Next game; next man up. Let the discussion begin.
The kids need this one. Going into Davison 0-3 would cause panic to set in.
In the past (going back to the Carlson era even), it was my observation that after coming off two tough OOC games, one of which was always against an FCS full scholarship team, Valpo had a tendency to somehow come into the third game against a lesser opponent with a strange (to me, at least) mentality: instead of putting the pedal to the metal, they seemed to, many times, assume they would win ("heck, we're D-I and just played scholarship schools and they're just NAIA, D-III, D-II, whatever") and not come into the game with the necessary determination and instinct to dominate. As a result games were closer than expected and in some cases turned into losses. I hope the coaches and players realize how crucial this next game is to the overall immediate and long-term success of the program and act on that.
Trinity is not College of Faith.
Trinity lost by 2 TD's to St. Francis (ind.), whm FWAlum has mentioned are really good and would defeat Valpo easily.
I think the Bill Hybels express will give the Saders a tougher game than most think. Valpo may be categorized as Div. I, but in reality they are Div. 3.
Precisely.
TIU 2016 record (1-1-0)
8/27 - St. Francis (IN) - LOSS - 20-34 (SFU had a 34-6 lead at the 10:50 mark of the 4th quarter; last 2 TIU TDs against scrubs?)
9/3 - Wisconsin Lutheran - WIN - 55-21 (built a 31 point lead into the 3rd quarter; total offense 693 to 326. WLU is now 0-1 and plays NCAA D-III)
9/10 - OFF (coming off a solid win with plenty of time to heal wounds and prepare a game plan)
Tale of the Tape from the TIU Roster: obviously does not convey skill, strength, talent or speed levels
Number of players: 93
Average size (player totals do not add up to 93; e.g., I didn't include kickers or specialists):
DL/DEs (14): 5-11¾, 262
LBs(14):5-9½, 206
DBs(15): 5-10. 180
OL(14): 6-1, 277
WR(15): 5'11¾, 177¾
RBs(7): 5-8, 173
QBs (4): 6-1, 197
TEs(2): 6-½, 220
Quote from: VULB#62 on September 11, 2016, 03:59:30 PMTIU 2016 record (1-1-0) 8/27 - St. Francis (IN) - LOSS - 20-34 (SFU had a 34-6 lead at the 10:50 mark of the 4th quarter; last 2 TIU TDs against scrubs?) 9/3 - Wisconsin Lutheran - WIN - 55-21 (built a 31 point lead into the 3rd quarter; total offense 693 to 326. WLU is now 0-1 and plays NCAA D-III) 9/10 - OFF (coming off a solid win with plenty of time to heal wounds and prepare a game plan) Tale of the Tape from the TIU Roster: obviously does not convey skill, strength, talent or speed levels Number of players: 93 Average size: DL/DEs (14): 5-11¾, 262 LBs(14):5-9½, 206 DBs(15): 5-10. 180 OL(14): 6-1, 277 WR(15): 5'11¾, 177¾ RBs(7): 5-8, 173 QBs (4): 6-1, 197 TEs(2): 6-½, 220
I've tried the "let's see who they play and convert that to who and how we play" in the past and it is tough to do. The conference they play in appears to be quite weak and they've had similar results against those two teams in the past so I don't know what we can tell from it.
The biggest issue the first two games has been the interior lines. That should, at the least, even out for this game if not go the other way. Need Kye Hall back. OLB struggling to get to the near side a couple of times yesterday. DL got pushed around. DBs under a lot of pressure because the QB had all kinds of time. RBs really haven't had much to work with in terms of holes. Announcers complimented the WRs that they had good speed and were open all game. Two effective TE/HBs and they actually ran a couple of nice screens yesterday IIRC. We'll see what happens at QB.
Several posters have mentioned the small number of seniors on this year's team. I got to wondering if this has been true of most VU teams.
We are in the process of moving and, coincidentally, I found a 1970 homecoming program that for some reason I had in a box in my garage. The 1970 squad (one of our better teams) only had 10 seniors.
Paul
By the way, we played Washington (St. Louis) that year and beat them. US News will come out with its annual College Rankings tomorrow and Washington will once again be listed as one of the Top 25 National Universities.
In terms of class and eligibility I think there are 5 Srs or RS Srs but there are also 8 or 9 RS Jrs and I wouldn't expect too many, if any, to return other than Nunes.
Quote from: VU2624 on September 11, 2016, 04:46:45 PM
Quote from: VULB#62 on September 11, 2016, 03:59:30 PMTIU 2016 record (1-1-0) 8/27 - St. Francis (IN) - LOSS - 20-34 (SFU had a 34-6 lead at the 10:50 mark of the 4th quarter; last 2 TIU TDs against scrubs?) 9/3 - Wisconsin Lutheran - WIN - 55-21 (built a 31 point lead into the 3rd quarter; total offense 693 to 326. WLU is now 0-1 and plays NCAA D-III) 9/10 - OFF (coming off a solid win with plenty of time to heal wounds and prepare a game plan) Tale of the Tape from the TIU Roster: obviously does not convey skill, strength, talent or speed levels Number of players: 93 Average size: DL/DEs (14): 5-11¾, 262 LBs(14):5-9½, 206 DBs(15): 5-10. 180 OL(14): 6-1, 277 WR(15): 5'11¾, 177¾ RBs(7): 5-8, 173 QBs (4): 6-1, 197 TEs(2): 6-½, 220
I've tried the "let's see who they play and convert that to who and how we play" in the past and it is tough to do. The conference they play in appears to be quite weak and they've had similar results against those two teams in the past so I don't know what we can tell from it.
