San Diego

[VU2624]

The game was tight in the first half because of the two interceptions. While the coach and fans lament the missed opportunity with the "dropped" pass and the overthrow to the TE early in the game, San Diego suffered two picks and just kept coming. I don't buy the two missed offensive plays put us in a bad spot theory.  San Diego was never stopped other than the INTs.  The ground game not doing anything killed the offense along with what I saw as a pretty poor game by both the QBs and WRs. As a former WR, it appeared to me that the receivers were running poor routes, couldn't get off the line, couldn't get separation, missed blocks and dropped a couple. They're young but there has to be better play from this group. Even on some completions it appeared that the routes were off since there were multiple WRs in the same area which is clearly not the design. There were some missed throws and missed chances to throw as well as too much pressure given up by the OL.

A connection who records the plays mentioned that Valpo ran about 50 plays offensively and SD ran much closer to 100. It is really tough to win a game like that absent the Jim Kelly led Bills K gun attack.

This was a team that Valpo had beaten last season until some mind boggling stupid defensive playcalling at the end of the game allowed SD to score. I agree with those who say that last year's Valpo team would likely have beaten this year's San Diego team however it is a little disconcerting that it was the defense who suffered as well considering that's the side of the ball where the experience is.

As an aside, I really didn't get kicking the FG at the end. The team finally gets down near the goalline and we run what was almost assuredly a trick play...looked like Catrine was supposed to throw to Clarke but SD covered him and then kick the FG. Did getting points really matter at that point or would it have maybe been nice to take two shots at the endzone and potentially score a TD. Made no sense to me at all.

[vumsb]

The game was tight in the first half because of the two interceptions. While the coach and fans lament the missed opportunity with the "dropped" pass and the overthrow to the TE early in the game, San Diego suffered two picks and just kept coming. I don't buy the two missed offensive plays put us in a bad spot theory.  San Diego was never stopped other than the INTs.  The ground game not doing anything killed the offense along with what I saw as a pretty poor game by both the QBs and WRs. As a former WR, it appeared to me that the receivers were running poor routes, couldn't get off the line, couldn't get separation, missed blocks and dropped a couple. They're young but there has to be better play from this group. Even on some completions it appeared that the routes were off since there were multiple WRs in the same area which is clearly not the design. There were some missed throws and missed chances to throw as well as too much pressure given up by the OL.

A connection who records the plays mentioned that Valpo ran about 50 plays offensively and SD ran much closer to 100. It is really tough to win a game like that absent the Jim Kelly led Bills K gun attack.

This was a team that Valpo had beaten last season until some mind boggling stupid defensive playcalling at the end of the game allowed SD to score. I agree with those who say that last year's Valpo team would likely have beaten this year's San Diego team however it is a little disconcerting that it was the defense who suffered as well considering that's the side of the ball where the experience is.

As an aside, I really didn't get kicking the FG at the end. The team finally gets down near the goalline and we run what was almost assuredly a trick play...looked like Catrine was supposed to throw to Clarke but SD covered him and then kick the FG. Did getting points really matter at that point or would it have maybe been nice to take two shots at the endzone and potentially score a TD. Made no sense to me at all.

THANK YOU! I agree with you 100%. The final play calling, the personnel on the field, and the decision to kick a field goal left us all shaking our heads. It was mind-boggling not only to me but to everyone sitting around us.

I understand that our team is young, but the constant shuttling in and out of freshman, just to gain them experience, was ridiculous in a game that really meant something.  With all the rotation of the younger players in the game, there seems to be no continuity or flow with the experienced and returning players. There seems to be more concern for getting the freshmen on the field to gain experience for the future, then staying with more seasoned players that can get the job done this year. I can understand doing it in the first three games but not in our first conference game. I am concerned that this is being viewed as a throwaway year because we have so many freshmen. The returning players deserve better than that!

[VULB#62]

As an aside, I really didn't get kicking the FG at the end. The team finally gets down near the goalline and we run what was almost assuredly a trick play...looked like Catrine was supposed to throw to Clarke but SD covered him and then kick the FG. Did getting points really matter at that point or would it have maybe been nice to take two shots at the endzone and potentially score a TD. Made no sense to me at all.

Wondered about that as well - especially the tricky play on 3rd down.  Inside the 8 with 4 downs to get a TD.  If there was a spot in the game where we needed to make a statement, it was there. After Choudhry gained 2 on a rush and Clarke hit Choudhry for a 2 yard completion, the trick play lost 3 yards yards and Frank never had a chance to even get rid of the ball.  Had we used a normal goal line play and gained 3 we would have had 4th and 3 instead of 4th and 7.  At that point we would see what our OL was made of.  But, though now 7 yards out, I, too, would have still tried to score.  38-3 or 38-6, eh, about the same.  38-10 not so much.  Comes down to the trick play IMO - bad call.  Should have just played football.

