FB: Duke 34 Troy 17 Post Game Thread

[Newton_14]

SOlid win by our Devils. Use this thread to discuss the win.

[Bob Green]

Shaky start, great finish! 2-0!

[JBDuke]

Only three points for Troy after halftime. Seems like the defense woke up!

[burnspbesq]

Will take it. Now to quickly change from blue and white to red and black. Go Aztecs!

[subzero02]

We didn't cover the spread...

[davekay1971]

31-3.

That's what Duke did after digging a 14-3 hole for themselves at the 14:54 mark of the second quarter. That's a solid response to a bad start on the road, and a good growth opportunity for the team.

For added fun, UNC is trailing at home despite their lofty, and undeserved, #23 rank. The real humiliation, however, is the black stripes through the Tar Heel logo at midfield, the black and powder-puff blue units, and the alternating black and powder-puff blue lettering in the end zones. It's like they saw State's uniforms today and said, "Oh, we can get uglier than that! We'll jack up the uniforms AND the field."

[Devil in the Blue Dress]

The season is a progression. The level competition gets tougher. We look for improvement from one week to the next.

There are many ways to improve over this performance... but it was also better than the one last week. To overcome Troy's dominance after that first quarter is huge.

[PDDuke85]

Not a sterling performance on the road but superior talent bested Troy. Lots of work needed in all three phases but thrilled with the result.

Signed:
No bigger Aztec fan

[Bob Green]

We didn't cover the spread...

I don't care as I didn't wager any money on the game. Duke won!!!

[Newton_14]

Only three points for Troy after halftime. Seems like the defense woke up!

Yeah it got better. Still not where they need to be, but improving. Plus Cut used his bench liberally in the 2nd half on both sides of the ball. The two freshman running backs showed strong in that second half. Really impressive. Boone looked good as well. Offense is darn strong while still not going too deep in the playbook.

Overall a solid road win. 6th road win in a row!! (which had not been accomplished since something like 1954-55 season!) Another milestone in the Cut Era.

I was able to catch the last series in the first half and then all the 2nd half on my computer. Hate I missed the first half.

On to Kansas, and then the schedule turns brutal in a hurry. At Miami, at Gatech, a suddenly imposing UVA team, and then Pitt. Even though Gatech is looking weak, they have had our number, and the other 3 games will be difficult. I am starting to miss Kelby Brown daily. We miss everything about him, but especially the heavy hits he laid out. We have not hit well in either game really (unless they pummeled someone in the first half that I missed). I have not checked the stats yet but don't remember forcing any turnovers either.

Cut will get them going soon in both categories hopefully.

[Reilly]

... I am starting to miss Kelby Brown daily. ...

So true and so sad.

Last year, he and Anunike would take the fight to the other team, had engines just *going* all the time, cause disruption. We miss that this year.

[AncientPsychicT]

On to Kansas, and then the schedule turns brutal in a hurry. At Miami, at Gatech, a suddenly imposing UVA team, and then Pitt. Even though Gatech is looking weak, they have had our number, and the other 3 games will be difficult.

We have a home game against Tulane in between the Kansas and Miami games.

So a 2 week tune-up against easier opponents, and then the tough slog of the ACC schedule begins.

[Newton_14]

We have a home game against Tulane in between the Kansas and Miami games.

So a 2 week tune-up against easier opponents, and then the tough slog of the ACC schedule begins.

Yep you're right. Plain forgot about Tulane. So that helps. Gotta get that defense righted, and challenge them to start hitting somebody with authority.

[Devil in the Blue Dress]

Yes, we do miss Kelby. There is no replacing somebody like that, but it appears that David Helton is creating an effective role for himself.

[Bostondevil]

When is the first televised game (in New England)? We get the ACC Network ones around here (thanks Boston College!) Bostondevil wants to see Son of Bostondevil on TV again, it's been 6 months since the Carolina (bball) game! Son of Bostondevil should also call home.

[chrishoke]

That makes 10 wins out of the last 12 games. WOW.

[Olympic Fan]

That makes 10 wins out of the last 12 games. WOW.

Or, to put it another way, 10 straight regular season wins!

Not our greatest performance, but I'm not so jaded after two good seasons that I turn up my nose at a 34-17 win ... on the road.

The defense was awful early, but pretty much in control after the first two drives. The offense had a great second quarter to get control or the game ... I had the impression that Cutcliffe kind of went to the delay game late (maybe he's been watching Coach K!)

This game should remind us that we're still not the kind of super power than can just walk on the field and coast to a win. Northing from this point will be easy. Kansas next -- they looked good today at home. But if we play well, it should be 11 regular season games in a row!

[rhynelander]

I'm impressed with Jeremy Cash and Devon Edwards today. Although the secondary started out with shaky play, they came together and really set the tone of the D. Hoping to see some "coverage sacks" this year as the back 5 progress, the D-line looked overmatched at times in the first half.

