| Chicago Fanatics Message Board https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/ |
|
| Most disappointing 2-0 start in history https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=14469 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | My_name_1s_MUD [ Sat Sep 08, 2007 8:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Most disappointing 2-0 start in history |
I didn't get to watch the NU game today because it was the first game for my 5 year old's soccer team (and I'm the jerk who got conned into coaching). So I had Dave Eanet from 720 AM giving me the play-by-play. I told y'all last week that the 27-0 shut out was the most deceiving shut out ever. I'm told from my Buddy with Direct TV (and thus the BTN) that both the O-line and D-line were dominated by their Nevada counterparts. Nevada's new QB ran and passed at will against our Swiss Cheese defense. Our O put some points on the board even after our RB star Tyrell Sutton when out with an injury. I'm generally pleased with what our team put together on offense. They really pulled it together to get the victory. But our Defense sucks. Sucks sucks sucks. I hesitate to think what the scores will be when we play our conference. Fortunately we have the fluffy cushiony soft schedule to help us. Am I out of my mind to think that we have a chance against Meeeechigan? Finally, Dr. Ken... I think the Illini beat us this year. I didn't think so before this game. Our defense looked that bad. Our QB has a great head and a decent arm, but our big o-line was a wet paper towel. Blitz at your own peril, though... slant routes and slot receivers abound. NSJ. I'm flying solo to the next home game. Let me know if your up for watchin' the Duke game and then a quick beer. |
|
| Author: | My_name_1s_MUD [ Sat Sep 08, 2007 8:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Props to Dave Eanet... he's the best college sports radio play-by-play man ever. |
|
| Author: | Brick [ Sat Sep 08, 2007 9:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
A win is a win. The first goal in any season should be to get 6 wins and be bowl eligible so you get an extra month of practice and an extra game. While NW may not have looked like Big Ten championship quality it is never a bad thing to start 2-0. |
|
| Author: | Dr. Kenneth Noisewater [ Mon Sep 10, 2007 1:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Most disappointing 2-0 start in history |
My_name_1s_MUD wrote: Finally, Dr. Ken... I think the Illini beat us this year. I didn't think so before this game. Our defense looked that bad.
Maybe you missed the most unimpressive 21-0 victory in the history of football on Saturday, then. The Illini look like a squad plagued with all the same problems they had last year to this point. 1. Questions in the passing game - Juice looked worse than McGee did the week before against worse competition. 2. Turnovers cost them in week 1. Wasn't really a factor on Saturday. 3. Special teams - I still don't think they have their punting figured out but at least the rugby kick hasn't made an appearance yet. 4. The only bright spots (this year and last) - the running game looked good on Saturday, Mendenhall can be a beast when he hangs onto the ball, but see if they can do it when matched up physically with a more comparable opponent than WIU. The defense has been impressive so far. Shutout against WIU (solid) but they only gave up about 20 points to Missou who I think has a talented offensive club. All in all, it looks like the same team to me so far. However, there have been glimpses. A better gauge will be what happens this weekend. They should win the game by 14-20 if they are any kind of decent team. Early line is Illinois (-12.5). |
|
| Author: | Brick [ Mon Sep 10, 2007 1:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The Illinois-Indiana game will be a game that is make or break for both teams. They have both shown potential but also have had some struggles. I like the Illini in the game but I still don't know if Juice Williams is the answer. The backup against Missouri looked pretty good. It is hard to make a judgment when playing a team like Western Illinois. There are teams that play down to the level of competition(Purdue did last year) and then there are teams that seem to be able to dominate a clearly inferior opponent(Purdue this year). When the Big Ten season starts that doesn't matter as much as every team presents at least some challenges. I watched a good portion of both the Illini game and the Indiana game on Saturday and I am more impressed by the Illini. I think that McGee might end up being the right answer as he is a better quarterback(not athlete) but the Illini seemed to control the game. The Hoosiers were handed like 6 turnovers and the game was still in doubt in the 4th quarter. The Illinois-Indiana game in 2 weeks will be very telling as to the direction of the two programs. The winner of that game will go to a bowl. They are two programs that think they are on the rise, even though I personally think that Illinois is the only team actually on the rise. |