[vumsb]

As an aside, I really didn't get kicking the FG at the end. The team finally gets down near the goalline and we run what was almost assuredly a trick play...looked like Catrine was supposed to throw to Clarke but SD covered him and then kick the FG. Did getting points really matter at that point or would it have maybe been nice to take two shots at the endzone and potentially score a TD. Made no sense to me at all.

Wondered about that as well - especially the tricky play on 3rd down.  Inside the 8 with 4 downs to get a TD.  If there was a spot in the game where we needed to make a statement, it was there. After Choudhry gained 2 on a rush and Clarke hit Choudhry for a 2 yard completion, the trick play lost 3 yards yards and Frank never had a chance to even get rid of the ball.  Had we used a normal goal line play and gained 3 we would have had 4th and 3 instead of 4th and 7.  At that point we would see what our OL was made of.  But, though now 7 yards out, I, too, would have still tried to score.  38-3 or 38-6, eh, about the same.  38-10 not so much.  Comes down to the trick play IMO - bad call.  Should have just played football.

To my point, aside from the ridiculous trick play call, why, in that critical series inside the 8,  aren't we going with our 3 returning RBs from last year and running the football with them? 4 times if necessary. Passing the ball on a trick play from the 3 is embarrassing.

[usc4valpo]

The rushing stats were not exactly stellar for Valpo in that game dude. But they should tried to score and get the experince rather than wimp out for the FG.

Also, I think the best players need to play, experienced or not experienced.

[dime life]

Thank you 2626 AND UMSB.

You are spot on! The films do not lie and I cannot believe some of the things going on in terms of personnel decisions ...a few points to ponder:

1. the number of packages we put in and subbing patterns will never allow for any type momentum (mostly O but I do see some kids on D getting torched). I cannot help but notice that the teams defending us sub out, NEVER. They could care less who is in our packages.

2. Can we now say it? The freshman experiment is OVER. In the first few games, fine, if you think that makes sense, but now, done. It cost us a league game. Glad you recruited them (mainly from small 2A, 3A or private schools) coaches, but your plan is in disarray.  They seem lost and you cannot blame them. I see MANY of OL and WR's sitting on the bench (I do not count cof game) were at the 1 spot on depth chart coming out of the spring game. Many of whom played vs SD last season also.

3. the OL has freshman playing and when you see who they are up against on the opposing DLine? Size, speed experience? No wonder 3/4 of our QB's have been injured and we have NO running game.

4. Our #1 WR's, according to the Trib article posted (Morgan, Shea, Catrine, Foley) have not been out there as a unit at all. I see mainly freshman at WR and every week it's obvious that they run some poor routes, cannot block downfield and most importantly, cannot get off press coverage (all echoed by the HC in his post game interviews). These 3 issues cause the delay in QB release and penalties. Again, I know it is a tough spot for a freshman, so I understand, but these are glaring concerns. You have to be mentally tough too. I see a few of these players in shock or tears after the game.

5. the D? And the sidelines..."no swag, no mojo" players not holding other players accountable and motivating them?

6. We don't need to work in 4 RB's...Bastin gets the start and plays until HE says he is tired. All the teams that run through and over us have 1 featured back and 1 person to replace him. How can any of our RB's get going when they are subbed in and out constantly?

The body language of many of the returning players on the bench was not good at all as the game progressed, same as the Sacred Heart game.

We have the talent to play so much better. Things cannot get worse, so make the changes and get the right players ready for Davidson. 

       

         

[Vinny]

I made it out to campus this weekend. What beautiful weather for Homecoming! Had a few observations/thoughts:

1. The campus, overall, looks gorgeous. The Chapel addition is outstanding, the Welcome Center is beautiful, landscaping was well kept, etc. That side of campus is very attractive, however...

2. Athletics is more or less the run down, crappy house on the block. Very dull and uninviting. The atmosphere at Brown Field wasn't bad. A number of organizations set up tents between the ARC and the Fitness Center, but the venue itself is dingy. How there aren't bathrooms out there is still beyond me with five sports playing there. I didn't make it inside the tent near the endzone but it looked like all were having a good time. It's a shame tailgating isn't allowed at every home game. That's so much of what college football is about!

