We played a solid second half of the first quarter and a good 2nd quarter against THE TOP PFL TEAM to go into the locker room at the half down only 14-17. Yeah, we self destructed in the 3rd quarter, but considering who we were playing and who we had on the field, I think we set a solid foundation for a win vs. Stetson next Saturday. The PFL is not a balanced league. Period. There are the haves and the have nots. We have to first win the "have not" championship. We can move in that direction with a win on Saturday. We need to beat Stetson first -- and we can. Then hopefully Butler. Those two wins could give us the confidence to take Morehead.
I see weekly overall improvement on a week to week basis. Not huge improvement, but improvement. I could not say that from 2010 -2013. These kids will give us two more wins this season despite their youth and inexperience. It starts with Stetson.
In the spirit of defeating the Hatters, check out this 3 Stooges episode at around the 5:40 mark...
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xqls02_three-stooges-027-the-sitter-downers-colour_fun (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xqls02_three-stooges-027-the-sitter-downers-colour_fun)
I know there's an element of seeking only the positives with some while ignoring the more prolific negative but, while I agree the PFL is a have and have nots league, and I'm not sure which game thread this belongs in but there is a bit too much seeking out the positives with yesterdays game. There is no offensive rhythm. I can tell you what plays are coming based on personnel and formation (think the opposition might pick up on a cue or two?) and there's an entire body of plays which appear unavailable to the coaching staff since they don't look at them. The youth issue is also getting a bit tiresome as other teams have pounded Valpo with true and redshirt freshmen QBs while Valpo's seniors make extraordinarily bad plays.
With that said, the Stetson game is a very winnable game. They seem to struggle to score and Valpo should be able to put up enough points...maybe 17-20 to win the game.
Butler? Butler just beat a team Valpo won late against by more than 4 TDs. How that's a win at this point I'm not sure.
It does seem a shame that Ben Lehman didn't get to play for Cecchini more than one year. Also there have been too many injuries for a team relying on underclassman to back up the starters this season.
It would be nice to have last years defensive players this year as well.
Here are Saturday's results and the attached Sagarin rating [Click to enlarge].
On the Sagarin chart, despite our loss we moved up one slot (!) to our pre-season rating number of 251 :) -- basically due to Dayton's high rating. Note that some teams who lost also rose while some teams who won went down.
PFL Scores: Saturday, Oct. 17 [Bold/underline are 2015 scheduled opponents]
Butler 38, Davidson 7
Jacksonville 49, Edward Waters 28
Campbell 16, Stetson 6
Dayton 44, VALPARAISO 14
San Diego 27, Drake 0 :o
:o Most interesting score of the week belongs to USD shutting down a good Drake squad. Other observations: the JU QB threw six (6) TDs after giving up a 100 yard pick 6 on their first drive -- so was it actually 7?.
Here's the Stetson/Campbell summary: DeLAND, Fla. – Campbell used a 13-point third quarter to win in come-from-behind fashion, 16-6, in Saturday PFL action at Spec Martin Stadium. Stetson led 6-3 at halftime thanks to two Grant Amick field goals and held that lead midway through the third quarter. Campbell took the lead when running back DeShawn Jones capped an 11-play, 73-yard drive with a one-yard touchdown dive. On its next possession, Campbell needed just one play for the score when Kameron Bryant found Damon Simmons for a 72-yard score despite pass interference. Bryant completed 14-of-24 passes for 193 yards and a touchdown. Stetson was held to 183 total offensive yards.
Campbell vs STETSON (Oct 17, 2015 at DeLand , Fla.)
Team Totals CAM STETSON
FIRST DOWNS 19 11
Rushing 12 5
Passing 6 4
Penalty 1 2
NET YARDS RUSHING 158 88
Rushing Attempts 48 30
Average Per Rush 3.3 2.9
Rushing Touchdowns 1 0
Yards Gained Rushing 231 126
Yards Lost Rushing 73 38
NET YARDS PASSING 193 95
Completions-Attempts-Int 14-24-1 8-26-1
Average Per Attempt 8.0 3.7
Average Per Completion 13.8 11.9
Passing Touchdowns 1 0
TOTAL OFFENSE YARDS 351 183
Total offense plays 72 56
Average Gain Per Play 4.9 3.3
Fumbles: Number-Lost 1-1 0-0
Penalties: Number-Yards 7-55 7-58
PUNTS-YARDS 4-172 7-256
Average Yards Per Punt 43.0 36.6
Net Yards Per Punt 42.8 36.6
Inside 20 1 1
50+ Yards 2 1
Touchbacks 0 0
Fair catch 0 3
KICKOFFS-YARDS 4-232 3-170
Average Yards Per Kickoff 58.0 56.7
Net Yards Per Kickoff 43.0 35.0
Touchbacks 0 2
Punt returns: Number-Yards-TD 0-0-0 1-1-0
Average Per Return 0.0 1.0
Kickoff returns: Number-Yds-TD 1-15-0 4-60-0
Average Per Return 15.0 15.0
Interceptions: Number-Yds-TD 1-2-0 1-20-0
Fumble Returns: Number-Yds-TD 0-0-0 0-0-0
Miscellaneous Yards 0 0
Possession Time 33:37 26:23
1st Quarter 7:04 7:56
2nd Quarter 8:11 6:49
3rd Quarter 7:59 7:01
4th Quarter 10:23 4:37
Third-Down Conversions 5 of 14 3 of 14
Fourth-Down Conversions 0 of 3 0 of 2
Red-Zone Scores-Chances 2-3 1-2
Touchdowns 1-3 0-2
Field goals 1-3 1-2
Sacks By: Number-Yards 5-27 3-17
PAT Kicks 1-2 0-0
Field Goals 1-1 2-2
Points off turnovers 0 3
Quote from: VU2624 on October 18, 2015, 10:39:54 AM
With that said, the Stetson game is a very winnable game. They seem to struggle to score and Valpo should be able to put up enough points...maybe 17-20 to win the game.
Butler? Butler just beat a team Valpo won late against by more than 4 TDs. How that's a win at this point I'm not sure.
Absolutely agree on Stetson, but I also think Butler is a winnable game. Here's my logic.
First, Sagarin ranks the bottom 4 PFL teams like this: Butler 240, Stetson 250, Valpo 251, and Davidson 253 (yeah, I know not to put much credence in rankings, but it does give us a relative comparison).
Next, the Butler/Davidson score was a bit misleading. The game was @ Butler and Butler jumped out to a quick 14 pt lead but the score at the half was only 14-0. The coffin nail was Butler scored first after the half and Davidson then just caved in and added to their death spiral.
Third, our schedule favors a win. Butler plays @ Dayton and @Marist before playing us. Both games are against physical opponents that will tax their depth. Butler might beat Marist, but I think it might might be a pyric victory at best. We, on the other hand have Stetson at home (hopefully a win to build upon) and then have a bye week to rest up banged up players, refine execution and build up motivation.
Fourth, it's a short trip to Indianapolis and.....
Fifth, we currently own the Hoosier Helmet and will be motivated to keep it.
We need a home win! (CoF doesn't count)
Valpo 31
Stetson 27
I don't see the 27. Stetson 13 -- 1 TD + XP (late) and 2 FGs.
Quote from: VULB#62 on October 19, 2015, 12:13:48 PM
:o Most interesting score of the week belongs to USD shutting down a good Drake squad. Other observations: the JU QB threw six (6) TDs after giving up a 100 yard pick 6 on their first drive -- so was it actually 7?.
As an FYI...the team JU played...Ed Waters....Valpo would completely wipe the field with.
Quote from: VULB#62 on October 19, 2015, 01:27:29 PM
Quote from: VU2624 on October 18, 2015, 10:39:54 AM
With that said, the Stetson game is a very winnable game. They seem to struggle to score and Valpo should be able to put up enough points...maybe 17-20 to win the game.
Butler? Butler just beat a team Valpo won late against by more than 4 TDs. How that's a win at this point I'm not sure.
Absolutely agree on Stetson, but I also think Butler is a winnable game. Here's my logic.
