GDT: North Dakota v. Richmond

[UND-1]

2 minutes ago, Cratter said:

Or if they didn't have the 50 yard pass at the end to set up the field goal. 

Giving the other team 15 yards play really is the same whether it happens in the first quarter or the last. And whether a penalty or blown coverage makes no difference. What about the missed UND field goal or the 80 yard spider TD. Those equal or were worse than one play (und penalty) that gained them 15 yards. 

At that time of the game, the running into the punter penalty was devastating.  UND was in complete control.  Up 24-7 and had just scored.  Would have been able to possibly seal it with the a good drive.  

Time and flow of the game is key to this argument.

[Oxbow6]

Just now, UND-1 said:

At the time of the game that running into the punter penalty was devastating.  UND was in complete control.  Up 24-7 and had just scored.  Would have been able to possibly seal it with the a good drive.  

Time and flow of the game is key to this argument.

Exactly......7 point swing for sure. Possibly 10 or 14 depending what UND does with a short field.

[Cratter]

13 minutes ago, UND-1 said:

At that time of the game, the running into the punter penalty was devastating.  UND was in complete control.  Up 24-7 and had just scored.  Would have been able to possibly seal it with the a good drive.  

Time and flow of the game is key to this argument.

You key to the argument is UND could have easily regained time and flow after the penalty and had plenty of plays on offense and defense to take control of it but failed. 

Giving a team a first down (whether on third or fourth down) played a very small part in the 100s of plays ran.

They didn't score on that penalty. They scored on the numerous plays that drove the field after that penalty.

[UND-1]

1 minute ago, Cratter said:

You key to the argument is UND could have easily regained time and flow after the penalty and had plenty of plays on offense and defense to take control of it but failed. 

Giving a team a first down (whether on third or fourth down) played a very small part in the 100s of plays ran.

Are they good enough to overcome something as minor or major as that play?  Richmond too full advantage and UND never recovered.  

[Cratter]

 

Just now, UND-1 said:

Are they good enough to overcome something as minor or major as that play?  Richmond too full advantage and UND never recovered.  

If UND couldn't overcome Richmond having a first down at about the 35? 40?, they didn't deserve to win at home and Richmond was the better team.

[UND-1]

1 minute ago, Cratter said:

 

If UND couldn't overcome Richmond having a first down at about the 35? 40?, they didn't deserve to win at home and Richmond was the better team.

Did it seem like UND was the same after that play?  Maybe they didn't deserve to win then.   They never scored after Stony Brook blocked the punt for TD, either.  Just sayin.  

[iSpider]

11 hours ago, AJS said:

The only offensive play call of the night, given what was happening that didn't make sense was the reverse, other than that I thought he called a good game. Any offensive troubles tonight could be placed solely on the WRs. As a group they had by far their worst game of the season. Stanley, Toivanen and Wanzek couldn't catch anything.

Everything that happened tonight would have been negated if UND didn't have the worst special teams at the FCS level. It cost them their first game as well as their last. I'll never be able to wrap my head around why they brought pressure on the punt they had interference on.  I can live with a defensive break down, or a questionable offensive call, but what can't be accepted is what took place on that play. 

 

I thought your OC called a pretty good game, especially the flea-flicker. As to the reverse or end-around, no one knows what he or others in the press box saw on the field that led him to make that call (If indeed it was his call. Does your QB have authority to audible? Does the HC ever override the OC or make the call? IMO, without that knowledge, he shouldn't be second-guessed.  If you recall, UR lost 6 yards on the first play of the game on the same type of play. Most all year we had thrown a long pass on 1st down to try to stretch the field. It was the wrong call that we made, but I understand the logic. Things don't always go as planned, even when called by experts who are making such decisions.  

As to the blocked punt, I am certain that the UR coaches saw an opening in your punt protection that made them go for the block, either in prior punt protection in this game or in the film they reviewed. We have not attempted to block a punt all season regardless of where the score and time stood. If there is an opening in punt protection, though it is probably discernible by the typical fan, it is probably something simple that can be easily fixed. 

