|
Yale
Oct 14, 2017 22:06:43 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by inhocsigno on Oct 14, 2017 22:06:43 GMT -5
Can anyone come up with a logical explanation as to what happened to HC's offensive line after the first 3 games? IMHO it's the biggest weakness on the club...no pass protection, no running game, no possibility of long possessions. Injuries maybe? Agree. This is probably largest issue. We know DB's are banged up. OL had a very rough day today. Pretty much dominated all day. That won't work against Colgate. They are solid on D. Heck, if we play like we did today, we won't beat GT. Fordham is looking very bad this year. If we don't get healthy in DB land, Lehigh will throw for 400.
|
|
|
Yale
Oct 14, 2017 22:01:23 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by inhocsigno on Oct 14, 2017 22:01:23 GMT -5
It may be that some fans don't really care what happens in our out of conference games and will support the coach as long as we are competitive in the Patriot League. That group of fans is probably satisfied/pleased that right now we are 1-1 in the Patriot League (the loss being a competitive loss) with a shot at the coveted PL championship and probably mystified about any suggestion TG should be let go. (I found todays game to have a captivating effect not unlike a slow-motion train wreck. Having never seen an FCS team gain a total of 34 (-3 rushing + 37 yards passing) yards in an entire half before, it was interesting. Kind of unprecedented that our opponent had many more sacks (4) than we had rushing yards (-3) in the first half. Any chance we can get BC off our schedule next year and fire the person who thought it was a good idea? Pyle's done some good things. But he was slow to get rid of Brown in basketball (perhaps because of financial considerations) and dropped the ball entirely when he gave Gilmore a contract extension. Not to mention the insanity of scheduling BC, Syracuse and Navy in football. Hold on to your hats, folks. Those games are going to be ugly with a capital "U". How you could arrange a schedule like that and keep a mediocrity like Gilmore as head football coach at the same time is beyond my ability to comprehend. But here we are. When I was a on the Hill (1963-1967), we played Syracuse and BC every year, Penn State my freshman year, and Army my senior year. We were still a significant factor in north-eastern football in those years, going 2-2 against BC (including a 10-8 loss that could easily have been a W), losing 28-14 to Penn State and 14-10 to Army. Not to mention a 7-6 win over then reigning Eastern champion Dartmouth. No more. No more. Let's face it. The PL is awful and highly unlikely to get much better anytime soon. Winning that title means absolutely nothing in the great scheme of things, even were we so fortunate as to do so. I say we either jettison the PL in football and try to get into the CAA or give up the program and convert Fitton into an extension of the Freshman Field. Things are a bit different than early sixties. How many kids on the team fr outside the region. Same for the opponents; how much diversity on the roster. How many scholarships per team? If Penn State or Syracuse had 50 scholarships and now have 85, that is obv less available kids for HC and other schools. HS football in New England is generally terrible. That hurts HC. While there are some great players, in the 60's they would not have been recruitied nationally (generally). Regional players generally stayed in their regions. Kids and families were more catholic back then. Now, that is less of a emphasis for many. All these things make comparing FB program in the sixties to now useless.
|
|
|
Yale
Oct 14, 2017 14:56:54 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by inhocsigno on Oct 14, 2017 14:56:54 GMT -5
Looks like CTG is giving up. 2 runs, Inc 3 & , then punts. On 4 th and 1.
|
|
|
Yale
Oct 14, 2017 14:28:03 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by inhocsigno on Oct 14, 2017 14:28:03 GMT -5
Cut the kicker. Right now.