The biggest issue the first two games has been the interior lines. That should, at the least, even out for this game if not go the other way. Need Kye Hall back. OLB struggling to get to the near side a couple of times yesterday. DL got pushed around. DBs under a lot of pressure because the QB had all kinds of time. RBs really haven't had much to work with in terms of holes. Announcers complimented the WRs that they had good speed and were open all game. Two effective TE/HBs and they actually ran a couple of nice screens yesterday IIRC. We'll see what happens at QB.
I don't really think Valpo is particularly small on the lines. We are young and certainly not as strong as lines from ISU or SH. We have 4 guys over 300 and 14 over 280.
Until the program really gets its feet under it and becomes a consistent winner, I doubt we will see significant senior retention. While recruiting has produced some improving results, I'm thinking we haven't yet recruited that "special class" that will put us over the hump. That class will retain the 10-15 seniors who will be the foundation of teams to come.
Defense needs to step up.
Valpo 41
Trin Int 13
Quote from: vu72 on September 12, 2016, 09:56:12 AM
I don't really think Valpo is particularly small on the lines. We are young and certainly not as strong as lines from ISU or SH. We have 4 guys over 300 and 14 over 280.
Averages by way of comparison with TIU (again not taking into account specialists and skill, talent, strength, etc)
TIU VALPODL/DEs (14): 5-11¾, 262 6-3, 250
LBs(14):5-9½, 206 6-0, 218
DBs(15): 5-10. 180 5-11, 184
OL(14): 6-1, 277 6-2, 293
WR(15): 5'11¾, 177¾ 5-11, 182
RBs(7): 5-8, 173 6-1, 215
QBs (4): 6-1, 197 6-3, 201
TEs(2): 6-½, 220 6-3, 219
Generally, when the teams take the field on Saturday Valpo will look bigger overall, because we are taller pretty much across the board. Most TIU OL and DL are < 6-0, i.e., Fire plug kind of guys.
Quote from: 78crusader on September 12, 2016, 07:30:22 AM
Several posters have mentioned the small number of seniors on this year's team. I got to wondering if this has been true of most VU teams.
We are in the process of moving and, coincidentally, I found a 1970 homecoming program that for some reason I had in a box in my garage. The 1970 squad (one of our better teams) only had 10 seniors.
Paul
By the way, we played Washington (St. Louis) that year and beat them. US News will come out with its annual College Rankings tomorrow and Washington will once again be listed as one of the Top 25 National Universities.
I actually attended that Valpo vs WUSTL game. It was the first football game I ever attended at the age of 9 years old.
2624 - my feeling is that Trinity will not be a gimme. This is a hunch.
Trinity played St. Francis (IN) and lost by 2 TDs. St. Francis would handle Valpo easily
Trinity will face St. Ambrose, another team that would handle Valpo easily.
Remember, Valpo is reality is a Div. 3 program in talent. But I think the Saders win as they are improved. Start Seawald and toss it up early and often.
Valpo 38, Trinity 21.
IMO, too early in the week to predict a score. We'll have to wait for injury news, returns from suspensions, the Todd Ickow interview with Coach Cecchini (should be on the site tomorrow), and a clue or two in the newest two-deep (yeah, I know - can't really depend on it), etc. The big question: who starts at QB? Ryan or Jimmy?
USC -- that 2 TD loss to St. Francis came after falling behind 34-6 at the 10:50 mark of the 4th quarter; TIU's last 2 TDs were probably against scrubs during garbage time, so that might not be a good barometer.
I also think the D will step up after being beaten into the ground by two scholarship opponents, so maybe just 14 for TIU. Can't even begin to guess what our O is capable of doing, so that is a big question mark.
62 - you are amazing. How would you find out specific information on a St. Francis - Trinity matchup?
All I am saying is that we should not take this matchup for granted.
Quote from: usc4valpo on September 12, 2016, 08:54:12 PMBut I think the Saders win as they are improved
Please quit calling us the Saders
Quote from: VULB#62 on September 12, 2016, 09:56:56 AMUntil the program really gets its feet under it and becomes a consistent winner, I doubt we will see significant senior retention. While recruiting has produced some improving results, I'm thinking we haven't yet recruited that "special class" that will put us over the hump. That class will retain the 10-15 seniors who will be the foundation of teams to come.
As an fyi...Butler's roster lists 2 seniors and 10 5th year seniors.
Quote from: usc4valpo on September 13, 2016, 06:51:24 AM
62 - you are amazing. How would you find out specific information on a St. Francis - Trinity matchup?
All I am saying is that we should not take this matchup for granted.
Not really -- just went to the opponents' website and checked the box scores. I did this for SHU as well. For instance for TIU I looked at both the TIU AND the SFU sites for differences in how the different write-ups described the game (the box scores, of course, were the same). It was the opening game of the season for both and SFU definitely took their foot off the pedal and began evaluating backups. TIU kept their starters in well into the 4th to salvage some pride.
I personally believe that we have a slight edge in size and talent, but I agree -- they could beat us ..... IF the Valpo players continue to underestimate the less than FCS opposition. TIU will also want to get a D-I scalp on their belt. We, with our record over time, certainly don't make other teams, regardless of level of program, shake in their boots. So.... Who has the greater motivation?
