Furman Citadel Game Thread

[AstroDin]

sorry, weird double post!

[The Jackal]

Wasn't perfect but a good road win.

The reason our D gave up some pass plays is because it was set up to stop the option/run. And we did. They didn't get anywhere running the ball and only scored 10 points.

The reason Huff didn't run this week was because he was told not to due to his injured elbow. Coaches felt we could beat ElCid without his run game and they were right.

Agree with Tim. They found their QB and I wouldn't be surprised if they beat a couple teams late in the season.

The in-game posts from all the malcontents cracks me up.

Good win. No GREAT win. Awesome

But yeah, we do have a concern keeping receivers covered. We do. Jackal sees it too. I get the “ we are playing the option” but if you say that you are disagreeing with our former players ( see below ). I had to use radio for a while 97.7. .

Again, our own players as radio guys like McMorris (former FU player on D) all said “we just keep giving up too many open receivers! “. This includes the past few weeks of wheel routes etc. To deny this is crazy. ETSU. Samford. Today we were saved bc the qb made the receiver jump and fall to catch the deep ball. Better qb will Hit Em in stride and those guys guys are gone to the house.

I posted some thoughts on the pass defense on the other thread.

Bottom line, though, is that I don't think a few chunk pass plays against an option offense where you surrender only 10 points is cause for alarm. That offense is designed to periodically make those downfield throws. They happen.

As a defense, we held the QB to 50% on completed passes. We took an option offense and held them to 107 yards rushing, almost 40 of which was on a scramble by the QB after spinning out of a sack (one of our very few missed tackles all game).

If you've got an option offense dropping back and throwing it nearly 30 times, you're in a good spot.

[gofurman]

Wasn't perfect but a good road win.

The reason our D gave up some pass plays is because it was set up to stop the option/run. And we did. They didn't get anywhere running the ball and only scored 10 points.

The reason Huff didn't run this week was because he was told not to due to his injured elbow. Coaches felt we could beat ElCid without his run game and they were right.

Agree with Tim. They found their QB and I wouldn't be surprised if they beat a couple teams late in the season.

The in-game posts from all the malcontents cracks me up.

Good win. No GREAT win. Awesome

But yeah, we do have a concern keeping receivers covered. We do. Jackal sees it too. I get the “ we are playing the option” but if you say that you are disagreeing with our former players ( see below ). I had to use radio for a while 97.7. .

Again, our own players as radio guys like McMorris (former FU player on D) all said “we just keep giving up too many open receivers! “. This includes the past few weeks of wheel routes etc. To deny this is crazy. ETSU. Samford. Today we were saved bc the qb made the receiver jump and fall to catch the deep ball. Better qb will Hit Em in stride and those guys guys are gone to the house.

I posted some thoughts on the pass defense on the other thread.

Bottom line, though, is that I don't think a few chunk pass plays against an option offense where you surrender only 10 points is cause for alarm. That offense is designed to periodically make those downfield throws. They happen.

As a defense, we held the QB to 50% on completed passes. We took an option offense and held them to 107 yards rushing, almost 40 of which was on a scramble by the QB after spinning out of a sack (one of our very few missed tackles all game).

If you've got an option offense dropping back and throwing it nearly 30 times, you're in a good spot.

Agree, , it is the prior weeks that worry me. Citadel is a different animal. A unique one. You have a point.. One thing, man the Cit OL SUCKETH. I mean putrid. Game is won on OL and DL if you can dominate. We crushed the Citadel OL.

We will know more with Western - if we leave receivers open for them it will get high scoring in a hurry and we don't want to get in a track meet. It's in our favor to be 30-20 vs 45-40. We beat them in the spring 35-7. We lost to them last year in the fall 43-42? Ugh. That's not our style.

We will learn a LOT this week. After Mercer killed Western, and I do mean KILLED them, we have to win. - Granted they had FIVE turnovers !! man.

My point really is this is no flexbone or whatnot. They will throw it without hesitation. They threw 50 times vs VMI (and that was no comeback, WCU won 38-17). Fifty in a game they led. So we will learn a lot this week - more so than v Citadel where we beat on their OL and had a lot of 3rd and 8 and a lot of late 4th quarter throws where we Knew they were gonna throw. Easy to defend that. Especially vs a qb in his first start EVER as a true freshman. Western will be more revealing.

Samford and Mercer KILLED western. Will we?

[gofurman]

I saw a comment somewhere that the Citadel gifted us two touchdowns… I know who said this
… you know that is an overreaction.

You have to give the coaches and players credit, they came out in the second half, and the defense turned it up a notch. Our defense's physicality forced those turnovers; our offense quickly punched those turnovers into points. It's what you're supposed to do.