|
|
|
Post by inhocsigno on Oct 13, 2017 15:56:03 GMT -5
My great, great........great grandfather was Charles Martel, so I am slightly familiar with Muslim hordes invading Europe. Charles' son, Pepin, so loved the church that he invaded Italy, defeated the Lombards, and created the Papal States which he gave to the Pope as a gift. I'll pass by Pepin's son, only to say he disliked the flavor of Catholicism practiced by the Irish. This tribal enmity against the indigenous Irish by the Franks and then the Normans seems to have persisted for 350 years, subsiding when the Anglo-Norman king Henry II, with the blessing of the Pope, invaded Ireland, violently put down the Irish, and brought the Irish church into communion with Rome. This is the same Henry who would do away with meddlesome priests. Robert Curthose, the eldest son of my ancestral second cousin, William the Conqueror, led a large force of Normans in the First Crusade, and reached Jerusalem. His brother-in-law, Stephen, Count de Blois, led another large French contingent; he returned home after reaching Antioch and leading the council of war there.. The following year, he set out again as the leader of the Minor Crusade of 1100-1101, and was killed. I have yet to find any Irish who went on the Crusades. 'We' Normans did the heavy lifting. Stephen was pious, his wife was canonized. Robert, not so much. I look at the medieval crusades and the medieval crusaders as a mixed bag. I will note that unlike the viking, pirate, buccaneer, minutemen, cavalier, Spartans, Trojans, knights, dukes, conquistadors, lancers, grenadiers, generals (and other ranks), raiders, only the medieval crusader represents a religious.appellation. I will further note when the NCAA went on a 'crusade' against Indian nicknames, one of defining characteristics for nicknames that should be changed was a "hostile" nickname. Not really my area, but while the medieval crusader may be the only mascot that represents a religious appellation (or derivation of the name itself), I don't think that other mascots can be easily disconnected from the religious basis of their objectionable acts. Arguably, Vikings, Spartans, Trojans, and (certainly) Conquistadors undertook actions based on religion (or some form of religion). Conquistadors killed thousands of "savages" in the name of bringing the light of Christianity to the new world. Vikings, in their polytheism, commonly targeted Christian lands and followers, and adamantly fought the spread of the White Christ or Hanged God in their lands (often violently); and continued to do so until political advantage and tax breaks could be sought under Harold Fairhair's youngest Christian son. If the Norse religion was still a common religion, rather than a mythology, there would certainly be more opposition to the Viking mascot. Accordingly, I don't believe that the discussion should focus on historical basis of the name, which is tough to avoid, but rather the current context. I think the best argument for keeping the Crusader name, in addition to the connection of the alums to the name and school, is: (1) there are currently no military Crusades/Crusaders, and no rational person would equate use of the name for a sports team in the current day to that time history; and (2) in the present day and age,- CONTEXT - Crusader has taken on a different meaning, e.g. Crusader for Justice. Given the past struggles of the athletic program, one can reasonably argue that the we are Crusaders for a Win (in addition to being crusaders to spread the mission statement). I am generally OK with losing the knight and sword, although I don't think it is necessary, and keeping the Shield or the interlocking letters. I think I like those graphics better.
|
|
|
Post by inhocsigno on Oct 9, 2017 17:38:58 GMT -5
I'm glad inhocsigno can tell me "F you" because he doesn't agree with me. To a lesser degree he said the argument to drop football is silly, again presumably, because he didn't agree. Now, I do agree about his points stating that the recruiting pool is difficult to find HC's "sweet spot" with the most talented players. To a degree, I think that proves my point. It is harder and harder to find both the right players and the right fans to support the program in the way it needs to be successful. In that last statement, I agree with what hc87 said on this page. The program has to have the commitment from the powers that be to succeed. Is the new athletic complex or practice field or even the lights some people pine for (see what I did there?) the solution? Maybe. But maybe it's just throwing money at the problem rather than thinking "is this best for the school," and "is this the best way to succeed?" It's not a "few" losses that makes me come up with this idea. After "a few losses" everyone coming on the board to rant and spread vitriol... I'm not a part of that crowd. It's precisely the opposite-- systematic losses in ways big and small, on an off the field, conventional and unseen-before, that make me CONSIDER and suggest, rather than protest for a more drastic change. I get it... you played at HC. I was committed in my small part to the program, and as long as we do have a team, I will be a fan. But I don't have to blindly genuflect to the football program as a result of any of those. I can respect your commitment, dedication, and hard work to the team while balancing education and anything else that was on your plate-- you guys are using the words "blood, sweat, and tears" and being in the trenches-- but it is a game. Please don't hoo-rah me and act like you were at Paris Island before being shipped off to Iwo Jima. Let's just respectfully disagree until the day we find that common ground. The F you was not directed at you. It was specifically for the person that said the teams of my era were garbage. That was a slap in the face to the effort of many. Although the comment lacked eloquence, I stand by it. Based on condescending tone and manner above, I happily extend the same to you.
