Game #7 Ohio Bobcats

[zippy5]

I'm with GP1. Maybe we could have had a better game plan, maybe not. But the game plan we had put us in position to win the game and we shot ourself in the foot.

[lance99]

I thought the defensive play calling could have been more aggressive. I realize OU's lines are typically among the better units in the MAC, but we needed to make Sprague more uncomfortable. He would have made a few more mistakes if we had.

They were at the start of the game. The missed Pic help set up the first score.

[johnnyzip84]

They were at the start of the game. The missed Pic help set up the first score.

The missed SACK also in that 1st series, which could have prevented the eventual score via poor field position, also may have contributed to Amato calling it more conservatively from then on. I just think it was a bit of an overreaction.

[a-zip]

I think we all thought the Zips were going to win it when the OU punt bounced backwards to the UA 40

I thought that bounce had good mojo written all over it. I honestly never thought we were going to lose until the final interception. Great stand by the defense at the end to respond to the fumble and long return after it. As with everyone, I am puzzled we didn't attempt to run the ball more….after seeing Hundley go for a buckfortysomething at Pitt and then Chisholm go over a hundred against Miami…….

[Z.I.P.]

Even with our backup QB, we should have won this game. Problem is the dadgum coach left possibly six points on the field by not kicking FGs with the wind at our backs!

[akronzips71]

Woodson is not ready to start. He threw four passes that SHOULD have been picked off. You can not play like that.

We went on 4th down TWICE when in field goal range. Hindsight is 20/20, but we lost by 3 points, points we could have had just by going 50% on FG attempts.

I blame this one on the coaches. They needed to take the points, and they REALLY needed to change the play calls to stop Woodson from throwing to the flat. That was a disaster waiting to happen.

[Dave in Green]

,,, The truth is I am one of the people who thinks the Zips should run more. Most just want more running in order to "establish the run", which is stupid. A team should run to establish more scoring, not for the sake of establishing something that doesn't lead to points. ...

As Dr Z already pointed out, I haven't seen anyone posting here who wants to establish the run without concern for scoring points. I've seen some pretty dumb posters on internet forums. But I've yet to see anyone on a sports forum who doesn't grasp the elementary fact that the point of a football game is to score more points than the opponent. Wanting to establish the running game is simply a reference to wanting to take some of the defensive pressure off of the QB and receivers. If the defense has to focus more on stopping the run, it can make it easier for the passing game and vice versa.

Coach Bowden has made it clear he wants his team to first establish the passing game and then mix in more runs after the defense becomes preoccupied with stopping the pass. I think we all agree that the desirable sequence of events on offense is to gain lots of yards with a combination of passing and rushing, limit turnovers, get into the opponent's red zone frequently and score points almost every time you get into the red zone.

[Zips Win!]

1. The jinx lives on....

2. Why the hell didn't Pohl play? He was CLEARED to play on Saturday. He should have been in the game at the start of the second quarter. Practice or no practice, he gave us the best chance to win.

3. Gotta disagree with GP1 and running the ball. Early in the game with bad field position, we needed to attempt to get in short 3rd down situations by running on first and second down. Trying to convert 3rd and five would have been a hell of a lot easier than the 3rd and longs Woodson was in. Then when the field position turned around later in game and we had second or third and short yardage situations, we needed to run again...Even if it meant running Grice over and over.

4. As mentioned by all, to have Woodson throw this much was Ianello like. Stupid. That said, he threw three pick 6's that were dropped by OU and LT Smith had his defender burnt on three deep balls and all were overthrown. Not good quarterbacking.

5. Where the hell was the D-line Saturday? Giving up 17 on draw plays was inexcusable.

6. OU blows and we lost. Their fans are worse. Half the stadium emptied out at half with a tie game.

7. Hold off on making those bowl plans. At 5-2 heading down the stretch would have been a hell of a lot easier than where we are now.

[Jrship35]

On to the next one .... Consistency will be the piece of the puzzle that will be difficult.

