91catAlum wrote:Playoffs?!? Playoffs?!?TomCat88 wrote:Montana State FB needs to go 6-1 over remaining 7 games (4 road/3 home; all BSC games) to have a realistic chance at making FCS playoffs.aucat wrote:I am never comfortable criticizing kids who are not making money as pros, so I don't intend this to be that.
I'm sure Tyler is a good guy and a good leader but I'm surprised that he has absolutely no zip on the ball.
Murray may not be ready, but the best way to get "ready" is to play against real teams. Not just slinging it around
at practice. Let him have it. What do we have to lose?
Murray please!!
Moderators: rtb, kmax, SonomaCat
- mslacatfan
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 6134
- Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 1:44 pm
Re: Murray please!!
FTG- GO CATS GO!
-
- BobcatNation Letterman
- Posts: 101
- Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2016 11:21 am
Re: Murray please!!
This is spot on. You have to keep Bruggman as the starter for the Sac State game to give him some confidence and maybe, just maybe that will propell him to better play against the next 4 games after that. The Game against Sac State may be the only game the Bobcats win in the next 5 weeks. I don't see the Cats beating NAU, Weber, EWU or S. Utah, unless Bruggman gains confidence from a Sac State game.BelgradeBobcat wrote:My guess: Bruggman gets the start at Sac State and manages a win against the struggling Hornets. Then it's back home against NAU and more bad stuff will happen. I'm afraid we're stuck with him for a while longer. We still might not go anywhere without Bruggman, but we for sure ain't going anywhere with him. That's pretty freaking obvious.
WWKD (what would Kramer do)? Murray would have been the starter after halftime.
-
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 19075
- Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 6:16 am
- Location: An endless run of moguls
Re: Murray please!!
This team doesn't look much different than the 2002, 2003, and 2006 playoff teams, but I have to admit it doesn't look promising. Even if MSU beats @SAC and Davis, it still needs to go 4-1 against NAU, @WSU, EWU, @So. Utah, @UM. Without big improvements on offense that's very remote. MSU defense hasn't faced a good offense yet, so that could be a problem, too.mslacatfan wrote:91catAlum wrote:Playoffs?!? Playoffs?!?TomCat88 wrote:Montana State FB needs to go 6-1 over remaining 7 games (4 road/3 home; all BSC games) to have a realistic chance at making FCS playoffs.aucat wrote:I am never comfortable criticizing kids who are not making money as pros, so I don't intend this to be that.
I'm sure Tyler is a good guy and a good leader but I'm surprised that he has absolutely no zip on the ball.
Murray may not be ready, but the best way to get "ready" is to play against real teams. Not just slinging it around
at practice. Let him have it. What do we have to lose?
MSU - 15 team National Champions (most recent 2021); 57 individual National Champions (most recent 2023).
toM StUber
toM StUber
-
- BobcatNation Letterman
- Posts: 142
- Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 3:44 pm
Re: Murray please!!
If you have 2 QBs,... you have none. In the history of football, have you ever seen a championship team with 2 QBs? Ever?
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
Football games are won at the LOS
-
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 19075
- Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 6:16 am
- Location: An endless run of moguls
Re: Murray please!!
It doesn't seem like the typical 2-QB system to me since Murray hardly plays and seems to have a very limited playbook.jdevries wrote:If you have 2 QBs,... you have none. In the history of football, have you ever seen a championship team with 2 QBs? Ever?
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
MSU - 15 team National Champions (most recent 2021); 57 individual National Champions (most recent 2023).
toM StUber
toM StUber
-
- Honorable Mention All-BobcatNation
- Posts: 982
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2016 9:14 am
Re: Murray please!!