First, Sagarin ranks the bottom 4 PFL teams like this: Butler 240, Stetson 250, Valpo 251, and Davidson 253 (yeah, I know not to put much credence in rankings, but it does give us a relative comparison).
Next, the Butler/Davidson score was a bit misleading. The game was @ Butler and Butler jumped out to a quick 14 pt lead but the score at the half was only 14-0. The coffin nail was Butler scored first after the half and Davidson then just caved in and added to their death spiral.
Third, our schedule favors a win. Butler plays @ Dayton and @Marist before playing us. Both games are against physical opponents that will tax their depth. Butler might beat Marist, but I think it might might be a pyric victory at best. We, on the other hand have Stetson at home (hopefully a win to build upon) and then have a bye week to rest up banged up players, refine execution and build up motivation.
Fourth, it's a short trip to Indianapolis and.....
Fifth, we currently own the Hoosier Helmet and will be motivated to keep it.
While I enjoy the optimism, I don't share it.
I just don't see Valpo's offense putting up enough to win vs. Butler absent a major turnaround. There are a multitude of problems on the offense ranging from issues performance, personnel, philosophy (coaching) and depth.
Saders 24
Mad Hatters 10
Some injury updates from Brandon Vickrey going into the Stetson game. Tough to lose Nate's leadership at center. He came back for his 5th year but now its a lost season for him. Also feel bad for Dalton. After losing last season to injury, he joins Conner Smith who had the same season ending injury.
[tweet]657360985662038017[/tweet]
[tweet]657361416031227904[/tweet]
[tweet]657361890948063232[/tweet]
[tweet]657362677359054848[/tweet]
[tweet]657363016703483904[/tweet]
Weather forecast for game time tomorrow: 40% chance of rain at noon and 67 degrees. Partly sunny by 3PM. Would have loved to have the temps around 40 degrees (or lower) to welcome the Stetson players. Oh, well.
This will be interesting. Reading about Stetson's defense, they could be tough. Their offense appears poor. Valpo in a low scoring game....hopefully.
I agree about the weather. They'll be pretty comfortable even coming out of the mid 80 degree temperatures of October in Central Fl.
Note to coaches which shouldn't need to be noted: You can't install new offensive schemes on Tuesday for a Saturday game. Do what you do and live with it. Meanwhile, new scheme yields nothing but a couple of turnovers, drops and missed assignments while the scheme you've been playing with all season goes right down the field to end the first half. So what do we do to open the second half? Go back to exactly what wasn't working.
Start of 4th QTR and Valpo has 114 of total offense. 75 yds gained on one drive. The 75 yds was gained running out of the spread....you know the offense we've been running all year. The other 39 yards was gained with the "big" package...you know the offense we installed on Tuesday.
So I congratulate the staff on sticking with what's not working.
Well...we scored. I guess that means the new scheme worked. The other 58 mins don't count.
PC will be interesting. Will Dave point out that the coaches elected to change things with 3 days of practice available to them which likely didn't instill any confidence in the team on the offensive side? Or will the blame immediately be shifted to the players? Will Todd ask him a challenging question or continue to just shake his head in agreement with the coach no matter what he says? How about asking him what happened to Jean Rene in the 2nd half...you know the guy who's scored 4 TDs in 3 weeks? He played sparingly in the 2nd half to make sure they got far lesser players on the field who fit the scheme.
First words out of Miran's mouth at halftime was "I don't think it's the scheme". You know what that tells everyone? He knows it's the scheme.
uh, disappointing. Fumbles, offensive ineptitude. Other stuff...
When does basketball start again??
I brought my dad out for the first half. 30 minutes was more than enough to see us get punished by a mediocre team.
It felt nothing like a college football game. The stands were so empty that you could make out the yelling and screaming from a few in the crowd. The cheerleaders didn't even bother to show up. Just another bad day all around at Brown Field. It has to make you wonder how much longer the failure that is this football team is acceptable.
729 fans is pathetic and embarrassing - and no fans and no cheerleaders? Seriously?
This is a rough season with a lot of growing pains.
I didn't see the game but was surprised at the final score as I felt it was going to be a win for Valpo. Last week I spoke to some defensive players and they told me that many offensive players were frustrated with Miran's play calling and overall offense. I didn't know they were changing schemes mid-week. Looks like the same plays every game I've seen so I thought it was the same scheme as from previous weeks.
Some players are also irritated at the lack of substitutions especially on defense and feel that tired players that are often over matched physically is another reason for many late game losses.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
One issue is that the current offensive talent is lacking and very, very green. Very few upper classmen are on this team, typical of a mid-to-lower end Division III team.
729 fans and no student interest is a very serious problem which the Valpo administration should notice.
Quote from: valpochgo on October 24, 2015, 05:02:49 PM
I didn't see the game but was surprised at the final score as I felt it was going to be a win for Valpo. Last week I spoke to some defensive players and they told me that many offensive players were frustrated with Miran's play calling and overall offense. I didn't know they were changing schemes mid-week. Looks like the same plays every game I've seen so I thought it was the same scheme as from previous weeks.
Some players are also irritated at the lack of substitutions especially on defense and feel that tired players that are often over matched physically is another reason for many late game losses.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The main change was in putting in a "bigger" package and some more running plays out of the wing. In a sense they substituted the slot receivers out for TEs and in some cases those TEs lined up wide. These guys were not in a normal set as far as Valpo has lined up since the new staff took over. Presumably this was to get the running game going. In general I have no idea what the thought process is behind taking your 2nd and 3rd best WRs off the field including one who's scored 4 times in 3 games in order to put in, other than Catrine, guys slower off the line and with poorer hands. It makes no sense. Throw in the fact that this was added Tuesday of game week thus creating doubt on the offense which clearly carried over to the game and this one is a little more on the staff than I think they'd want to allow.
I can vouch for some of the offensive players being very frustrated on the playcalling and now scheme. I'm not sure this falls in Miran's lap based on the head coach's comments after the game of wanting to make the team tougher by continually looking to run the ball despite 8-9 in the box. Maybe they'll be tougher but without wins they'll be another coach in there to coach them if/when they get there.
Quote from: valpochgo on October 24, 2015, 05:02:49 PM
I didn't see the game but was surprised at the final score as I felt it was going to be a win for Valpo. Last week I spoke to some defensive players and they told me that many offensive players were frustrated with Miran's play calling and overall offense. I didn't know they were changing schemes mid-week. Looks like the same plays every game I've seen so I thought it was the same scheme as from previous weeks.
Some players are also irritated at the lack of substitutions especially on defense and feel that tired players that are often over matched physically is another reason for many late game losses.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: usc4valpo on October 24, 2015, 05:00:47 PM
729 fans is pathetic and embarrassing - and no fans and no cheerleaders? Seriously?
This is a rough season with a lot of growing pains.
Students are on fall break.
Yes, students are on fall break. The campus is practically deserted until tomorrow. Can't really fault the low turnout today on anything other than that.
As far as the offense goes, one of the main problems is that after every game, the OC comes out and says that there was no problem with his scheme, or his play calling, but rather with the effort put forth from the players. Really tired of the coaches not taking any responsibility for the losses. There are just too many freshman playing on the offensive line and in other blocking positions for this offense to have any success. As I watched the game today, I realized that this offense is missing from last year's team a quarterback, two running backs, the two best receivers, and the entire offensive line that was very efficient. Combine that with a horrible scheme plus pathetic play calling and this is what you get.
Disappointing all around.
Quote from: vumsb on October 24, 2015, 08:24:59 PM
Yes, students are on fall break. The campus is practically deserted until tomorrow. Can't really fault the low turnout today on anything other than that.
As far as the offense goes, one of the main problems is that after every game, the OC comes out and says that there was no problem with his scheme, or his play calling, but rather with the effort put forth from the players. Really tired of the coaches not taking any responsibility for the losses. There are just too many freshman playing on the offensive line and in other blocking positions for this offense to have any success. As I watched the game today, I realized that this offense is missing from last year's team a quarterback, two running backs, the two best receivers, and the entire offensive line that was very efficient. Combine that with a horrible scheme plus pathetic play calling and this is what you get.
Disappointing all around.
Watch the press conference. Dave takes plenty of blame.
