(10-16-2017 02:48 PM)AeroCat Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 12:51 PM)dsquare Wrote:  Agree on Boone out of the backfield. He's more effective when you hit him on the move. Doaks and Warren get to the hole a lot quicker on inside runs. Boone not so much.

For as athletically gifted as Boone is, he sure doesn't seem to hit the hole very hard. Like all of you I was a big fan of his campaign down in PBS, but that must have been a fluke.

In the same category as Moore's passing game @ Memphis? I remain amazed that performances such as these aren't repeatable to some degree.

(10-16-2017 02:51 PM)OKIcat Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 02:48 PM)AeroCat Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 12:51 PM)dsquare Wrote:  Agree on Boone out of the backfield. He's more effective when you hit him on the move. Doaks and Warren get to the hole a lot quicker on inside runs. Boone not so much.

For as athletically gifted as Boone is, he sure doesn't seem to hit the hole very hard. Like all of you I was a big fan of his campaign down in PBS, but that must have been a fluke.

In the same category as Moore's passing game @ Memphis? I remain amazed that performances such as these aren't repeatable to some degree.

I think part of it is a big difference in the offensive line and another part is in the types of runs he's asked to make. Boone is great when he gets to make a quick read and pick the spot he wants to hit. Gran really did a good job giving him that chance. I don't think that's the style we have been running the last 2 years since Gran left. BTW this is why the direct snap to Boone has repeatedly worked. He makes a quick read of where the weakness is and hits it hard.

(10-16-2017 08:51 AM)bearcats23 Wrote:  I see the light, it's called basketball season.

+2

I see two problems on this team:

1. Personnel

2. Coaching

(10-16-2017 03:13 PM)Crewdogz Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 08:51 AM)bearcats23 Wrote:  I see the light, it's called basketball season.

+2

I see two problems on this team:

1. Personnel

2. Coaching

Other than that, we are in great shape!

(10-16-2017 03:03 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 02:51 PM)OKIcat Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 02:48 PM)AeroCat Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 12:51 PM)dsquare Wrote:  Agree on Boone out of the backfield. He's more effective when you hit him on the move. Doaks and Warren get to the hole a lot quicker on inside runs. Boone not so much.

For as athletically gifted as Boone is, he sure doesn't seem to hit the hole very hard. Like all of you I was a big fan of his campaign down in PBS, but that must have been a fluke.

In the same category as Moore's passing game @ Memphis? I remain amazed that performances such as these aren't repeatable to some degree.

I think part of it is a big difference in the offensive line and another part is in the types of runs he's asked to make. Boone is great when he gets to make a quick read and pick the spot he wants to hit. Gran really did a good job giving him that chance. I don't think that's the style we have been running the last 2 years since Gran left. BTW this is why the direct snap to Boone has repeatedly worked. He makes a quick read of where the weakness is and hits it hard.

My eyes also see someone who has lost a bit of speed/burst since his Frosh year. Some of that may be due to bum ankles, other nicks and dings, and/or added bulk. All I know is that I'm disappointed for him and for the team as he showed such promise and upside early in his career.

I don't think Boone has been 100% all year. Nor do I expect him to get there. Unfortunate.

(10-16-2017 03:03 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 02:51 PM)OKIcat Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 02:48 PM)AeroCat Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 12:51 PM)dsquare Wrote:  Agree on Boone out of the backfield. He's more effective when you hit him on the move. Doaks and Warren get to the hole a lot quicker on inside runs. Boone not so much.

For as athletically gifted as Boone is, he sure doesn't seem to hit the hole very hard. Like all of you I was a big fan of his campaign down in PBS, but that must have been a fluke.

In the same category as Moore's passing game @ Memphis? I remain amazed that performances such as these aren't repeatable to some degree.

I think part of it is a big difference in the offensive line and another part is in the types of runs he's asked to make. Boone is great when he gets to make a quick read and pick the spot he wants to hit. Gran really did a good job giving him that chance. I don't think that's the style we have been running the last 2 years since Gran left. BTW this is why the direct snap to Boone has repeatedly worked. He makes a quick read of where the weakness is and hits it hard.

Thank you. Boone is good at what he does. He hasn't done what he does well for a couple years. He wasn't a cutter or a burner even before the bum ankles. He's a straight line guy who has great vision if you let him pick his spot.

Gran did a good job maximizing his tools.

(10-15-2017 05:34 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  

(10-15-2017 05:08 PM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  

(10-15-2017 05:02 PM)GoCats1994 Wrote:  I refuse to refer to Navy, Marshall, UCF, and USF as a tough schedule or a gauntlet.