Here's the Ickow/Cecchini preview for TIU.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6p3RCKyReI
What is wrong with Saders? Others have referred to them as that. I have also heard it on Sports radio
Quote from: usc4valpo on September 13, 2016, 10:26:27 AM
What is wrong with Saders? Others have referred to them as that. I have also heard it on Sports radio
USC, I think it goes back a year or two to a troll who used that term as a part of his handle (maybe sadersofthelostarc?) and made some outlandish posts. :crazy: He always referred to Valpo as the 'Saders. It left a bad taste in many poster's mouths. Somebody more familiar with that might have better info.
I don't think we can draw any conclusions as to how good or bad or how much better or worse any of these NAIA teams are since there appears to be no crossover in games played vs teams which you can compare teams which Valpo has played. The only matchup is Missouri Baptist which is a fairly new program which all of these teams seem to dominate and that includes Valpo a few years ago.
With that said, Valpo should not be taking any team for granted.
Saders is bad. It's lazy. It sounds stupid.
Thank you.
Quote from: VU2624 on September 13, 2016, 11:06:52 AMValpo should not be taking any team for granted.
End of story. It is not a surprise if Valpo loses to anyone but a very few teams (College of Faith, MO Bap, etc.)
OK, the Game Notes and the 2-deep (which we all pretty much look at as suggestions rather than fact) have been released for TIU.
Some observations from the latest 2-deep:
Catrine is listed as a WR starter. Ryan Moore moves to backup.
OL Starters: LT- Lang R-Jr (capt), LG- Rettig R-Jr, C- Jarnigan R-FR, RG - Schofield So, RT- Lundberg R-Fr AV. SIZE: 6-3, 282#
QB: Clarke backed up by Seewald or Stokes (same as SHU)
DL: DE-Slone R-Jr (still listed as starter despite some mention of injury last week), NT-De La Rosa Jr., DT-Trumpower R-Fr, DE-Wheeler So. AV. SIZE: 6-2, 251# Still a bit undersized for FCS play, but might control LOS vs. TIU.
LBs: No change from SHU and still no mention of Kye Hall
DBs: Same as SHU
From the game notes:
Series Notes: The Crusaders and Trojans will be meeting for the third time in program history on Saturday, as the two schools previously played a home-and-home series - playing at Brown Field in 2006 and at TIU in 2007. Trinity International won both prior meetings, including a narrow 17-13 victory at TIU in the last meeting on Sept. 8, 2007. The Crusaders limited the Trojans to just 223 yards of offense in that game, but were hurt by four turnovers
Scouting Trinity International: The Trojans are coming off a bye week heading into this Saturday's game and own a 1-1 record, with a 34-20 loss to #4 Saint Francis (Ind.) and a 55-21 victory over Wisconsin Lutheran. In the win over WLC, TIU registered 673 yards of total offense, including 451 yards on the ground on 54 carries. J.J. Burmeister has thrown for 354 yards and four TDs through the first two games while also carrying the ball 15 times for 95 yards and two scores.
Looks like Kye hall is playing this week 👍👍👍
Start Seewald - he is the future for success. Clarke is the future for 3-8.
I will stop - I like short names and I hear it on WSCR and others for awhile - but I will respect your comments.
My source was Kye hall he said has been on the scout team while on suspension now he's back with the ones so looks like he's starting and Seewald looked really good last week but I think they're gonna try to get Dalton Stokes some reps this week if he could ever get healthy he is definitely a play maker but hopefully they name one of the two as starter for next week we can't have turnovers like we had last year and expect to win
Thanks GOVALPO. That's good news. Kyle flies to the ball. He'll add to an improved D for Trinity International. Bet he's chopping and can't wait. So much for 2-deep accuracy (but then, why give opponents too much info?). Also gonna be interesting to see who the actual starter winds up being. I imagine it'll come down to who looks better in practice this week and today is a big practice day.
Yep Kye is dying to get out there he also told me Dulton Stokes hurt his shoulder on the one play he was in last week so he may be doubtful for this weeks game sure looking like it's going to be Seewald which is OK with me Also defense is going to need to keep their assignments this week Trinity runs and option style offense could be problems if defense doesn't stick to their assignments they have some Jco transfers that look pretty athletic so it won't be a walk in the park they are definitely beatable but we need to start getting better each week or it's going to be a long season
Quote from: GOVALPO! on September 14, 2016, 08:06:20 AM
My source was Kye hall he said has been on the scout team while on suspension now he's back with the ones so looks like he's starting and Seewald looked really good last week but I think they're gonna try to get Dalton Stokes some reps this week if he could ever get healthy he is definitely a play maker but hopefully they name one of the two as starter for next week we can't have turnovers like we had last year and expect to win
Were there other guys also suspended or was it just Kye? I thought I remembered something about suspensions. Should be good to finally get to full strength.
GOVALPO - you and my 11 year old daughter are having challenges with run ons. But thanks for the update.
Quote from: usc4valpo on September 14, 2016, 07:41:46 PM
GOVALPO - you and my 11 year old daughter are having challenges with run ons. But thanks for the update.
(http://www.runontexas.com/sites/all/themes/runon/images/runon_logo.png)
More TIU background.