Cheerleaders and the band should stay for a home football game, especially if you are trying to portray yourself as a Division I team.
I know the buck stops with the head coach, as it should, but all I heard was Cecchini taking full responsibility for the failings of the offense in order to protect his OC whois calling the plays. . Also heard him spend a lot of time making excuses and coddling the freshman who fumbled and turned the ball over. Maybe it's time for a little tough love for the freshmen if they're going to be out on the field, and hold all players to the same standards and accountability for their mistakes.
If these guys, players and coaches, do not get their act together, we are talking about a 1-9 season. Not good, and applauding positive and providing warm fuzzies after losing 37-14 to a team they should beat is not going to make things better.
Cecchini did take responsibility for the offensive ineptitude which is a good first step. Why it was felt the focus of the offense needed to be changed for a team you'd be expected to beat I'm not sure. The coaches repeatedly went to a formation of TE and the Z and X receivers out by the numbers and they couldn't run it or throw it out of this formation as Stetson lined up against it with 2 CBs out wide and the safety at the hash so he could go either way and took everything away from the Crusaders. I don't think Valpo had a successful play run out of this formation. The other formation the team went with was a tight formation of an H and 2 TEs with a wing and WR which only served to invite Stetson to play 9 in the box with no concern of being beaten deep. There was also no success at all with this formation until the last drive vs. the backups (and I was glad the coach acknowledge it was against the backups in the PC). These two formations, schemes or whatever you wish to refer to them as were installed during the week of the game. What that tells the offense is they weren't good enough for Stetson running what they had been doing. This creates doubt. Doubt is bad for a football player.
The offense did nothing in the first half until they went 4 wide and went down the field in under a minute. That never appeared again IIRC. Why? Jean Rene has scored 4 TDs in 3 games and I think he played 3 or 4 plays in the second half. Does this make any sense to anyone? How about the coaches outsmarted themselves by not only force feeding an unneccesary offensive philosophy but being all too willing to put lesser players on the field just to placate the scheme.
I also agree with those saying that the babying of the freshman should cease. It's a way of life in the PFL and will continue to be so at Valpo. The QB is also holding the ball too long and needs to be more accurate in the short game.
I guess this is the way you need to coach millennials.
Rene needs to be on the field early and often.
Maybe 1-9...wake up sader nation. The 1-9 train is coming. The freshman experiment has failed and this is what we have to show. In the process many of the upperclassmen who SHOULD be playing and who earned spots have checked out. That is obvious from the sights and sounds of the field / bench. Also, all this talk of us relying on our D this year, subbing freshman in there too, seams, skinny posts and at least 3-4 "slant and go's" a game. Throw in the usual 8-10 RB and Slot screens and we get, "monstered".
Don't know what is said to team at halftime of these games, if anything. The captains, picked by the coaching staff (not voted on by the team, never heard of this) are same from last year...must be at their wits end watching this unfold. As the season has progressed, the changes we hoped to see have not happened. Instead things have been more complex and more difficult to understand. Most frustrating is this continued hope that some of these routes, schemes and players will suddenly get better. They will not. And all the while, many players who are not intimidated, who came here to win and who got reps last year, just sit. Not even being given a chance to make plays. Stetson is a 3 year old program. And we just gave them their biggest win of the season. All Aboard!!!
Quote from: dime life on October 25, 2015, 06:17:29 PM
Maybe 1-9...wake up sader nation. The 1-9 train is coming. The freshman experiment has failed and this is what we have to show. In the process many of the upperclassmen who SHOULD be playing and who earned spots have checked out. That is obvious from the sights and sounds of the field / bench. Also, all this talk of us relying on our D this year, subbing freshman in there too, seams, skinny posts and at least 3-4 "slant and go's" a game. Throw in the usual 8-10 RB and Slot screens and we get, "monstered".
Don't know what is said to team at halftime of these games, if anything. The captains, picked by the coaching staff (not voted on by the team, never heard of this) are same from last year...must be at their wits end watching this unfold. As the season has progressed, the changes we hoped to see have not happened. Instead things have been more complex and more difficult to understand. Most frustrating is this continued hope that some of these routes, schemes and players will suddenly get better. They will not. And all the while, many players who are not intimidated, who came here to win and who got reps last year, just sit. Not even being given a chance to make plays. Stetson is a 3 year old program. And we just gave them their biggest win of the season. All Aboard!!!
So just so I don't misunderstand your post, let me say it back in my words and then you can agree or clarify. What I read is that the coaching staff is playing freshman when there are upperclassmen who are better players. As a result we need to run the same patterns over and over again because the freshman just can't get up to speed on anything more complicated. Further, the fact that mono and flu plus concussions to key players have depleted our depth (I added that last part!)
In short, you are saying that the coaching staff is deliberately choosing to lose so that the freshman (who may or may not be more talented) get valuable reps to build for next year. Am I getting your drift??
My interpretation is that dime lite wants to see the upperclassmen play, which is fair. But here is the problem: there are very few upperclassmen on this team, and the upperclassmen in general have not been world beaters. The low number of juniors and seniors on the roster is incredible.
Currently, the overall talent level of the team is below par - let's face facts. They also recruited an insanely large freshman class. I wonder if they are whining about PT or threatening to leave.
All is not lost yet -- at least we not hearing any Osteen quotes.
Said nothing about deliberate in trying to lose...no one would do that.
We have 1 win (and that was barely). There seems to be an overt effort to get freshmen in the mix. No matter how they do. Even after mistakes (See 2 of the 3 turnovers this week), no changes are made.
Did we see the RB' s shuffle earlier this year , 3 -4 at a time? Why? The WR's playing? Where is Shea? Morgan? Others? Why are we not 4 wide most of the time? Why were we subbing Bastin? And yes, there are players on the bench who helped to beat teams last season. This team was set to be a possible 4-4 in league play.
I don't blame anyone for being frustrated. Heck I'm frustrated, but I take exception to anyone saying Freshman are playing over Jr's and Sr's who helped win games last year. I've gone up and down the roster and only found one JR or SR on the team that has not been injured and has been replaced by a Freshman, and that's the punter. There are a few upperclassman that are splitting time with Freshman, but none are standout players. There are other upperclassman such as Bastin, Fox, Hall, and Koeneman that have been injured. If I'm missing any upperclassman that contributed last year and are riding the pines this year please share who you are referring to, because I don't think that's the case.
Quote from: dime life on October 25, 2015, 11:13:58 PM
Said nothing about deliberate in trying to lose...no one would do that.
We have 1 win (and that was barely). There seems to be an overt effort to get freshmen in the mix. No matter how they do. Even after mistakes (See 2 of the 3 turnovers this week), no changes are made.
Did we see the RB' s shuffle earlier this year , 3 -4 at a time? Why? The WR's playing? Where is Shea? Morgan? Others? Why are we not 4 wide most of the time? Why were we subbing Bastin? And yes, there are players on the bench who helped to beat teams last season. This team was set to be a possible 4-4 in league play.
I agree that the coaches would never intentionally try to lose. However, I think the coaches have absolutely given up on this season. That is the consensus among the parents and fans. Everything is "for the future" regardless of the remaining games in this season. This attitude is why they are constantly shuttling freshman in the mix and pulling out the older and, yes, better players, just to give the freshman their playing time "for the future". Players are unable to establish any rhythm or gain momentum because they are shuttled in and out repeatedly and too often we see any type of drive stalled because of that. The RB shuffle you described is a perfect example with 4 running backs (yes, there have been injuries, but the shuffle has been since the very beginning with everyone healthy). There are players on the bench who contributed last year who appear to have been relegated solely to scout team this season. Why aren't they given the same opportunities with PT that all of the freshmen are getting? Do not discount the effects of maturity and experience that these players bring. We are seeing freshmen make the same critical mistakes over and over and it does not appear that they are being corrected or told what they are doing wrong. The freshman players are struggling learning the offense and seem overwhelmed which is understandable. I wouldn't be surprised to see some of them burned out after this season and leave, and I am talking about ones that are playing. It is infuriating to see this season written off so early when there was still so much fight and determination left in the upperclassmen. I get the feeling that the attitude and philosophy from the coaches is having a trickle-down effect and is sucking the life and enthusiasm out of this team that ended last season was so much hope and excitement for this year.
