|
Post by Non Alum Dave on Oct 1, 2023 10:53:51 GMT -5
Being critical of football in Polar Park isn't being critical of Polar Park, is it? Anyone remember baseball in the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum?
|
|
|
Post by cruskater31 on Oct 1, 2023 10:56:53 GMT -5
Being critical of football in Polar Park isn't being critical of Polar Park, is it? Anyone remember baseball in the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum? exactly! My cousin took the train out from Boston to see a game and loved it. Some students near us were talking about a game they went to in the Spring and enjoyed it. The garage location is nice, but is too pricey. Sightlines for baseball are probably awesome (although I was surprised my seats at the 50 down the 3B line didn't face homeplate...good for football not baseball!)
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Oct 1, 2023 11:02:07 GMT -5
Being critical of football in Polar Park isn't being critical of Polar Park, is it? Anyone remember baseball in the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum? Baseball at Polar is great. The HC/Polar Marketing machine should schedule an HC baseball game there on a weekend when the WooSox are on the road and make it a party with tickets for five bucks so area folks can bring the fam for a day at the ballpark.
|
|
|
Post by mm67 on Oct 1, 2023 11:16:16 GMT -5
Fact:HC scored 28 & lost. Clearly, Harvard had diagnosed the tendencies of Sluka passing(interceptions?) & running, our overall running game as well. Shut down Coker in the second half. Also, diagnosed Dobbs & the "D". Opinion Harvard DL & linebackers played well. Fact: Harvard scored 38. The 5 TO's may have given Harvard the ball but none except one put the ball in the end zone for Harvard. Opinion: Harvard OL play well. Harvard shredded our defense. Opinion: They studied game plan & due to their fine talent - size, strength * speed, Harvard was able to follow its game plan. Facts: It was a 10 point game. HC had 5 turnovers. The yardage numbers were close. Opinion: The better team on the field won. But, HC could have won with fewer turnovers. Fact: HC is 3-2. Opinions: You are what your record says you are. We are in no position to downgrade Harvard or any other team. We are in no position to clamor about seedings. Stop the hype. Stop the fantasy national championship blather which I find to be an embarrassment. Sort of a "Mouse that roared" complex. Play each game to win one at a time. Enjoy this fine team. Enjoy the season win or lose. Opinions: HC will make the necessary improvements. Win a lot of games, Our record at the end of this season will clearly show HC had one hell of a good football team. Most but not all will be very proud of this team!
|
|
|
Post by cruskater31 on Oct 1, 2023 11:44:33 GMT -5
Couldn't help but think if we had even a little grad program or more partnership programs we could have had Jake Reichwein anchoring our D line this year on a big run to Frisco. Hopefully we can add non medical redshirts and further advance our football programs without diminishing our academic standards.
On the bright side, FBS losses (or D2 wins) do not count for the playoff committee so we are 3-1 when it counts. On to Bucknell this week! Love seeing the 2021 "championship" "game" mentioned already. 70-0 pound em
|
|
|
Post by HC92 on Oct 1, 2023 11:46:18 GMT -5
Good thing about playing at Polar yesterday is that we didn’t tear up what would have been a very wet Fitton Field.
|
|
|
Post by gks on Oct 1, 2023 11:46:29 GMT -5
Fact:HC scored 28 & lost. Clearly, Harvard had diagnosed the tendencies of Sluka passing(interceptions?) & running, our overall running game as well. Shut down Coker in the second half. Also, diagnosed Dobbs & the "D". Opinion Harvard DL & linebackers played well. Fact: Harvard scored 38. The 5 TO's may have given Harvard the ball but none except one put the ball in the end zone for Harvard. Opinion: Harvard OL play well. Harvard shredded our defense. Opinion: They studied game plan & due to their fine talent - size, strength * speed, Harvard was able to follow its game plan. Facts: It was a 10 point game. HC had 5 turnovers. The yardage numbers were close. Opinion: The better team on the field won. But, HC could have won with fewer turnovers. Fact: HC is 3-2. Opinions: You are what your record says you are. We are in no position to downgrade Harvard or any other team. We are in no position to clamor about seedings. Stop the hype. Stop the fantasy national championship blather which I find to be an embarrassment. Sort of a "Mouse that roared" complex. Play each game to win one at a time. Enjoy this fine team. Enjoy the season win or lose. Opinions: HC will make the necessary improvements. Win a lot of games, Our record at the end of this season will clearly show HC had one hell of a good football team. Most but not all will be very proud of this team! This is a fact.