[-bdbd]

Not overwhelming, but that's not expected this early anyway. We'll get better. I like that we're actively developing depth early in the season. But next week should be a little better test.

Pretty darn cool that Va Tech knocked off OSU at the Horseshoe tonight too. ACC! ACC! ACC!

And quasi-member Notre Dame destroyed Michigan in their final rivalry matchup for a long time.

If only SDSU coulda hung on. The night woulda been PERFECT! :rolleyes:

[subzero02]

The DBR reports a score of 38-17 on the front page... 4 points from biassed score keeping trumps the 3 points associated with homefield advantage

[Bob Green]

Not our greatest performance, but I'm not so jaded after two good seasons that I turn up my nose at a 34-17 win ... on the road.



Agreed! Thinking back on back-to-back 3-9 seasons in Coach Cutcliffe's 3rd and 4th years puts this 17 point road victory into perspective. We started off shaky last night, but in the end we walk away with a solid victory.

[CDu]

Only three points for Troy after halftime. Seems like the defense woke up!

Better than that even. Troy's last TD came on the first play of the second quarter. So we essentially allowed 3 points in the final 3 quarters.

[Henderson]

We didn't cover the spread...


I don't care as I didn't wager any money on the game. Duke won!!!

The spread isn't just for wagering. For those of us who don't usually bet sports, it's also a useful metric of overachievement/underachievement vs. the pre game assessment of people who do wager. Lots of people (including one of the posters quoted above) like to check the line before a game to see what that assessment is. It regularly gets reported here.

[Bob Green]

The spread isn't just for wagering. For those of us who don't usually bet sports, it's also a useful metric of overachievement/underachievement vs. the pre game assessment of people who do wager. Lots of people (including one of the posters quoted above) like to check the line before a game to see what that assessment is. It regularly gets reported here.

I agree with everything you state and I am one of the guys who checks and posts the Vegas line as well as the over/under. However, when the game is finished the line is not relevant unless you wagered or participate in a pool that uses the point spread. We won the game to improve to 2-0!

[tbyers11]

The spread isn't just for wagering. For those of us who don't usually bet sports, it's also a useful metric of overachievement/underachievement vs. the pre game assessment of people who do wager. Lots of people (including one of the posters quoted above) like to check the line before a game to see what that assessment is. It regularly gets reported here.

Agree with what you said. However, while the OP's original statement that we didn't cover the spread is true for betting purposes I find it a bit misleading in the judging our performance vs expectations conversation. The spreads I saw were Duke by 17.5 or 18. Winning by 17 is close enough for me ;)

[subzero02]

i agree with everything you state and i am one of the guys who checks and posts the vegas line as well as the over/under. However, when the game is finished the line is not relevant unless you wagered or participate in a pool that uses the point spread. We won the game to improve to 2-0!

1-1 ats...

[Duvall]

The spread isn't just for wagering. For those of us who don't usually bet sports, it's also a useful metric of overachievement/underachievement vs. the pre game assessment of people who do wager. Lots of people (including one of the posters quoted above) like to check the line before a game to see what that assessment is. It regularly gets reported here.

Isn't the utility limited by the fact that bettor preferences can and do move the line? It's not like a power rating that's based solely on team performance.

[sagegrouse]

It seems to me there are two numbers that matter in the end in a Duke win:

How much we won by. 17 points is pretty good against any FBS/IA team.

How far we were behind. 11 points gives me a lot of worry, especially when it looked like Troy could score at will. Mebbe I should jest read the paper the next morning.

[IsInTheDetails]

That was a hard-fought road win against a game Troy team. They really gave us a punch in that first quarter, and it was nice to see our character and conditioning pay off as the game wore on. I love that we finished with a comfortable road victory, while still giving Cut & Co. plenty of teaching opportunity.

A handful of takeaways. . .

- At the offensive skill positions, our coffers are indeed rich. Boone was poised and sharp throughout, and Sirk's brief cameo showed another nifty wrinkle to his game with that jump pass. Powell and Snead kept their heads down for some tough running, while Wilson and Ajeigbe again showed their huge upside. I like having those younger guys come in later in the game with fresh (fast!) legs as the opposing defense gets gassed.

- In the receiving corps, the Crowder show rolls on, Blakeney looks like a new man and a matchup nightmare, and McCaffrey is starting to look like the Mr. Reliable that runs in his genes. I'm still waiting to see more out of Johnell Barnes - seems like there's more potential there than we're seeing - though it was nice to see Terrence Alls get a couple grabs late in the game.

- Duke's offensive line took a while to get going against Troy. It just seemed like we couldn't get an push and couldn't break Powell or Snead for anything big. Our guys started to win the trench battle later in the game, which I'd credit to our excellent conditioning, but we need more push early in games. It's perhaps hard to measure against the likes of Elon and Troy, but pass protection seems solid so far.

