VoyForums

VoyUser Login optional ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 12345678910 ]
Subject: Army 64 Fordham 6


Author:
Memphis Bill
[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 08:26:30 09/02/17 Sat

Report I read said Army didn't complete a single pass in a game where Fordham's lone score came in second quarter. Yale plays Rams on September 30, maybe not such a big hill for Bulldogs to climb.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:
[> Subject: Re: Army 64 Fordham 6


Author:
Go Green
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 09:01:03 09/02/17 Sat


Awful performance by the Rams.

No shame in losing. But plenty shame in not being competitive.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> Subject: Re: Army 64 Fordham 6


Author:
voy vey
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 09:27:15 09/02/17 Sat

I wouldn't write off Fordham yet.

Yes, just 3 years ago Yale beat Army, and Fordham has regularly handled Yale in recent years -- both of which may have led to expectations that this would be a close game.

But, Army has improved significantly since '14.

And keep in mind, Navy beat Fordham 52-16 in last year's opener, despite Navy losing their starting QB in the first series of the game. Didn't seem to reflect the trajectory of the Ram's season there onward. Two weeks later, they beat the Ivy co-champs by 14.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> Subject: Re: Army 64 Fordham 6


Author:
Son of Eli
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 09:35:49 09/02/17 Sat

Fordham beat Temple in 2013 and Army in 2015. You win some you lose some. There is no shame in losing. The only shame is in refusing to compete, such as Princeton refusing to play Rutgers.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> Subject: IMHO, this is worse


Author:
Go Green
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 10:27:48 09/02/17 Sat


Not being able to stay within 50 of a team is worse than not playing them at all.

But YMMV.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> Subject: Re: IMHO, this is worse


Author:
Son of Eli
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 10:55:33 09/02/17 Sat

It's possible that Dartmouth could lose as badly to Army in 2022. Do you want to cancel the game?

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> Subject: No, but


Author:
Go Green
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 12:08:56 09/02/17 Sat


If the final score is anything remotely close to yesterday's game, I will be extremely embarrassed.

I expect Dartmouth to perform better than that.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> Subject: To be clear...


Author:
Go Green
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 15:10:27 09/02/17 Sat


Here are my preferences in order:

1) Beat a tough opponent
2) Lose competitively to a tough opponent
3) Lose respectably to a tough opponent (i.e., reasonably close to the point spread).
4) Duck a tough opponent
5) Get humiliated by a tough opponent

Fordham clearly did #5.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: To be clear...


Author:
Son of Eli
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 16:26:59 09/02/17 Sat

Can't argue with that in theory, except to say it's unrealistic to have that choice. In order to have #1 you will need to risk #5.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: To be clear...


Author:
Go Green
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 11:29:29 09/03/17 Sun


If Surace thinks that outcome #5 is the most likely result of Princeton playing Rutgers, then he's justified in ducking the game. I don't want Dartmouth playing Alabama or Penn State for the same reasons...

Of course, I think Princeton would do fine against Rutgers. IMHO, outcomes #3 and #2 (in that order) are more likely than #5 if Princeton played Rutgers.

Oh well...

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: To be clear...


Author:
Son of Eli
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 11:38:07 09/03/17 Sun

I agree with that formula. I don't want to see Yale play Alabama either. However, I do very much want to see Yale play their historic rivals Army and UConn again.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: To be clear...


Author:
Al's Wingman
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 16:32:29 09/04/17 Mon

There isn't any difference at all in caliber of player between Army and Fordham or any FCS program. Army may get a few blue chippers or "4 star" guys by happenstance because they want to go to West Point but overall, there just isn't a huge gap for an FCS team to overcome.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> Subject: Re: Army 64 Fordham 6


Author:
remember it well
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 09:31:32 09/02/17 Sat

Army has improved a great deal since they lost to Yale three years ago. I think Fordham has pretty much the same talent that beat Yale last year.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> Subject: Re: Army 64 Fordham 6


Author:
Bulldogs1234
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 14:34:57 09/02/17 Sat

https://www.thescore.com/news/1363904

Army didn't complete a single pass

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> Subject: Let's hope...


Author:
Jack Hatfield
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 18:50:19 09/06/17 Wed

...Trump is not so impressed by Army's domination of Fordham on the ground that he decides to launch an Army ground attack on North Korea...