2015 Record: OVERALL WON 2 LOST 9, CONF 0-5, HOME 0-5, AWAY 2-4, PF - 203. PA - 324
TRINITY BIBLE (N.D.) -- W 45-0 AWAY
WISCONSIN LUTHERAN W 34-27 OT AWAY *
#17 SAINT FRANCIS (IND.) L 3-45 AWAY*
CONCORDIA (MICH.) L 17-21 HOME
#25 SAINT AMBROSE L 13-41 HOME
OLIVET NAZARENE L 6-22 HOME
#9 ROBERT MORRIS L 12-41 HOME
#13 SAINT XAVIER L 18-27 AWAY
ST FRANCIS (IL) l 7022 AWAY
SIENA HEIGHTS (MICH.) L 20-44 AWAY
TAYLOR (IND.) L 28-34 HOME
Played 4 NAIA nationally ranked teams in 2015
Comparison: Lost to Taylor 28-34 who lost to Butler 41-10 in 2015
* 2016 opponents as well and already played this season
2016 scores: Vs. #4 St. Francis (IN) - LOSS 20-34; Vs. Wisconsin Lutheran WIN 55-21
Until they beat Wisconsin Lutheran two weeks ago they has a losing streak of 0-10
Based on 2015 to 2016 comparative of scores of the first two games: TIU has improved over 2015.
Valpo is a 16.5 point favorite.
https://www.sportbet.com/print/football_college_extra
I just noticed that Trinity is 2-0 against Valpo. This is not a College O' Faith opponent.
Quote from: usc4valpo on September 17, 2016, 09:23:04 AMRe: Game #3: Trinity International « Reply #39 on: Today at 09:23:04 AM » Qu
An analysis in which you may substitute most high school teams for College of Faith.
A more apt comp would be that TIU may not be Missouri Baptist from a few years ago and from the same conference.
I just want to see this typed out:
Trinity International @ +15
(rv) Valparaiso -15
Seewald!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Am I correct? The Valpo team forced a turnover and then threw a 61 yard TD pass in the first seconds of the game?
Awesome
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Seewald!!!!!
Jimmy sure seems like he is our future. Great game and over 500 yards of total offense. Undoubtedly the worse broadcast of all time, WVUR clearly was playing a bunch of freshman!! :rotfl:
Nice confidence builder for next week.
Always fun to see a win for a program that has struggled.
Quote from: vu72 on September 17, 2016, 03:37:29 PMJimmy sure seems like he is our future. Great game and over 500 yards of total offense. Undoubtedly the worse broadcast of all time, WVUR clearly was playing a bunch of freshman!! :rotfl:
You don't like a little music over Todd and Dave's call?
A little concerned in the first half with the OL not (without seeing it) opening any room for the backs but they seemed to get their legs under them in the second half. Struggling a little with the option wasn't a big surprise.
We'll see now when the league games begin what they are made of. Davidson will probably be coming off a win against a lesser opponent (Livingstone) tonight.
Interested in reading a FULL report from anyone who was at the game and, like a few, the QB choice for next week should be interesting.
VU2624 -
Seewald was outstanding today and looks like a real QB. There should be no QB controversy.
Random flight of thoughts from just one guy who happened to be there (additional eye witnesses are welcome to add or disagree):
First of all, TIU: Not a bad squad. No Ham and Egger at all. They will win some more games. Their offensive scheme gave us fits all day with options and LOTS of misdirection. Some of their plays were beautiful to watch unfold. We were lucky at times. Their QB found holes in our secondary for 145 yards and 2 TDs. He overthrew his TE on one sure touchdown and his receivers dropped at least two passes that contributed to punts. Without a doubt RB Isaac Branch was the best RB on the field. He ran for 181 yards on 26 carries. He did this after the initial hit and then made others miss. He is really good. Their OL was better at opening holes for the RBs than ours. TIU, however, could not handle our passing game.
QBs: Ryan did not dress due to concussion protocol, but he was essential to the play calling and remained totally involved in every play. Seewald: Can't argue with the stats (22/29 [75.8%] for 345, 5 TDs and 1 INT). Could be the future. Very accurate. Good pocket presence. Looked like he actually went through his progressions (at least to #2 and sometimes #3). Few mistakes but made two glaring errors – his pic (into 3 defenders while the underneath guy was wide open for a 1st down) and somehow lost his grip on the ball when trying to pass and fumbled (but recovered). Does not run well at all. Dalton: Still has a peculiar release (watching him warm up) that might be a residual effect of the shoulder injury. He ran two QB keepers in the 4th qtr effectively. If Seewald had Stokes' running ability, whoa!, we'd be golden.
Jarrett: Incredible second efforts when the line did not open many holes for him. Remember that as a freshman he blocked how many PAT/FGs? He is not on the block team anymore.
OL: Decent pass protection but did not dominate the LOS in run situations. The TIU front 4 hammered them in that part of the game.
DL: Did not put enough pressure on the TIU QB (only 1 sack for 2 yards) and they constantly allowed TIU RBs into the secondary.
LBs: Kye Hall made an outstanding 1 on 1 open field tackle on the TIU RB after a swing pass. It needs to be used as a teaching clip. We blitzed a lot. It seemed, 75% of the time – but rarely got to the QB or severely disrupted their offensive flow (only 6 tackles for a loss). To be fair, TIU only had 2 TFLs (hey, not bad VU OL!) .
Secondary: Diaz-Martinez is the real deal. He hits people and can cover.
Kicking game: Not spectacular today. Ng shanked one of two punts and Simpson did not attempt a FG and his KOs were average. He was 7/7 on PATs, however.
Gut Reaction: When we started to cave in in the second quarter, I began thinking "here we go again." But the kids rallied and we won going away. This is a very good confidence builder in two respects: (1) it wasn't easy and they know they were in a fight until the 4th qtr, but THEY WON, and (2) there were plenty of mistakes so that no one can come out of this feeling smug. I look for more improvement next Saturday and only wish I could be there. Nice hearing the Victory Bell ringing.
