inexperience, I was expecting 6 or 7 wins this year. having our secondary decimated by all those losses has changed that equation, particularly since most of those losses occurred right before the season - meaning most of the value of working as a unit in training clamp was lost. I am not sure why the critics insist on ignoring this.
I was really impressed, however, that Coach Flood has already such extensive depth there that we are still able to send out a decent group of players there to compete. IMO Only ignorant fans would have expected them to compete effectively for the first few weeks, but they seem to have given us an adequate presence there during the last 2 games. How can anyone realistically believe that most teams wouldn't be struggling immensely after losing 5 or 6 guys from their 2 deep at the times we did.
On Saturday we rolled out 8 or 9 effective defensive linemen, so we have nice depth there now - though most are inexperienced.
We have nice depth at quarterback, or we wouldn't have the controversy we are seeing - though all are inexperienced.
We have nice depth at running back.
We have adequate depth at wide receiver, even after losing our Number 1 offensive player.
We have good depth at tight end.
We have good depth on offensive line, with 3 developing red-shirt freshman chomping at the bit to do their part - though most are inexperienced.
The only positions with questionable depth are linebacker and fullback. We are using a tight end effectively at fullback, and we don't know about linebacker because we haven't seen the 2nd string guys out there yet.
So IMO the claim that we have no depth is uninformed.. It is not depth we are lacking, but experience. We don't have the experience that we need yet to compete at a high level, but they are learning with every game. We saw some progress on Saturday, and we should see much more as the season progresses. But it will be uneven, because one of the main issues with inexperience is inconsistency.
You can claim this depth is not capable of competing at a high level right now, and that would be partially true. Anyone watching the games can clearly see the flashes of excellence from many of them, so I don't understand why it is so difficult for some to be optimistic about how much they will eventually contribute.
Because of our inexperience, I was expecting 6 or 7 wins this year. having our secondary decimated by all those losses has changed that equation, particularly since most of those losses occurred right before the season - meaning most of the value of working as a unit in training clamp was lost. I am not sure why the critics insist on ignoring this.
I was really impressed, however, that Coach Flood has already such extensive depth there that we are still able to send out a decent group of players there to compete. IMO Only ignorant fans would have expected them to compete effectively for the first few weeks, but they seem to have given us an adequate presence there during the last 2 games. How can anyone realistically believe that most teams wouldn't be struggling immensely after losing 5 or 6 guys from their 2 deep at the times we did.
On Saturday we rolled out 8 or 9 effective defensive linemen, so we have nice depth there now - though most are inexperienced.
We have nice depth at quarterback, or we wouldn't have the controversy we are seeing - though all are inexperienced.
We have nice depth at running back.
We have adequate depth at wide receiver, even after losing our Number 1 offensive player.
We have good depth at tight end.
We have good depth on offensive line, with 3 developing red-shirt freshman chomping at the bit to do their part - though most are inexperienced.
The only positions with questionable depth are linebacker and fullback. We are using a tight end effectively at fullback, and we don't know about linebacker because we haven't seen the 2nd string guys out there yet.
So IMO the claim that we have no depth is uninformed.. It is not depth we are lacking, but experience. We don't have the experience that we need yet to compete at a high level, but they are learning with every game. We saw some progress on Saturday, and we should see much more as the season progresses. But it will be uneven, because one of the main issues with inexperience is inconsistency.
You can claim this depth is not capable of competing at a high level right now, and that would be partially true. Anyone watching the games can clearly see the flashes of excellence from many of them, so I don't understand why it is so difficult for some to be optimistic about how much they will eventually contribute.
Nuts, Indiana is lacking in depth they have played a cupcake schedule so far, they beat SEC champ Mizzou on the road last year then played a tough B10 team and lost their starting Qb, back-up Qb and best WR. IU is just snake bitten historically with injuries.
The issue with Indiana the last few years has been and continues to be their defense. Their defense remains a work in progress. Their games are all shoot-outs. They're playing all freshmen and sophomore secondary players and so far while I'm very impressed with Jonathan Crawford, their opponents can throw successfully against them. They rank 119 in pass defense. The Front 7 is more reactive as opposed to putting pressure on the opposing QBs and continue to average 2 sacks per game in line with last year. Scales and Mangieri do occasionally blitz and do a pretty good job.
One interesting stat is their defense has let up zero points in the 3rd quarter so far this year. They're making good adjustments coming out of the half.
One interesting stat is their defense has let up zero points in the 3rd quarter so far this year. They're making good adjustments coming out of the half.
My Lord now I've heard it all. We must be the deepest team in the history of college football. Do you realize there's a difference between a team having "depth," and having actual QUALITY DEPTH, right?
"Flashes of excellence???
You may have just topped ANYTHING Al has ever written, ag67, and for that I commend you on being, arguably, the most positive fan on Earth. Good for you buddy! Not sure how you can do it, right now, but good for you (seriously, not being an ass right now....).
We're seeing praise of Indiana and because of their opponents , so far, that praise might not be valid.
But you can't knock a 4-0 record , even if their wins are against what some consider weak teams.
I'll say RU has a good chance to beat the Hoosiers , but won't consider it an easy game.
But you can't knock a 4-0 record , even if their wins are against what some consider weak teams.
I'll say RU has a good chance to beat the Hoosiers , but won't consider it an easy game.
Sometimes people forget why you were banned... Never for to long though.
Oh please if someone is going to post something at this time, that optimistic, they're going to get and should expect responses as such. I'm honestly, genuinely, impressed that he's still feeling good about things, nothing wrong with that at all!
Calling him out is fine - I agree it's very optimistic. It's more the grandeur of your slap down.