|
|
|
Post by midwestsader05 on Oct 1, 2023 12:36:33 GMT -5
Fact:HC scored 28 & lost. Clearly, Harvard had diagnosed the tendencies of Sluka passing(interceptions?) & running, our overall running game as well. Shut down Coker in the second half. Also, diagnosed Dobbs & the "D". Opinion Harvard DL & linebackers played well. Opinion: Harvard OL play well. Harvard shredded our defense. Opinion: They studied game plan & due to their fine talent - size, strength * speed, Harvard was able to follow its game plan. Facts: It was a 10 point game. HC had 5 turnovers. The yardage numbers were close. Opinion: The better team on the field won. But, HC could have won with fewer turnovers. Fact: HC is 3-2. Opinions: You are what your record says you are. We are in no position to downgrade Harvard or any other team. We are in no position to clamor about seedings. Stop the hype. Stop the fantasy national championship blather which I find to be an embarrassment. Sort of a "Mouse that roared" complex. Play each game to win one at a time. Enjoy this fine team. Enjoy the season win or lose. Opinions: HC will make the necessary improvements. Win a lot of games, Our record at the end of this season will clearly show HC had one hell of a good football team. Most but not all will be very proud of this team! "Fact: Harvard scored 38. The 5 TO's may have given Harvard the ball but none except one put the ball in the end zone for Harvard." Harvard scored 17 points off our turnovers. To say that only one TO put the ball into end zone is misleading. Even after the final INT we stopped them 3 and out but the roughing the kicker gave them a second chance to drive down to get a FG. So count that as back to back turnovers. Yale beats us by a similar margin if we play like that. We beat ourselves yesterday. D had short fields to defend all day b/c of TO's and ST miscues (including opening KO return). Have to make good teams EARN IT and Harvard was good enough. As Kevin Pollack says in A FEW GOOD MAN - "the rest is smoke filled coffee house crap". I give Harvard credit that they executed the same game plan that EVERYONE has had against HC. They capitalized off our mistakes and made a couple big plays when needed (the 4th and 8 TD pass).
|
|
|
Post by cruskater31 on Oct 1, 2023 13:42:56 GMT -5
2:36:37 of the ESPN + replay. To my eyes #21 CHL was partially blocked into the punter as he tried to get it, which hee nearly did. Running into maybe but not roughing. I don't think that play was as bad as everyone on here has made it out to be. Unfortunately the outcomes yes is just as bad due to the penalty (which after watching the replay--could be my purple glasses--but did not look like a penalty).
|
|
|
Post by purplehaze on Oct 1, 2023 13:46:40 GMT -5
10 minute recap of the game in case anyone wants to experience this one again
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Oct 1, 2023 13:58:53 GMT -5
Just for grins and giggles, the last few games, I've taken the starting HC offense and defense and jotted down the opposing defense/offense simply for size (height & listed weights). I know there has been reference to the Harvard players how big and good they are.
Our offensive interior line compared to Harvard's has 4 of 5 positions larger. Now whether they are stronger or not, based on all the kudos given to our strength and conditioning coach, guessing they are as strong or stronger than Harvard. No, I can't measure speed or quickness. Critically important, I know. Just another point of discussion.
Our starting TE is listed as 6'4", 250 lbs (Sean Morris). Harvard has some flukey coding on their 2-deep but it looked to me like Tyler Neville (#88), whose extended family was sitting in the row in front of us is their guy at 6'4" 235 pounds. Our QB and RB are also taller and heavier.
So, how do the defenses match up?
DL each had 2 players of the 4 positions heavier. Notably Harvard's 2 big DL were the interior DTs while ours were the DEs. Linebackers, no contest with Dobbs and Monte larger than any of their 3.
Bottom line: It wasn't Harvard's size that made the difference and I'd bet it also wasn't there greater strength. Quickness? Probably. Certainly their QB was hard to catch. He even looked like he outran Dobbs once or twice.
So, we routed Yale. Harvard beat us solidly. Who thinks Harvard is that much better than Yale? Remember, this is the Harvard team that eeked out a 3 point win over "lowly" Brown.
|
|
|
Post by cruskater31 on Oct 1, 2023 13:59:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Oct 1, 2023 14:01:14 GMT -5
2:36:37 of the ESPN + replay. To my eyes #21 CHL was partially blocked into the punter as he tried to get it, which hee nearly did. Running into maybe but not roughing. I don't think that play was as bad as everyone on here has made it out to be. Unfortunately the outcomes yes is just as bad due to the penalty (which after watching the replay--could be my purple glasses--but did not look like a penalty). I haven't had time to look at it but you are stating (confirming?) what I previously posted. Both live when it happened and on the scoreboard replay, it looked like he was blocked into the punter.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Oct 1, 2023 14:09:42 GMT -5
Yes, it did indeed. But I do watch through purple lenses.