3. The game was disappointing, but that's the norm. We looked to be in it for the first half and then got trampled in the second. Offense was lousy after our starting QB got hurt.

4. I don't know if anyone else finds this funny/weird, but I walked through the ARC and noticed that one of the racketball courts is apparently an office?? There was a desk, chairs, and a bookcase set up like a professor or a staff member works out of it during the week. How can anybody possibly get any work done with racketball going on next door? Is athletics and the phys ed department that cramped for space? It seems insulting to have someone work in a racketball court.

5. My wife and I ventured downtown - how nice! We grabbed dinner at Lincoln and Main and while it wasn't cheap the food was delicious. Downtown Valparaiso has really developed into a destination.

[vumsb]

Thank you 2626 AND UMSB.

You are spot on! The films do not lie and I cannot believe some of the things going on in terms of personnel decisions ...a few points to ponder:

1. the number of packages we put in and subbing patterns will never allow for any type momentum (mostly O but I do see some kids on D getting torched). I cannot help but notice that the teams defending us sub out, NEVER. They could care less who is in our packages.

2. Can we now say it? The freshman experiment is OVER. In the first few games, fine, if you think that makes sense, but now, done. It cost us a league game. Glad you recruited them (mainly from small 2A, 3A or private schools) coaches, but your plan is in disarray.  They seem lost and you cannot blame them. I see MANY of OL and WR's sitting on the bench (I do not count cof game) were at the 1 spot on depth chart coming out of the spring game. Many of whom played vs SD last season also.

3. the OL has freshman playing and when you see who they are up against on the opposing DLine? Size, speed experience? No wonder 3/4 of our QB's have been injured and we have NO running game.

4. Our #1 WR's, according to the Trib article posted (Morgan, Shea, Catrine, Foley) have not been out there as a unit at all. I see mainly freshman at WR and every week it's obvious that they run some poor routes, cannot block downfield and most importantly, cannot get off press coverage (all echoed by the HC in his post game interviews). These 3 issues cause the delay in QB release and penalties. Again, I know it is a tough spot for a freshman, so I understand, but these are glaring concerns. You have to be mentally tough too. I see a few of these players in shock or tears after the game.

5. the D? And the sidelines..."no swag, no mojo" players not holding other players accountable and motivating them?

6. We don't need to work in 4 RB's...Bastin gets the start and plays until HE says he is tired. All the teams that run through and over us have 1 featured back and 1 person to replace him. How can any of our RB's get going when they are subbed in and out constantly?

The body language of many of the returning players on the bench was not good at all as the game progressed, same as the Sacred Heart game.

We have the talent to play so much better. Things cannot get worse, so make the changes and get the right players ready for Davidson. 

       

         

Bravo. I agree 100% with everything you said. Every point. The subbing patterns that do not allow momentum are killing us. Running freshman in at the wide receiver and running back spots continuously ahead of capable experienced players is not working. Did Shea or Foley even get in the game Saturday? I didn't see it if they did.

The 3 returning running backs from last year that we rotated are all back but we feel the need to now rotate 4 in. And you're right, nobody can get any kind of rhythm at RB. Coming in to the game Bastin was, and still is, the leading rusher and has by far the fewest attempts of the 4 backs. I just looked up that he only had 3 carries on Saturday, and the most carries any back got was 5.
And until we can get the returning and experienced OL heathy and back out on the field together, along with some sort of a passing threat, the running game will continuously be challenged.

I just watched Cecchini's press conference. Not holding much hope for change at Davidson.

[usc4valpo]

dime life,

Valpo has alot of talented freshman on the team with serious potential, very likely more so than the upperclassmen. If you want to keep these 50 guys at Valpo and rake in $2.2M per year in tuition, you need to give them an opportunity. Green things grow. Also, subs keep the players fresh.

At a higher level, USC is in a similar situation and they have a decent team this year but not playoff ready. But they have some very talented freshmen getting shuffled in and out of games - this will improve the team as the season goes on and they should be a national force next year.

I disagree that the game was lost by the shuffling of players - when you lose 38-6, you got beat by a better team. No excuses regarding ineffective coaching decisions, the Crusaders got blown out.

On the other hand, the Davidson game is a must win. Both teams are at the bottom of the Sagarin poll, and nothing is more embarrassing than a ranking of 253. The best players to give you the opportunity to win (freshman or senior, I don't care) need to get the most reps.

[VU2624]

I had forgotten about the play 'em to keep them in school angle. Might be a factor. The RB situation is exacerbated by BHall's early injury and he didn't have any room on Saturday at all. He's a guy, like most running backs, that's a wear 'em down guy.