The big question: Who will start at QB next week. I am hearing it's not a slam dunk...... yet (sorry USC and 2624). Seewald seems to have earned it, but Ryan may still out-QB him in practice this week once he returns. At any rate, I believe BOTH QBs will probably see action vs. Davidson. My guess is Jimmy will get the start. My other thought is that should Seewald wind up permanently at #1, Clarke will get on the field in some other capacity -- he's too good of an overall football player to ride the pine. I say this because the other freshman QBs all have good looking arms and some have good size. Don't know if any of them can run.
Quote from: VULB#62 on September 17, 2016, 11:53:10 PMI say this because the other freshman QBs all have good looking arms and some have good size. Don't know if any of them can run.
I would say that the freshman QBs are really TALL, but Jimmy is also much heavier.
Jimmy 6'5" 220#
Papenfuss 6'2" 190#
Mullen 6'4" 195#
Duncan 6'4" 175# :o
Clarke 6'5" 235# (NFL size)
As for running, I'm not sure that is a requirement in this offense. If we ran the option then that is a different situation. The quick release stuff, hurry up offense, these guys, with their size, should be able to see the targets. Jimmy apparently has the accuracy to make it go.
Quote from: vu72 on September 18, 2016, 08:58:46 AM
Quote from: VULB#62 on September 17, 2016, 11:53:10 PMI say this because the other freshman QBs all have good looking arms and some have good size. Don't know if any of them can run.
I would say that the freshman QBs are really TALL, but Jimmy is also much heavier.
Jimmy 6'5" 220#
Papenfuss 6'2" 190#
Mullen 6'4" 195#
Duncan 6'4" 175# :o
Clarke 6'5" 235# (NFL size)
As for running, I'm not sure that is a requirement in this offense. If we ran the option then that is a different situation. The quick release stuff, hurry up offense, these guys, with their size, should be able to see the targets. Jimmy apparently has the accuracy to make it go.
I slightly disagree, 72. Requirement? No. But it is my belief that this offensive system was initially predicated on and is most effective with a dual threat QB, and if Dave had his druthers, he'd prefer to have a dual threat QB. I think that they think Ryan can be that type, so that's why he is still in the conversation. Problem is that each guy (Ryan/Jimmy) brings a slightly different skill set, each with gaps. The proof is how well Ben Lehman made things work in 2014. Right after that they worked really hard to recruit Dalton (another dual threat). Remember Erik Hoffman? All-time leading Valpo passer under Carlson, but his inability to make things happen on the run actually was a liability. I'm just guessing on this, and this is not a negative on Erik, but in doing their first player evaluations the Cecchini staff may have indicated that they they wanted more of a running game out of the QB position and that helped Erik make up his mind to forego his last year of eligibility. Again pure WAGing on my part without anything to support it
Knowing Jimmy does not run that well, teams can play pass first on him and LBs and DL key our running backs for the rushing game. We saw a little of that vs. TIU except their secondary wasn't up to the challenge. Better PFL secondaries might make it more difficult for us. TIU virtually let Jimmy run and still caught him for losses. They also made Jarret's day a really tough one -- but he did a lot on his own to earn those 199 all-purpose yards. When Dalton entered the game in the 4th, against their first D unit BTW, he killed them on the ground off the same run action (but now keeping) that didn't go for anything earlier.
But you play the guys you have and adjust to their strengths. Jimmy is a legit passer - more so than Ryan it appears at this point. Time will tell which direction the staff chooses to go.
Quote from: VULB#62 on September 17, 2016, 11:53:10 PMSeewald: Can't argue with the stats (22/29 [75.8%] for 345, 5 TDs and 1 INT). Could be the future. Very accurate. Good pocket presence. Looked like he actually went through his progressions (at least to #2 and sometimes #3). Few mistakes but made two glaring errors – his pic (into 3 defenders while the underneath guy was wide open for a 1st down) and somehow lost his grip on the ball when trying to pass and fumbled (but recovered). Does not run well at all.
Movement is more important for the QB in this offense over the ability to run. Seewald is pretty mobile behind the line, can throw well on the run and is accurate on the run.
Quote
Jarrett: Incredible second efforts when the line did not open many holes for him. Remember that as a freshman he blocked how many PAT/FGs? He is not on the block team anymore.
He's on the punt block team.
QuoteOL: Decent pass protection but did not dominate the LOS in run situations. The TIU front 4 hammered them in that part of the game.
Complete misrepresentation. 186 yards rushing would argue against it no matter how you couch it.
QuoteDL: Did not put enough pressure on the TIU QB (only 1 sack for 2 yards) and they constantly allowed TIU RBs into the secondary.
Against a triple option offense you should expect little pressure on the QB. It's the nature of the beast. If you charge in, you leave gaps open and they run past you. Youth ball stuff.
QuoteLBs: Kye Hall made an outstanding 1 on 1 open field tackle on the TIU RB after a swing pass. It needs to be used as a teaching clip. We blitzed a lot. It seemed, 75% of the time – but rarely got to the QB or severely disrupted their offensive flow (only 6 tackles for a loss). To be fair, TIU only had 2 TFLs (hey, not bad VU OL!) .
Against a triple option offense this is not unusual and I thought the TUI DL dominated?
