[ Show ]
[ Shrink ]
Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor
of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users'
privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your
privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket
to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we
also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.
Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
[ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 09/ 6/15 8:03:37am Sun
Subject: Re: Navy game comments
In reply to:
's message, "Navy game comments" on 09/ 6/15 12:02:44am Sun
I expected a decisive loss, but this was a very disappointing showing, the most one sided first half against us I've seen since Rutgers in 1993, or maybe even back to Syracuse in 1987. Hell the 3 Navy games in the 90s were more competitive in the first half. We had good first half showings in openers the last 2 years against I-A teams, and I thought the effect of 3 years of schollies would be even more apparent. I think the loss was worse than the stats (and maybe even the score) indicated.
I was surprised how much our lines got pushed around. Melville was off target in the first half (though much better in the second when the game was out of reach). Wilkins was impressive with some nice runs. Quazza's TD was very nice, as he kept the defender away with his body until the ball arrived.
I agree with GR that it seemed silly not to go for it on 4th and a half yard from inside the Navy 2. It seemed like Hunt went for it in similar situations last year. (Not that it would have made a difference.) I had no problem with a long field goal attempt late in the game - Navy could have scored a TD if they wanted to; they gave their kicker some practice. I didn't understand however the multiple timeouts Navy called late in the game.
I ran into some Colgate insiders at an Annapolis sports bar the night before the game. They said recent recruits were the best Colgate has had in many years. Also that the kids really like and respect Hunt. Tellingly they were not optimistic about the Navy outcome, either because of the strength of Navy's team or because of something going on with ours, they didn't elaborate. They also said the kids loved playing games like this no matter what the outcome, which should be enough for the naysayers who want us to stick with the Monmouths.
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Re: Navy game comments -- get em gate, 09/ 6/15 10:26:39am Sun
>On 'gate's for drive with the ball on the 1 and
>playing pretty well Hunt decides to kick a field goal.
> Thought that was dumb. In his comments after the
>game he says they needed to get a TD there. What? You
>decided to go for the FG Dan.
>Thought it was poor sportsmanship for Navy to go for a
>field goal when they were up 35 points with 46 seconds
>left in the game.
>If Bridgeforth is gone for the season and Morgan is
>injured the defensive backfield could be in trouble.
>Hardegree had a very good game, congrats to him.
>Wilkens looks much better this year - lost some weight
>and is faster.
>Why didn't Holland get the ball more often? He is the
>fastest RB on the team and had the best yards per
>carry last season. He should see more action.
>Hope Colgate can have a more effective passing game
Colgate was not ready. The O line was not ready. Are they really that physically weaker than the Navy defenders? It wasn't that the team lost, it is that they looked helpless and floundering on national tv. Team has a lot of potential they didn't bring to the game.
[ Edit | View ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]
Forum timezone: GMT-5|
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.