This game not as bad as some think

[Buckzip]

Akron lost today to a better team. However, in years past we were destroyed by PSU, Florida, Nebraska and other MAC schools worse than we were today.

Not sugarcoating, but today wasn't nearly as bad as others we have seen in the last decade.

Here are some facts.

1-OSU worked for every score. There were no long huge TD plays.

2-Our receivers were getting open against their much better secondary.

3-OSU didn't get pressure on the QB without blitzes.

4-Contrary to what some think, this team didn't quit.

5-The defense didn't look nearly as bad as the score indicates.

[Lee Adams]

This is an OSU team that is not nearly as good as it has been over the past 10 years. There is nothing that I saw that was significantly different from last year,including the quarteback play. OSU looked lost at times. For Akron to ose in the manner which they did is not a hopeful sign. OSU is not Alabama or Oklahoma.

[UAZipster0305]

I agree 100%, Buckzip. No big plays (and not just one's for TD) allowed on defense against an athletic QB was a huge accomplishment. The WR's were often open, but it seems the delivery was indecisive and/or late resulting in a lot of incompletions. This can change for the better in the future. I was very satisfied with the overall effort.

A few things I'd like to add:

1) The heat likely contributed to OSU's success in the second half. We don't have a bench that is nearly as deep as OSU's, so when our starters get tired, things get out of hand much quicker.

2) Our punter looked great and that will pay dividends in close games in terms of field position.

and

3) Our overall team speed seemed similar to OSU's...the major differences: the push on the lines was to OSU's advantage and we missed a lot of tackles.

[Lee Adams]

So what does it say if the receivers were open but the QB didn't get him the ball. Now if you use the excuse that this was Moore's first game,remember that was a coaches decision. So in this game at least the coaches guy didn't do anything mo(o)re than the guy on the bench. Oh,the secondary still stunk. And,the QB's and WR's they were playing against were who? Was there a running game? How much pressure did the D put on those inexperienced QB's

[skip-zip]

Maybe we've played worse against big schools. But, against OSWho, we've played much better than this. And this is probably the weakest OSWho team over the last decade or so. And they will be beatable to most teams they play this year. That's what I can't forget right now. Maybe I can grasp at straws for a few positives tomorrow.

[Zip_ME87]

So what does it say if the receivers were open but the QB didn't get him the ball. Now if you use the excuse that this was Moore's first game,remember that was a coaches decision. So in this game at least the coaches guy didn't do anything mo(o)re than the guy on the bench. Oh,the secondary still stunk. And,the QB's and WR's they were playing against were who? Was there a running game? How much pressure did the D put on those inexperienced QB's

Are you kidding?! The guy on the bench was an absolute disaster when he came into the game.

[Lee Adams]

So what does it say if the receivers were open but the QB didn't get him the ball. Now if you use the excuse that this was Moore's first game,remember that was a coaches decision. So in this game at least the coaches guy didn't do anything mo(o)re than the guy on the bench. Oh,the secondary still stunk. And,the QB's and WR's they were playing against were who? Was there a running game? How much pressure did the D put on those inexperienced QB's

Are you kidding?! The guy on the bench was an absolute disaster when he came into the game.

Just like the guy he replaced.

[xu9697]

It's easy to point out the negatives (there were quite a few), so I will take time to point out some positives (even if not stated in a perfectly positive manner).

1. Chisholm looks like he is going to be a player. Keep him healthy and we have something to work with there.

2. Moore at least showed good athleticism and toughness. We will hope that his reads are better next week and more guys are open.

3. D played well and hard before wearing down.

4. Special Teams looked better. At least the FG LOOKED like a "real" kick.

5. Suel made a great catch. Might be something there as well.

6. All-Mac punter? We might need it.

Sad to say...give me a good, hard fought 24-10 loss against Temple where we have 275 yards+ of offense and our QB completes 50%+ of his passes and I probably will be relatively happy.

[MaxZIP]

It's easy to point out the negatives (there were quite a few), so I will take time to point out some positives (even if not stated in a perfectly positive manner).

1. Chisholm looks like he is going to be a player. Keep him healthy and we have something to work with there.

2. Moore at least showed good athleticism and toughness. We will hope that his reads are better next week and more guys are open.

3. D played well and hard before wearing down.

4. Special Teams looked better. At least the FG LOOKED like a "real" kick.

5. Suel made a great catch. Might be something there as well.

6. All-Mac punter? We might need it.

Sad to say...give me a good, hard fought 24-10 loss against Temple where we have 275 yards+ of offense and our QB completes 50%+ of his passes and I probably will be relatively happy.

I would take that stat line! Chisholm looked good with solid speed and agility. He should have some success this year if the o-line plays like they did in the first quarter/half. I bet Moore would be a great QB in the spread :-)... Suel made a great catch and managed to get open a few times. The FG kicking can't get any worse than last year. At least the FG unit linemen can turn-in their ass protecting plates.