[VULB#62]

This is going to be a full season process and the objective is get better every game and be a better team at the conclusion of the season. FloridaFootball reminds us of the loss of 25 seniors from last year.  It is both fortunate and unfortunate that we have so many good PFL teams (SD, Dayton, Drake in the first 4 games).  At the beginning of the season consensus had these as substantial losses to begin with.  It is unfortunate that they come so early while the team is trying to round into a unit.  But also fortunate that we go against them early - "what doesn't kill ya, makes you stronger (better)". USC is spot on -- we need to measure ourselves against our PFL peers at this point in the journey and that means the Davidsons, Stetsons and Moreheads, and maybe Butler. Against the iron of the league we need to look for improvement first, then assess the remainder with some patience. Did we show improvement? Yes.  Did we sustain that improvement?   Unfortunately, no. Can we build on the first half vs. USD and use it against Davidson?  Yes. In my mind further discussion on USD is     We, along with the players and coaches, need to turn to Davidson and focus on improvement across the board. The game is streamed.  Wish I had a DVR.

[dime life]

Understand USC 4 Valpo...agree we were blown out.

SD went in at halftime and said enough of this, and then we got smashed. We went in at half and said, wow, we are still in this. My subbing note goes to the lack of cohesion formed with so many subs at RB and WR this stage of the season and during our forced use of 3 different QB's. 

I agree best players right now should play...NOT, "maybe going to eventually be a great player by game 7 or 8".

The 50 and the 2.2m? Hoping its getting an education @ VALPO then worrying about reps. 

[usc4valpo]

dime life -

The best players should play, but also do not blow off what you have for the future. This program is a work in progress. At this stage, what I would say is that if a freshman gives you a better opportunity for you to be successful in the near and long term than a senior, you better start him. Just because you are senior and been around for awhile does not give you the right to start.

Regarding the 50 frosh and knowing this season is a rebuilding year, you gotta see what they have. Forking out $45K a year is quite alot, and if they do not enjoy the football experience they may quit the sport (which happens often in non-scholarship sports) or go elsewhere.

[VULB#62]

Related interesting tidbit learned from MLB during the reception in the end zone tent:  Every single 2015 recruit showed up for the beginning of preseason football. That's over 50! In the non-scholarship world that is unheard of.   For instance, last year's class had something like 20, but only 15 showed up. Now will all 50+ see significant playing time over their 4-5 years?  Of course not, but they are here now, they probably got favorable financial packages, and if some get tired of being a reserve, they will probably stay as students --- no doubt, part of an informal strategy, but also a validation of what a great school we have.

[vumsb]

dime life -

The best players should play, but also do not blow off what you have for the future. This program is a work in progress. At this stage, what I would say is that if a freshman gives you a better opportunity for you to be successful in the near and long term than a senior, you better start him. Just because you are senior and been around for awhile does not give you the right to start.

Regarding the 50 frosh and knowing this season is a rebuilding year, you gotta see what they have. Forking out $45K a year is quite alot, and if they do not enjoy the football experience they may quit the sport (which happens often in non-scholarship sports) or go elsewhere.

Which are you saying? That the best players should play? Or that you should not blow off the freshmen for fear they will leave? I think everyone agrees that the best players should play, regardless of their class. The problem is that is not what is happening. There are many freshmen playing ahead of upperclassmen who are not better; but only because they are freshman.

I understand the need to keep young players in the program, but at what cost to the current season do you continue to play freshman just to keep them happy or fulfill promises made? Every program loses freshman; that is expected. And every player on the team is playing paying tuition and I would bet that the financial packages the upperclassmen received are not as lucrative as the current ones offered. Just hate to see this year being thrown away and labeled solely a "rebuilding year" when there are talented upperclassman standing on the sidelines that played a lot more last year than they are this year... and they were a better team last year. In summary, let's not get caught up in the theory that if a freshman doesn't play he will leave, because that is the situation at every PFL school every year.

[usc4valpo]

I think for the Davidson game, since the stakes are very high for this game, they need to play the best players, but keep them fresh by shuffling your best freshmen as needed. However, for the long term, I think you need to think about the future.

Also, if the upperclass talent is so exceptional, then why have they been part of a program that is 6-28 in the past 3 seasons?

[vumsb]

We are just going to see this differently. I did not say the upper-class talent is "so exceptional"; I said in many cases they are better and they are not getting the opportunities this year solely because they are not freshmen. Sub in the best players.

