Yes, MT put up 70 points for the 2nd time this season. Yes, Brent Stockstill has looked good. Yes, the defense, for the most part, has been the best MT fans have seen in a few years. But can we stop the talk about Pasadena and finishing 11-1. Illinois is going to be a challenge and so will the conference slate.
Staying reasonable
- Thread starter AustinLewis
- Start date
Meh. I say talk it up. We've got to talk about something. Access bowl talk sure beat talking about attendance and marketing. I don't expect it to happen but this is as good as I can ever remember us looking on both sides of the ball. Somebody is going. Why not us? As long as it doesn't turn into a gripe fest when we drop a game, I say dream away.
I am still hoping for us to win 7 games. Unless we win 2 of the next 3, nothing is guaranteed. And even then we still have to finish the season.
Considering last year I had to put up with people wanting to fire the whole staff, people creating false rumors about coaches recruiting, and threatening to pull their BRAA support if they market the years of bowl eligibility we have had, I am going to be about as obnoxious as a Yoko Ono solo album if we go 11-1.
I'm missing something. Pasadena? Really?
Let's beat somebody people have heard of...win the next six games...
Let's beat somebody people have heard of...win the next six games...
While it is generally still pretty early in the season, I think there are signs that coach stock made some significant positive changes after the painful ending to last season.
For starters, I have not understood this co-def coord thing. I think it was wise to make Nix the def coord. Regardless, one coord makes more sense IMO.
If I'm not mistaken, coach stock changed up the recruiting coord. Was the recruiting coord the DBs coach, or was he the WRs coach? Whatever the case, there has seemed to be an improvement in recruiting.
Lastly, there seems to be a recruiting and current player philosophy and approach. Specifically for the first time since coach stock has been here, it seems coach stock is finally fielding a team that has the right size and strength to more fully compete at a high level in FBS football. I'd say, it is a size and strength to match and and compete with the top competitors in C-USA. Over the years, coach stock seemed to go for smaller quicker players even along the line of scrimmage. Back under Diaz, perhaps it was a decent approach considering the scheme. I sort of viewed it as an adaptation, or acceptance, of not being able to recruit the higher quality talent. Whatever the case, I have always seen it as a huge glaring problem. For the first time with this season, I've been overjoyed to see coach stock make a big adjustment in approach or philosophy in this area of the program.
In the Alabama game, I really thought this improvement in size and strength along the line of scrimmage really showed up. For the first time, possibly ever, MTSU looked like they belonged and competed vs a national power along the line of scrimmage and generally across most positions on the field. Both the OL and the DL competed throughout. They did not get overwhelmed as they usually would vs top national powers. Even if in the past MT battled well early in the game on the line, the MT lines would become overwhelmed by the 2nd half. Fatigue, lack of depth with lack of size and strength usually being key factors.
MT having good size and strength along both lines has finally given me an optimism and hopefulness for the season that I've not had in a long long time.
With all that said, I know it's still early in the season. Bama is likely not the top 2 or 3 that they have been the last few years, but they are still a powerful top 20 or 15 team. While MT's wins have come vs less talented talented teams, it has troubled me for years how MT would perform vs such so called lower level programs. Not only was MT struggling with such teams, do I need to bring up SEMO? The first FAU game? Even worse, it wasn't even close vs McNeese St. Granted, McNeese St killed USF even worse the next season. Whatever the case, MT frequently struggled and lost to some of those "lower level" programs. A couple of seasons ago, it seemed coach stock and maybe Massaro realized MT struggled vs FCS teams. So, they scheduled the bottom of FCS teams for home openers i.e. WCU & SSU. MT won, but it seemed not so much that MT improved as it was MT scheduled the least competition possible. Even in those games, it seemed MT had way more problems than expected for such games. Those games were a lot closer than they should ever have been IMO. Sure, MT won, but MT should have been winning in a more dominating fashion considering the talent level of the competition. I would think or expect MT to win those games 50-10, 55-13, 49-7 or some such score instead of the 60-30, 50-24 or whatever the exact final scores were. Finally this year, MT handled Jackson St 70-14 or whatever the exact final score. The point being this season MT is finally overwhelming teams you would expect MT to overwhelm!
Lastly, the skill players are bigger, stronger, and/or faster. It's really good to see. I guess the rest of the season will tell, but it looks like MT has the size, strength, speed, and overall talent to finally be a type of competitive team we all would hope for.
For starters, I have not understood this co-def coord thing. I think it was wise to make Nix the def coord. Regardless, one coord makes more sense IMO.
If I'm not mistaken, coach stock changed up the recruiting coord. Was the recruiting coord the DBs coach, or was he the WRs coach? Whatever the case, there has seemed to be an improvement in recruiting.
Lastly, there seems to be a recruiting and current player philosophy and approach. Specifically for the first time since coach stock has been here, it seems coach stock is finally fielding a team that has the right size and strength to more fully compete at a high level in FBS football. I'd say, it is a size and strength to match and and compete with the top competitors in C-USA. Over the years, coach stock seemed to go for smaller quicker players even along the line of scrimmage. Back under Diaz, perhaps it was a decent approach considering the scheme. I sort of viewed it as an adaptation, or acceptance, of not being able to recruit the higher quality talent. Whatever the case, I have always seen it as a huge glaring problem. For the first time with this season, I've been overjoyed to see coach stock make a big adjustment in approach or philosophy in this area of the program.
In the Alabama game, I really thought this improvement in size and strength along the line of scrimmage really showed up. For the first time, possibly ever, MTSU looked like they belonged and competed vs a national power along the line of scrimmage and generally across most positions on the field. Both the OL and the DL competed throughout. They did not get overwhelmed as they usually would vs top national powers. Even if in the past MT battled well early in the game on the line, the MT lines would become overwhelmed by the 2nd half. Fatigue, lack of depth with lack of size and strength usually being key factors.