Incidentally, while I am obviously glad that we won, I feel for your loss. I know it must be disappointing to you, especially in view of your lead in the third quarter. That said, as I posted in another thread on this board, I was very impressed with the class, talent and energy of your team and your program. The game could have gone either way. After your first drive for a TD in the third quarterI was ready to throw the TV out the window.  

You have a very bright future and you have many playoff victories ahead of you far more significant this one loss. I doubt that it will be long before you are competitive with NDSU who, like it or not, has been the class of FCS for the last five years.  Good luck to you guys. You have the talent, coaching, and class to go far.  

[Cratter]

9 minutes ago, UND-1 said:

Did it seem like UND was the same after that play?  Maybe they didn't deserve to win then.   They never scored after Stony Brook blocked the punt for TD, either.  Just sayin.  

And that's the mental part I mentioned earlier. The team had the lead, got relaxed (which also helped Richmond pass through our line to block the punt) and let Richmond gain the momentum and score 20 points to UNDs 0 in a quarter and a half. Just sayin. The bigger blame is the coaches for letting the team relax and letting Richmond score 20 unanswered points in a short amount of time that took numerous plays. And the punt penalty was just a small microcosm of the entire picture during that entire time.

 

[AJS]

13 minutes ago, Cratter said:

You key to the argument is UND could have easily regained time and flow after the penalty and had plenty of plays on offense and defense to take control of it but failed. 

Giving a team a first down (whether on third or fourth down) played a very small part in the 100s of plays ran.

They didn't score on that penalty. They scored on the numerous plays that drove the field after that penalty.

The running into the punter was the most significant play of the game, in terms of momentum, and is the reason they lost. I agree that they could have made plays down the stretch that they didn't, that could have turned things around, but it didn't happen. None of those would have had to happen if 52 doesn't bull rush the punter for god knows what reason. 

[Cratter]

Just now, AJS said:

The running into the punter was the most significant play of the game, in terms of momentum, and is the reason they lost. 

Giving the other team a first down on a punt penalty gave Richmond momentum of having a first down with 65 yards to drive to score.

It was not the reason UND lost the game.

[Cratter]

Richmond was one yard short on the third down before the punt penalty...if Richmond gained one more yard on that play and got the first down...did that one yard give Richmond the win? And enough momentum?

The kicking penalty was 5 yards and Richmond had to go 77 yards to score. Even after that score UND still had a ten point lead. The inability of UND to regain momentum on offense or defense after that by not staying sharp cost and essentially coasting helped cost them the game.

[SIOUXFAN97]

2 hours ago, BigGame said:

The point of those types of plays a lot of the time is to make the defense defend the entire field.  We don't have a deep threat to stretch the field and it is next to impossible to run against a defense that is stacked up to stop it.  I don't like the call personally but I get it, and you don't get it if you think UND is good enough up front to just line it up and run it on a good defense that is selling out to stop the run.  The swing passes that Studs kept making bad throws on yesterday sort of do the same thing. 

at that point i think we only needed about ten yards to get into range for taubs to miss it wide right but regardless...up 17...first and ten..loud crowd....two te's, norberg in front of brady and run three times in a row and see what richmonds got...instead rudy took the easy way out and tried a SECOND trick play...run the ball and play stout d...that's what bubba said he would do. he didn't.

[UND-FB-FAN]

8 minutes ago, Cratter said:

Giving the other team a first down on a punt penalty gave Richmond momentum of having a first down with 65 yards to drive to score.

It was not the reason UND lost the game.

It didn't help any. 

The blocked punt was also a killer. 

Special Teams hurt. 

That missed field goal would've been nice to have, also.

[homer]

8 minutes ago, Cratter said:

Richmond was one yard short on the third down before the punt penalty...if Richmond gained one more yard on that play and got the first down...did that one yard give Richmond the win? And enough momentum?

The kicking penalty was 5 yards and Richmond had to go 77 yards to score. After that score UND still had a ten point lead.

Sitting behind Richnonds bench that play gave them life.  The long pass shortly after gave them energy and momentum.  I get what your saying but a three and out there would have absolutely crushed them.  Game of emotion

[SIOUXFAN97]

and i' guess after reading this thread i surprised that no one has pointed out that we should have let them score on first and goal with one minute left.... would you rather have to go 80 yards with one minute and 1 timeout to score a td or hope richmond misses a 1 yard field goal...