I disagree, he is not ready. I have no problem with plug and play, but to turn the team over to a 17 year old kid is a throw in the towel call, IMO. You all whine like griz nation. We are not the high flying try to out score them offense anymore and I'm ok with that. Defense wins late in the year, when the weather is bad and in close playoff games. I'm not convinced that Murray is the style of QB that Coach wants for four full quarters. I'm not even convinced that we will see these spread formations in the future. I think we are heading to a two back and ball control. I don't see Murray filling that role, but I'm just guessing. Game mgmt. and no mistakes is the player of choice. I found it a strange time to put Murray in yesterday, seemed like we lost momentum after that and it seemed to me that Tyler was settling in and then he has to sit. Bottom line, I like what we are building and refuse to hit the panic button.
-
- BobcatNation Letterman
- Posts: 101
- Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2016 11:21 am
Re: Murray please!!
Another way of saying it would be if the Cats lose 2 more games this season they are out of the playoffs.TomCat88 wrote:Montana State FB needs to go 6-1 over remaining 7 games (4 road/3 home; all BSC games) to have a realistic chance at making FCS playoffs.aucat wrote:I am never comfortable criticizing kids who are not making money as pros, so I don't intend this to be that.
I'm sure Tyler is a good guy and a good leader but I'm surprised that he has absolutely no zip on the ball.
Murray may not be ready, but the best way to get "ready" is to play against real teams. Not just slinging it around
at practice. Let him have it. What do we have to lose?
-
- BobcatNation Letterman
- Posts: 142
- Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 3:44 pm
Re: Murray please!!
Bruggman finally connects on a 40+ yard throw and the very next play they sit him??? Talk about an OC not understanding players. Moves like that are just crushing to a kids confidence.superbobcat wrote:I disagree, he is not ready. I have no problem with plug and play, but to turn the team over to a 17 year old kid is a throw in the towel call, IMO. You all whine like griz nation. We are not the high flying try to out score them offense anymore and I'm ok with that. Defense wins late in the year, when the weather is bad and in close playoff games. I'm not convinced that Murray is the style of QB that Coach wants for four full quarters. I'm not even convinced that we will see these spread formations in the future. I think we are heading to a two back and ball control. I don't see Murray filling that role, but I'm just guessing. Game mgmt. and no mistakes is the player of choice. I found it a strange time to put Murray in yesterday, seemed like we lost momentum after that and it seemed to me that Tyler was settling in and then he has to sit. Bottom line, I like what we are building and refuse to hit the panic button.
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
Football games are won at the LOS
-
- BobcatNation Letterman
- Posts: 101
- Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2016 11:21 am
Re: Murray please!!
I agree but there was Bradshaw and Gilliam for the Steelers back in the 70'sjdevries wrote:If you have 2 QBs,... you have none. In the history of football, have you ever seen a championship team with 2 QBs? Ever?
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
-
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 9698
- Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2010 4:41 pm
- Location: Clancy, MT
Re: Murray please!!
I've been trying to figure that out myself. My theory is this: putting Murray in after Bruggman struggles would crush his confidence, it would be like benching him for poor play. By putting Murray in when Bruggman is doing OK, Bruggman doesn't get the feeling he is being benched, he's just splitting time with another QB.jdevries wrote:Bruggman finally connects on a 40+ yard throw and the very next play they sit him??? Talk about an OC not understanding players. Moves like that are just crushing to a kids confidence.superbobcat wrote:I disagree, he is not ready. I have no problem with plug and play, but to turn the team over to a 17 year old kid is a throw in the towel call, IMO. You all whine like griz nation. We are not the high flying try to out score them offense anymore and I'm ok with that. Defense wins late in the year, when the weather is bad and in close playoff games. I'm not convinced that Murray is the style of QB that Coach wants for four full quarters. I'm not even convinced that we will see these spread formations in the future. I think we are heading to a two back and ball control. I don't see Murray filling that role, but I'm just guessing. Game mgmt. and no mistakes is the player of choice. I found it a strange time to put Murray in yesterday, seemed like we lost momentum after that and it seemed to me that Tyler was settling in and then he has to sit. Bottom line, I like what we are building and refuse to hit the panic button.