|
|
|
Post by inhocsigno on Oct 9, 2017 10:34:36 GMT -5
I am by no means a recruiting guru, but yes, obviously, the more NFL players a school can point to, the better for recruiting. Coach - "Hey kid, you will get an 1st rate education, but if you are good enough, you will get a chance to play at the next level. Just look at X, Y and Z..." However, I think most recruits that are academically qualified to get into an Ivy or PL school, are smart enough to understand that they are not likely to play on Sundays. I certainly don't think they are basing their decision on that item alone.
Also, it is less about the NFL Draft (now there are 7 rounds instead of 12 (or whatever the number was 25 years ago)). It is much harder to get drafted now, then it was 20+ years ago. However, it is easier to be found. Thus, if there is player that has the right the right crib gifts, e.g. size, speed, strength (preferably combo of all three), they will have a chance to play in the NFL, whether they play in the PL, the Ivy, or DIII. We have had guys invited to camps, e.g. Puloka, Randolph, David Thompson, McDermott, Raymond, etc. over the last 20 years. Pujols will probably get a rookie invite. McBeath is a possibility. Raymond making a roster, even practice squad, was good. There are a few younger players that will likely end up in camp somewhere if they continue to progress, e.g. Riley.
Lockbaum, for as good as he was, did not make a roster. However, the school's media arm pointing to X player being in camp is enough for recruiting purposes based on the intelligence and level of student athlete we are recruiting. Realistically, we are not going to out-recruit Nick Saban for a pro-caliber player.
As of September, Ivies had 14 players on rosters, including still Fitzpatrick. With the exception of a few OL, and Brate, most of unexceptional except in the exceptional fact they made a roster.
Having played with and against several NFL players in HS (including 3 on my HS team), I can say that I played with some better "football" players at HC, me not one of them, except for the fact they were missing some combination of the crib gifts that get a player past the paper application. Obviously, those NFL guys also improved in college and made the leap to the next level. A 6'3" safety, assuming he is fast enough, a guy like Riley can pass the paper test. McBeath has the talent, but he may be too light and not sure on speed, to pass the paper test. However, a guy like McBeath, who fails the paper test coming out of HS, but has the talent we want, is the type of recruit we want and need to build around. If they passed the paper test coming out of HS, they would be playing at AL and not for HC or the Ivy league.
|
|
|
Post by inhocsigno on Oct 9, 2017 9:38:22 GMT -5
inhocsigno: Great insights and feedback from one who played the game at HC. Tell us, please: what effect do you feel the new practice facility and the rest of the Luth Complex will have on recruiting and training football players? It will have a positive effect. Obviously, HC is not presently considered a destination program & FCS in general is viewed as being small time, especially by players from the South, SW and West Coast. Thus, any facilities that provide the appearance of a "big time" football/sports program will influence recruits. The present group of HS recruits is heavily influenced by the "bling" of facilities, locker rooms, etc. ESPN does profiles all the time and these kids see that. If the academic schedule was not so onerous, we would be a players lounge with video games and pool tables away from being in the general neighborhood, albeit on the outskirts. I honestly don't know the present state of facilities at other schools at our level, and particularly in the Ivies and PL - our main recruiting counterparts. However, from my experience, the Luth looks better than any place I took an official visit to - Harvard, Yale, Dartmouth and Penn - but that was 20+ years ago. They may have better facilities now. Presumably, the Luth is impressive from a comparison standpoint to other current FCS facilties (excluding the non-FBS state schools, e.g. Montana, Dakotas, etc.). Any recruit should view it most favorably. From a performance standpoint, most recruits won't understand how great the Luth will be because they will not have experienced the 6AM winter running sessions on what is now the Lacrosse field. Jeff Oliver is one of the best in the business (and I mean that objectively). He will put the Luth to good use. The incorporation of 'cross-fit style/bootcamp' workouts with the traditional FB power lifts require more room. I expect that players will get more quality work in. In the past, workouts were crafted to the facilities available in the offseason (e.g. running on the BB court) when weather was bad outdoors. The Luth will allow Jeff to do the workouts he wants to do and would expect better off-season gains, or at least more efficient winter maintenance programs.