Quote from: vu72 on October 24, 2015, 06:10:51 PMQuote from: usc4valpo on October 24, 2015, 05:00:47 PM729 fans is pathetic and embarrassing - and no fans and no cheerleaders? Seriously?This is a rough season with a lot of growing pains.Students are on fall break.
So which came first? Did we schedule a game knowing it was going to be fall break, or did we schedule fall break, knowing we had a game?
Quote from: covufan on October 26, 2015, 09:40:56 AMSo which came first? Did we schedule a game knowing it was going to be fall break, or did we schedule fall break, knowing we had a game?
We have a new winner for dumbest question ever.
Quote from: chef on October 25, 2015, 11:36:54 PM
I don't blame anyone for being frustrated. Heck I'm frustrated, but I take exception to anyone saying Freshman are playing over Jr's and Sr's who helped win games last year. I've gone up and down the roster and only found one JR or SR on the team that has not been injured and has been replaced by a Freshman, and that's the punter. There are a few upperclassman that are splitting time with Freshman, but none are standout players. There are other upperclassman such as Bastin, Fox, Hall, and Koeneman that have been injured. If I'm missing any upperclassman that contributed last year and are riding the pines this year please share who you are referring to, because I don't think that's the case.
Riding the pines? No. However the structure of the offense has changed a bit which, in my opinion, has lesser players on the field. I think they are playing too much 2 TE/Hback over 3 and 4 WR sets. That was before the Stetson game. The Stetson game was an embarrassment in the coaches being either too stubborn or too less than smart about going with what may work and what was demonstrably not working. This put freshman TEs who typically line up in line to block someone standing in front of them and moved them to stalk blocking as a WR would which the TEs are not quick enough for. In addition, while Catrine has filled in admirably as the X, he's not as dynamic as Kuramata was, and they cannot figure out the z receiver at all as they have rotated 5 freshman through the position without settling on one. Thus in the Stetson game, nearly the entire game, you had Catrine on the field with two freshman TEs often playing out of position and a freshman Z receiver all of whom have struggled while Rene and Shea were not on the field. It's also taken them too long to figure out Morgan main role on the team. He seemed uncomfortable as a receiver and probably should have been spotted within the RB rotation a while ago. So whether this is a offensive philosophy issue or a we want to play our freshman toys option the result is that you're playing lesser players over better and more experienced players unnecessarily.
RB has been affected by injury with Hall and Bastin. Hall hasn't looked as good as he did last year at any point this year and currently has a hand injury. Graysin has had at least one concussion and that is current with no timetable set to return. Jake Hutson is a great kid and came back for his 5th year but I'm not sure Choudry shouldn't have been given more of a role more quickly. Again, Morgan should have been with this group sooner.
The OL is currently a disaster but that shouldn't have precluded the offense from running their regular sets (prior to Sat). There would have been negative plays but there was demonstrable evidence that there would have been positive plays as well. One thing no one will address is the fact that the QB has simply not been accurate enough for this type of offense. It's an offense dependent upon completing the short pass, taking what you can get an moving on to the next play. This softens the defense for the running game. Too many easy completions not made because of poor throws and, imho, too many drops. Lobbing the ball to Catrine may seem effective but it really isn't as it's become almost an overall philosophy and it's being used as a crutch. Vs. Dayton twice both slots were running up the hash 10 yds behind the back of the defense and Clarke only looked at Catrine for the jump ball and a 15 yard gain and an incompletion both times. Maybe he missed it the first time. You'd think the coaches might mention to him to take a longer look elsewhere the next time.
I suspect there is some force feeding of freshman in spots it is not necessary. The staff has had almost an arrogance about their first recruiting class but, to be honest, I don't see it as remarkably different than some classes prior to the new staff. There are some early hits but mostly guys who shouldn't be out there much if at all but they are.
Quote from: vumsb on October 26, 2015, 08:49:40 AM
Quote from: dime life on October 25, 2015, 11:13:58 PM
Said nothing about deliberate in trying to lose...no one would do that.
We have 1 win (and that was barely). There seems to be an overt effort to get freshmen in the mix. No matter how they do. Even after mistakes (See 2 of the 3 turnovers this week), no changes are made.
Did we see the RB' s shuffle earlier this year , 3 -4 at a time? Why? The WR's playing? Where is Shea? Morgan? Others? Why are we not 4 wide most of the time? Why were we subbing Bastin? And yes, there are players on the bench who helped to beat teams last season. This team was set to be a possible 4-4 in league play.
I agree that the coaches would never intentionally try to lose. However, I think the coaches have absolutely given up on this season. That is the consensus among the parents and fans. Everything is "for the future" regardless of the remaining games in this season. This attitude is why they are constantly shuttling freshman in the mix and pulling out the older and, yes, better players, just to give the freshman their playing time "for the future". Players are unable to establish any rhythm or gain momentum because they are shuttled in and out repeatedly and too often we see any type of drive stalled because of that. The RB shuffle you described is a perfect example with 4 running backs (yes, there have been injuries, but the shuffle has been since the very beginning with everyone healthy). There are players on the bench who contributed last year who appear to have been relegated solely to scout team this season. Why aren't they given the same opportunities with PT that all of the freshmen are getting? Do not discount the effects of maturity and experience that these players bring. We are seeing freshmen make the same critical mistakes over and over and it does not appear that they are being corrected or told what they are doing wrong. The freshman players are struggling learning the offense and seem overwhelmed which is understandable. I wouldn't be surprised to see some of them burned out after this season and leave, and I am talking about ones that are playing. It is infuriating to see this season written off so early when there was still so much fight and determination left in the upperclassmen. I get the feeling that the attitude and philosophy from the coaches is having a trickle-down effect and is sucking the life and enthusiasm out of this team that ended last season was so much hope and excitement for this year.
Last year, make a mistake...particularly a younger player...off the field you came. Even minor mistakes were dealt with this way last year such as false starts for anyone other than a lineman. This year, this has not happened.
The parents/fans and some players were in full riot mode Saturday and this is particularly true with those affiliated with the offensive side of the ball. Parents and other third party fans pay the bills and players make decisions. Based on my conversations either in person, phone or text it is not limited to freshman who may not be playing at this point who are struggling with the is this worth it issue.
I mentioned that the change in offense, even if it appeared subtle to some (it wasn't), can have a devastating effect on the confidence of a team. The question being asked on the offensive side, and it was there Thursday prior to the game, is why are we making changes for Stetson. I assume the offensive players talk to the defensive players and maybe that first drive was what the coaches got as a result. Coach's comments that they had a good week of practice did not mesh with his players or at least some of them who talked of too many balls hitting the ground and players being unclear on assignments.
Quote from: covufan on October 26, 2015, 09:40:56 AM
Quote from: vu72 on October 24, 2015, 06:10:51 PMQuote from: usc4valpo on October 24, 2015, 05:00:47 PM729 fans is pathetic and embarrassing - and no fans and no cheerleaders? Seriously?This is a rough season with a lot of growing pains.Students are on fall break.
So which came first? Did we schedule a game knowing it was going to be fall break, or did we schedule fall break, knowing we had a game?
All teams play home games during breaks in the semester at some point. The scheduling of the game has nothing to do with the school schedule.
Strange comments. Fall break or not, 729 fans is pathetic. Not a lot of participation.
Is it really any worse than the 1200 at San Diego or 2000 at Drake? It's a function of the level and interest. Interest is earned.
Drake was 3X.
Quote from: VU2624 on October 26, 2015, 11:51:00 AM
Is it really any worse than the 1200 at San Diego or 2000 at Drake? It's a function of the level and interest. Interest is earned.
3183 for the San Diego game.
Having 730 fans attend a game isn't all that embarrassing. Having one of the worst program for any D1 sport this past decade... Well, that's embarrassing.
Yep. I think the school needs to give the football program a long and thorough examination. It's one thing to have a bad few seasons, but outside of a handful of years, Valpo football has been a failure for the better part of three decades. According to the school's archives, the team even has a losing record all time AT HOME. How does that happen?