|
| Author: | Dr. Kenneth Noisewater [ Mon Sep 10, 2007 1:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I agree Illinois controlled the game. But I would have like to have seen improvements in the passing game. Juice (12-24, 123, 0 TD, 1 INT) was unimpressive. Illinois can run the ball. The QB does not need to do much. I would say be accurate with the short throws when you need to convert a 3rd down and don't turn the ball over. Juice has not proven that he can be that guy. I think McGee could but he will never be given the job over Williams without injury. Juice is too big-time of a recruit to be benched. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's how I see it. I don't think Zook would do it. Illinois was a better team than many people realize last year. Just looking at the record, you'd say, "they sucked". But they were more than "in" many of those losses. They controlled a few of those games but gave them away through poor special teams, dropped passes, and turnovers. I'm not saying they would have been 10-2, but they should have been 5-7 (3-5) and maybe a game or two better than that. I am not convinced they have fixed any of these problems. |
|
| Author: | sportsfan [ Mon Sep 10, 2007 1:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Most disappointing 2-0 start in history |
My_name_1s_MUD wrote: I didn't get to watch the NU game today because it was the first game for my 5 year old's soccer team (and I'm the jerk who got conned into coaching). So I had Dave Eanet from 720 AM giving me the play-by-play.
I told y'all last week that the 27-0 shut out was the most deceiving shut out ever. I'm told from my Buddy with Direct TV (and thus the BTN) that both the O-line and D-line were dominated by their Nevada counterparts. Nevada's new QB ran and passed at will against our Swiss Cheese defense. Our O put some points on the board even after our RB star Tyrell Sutton when out with an injury. I'm generally pleased with what our team put together on offense. They really pulled it together to get the victory. But our Defense sucks. Sucks sucks sucks. I hesitate to think what the scores will be when we play our conference. Fortunately we have the fluffy cushiony soft schedule to help us. Am I out of my mind to think that we have a chance against Meeeechigan? Finally, Dr. Ken... I think the Illini beat us this year. I didn't think so before this game. Our defense looked that bad. Our QB has a great head and a decent arm, but our big o-line was a wet paper towel. Blitz at your own peril, though... slant routes and slot receivers abound. NSJ. I'm flying solo to the next home game. Let me know if your up for watchin' the Duke game and then a quick beer. The defense sucked, but Bacher is a playmaker. I enjoy the entertainment aspect of sports and that game put a smile on my face. We got a tailgate going @ 5pm. What time will you be getting there? |
|
| Author: | Hawkeye Vince [ Mon Sep 10, 2007 1:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Most disappointing 2-0 start in history |
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote: All in all, it looks like the same team to me so far. However, there have been glimpses. A better gauge will be what happens this weekend. They should win the game by 14-20 if they are any kind of decent team.
Early line is Illinois (-12.5). If Illinois struggles with Syracuse, it's time to circle the wagons and hide when it comes to Big Ten play. Not sure if anyone caught the throttling at Kinnick this weekend, but Syracuse had 1 yard of total offense at halftime, ended up with just north of 100 for the game. |
|
| Author: | Dr. Kenneth Noisewater [ Mon Sep 10, 2007 1:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Yes, Syracuse looks bad. Real bad. But, Illinois is still a young team and it is a road game. Syracuse was bad last year and beat Illinois in Champaign. Illinois is better than that team and Syracuse looks worse. If they win by 15+, I'd be satisfied. If not...where's the "covering eyes" emoticon? |
|
| Author: | Hawkeye Vince [ Mon Sep 10, 2007 1:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote: Yes, Syracuse looks bad. Real bad.