- On the defensive side of the ball, Cash, Edwards, and Helton are big time playmakers. And that shows up in the box score, with 38 tackles (solo & assisted) between them. It's not new for Duke, and it seems sort of inherent to a 4-2-5 scheme, but those guys in the back of our defense are getting a ton of tackles, while the guys up front don't get their names called on the PA very often. We need someone on the front line to step up as a playmaker - DeWalt-Ondijo seems a likely candidate - to replace that spark that graduated with Kenny Anunike.

- Any word on CJ France's leg injury? Here's hoping it's not too serious or long-term, because I didn't see much from Chris Holmes or Deion Williams last night. True freshman Zavier Carmichael was more active and picked up a handful of tackles late, so perhaps his development will come along quickly. We're definitely missing Kelby Brown.

- Is Ross Martin no longer handling kickoffs? Seems fine if he can be our FG/PAT specialist, but it would also be nice if we could get more kickoffs into the end zone for touchbacks. Our kickoff coverage still looks a bit shaky. Speaking of Ross Martin, that 48-yarder was another beauty. I like our chances when we need longer field goals.

- Final thought, speaking of takeaways. . .How have we not given or taken a turnover in two whole games? We did force a couple fumbles last night, neither of which was recovered, but it seems crazy (at least a statistical anomaly) that we've played two completely turnover-free tilts.

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

Isn't the utility limited by the fact that bettor preferences can and do move the line? It's not like a power rating that's based solely on team performance.
Furthermore, if Vegas has the line correct, won't the favorite by definition NOT cover the spread about half the time?

What was the spread? 18? And we won by 17. That's not underachievement. That's a chaos theory math differential. Had we won by a single score, that might be considered some form of underachievement. Let's not get hung up on covering the spread as an indicator of performance - at least not this week.

Besides, if/when we are the underdog and lose by less than the spread, will we be celebrating a point spread victory...? Doubt it.

[TruBlu]

Furthermore, if Vegas has the line correct, won't the favorite by definition NOT cover the spread about half the time?

What was the spread? 18? And we won by 17. That's not underachievement. That's a chaos theory math differential. Had we won by a single score, that might be considered some form of underachievement. Let's not get hung up on covering the spread as an indicator of performance - at least not this week.

Besides, if/when we are the underdog and lose by less than the spread, will we be celebrating a point spread victory...? Doubt it.

It wasn't that long ago in Duke Football history that we would be somewhat "celebrating" a loss by less than the spread, and we were underdogs in just about all of the games.

Times have changed, and I love it!

[loran16]

This was not an impressive win, so I hope people aren't really pointing to the score nearly equaling the spread as a GOOD sign. Let's go over what we saw other than the score, since the score isn't necessarily the most predictive of things given all the lucky factors that go into it:

Offense was generally good

Troy had a disturbingly easy time stopping our rushing attack, with us averaging only 4.4 YPC (and that number inflated by great work by frosh RBs Wilson and Ajeigbe in the last frame) which is not good going forward - Duke's O last year was aided by its best rushing attack in a LONG time, and this wasn't it. Hopefully it was just a blip. That said, the passing attack was strong. Boone had a few brain dead decisions which he was fortunate not to get burned on, but the WRs were for the most part terrific. Blakeney finally looked like the guy we always dreamed about, and I pray this wasn't a blip because if it's for real, he's a weapon that other teams simply will not be able to guard (especially if they have to pay attention to Crowder as well). Overall the O was extremely effective.

The D had a LOT of warts

Here's the thing: the score is misleading as to our D's quality of play yesterday - it was not good at all. Troy killed us with the run - remove the QB rushes (which include Sacks) from the rushing stats, and Troy averaged 4.65 YPC. When Troy didn't go down the middle, our D looked incredibly weak at stopping them, and screen passes (an equivalent to the runs) were similar at killing us.

None of this is surprising: our D line was objectively bad last year and lost its two best players. We run a 4-2-5 and we were playing safeties deep, basically allowing midrange plays and forcing our guys to win clear one on one coverage. Against some other teams (Cough GT cough), this isn't going to work.

Byron Fields also needs to work on defending better - I understand it's tough when you get little support from your D line, but they were targetting him and succeeding quite a bit.

We survived this game pretty much because of their failure on two fourth down plays, but overall the D wasn't succeeding. That won't work in the future.

[Henderson]

Isn't the utility limited by the fact that bettor preferences can and do move the line? It's not like a power rating that's based solely on team performance.

Of course they move the line; that's what makes the market efficient. Except the betting line is an efficient market with hundreds of thousands of participants. And they have $ at stake. Statistics are just a tool. I'll trust people with money at stake over statistics (which people with money at stake consider as part of the analysis) anytime if the sample is big enough. And the sample in sports betting on college football is big enough.