Some of our fellow posters concerned about injuries are taking credit away from the play of Justin Miller. Miller's play in the last three games; 11 tackles, 2 forced fumbles, a fumble recovery, and two interceptions.

Who is Justin Miller? Do y'all mean JAYLEN Miller?

*And yes, IF you mean Jaylen Miller he has been playing well. !!

[Bootie]

sorry, weird double post!

Like old time

[gman84]

Wasn't perfect but a good road win.

The reason our D gave up some pass plays is because it was set up to stop the option/run. And we did. They didn't get anywhere running the ball and only scored 10 points.

The reason Huff didn't run this week was because he was told not to due to his injured elbow. Coaches felt we could beat ElCid without his run game and they were right.

Agree with Tim. They found their QB and I wouldn't be surprised if they beat a couple teams late in the season.

The in-game posts from all the malcontents cracks me up.

Good win. No GREAT win. Awesome

But yeah, we do have a concern keeping receivers covered. We do. Jackal sees it too. I get the “ we are playing the option” but if you say that you are disagreeing with our former players ( see below ). I had to use radio for a while 97.7. .

Again, our own players as radio guys like McMorris (former FU player on D) all said “we just keep giving up too many open receivers! “. This includes the past few weeks of wheel routes etc. To deny this is crazy. ETSU. Samford. Today we were saved bc the qb made the receiver jump and fall to catch the deep ball. Better qb will Hit Em in stride and those guys guys are gone to the house.

I posted some thoughts on the pass defense on the other thread.

Bottom line, though, is that I don't think a few chunk pass plays against an option offense where you surrender only 10 points is cause for alarm. That offense is designed to periodically make those downfield throws. They happen.

As a defense, we held the QB to 50% on completed passes. We took an option offense and held them to 107 yards rushing, almost 40 of which was on a scramble by the QB after spinning out of a sack (one of our very few missed tackles all game).

If you've got an option offense dropping back and throwing it nearly 30 times, you're in a good spot.

Agree, , it is the prior weeks that worry me. Citadel is a different animal. A unique one. You have a point.. One thing, man the Cit OL SUCKETH. I mean putrid. Game is won on OL and DL if you can dominate. We crushed the Citadel OL.

We will know more with Western - if we leave receivers open for them it will get high scoring in a hurry and we don't want to get in a track meet. It's in our favor to be 30-20 vs 45-40. We beat them in the spring 35-7. We lost to them last year in the fall 43-42? Ugh. That's not our style.

We will learn a LOT this week. After Mercer killed Western, and I do mean KILLED them, we have to win. - Granted they had FIVE turnovers !! man.

My point really is this is no flexbone or whatnot. They will throw it without hesitation. They threw 50 times vs VMI (and that was no comeback, WCU won 38-17). Fifty in a game they led. So we will learn a lot this week - more so than v Citadel where we beat on their OL and had a lot of 3rd and 8 and a lot of late 4th quarter throws where we Knew they were gonna throw. Easy to defend that. Especially vs a qb in his first start EVER as a true freshman. Western will be more revealing.

Samford and Mercer KILLED western. Will we?

Why do we have to kill Western? It would be nice... but so would a solid double digit win, with no injuries. Then move on to the next one. The objective is to get a W. If the playoff committee is as uninformed as we think they are, they are not comparing kills.

[The Jackal]

I think there's a segment of the fan base that is concerned with style points.

This isn't 1988 or 2005.

And, honestly, how would this current forum have reacted in 1985 when Furman lost to Newberry prior to playing for a national title?

How would this forum have reacted in 2004 when we squeaked out a 10-0 win at Elon?

What about after the 2005 Western Carolina debacle?

Were those not objectively "good" football teams? Maybe some of the best teams we've ever fielded? Did every game look sexy?

Why does every win have to look a certain way? What's wrong with just winning?

[Furman Sports Report]

http://www.furmansportsreport.com/2022/ ... tadel.html

[Furmanoid]

I think there's a segment of the fan base that is concerned with style points.

This isn't 1988 or 2005.

And, honestly, how would this current forum have reacted in 1985 when Furman lost to Newberry prior to playing for a national title?

How would this forum have reacted in 2004 when we squeaked out a 10-0 win at Elon?

What about after the 2005 Western Carolina debacle?

Were those not objectively "good" football teams? Maybe some of the best teams we've ever fielded? Did every game look sexy?

Why does every win have to look a certain way? What's wrong with just winning?

Winning is great. But it’s even better to have a really good team AND win.

I coach a HS girls tennis team. We are 12-2 and we’ve avenged one of our losses. We’re really good, right? No! We aren’t good at all. I watch who we play and how we beat them. We’re bad. But the girls are happy with the record and we’ll host our playoff blowout which is better than driving to TR or HHI to get blown out.