QuoteThe big question: Who will start at QB next week. I am hearing it's not a slam dunk...... yet (sorry USC and 2624). Seewald seems to have earned it, but Ryan may still out-QB him in practice this week once he returns. At any rate, I believe BOTH QBs will probably see action vs. Davidson. My guess is Jimmy will get the start. My other thought is that should Seewald wind up permanently at #1, Clarke will get on the field in some other capacity -- he's too good of an overall football player to ride the pine. I say this because the other freshman QBs all have good looking arms and some have good size. Don't know if any of them can run.
I'm one who's thought that the QB position isn't settled in the coach's minds all along. I also think tryout season is over and the coaches can't be fiddling around with the position. They will likely choose a QB and go forward with him. I think the coach, in his post game comments on the radio and in the PC, is dropping significant hints as to which way he's leaning.
Quote from: VU2624 on September 18, 2016, 10:33:20 AM
Quote from: VULB#62 on September 17, 2016, 11:53:10 PMSeewald: Can't argue with the stats (22/29 [75.8%] for 345, 5 TDs and 1 INT). Could be the future. Very accurate. Good pocket presence. Looked like he actually went through his progressions (at least to #2 and sometimes #3). Few mistakes but made two glaring errors – his pic (into 3 defenders while the underneath guy was wide open for a 1st down) and somehow lost his grip on the ball when trying to pass and fumbled (but recovered). Does not run well at all.
Movement is more important for the QB in this offense over the ability to run. Seewald is pretty mobile behind the line, can throw well on the run and is accurate on the run. Very true for the passing game -- Tom Brady is the best example - great movement in the pocket but can't run worth a lick. But much of the play action shown where he kept the ball failed to produce much and the coaches very seldom asked him to sprint out/roll out in this game as I recall
Quote
Jarrett: Incredible second efforts when the line did not open many holes for him. Remember that as a freshman he blocked how many PAT/FGs? He is not on the block team anymore.
He's on the punt block team. I was looking for him but couldn't find him on the PAT/FG block unit
QuoteOL: Decent pass protection but did not dominate the LOS in run situations. The TIU front 4 hammered them in that part of the game.
Complete misrepresentation. 186 yards rushing would argue against it no matter how you couch it. Statistically yes, but seeing Jarret stuffed many time at the LOS but able to bounce it outside for gainers or using his second effort after what looked to being smothered accounts for most of those yards. I watched the OL line play throughout the game and unfortunately they were not producing any gaping holes.
QuoteDL: Did not put enough pressure on the TIU QB (only 1 sack for 2 yards) and they constantly allowed TIU RBs into the secondary.
Against a triple option offense you should expect little pressure on the QB. It's the nature of the beast. If you charge in, you leave gaps open and they run past you. Youth ball stuff. The TIU option system was more hybrid the pure "triple option" IMO, and in obvious 3rd & 10+ and 2nd & very longs (15+) they often visibly abandoned the pretense of option and showed pure pass by formation and line protection technique. Even then we couldn't get to the QB.
QuoteLBs: Kye Hall made an outstanding 1 on 1 open field tackle on the TIU RB after a swing pass. It needs to be used as a teaching clip. We blitzed a lot. It seemed, 75% of the time – but rarely got to the QB or severely disrupted their offensive flow (only 6 tackles for a loss). To be fair, TIU only had 2 TFLs (hey, not bad VU OL!) .
Against a triple option offense this is not unusual and I thought [you said] the TUI DL dominated? Talking pass protection on that (which I neglected to complement BTW -- it was good) and the great second effort game Jarrett had.
QuoteThe big question: Who will start at QB next week. I am hearing it's not a slam dunk...... yet (sorry USC and 2624). Seewald seems to have earned it, but Ryan may still out-QB him in practice this week once he returns. At any rate, I believe BOTH QBs will probably see action vs. Davidson. My guess is Jimmy will get the start. My other thought is that should Seewald wind up permanently at #1, Clarke will get on the field in some other capacity -- he's too good of an overall football player to ride the pine. I say this because the other freshman QBs all have good looking arms and some have good size. Don't know if any of them can run.
I'm one who's thought that the QB position isn't settled in the coach's minds all along. I also think tryout season is over and the coaches can't be fiddling around with the position. They will likely choose a QB and go forward with him. I think the coach, in his post game comments on the radio and in the PC, is dropping significant hints as to which way he's leaning. Agree
I might add to my previous assessment which I posted at almost midnight after a 4 hour return drive back to NE Wisconsin, that the receivers did a great job of catching the ball in traffic. There were only two drops that I can recall: one was a swing to Jarrett that he took his eyes of the ball a split second too soon and the other was on a wide open deep middle post route that the receiver had to dive for and couldn't come up with -- it would have been a great catch if he had made it. Seewald and Catrine (who started but was used a little sparingly, especially in the second half) teamed up on an absolutely brilliant back shoulder connection on the home sideline. If we had a highlight reel for the game it would have to be among the clips. The coaches ran in a lot of receivers in packages I presume and they all responded well I thought.
Quote from: VULB#62 on September 18, 2016, 11:15:12 AMI might add to my previous assessment which I posted at almost midnight after a 4 hour return drive back to NE Wisconsin, that the receivers did a great job of catching the ball in traffic. There were only two drops that I can recall: one was a swing to Jarrett that he took his eyes of the ball a split second too soon and the other was on a wide open deep middle post route that the receiver had to dive for and couldn't come up with -- it would have been a great catch if he had made it. Seewald and Catrine (who started but was used a little sparingly, especially in the second half) teamed up on an absolutely brilliant back shoulder connection on the home sideline. If we had a highlight reel for the game it would have to be among the clips. The coaches ran in a lot of receivers in packages I presume and they all responded well I thought.
