I had a wonderful time at the RU-NSU game ... great weather, new seats where we wanted them (meaning shade before the end of the 1st quarter) and under the over-hang), good new seat neighbors, and blow-out RU win, and saw almost all the RU players play.
But what do we, as fans, actually learn from a game against an opponent like NSU? There are some things we can learn - but we should be careful not to read too much into what is really an exhibition game.
Here is what I think we, the fans, should draw from the game:
1) The QB battle is not over. Both QB's showed good things - but different things:
3) The coaching staff can adjust during the game, and the players can execute adjustments. The DB's did a lot better after the 1st quarter, and especially well in the 2nd half. You have to give SOME credit to the coaching staff for making instructions, and adjustments in-game ... and some credit to the young DB's for executing those changes. In particular, the staff made some small changes in personnel packages - using Hampton and Hunt is slightly different ways in the last 3 quarters of the game, and inserting Adams at CB (for Austin, interestingly enough, not for Wharton) in the 3rd quarter.
4) RU has pretty good running backs - and we now know their primary roles. James and Hicks are 1A and 1B - the hot hand will get the ball more. Martin is #3, and will get chances - and if he gets hot may get more carries in any one game. Goodwin is the 3rd down, passing situation, RB. James still has the most patience and the best cutting ability - but he may not be all the way back. Hicks is the hardest runner. Martin may have the most speed of the top 3. Goodwin is the receiver.
5) RU may not have a back-up FB to Bergen. I did not see anyone play FB other than Bergen.
6) Pass Rush is still lacking. Without RU's 2 best DL, and RU's 2 best pass rushers (Hamilton and Turay - Turay only played 10-12 plays), RU still has trouble pressuring the QB, even with the blitz.
7) We have a MUCH better idea of the depth chart - which for fans is one of the greatest value of these types of games. In a game like this, the coaches rotated quite a bit on defense, especially the DL - and did so early and often. Here is the depth chart as I saw it develop throughout the game:
Offense:
QB: Rettig OR Laviano, Rescigno
RB: James, Hicks, Martin ... Goodwin as 3rd down RB
FB: Bergen
WR: Caroo, Agudosi
WR: Patton, Grant, V. Matthews
TE: Flanagan, Arcidiacono, Scarff
LT: Lumpkin, Heeman
LG: Miller, Cole
C: Nelson, Miller - I thought I saw Mller in at the end of the game at C, with the other subs (a #60 was at C)
RG: Muller, Applefield ... and Applefield is probably the 1st OL sub, regardless of position
RT: Denman, Brodie ... I may have Cole, Brodie and Heeman switched around a little.
Defense:
DE: Mera, D. Davis (or at other DE?), Hogan (do I have Hogan and Nash reversed? I do not think so but I might)
NT: Joseph, Wilkins
3-Tech: [Hamilton], JPO, Wiafe, Bateky (? Or was he at NT?)
DE: [Turay], Lambert, Nash
Will OLB: Gause, Margolis (I may have the Will and the Same mixed up, but not who was backing up who)
Mike LB: Lewis, Johnson
Sam OLB: Longa, Roberts
CB: Austin, Adams
CB: Wharton ... R. James (but James only in true mop-up time)
SS: Cioffi, Hunt
FS: Jacobs, Hampton
NICKEL: Hunt or Hampton subbed for Gause; Cioffi played role of the 5th DB, the Cover-DB.
DIME: Whoever between Hunt and Hampton had not gone in for the nickel, went in, for Lewis. DL was JPO, Turay (only later in the 2nd quarter) and I think Lambert - maybe a 4th DL, but would have to look at the DVR'd game to be sure.
On the depth chart, to me the most interesting situations besides QB are:
a) Goodwin clearly the 3rd down back - that will be his role.
b) Flanagan is clearly ahead of Arcidiacono at TE.
c) Applefield is the #6 OL, ahead of Cole.
d) When Adams was put into the game in the 3rd quarter he subbed for Austin, not Wharton ... and left the game when RU went to the DIme, replaced by Austin. This tells me Wharton played better in this game than did Austin, and that Adams has not yet had enough time to learn the Dime DB scheme.
e) Darnell Davis (#59) played ahead of Hogan or Nash at DE.
But what do we, as fans, actually learn from a game against an opponent like NSU? There are some things we can learn - but we should be careful not to read too much into what is really an exhibition game.
Here is what I think we, the fans, should draw from the game:
1) The QB battle is not over. Both QB's showed good things - but different things:
a) Rettig: He showed he has more mobility than many fans thought; he showed he has a strong arm; he showed his arm is pretty accurate when he is not under pressure; he showed he could move the ball in sustained drives with only a little rushing game support - albeit against a weaker team; he showed he could read his progressions and spread the ball around to different receivers. And he did all this without the benefit of having RU's best player on the field with him (Caroo).
b) Laviano: He showed he can play-action and roll out pretty well; he showed he could get the ball to Caroo; he SEEMED to show he could run different and more varied plays than Rettig.
c) So where are we? We will know a little more this week, if and when Flood makes an announcement, or failing that, who starts against WSU. I think fans learned that there is a reasonable chance EITHER QB has a chance to be effective. Personally, I would like to see Rettig earn the initial shot at the starting job, as he seemed to show more use of progression, a cool head, a bigger and more accurate arm. BUT ... Laviano, even though he only threw 4 passes, seemed to be given the chance to run more variety of plays - perhaps he still has a greater command of the playbook? I though Milewski put it well in the post game commentary. He said that when the coaches review the film, they will look at more than just pure stats, but also at the types of throws each QB made, the types of situations each QB had to react to, etc. And by that measure Rettig very likely showed better.