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
But I agree it seems like a bad idea to put Murray in when Bruggman is playing OK.
- luckyirishguy25
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 5517
- Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2010 7:59 pm
- Location: Seattle, WA
Re: Murray please!!
The bigger problem to me is Bruggman only makes a good play 1 out of 10 times. His throws are all over the place and that has 0 to do with scheme.91catAlum wrote:I've been trying to figure that out myself. My theory is this: putting Murray in after Bruggman struggles would crush his confidence, it would be like benching him for poor play. By putting Murray in when Bruggman is doing OK, Bruggman doesn't get the feeling he is being benched, he's just splitting time with another QB.jdevries wrote:Bruggman finally connects on a 40+ yard throw and the very next play they sit him??? Talk about an OC not understanding players. Moves like that are just crushing to a kids confidence.superbobcat wrote:I disagree, he is not ready. I have no problem with plug and play, but to turn the team over to a 17 year old kid is a throw in the towel call, IMO. You all whine like griz nation. We are not the high flying try to out score them offense anymore and I'm ok with that. Defense wins late in the year, when the weather is bad and in close playoff games. I'm not convinced that Murray is the style of QB that Coach wants for four full quarters. I'm not even convinced that we will see these spread formations in the future. I think we are heading to a two back and ball control. I don't see Murray filling that role, but I'm just guessing. Game mgmt. and no mistakes is the player of choice. I found it a strange time to put Murray in yesterday, seemed like we lost momentum after that and it seemed to me that Tyler was settling in and then he has to sit. Bottom line, I like what we are building and refuse to hit the panic button.
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
But I agree it seems like a bad idea to put Murray in when Bruggman is playing OK.
-
- BobcatNation Letterman
- Posts: 142
- Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 3:44 pm
Re: Murray please!!
Anytime a starting QB comes out he's going to feel like he's being benched. There is no such thing as "splitting reps" to a player. There is only success or failure......Just a terrible, terrible decision by the coaching staff.91catAlum wrote:I've been trying to figure that out myself. My theory is this: putting Murray in after Bruggman struggles would crush his confidence, it would be like benching him for poor play. By putting Murray in when Bruggman is doing OK, Bruggman doesn't get the feeling he is being benched, he's just splitting time with another QB.jdevries wrote:Bruggman finally connects on a 40+ yard throw and the very next play they sit him??? Talk about an OC not understanding players. Moves like that are just crushing to a kids confidence.superbobcat wrote:I disagree, he is not ready. I have no problem with plug and play, but to turn the team over to a 17 year old kid is a throw in the towel call, IMO. You all whine like griz nation. We are not the high flying try to out score them offense anymore and I'm ok with that. Defense wins late in the year, when the weather is bad and in close playoff games. I'm not convinced that Murray is the style of QB that Coach wants for four full quarters. I'm not even convinced that we will see these spread formations in the future. I think we are heading to a two back and ball control. I don't see Murray filling that role, but I'm just guessing. Game mgmt. and no mistakes is the player of choice. I found it a strange time to put Murray in yesterday, seemed like we lost momentum after that and it seemed to me that Tyler was settling in and then he has to sit. Bottom line, I like what we are building and refuse to hit the panic button.
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
But I agree it seems like a bad idea to put Murray in when Bruggman is playing OK.
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
Football games are won at the LOS
-
- BobcatNation Letterman
- Posts: 142
- Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 3:44 pm
Re: Murray please!!