Perimeter blocking was very good. On the Rene, Catrine and Morgan long TDs from the LOS, the WR's on the edge locked their men down and gave the guy with the ball a chance to break it. Catrine wasn't out of his packages until Stokes came in and some of those who haven't had the opportunity to play much were put in. He wasn't any different than any of the other guys in the personnel groupings they put together.
In general, now that the "real" games are starting with league play, I'd expect the depth chart to narrow at some positions in which the staff has been using a lot of different personnel.
Bottom line: Seewald moves well enough for this offense. Dave has worked with both guys who were better runners than throwers and better throwers than runners and been successful. That's not going to be an issue. The most important aspect of a QB in this offense other than decision making as it would be with any QB is accuracy in the short to medium passing game. Seewald to this point appears a good fit.
Bottom line #2: OL showed far better vs. TIU than either of the first two games. There were lanes to run in although it wasn't dominant. I'm not sure why there would expectation that it would be dominant with a nearly all underclass line. There will be some PFL games they will struggle in for sure. The DL is going to be a work in progress however attempting to judge them vs a triple option offense (modified or otherwise) is an exercise in futility.
Quote from: VU2624 on September 18, 2016, 11:42:05 AM
Quote from: VULB#62 on September 18, 2016, 11:15:12 AMI might add to my previous assessment which I posted at almost midnight after a 4 hour return drive back to NE Wisconsin, that the receivers did a great job of catching the ball in traffic. There were only two drops that I can recall: one was a swing to Jarrett that he took his eyes of the ball a split second too soon and the other was on a wide open deep middle post route that the receiver had to dive for and couldn't come up with -- it would have been a great catch if he had made it. Seewald and Catrine (who started but was used a little sparingly, especially in the second half) teamed up on an absolutely brilliant back shoulder connection on the home sideline. If we had a highlight reel for the game it would have to be among the clips. The coaches ran in a lot of receivers in packages I presume and they all responded well I thought.
Perimeter blocking was very good. On the Rene, Catrine and Morgan long TDs(1) from the LOS, the WR's on the edge locked their men down and gave the guy with the ball a chance to break it. Catrine wasn't out of his packages until Stokes came in and some of those who haven't had the opportunity to play much were put in. He wasn't any different than any of the other guys in the personnel groupings they put together.
In general, now that the "real" games are starting with league play, I'd expect the depth chart to narrow at some positions in which the staff has been using a lot of different personnel.
Bottom line: Seewald moves well enough for this offense. Dave has worked with both guys who were better runners than throwers and better throwers than runners and been successful. That's not going to be an issue. The most important aspect of a QB in this offense other than decision making (2) as it would be with any QB is accuracy in the short to medium passing game. Seewald to this point appears a good fit.
Bottom line #2: OL showed far better vs. TIU than either of the first two games. There were lanes to run in although it wasn't dominant. I'm not sure why there would expectation that it would be dominant with a nearly all underclass line. There will be some PFL games they will struggle in for sure. The DL is going to be a work in progress however attempting to judge them vs a triple option offense (modified or otherwise) is an exercise in futility(3).
(1) Jean Rene was incredible on that first pass for a TD. It looked like a bubble screen and he made the first guy miss and then just ran past people. He was wide open a couple of other times as well but wasn't targeted.
(2) There were a couple of instances that Seewald showed very good decision making for a freshman (he also made a couple go typical freshman mistakes). What I observed was a couple of situations where I'm thinking "Oh, no, he's gonna force it in there!" but he pulled it back and that made my BP go back down.
(3) We won't see that again this season in the PFL.
Seewald has a great chance of being Pioneer football offensive player of the week, and there are some that believe he won't start next week. Are you kidding me? He looks like an actual QB!
Jacksonville hired a coach who brought the Flexbone over. So Valpo will see it in the last game of the year.
My deepest appreciation for making me look to confirm Jax was actually running the offense they had advertised by going to the replay of their game Saturday vs. Edward Waters and thus forcing me to listen to even a millisecond of Jacksonville's color "analyst" and noted Florida goober David Lamb. ;D ;D
Quote from: usc4valpo on September 18, 2016, 01:39:27 PMSeewald has a great chance of being Pioneer football offensive player of the week, and there are some that believe he won't start next week. Are you kidding me? He looks like an actual QB!
Hmmm....
Hey, can someone who has access to the NWI Times online copy and paste Paul's coverage of the TIU game into this string? Just a link for some of us might not work. Many thanks.
Quote from: VULB#62 on September 18, 2016, 07:35:01 PM
Hey, can someone who has access to the NWI Times online copy and paste Paul's coverage of the TIU game into this string? Just a link for some of us might not work. Many thanks.
VALPARAISO — It took one play for Jimmy Seewald to introduce himself to the Valparaiso fan base on Saturday afternoon.
The freshman quarterback hit Jene Rene for a 61-yard touchdown on Valparaiso's first play from scrimmage for one of his school record-tying five touchdown passes as the Crusaders beat Trinity International 49-24.
Starting in the place of injured starter Ryan Clarke, out with a concussion, Seewald became the first true freshman to start at quarterback since Eric Lemon in 2010.
"This was a great opportunity that Coach (Dave Cecchini) gave me and I had to make the most of it," Seewald said. "Of course (there were some jitters). I got some playing time the last two weeks, but starting for the first time, there's going to be some nerves. Scoring on the first play helps a little bit."