2) The defensive secondary needs a lot of work. This is not surprising, given the circumstances. I have been away, just back, and have not had a chance to review the game again (saw it live, but have it on tape). But clearly there are communication problems, almost certainly due to lack of experience, between the CB's and the safeties. This needs to be reduced, but I fear only experience will change this ... but that takes many games, not one game. b) Laviano: He showed he can play-action and roll out pretty well; he showed he could get the ball to Caroo; he SEEMED to show he could run different and more varied plays than Rettig.
c) So where are we? We will know a little more this week, if and when Flood makes an announcement, or failing that, who starts against WSU. I think fans learned that there is a reasonable chance EITHER QB has a chance to be effective. Personally, I would like to see Rettig earn the initial shot at the starting job, as he seemed to show more use of progression, a cool head, a bigger and more accurate arm. BUT ... Laviano, even though he only threw 4 passes, seemed to be given the chance to run more variety of plays - perhaps he still has a greater command of the playbook? I though Milewski put it well in the post game commentary. He said that when the coaches review the film, they will look at more than just pure stats, but also at the types of throws each QB made, the types of situations each QB had to react to, etc. And by that measure Rettig very likely showed better.
3) The coaching staff can adjust during the game, and the players can execute adjustments. The DB's did a lot better after the 1st quarter, and especially well in the 2nd half. You have to give SOME credit to the coaching staff for making instructions, and adjustments in-game ... and some credit to the young DB's for executing those changes. In particular, the staff made some small changes in personnel packages - using Hampton and Hunt is slightly different ways in the last 3 quarters of the game, and inserting Adams at CB (for Austin, interestingly enough, not for Wharton) in the 3rd quarter.
4) RU has pretty good running backs - and we now know their primary roles. James and Hicks are 1A and 1B - the hot hand will get the ball more. Martin is #3, and will get chances - and if he gets hot may get more carries in any one game. Goodwin is the 3rd down, passing situation, RB. James still has the most patience and the best cutting ability - but he may not be all the way back. Hicks is the hardest runner. Martin may have the most speed of the top 3. Goodwin is the receiver.
5) RU may not have a back-up FB to Bergen. I did not see anyone play FB other than Bergen.
6) Pass Rush is still lacking. Without RU's 2 best DL, and RU's 2 best pass rushers (Hamilton and Turay - Turay only played 10-12 plays), RU still has trouble pressuring the QB, even with the blitz.
7) We have a MUCH better idea of the depth chart - which for fans is one of the greatest value of these types of games. In a game like this, the coaches rotated quite a bit on defense, especially the DL - and did so early and often. Here is the depth chart as I saw it develop throughout the game:
Offense:
QB: Rettig OR Laviano, Rescigno
RB: James, Hicks, Martin ... Goodwin as 3rd down RB
FB: Bergen
WR: Caroo, Agudosi
WR: Patton, Grant, V. Matthews
TE: Flanagan, Arcidiacono, Scarff
LT: Lumpkin, Heeman
LG: Miller, Cole
C: Nelson, Miller - I thought I saw Mller in at the end of the game at C, with the other subs (a #60 was at C)
RG: Muller, Applefield ... and Applefield is probably the 1st OL sub, regardless of position
RT: Denman, Brodie ... I may have Cole, Brodie and Heeman switched around a little.
Defense:
DE: Mera, D. Davis (or at other DE?), Hogan (do I have Hogan and Nash reversed? I do not think so but I might)
NT: Joseph, Wilkins
3-Tech: [Hamilton], JPO, Wiafe, Bateky (? Or was he at NT?)
DE: [Turay], Lambert, Nash
Will OLB: Gause, Margolis (I may have the Will and the Same mixed up, but not who was backing up who)
Mike LB: Lewis, Johnson
Sam OLB: Longa, Roberts
CB: Austin, Adams
CB: Wharton ... R. James (but James only in true mop-up time)
SS: Cioffi, Hunt
FS: Jacobs, Hampton
NICKEL: Hunt or Hampton subbed for Gause; Cioffi played role of the 5th DB, the Cover-DB.
DIME: Whoever between Hunt and Hampton had not gone in for the nickel, went in, for Lewis. DL was JPO, Turay (only later in the 2nd quarter) and I think Lambert - maybe a 4th DL, but would have to look at the DVR'd game to be sure.
On the depth chart, to me the most interesting situations besides QB are:
a) Goodwin clearly the 3rd down back - that will be his role.
b) Flanagan is clearly ahead of Arcidiacono at TE.
c) Applefield is the #6 OL, ahead of Cole.
d) When Adams was put into the game in the 3rd quarter he subbed for Austin, not Wharton ... and left the game when RU went to the DIme, replaced by Austin. This tells me Wharton played better in this game than did Austin, and that Adams has not yet had enough time to learn the Dime DB scheme.
e) Darnell Davis (#59) played ahead of Hogan or Nash at DE.