I'm not sure I buy the argument that football is a $$ maker for the school when you consider coaching salaries, equipment, recruiting, travel and everything else. And in the end what is the return on investment? A whole lot of losses. I have to think the money could be better spent elsewhere. Maybe the new field house?
The football program brings in student athletes that will pay tuition to play. At a higher level it brings in revenue to the school.
Quote from: Vinny on October 26, 2015, 06:34:22 PM
Yep. I think the school needs to give the football program a long and thorough examination. It's one thing to have a bad few seasons, but outside of a handful of years, Valpo football has been a failure for the better part of three decades. According to the school's archives, the team even has a losing record all time AT HOME. How does that happen?
I'm not sure I buy the argument that football is a $$ maker for the school when you consider coaching salaries, equipment, recruiting, travel and everything else. And in the end what is the return on investment? A whole lot of losses. I have to think the money could be better spent elsewhere. Maybe the new field house?
Wow! Kind of harsh. For the record, we have won two PFL championships since 2015. It was only a few months ago that we thought the new coach walked on water and now?? The facts are that we are starting two-thirds freshman and sophomores, somewhat hampered by mono and the flu. The seniors left have had season ending injuries and we are playing our third string quarterback, with one of the former starters out for the season with a head injury.
Coach C has had one full year of recruiting. He has more athletes from Florida then any state accept Illinois. It took Tom Horne years before he brought home two titles in four years. If, in two more years, we still are losing more than winning, then I will agree that the sport need reevaluation. Not until then. Even in failure we are adding outstanding students, not just males studying basket weaving. 25% are engineers and 25% are in the Business School.
OK, 25% are in engineering ;)
Quote from: vu72 on October 26, 2015, 02:33:00 PM
Quote from: VU2624 on October 26, 2015, 11:51:00 AM
Is it really any worse than the 1200 at San Diego or 2000 at Drake? It's a function of the level and interest. Interest is earned.
3183 for the San Diego game.
My reference was not to the attendance at Valpo for the SD game. It was the attendance at SD and Drake last Saturday for their home games.
Quote from: Vinny on October 26, 2015, 06:34:22 PM
Yep. I think the school needs to give the football program a long and thorough examination. It's one thing to have a bad few seasons, but outside of a handful of years, Valpo football has been a failure for the better part of three decades. According to the school's archives, the team even has a losing record all time AT HOME. How does that happen?
I'm not sure I buy the argument that football is a $$ maker for the school when you consider coaching salaries, equipment, recruiting, travel and everything else. And in the end what is the return on investment? A whole lot of losses. I have to think the money could be better spent elsewhere. Maybe the new field house?
It appears your sole purpose here is to declare which sports should be cut.
Quote from: vu72 on October 26, 2015, 08:09:02 PM
Quote from: Vinny on October 26, 2015, 06:34:22 PM
Yep. I think the school needs to give the football program a long and thorough examination. It's one thing to have a bad few seasons, but outside of a handful of years, Valpo football has been a failure for the better part of three decades. According to the school's archives, the team even has a losing record all time AT HOME. How does that happen?
I'm not sure I buy the argument that football is a $$ maker for the school when you consider coaching salaries, equipment, recruiting, travel and everything else. And in the end what is the return on investment? A whole lot of losses. I have to think the money could be better spent elsewhere. Maybe the new field house?
Wow! Kind of harsh. For the record, we have won two PFL championships since 2015. It was only a few months ago that we thought the new coach walked on water and now?? The facts are that we are starting two-thirds freshman and sophomores, somewhat hampered by mono and the flu. The seniors left have had season ending injuries and we are playing our third string quarterback, with one of the former starters out for the season with a head injury.
Coach C has had one full year of recruiting. He has more athletes from Florida then any state accept Illinois. It took Tom Horne years before he brought home two titles in four years. If, in two more years, we still are losing more than winning, then I will agree that the sport need reevaluation. Not until then. Even in failure we are adding outstanding students, not just males studying basket weaving. 25% are engineers and 25% are in the Business School.
Stokes likely would have been the starter but Clarke has been 2nd string all along. Stokes probably fits the offense better but there's a reason both were playing early. I don't think the freshman/sophomore argument holds a whole lot of water for last week. That was a complete meltdown by the staff.
When I receive mailings asking to increase my annual donation to the Crusader Fund, then yes, I begin to look at the entity and wonder if my money is being spent well. Granted, my $500 is a tiny drop in the bucket, but I apply the same thought process to companies in which I own stock. God forbid I use a little critical thinking.
Quote from: Vinny on October 27, 2015, 10:59:04 AM
When I receive mailings asking to increase my annual donation to the Crusader Fund, then yes, I begin to look at the entity and wonder if my money is being spent well. Granted, my $500 is a tiny drop in the bucket, but I apply the same thought process to companies in which I own stock. God forbid I use a little critical thinking.
The Crusader Fund allows you to pick the sport(s) you want to support. Thanks for your support, regardless of what sport you pick.
If Valpo cut the football program they'd have 100 less students at the school. If the average player on the team is paying $25K in tuition after academic scholarships to attend Valpo that's $2.5 million dollars in lost revenue. I really don't think the school is paying over $2.5M in coaches salaries, equipment and travel expenses. If Valpo is losing money by having a football team it's not a substantial loss. I don't think football at Valpo is going away any time soon. I also don't think the new coaching staff should panic a year into turning around a program. New weight room and locker room should help with recruiting so I feel that the next couple of years we should see some real improvement. Also, Cecchini may have to also make some adjustments with his coaching staff in the future if the program is going to improve.
Here is a very interesting read on D3 programs profiting from football so I would assume Valpo falls into this category also.
http://deadspin.com/how-division-iii-colleges-profit-from-football-no-one-w-1440369611 (http://deadspin.com/how-division-iii-colleges-profit-from-football-no-one-w-1440369611)
Quote from: valpochgo on October 27, 2015, 11:26:53 PMHere is a very interesting read on D3 programs profiting from football so I would assume Valpo falls into this category also.http://deadspin.com/how-division-iii-colleges-profit-from-football-no-one-w-1440369611 (http://deadspin.com/how-division-iii-colleges-profit-from-football-no-one-w-1440369611)
Good article. I'm guessing that Evansville and other schools that have dropped football in the last few decades did not have this view of football and $$ income.
Outstanding article, and comparing Valpo's football program to a Div. 3 program is certainly fair.
Cripe, MIT draws more fans for their games!
Quote from: covufan on October 28, 2015, 11:11:17 AM
Quote from: valpochgo on October 27, 2015, 11:26:53 PMHere is a very interesting read on D3 programs profiting from football so I would assume Valpo falls into this category also.http://deadspin.com/how-division-iii-colleges-profit-from-football-no-one-w-1440369611 (http://deadspin.com/how-division-iii-colleges-profit-from-football-no-one-w-1440369611)
Good article. I'm guessing that Evansville and other schools that have dropped football in the last few decades did not have this view of football and $$ income.
I sat on the parents board at UE from 2002-2006 and believe me they found out about "this view of football and $$ income". Not only did they lose quite a few of the players, but donations and applications went down. It was a very sore subject when I was on that board and took them some time to recover.
I would guess that the return on investment for Division 3 football is higher than it is for Division I.
One last note on the game last week. I was on campus during the week to see my guys and what came up was much of what was mentioned here. Couldn't understand why the offense was changed for the game. Why was it done for Stetson which was a winnable game from the players perspective. Players weren't comfortable with new scheme. Both offense and defense were affected according to the guys in the locker room. Can't say the offensive side of the ball has a lot of faith in the staff right now. Apparently a number of players aren't happy and are looking at other options. Whether that's just locker room talk or comes to fruition we'll see.
I wonder what those other options are. If they are coming to Valpo primarily to play football instead of an education, they need to get a clue.
Quote from: usc4valpo on October 31, 2015, 04:39:06 PM
I wonder what those other options are. If they are coming to Valpo primarily to play football instead of an education, they need to get a clue.
If anyone thinks that the opportunity to play football doesn't factor into probably 90% of the football roster's school choice then it is they who need to get a clue. Other options can include many things which may or may not include playing football.
