Looking back At ISU

19CAT · Post by **19CAT** » Sun Oct 02, 2005 10:49 pm

Just a few things I noticed...

1. Ricky Gatewood IS the best reciever in the Big Sky.
2. Offense seems to be jelling a little bit better.
3. Justin Domineck played his best game so far as a cat.
4. The stupid penalties have to stop...and I mean now. There is know way we should average 2 PF a game, that is just stupid and shows a lack of dicipline.
4B. The refs need to blow the whistle to end the play. Hey stripes that means every play. We counted this week and might be off by 1 or 2 but we got 22 plays that ended with out a whistle. Jesus why don't we just get a few 8 th graders to come and do it.
5. The pass defense is really improving when you consider all the injuries. Our pass defense is starting to limit the short outs, at the right time and theyt are are getting the recivers passed off from zone to zone 100% better.
6. Run defense is still bend don't break mode, but I can't figure out why. When every person in the stadium knows they are going to run I don't know why are backers are stepping back at the snap and then filling the holes. I do which we would blitz a little more.
7. Can we have a game where we don't have to compalin about our kicker. I think that is going to be what I ask Santa for this year.

What was everybody elses observations???

grizzh8r · Post by **grizzh8r** » Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:11 pm

I have no complaints about our kicker - am I forgetting/missing something???

Cat Pride · Post by **Cat Pride** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 7:39 am

And the defense was fantastic - in the second half. Great halftime adjustments. What did ISU have, 35 rushing yards in the second half? They filled gaps, contained outside rush, turned the backs back into Saitaga and Big Lou... great game defense.

If Nick Marudus isnt Big Sky defensive player of the week, then he got robbed. I dont remember the last time I saw a LB from MSU dominate a game and carry a defense like that.

El_Gato · Post by **El_Gato** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 8:17 am

2 kicks out of bounds is unacceptable at this level; hell, it's unacceptable at the High School level...

El_Gato · Post by **El_Gato** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 8:20 am

Good points, 19, but I will add that the middle of our zone defense is obviously a problem. The guys responsible for the middle apparently feel that their job is to let the receiver catch the ball and then stop them from getting YAC, but I'd rather see the backers, nickels, and safeties COVERING those guys when they break to the middle...

We've given up a TON of yards right down the middle of the field the last few weeks...

BozoneCat · Post by **BozoneCat** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 8:54 am

Cat Pride wrote:I dont remember the last time I saw a LB from MSU dominate a game and carry a defense like that.

Roger Cooper vs. Idaho State last year. That was the last time where he was truly a dominating force on the field.

BozoneCat · Post by **BozoneCat** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 8:58 am

El_Gato wrote:Good points, 19, but I will add that the middle of our zone defense is obviously a problem. The guys responsible for the middle apparently feel that their job is to let the receiver catch the ball and then stop them from getting YAC, but I'd rather see the backers, nickels, and safeties COVERING those guys when they break to the middle...

We've given up a TON of yards right down the middle of the field the last few weeks...

Great point. The seam in the middle of the field has been WIDE open the last few weeks, something we need to correct. How about that drive at the end of the first half, when Idaho State drove down, threw the ball right into Okeafor's (sp?) chest and he dropped it, then ran almost the same play and Thompson caught the TD. He ran a simple quick slant route from the slot position, and Kory Austin played it badly and bit to the outside. Just one instance. I am sure the tight end from NDSU could remind us of a few others.

Post by **kmax** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 8:58 am

El_Gato wrote:Good points, 19, but I will add that the middle of our zone defense is obviously a problem. The guys responsible for the middle apparently feel that their job is to let the receiver catch the ball and then stop them from getting YAC, but I'd rather see the backers, nickels, and safeties COVERING those guys when they break to the middle...

We've given up a TON of yards right down the middle of the field the last few weeks...

Thank you Gato, glad I am not the only one who has been extremely frustrated watching this happen the last two weeks.

mquast53000 · Post by **mquast53000** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 9:07 am

I have to give ISU credit; they are a very good team. I think they will be in the top half of the conference this year. I think ISU will beat the Griz in Pocatello. ISU wasn’t overly good at any position, but they seem solid at all of them (except WR). I think ISU will be the surprise of the conference this year.

beartrainer · Post by **beartrainer** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 9:18 am

The 2 kicks that went out of bounds were what I was referring too.

I am not sure if Austin was supposed to have the inside or not, depends on if we had our nickel package in or not. However, I think as a whole they are starting to understand the concept and get some confidence. Force needs to not get locked up so easy he seems to play the eyes to much there were 3 or 4 times when the middle opened up and I am 99% sure that the QB just looked him off.

Domineck makes a hell of a difference for Lulay having time to throw.

All in all I think we have a team that is just about to explode offensively and defensively. They just need to have a few good things happen in a row and we could really take off. I just have this feeling down deep that we are sitting on top of something pretty special.

19 CAT

Bcat · Post by **Bcat** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 9:20 am

Gato,
I agree on the out of bounds kicks, very frustrating. What is iteresting is that I talked to the special teams guys after the game, that is a designed play. ISU, and NDSU have the two leading return guys/stats. The strategy on squibs is to kick to the sideline and hope a non-return guy picks it up. If not, take the penalty with no return, no chance to give up 6 on a return. Perhaps K knew that both games would be close, within a TD?

