Arkansas State Game

[Mad Hatter]

It's 14-7 Iowa at the half. Arkansas State is representing the Sun Belt well so far.

Go Red Wolves!

[UNT90]

Is it on TV?

Got it. ESPN2.

Edited October 3, 2009 by UNT90

[CMJ]

Pick 6!

Go Belt!!

[Mad Hatter]

Dumb celebration penalty will probably cost them points.

[MeanMag]

Been watching the whole game. Leonard played a very good 1 half. Lets see if he can finish this game strong.

[untbowler]

Dear TD/RV:

This is how you play a money game.

please watch and take notes for the sake of the fans.

[MeanMag]

The difference in this game is the excessive celebration penalty and poor clock management for ark. st. in the 4th quarter.

[Rudy]

Their last TD drive took 8 minutes, not leaving enough time. Burning a TO on 4th when you're in FG range was a mistake. Yeah, they wound up getting a TD on the drive, but they lost a TO and about 2 more minutes. Kick the FG, onside, hold, get the ball back with 1-2 TOs left.

[SilverEagle]

I was most impressed with how the Ark St. defense actually tackled! When they got their hands on a runner THEY DIDN'T LET HIM GET AWAY!

Imagine that! ...............

[saysojoe]

I wonder if the 95% of The Arkansas State fans are mad at the coaching staff for having a game plan and actually going in to and undefeated Iowa stadium and trying to win for their school. I wonder if those 95 % are mad at the coaching staff for not just showing up and getting their paycheck because after all its just a "BODYBAG GAME". I wonder if those 95% are mad at the coaching staff because the The REAL SEASON starts with the SUNBELT. I wonder if those 95% are made at the coaching staff because they played to win and played with pride and now they have all the confidence to play anybody in the Sunbelt and know down deep they can win every game. I wonder !!!!!!!!

Thank You Red Wolves for going for it !!!!!!!

[Fitzyrection]

I wonder if the 95% of The Arkansas State fans are mad at the coaching staff for having a game plan and actually going in to and undefeated Iowa stadium and trying to win for their school. I wonder if those 95 % are mad at the coaching staff for not just showing up and getting their paycheck because after all its just a "BODYBAG GAME". I wonder if those 95% are mad at the coaching staff because the The REAL SEASON starts with the SUNBELT. I wonder if those 95% are made at the coaching staff because they played to win and played with pride and now they have all the confidence to play anybody in the Sunbelt and know down deep they can win every game. I wonder !!!!!!!!

Thank You Red Wolves for going for it !!!!!!!

Bama would sacrifice Iowa. Iowa is also notorious for playing horribly against weak opponents.

Don't forget that they had to block two field goals in the waning seconds to sneak past some FCS school in the season opener.

Judging our team and coaching staff for the result of the Bama game is ridiculous. Anyone that thinks if the coaching staff had called a better game that it would have been close is out of their mind.

We didn't have a chance to compete in Tuscaloosa. Our Sun Belt home opener is what the team should be catching crap about.

Edited October 3, 2009 by Fitzyrection

[untbowler]

Bama would sacrifice Iowa. Iowa is also notorious for playing horribly against weak opponents.

Don't forget that they had to block two field goals in the waning seconds to sneak past some FCS school in the season opener.

Judging our team and coaching staff for the result of the Bama game is ridiculous. Anyone that thinks if the coaching staff had called a better game that it would have been close is out of their mind.

We didn't have a chance to compete in Tuscaloosa. Our Sun Belt home opener is what the team should be catching crap about.

That is such a BS answer, yes we porbably would have lost but the tackling was horrendous and the playcalling did nothing to even give the guys a chance. Of course we have figured out now that TD's spread does not include any pass more than 5-10 yds. So I guess his gameplan never changed.

[MeanMag]

That is such a BS answer, yes we porbably would have lost but the tackling was horrendous and the playcalling did nothing to even give the guys a chance. Of course we have figured out now that TD's spread does not include any pass more than 5-10 yds. So I guess his gameplan never changed.

The players did have a chance, and did not execute for more than one reason. None of them are excusable - be it playcalling, or just plain bad fundamentals and execution. Did it ever occur that those play calls were that way because we had a relatively inexperienced QB that needed to get some completions under his belt? Does it make any sense to throw deep on a defensive team with that kind of speed. I'll take 5-10 yards every time if it's there.

With the previous coaching staff we wanted to pass more. Now, we want to pass beyond 10 yards every play whether the guy is open or not. Incredible.

[MeanMag]

So I guess his gameplan never changed.

Just want to add that after watching the MTSU game... No one can ever say this staff can't make halftime adjustments. Yes, we lost. But it was because the 1st half was an abortion. Our 1st half team killed our 2nd half team.

[UNT90]

With the previous coaching staff we wanted to pass more. Now, we want to pass beyond 10 yards every play whether the guy is open or not. Incredible.

I think the fear is that we have gone from a 3 yards and a cloud of dust running offense under Dickey to a 3 yards and a cloud of dust passing offense under Coach Dodge. It was either Qouner or Tasty that posted the stat that we are 4 from the bottom in yards per completion in D1 football. No one wants to throw deep every play, but it sure would be nice to successfully stretch the field every now and then. Maybe then we wouldn't see defenses that run blitz and press your receivers on just about every play.