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Oct 1, 2023 14:22:40 GMT -5
It was the turnovers- a tremendous anomaly for our team in the past few years. Whether Harvard is the greatest turnover-causing team in FCS I don’t know, but I do know it was the turnovers that cost us this game in which we were favored.
It was the turnovers.
Now we turn the page and look to beat Bucknell next weekend.
|
|
|
Post by Crucis#1 on Oct 1, 2023 14:32:29 GMT -5
I’m sure we all felt like the actors in this commercial from Dr. Pepper last night.
|
|
|
Post by mm67 on Oct 1, 2023 15:14:21 GMT -5
Point: Rather than tripping over ourselves & pointing the finger at Polar Park (meaningless as to the outcome.); Or, meaningless stats(The final score is the only stat that counts.); Or, poor refs(Blaming the refs is loser talk. I know. I'm from NY, the home of losing football.) Or, meaningless stats(The final score is the only stat that counts.) Confront the reality that Harvard was the better team on this day.I hope the team & coaching staff learns from this game both good plays & mistakes and some fine plays by Harvard, a darn good football team. Football is fundamentally a game of blocking & tackling.EXECUTION. Harvard scored 38 points all but one TD by an offensive player.Did Harvard's offensive line control the line of scrimmage? Why? Superior athleticism? Was HC's tackling effective? I saw more missed/ broken tackles by HC in this game than any in recent memory? Why? Was it a failure to execute? HC tacklers out of position or simply out played by a superior Harvard runner? On offense HC did score 28 points, normally sufficient to win.. Yet Harvard pretty much shut HC down in the second half. Why? Recently the second half belonged to HC but not against Harvard. In fact the second half belonged to Harvard. Why? Again, why was Harvard able to shut down Coker? Why did Sluka throw those interceptions? Why was Harvard able to stop or slow down Sluka on runs that in the past would have gone for long gains. Why, did the the HC offense seem pedestrian & predictable? Was it Harvard's "D" taking away our options; Harvard's athleticism or our lack of creativity? TO's had a profound effect on the outcome of this game. I believe with fewer HC TO's it is quite possible HC would have won. Why the HC TO's? Poor execution. Superior prep by Harvard? Superior athleticism? Why were HC receivers covered on so many plays? Athleticism? Superior prep by Harvard? Why to the naked eye of this observer did Harvard seem stronger, faster & in control for much of this game? Yet, HC did score 28 usually enough points to win a game. And with fewer TO's HC could have won. But, HC lost! Why?
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Oct 1, 2023 15:29:39 GMT -5
It was the turnovers- a tremendous anomaly for our team in the past few years. Whether Harvard is the greatest turnover-causing team in FCS I don’t know, but I do know it was the turnovers that cost us this game in which we were favored. It was the turnovers. Now we turn the page and look to beat Bucknell next weekend. Boston Globe headline today: Harvard Rankles No. 5 Holy Cross into Five Turnovers, Scores Nonconference Win at Polar Park We have another 5-0 turnover margin this year we'll lose again. But I don't see that happening and the faux Covid weasels (Bucknell) are in for a long Saturday.
|
|
|
Post by thecrossisback on Oct 1, 2023 15:41:36 GMT -5
Point: Rather than tripping over ourselves & pointing the finger at Polar Park (meaningless as to the outcome.); Or, meaningless stats(The final score is the only stat that counts.); Or, poor refs(Blaming the refs is loser talk. I know. I'm from NY, the home of losing football.) Or, meaningless stats(The final score is the only stat that counts.) Confront the reality that Harvard was the better team on this day.I hope the team & coaching staff learns from this game both good plays & mistakes and some fine plays by Harvard, a darn good football team. Football is fundamentally a game of blocking & tackling.EXECUTION. Harvard scored 38 points all but one TD by an offensive player.Did Harvard's offensive line control the line of scrimmage? Why? Superior athleticism? Was HC's tackling effective? I saw more missed/ broken tackles by HC in this game than any in recent memory? Why? Was it a failure to execute? HC tacklers out of position or simply out played by a superior Harvard runner? On offense HC did score 28 points, normally sufficient to win.. Yet Harvard pretty much shut HC down in the second half. Why? Recently the second half belonged to HC but not against Harvard. In fact the second half belonged to Harvard. Why? Again, why was Harvard able to shut down Coker? Why did Sluka throw those interceptions? Why was Harvard able to stop or slow down Sluka on runs that in the past would have gone for long gains. Why, did the the HC offense seem pedestrian & predictable? Was it Harvard's "D" taking away our options; Harvard's athleticism or our lack of creativity? TO's had a profound effect on the outcome of this game. I believe with fewer HC TO's it is quite possible HC would have won. Why the HC TO's? Poor execution. Superior prep by Harvard? Superior athleticism? Why were HC receivers covered on so many plays? Athleticism? Superior prep by Harvard? Why to the naked eye of this observer did Harvard seem stronger, faster & in control for much of this game? Yet, HC did score 28 usually enough points to win a game. And with fewer TO's HC could have won. But, HC lost! Why? Can I interest you in Harvard football season tickets? The Boston Globe and a Harvard sweater? Ok they won there best team in the country. Now they can show the world in the FCS playoffs! Oh wait their too good for that. Instead they need to dust off their Ivy League trophies.