Need to be able to beat the teams we are supposed to ....... Even with second team QB

All part of the building process. It's over, build on the mistakes and prep for this week

[skip-zip]

I guess on the surface it seems stupid to put a new QB in that situation, throwing 40+ passes with a capable stable of running backs, but the game situation dictates everything. On most plays, OU brought enough people to get into our backfield. It wasn't the Bears 1985 defense, but they attacked like it. If that stops running plays, and simultaneously puts pressure on the QB if it turns into a passing situation, then you normally have no choice but to get the ball to people who are beyond those defenders. That's your opportunity to make plays...when they are gambling like that on so many plays. And we couldn't make those plays.

[Dr Z]

Gotta disagree with GP1 and running the ball. Early in the game with bad field position, we needed to attempt to get in short 3rd down situations by running on first and second down. Trying to convert 3rd and five would have been a hell of a lot easier than the 3rd and longs Woodson was in. Then when the field position turned around later in game and we had second or third and short yardage situations, we needed to run again.

First and second down play calling did little to help our QB convert third downs. We were consistently in too many 3rd and long situations. This is, and was a recipe for losing to anybody.

I remember one first down pass that went to the TE for a 5 or 7 yard gain. I liked that call.

Marshall and OU have showed (on tape now) how to stop our offense when we consistently spread em out. Obviously you need the defenders to do it, but I think we need some play calls to adjust to that defense.

[Balsy]

Marshall and OU have showed (on tape now) how to stop our offense when we consistently spread em out. Obviously you need the defenders to do it, but I think we need some play calls to adjust to that defense.

I agree. That's what I said angrily after the game Saturday. I know several people took offense to "establishing the run" comments. But that's what we needed to do. I didn't see the offensive game plan adjusting to how the bobcats were playing: First down pass, second down pass, third down pass. Passing all the time is setting our QB up for failure...it sets any QB up for failure.

It's almost as if the game plan was to attack Ohio's secondary (which has been their biggest weakness this season)...and to never let-up on that attack. It didn't work, and I think after a half of trying that strategy they should have adjusted.

[Dave in Green]

I guess on the surface it seems stupid to put a new QB in that situation, throwing 40+ passes with a capable stable of running backs, but the game situation dictates everything. On most plays, OU brought enough people to get into our backfield. It wasn't the Bears 1985 defense, but they attacked like it. If that stops running plays, and simultaneously puts pressure on the QB if it turns into a passing situation, then you normally have no choice but to get the ball to people who are beyond those defenders. That's your opportunity to make plays...when they are gambling like that on so many plays. And we couldn't make those plays.

Good analysis, Skip. Gambling defenses like that can be especially effective against a rookie QB with no experience in taking advantage of what's available. All that pressure and all those opportunities to make plays put a premium on having an experienced QB who's faced those situations before and knows how to adjust. OU would likely have had to use a different defense against Pohl, and the results would likely have been more favorable for the Zips.

[ZippyRulz]

"They were beating us up front. We should have used our fullback and run over some people..."

[GP1]

3. Gotta disagree with GP1 and running the ball. Early in the game with bad field position, we needed to attempt to get in short 3rd down situations by running on first and second down. Trying to convert 3rd and five would have been a hell of a lot easier than the 3rd and longs Woodson was in. Then when the field position turned around later in game and we had second or third and short yardage situations, we needed to run again...Even if it meant running Grice over and over.

If you read my posts, I am one of the people who wants them to run more. However, that didn't cause the loss. The Zips were in the game with 4:01 to go and promptly pooped their pants. The game was there for the taking and they threw away the opportunity with turnovers.

None of us ever knows what would have happened. We only know what happened. What happened was, the Zips pooped their pants in the final four minutes of the game.

[GP1]

2. Why the hell didn't Pohl play? He was CLEARED to play on Saturday. He should have been in the game at the start of the second quarter. Practice or no practice, he gave us the best chance to win.