I want us to be actually good and maybe not get blown out first round someday. Does that make me a bad guy?

Same with FU. Getting past CSU and Citadel is great but those are pretty bad teams and we looked pretty lackluster against them. Why be satisfied with that? I don’t get it.

[Roundball]

I think there's a segment of the fan base that is concerned with style points.

This isn't 1988 or 2005.

And, honestly, how would this current forum have reacted in 1985 when Furman lost to Newberry prior to playing for a national title?

How would this forum have reacted in 2004 when we squeaked out a 10-0 win at Elon?

What about after the 2005 Western Carolina debacle?

Were those not objectively "good" football teams? Maybe some of the best teams we've ever fielded? Did every game look sexy?

Why does every win have to look a certain way? What's wrong with just winning?

Winning is great. But it’s even better to have a really good team AND win.

I coach a HS girls tennis team. We are 12-2 and we’ve avenged one of our losses. We’re really good, right? No! We aren’t good at all. I watch who we play and how we beat them. We’re bad. But the girls are happy with the record and we’ll host our playoff blowout which is better than driving to TR or HHI to get blown out.

I want us to be actually good and maybe not get blown out first round someday. Does that make me a bad guy?

Same with FU. Getting past CSU and Citadel is great but those are pretty bad teams and we looked pretty lackluster against them. Why be satisfied with that? I don’t get it.

Offering a friendly reminder that how good the Mets were all year. They lost already. Just win. That is all that matters.

[The Jackal]

I think there's a segment of the fan base that is concerned with style points.

This isn't 1988 or 2005.

And, honestly, how would this current forum have reacted in 1985 when Furman lost to Newberry prior to playing for a national title?

How would this forum have reacted in 2004 when we squeaked out a 10-0 win at Elon?

What about after the 2005 Western Carolina debacle?

Were those not objectively "good" football teams? Maybe some of the best teams we've ever fielded? Did every game look sexy?

Why does every win have to look a certain way? What's wrong with just winning?

Winning is great. But it’s even better to have a really good team AND win.

I coach a HS girls tennis team. We are 12-2 and we’ve avenged one of our losses. We’re really good, right? No! We aren’t good at all. I watch who we play and how we beat them. We’re bad. But the girls are happy with the record and we’ll host our playoff blowout which is better than driving to TR or HHI to get blown out.

I want us to be actually good and maybe not get blown out first round someday. Does that make me a bad guy?

Same with FU. Getting past CSU and Citadel is great but those are pretty bad teams and we looked pretty lackluster against them. Why be satisfied with that? I don’t get it.

I will say with utmost confidence everyone on this forum wants to see Furman do well. We'd all love to see a deep playoff run.

All I am asking for is context.

A football season is a long story played out over the entire fall. The team is never as good as it looks on its best day or the worst it looks on its worst day.

What I'm pointing out is that even the best teams in the history of this program didn't look lights out every week.

I think some Furman fans need to realize that the college football landscape has changed drastically over the last 20 years. It's not as easy to win as it used to be. That's not just a Furman problem, look across the entirety of college football. Winning is hard.

[Thorny]

I'm fine with our coaches and players not being satisfied but our fans saying the sky is falling because we are no beating a conference opponent by enough halfway through the second quarter...At some point it gets to be a bit much.

It wasn't a blow out so there are obvious things for the team to work on but a lot of said things are a lot more subtle than what most fans can point out.

However, there is nothing wrong with beating a conference opponent and arch rival on an away game by 11.

[cavedweller2]

How would this forum have reacted in 2004 when we squeaked out a 10-0 win at Elon?

What about after the 2005 Western Carolina debacle?

It weren't pretty. GK, BW and GSU 88 all went over the top.

[The Jackal]

How would this forum have reacted in 2004 when we squeaked out a 10-0 win at Elon?

What about after the 2005 Western Carolina debacle?

It weren't pretty. GK, BW and GSU 88 all went over the top.

That WCU game was about the only time I can remember a football game physically exhausting me. As a fan.

[Furmanoid]

I'm fine with our coaches and players not being satisfied but our fans saying the sky is falling because we are no beating a conference opponent by enough halfway through the second quarter...At some point it gets to be a bit much.

It wasn't a blow out so there are obvious things for the team to work on but a lot of said things are a lot more subtle than what most fans can point out.

However, there is nothing wrong with beating a conference opponent and arch rival on an away game by 11.

Gotcha. But really I only see sky is falling stuff from maybe 2 or 3 people, and one of them has now retired. Failing to be thrilled is not the same as saying the sky is falling.

I don’t think I’ve seen any body opine that we are regressing. But it isn’t completely clear that we’re improving. I think we are, but I wish we’d make it more obvious.