FB: Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

Started by admin, August 16, 2005, 05:19:27 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

Pat Coleman

Quote from: emma17 on December 10, 2018, 12:43:21 PM

For those saying UWW is back- are they really Stagg Bowl back?
UWW had a great defense this year, they lose 8 seniors.
UWW's 2018 offense with a third year starting QB? Pretty good against weaker teams, struggled mightily against better teams like UWO, Bethel and UMHB. They lose the QB and a great center. The rest return, but who will QB in 2019? The first back up was Oles and the second was Demark, I don't recall either of them seeing any game time with the number 1 units.

I'm confident the D will regroup and be pretty good, not sure about dominant.
As for the O, we are now four years beyond a game (2014 Stagg) where UWW demonstrated its offense can compete with the best. We just witnessed two playoff games where the O was unwilling to "take a chance" (at least in the first half w UMHB). I get the conservative approach if the staff doesn't have confidence. I do have to wonder if an offense that needs to be so heavily insulated from risk is "Stagg Bowl Back".

On the podcast, I referred to this as "back to 2015 level" -- which is a little bit short of that but still "in the national conversation."
Publisher. Questions? Check our FAQ for D3f, D3h.
Quote from: old 40 on September 25, 2007, 08:23:57 PMLet's discuss (sports) in a positive way, sometimes kidding each other with no disrespect.

WW

Quote from: emma17 on December 10, 2018, 01:57:41 PM
Quote from: WW on December 10, 2018, 01:08:57 PM
Quote from: emma17 on December 10, 2018, 12:43:21 PM

For those saying UWW is back- are they really Stagg Bowl back?
UWW had a great defense this year, they lose 8 seniors.
UWW's 2018 offense with a third year starting QB? Pretty good against weaker teams, struggled mightily against better teams like UWO, Bethel and UMHB. They lose the QB and a great center. The rest return, but who will QB in 2019? The first back up was Oles and the second was Demark, I don't recall either of them seeing any game time with the number 1 units.

I'm confident the D will regroup and be pretty good, not sure about dominant.
As for the O, we are now four years beyond a game (2014 Stagg) where UWW demonstrated its offense can compete with the best. We just witnessed two playoff games where the O was unwilling to "take a chance" (at least in the first half w UMHB). I get the conservative approach if the staff doesn't have confidence. I do have to wonder if an offense that needs to be so heavily insulated from risk is "Stagg Bowl Back".

After seeing Wilber's late-game attempt to throw downfield I can see why they were unwilling to "take a chance". From what I saw both of those backups throw it downfield better than Cole and that's a dimension either could bring that they didn't have this year. Whoever it is just needs some reps to get comfortable. I think it was you who pointed out earlier this season their tendency to tuck it away and run instead of trusting the pocket. That's inexperience. They'll just need reps to get past that.

The other dynamic is you just never know in D3 who's coming in and who's coming back. What disgruntled D2 or D1 QB is looking at his future on the bench or with a loser and saying, ya know, playing for a D3 national championship just looks like a lot more fun than this? Shramski, for example, came from a D2 to play at UWL. There are kids out there with Wiscosnin ties. Conor Blount at Oregon State announced he'll be transferring... Might he consider joining old HS teammates and playing in front of his family and buddies his last couple years? No inside info there, but just saying there are kids like him out there every year. Lot of em land at D3s.

In defense of Cole's last attempt and other interception as well:

-I'm not sure if you could tell from home how windy it was. The last attempt was thrown into the wind while under duress, and it was more of a desperation heave/near Hail Mary throw at the end of a game getting out of hand. I don't consider this particular throw indicative of his ability at all as he has a strong arm.
I don't think this was an example of why the staff was unwilling to "take a chance". To clarify my point, I'm not saying "taking a chance" means throwing the ball deep. I think UWW attempted only 6 passes in the first half -with one sack. It seems to me "taking a chance" to the coaching staff means "throwing the ball at all, at any distance". I just don't think a team that wants to play for national championships can be so risk averse to throwing the ball (even slant routes, crossing routes, tight end routes, etc.).   