Valparaiso senior Idode Kerobo came down with an interception on first play of the game and Seewald didn't hesitate on finding Rene over the middle for a 61-yard catch-and-run. Seewald continue to move the ball down the field on Valparaiso's next possession, converting twice on third-and-long to setup a Cody Boxrucker four-yard touchdown. The Crusaders finished the game 9-of-13 on third-down conversions.
"It's great because when you get to third down the defense believes they have the momentum," Seewald said. "We have to keep the momentum in our favor and keep the ball moving."
The Crusaders (1-2) opened up a 21-3 lead midway through the second quarter, only to give up two touchdowns in the final 88 seconds of the half to take a 21-17 lead into the locker room. Seewald marched Valparaiso down the field to start the second half, capping off a 4-play, 65-yard drive with his second touchdown pass to Rene. The sophomore receiver finished with four catches for 90 yards.
"Rene is a guy that we want to get the ball in his hands," Cecchini said. "We have a lot of skill guys that have matured over the last several years and Jene is a guy that led us in touchdown receptions last year and he's doing it again this year. He's got that big play capability."
Seewald's five touchdown passes tied a school record for most in a game and set a record for the most ever thrown by a Valparaiso quarterback in his first start. It's unclear at the moment if Seewald will start next week's Pioneer Football League opener against Davidson.
"Ryan Clarke didn't dress for the game and he would've started had he been healthy," Cecchini said. "With concussions you never know. He could be practicing by Tuesday or Wednesday or it could be weeks. We knew Jimmy would have to shoulder the load in this game. Jimmy knew it was his game."
Valparaiso running back Jarrett Morgan finished with 189 total yards of offense, including 106 rushing yards. The junior scored back-to-back touchdowns in a 76-second span during the second half which broke open a 28-24 game.
Saturday's victory marked Valparaiso's first win in a home opener since 2008. The Crusaders return to Brown Field for homecoming against the Wildcats next Saturday. Valparaiso has beaten Davidson in each of their meetings the last two years.
"The big concern is the health of the football team," Cecchini said. "As good as Jimmy did we need to get Ryan Clarke back. If we can stay healthy, which I believe we did a good job of today, that will be big. Davidson will be a tough opponent and hopefully we can have our best football players available."
Thanks 72. This is Mutka in the Chicago Post-Trib
Butterflies? If Valparaiso University's Jimmy Seewald had any, they quickly fluttered away.
The freshman quarterback tied a school record Saturday with five touchdown passes.
"Oh, yeah, of course," Seewald said of having pregame jitters. "I got some playing time the last two weeks, which helped out a little bit. The first play helped."
That was a 61-yard floater to Jean Rene, immediately after Idode Kerobo's interception on the first play of the game. It jump-started the Crusaders in a 49-24 victory over Trinity International.
Pressed into service for Ryan Clarke, who was sidelined last week by a concussion, Seewald connected on 22 of 29 passes for 345 yards to spark Valparaiso (1-2).
Trinity (1-2), an NAIA team, was coming off a 55-21 victory over Wisconsin Lutheran.
Before the season began, the 6-foot-5 Seewald wondered if he might be redshirted since the Crusaders were armed with two experienced quarterbacks. But besides Clarke, Dalton Stokes is still nursing a shoulder injury.
"I wanted to come in and make an impact right away," Seewald said. "When Ryan got hurt I needed to step up."
Valparaiso opened up a 21-3 lead against Trinity, but the Trojans quieted a budding blowout with two touchdowns in the last 1:20 of the first half. Crusader fans are accustomed to collapses, but this time VU pushed back.
Valpo opened the second half with a 65-yard drive, scoring on Rene's 19-yard catch in the corner of the end zone for a 28-17 advantage. Still having some fight left, the Trojans responded on J.J. Burmeister's 33-yard TD pass to Brad Hargis.
Undeterred, the Crusaders countered on Jarrett Morgan's 52-yard run, only their second rushing TD of the season. It came with 3:18 left in the third quarter.
Morgan followed with another score on Seewald's 20-yard TD strike to widen the gap to 42-24. That came after Joey Diaz-Martinez picked off a deflected pass inside Trinity's 40.
Trinity's triple-option attack was a concern. The Trojans had scored 75 points in their first two games.
"They're a good offensive team and we knew we'd have to score on some big plays," said Morgan, who finished with 189 all-purpose yards.
Seewald capped his debut with a 14-yard TD pass to tight end Mason Sutter to wrap up the scoring with 9:48 left.
Safeties Diaz-Martinez and Kellan Hughes, a pair of hard-hitters, led the Crusaders with 10 tackles apiece.
The Crusaders, who Pioneer Football League play next Saturday against visiting Davidson, were without defensive back J.J. Nunes and offensive tackle Terrance Roberts. Both are sidelined with season-ending injuries.
As most of us speculated, Jimmy got the PFL Offensive POW award. He beat out 4 other QBs including Austin Gahafer (Morehead) who is probably the most notable senior in the league at QB.
http://www.pioneer-football.org/news/potw/
So far we've had 3 POW awards in three weeks. We got one win so far, be nice to translate these into more wins.
OMG a Pop Warner Team we just beat this Past weekend.... any of the qbs should of had 6 or 7 TDs and a big deal of 5 TDs WoW.... we will see this weekend . the RB of Davidson is pretty fast... . But a win is a win...
I see your QB list and did any of these QBs run Track , and who has the best skill set as the QBs? did any of the Qbs that Valpo have any Stars coming out of HS... I think some played bball, lacrosse. Have you guys been to any of the practices and seen the QBs run if so who would you say that stands out?