|
|
|
Post by inhocsigno on Oct 9, 2017 9:08:37 GMT -5
Harvard Colgate Lehigh Bucknell Holy Cross - BELIEVE
|
|
|
Post by inhocsigno on Oct 9, 2017 9:00:04 GMT -5
A few general comments to the vitriol on here each time we lose. We are all frustrated, presumably because of the strong showing at the start of the season and renewed optimism therefrom.
Injuries do happen in football. Hell, I have had more surgeries than I care to remember. However, rarely do they happen to almost an entire 2 deep of Safeties and several CB's. It is increasingly problematic at the FCS level due to the lack of depth per roster and scholarship limits. That will certainly open the passing game to an opponent.
Someone mentioned dropping football to focus on basketball. That is a silly notion. You can have both. The idea is offensive to the history of the school, every player or fan that spent time and effort to be a part of the program, and will have the direct effect of relegating the school to the level of some mid-west mid-major program no one cares about. There is no reason that both football and basketball cannot be successful. Success for one may in fact have an effect on the success of the other. We need to create and foster a winning culture across all sports, baseball, hockey, BB and football.
Someone mentioned that the non-scholarship era was trash, etc. In comparison to the heyday of the Duffner era, I suppose one may make that argument. I think that you fail to realize however that many players were essentially scholarship (in the sense they chose HC because it was free to them). I, like many of my teammates, chose HC, over scholarship offers and some of us, over Ivy offers, because 1. we believed in the program, 2. it was the equivalent of receiving a scholarship (i.e. parental contribution nil fin aid plus fb alumni memorial grant) and 3. the academic level of the school (realistically, we understood we were not going to be playing on Sundays). Your comment is offensive to every player who spent 4 years bleeding purple. Accordingly, F**k you.
Simply, the single greatest obstacle to taking the next step in football is how shallow the recruiting pool is for HC. There are a finite number of players that are: (a) good enough to play at this level; AND (b) academically qualified to get past admissions. Of that pool, you can remove the top % players that will chose a FBS school, regardless of the education. Of the remainder, you now compete with not only the academic-rich FCS scholarship programs (Villanova, Wm & Mary, etc.), but also what is essentially a full scholarship Ivy league. Not to bad mouth the prep school bunch, but generally your best players in the nation are from less affluent backgrounds, and thus qualify for free Ivy education. With the state of public education in this country (particularly in less affluent areas), the vast majority of HS "good enough" players will not be close to qualifying for HC. Scholarships puts us in a better position to compete for players from this finite group. PERIOD. The most important factors at this point which will help us recruit and take the next step: 1. appearance - branding, facilities, uniforms, etc. - while this sounds silly, it is important to today's crop of HC recruits; 2. efforts to enhance the support of the program, the reach of the networks, etc.; and 3. Winning. The first is being handled by the school and ADNP and while a work in progress, is going in the right direction. The second is being handled by TD128 and the Friends, and I have the feeling that he is just getting started. The third is certainly lacking, but we can start with a PL title. That would put us at an advantage in recruiting against other PL teams. Make noise in the playoffs. That would put in a better position to recruit against other FCS teams. Beat a FBS opponent. That would be a stretch, but the results would be excellent from a national recruiting perspective, name recognition perspective, etc. Even a win against a down UConn team would have been a big swoon for the program. Anyone who thinks we were not in that game, or did not have the chance to win, was not watching it.
From what I have seen this year, this team has the ability to win the league. Say what you will about the PL, that is the goal each and every year. That does not mean it is or should be the only goal. I have not seen the defense play this well in the last 17 years. I am, of course, disappointed with Dartmouth and Laf losses and general consistency. Assuming we can get healed on defense, can be more consistent on offense, and eliminate errors/penalties (both coaching and players), there is no reason why this team cannot win the league.