Sure they may be having decent seasons, but seriously? UC is getting destroyed by these teams. It's a long climb uphill from here

UCF, Navy, and USF were all ranked in the AP top 25 going into this weekend. You can also add Michigan as a ranked opponent this season.

Yeah, the SEC it ain't, but four ranked teams (3 on the road) in your first seven games is a "gauntlet" when you suk.

But we haven't excelled against the 3 unranked teams.

We barely beat an FCS team.

We got crushed by Marshall at home.

Miami is 2-5 (1-4 against FBS), and we needed the flukiest of fluke plays to beat them.

(10-18-2017 06:13 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Miami is 2-5 (1-4 against FBS), and we needed the flukiest of fluke plays to beat them.

UC was definitely the better team all day at Miami. Many mistakes and the inability to put the ball in the End Zone made it close. Yes - a fluke play resulted in the win but UC should have won that game (based on stats and "seeing with my eyes"). Whether UC deserved to win is another story. Being better than a 2-5 Miami team doesn't say much but UC is the better 2-5 and 1-4 vs. FBS team in southwest Ohio this year.

I saw improvement in the USF game - the defense played better but the offense was still stagnant. Offense actually played well against Navy and UCF. If we can get both operating well at the same time, UC will be ok the rest of the way. I'm not saying they will win 4 out of 5 and go bowling but it will give us hope for the future. I haven't seen the let down or give up in games that I saw the past two seasons. Hopefully that remains the rest of the year. I feel good about the direction of the program (long term) and I think Fickell deserves time to put his stamp on the program.

(10-19-2017 07:32 AM)bearcatdp Wrote:  

(10-18-2017 06:13 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Miami is 2-5 (1-4 against FBS), and we needed the flukiest of fluke plays to beat them.

UC was definitely the better team all day at Miami. Many mistakes and the inability to put the ball in the End Zone made it close. Yes - a fluke play resulted in the win but UC should have won that game (based on stats and "seeing with my eyes"). Whether UC deserved to win is another story. Being better than a 2-5 Miami team doesn't say much but UC is the better 2-5 and 1-4 vs. FBS team in southwest Ohio this year.

I saw improvement in the USF game - the defense played better but the offense was still stagnant. Offense actually played well against Navy and UCF. If we can get both operating well at the same time, UC will be ok the rest of the way. I'm not saying they will win 4 out of 5 and go bowling but it will give us hope for the future. I haven't seen the let down or give up in games that I saw the past two seasons. Hopefully that remains the rest of the year. I feel good about the direction of the program (long term) and I think Fickell deserves time to put his stamp on the program.

Part of this is matchups. The UC defense seemed better because though USF has an explosive, exciting QB, he isn't that accurate down the field and to the outside. UC was able to hide it's weak secondary in ways it simply couldn't against UCF. At the same time... USF may have been the best defense UC will see all year. The good news is...there really aren't many elite units on the schedule the rest of the way. The SMU offense will be a really challenge, as will Tulane because of how they play, but UC should be able to gameplan and hide some of their weaknesses most of the way going forward.

there is no light this season. hoping it will be there in a couple years.

luckily the back half of the schedule is such a cakewalk that even this team will look better and might even pull off a couple a couple wins giving the illusion of finding a light.

Not sure how much SMU attempts to stretch the field. Have not watched them since last year. If they do that a lot, there is not that much gameplanning for it. It's the Johns and the Joes not the Xs and Os. Get ready to see the backs of the jerseys of our secondary...repeatedly.

I'm starting to get worried that if the Hayden Moore era doesn't end during this season, it's going to drag into next season.

(10-19-2017 09:29 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(10-19-2017 07:32 AM)bearcatdp Wrote:  

(10-18-2017 06:13 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Miami is 2-5 (1-4 against FBS), and we needed the flukiest of fluke plays to beat them.

UC was definitely the better team all day at Miami. Many mistakes and the inability to put the ball in the End Zone made it close. Yes - a fluke play resulted in the win but UC should have won that game (based on stats and "seeing with my eyes"). Whether UC deserved to win is another story. Being better than a 2-5 Miami team doesn't say much but UC is the better 2-5 and 1-4 vs. FBS team in southwest Ohio this year.