But, Illinois is still a young team and it is a road game. Syracuse was bad last year and beat Illinois in Champaign. Illinois is better than that team and Syracuse looks worse. If they win by 15+, I'd be satisfied. If not...where's the "covering eyes" emoticon? I think Iowa's defense is much better than I expected coming into the season. I expected the line to raise havoc but the backers seem to be quicker and corners learned how to cover. We'll see what happens when they start their typical ten yard cushions soon. Syracuse cannot run the ball to save their lives. An Orange fan made the comment to me that the line was young and hasn't gelled yet. They ran for 8 yards against Washington and I believe 24 against Iowa. They tried to stack the box on Iowa and gave up almost 300 through the air. |
|
| Author: | Peter Puck [ Thu Sep 13, 2007 4:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote: But, Illinois is still a young team and it is a road game.
Is the D really that "young" at this point?. Even on Offense isn't the problem that they are "young" at certain key spots, like QB? (Mendenhall is a Jr. at this point and Benn is not a problem).... |
|
| Author: | Dr. Kenneth Noisewater [ Fri Sep 14, 2007 2:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Fair enough. I'd agree. They have youth at key spots - both corners are Sophs and QB and WR as you mentioned. Now is the time to prove that they are no longer a young team. We'll see if they step up. |
|
| Author: | W_Z [ Fri Sep 14, 2007 4:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
My_name_1s_MUD wrote: But our Defense sucks. Sucks sucks sucks. I hesitate to think what the scores will be when we play our conference. Fortunately we have the fluffy cushiony soft schedule to help us. when hasn't the defense sucked? even when they had basanez and had a pretty fun offense, they couldn't really stop anybody from what i recall. |
|
| Author: | Darren - Tinley Park [ Fri Sep 14, 2007 4:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
W_Z wrote: My_name_1s_MUD wrote: But our Defense sucks. Sucks sucks sucks. I hesitate to think what the scores will be when we play our conference. Fortunately we have the fluffy cushiony soft schedule to help us. when hasn't the defense sucked? even when they had basanez and had a pretty fun offense, they couldn't really stop anybody from what i recall. Should not be the case when your head coach has a defensive background. |
|
| Author: | My_name_1s_MUD [ Sat Sep 15, 2007 12:32 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: Quote: But our Defense sucks. Sucks sucks sucks. I hesitate to think what the scores will be when we play our conference. Fortunately we have the fluffy cushiony soft schedule to help us. when hasn't the defense sucked? even when they had basanez and had a pretty fun offense, they couldn't really stop anybody from what i recall. 95-96 the defense didn't suck. Wasn't great, but we did have a Dick Butkus Defensive Player of the Year award... twice... by the same player... Pat Fitgerald. |
|
| Author: | Hawkeye Vince [ Sat Sep 15, 2007 6:36 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
My_name_1s_MUD wrote: Quote: Quote: But our Defense sucks. Sucks sucks sucks. I hesitate to think what the scores will be when we play our conference. Fortunately we have the fluffy cushiony soft schedule to help us. when hasn't the defense sucked? even when they had basanez and had a pretty fun offense, they couldn't really stop anybody from what i recall. 95-96 the defense didn't suck. Wasn't great, but we did have a Dick Butkus Defensive Player of the Year award... twice... by the same player... Pat Fitgerald. 95-96 led the nation in scoring defense. |
|
| Author: | good dolphin [ Sat Sep 15, 2007 10:44 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
95-96? You guys might as well be referring to the Parsaghien era. |
|
| Author: | Dr. Kenneth Noisewater [ Sat Sep 15, 2007 8:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote: Illinois is better than that team and Syracuse looks worse. If they win by 15+, I'd be satisfied. If not...where's the "covering eyes" emoticon?
I'm satisfied even though I had to listen to their first legit win in a while on the radio. Screw You ESPNU!! |
|
| Author: | Hawkeye Vince [ Sat Sep 15, 2007 10:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
What was the story from Evanston? I didn't see the game - just the final. Statistically, they should have won by 20. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|