I couldn't disagree with you more......with all respect.luckyirishguy25 wrote:The bigger problem to me is Bruggman only makes a good play 1 out of 10 times. His throws are all over the place and that has 0 to do with scheme.91catAlum wrote:I've been trying to figure that out myself. My theory is this: putting Murray in after Bruggman struggles would crush his confidence, it would be like benching him for poor play. By putting Murray in when Bruggman is doing OK, Bruggman doesn't get the feeling he is being benched, he's just splitting time with another QB.jdevries wrote:Bruggman finally connects on a 40+ yard throw and the very next play they sit him??? Talk about an OC not understanding players. Moves like that are just crushing to a kids confidence.superbobcat wrote:I disagree, he is not ready. I have no problem with plug and play, but to turn the team over to a 17 year old kid is a throw in the towel call, IMO. You all whine like griz nation. We are not the high flying try to out score them offense anymore and I'm ok with that. Defense wins late in the year, when the weather is bad and in close playoff games. I'm not convinced that Murray is the style of QB that Coach wants for four full quarters. I'm not even convinced that we will see these spread formations in the future. I think we are heading to a two back and ball control. I don't see Murray filling that role, but I'm just guessing. Game mgmt. and no mistakes is the player of choice. I found it a strange time to put Murray in yesterday, seemed like we lost momentum after that and it seemed to me that Tyler was settling in and then he has to sit. Bottom line, I like what we are building and refuse to hit the panic button.
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
But I agree it seems like a bad idea to put Murray in when Bruggman is playing OK.
You don't go from 5th in the nation in offense 150th just by losing your QB. A drop that huge is ALL about scheme.
This slow down, power run, non deception scheme doesn't fit our current players. Bruggman has been pretty good when the tempo is up. The problem is our OC can't keep up with the pace. Murray scored TDs calling audibles away from what Mess wanted to do. Mess's response? "I didn't know what we were running??".
They've gone no huddle maybe 1 or 2 series per game. It's no coincidence those are the drives we've scored TDs on!! It fits our current players better and doesnt fit our OC at all.
Bobcat For Life
Football games are won at the LOS
- luckyirishguy25
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 5517
- Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2010 7:59 pm
- Location: Seattle, WA
Re: Murray please!!
And i'll disagree with you. All plays have a purpose, while we can bicker about what if they called a different play. The fact of the matter is, Bruggman had time, had open receivers he never saw, and when he did see them more often than not he threw a bad pass.jdevries wrote:I couldn't disagree with you more......with all respect.luckyirishguy25 wrote:The bigger problem to me is Bruggman only makes a good play 1 out of 10 times. His throws are all over the place and that has 0 to do with scheme.91catAlum wrote:I've been trying to figure that out myself. My theory is this: putting Murray in after Bruggman struggles would crush his confidence, it would be like benching him for poor play. By putting Murray in when Bruggman is doing OK, Bruggman doesn't get the feeling he is being benched, he's just splitting time with another QB.jdevries wrote:Bruggman finally connects on a 40+ yard throw and the very next play they sit him??? Talk about an OC not understanding players. Moves like that are just crushing to a kids confidence.superbobcat wrote:I disagree, he is not ready. I have no problem with plug and play, but to turn the team over to a 17 year old kid is a throw in the towel call, IMO. You all whine like griz nation. We are not the high flying try to out score them offense anymore and I'm ok with that. Defense wins late in the year, when the weather is bad and in close playoff games. I'm not convinced that Murray is the style of QB that Coach wants for four full quarters. I'm not even convinced that we will see these spread formations in the future. I think we are heading to a two back and ball control. I don't see Murray filling that role, but I'm just guessing. Game mgmt. and no mistakes is the player of choice. I found it a strange time to put Murray in yesterday, seemed like we lost momentum after that and it seemed to me that Tyler was settling in and then he has to sit. Bottom line, I like what we are building and refuse to hit the panic button.
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
But I agree it seems like a bad idea to put Murray in when Bruggman is playing OK.
You don't go from 5th in the nation in offense 150th just by losing your QB. A drop that huge is ALL about scheme.
This slow down, power run, non deception scheme doesn't fit our current players. Bruggman has been pretty good when the tempo is up. The problem is our OC can't keep up with the pace. Murray scored TDs calling audibles away from what Mess wanted to do. Mess's response? "I didn't know what we were running??".
