Author Topic: Well .... 'Sigh'  (Read 297 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

kyyote

  • Administrator
  • Sourdough
  • *****
  • Posts: 2372
  • Karma: +102/-10
    • View Profile
Well .... 'Sigh'
« on: October 27, 2019, 10:11:47 AM »
  • [applaud]0
  • [smite]0
  • LA Tech is the best of the West and tough.  We slugged it out with them and it was no pillow fight.  I know, 42 to 21 looks like it was a whuppin' but the offense was able to move the ball pretty  well against the Tech defense and the defense bent, and bent pretty far, but didn't break!

    We had four fumbles.  We lost 3 and retained possession on one of them but had lost so much yardage that it was basically a turnover, too.  LA Tech got the ball four extra times!  The fumble at the beginning of the second quarter took us from the Tech 33 yard line after moving 33 yards in two plays.  The offense was in field goal range and was moving the ball.  That was a score wiped from the books.  Instead, LA Tech started their drive on the Miners 41 and scored.  14 point difference that shouldn't have happened.

    On the next UTEP possession Locksley fumbled at the 11 yard line and took another 7 points off of the scoreboard.  Tech marched from their 9 and scored.  I figure we lost 7 points but I figure Tech would have gotten the ball after what should have been a touchdown and done that.  Lost 7 points that shouldn't have happened.

    The second half we punted, they punted, we punted again and then they scored.  Valid.

    Locksley fumbled while being sacked with LA Tech getting the ball on the UTEP 26.  They scored.  Gift of 7 points.

    Long drive and UTEP scores.

    They punt and we fumble while being sacked at the UTEP 43.  The fumble was just a sack as we recovered it, but had to punt.  This fumble did no damage, though.

    UTEP Interception and scores.

    So, Take away the fumbles lost and we could have been at 21 all in the second quarter instead of 28 to 7. 

    Of course I understand that if ifs and buts were candy and nuts Christmas would be just dandy.  But they aren't.  But if you are Dimel, you have a valid argument that we might have even won that  game had the fumbles not happened.  I would have to agree, and that is just on scoring, not to mention the extra time on the field for the defense.  Sonofabitch if the Miners probably would have won the time of possession and the game.  Maybe.  The point is that it was fumbles that lost the game.  The coaching and play calling was good enough to hang with Tech.

    If the team plays this well and eliminates the turnovers, the Miners could easily win four more games this season.  I know, they could lose them all.  But, the team played well enough to beat UNT,  Charlotte, NMSU, and Rice. 

    SisyphusMiner

    • 2013 Official Prediction Thread Champion 2013
    • Sourdough
    • *****
    • Posts: 1983
    • Karma: +93/-8
      • View Profile
    Re: Well .... 'Sigh'
    « Reply #1 on: October 27, 2019, 04:26:02 PM »
  • [applaud]0
  • [smite]0
  • Agree there are four winnable games.  We started the season thinking there were 6-7 theoretically winnable games.

    We ran a 2 minute offense this game.  Play calling definitely improved and we were less predictable.  We still struggled getting players on the field and plays called.

    Take away the fumbles and keep the other positives and the games are winnable.

    How can our O line be so awful?  I think that Kug figured he could get any sufficiently large player and teach him what he needed to know.  But either Kug couldn't teach them or they couldn't learn.  They have not improved under Dimel.  I just don't know.  Is this just as good as they can be no matter who the coach?  Nonetheless I bet Holtz could beat us with our players.

    kyyote

    • Administrator
    • Sourdough
    • *****
    • Posts: 2372
    • Karma: +102/-10
      • View Profile
    Re: Well .... 'Sigh'
    « Reply #2 on: October 27, 2019, 04:45:36 PM »
  • [applaud]0
  • [smite]0
  • It may actually have something to do with body types.  Kugler was running the ball almost exclusively.  He probably found shorter armed more powerful "Hogs" if you will.  Mike Price always wanted tall long armed linemen to keep the defensive linemen at arms length for pass blocking.  We are running an Run Pass Option and notice the pass part.  We still have run blocking, power football offensive linemen when we need hybrids.  They are having to relearn if they even can.  They can't change their body types.  I also see why Jones can be successful at times in the offense but the running part is a problem for him, whereas Locksley is pretty damned good at the run option.  I think sometimes he may take an instant too long to decide and it gets him in trouble causing many of the no gains at the line.