Here is my point - if you leave Valpo because of football, you may be missing something in your life in the long term. To spend cash primarily to play on a football team is not sensible. In Division 3, academics should always take over football endeavors.
Heard same type comments as 2624...think the offensive side "overcoaching" VS Stetson and continued lack of, or zero, playing time for many returners has hit home. These are very smart kids and they see what is going on. It's a shame.
A few things:
1. Cecchini is making mistakes, and he admits making mistakes as well as the coaching staff. I think he is trying to build a foundation for successful football in the long term. He will continue to make mistakes, and making an offensive change before Stetson was wrong.
2. That being said, I will take Cecchini over Carlson any day of the weak. No contest.
3. But let's face reality - the offensive is young and weak, and the upper classmen have not exactly been world beaters during their time at Valpo. I would like to know which upperclassmen should get more playing time over these freshmen. Id there that much of a talent difference? Or is it a seniority right to start?
4. What are the upperclassmen going to do at their college stage? Transfer? They are over halfway done in completing a degree!
2.
Quote from: dime life on November 01, 2015, 09:03:28 AM
Heard same type comments as 2624...think the offensive side "overcoaching" VS Stetson and continued lack of, or zero, playing time for many returners has hit home. These are very smart kids and they see what is going on. It's a shame.
As said previously if you look our roster I just don't see a lot of contributors from last year who are not playing short of the punter as Chef mentioned unless injured. The closest I see is WR Shea but in reality prior to injuries last year he was about WR #6. Quite frankly there will always be guys who do not play. If they choose not to stick it out it is understandable.
Didn't we try something completely different for the Butler game last year and
the coach was a genius.
You do not start upperclassmen just because they have been around. It is not a right.
Quote from: VU2624 on October 31, 2015, 07:25:09 PM
Quote from: usc4valpo on October 31, 2015, 04:39:06 PM
I wonder what those other options are. If they are coming to Valpo primarily to play football instead of an education, they need to get a clue.
If anyone thinks that the opportunity to play football doesn't factor into probably 90% of the football roster's school choice then it is they who need to get a clue. Other options can include many things which may or may not include playing football.
I actually heard the same thing.... Actually that many of the freshman aren't happy and our considering transferring. Yet most freshmen have a difficult time adjusting so they may change their mind after the season.
There recruited 50 freshmen? Several will leave just based on that number, and that would be for any season. Valparaiso is not an ideal school for everyone for various reasons.
Quote from: IndyValpo on November 01, 2015, 04:09:29 PM
Didn't we try something completely different for the Butler game last year and
the coach was a genius.
There was more of an emphasis on the run for Butler but the basic sets those plays were run out of didn't change. That was the problem with the Stetson game.
Quote from: usc4valpo on November 01, 2015, 04:34:51 PM
You do not start upperclassmen just because they have been around. It is not a right.
This is less of an issue than thought by some....the upperclassman issue that is.
There are a lot of questions regarding the coaching staff and their choices. For the Stetson game, the entire game plan was questioned by the team. We've already discussed that aspect of it. The complaints are coming from players who are playing although there is some question regarding the overall playing time of some of the kids who are playing. The staff hasn't stuck to a z receiver all year long using 5 or 6, can't figure out what to do with Morgan, designs a gameplan which removes Rene from the field in favor of TEs playing...in some cases...in roles not accustomed to. These are just some of the issues.
Quote from: VU2624 on November 03, 2015, 10:19:22 AM
Quote from: usc4valpo on November 01, 2015, 04:34:51 PM
You do not start upperclassmen just because they have been around. It is not a right.
This is less of an issue than thought by some....the upperclassman issue that is.
There are a lot of questions regarding the coaching staff and their choices. For the Stetson game, the entire game plan was questioned by the team. We've already discussed that aspect of it. The complaints are coming from players who are playing although there is some question regarding the overall playing time of some of the kids who are playing. The staff hasn't stuck to a z receiver all year long using 5 or 6, can't figure out what to do with Morgan, designs a gameplan which removes Rene from the field in favor of TEs playing...in some cases...in roles not accustomed to. These are just some of the issues.
Here are the issues that I have... As a former college basketball coach I think these kinds of posts do nothing but stir the pot. It always amazed me how we could be geniuses one game and dunces the next. The things that were attributed to our locker room most times resembled nothing close to the truth. Are you some kind of football analyst, college or NFL coach that you know so much about who should be playing where? Are you on the staff or somehow in the locker room on a daily basis that you seem to be able to make blanket statements for the team?? I understand that it has been a frustrating year, especially after the "above expectations" performance of last year. I just don't see how this helps.
I agree FWAlum. The stirring of the pot as you say, instead of helping matters, only makes the job more difficult. Am I disappointed so far? You bet. I wanted to be at the Stetson game but couldn't make it. As I watched the GameTracker I became despondent. I couldn't bring myself to listen to the postgame presser until yesterday. But my perspective remains. This is a building process. We must be patient. The four wins last year were super, but this is a brand new year with experience lost to graduation, a huge freshman class, and an incredible list of injuries over the course of the season that always seems to dislodge any gains the previous week -- I can't recall so many key football players sitting out games with concussions in the time I've been actively tracking VU FB on the Forum. The OL hasn't had the same 5 guys start for more than 2 or 3 games due to suspensions and injuries, and they lost Nate Koeneman for the season weeks ago.
In the presser Cecchini took full blame for the staff over-coaching and scrambling things in an effort to right the season. With the bye week they are going back to 'simplify and execute.' It's the right thing to do and I hope the team does just that. Unfortunately, despite having 100 players on the roster, we are not yet in a position to say "next man up" and make it stick when guys like Koeneman or Stokes go down, because in truth we do not yet have the quality of depth that would allow for that. That will take time and more recruiting to develop, not just a few games.
62 - your response is where I was going. My response was related to reports that upperclassmen were not getting enough PT and likely thought it was "their turn." An analogy is 1996 when Bob Dole got the Republican nomination for President. Not exactly a very exciting dude, but Dole mentioned it was "his turn" to run. Well, at the end, Clinton won decisively.
You need to build a system where you will be successful in the long run and not worry about hurting players feelings. THis is not an activity where everybody gets cake and ice cream at the end. The millennial generation attitude sometimes makes me shake my head...
Well, these posts are interesting. Are you all watching the same team as everyone else? See parents of players and other fans yelling and screaming at the staff, and then leaving the Stetson game? See the prospective recruits leave with 5 minutes to go before half? Am sure these rebuild sound bytes hit home with them! See many players come out for the post-game meal? Sorry but this year some of the PT and scheme decisions @ VALPO have nothing to do with attitude , entitlement or age of players. Here are a few quick points to ponder. Why would we use a Legend Choudry, who has a great future, to gain 2.6 yards a carry when we have our entire backfield returning? Why not red shirt him if possible? Bastin was perfect to be our starter, yet we rotate on and on, for what? What did we gain? The concussions were brutal, but do we look at who was playing OL at the time and allowing QB and RB to get hammered? The WR group was, according to HC, looking like morgan, shea, catrine and foley. those 4 have not been on the field together for one play this season. Not one play. Has our offense been so dominating that we could not deploy that set? Sure, mix in the talent of jene renee and some others when possible. Why did we take a step back on D? Pretty much had all returners. Are we not going to mention that? It's pretty simple, you are not rebuilding when you are nearing a 1 win season. And I agree 100% on it being admirable for the HC to take the blame...but don't bother owning up to the loss and staff schemes and "overcoaching" if you are not going to get involved and make some changes. These kids come to VALPO because they are smart. They too see and internally question things each week. All those who read and post to this site expected more this season, and what we have seen remains in some part, inexplicable.
I thought Bastin got hurt. Hall seems to always be a step behind, and I am not sure Hudson ever completely recovered from his injury, as he had a very promising freshman year. So who else is out there?
I think part of the reason the D may look down is because they are on the field the entire game! Yes, I am one of those who think time of possession has importance - look at why Ohio State beat Oregon in the National Title game.
Regarding upperclassmen talent, let's face reality and admit the overall talent is not stellar.
Sad as it looks right now, this program is in better shape than it was 2 years ago.