-His first interception of the second half bounced off the shoulder pads of a UWW receiver.

He ended up 13-18 with two drops. He was sacked twice, so I think he attempted roughly 13 passes in the second half and completed 10 with one drop/interception.

to your point about transfers. We were in an Austin bar Friday night wearing UWW gear. A couple gals approached to talk about Wisconsin as they used to live there. One of them told me about her brother is currently looking into transferring to UWW to play QB.

Yes, there appeared to be a significant-enough cross wind. Seemed like a tough day to throw, so I'm sure that entered into play-calling decisions.

I don't think UWW needs a transfer QB — just saying it's an attractive destination. I think they'd do fine with either of their backups stepping up, and they appear to have different skill sets. Both have impressive HS tapes. Oles looks like the better athlete and runner and throws fine, although I'm not sure you'd call him a strong arm. He's 5-11, for what that's worth. Demark is 6-2 and throws a pretty long ball. Not fast, but fast enough that you could run some RPO stuff. Oles will be a jr and Demark a sophomore although both are 2017 grads.

Just never know, though. Heck coming into this season I thought the two best returning QBs in the league would be Earl from Platteville and David from LaCrosse. Neither was ever on the 2018 roster.

emma17

#45002
I'll start by saying I don't believe UWW lost because of the punt return. In fact, I believe it was either a regretful (I mean regrettable) decision by the coaching staff to punt the ball in bounds or an unfortunately bad punt by the backup punter. Line drives punts to UMHB are dangerous. 

I was looking for a link to the post-game press conference and clicked on this highlight. 

At 26 seconds into this video, it's as blatant and I sure hope, inarguable as it gets.
https://www.ncaa.com/video/football/2018-12-08/diii-football-wisconsin-whitewater-mary-hardin-baylor-highlights

crufootball

UMHB has posted all the post game press conference for the 3 previous games on their YouTube channel but haven't so far for the UWW game. However a local radio outlet did at https://omny.fm/shows/unnecessary-roughness/playlists/podcast/embed?style=artwork.

WW

Quote from: emma17 on December 10, 2018, 05:25:44 PM
I'll start by saying I don't believe UWW lost because of the punt return. In fact, I believe it was either a regretful (I mean regrettable) decision by the coaching staff to punt the ball in bounds or an unfortunately bad punt by the backup punter. Line drives punts to UMHB are dangerous. 

I was looking for a link to the post-game press conference and clicked on this highlight. 

At 26 seconds into this video, it's as blatant and I sure hope, inarguable as it gets.
https://www.ncaa.com/video/football/2018-12-08/diii-football-wisconsin-whitewater-mary-hardin-baylor-highlights

I dunno man. By definition, there needs to be contact to the back, so the blocker's left hand is the only possible culprit. I don't see much.

If you mean 56, he got blocked in the back by his own guy.

bleedpurple

Quote from: emma17 on December 10, 2018, 12:43:21 PM

For those saying UWW is back- are they really Stagg Bowl back?
UWW had a great defense this year, they lose 8 seniors.
UWW's 2018 offense with a third year starting QB? Pretty good against weaker teams, struggled mightily against better teams like UWO, Bethel and UMHB. They lose the QB and a great center. The rest return, but who will QB in 2019? The first back up was Oles and the second was Demark, I don't recall either of them seeing any game time with the number 1 units.

I'm confident the D will regroup and be pretty good, not sure about dominant.
As for the O, we are now four years beyond a game (2014 Stagg) where UWW demonstrated its offense can compete with the best. We just witnessed two playoff games where the O was unwilling to "take a chance" (at least in the first half w UMHB). I get the conservative approach if the staff doesn't have confidence. I do have to wonder if an offense that needs to be so heavily insulated from risk is "Stagg Bowl Back".

So you disagree with the game plan. Reading your posts is like watching Gilligan's Island.

I watched this episode last night: The gang had a chance to get off the Island, Gilligan screwed up and blew their chance, Skipper hit him over the head with his hat, and they recovered quickly because the professor came up with a brilliant plan.  But in the end, they just missed their chance to get off the Island. Oh, and Mary Ann looked cute...

