GDT: North Dakota v. Richmond

[UND-1]

4 minutes ago, Devils said:

Terrible loss, no doubt it was a very deflated feeling walking out of the Alerus.  Even saw some adults crying.  It was my first football game since being in college 10 years ago (I now live 4 hours away) and the atmosphere was great and I'll be back.  Richmond's receivers were the difference I thought - they made great plays and UND's dropped 3 or 4 very catchable balls on the last couple drives.  Definitely seemed as though UND got tired on defense as the game wore on...Richmond started to run off tackle on us and our pass rush suffered.  One thing that caught my eye was that UND virtually never substituted on defense and I think that caught up to them as Richmond basically was doing whatever they wanted in the 4th quarter.  Hopefully we can continue to build depth as the program moves forward.

UND plays nine defensive lineman.  But same DBs play all game.

[UND-1]

Was told by source for all the people wondering about how we ran into the punter and why we came after it...we didn't.  It was Punt Safe.  

Not Kostichs fault.

[fightingsioux4life]

5 minutes ago, UND-1 said:

Was told by source for all the people wondering about how we ran into the punter and why we came after it...we didn't.  It was Punt Safe.  

Not Kostichs fault.

I believe Mike Berg pointed that out on the radio.

[90siouxfan]

is there a video of the punt penalty

 

[geaux_sioux]

 

If Hunt would have tried to high point the ball it would have been an easy pick. The least he could have done is jumped into the WR and tried to swat the ball. He didn't contest the catch at all, went for an over the shoulder catch..... blows my mind.

[Irish]

Still smarting and frustrated - not as much by the loss as by the way we lost - I honestly expected more from the coaches.

What frustrates me about Rudolf is that during the season he would pound the rock against 9 in the box continually, but now the one time we were successful and needed to do that he went away from it at the worst time possible.  A really really crappy ending to a great season.  I hate to have this on my mind going into the off season.  

[sprig]

8 minutes ago, UND-1 said:

Was told by source for all the people wondering about how we ran into the punter and why we came after it...we didn't.  It was Punt Safe.  

Not Kostichs fault.

Makes more sense than an all out attempt to block the punt in that situation. Bonehead play by whoever did it, then?

[fightingsioux4life]

2 minutes ago, geaux_sioux said:

If Hunt would have tried to high point the ball it would have been an easy pick. The least he could have done is jumped into the WR and tried to swat the ball. He didn't contest the catch at all, went for an over the shoulder catch..... blows my mind.

Great.....now we have ESPN rubbing our noses in it. This is going to be a long, painful offseason.

PS: Trolls will get ZERO patience from me. Come on here and taunt us and you will be told off.

[HawkinNutts]

5 minutes ago, UND-1 said:

Was told by source: for all the people wondering about how we ran into the punter and why we came after it...we didn't.  It was Punt Safe.  

Not Kostichs fault.

I agree the point block was not on. Clearly punt safe.  It is the ST coach's job to have the team understand that situation.  Safe punt should mean doing everything to guarantee the O gets the ball back.  #epicfail. Kid should know better too! 

[UND-1]

4 minutes ago, HawkinNutts said:

I agree the point block was not on. Clearly punt safe.  It is the ST coach's job to have the team understand that situation.  Safe punt should mean doing everything to guarantee the O gets the ball back.  #epicfail. Kid should know better too! 

Freshman tried to make a play.  didn't work out.  Sucks, but what do you do.

[Cratter]

We got three points off them turning it over on a punt.

They got three points off a punt turnover.

Was far from determining the game.

[Oxbow6]

2 minutes ago, Cratter said:

We got three point off them turning it over on a punt.

They got three points off a punt turnover.

Was far from determining the game.

Roughing the punter penalty is essentially a turnover so make it 10 points for them.

[Cratter]

12 minutes ago, Oxbow6 said:

Roughing the punter penalty is essentially a turnover so make it 10 points for them.

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 quarter. And whether a penalty or blown coverage makes no difference. What about the missed UND field goal or the 80 yard spider TD pass. Those equal or were worse than one play (und penalty) that gained them 15 yards. They still had to drive 70 yards to score after that penalty!

[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.