Quote from: usc4valpo on November 03, 2015, 08:10:03 PMSad as it looks right now, this program is in better shape than it was 2 years ago.
Sad, but this is correct.
Cecchini was known as an offensive wiz, so I'd like to see the offense improve these last few games.
Yes, a good offense can help the (poor) defense by keeping them off the field. We also need to protect the ball better. Not sure what kind of field position we've given up with our -7 in Turnovers.
yes..better than 2 years ago. Worse than last year, by alot. Guess that's the issue, many of the players who got PT last year have been left out or part of mass "subbing" week to week. As for the D, time on field? Nope. Stetson and others have taken initial drives 1 and 2 and gone right in for TDs. The D doesn't even have time to get tired.
A couple of thoughts. First, the quarterback is the problem. Clarke was playing long snapper last year and maybe should try that spot again. The answer will be Jake Paliga, next year. Jake was an All State quarterback who would have gone to a bigger program had he not been the backup his junior year.
We are averaging 166.1 yards per game passing. We are completing 51% of our passes and have thrown 10 TD's with 12 interceptions. I hope these stats don't include COF but if they do then it is even worse. Take a look at the San Diego game this year versus last year. Ben Lehman was 20 of 30 for 221 yards, 2 TD's and 1 pick. This year Clarke was 9 of 20 for 130 yards, 0 TD's and 1 pick.
Now, in Clarke's defense, we do have a bunch of freshman playing and with Nate gone for the year there is no senior leadership. If you can't get the run game going the passing game will always be a problem. Last year, again in the San Diego game, we rushed for 155 yards on 25 attempts. This year, 18 flipping yards on 22 attempts!!
The freshman and sophomores on the line will become sophomores and juniors. Things will get better, they can't get much worse... :'(
Quote from: FWalum on November 03, 2015, 12:12:08 PM
Quote from: VU2624 on November 03, 2015, 10:19:22 AM
Quote from: usc4valpo on November 01, 2015, 04:34:51 PM
You do not start upperclassmen just because they have been around. It is not a right.
This is less of an issue than thought by some....the upperclassman issue that is.
There are a lot of questions regarding the coaching staff and their choices. For the Stetson game, the entire game plan was questioned by the team. We've already discussed that aspect of it. The complaints are coming from players who are playing although there is some question regarding the overall playing time of some of the kids who are playing. The staff hasn't stuck to a z receiver all year long using 5 or 6, can't figure out what to do with Morgan, designs a gameplan which removes Rene from the field in favor of TEs playing...in some cases...in roles not accustomed to. These are just some of the issues.
Here are the issues that I have... As a former college basketball coach I think these kinds of posts do nothing but stir the pot. It always amazed me how we could be geniuses one game and dunces the next. The things that were attributed to our locker room most times resembled nothing close to the truth. Are you some kind of football analyst, college or NFL coach that you know so much about who should be playing where? Are you on the staff or somehow in the locker room on a daily basis that you seem to be able to make blanket statements for the team?? I understand that it has been a frustrating year, especially after the "above expectations" performance of last year. I just don't see how this helps.
Since you wish to go down this road....this is a fan forum entitled valpofanzone...so yeah I'm going to offer my opinion on the fan forum. I'm not a flag waver as some seem to be...afraid to criticize the coaching staff even when it is pretty clear it is appropriate. In addition, since you asked, my information comes from those who are inside the locker room...4 of them , all play and all have reported almost identical thoughts on what's been discussed along with others who are their friends/acquaintances and over multiple gatherings on campus. So whatever your reality is or was as a coach in a different place and sport it is inapplicable to this specific situation. There does seem to be a subset of posters on the forum who don't like reading negative posts and prefer to post in a supportive way regarding the staff. That's ok I guess. I don't agree with it but I'm not going to comment on the style of someone else unless prompted.
Some have given up on the season due to all the mess created from not having set lineups and players getting deserved time. Would it be a terrible thing to make a QB switch in the second half, if whomever the starter is can't get things going? Also, we're seeing a lot of play from true Cecchini recruits, not leftovers from Carlson(Osteen) to thank them for staying. We were spoiled last year, now we have players who will be in this system for the majority of their college careers. We just have to deal with the fact that our lumps taken result in losses, but not every coach starts out successful from Game 1 of their time at the helm. I get that we're tired of losing football after the Tom Horne era, but what about the mentality of the players coming in who were "Big Man On Campus" in high school, but can't get that to switch over to the college game, or they don't want to work hard to earn playing time because they've forgotten how to work hard to earn time on the field?
Quote from: dime life on November 03, 2015, 08:02:09 PM
Well, these posts are interesting. Are you all watching the same team as everyone else? See parents of players and other fans yelling and screaming at the staff, and then leaving the Stetson game? See the prospective recruits leave with 5 minutes to go before half? Am sure these rebuild sound bytes hit home with them! See many players come out for the post-game meal? Sorry but this year some of the PT and scheme decisions @ VALPO have nothing to do with attitude , entitlement or age of players. Here are a few quick points to ponder. Why would we use a Legend Choudry, who has a great future, to gain 2.6 yards a carry when we have our entire backfield returning? Why not red shirt him if possible? Bastin was perfect to be our starter, yet we rotate on and on, for what? What did we gain? The concussions were brutal, but do we look at who was playing OL at the time and allowing QB and RB to get hammered? The WR group was, according to HC, looking like morgan, shea, catrine and foley. those 4 have not been on the field together for one play this season. Not one play. Has our offense been so dominating that we could not deploy that set? Sure, mix in the talent of jene renee and some others when possible. Why did we take a step back on D? Pretty much had all returners. Are we not going to mention that? It's pretty simple, you are not rebuilding when you are nearing a 1 win season. And I agree 100% on it being admirable for the HC to take the blame...but don't bother owning up to the loss and staff schemes and "overcoaching" if you are not going to get involved and make some changes. These kids come to VALPO because they are smart. They too see and internally question things each week. All those who read and post to this site expected more this season, and what we have seen remains in some part, inexplicable.
Perhaps we can develop a group of parents who can determine who should play and how much. Think about the $$ savings we would have....
Someone correct if I am wrong but didn't we start the regular season with a total of 6 upper class offensive linemen? One is hurt, one has had a concussion, several had to sit for a suspension. Who exactly are we supposed to play?
I maybe wrong again but didn't we lose 4-6 starters on defense. I am not commenting on the play just the commentary...
Quote from: dime life on November 04, 2015, 10:50:57 AM
yes..better than 2 years ago. Worse than last year, by alot. Guess that's the issue, many of the players who got PT last year have been left out or part of mass "subbing" week to week. As for the D, time on field? Nope. Stetson and others have taken initial drives 1 and 2 and gone right in for TDs. The D doesn't even have time to get tired.
Still waiting for this magical list of players who got PT last year but have been left out....
Quote from: dime life on November 03, 2015, 08:02:09 PM
Well, these posts are interesting. Are you all watching the same team as everyone else? See parents of players and other fans yelling and screaming at the staff, and then leaving the Stetson game? See the prospective recruits leave with 5 minutes to go before half? Am sure these rebuild sound bytes hit home with them! See many players come out for the post-game meal? Sorry but this year some of the PT and scheme decisions @ VALPO have nothing to do with attitude , entitlement or age of players. Here are a few quick points to ponder. Why would we use a Legend Choudry, who has a great future, to gain 2.6 yards a carry when we have our entire backfield returning? Why not red shirt him if possible? Bastin was perfect to be our starter, yet we rotate on and on, for what? What did we gain? The concussions were brutal, but do we look at who was playing OL at the time and allowing QB and RB to get hammered? The WR group was, according to HC, looking like morgan, shea, catrine and foley. those 4 have not been on the field together for one play this season. Not one play. Has our offense been so dominating that we could not deploy that set? Sure, mix in the talent of jene renee and some others when possible. Why did we take a step back on D? Pretty much had all returners. Are we not going to mention that? It's pretty simple, you are not rebuilding when you are nearing a 1 win season. And I agree 100% on it being admirable for the HC to take the blame...but don't bother owning up to the loss and staff schemes and "overcoaching" if you are not going to get involved and make some changes. These kids come to VALPO because they are smart. They too see and internally question things each week. All those who read and post to this site expected more this season, and what we have seen remains in some part, inexplicable.