Just like every other episode...

HScoach

I find easily offended people rather offensive!

Statistics are like bikinis; what they reveal is interesting, what they hide is essential.

emma17

Quote from: WW on December 10, 2018, 05:52:22 PM
Quote from: emma17 on December 10, 2018, 05:25:44 PM
I'll start by saying I don't believe UWW lost because of the punt return. In fact, I believe it was either a regretful (I mean regrettable) decision by the coaching staff to punt the ball in bounds or an unfortunately bad punt by the backup punter. Line drives punts to UMHB are dangerous. 

I was looking for a link to the post-game press conference and clicked on this highlight. 

At 26 seconds into this video, it's as blatant and I sure hope, inarguable as it gets.
https://www.ncaa.com/video/football/2018-12-08/diii-football-wisconsin-whitewater-mary-hardin-baylor-highlights

I dunno man. By definition, there needs to be contact to the back, so the blocker's left hand is the only possible culprit. I don't see much.

If you mean 56, he got blocked in the back by his own guy.

I'm talking about #25 on UMHB on lead UWW coverage guy #30. Are you suggesting #30 fell forward on his own?

emma17

Quote from: bleedpurple on December 10, 2018, 06:33:15 PM
Quote from: emma17 on December 10, 2018, 12:43:21 PM

For those saying UWW is back- are they really Stagg Bowl back?
UWW had a great defense this year, they lose 8 seniors.
UWW's 2018 offense with a third year starting QB? Pretty good against weaker teams, struggled mightily against better teams like UWO, Bethel and UMHB. They lose the QB and a great center. The rest return, but who will QB in 2019? The first back up was Oles and the second was Demark, I don't recall either of them seeing any game time with the number 1 units.

I'm confident the D will regroup and be pretty good, not sure about dominant.
As for the O, we are now four years beyond a game (2014 Stagg) where UWW demonstrated its offense can compete with the best. We just witnessed two playoff games where the O was unwilling to "take a chance" (at least in the first half w UMHB). I get the conservative approach if the staff doesn't have confidence. I do have to wonder if an offense that needs to be so heavily insulated from risk is "Stagg Bowl Back".

So you disagree with the game plan. Reading your posts is like watching Gilligan's Island.

I watched this episode last night: The gang had a chance to get off the Island, Gilligan screwed up and blew their chance, Skipper hit him over the head with his hat, and they recovered quickly because the professor came up with a brilliant plan.  But in the end, they just missed their chance to get off the Island. Oh, and Mary Ann looked cute...

Just like every other episode...

I don't read between the lines so well so I'm not sure I get the Gilligan reference. But I loved the show and am definitely on the Maryanne side.

If I'm not clearly stating my point, you could always ask for clarification.

retagent

Quote from: emma17 on December 10, 2018, 09:57:38 PM
Quote from: WW on December 10, 2018, 05:52:22 PM
Quote from: emma17 on December 10, 2018, 05:25:44 PM
I'll start by saying I don't believe UWW lost because of the punt return. In fact, I believe it was either a regretful (I mean regrettable) decision by the coaching staff to punt the ball in bounds or an unfortunately bad punt by the backup punter. Line drives punts to UMHB are dangerous. 

I was looking for a link to the post-game press conference and clicked on this highlight. 

At 26 seconds into this video, it's as blatant and I sure hope, inarguable as it gets.
https://www.ncaa.com/video/football/2018-12-08/diii-football-wisconsin-whitewater-mary-hardin-baylor-highlights

I dunno man. By definition, there needs to be contact to the back, so the blocker's left hand is the only possible culprit. I don't see much.

If you mean 56, he got blocked in the back by his own guy.

I'm talking about #25 on UMHB on lead UWW coverage guy #30. Are you suggesting #30 fell forward on his own?