They've gone no huddle maybe 1 or 2 series per game. It's no coincidence those are the drives we've scored TDs on!! It fits our current players better and doesnt fit our OC at all.
Bobcat For Life
-
- BobcatNation Letterman
- Posts: 142
- Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 3:44 pm
Re: Murray please!!
Hey, I'm all for trying Murray. I totally understand weighing the pros and cons of different players. It's a critical part of coaching. However.luckyirishguy25 wrote:And i'll disagree with you. All plays have a purpose, while we can bicker about what if they called a different play. The fact of the matter is, Bruggman had time, had open receivers he never saw, and when he did see them more often than not he threw a bad pass.jdevries wrote:I couldn't disagree with you more......with all respect.luckyirishguy25 wrote:The bigger problem to me is Bruggman only makes a good play 1 out of 10 times. His throws are all over the place and that has 0 to do with scheme.91catAlum wrote:I've been trying to figure that out myself. My theory is this: putting Murray in after Bruggman struggles would crush his confidence, it would be like benching him for poor play. By putting Murray in when Bruggman is doing OK, Bruggman doesn't get the feeling he is being benched, he's just splitting time with another QB.jdevries wrote:Bruggman finally connects on a 40+ yard throw and the very next play they sit him??? Talk about an OC not understanding players. Moves like that are just crushing to a kids confidence.superbobcat wrote:I disagree, he is not ready. I have no problem with plug and play, but to turn the team over to a 17 year old kid is a throw in the towel call, IMO. You all whine like griz nation. We are not the high flying try to out score them offense anymore and I'm ok with that. Defense wins late in the year, when the weather is bad and in close playoff games. I'm not convinced that Murray is the style of QB that Coach wants for four full quarters. I'm not even convinced that we will see these spread formations in the future. I think we are heading to a two back and ball control. I don't see Murray filling that role, but I'm just guessing. Game mgmt. and no mistakes is the player of choice. I found it a strange time to put Murray in yesterday, seemed like we lost momentum after that and it seemed to me that Tyler was settling in and then he has to sit. Bottom line, I like what we are building and refuse to hit the panic button.
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
But I agree it seems like a bad idea to put Murray in when Bruggman is playing OK.
You don't go from 5th in the nation in offense 150th just by losing your QB. A drop that huge is ALL about scheme.
This slow down, power run, non deception scheme doesn't fit our current players. Bruggman has been pretty good when the tempo is up. The problem is our OC can't keep up with the pace. Murray scored TDs calling audibles away from what Mess wanted to do. Mess's response? "I didn't know what we were running??".
They've gone no huddle maybe 1 or 2 series per game. It's no coincidence those are the drives we've scored TDs on!! It fits our current players better and doesnt fit our OC at all.
Bobcat For Life
Players are gonna make physical mistakes. It is much more likely that you drop 150 places in offensive production because you don't know what you're doing,..... than because your QB misses a few throws or your receivers drop a couple balls.
I could list 10 offensive coordinator BLUNDERS from that game.
At the Division 1 level, your Offensive Coordinator shouldn't be allowed ANY.
Bobcat For Life
Football games are won at the LOS
- grizzh8r
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 6897
- Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2005 11:23 pm
- Location: Billings via Livingston
Re: Murray please!!
Right? I'm not positive they'll beat Sacramento state, let alone anyone else on the schedule. The defense can't do it all...91catAlum wrote:Playoffs?!? Playoffs?!?TomCat88 wrote:Montana State FB needs to go 6-1 over remaining 7 games (4 road/3 home; all BSC games) to have a realistic chance at making FCS playoffs.aucat wrote:I am never comfortable criticizing kids who are not making money as pros, so I don't intend this to be that.
I'm sure Tyler is a good guy and a good leader but I'm surprised that he has absolutely no zip on the ball.
Murray may not be ready, but the best way to get "ready" is to play against real teams. Not just slinging it around
at practice. Let him have it. What do we have to lose?