Your thought on the depth chart at WR is mistaken. The passing offense is designed to go to the x receiver (TK last year, Catrine this year) and slot W(AC last year, Rene this year). The slot R is essentially the same as last year at this point in Shea while the z (Tony, Fred and Kent last year all contributing vs a plethora of freshmen this year). Jarrett's very talented but didn't work as a slot WR. The plan for him was always to move him around and it appears they've found a better role for him in the backfield. There are no returners from last year's squad to play z. The x and z are on the field virtually every play including 2 TE and TE/H sets. With Fox back this gives that group a returner along with Mallon as a FB/H. I can see the use of Choudry. since Bastin, Jake and BHall get banged up somewhat consistently. The issue with the Stetson game was almost completely abandoning the base offensive sets in favor of sets introduced during the game week for an opponent who the team felt it should beat. This put lesser players (including freshmen) on the field over other players who had played better (including freshmen). In addition, it put players in roles they aren't accustomed to. In short it blew the teams confidence.
Quote from: vu72 on November 04, 2015, 11:31:08 AM
A couple of thoughts. First, the quarterback is the problem. Clarke was playing long snapper last year and maybe should try that spot again. The answer will be Jake Paliga, next year. Jake was an All State quarterback who would have gone to a bigger program had he not been the backup his junior year.
We are averaging 166.1 yards per game passing. We are completing 51% of our passes and have thrown 10 TD's with 12 interceptions. I hope these stats don't include COF but if they do then it is even worse. Take a look at the San Diego game this year versus last year. Ben Lehman was 20 of 30 for 221 yards, 2 TD's and 1 pick. This year Clarke was 9 of 20 for 130 yards, 0 TD's and 1 pick.
Now, in Clarke's defense, we do have a bunch of freshman playing and with Nate gone for the year there is no senior leadership. If you can't get the run game going the passing game will always be a problem. Last year, again in the San Diego game, we rushed for 155 yards on 25 attempts. This year, 18 flipping yards on 22 attempts!!
The freshman and sophomores on the line will become sophomores and juniors. Things will get better, they can't get much worse... :'(
The line is an issue and the combination of that issue plus I'm not sure Clarke's best attributes fit the needs of the offense compounds the problems. Deep balls are nice but the short to intermediate passing game is much more of a key and it's not there anywhere close to where it needs to be.
Someone made a comment regarding, my interpretation was, replacing the QB in the second half of games. There's been a couple of spots where I thought it was coming but I'm not sure of Scott Stahl's availability (he was injured earlier in the year as well as Stokes) and they want to redshirt Paliga which at this point makes a lot of sense. The one thing with Jake I'm concerned with is does he find somewhere else to play where he's happy. He does look as if he as a lot of ability.
Shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic.
Quote from: VU2624 on November 04, 2015, 11:32:17 AM
Quote from: FWalum on November 03, 2015, 12:12:08 PM
Quote from: VU2624 on November 03, 2015, 10:19:22 AM
Quote from: usc4valpo on November 01, 2015, 04:34:51 PM
You do not start upperclassmen just because they have been around. It is not a right.
This is less of an issue than thought by some....the upperclassman issue that is.
There are a lot of questions regarding the coaching staff and their choices. For the Stetson game, the entire game plan was questioned by the team. We've already discussed that aspect of it. The complaints are coming from players who are playing although there is some question regarding the overall playing time of some of the kids who are playing. The staff hasn't stuck to a z receiver all year long using 5 or 6, can't figure out what to do with Morgan, designs a gameplan which removes Rene from the field in favor of TEs playing...in some cases...in roles not accustomed to. These are just some of the issues.
Here are the issues that I have... As a former college basketball coach I think these kinds of posts do nothing but stir the pot. It always amazed me how we could be geniuses one game and dunces the next. The things that were attributed to our locker room most times resembled nothing close to the truth. Are you some kind of football analyst, college or NFL coach that you know so much about who should be playing where? Are you on the staff or somehow in the locker room on a daily basis that you seem to be able to make blanket statements for the team?? I understand that it has been a frustrating year, especially after the "above expectations" performance of last year. I just don't see how this helps.
Since you wish to go down this road....this is a fan forum entitled valpofanzone...so yeah I'm going to offer my opinion on the fan forum. I'm not a flag waver as some seem to be...afraid to criticize the coaching staff even when it is pretty clear it is appropriate. In addition, since you asked, my information comes from those who are inside the locker room...4 of them , all play and all have reported almost identical thoughts on what's been discussed along with others who are their friends/acquaintances and over multiple gatherings on campus. So whatever your reality is or was as a coach in a different place and sport it is inapplicable to this specific situation. There does seem to be a subset of posters on the forum who don't like reading negative posts and prefer to post in a supportive way regarding the staff. That's ok I guess. I don't agree with it but I'm not going to comment on the style of someone else unless prompted.
Since I want to go down this road??? I certainly didn't start this journey. Your right, this is a FAN forum "a person who has a strong interest in or admiration for a particular person or thing". Do you think that some of your words are those of a fan? I guess you could say that they are, if you are using the 'fan' definition that has the synonyms "to intensify, increase, agitate, inflame and exacerbate". I guess what you are trying to say is that Coach Cecchini has lost his players and you think that his actions warrant that loss of respect, because that is sure what you seem to be saying. Do you somehow think that your divisive words and tone are helping the 4 players and their teammates become a better team? There are ways to positively impact a team or coach other than publicly voicing your differences, a respectful phone call or meeting going over your concerns and support might be a better way to start. I sincerely believe in your passion and support for these young men and suggest that building constructive relationships is a more effective way to reinforce their character, team unity and hopefully their success.
Yep it's all a bed of roses. Stamp out negativity!
....and you really think some of this has gone unaddressed with the staff? The knowing nod of "say what you have to say quickly so we can get back to what we're going to do anyway" which has been received begs to differ.
Dude, chill
I don't like rosy propoganda reports either, but this is division 3 football in all practicality, and regarding coaches you will get what pay for. Cechinni is kind of raw and will make mistakes.
Btw, who are these upperclassmen deserving more PT?
And on a lighter note, Grayson Bastin was named to the CoSIDA Academic All-District Football Team today.
http://www.valpoathletics.com/football/news/2015-16/15016/bastin-named-to-cosida-academic-all-district-football-team/
Quote from: usc4valpo on November 05, 2015, 06:30:36 PM
Dude, chill
I don't like rosy propoganda reports either, but this is division 3 football in all practicality, and regarding coaches you will get what pay for. Cechinni is kind of raw and will make mistakes.
Btw, who are these upperclassmen deserving more PT?
Chill? :lol: Ain't you the guy ranting about attendance? Fix the field issues and maybe that improves.
...and you'll have to ask that question of someone else.
Quote from: vumsb on November 05, 2015, 10:36:40 PM
And on a lighter note, Grayson Bastin was named to the CoSIDA Academic All-District Football Team today.
http://www.valpoathletics.com/football/news/2015-16/15016/bastin-named-to-cosida-academic-all-district-football-team/ (http://www.valpoathletics.com/football/news/2015-16/15016/bastin-named-to-cosida-academic-all-district-football-team/)
Great news. Congrats to Graysin who's a great kid. Hang in there kiddo. It'll get better.
I think Cecchini certainly deserves his four years at Valpo. If he has not improved the team enough by the end of the 2017 season then it may be time to look for a new coach. If the team is still just above the Carlson line then a fifth year should be contemplated. Let's see where this guy can take this non-scholarship Valpo team before we go making any big changes.
If you consider firing Cecchini after 4 years, then you also need to take a higher view regarding getting rid of football at Valpo. I doubt you are going to find significantly better coaches than what we have right now and for the salary we pay.
In reality, I think Valpo will get better in the next few years.
2624,
I am chilled, I am the voice of reason!!! ;)
Seriously, the matter may go to place football in the Valparaiso University experience. Do we have football just to raise revenue? If so, let's just say that and have truth in advertising.