FYI the soph-Jr.-seniors were part of a 4 win season last year (could have been 6 wins). The freshmen are now part of a program that is 0-3 .

Clear case of agree to disagree.

[VULB#62]

Stakes ARE high.  A possible WIN.  Does anyone think that this staff will compromise that objective by not playing every kid who could help us reach that goal?

IMO  In every game in every level of football in the entire USA, coaches make bad calls (even when they win and people conveniently always forget). As we build this program, everyone please take more of a holistic approach.  Once we are in the top three for a year or two, then we can tighten the parameters. But not now. We are not privy to the short-term much less his long-term plan.  Give Cecchini and his staff some wiggle room.  The hole that this FB program is clawing out of is deep and dark. Despite frustrating set backs along the way, the players and coaches deserve as much support as we can convey.  If these guys know we are behind them it makes them work even harder.  Get behind the program, give it some time, and if it doesn't work after another year or two, then begin to question.  But now is way too early.  Don't undermine a program's development after only 19 months, 6 of which was just infrastructure building.

Believe. Believe we are gonna be a player in the PFL. At least for the short haul, take the monkey of disbelief off this staff and off the kids.

I hope I don't trip getting off my soap box.

[usc4valpo]

My vision is a winning program not a win here and there. 62 is so bang on.

BTW, disagreements are great, it adds some spice to life, and it is more exciting than Valpo's offense right now.

[VULB#62]

And that is why USC went to MIT. Well said. 

[usc4valpo]

62 - don't go too far on the MIT line- l admit being very wishy washy about which players to play. It is a difficult situation. Valpo is in major rebuild mode but the future is bright. They also faced 3 difficult teams early on, and Davidson will not be at that level.

[dime life]

Guess we will see what happens...but it is clear that the team has some issues with the players out there thus far, IE, the O line has 3-4 freshman in the mix and we see the run game and QB protection situation getting worse. The WR issues already mentioned. Watching the OC come out of the booth and onto the sideline during the last 2 games would normally signal some changes, but so far nothing.   

[FWalum]

Stakes ARE high.  A possible WIN.  Does anyone think that this staff will compromise that objective by not playing every kid who could help us reach that goal?

IMO  In every game in every level of football in the entire USA, coaches make bad calls (even when they win and people conveniently always forget). As we build this program, everyone please take more of a holistic approach.  Once we are in the top three for a year or two, then we can tighten the parameters. But not now. We are not privy to the short-term much less his long-term plan.  Give Cecchini and his staff some wiggle room.  The hole that this FB program is clawing out of is deep and dark. Despite frustrating set backs along the way, the players and coaches deserve as much support as we can convey.  If these guys know we are behind them it makes them work even harder.  Get behind the program, give it some time, and if it doesn't work after another year or two, then begin to question.  But now is way too early.  Don't undermine a program's development after only 19 months, 6 of which was just infrastructure building.

Believe. Believe we are gonna be a player in the PFL. At least for the short haul, take the monkey of disbelief off this staff and off the kids.

I hope I don't trip getting off my soap box.

Couldn't agree with you more.  It is way too early to be regurgitating the same stuff we heard in the Carlson years after the kudos this staff received during last season. 

[bbtds]

Stakes ARE high.  A possible WIN.  Does anyone think that this staff will compromise that objective by not playing every kid who could help us reach that goal?

IMO  In every game in every level of football in the entire USA, coaches make bad calls (even when they win and people conveniently always forget). As we build this program, everyone please take more of a holistic approach.  Once we are in the top three for a year or two, then we can tighten the parameters. But not now. We are not privy to the short-term much less his long-term plan.  Give Cecchini and his staff some wiggle room.  The hole that this FB program is clawing out of is deep and dark. Despite frustrating set backs along the way, the players and coaches deserve as much support as we can convey.  If these guys know we are behind them it makes them work even harder.  Get behind the program, give it some time, and if it doesn't work after another year or two, then begin to question.  But now is way too early.  Don't undermine a program's development after only 19 months, 6 of which was just infrastructure building.

Believe. Believe we are gonna be a player in the PFL. At least for the short haul, take the monkey of disbelief off this staff and off the kids.

I hope I don't trip getting off my soap box.

Couldn't agree with you more.  It is way too early to be regurgitating the same stuff we heard in the Carlson years after the kudos this staff received during last season. 

Speaking of Carlson, he's taking his Lynx to Taylor University in Upland (on I-69 between Ft Wayne and Muncie) the same time that Valpo plays at Butler on Nov.7th. Unfortunately I have another engagement and won't be able to make either game.