|
|
|
Post by thecrossisback on Oct 1, 2023 15:51:38 GMT -5
Can we agree the new hype video with the old clips is sweet. They could even add in a few more!
|
|
hc69
Crusader Century Club
Posts: 220
|
Post by hc69 on Oct 1, 2023 16:01:23 GMT -5
2:36:37 of the ESPN + replay. To my eyes #21 CHL was partially blocked into the punter as he tried to get it, which hee nearly did. Running into maybe but not roughing. I don't think that play was as bad as everyone on here has made it out to be. Unfortunately the outcomes yes is just as bad due to the penalty (which after watching the replay--could be my purple glasses--but did not look like a penalty). The kicker was forcefully contacted while in the air and knocked down. That can't be running into. It's either roughing or nothing. To be blocked into, the force of the block must be toward the kicker and that's what causes the contact. Had the blocker kept his hands on the defender and pushed him toward the kicker, that would be blocked into. But he didn't. The blocker pushed the defender toward the side. That definitely altered the defender's path and he ended up hitting the kicker. But it was the defender's own momentum that took him into the kicker. Also worth noting that the contact happened several yards in front of the kicker.
Chesney is never reluctant to complain about calls. He didn't say a word. It was a bad play by his own player, We can see from the video that we had return set up, not punt block. We should get the ball back on Harvard's side of midfield. No reason for the defender to go for the block in that situation.
|
|
|
Post by midwestsader05 on Oct 1, 2023 16:23:20 GMT -5
2:36:37 of the ESPN + replay. To my eyes #21 CHL was partially blocked into the punter as he tried to get it, which hee nearly did. Running into maybe but not roughing. I don't think that play was as bad as everyone on here has made it out to be. Unfortunately the outcomes yes is just as bad due to the penalty (which after watching the replay--could be my purple glasses--but did not look like a penalty). The kicker was forcefully contacted while in the air and knocked down. That can't be running into. It's either roughing or nothing. To be blocked into, the force of the block must be toward the kicker and that's what causes the contact. Had the blocker kept his hands on the defender and pushed him toward the kicker, that would be blocked into. But he didn't. The blocker pushed the defender toward the side. That definitely altered the defender's path and he ended up hitting the kicker. But it was the defender's own momentum that took him into the kicker. Also worth noting that the contact happened several yards in front of the kicker.
Chesney is never reluctant to complain about calls. He didn't say a word. It was a bad play by his own player, We can see from the video that we had return set up, not punt block. We should get the ball back on Harvard's side of midfield. No reason for the defender to go for the block in that situation.
goholycross.com/watch/?Archive=1222&type=ArchiveYou didn’t watch the post game interview? He addresses it and calls BS. It was close.
|
|
|
Post by efg72 on Oct 1, 2023 16:31:24 GMT -5
Amen
But it was a day of mistakes so time to move on.
The rest of the season is a playoff game each week in the PL
The only goal not remaining is an undefeated season and that left with BC
Win the PL Go deep into the playoffs
We control both- no guarantees on outcomes but as fans we do control our level of enthusiasm and support Go Cross Go!
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Oct 1, 2023 16:37:18 GMT -5
Great clip of Chesney, Dobbs and Coker. Noticeably absent, Matt Sluka.
What impresses me the most is that Coach Chesney has proven time and again to be a good winner but here is exhibit A that he is also a "good loser." Complimenting Harvard (deserved) and not taking cheap shots on any of our players but explaining we were lacking depth and experience on defense. He's the definition of a "class act."
He did say what I said: Harvard was the better team "today."
He also said that we needed to do better job getting the ball out which seems to jibe with observations here that Matt seemed to be a bit too hesitant to make decisions to throw the ball away or run if his receivers were covered. Credit to Harvard.
|
|
|
Post by efg72 on Oct 1, 2023 16:50:02 GMT -5
I watched the Hvd- Brown game again. They modified looks on defense against us, so things weren't always as they appeared-a great learning experience
Move on
|
|