;)

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> Subject: Sacred Heart 42, Stetson 3


Author:
Observer
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 09:11:59 09/03/17 Sun

https://www.google.com/search?q=stetson%20football

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> Subject: perhaps


Author:
holtsledge
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 09:47:18 09/03/17 Sun

their hearts really weren't in it after a teammate collapsed and died this week in practice

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> Subject: Yep


Author:
Go Green
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 10:51:03 09/03/17 Sun


People expected this game to be close.

It's obvious--and completely understandable--that Stetson wasn't thinking about football.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> Subject: Re: Bryant 49 Merrimack 41


Author:
Tiger81
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 11:21:31 09/03/17 Sun

29 point 4th quarter gives James Perry a W in his first game as HC.

http://www.bryantbulldogs.com/sports/fball/2017-18/releases/20170902xislys

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> Subject: Congrats!


Author:
Go Green
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 11:26:45 09/03/17 Sun


Hopefully Perry will get his first D-I victory soon!

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> Subject: Do you think Dartmouth can handle Stetson?


Author:
Observer
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 13:54:07 09/05/17 Tue

Consider this about Stetson, Dartmouth's Game One opponent. This week, the Hatters are more than a touchdown underdog to a Marist team that lost last week to Bucknell, 45-6.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> Subject: Sure hope so!


Author:
Go Green
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 14:26:57 09/05/17 Tue


Brown thought Stetson would be a cakewalk last year.

http://www.brownbears.com/sports/m-footbl/2016-17/releases/20161008om6kbw

And some friendly advice-- you really ought to give Stetson a break here. If Harvard is ever in the unhappy situation of losing a teammate, you can feel free to pile on when they underperform on the field thereafter.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Sure hope so!


Author:
Randy California
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 15:02:45 09/05/17 Tue

As with the rest of the PFL, Stetson's talent is way down this year. Hoping San Diego can defend what's left of the the league's honor.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Sure hope so!


Author:
Randy California
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 15:06:03 09/05/17 Tue

Things are so bad, even our fans are stuttering.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> Subject: Re: Bryant 49 Merrimack 41


Author:
voy vey
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 12:10:33 09/03/17 Sun

Considering that most computer rating services that cover lower divisions had Bryant about a five-touchdown favorite in this game, a mad-scramble comeback win by 1 TD against a D-II opponent is an inauspicious start for the new regime.

It'll be interesting to see if they right the ship for next week's contest in Maine.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> Subject: Re: Bryant 49 Merrimack 41


Author:
ivy guy
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 13:30:31 09/04/17 Mon

no question that Perry can coach offense,
but giving up 41 points to a D-3 school spells trouble.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> Subject: Dartmouth @ Stetson


Author:
al's wingman
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 14:14:24 09/05/17 Tue

Stetson does get the home cooking so that should help them. Though, they are not very strong, even on their best day with or without tragedy to deal with. Though they have some decent talent, not enough of it. This is a good first game for the Big Green who should be able to take them pretty comfortably, provided their offense gets it going.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> Subject: Re: Army 64 Fordham 6


Author:
Al's Wingman
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 16:27:12 09/04/17 Mon

Wow, a return to bad old days for Fordham. No excuse for this. Either the recruiting has gone south or the coaching has.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> Subject: We know Stetson's excuse --- what's Fordham's?


Author:
Observer
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 16:39:21 09/04/17 Mon


[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> Subject: off topic but speaking of no excuses...


Author:
Al's Wingman
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 16:51:11 09/04/17 Mon

Texas A&M's running game overwhelmed UCLA by 34 points (!) and then the Aggies decide to pack it in at the end of the 3rd quarter, put in their backups. UCLA scores 5 TDs in 20 minutes.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> Subject: Re: off topic but speaking of no excuses...


Author:
voy vey
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 08:50:18 09/05/17 Tue

I guess this would be "Exhibit A" for coaches that are questioned about leaving starters in the game long after the final result appears determined.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: off topic but speaking of no excuses...


Author:
al's wingman
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 14:46:32 09/05/17 Tue

It didn't look like the D played poorly either. A few bad breaks and missed opportunities. The loss seemed more of a problem with the A&M offense having successive very quick 3 and outs.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]


VoyUser Login ] Not required to post.
Post a public reply to this message | Go post a new public message
* HTML allowed in marked fields.
* Message subject (required):

Name (required):

  Expression (Optional mood/title along with your name) Examples: (happy, sad, The Joyful, etc.) help)

  E-mail address (optional):

* Type your message here:


Notice: Copies of your message may remain on this and other systems on internet. Please be respectful.

[ Contact Forum Admin ]


Forum timezone: GMT-5
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2016 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.