I saw improvement in the USF game - the defense played better but the offense was still stagnant. Offense actually played well against Navy and UCF. If we can get both operating well at the same time, UC will be ok the rest of the way. I'm not saying they will win 4 out of 5 and go bowling but it will give us hope for the future. I haven't seen the let down or give up in games that I saw the past two seasons. Hopefully that remains the rest of the year. I feel good about the direction of the program (long term) and I think Fickell deserves time to put his stamp on the program.

Part of this is matchups. The UC defense seemed better because though USF has an explosive, exciting QB, he isn't that accurate down the field and to the outside. UC was able to hide it's weak secondary in ways it simply couldn't against UCF. At the same time... USF may have been the best defense UC will see all year. The good news is...there really aren't many elite units on the schedule the rest of the way. The SMU offense will be a really challenge, as will Tulane because of how they play, but UC should be able to gameplan and hide some of their weaknesses most of the way going forward.

I'm still shocked (or maybe encouraged) that we didn't have major busted coverage in the secondary leading to easy homerun balls like we've had in just about every other game this season. And for the most part the secondary was in reasonably good position most of the night. Totally different than UCF when we weren't within 5 yards of the WR on most plays - even on 5 yard hitch routes on 3rd and short. I'm trying to find a glimmer of hope here but I'm sure SMU will dash that this weekend.

(10-19-2017 10:29 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Not sure how much SMU attempts to stretch the field. Have not watched them since last year. If they do that a lot, there is not that much gameplanning for it. It's the Johns and the Joes not the Xs and Os. Get ready to see the backs of the jerseys of our secondary...repeatedly.

They definitely stretch the field. Watched them play TCU and they were running go routes, flea-flickers, etc. They have two WRs who are studs--- they can both create separation on a route and alternatively catch a mid-range ball and lose you after the catch with their athleticism.

We are going to give up a lot of points. OTOH, SMU's defense is very weak, giving up nearly 500 yards a game. I have no doubt this is a going to be a high scoring game for both teams-- one of these 49-46 type affairs. The team that is able to stop the other offense a couple times (either by breaking up a pass or two or a turnover) is going to be the one who wins.

(10-19-2017 10:46 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(10-19-2017 10:29 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Not sure how much SMU attempts to stretch the field. Have not watched them since last year. If they do that a lot, there is not that much gameplanning for it. It's the Johns and the Joes not the Xs and Os. Get ready to see the backs of the jerseys of our secondary...repeatedly.

They definitely stretch the field. Watched them play TCU and they were running go routes, flea-flickers, etc. They have two WRs who are studs--- they can both create separation on a route and alternatively catch a mid-range ball and lose you after the catch with their athleticism.

We are going to give up a lot of points. OTOH, SMU's defense is very weak, giving up nearly 500 yards a game. I have no doubt this is a going to be a high scoring game for both teams-- one of these 49-46 type affairs. The team that is able to stop the other offense a couple times (either by breaking up a pass or two or a turnover) is going to be the one who wins.

That is Courtland Sutton and Trey Quinn. Sutton is a projected first round draft pick.
His only P5 offer was Colorado. Quinn is a white guy who played 2 years at LSU, had like 30 offers from everyone.

Haven't watched them play but looking at them on paper they are quite an interesting team. They put up lots of yards and points (top 10ish) and don't turn the ball over (top 10 in fewest turnovers lost). Their defense, while giving up tons of yards, is 21st in turnovers forced. Statistically there's not much that we do better than them in any meaningful. However, Sagarin rates their schedule at 91st most difficult whereas we've played the 14th most difficult schedule.

In their loss to Houston they amassed almost 550 yards but only scored 22 points. Houston rushed for 265 yards that day.

(10-19-2017 12:04 PM)Racinejake Wrote:  Haven't watched them play but looking at them on paper they are quite an interesting team. They put up lots of yards and points (top 10ish) and don't turn the ball over (top 10 in fewest turnovers lost). Their defense, while giving up tons of yards, is 21st in turnovers forced. Statistically there's not much that we do better than them in any meaningful. However, Sagarin rates their schedule at 91st most difficult whereas we've played the 14th most difficult schedule.

In their loss to Houston they amassed almost 550 yards but only scored 22 points. Houston rushed for 265 yards that day.

I think the key is going to be not getting behind in a meaningful way. If by some miracle they can hold things close like they did with Michigan, they've got a chance. But if we're relying on the Hayden Moore show to play catch up, I'm not optimistic at all.

It could be worse: http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaafb/d...ocid=ientp

(10-19-2017 12:51 PM)Crewdogz Wrote:  It could be worse: http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaafb/d...ocid=ientp

It could be worse https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...ble-return