MT having good size and strength along both lines has finally given me an optimism and hopefulness for the season that I've not had in a long long time.
With all that said, I know it's still early in the season. Bama is likely not the top 2 or 3 that they have been the last few years, but they are still a powerful top 20 or 15 team. While MT's wins have come vs less talented talented teams, it has troubled me for years how MT would perform vs such so called lower level programs. Not only was MT struggling with such teams, do I need to bring up SEMO? The first FAU game? Even worse, it wasn't even close vs McNeese St. Granted, McNeese St killed USF even worse the next season. Whatever the case, MT frequently struggled and lost to some of those "lower level" programs. A couple of seasons ago, it seemed coach stock and maybe Massaro realized MT struggled vs FCS teams. So, they scheduled the bottom of FCS teams for home openers i.e. WCU & SSU. MT won, but it seemed not so much that MT improved as it was MT scheduled the least competition possible. Even in those games, it seemed MT had way more problems than expected for such games. Those games were a lot closer than they should ever have been IMO. Sure, MT won, but MT should have been winning in a more dominating fashion considering the talent level of the competition. I would think or expect MT to win those games 50-10, 55-13, 49-7 or some such score instead of the 60-30, 50-24 or whatever the exact final scores were. Finally this year, MT handled Jackson St 70-14 or whatever the exact final score. The point being this season MT is finally overwhelming teams you would expect MT to overwhelm!
Lastly, the skill players are bigger, stronger, and/or faster. It's really good to see. I guess the rest of the season will tell, but it looks like MT has the size, strength, speed, and overall talent to finally be a type of competitive team we all would hope for.
Did you watch the game? Everybody in the stadium knew what we were doing on first down! I'm not calling for his job but the loss can be laid squarely in his hands.
Since you put it that way, I'd say I'm not really a hater of Faulkner.
After the Illinois game, I'm thinking he has some areas that really need some improvement. Now if there are not any adjustments or improvements over the course of the season, then an offseason overhaul or some sort of fix would be necessary. BTW, I posted earlier today that I think coach stock did do some of that this offseason i.e. the defense. And that defense is starting to look really good compared to what we've seen over the last few years. Of course, most of us MT fans can likely think of 3 or 4 defining plays that might have changed the final outcome from a L to a W. The final FG is the easy one. Although I'm pretty much against the idea to throw the kicker under the bus for missing one long fg.
What was the head scratcher to me was the constant same run play that seemed to end repeatedly in a tackle for loss. If that wasn't enough, he pulled that out twice in the last minute or so when MT needed to score to win. If the repeated attempts resulting in loss of yardage weren't enough, seeing it called twice on the last drive was pretty much inexcusable. The lost yardage, wasted down, critical time lost, and lost timeouts. It just wreaked of poor clock management. If they were going for some crazy idea of not leaving much time for the opponent IF they scored, then they learned absolutely nothing that the rest of the football world learned just a couple of weeks ago in the Giants loss to the Cowboys. Running out the clock is a great idea when you have the lead, not so much when you are losing. Maybe, maybe an argument could be made if you're tied and looking at a point blank FG. Then maybe there might be an argument for not leaving much time on the clock for the opponent instead of your team attempting to score with all urgency until you are in the endzone with the lead.
Obviously, MT is beyond moral victories vs P5 teams. It was a stinging loss. An oh so close chance at a quality win that instead ended as yet another blown opportunity. I'd say I'm being pretty calm in not calling for his head immediately. I imagine you'll be seeing that over the next few days from others.
If I'm not mistaken, MT is down 3 starting offensive lineman going into today's game. I get it's a tough circumstance, but Illinois had injuries too. I just don't get that there were zero plays called to help slow down their monstrous DEs who were screaming into MT's backfield with reckless abandon. In addition to the repeated TFLs on MT's same run play, Brent Stockstill was sacked repeatedly today with little to no time to unload the ball. It would have been nice to see some plays run to negate those DEs aggressiveness. Just some pretty simple plays to at least slow them down a little to play containment might have really helped MT's offense today.
A couple of notes
1) Every coach has a few plays they'd like to have back.
2) MT had 330 yards in the passing game (w/ a RS-Fr QB) and 86 yards rushing from RBs
I didn't have major problem with the play calling. Sure, there are probably a few calls I'd do differently, but overall Faulkner called a pretty solid game. Turnovers and special teams continue to plague MT
I have been really impressed with what I have seen from Brent. He has shown anticipation, accuracy, and arm strength in both the Illinois and Alabama game. It's early in his career, but I see a guy who, even as a Freshman, is throwing balls into NFL windows
1) Every coach has a few plays they'd like to have back.
2) MT had 330 yards in the passing game (w/ a RS-Fr QB) and 86 yards rushing from RBs
I didn't have major problem with the play calling. Sure, there are probably a few calls I'd do differently, but overall Faulkner called a pretty solid game. Turnovers and special teams continue to plague MT
I have been really impressed with what I have seen from Brent. He has shown anticipation, accuracy, and arm strength in both the Illinois and Alabama game. It's early in his career, but I see a guy who, even as a Freshman, is throwing balls into NFL windows
well that is misleading because there were 31 yards in sacks two bad snaps that were negative plays. Parker averaged 3 per and Bryson 4 per. Not record setting by any means but not as dismal as everyone is making it out to be.37 runs for 38 yards....we are methodical. I think I need a 24 hour cool off period,
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
OT: What are your thoughts on the College Football Playoff?- Latest: MidTennMtneer