GP1

Sounds like his injury was too bad to play next week. Maybe he meant CFL.

What if the offensive line blocked better or the WRs did a better job of getting separation? If Akron really wants to be good, it can't just be about one thing here or there. It's about everyone doing better all the time.

I'm not sure about this. I think they were ready to fold early in the game. Akron let them think they could win after the botched punt return and big play after. Is Akron a good team? They gave up six sacks and have given up a lot during the season. Do good teams allow a team like Kent to produce more turnovers? Do good teams allow the Kent's if the world to get six sacks? Do good teams miss less than 40 yard FGs? Did they lose because they didn't go for it on a couple of fourth downs? Not really. They were 2 of 4 on fourth down conversions. The national average is 54 percent. Whenever I go games and the crowd yells for the coach to go for it on fourth down I yell to to coach to kick it and not listen to the crowd because they have been drinking all day. I have a pretty steadfast rule in life.... Never listen to the advice of thousands of drunks. Sporting events are almost always actively lost, not won. Teams lose not because of things they didn't do. Teams lose because of things they DO. So, is Akron a good team? Teams that DO the things they DO aren't good teams. If Akron ends the season 4-8, which it looks like they will, are they a good team? No, the body of actual evidence in 2025 will show that what they did proves them to be a bad team.

WOW! That sounds like a lot. Exactly how much are we talking about? Now, about the part where you bet your own money.

How much if your own money would you be willing to lay on a bet that JT would have reeled in LBJ? Before saying, define "reeling in".

I agree. They weren't bad. They were terrible. They gave us six sacks. Negative yardage plays are killers.

If a team is terrible inside the 20s, how is going for it on fourth down inside the 20s a good idea?

What if we make FGs and play field position instead?

What if they didn't make it? Chuck Martin at Miami plays not to lose. He is a football version of Charlie Coles. His record at Miami is two games under .500. He has won over 60% of his MAC games. He has been to bowl games around 7 is his 10 season at Miami. This is what winning in the MAC looks like. Playing not to lose in the MAC is a winning strategy because so many of the teams are just dying to lose. You can't make losers feel like they can win, or they will sneak up on you. That's what happened to Akron.

FGs provide some momentum as they offer some positive feedback for a good drive. Getting stopped on fourth down hands momentum to the other team. On two occasions the Zips were stopped on fourth down. Two wasted possessions or the surrendering of field position in a close games kill. I've watched a lot of football in my life. One thing I always notice is teams that play not to lose end up plodding along and winning a lot of games. However, Akron didn't play not to lose last night. They played to lose with turnovers, giving up big plays and sacks.

Conservative play calling didn't cost them the game. Akron filled up the offensive stat sheet. Games are lost, not won. Akron gave up six sacks. Akron had more turnovers. Akron gave up big plays. Akron only sacked Kent once.

Am I the only person who saw the last play of the first half? It was hardly conservative. If they don't make a first down on one of the two they got FGs, the game ends in regulation. What if they just make another FG. We live in a very either/or world. Some day we can have a discussion about this lack of thought being a result of the increased use of Maoist tactics, but that's another day. Monday morning QBs always assumed one other decision would have worked. Quantum physics tells us there are an infinite number of possibilities with each decision. Many do not involve success. For example, getting a first down at the 20 in the second scenario could result in throwing a pick six on the next play.

It's odd to look at the stat sheet of the game. Going by stats, Akron should have never lost. It should have been a blowout in Akron's favor. We had one more turnover and they capitalize on a short field. That's the difference. Akron did give up six sacks, which is horrible. The botched punt was a huge point. Akron could have taken a ten point lead early in the game and instead was 4 points behind. I think Kent was eager to fold and would have collapsed down 10. Akron gave them a reason to believe and the game turned into a dog fight. Oh well, the nihilists are happy today.

Considering Kent has points off of a turnover and a big play for a score, Akron did well and should be in the lead at halftime.

Akron needs to engage in some adult kickoffs. They are surrendering too many yards which makes the subsequent drive after another Kent three and out longer than it needs to be.