If it wasn't a problem, why did Coach Dodge say the vertical passing game is one of the things that would be worked on during the off week?

Oh, and nothing we could have done would have kept us in that game with Bama. Don't be delusional, folks. We aren't there yet.

[MeanMag]

If it wasn't a problem, why did Coach Dodge say the vertical passing game is one of the things that would be worked on during the off week?

Not saying it's not a problem. What I am saying is that, by reading this board, it seems that the majority seem to think it's play calling only and not bad route running, bad decisions etc... Quick to blame the staff and not the players. I think this is common though, I would rather blame it on a 40+ yr old man than a 18-20something yr old, but I honestly don't believe that.

[LoveMG]

Not saying it's not a problem. What I am saying is that, by reading this board, it seems that the majority seem to think it's play calling only and not bad route running, bad decisions etc... Quick to blame the staff and not the players. I think this is common though, I would rather blame it on a 40+ yr old man than a 18-20something yr old, but I honestly don't believe that.

you can't blame 4-24 solely on bad 20 yr olds over 3 years. at some point upgrades in players or coaching will have to be addressed.

[TheTastyGreek]

It was either Qouner or Tasty that posted the stat that we are 4 from the bottom in yards per completion in D1 football.

It was me. And the exact figure was that we (before the Tech game, I haven't checked again since then) were a little under 6 and a half inches per reception ahead of Dickey's offense in New Mexico.

Now, I'm not sure exactly what you can compare 6 and a half inches to in order to fully appreciate that length... But even when it's a distance you can feel proud of, it's still not a very large span, in the grand scheme of life.

[UNT90]

It was me. And the exact figure was that we (before the Tech game, I haven't checked again since then) were a little under 6 and a half inches per reception ahead of Dickey's offense in New Mexico.

Now, I'm not sure exactly what you can compare 6 and a half inches to in order to fully appreciate that length... But even when it's a distance you can feel proud of, it's still not a very large span, in the grand scheme of life.

So, your saying we are one Johnson ahead of a Dickey?

[DallasGreen]

I think the fear is that we have gone from a 3 yards and a cloud of dust running offense under Dickey to a 3 yards and a cloud of dust passing offense under Coach Dodge. It was either Qouner or Tasty that posted the stat that we are 4 from the bottom in yards per completion in D1 football. No one wants to throw deep every play, but it sure would be nice to successfully stretch the field every now and then. Maybe then we wouldn't see defenses that run blitz and press your receivers on just about every play.

If it wasn't a problem, why did Coach Dodge say the vertical passing game is one of the things that would be worked on during the off week?

Oh, and nothing we could have done would have kept us in that game with Bama. Don't be delusional, folks. We aren't there yet.

Funny "that we are not there yet", but with less resources, less talent, less coaches, and a hostile, non-supportive community--WE WERE COMPETITIVE WITH HAYDEN FRY & CORKY NELSON. OUR 1AA TEAMS COMPETED BETTER WITH THE BCS THAN OUR D-1 TEAMS HAVE!!!!!!!!

[Guest JohnDenver]

It was me. And the exact figure was that we (before the Tech game, I haven't checked again since then) were a little under 6 and a half inches per reception ahead of Dickey's offense in New Mexico.

Now, I'm not sure exactly what you can compare 6 and a half inches to in order to fully appreciate that length... But even when it's a distance you can feel proud of, it's still not a very large span, in the grand scheme of life.

Dickey's offense in NM averages 76 yards rushing a game.

[UNT90]

Funny "that we are not there yet", but with less resources, less talent, less coaches, and a hostile, non-supportive community--WE WERE COMPETITIVE WITH HAYDEN FRY & CORKY NELSON. OUR 1AA TEAMS COMPETED BETTER WITH THE BCS THAN OUR D-1 TEAMS HAVE!!!!!!!!

Scream all you want, but the playing field has changed completely since those days. Thank you, Mr. BCS. The auto-qualifying BCS schools have all the money nowadays, thanks to this monarchial system that ensures the rich get richer and the poor stay in their proper place. The "BCS" schools have all the money needed to seek out talent anywhere in the USA and offer those kids schollies. When the talent is combined with solid coaching, you get the Foridas, Alabamas, Texases, and OUs of the college football world.

I would love for someone to do a comparison of 2009 BCS vs non BCS games to the 1989 "Major" conference vs. "small" conference games. My suspicion is that there are far less wins by non-BCA schools nowadays and the margin of victory by the BCS schools has greatly increased.

And yes, there are exceptions to every rule.

Edited October 4, 2009 by UNT90

[DallasGreen]

A true RV answer.

[UNT90]

A true RV answer.

Didnt know he coached or recruited for the football team.

[greenminer]

I would love for someone to do a comparison of 2009 BCS vs non BCS games to the 1989 "Major" conference vs. "small" conference games. My suspicion is that there are far less wins by non-BCA schools nowadays and the margin of victory by the BCS schools has greatly increased.

I've been under opposite impression. I wish I could afford the time to research this. I have been curious to compare various records/games during different eras: pre-scholly limit vs. post-scholly limit vs. BCS era.

I agree: in every era there are exceptions.