Eric Curry STILL makes me sad.
94VegasCat wrote:Are you for real? That is just a plain ol dumb paragraph! You just nailed every note in the Full Reetard sing-a-long choir!!!
-
- BobcatNation Hall of Famer
- Posts: 3615
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 11:35 pm
Re: Murray please!!
Texas. Alabama. Georgia. All starting true Frosh. Not exactly like they are throwing in the towel, is it?superbobcat wrote:I disagree, he is not ready. I have no problem with plug and play, but to turn the team over to a 17 year old kid is a throw in the towel call, IMO. You all whine like griz nation. We are not the high flying try to out score them offense anymore and I'm ok with that. Defense wins late in the year, when the weather is bad and in close playoff games. I'm not convinced that Murray is the style of QB that Coach wants for four full quarters. I'm not even convinced that we will see these spread formations in the future. I think we are heading to a two back and ball control. I don't see Murray filling that role, but I'm just guessing. Game mgmt. and no mistakes is the player of choice. I found it a strange time to put Murray in yesterday, seemed like we lost momentum after that and it seemed to me that Tyler was settling in and then he has to sit. Bottom line, I like what we are building and refuse to hit the panic button.
-
- BobcatNation Team Captain
- Posts: 385
- Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2013 1:01 pm
Re: Murray please!!
There is no disputing that Tyler had a really bad game, but until we get a center who can snap the ball w/o it being on the qb's shoes or three feet off to the side it's not going to get a hell of a lot better. When a qb has to waste valuable time trying to corral the damn snap rather than picking up what the D is doing it really becomes a MAJOR issue. Plus, one interception was a pass that hit the receiver right in the numbers and it bounced off into the D backs hands. Murray really looked like a 17 year old, I think it's time to try Folsom.
-
- BobcatNation Letterman
- Posts: 101
- Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2016 11:21 am
Re: Murray please!!
The Cats will beat Sac State, UC Davis and might beat Weber for a possible 5 win season with only 4 D-1 wins.grizzh8r wrote:Right? I'm not positive they'll beat Sacramento state, let alone anyone else on the schedule. The defense can't do it all...91catAlum wrote:Playoffs?!? Playoffs?!?TomCat88 wrote:Montana State FB needs to go 6-1 over remaining 7 games (4 road/3 home; all BSC games) to have a realistic chance at making FCS playoffs.aucat wrote:I am never comfortable criticizing kids who are not making money as pros, so I don't intend this to be that.
I'm sure Tyler is a good guy and a good leader but I'm surprised that he has absolutely no zip on the ball.
Murray may not be ready, but the best way to get "ready" is to play against real teams. Not just slinging it around
at practice. Let him have it. What do we have to lose?
-
- BobcatNation Hall of Famer
- Posts: 3615
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 11:35 pm
Re: Murray please!!
Weber, Sac, Davis, and NAU have a combined 1 D1 win between the 4 of them. Weber beat Sac. So, really, they have zero wins outside of their little group. Good god, get a grip. Sac State lost to Western Oregon for crying out loud.Here2inform wrote:The Cats will beat Sac State, UC Davis and might beat Weber for a possible 5 win season with only 4 D-1 wins.grizzh8r wrote:Right? I'm not positive they'll beat Sacramento state, let alone anyone else on the schedule. The defense can't do it all...91catAlum wrote:Playoffs?!? Playoffs?!?TomCat88 wrote:Montana State FB needs to go 6-1 over remaining 7 games (4 road/3 home; all BSC games) to have a realistic chance at making FCS playoffs.aucat wrote:I am never comfortable criticizing kids who are not making money as pros, so I don't intend this to be that.
I'm sure Tyler is a good guy and a good leader but I'm surprised that he has absolutely no zip on the ball.
Murray may not be ready, but the best way to get "ready" is to play against real teams. Not just slinging it around
at practice. Let him have it. What do we have to lose?