gundy1124

I know, but I am not going to post 50 times hinting around it. Leadership? Go ahead and explain. Focus? Culture? (Drug busts I assume) We are waiting.

Just say it already instead of hinting around it in 50 posts. I can hardly take it any more.

I am very intrigued by this. Eastern almost has the exact opposite approach offensively compared to UND. They have a system and players prepared to run it, regardless of the QB. I don't think they change much offensively as it probably doesn't take 3 years to learn.

Brown couldn't cover my grandma in a phone booth. Anyone was an upgrade from him.

Agreed- And that spans 3 coordinators entrenched in the Dale Lennon 3-4 system.

3 years ago, we stuffed the run. Stubborn teams that stuck to the run made us look good. But any team that opened it up and spread us out torched us. I spoke with a former corner that you guys would know, he asked what our philosophy as corners was. I said "cover like hell cause we were left with zero help". Even cover 2 meant you could never trust the safety to be in a deep half and cover 3, don't plan on a safety in a deep middle 3rd. The only time a safety helped in 4 years, and only in certain situations, was against Martay Jenkins. He was in the league after college but we handled him in Omaha that year. Thanks K. Howe. Today, we face NFL caliber guys quite often, and we often leave our guys on an island. So the question is intriguing. Do we currently have the cover corners to run 'our' 3-4 system? Do those players even exist outside a few FBS guys. Harris was projected as an NFL guy and as mentioned he took his fair share of lumps. Is our pass defense as a team flawed? No pressure, poor coverage, bad combo this week. You gotta have one or the other to have a chance.

It was a decent hit, good for a QB. There should be an amendment to targeting- "If a QB lights you up, everyone laugh, no targeting."

Yes, sardines have comfort in numbers, apparently our D-line does too. Tank looked OK, but we are way under talented on the field this year. When rushing 4 I thought the SUU QB was going to take a nap back there. If I do my math correctly, that leaves 7 in coverage, so why would we see 3 receivers on the screen and 2 D-backs....?? Or other times 2 WRs and only 1 D-back. What a mess!! LB's- mostly inside guys can't stop the run, can't pressure the QB, that's a bad combo. Secondary- we might as well play man from a cover 3 position, cause our man technique sucks. Our guys are so under confident that they never find the ball, even when they have good position. We would be susceptible to slants but better than getting torched all game.

Just caught a little bit on TV, night and day play calling from what we see today.

Jacks muff a punt up 13, are you f-ing kidding me??

My hunch - Outperforming in practice means checking to the correct run play at a higher efficiency than the other guy. So by that definition I can see what you are saying.

You are wrong. All the guys on the team know who can game and who can't. It was true when I played, and it's true today.

Heck, Idaho St. 2 years back ran a concept in which the play itself had a handoff run option and a pass option in the same play. The O-line kinda run blocks but stays within the box. How's that for latitude?

Ya, I know how it's suppose to work.

If a run play is called and a QB can check to run A or run B that isn't going to cut it at this level. Is that really a check, 2 run plays, not really.

In our system, we have very little allowable wiggle room for QBs to audible to what they want, or to what many of us consider, "working plays" against 8-9 man fronts. I heard Zim pushed the envelope. Just watching the game being called with Zim in you could see it for yourself.

Insider Dossier -

Play calling, personnel use, Heidlbaugh in Montana, chewing out Zim for calling his own plays against Sac St (Zim was 11-20 for 179 yards and 2 TDs by the way) It's far more than play calling -

I am looking at the team in it's entirety. The whole point is we don't have the horses on defense at this time to be a successful team without being pretty darn efficient on offense. A lot of folks are asking why we haven't made adjustments offensively to at least go down swinging. (personnel use/play calling/QB decision) Announcers calling our away games are making these same observations. If you look up Top Big Sky Football Teams historically it has been defined as - winning teams with an average defense, along with a highly efficient offense.

Our offense should be based on scoring efficiency. I swear to God the current staff would take a 6 minute drive with no points over a 1 minute drive that ends in a touchdown. That's the way the game is called anyway.

Someone was pissy about my comment, privately. I was predicting at 14-0 we hit bottom, during the game. I still thought we'd win after watching 1 quarter of action. We were moving the ball and the Portland St. O-line was sketch at left tackle. If I wasn't clear, that was my positive outlook that from 14-0 we'd finish the year stronger.

We have a head coach in the NFL at 30 years old. A few others started in their 30's, I think Tomlin was 34-35 when he started at Pitt. I think we could have an OC in FCS football at 30-31 or whatever Danny is. Plus, he played the most critical position on offense. I would not be too worried about it.

Nailed it-

Was it amusing or was it disheartening listening to the home commentators, the one that played RB at Notre Dame wondering about 2 things? 1) where is the screen for UND 2) should find away to have Santiago and Brady on the field at the same time.

I felt at 14-0 we hit rock bottom on the year. We responded and it actually looked like we were having fun. Even 2 quality losses to finish the year would be OK, compared to getting embarrassed. 1-1 would be fantastic.