In sum, everyone should take a step back, take a breath, and see if the team we saw against UNH and UConn is the real team, or if the team is the one we saw against Laf. I think we will be pleasantly surprised if this team is the former and not the latter.
|
|
|
Post by inhocsigno on Oct 8, 2017 13:53:51 GMT -5
Prior to the scholarship era were we getting players who turned down full scholarships at other schools to come to HC on need-based aid? I don't remember that happening a lot Yes. Happened a lot. Not I-A programs, but I know of many players that picked HC over IAA scholarship programs.
|
|
|
Post by inhocsigno on Oct 7, 2017 15:39:24 GMT -5
Yes. And then a win or two and playoffs. Unlikely, yes, but if this team plays like they did against UConn in the first half, they can beat anyone in the region at the FCS level. They have no played that way. Mcbeath is the best player on the team and field at any given time. Him and Brady are the best LB' tandem in the league. As usual, our secondary is suspect. This time due to injuries, instead of talent.
Too inconsistent on offense. i like the way the freshman WR plays. DiNicola absence is hurting consistency.
Honest assessment- Pujols is not NFL caliber. McBeath is too small, if he was fast enough (big question), he could catch on a special teams/SS/nickel LB type.
|
|
|
Post by inhocsigno on Oct 7, 2017 15:23:27 GMT -5
Still have a chance to win the league. Let's look at the bright side.
|
|
|
Post by inhocsigno on Oct 7, 2017 14:28:14 GMT -5
Kickers - can live live with them...illegal to kill them.
Gabe running well.
Dropped passes.
Injuries to safeties killing us. Especially against an athletic opponent.
Why not go for two on last 2 scores by HC, before the onslaught by Monmouth?
|
|
|
Post by inhocsigno on Oct 1, 2017 18:13:33 GMT -5
Princeton Colgate Fordham Holy Cross (after Laf my mind is telling me Monmouth, but I'll go with my heart).
|
|
|
Post by inhocsigno on Sept 30, 2017 15:04:06 GMT -5
Lafayette had -6 rushing yards today and beat us. Rushing didn't matter, their QB was better than our QB That is ridiculous. The coaches took the ball out of his hands. Put him in roll out run/pass option and stop trying to run the ball up the gut (after little success in many tries)
|
|
|
Post by inhocsigno on Sept 30, 2017 14:49:59 GMT -5
Monmouth Colgate Fordham and Lehigh will beat us by double digits if we play like that again.
|
|
|
Post by inhocsigno on Sept 30, 2017 14:49:02 GMT -5
Embarrassing.
Coach rock called a terrible game.
|
|
|
Post by inhocsigno on Sept 30, 2017 14:47:03 GMT -5
Why call a time out with 5 seconds left instead of right after play if trying to save time.
|
|
|
Post by inhocsigno on Sept 30, 2017 14:45:13 GMT -5
Honestly, I won't defend the coaches tonight when the usual suspects go on their rants.
|
|
|
Post by inhocsigno on Sept 30, 2017 14:43:24 GMT -5
Dumb call. Poor execution. If you go for it, why take the ball out of PP's hands.
|
|
|
Post by inhocsigno on Sept 30, 2017 14:27:44 GMT -5
Their DC is flat out coaching and out game planned Rock.
|
|
|
Post by inhocsigno on Sept 30, 2017 14:03:54 GMT -5
Laf is playing well - keeping everything in front of them (bend, don't break). Our guys are not making them miss tackles one on one. Also, our TE's are very slow, or at least play slow.
PP is overthrowing open receivers deep.
|
|
|
Post by inhocsigno on Sept 30, 2017 13:40:29 GMT -5
drops by WR's/RB's in Red zone. Too much pressure on PP. defense looks good for most part. A little weak in pass coverage (but the McBeath int was legit).
|
|
|
Post by inhocsigno on Sept 30, 2017 12:46:21 GMT -5
TD Alexander run.
|
|