It was close, but to me it looks like he got him mainly from the side with contact on the shoulder. 50/50 at worst.

bleedpurple

Quote from: retagent on December 10, 2018, 10:35:26 PM
Quote from: emma17 on December 10, 2018, 09:57:38 PM
Quote from: WW on December 10, 2018, 05:52:22 PM
Quote from: emma17 on December 10, 2018, 05:25:44 PM
I'll start by saying I don't believe UWW lost because of the punt return. In fact, I believe it was either a regretful (I mean regrettable) decision by the coaching staff to punt the ball in bounds or an unfortunately bad punt by the backup punter. Line drives punts to UMHB are dangerous. 

I was looking for a link to the post-game press conference and clicked on this highlight. 

At 26 seconds into this video, it's as blatant and I sure hope, inarguable as it gets.
https://www.ncaa.com/video/football/2018-12-08/diii-football-wisconsin-whitewater-mary-hardin-baylor-highlights

I dunno man. By definition, there needs to be contact to the back, so the blocker's left hand is the only possible culprit. I don't see much.

If you mean 56, he got blocked in the back by his own guy.

I'm talking about #25 on UMHB on lead UWW coverage guy #30. Are you suggesting #30 fell forward on his own?

It was close, but to me it looks like he got him mainly from the side with contact on the shoulder. 50/50 at worst.

I will start with the same disclaimer Emma made. This punt return is not why UW-W lost the game. Having said that, I agree with Emma (and somewhat with WW) on this. To me it is all about the left hand. Emma's instinct was correct about 30 not falling on his own. The end zone view of the play I saw showed a left hand push square in the middle of his back. It happened to two guys on his play. It happened to Ponick (#2) as well. In both cases, blockers initiated contact from the side (as Ret said 50/50). in both cases, immediately upon engagement, the blocker pushed the player with the left hand in the middle of the back. It's clever if you think about it. The officials eyes will be focused on the shoulder to determine whether contact was "in the back" or side. Is it coached? I have no idea, but it was eye opening to see two instances in the same return.

One thing for sure. If i were Coach Kehres at Mount, I would bring it up as something to watch for in the pregame meeting with the referee.

retagent

Since I didn't see the view from a different direction, I'll defer to those who did. If there was the push, I agree it should be called. The question as to whether that was the reason UWW lost, to me, is a little more complicated. A play like that, taking place when it did, can do more than put 7 points on the board. It can affect subsequent play calling, and psychological outlook of the players, among other things. As a hockey fan, I see non-calls and weak calls all the time and it has a large impact on a game IMO.

WW

Quote from: bleedpurple on December 10, 2018, 11:13:43 PM
Quote from: retagent on December 10, 2018, 10:35:26 PM
Quote from: emma17 on December 10, 2018, 09:57:38 PM
Quote from: WW on December 10, 2018, 05:52:22 PM
Quote from: emma17 on December 10, 2018, 05:25:44 PM
I'll start by saying I don't believe UWW lost because of the punt return. In fact, I believe it was either a regretful (I mean regrettable) decision by the coaching staff to punt the ball in bounds or an unfortunately bad punt by the backup punter. Line drives punts to UMHB are dangerous. 

I was looking for a link to the post-game press conference and clicked on this highlight. 

At 26 seconds into this video, it's as blatant and I sure hope, inarguable as it gets.
https://www.ncaa.com/video/football/2018-12-08/diii-football-wisconsin-whitewater-mary-hardin-baylor-highlights

I dunno man. By definition, there needs to be contact to the back, so the blocker's left hand is the only possible culprit. I don't see much.

If you mean 56, he got blocked in the back by his own guy.

I'm talking about #25 on UMHB on lead UWW coverage guy #30. Are you suggesting #30 fell forward on his own?

It was close, but to me it looks like he got him mainly from the side with contact on the shoulder. 50/50 at worst.

I will start with the same disclaimer Emma made. This punt return is not why UW-W lost the game. Having said that, I agree with Emma (and somewhat with WW) on this. To me it is all about the left hand. Emma's instinct was correct about 30 not falling on his own. The end zone view of the play I saw showed a left hand push square in the middle of his back. It happened to two guys on his play. It happened to Ponick (#2) as well. In both cases, blockers initiated contact from the side (as Ret said 50/50). in both cases, immediately upon engagement, the blocker pushed the player with the left hand in the middle of the back. It's clever if you think about it. The officials eyes will be focused on the shoulder to determine whether contact was "in the back" or side. Is it coached? I have no idea, but it was eye opening to see two instances in the same return.