I agree, it's ugly! Heard before the game this ugly strategy has MSU leading the BSC in the least KO return yards/points given up on kickoffs. Will be interesting to see what happens when we play a team without a big KO return threat.

Agree with Marudus as BSC player of the week, he was the "Dominator"!

Cat Grad · Post by **Cat Grad** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 9:25 am

beartrainer wrote:
Domineck makes a hell of a difference for Lulay having time to throw.

All in all I think we have a team that is just about to explode offensively and defensively. They just need to have a few good things happen in a row and we could really take off. I just have this feeling down deep that we are sitting on top of something pretty special.

19 CAT

I concur. What's impressive about Justin is that he's continued to plug along when he could have easily started pouting when he got benched. This is the best he's run since late last year as far as getting decent pad level--and yeah, they're going to explode in Ogden and Portland. Think some of our kids are better suited to turf than grass.

El_Gato · Post by **El_Gato** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 9:38 am

If the kicks out of bounds are planned the way you described, it really puts our kicker in a tough spot; a bunch of folks think he's a hack and the Coach can't really tell anyone that's by design in order to keep other teams from knowing what we're doing...

Hell's Bells · Post by **Hell's Bells** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 9:55 am

1) It seems as if the D cooridnator does not know how to call plays for a 3-4 allignment, because he seems to be sending the outdise lbs into coverage when everybody in the stadium knows the play is going to be either a run up the gut or a toss-sweep

2) Dom had himself a average game from last year, minus the penalties from stupid o line infractions. good work dom!

3) I wish the Big Sky conference would hold the reffs to a higher standard

4) I heard from somwhere that ISU actually has 17 players from Utah State - which is not saying much because they *utah state* were not very good but still...

5) Next time i hear "Ring of Fire" by johnny cash im gonna....
i can pick out of thin air more appropriate country songs for a game...

6) Kramer showed class by sitting on the ball deep in ISU territory

and finally
7) fire baley.....now we wasted 3 tos because he had problems miscommunicating with lulay for some reason

Platinumcat · Post by **Platinumcat** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 9:56 am

Including the two that went out of bounds, there were four squib kickoffs on Saturday. I find it hard to believe that kicking out of bounds is a designed play. The other two squibs were very effective. I would bet the ball just came off at a more sharp angle then was designed.

grizzh8r · Post by **grizzh8r** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 10:09 am

barechestcat wrote:Including the two that went out of bounds, there were four squib kickoffs on Saturday. I find it hard to believe that kicking out of bounds is a designed play. The other two squibs were very effective. I would bet the ball just came off at a more sharp angle then was designed.

I'll take the penalty on an out of bounds kickoff over a return for a TD any day... The kickoff to begin the game was returned to the 35, so why not kick it out of bounds/squib kick and eliminate the threat. I have no problem with defensive playcalling on special teams...

Bcat · Post by **Bcat** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 12:31 pm

barechestcat wrote:Including the two that went out of bounds, there were four squib kickoffs on Saturday. I find it hard to believe that kicking out of bounds is a designed play. The other two squibs were very effective. I would bet the ball just came off at a more sharp angle then was designed.

I'm did not hear that kicking it out of bounds is the design play, I was told playing the ball at the side line is the plan. Despite the plan, it was obvious the coverage guys were headed right to were the ball was going. I find it hard to believe a kicker will flirt with the sidelines by choice. Squibs are easy to do 10 yards inside the line. Nonetheless, no points or big returns given up.

mquast53000 · Post by **mquast53000** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 2:13 pm

I thought the reason all those kicks went out of bounds was because the kicker was uncomfortable kicking the ball with a holder. He seemed very tentative on his kicks. I bet Kramer has all the kickers work on kicking with holders to avoid the same thing from happening again this season. We were very fortunate that those kicks didn’t comeback and haunt us.

19CAT · Post by **19CAT** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 2:24 pm

I fyou are going to squib it I still don't understand kicking it out of bounds. first of all you get the penalty second if someone does get it picked up they would only have to beat one maybe to guys and they are gone.

We did have good coverage on the ones up the middle, but I think it was the second one they got on about the 40-45. Just seems like you are giving up too much real estate on hte chance that they get a return.

tetoncat · Post by **tetoncat** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 2:28 pm

I read a quote from Kramer in the Tribune and he said there was no way we were kicking to their return guy. After the first kick I saw why. I think we were squibbing on purpose and with the holder having the ball it was affecting what we did. Also if you try to squib to the sidelines, there is a chance it will go OB. Just like lulay's last punt. He tried to go to the side on a short field and ended up pushing it out at the 30.

I was in the endzone and on the TD that Austin gave up, he did not bite to the outside, he just played to a spot and then let the guy go expecting someone else to cover the inside. From the look on his face, you could tell he though someone was going to be there. This has happened a lot, and we need someone to fill that middle quicker to avoid giving up those 15-20 yard passes.

Looking back At ISU

Looking back At ISU

ISU game review hb style