 

i know which one i would do

[Cratter]

8 minutes ago, homer said:

Sitting behind Richnonds bench that play gave them life.  The long pass shortly after gave them energy and momentum.  I get what your saying but a three and out there would have absolutely crushed them.  Game of emotion

Yes they gained momentum after they had none. 

UND couldn't gain momentum after they had none.

UND had momentum early in the game. Richmond later in the game. Richmond used that momentum to score more points than UND did when it had the momentum.

Richmond wins.

Point being it's easy to see that play of what gained momentum. But equal is what didn't gain momentum. So and so dropped a pass on a third down that would have given the team a first down and given UND momentum back (in the fourth)...There for one also has to say that receiver that dropped that pass "cost UND the game."

[Cratter]

2 minutes ago, SIOUXFAN97 said:

and i' guess after reading this thread i surprised that no one has pointed out that we should have let them score on first and goal with one minute left.... would you rather have to go 80 yards with one minute and 1 timeout to score a td or hope richmond misses a 1 yard field goal...

 

i know which one i would do

I think UND got out coached this game.

[SIOUXFAN97]

Just now, Cratter said:

I think UND got out coached this game.

i was yelling let them score...and i got a few quizzical looks

[Cratter]

2 minutes ago, SIOUXFAN97 said:

i was yelling let them score...and i got a few quizzical looks

Everyone is our section was saying the same thing. In 2016 it's pretty common knowledge nowadays that is the smarter play.

Unless it was you in lower 215 ;).

[UND-1]

Going to call out a partial section of fans: inside upper half of 203 would sit a good part of the game, even on some third downs.  

Some third downs they stood, yes, but other third downs there would be 6-7 rows and probably the first 10 seats ALL sitting.  Looked so stupid when the other 10,000 people were standing and yelling.

[BarnWinterSportsEngelstad]

2 minutes ago, Cratter said:

Richmond was one yard short on the third down before the punt penalty...if Richmond gained one more yard on that play and got the first down...did that one yard give Richmond the win? And enough momentum?

While their bench exploded, most likely not enough immediately( but gives them another chance to get on track), but the blocked punt mentally hurts us much much more. It takes a combination of events to lose after 24 - 7.  The pendulum swung immediately with the block, then momenten continued to build till last play of the game as Richmond lead for the first time with 0 seconds left.

[Cratter]

3 minutes ago, BarnWinterSportsEngelstad said:

While their bench exploded, most likely not enough immediately( but gives them another chance to get on track), but the blocked punt mentally hurts us much much more. It takes a combination of events to lose after 24 - 7.  The pendulum swung immediately with the block, then momenten continued to build till last play of the game as Richmond lead for the first time with 0 seconds left.

No doubt.

It's was part of a a momentum builder and they build more on the back of UND not being able to do anything to stop it. And they were able to use it to outscore UND than when they had momentum.

People saying it was the reason UND lost the game which I say .

[Cratter]

UND 3rd down conversions earlier 4-9. 

With three minutes left in the game commentators, mention UND was 1-6 on the last 7.

And after that missed 3rd down conversion that could have kept the drive alive ran the clock down and kicked a UND game winning field goal. They had to give Richmond the ball back and the rest is history.

[BarnWinterSportsEngelstad]

6 minutes ago, Cratter said:

UND 3rd down conversions earlier 4-9. 

With three minutes left in the game commentators, mention UND was 1-6 on the last 7.

Verses all the big plays Richmond had on 3rd down, our defense was close to stopping them a few times. Our inability to move the ball in the 4th quarter are also reasons to the 24 - 7 floop. There were many many plays and play calls that contributed to this melt down.

[tnt]

Everyone knows there are turning points that specifically don't cost you the game, but change the total complexion of the game. If UND, would have lost to BC in hockey last night, how many people would have said it was Gardner's penalty that cost us the game? They could have killed the penalties, yet it was a turning point that turned the whole tenor of the game.