One thing for sure. If i were Coach Kehres at Mount, I would bring it up as something to watch for in the pregame meeting with the referee.

30 certainly was blocked, but sure looks to me like it was in the shoulder. The criteria for the penalty is contact in the back, above the waist, so it really doesn't even have to be a push. But there's just not much there in real time. Wish I had another angle to see the left hand from, and the umpire (although not in the shot) should've been almost ideally positioned to see left-hand contact to the back, presuming he was in the middle of the field, looking downfield. But if you gotta go all Zapruder film on this and it's still not clear, I think a no-call is the right call. Let em play.

Ponick's got even less of a case, IMO. Just looks like he got caught in traffic and unfortunately took one of his own guys out.

Is it coached? That's hard to believe, given that penalty can be such a field-position killer. Just seemstoo much risk for too infrequent a reward. But if it is, they playin chess while y'all playin checkers.

Cru Mike

Doesn't look like 25 puts his hand on 30's back. It look likes just before contact he pulls his arm in and hits him in the shoulder with his shoulder.
https://www.facebook.com/aaron.sims.758/videos/10214856123570316/UzpfSTcxMzQ2ODQxODoxMDE1Njc5MzkwMjQwMzQxOQ/

That's how it looks to me.

emma17

Quote from: bleedpurple on December 10, 2018, 11:13:43 PM
Quote from: retagent on December 10, 2018, 10:35:26 PM
Quote from: emma17 on December 10, 2018, 09:57:38 PM
Quote from: WW on December 10, 2018, 05:52:22 PM
Quote from: emma17 on December 10, 2018, 05:25:44 PM
I'll start by saying I don't believe UWW lost because of the punt return. In fact, I believe it was either a regretful (I mean regrettable) decision by the coaching staff to punt the ball in bounds or an unfortunately bad punt by the backup punter. Line drives punts to UMHB are dangerous. 

I was looking for a link to the post-game press conference and clicked on this highlight. 

At 26 seconds into this video, it's as blatant and I sure hope, inarguable as it gets.
https://www.ncaa.com/video/football/2018-12-08/diii-football-wisconsin-whitewater-mary-hardin-baylor-highlights

I dunno man. By definition, there needs to be contact to the back, so the blocker's left hand is the only possible culprit. I don't see much.

If you mean 56, he got blocked in the back by his own guy.

I'm talking about #25 on UMHB on lead UWW coverage guy #30. Are you suggesting #30 fell forward on his own?

It was close, but to me it looks like he got him mainly from the side with contact on the shoulder. 50/50 at worst.

I will start with the same disclaimer Emma made. This punt return is not why UW-W lost the game. Having said that, I agree with Emma (and somewhat with WW) on this. To me it is all about the left hand. Emma's instinct was correct about 30 not falling on his own. The end zone view of the play I saw showed a left hand push square in the middle of his back. It happened to two guys on his play. It happened to Ponick (#2) as well. In both cases, blockers initiated contact from the side (as Ret said 50/50). in both cases, immediately upon engagement, the blocker pushed the player with the left hand in the middle of the back. It's clever if you think about it. The officials eyes will be focused on the shoulder to determine whether contact was "in the back" or side. Is it coached? I have no idea, but it was eye opening to see two instances in the same return.

One thing for sure. If i were Coach Kehres at Mount, I would bring it up as something to watch for in the pregame meeting with the referee.

I'm no expert on physics or natural laws regarding bodies in motion staying in motion, yet, it seems to me that if #30 was hit on the side with the blockers helmet in front (not sure if this is part of the rule, it used to be what we coached though), then #30's momentum would have been directed sideways. 30 was contacted at the 17 yard line and landed at the 13 yard line-with his momentum moving mostly forward.

Either way, he's not making the tackle. I think UMHB must have had 14 guys on the field as it looks like there wasn't a single UWW player that was close to being in position to make the tackle.