I did not know this and I find it concerning. There isn't a coach in the world who hasn't had a pet player he wanted to play more than another. Maybe Woodson is the guy Bowden really wants to start and is trying to find a reason to start him. It's sort of one of those things coaches do when they want things to be one way, but they are the other way.

The Zips are in the middle of a potential 8 win season and they have a QB who is 8-3 in his last 11 starts and Bowden is "waiting until game time" to name the starter and both are taking snaps with the first team, per GT? I could see waiting until game time to try and throw the other team off, but both taking snaps doesn't make sense to me. The Zips have rounded the final turn and are coming down the stretch on what could be a great season. Pohl is the horse we need to ride and the team needs to know he is the horse as well. Experimentation is for spring practice and some in the fall. It's time to win. Let's get the guy who wins in the game.

[Dr Z]

"They were beating us up front. We should have used our fullback and run over some people..."

Nice video, thanks for posting.

Start at 5:30, George asks about the run. Coach answers a lot of questions about the running game for over 2 minutes.

"We didn't run the ball effectively enough causing us to throw the ball more." I don't totally agree with all his analysis, but I still appreciate the depth of the answer. Love listening to coach.

Another note from the video:

Both QB's slashed in at number one???? Tommy gets promoted. What is the saying if you have two QBs at number one? Should be an interesting spring 2015.

[GP1]

Another note from the video:

Both QB's slashed in at number one???? Tommy gets promoted. What is the saying if you have two QBs at number one? Should be an interesting spring 2015.

If you have two starting QBs, then you don't have a starting QB. It's one of the worst coaching moves a coach can make.

[K92]

The QB situation will likely be muddied even further come spring when TraVon Chapman becomes eligible.

[zippy5]

The QB situation will likely be muddied even further come spring when TraVon Chapman becomes eligible.

Forgetting Kincade as well. Not that this is a bad problem.

[ZippyRulz]

The age old "gentleman's agreement".

So what's the minimum time before the game that TB needs to name the starter?

[Dr Z]

So what's the minimum time before the game that TB needs to name the starter?

Day of the game.

[GP1]

I guess on the surface it seems stupid to put a new QB in that situation, throwing 40+ passes with a capable stable of running backs, but the game situation dictates everything. On most plays, OU brought enough people to get into our backfield. It wasn't the Bears 1985 defense, but they attacked like it. If that stops running plays, and simultaneously puts pressure on the QB if it turns into a passing situation, then you normally have no choice but to get the ball to people who are beyond those defenders. That's your opportunity to make plays...when they are gambling like that on so many plays. And we couldn't make those plays.

Good remarks. My guess is OU went in to the game having made the decision that they were going to stop the run and have a freshman, back-up QB who has not shown much beat them. Smart game plan.

If one takes out CH's and JC's longest runs, one is left with 11 rushing attempts for 21 yards (1.9 yards per carry). That isn't going to beat anyone and results in wasted downs. When Bowden said something along the lines that they were stuffing the run, he was right. The running game resulted in zero points. Woodson played like a freshman QB and still almost won the game passing. Playing on the road in a divisional game is always difficult and the Zips found themselves in a game they didn't want to play, but had to play. All things considered, maybe it could have been a lot worse. If not for the pants pooping in the final four minutes, we might be having a different discussion today.

If the defense is going to stop your running game, you have to be able to pass. If the defense is going to stop your passing game, you have to be able to run. It's D1A football in 2014. Doing the opposite of what the defense wants stop is a winning strategy if you can make it work.

[Dave in Green]

Just because Pohl was medically cleared for not showing concussion symptoms right before the OU game doesn't mean he should have automatically been rushed out onto the field. It's not like he had a sore arm or leg where he could play through some pain. The injury that Pohl suffered is related to the type of head injuries that have caused severe brain damage in NFL players. I appreciate that Coach Bowden showed an abundance of caution in holding Pohl out.

[zipsoutsider]

Dittos to Dave in Green. This is his life and brain we are talking about. Not only is it the right thing to do, it lets the families of future recruits see that TB is willing to do the right thing.