Agree with what you said. However, while the OP's original statement that we didn't cover the spread is true for betting purposes I find it a bit misleading in the judging our performance vs expectations conversation. The spreads I saw were Duke by 17.5 or 18. Winning by 17 is close enough for me ;)

Winning by 17 is great. And if the line was 18, that's close enough to meeting expectations for my book. If we'd won by 3, I think people would think two things: 1. Great that we won; and 2. We shouldn't be that close to Troy, given the expectations going in. Would folks really be as pleased if we had squeaked out a close win? I think the conversation in this thread would have been different if that had been the case.


17 points is pretty good against any FBS/IA team.


Agreed that winning by 17 was good and fulfilled expectations going in.


Furthermore, if Vegas has the line correct, won't the favorite by definition NOT cover the spread about half the time?

What was the spread? 18? And we won by 17. That's not underachievement. That's a chaos theory math differential. Had we won by a single score, that might be considered some form of underachievement. Let's not get hung up on covering the spread as an indicator of performance - at least not this week.


Agreed with the second paragraph. I haven't heard anyone (least of all me) saying this was a disappointing win. But the line is a good indicator of that. We were favored by 18 and won by 17. That's close enough to have met expectations going in. Winning by 30 would have been an overachievement, and winning by 3 would have been good, but cautionary. And we know that, because the efficient market said 18.

Regarding the first paragraph, I think you misunderstand efficient markets. They are efficient, not because everyone is right, but because the "rights" and "wrongs" are approximately even. The bookies hope that half the bets are losers and half are winners. That's a perfect line. But the fact that betters win half the time and lose half the time is evidence of the efficiency of that market, not a valid criticism of it.

[subzero02]

We were 9-1 against the spread going into this game. Our 1 loss came against an outstanding FSU squad. Like many, I use the spread as an indicator of public perception. Considering that we were visiting an opponent that played us very tough last year, I thought 18 points was a little high. Although a 17 point win on the road is great, the fact that we trailed by 11 points in the first half was very concerning and played a huge role in us not covering.

[Olympic Fan]

- Is Ross Martin no longer handling kickoffs? Seems fine if he can be our FG/PAT specialist, but it would also be nice if we could get more kickoffs into the end zone for touchbacks. Our kickoff coverage still looks a bit shaky. Speaking of Ross Martin, that 48-yarder was another beauty. I like our chances when we need longer field goals.

This is a matter of strategy. Both Ross and Jake Willoughby can put a fair number of kicks in the end zone, but Cutcliffe has said that since the NCAA moved the kickoff touchback out to the 25, he'd rather kick just short of the goal line.

So far, that strategy has been undermined by our erratic KO coverage, but look at the results of Saturday's seven kickoffs:

-- one touchback (Troy starts at the 25)

-- Two returns beyond the 25 -- one to the 42; one to the 32.

-- Four returns short of the 25 -- to the 21, the, 17, the 14 and the nine (which was actually to the 19 before a blocking in the back penalty).

That means that we GAINED a net 15 yards by not kicking into the end zone

Obviously, the strategy works better if we cover better, but even on a night like Saturday when our coverage broke down twice, we still came out ahead.

[devildeac]

This is a matter of strategy. Both Ross and Jake Willoughby can put a fair number of kicks in the end zone, but Cutcliffe has said that since the NCAA moved the kickoff touchback out to the 25, he'd rather kick just short of the goal line.

So far, that strategy has been undermined by our erratic KO coverage, but look at the results of Saturday's seven kickoffs:

-- one touchback (Troy starts at the 25)

-- Two returns beyond the 25 -- one to the 42; one to the 32.

-- Four returns short of the 25 -- to the 21, the, 17, the 14 and the nine (which was actually to the 19 before a blocking in the back penalty).

That means that we GAINED a net 15 yards by not kicking into the end zone

Obviously, the strategy works better if we cover better, but even on a night like Saturday when our coverage broke down twice, we still came out ahead.

Jake Willoughby! That's it! I thought I had learned his name from the Elon game as being the 2nd KO guy but I swear Bob Harris kept saying Jack Logan on the radio last PM and I believed him:o. Guess I shoulda looked at the roster more:o. I'll be better next week at home. Promise.

[budwom]

^ In addition to what Olympic said, at the Elon game it was evident that Willoughby got more air under the ball on his kickoffs, allowing for
at least a better chance at coverage. Martin hit a few line drives which can't be part of a logical strategy, gotta give your coverage guys
time to get downfield.

Last year, it took a few games (e.g. the ugly Pitt game) before our very young secondary frosh really stepped up and began to play well.
So I'm hopeful that perhaps Carmichael and Holmes will improve rapidly as the season progresses. Might we even see Bere, another frosh
with good potential. The three of those guys bring us some speed at LB we otherwise lack.

[loran16]

^ In addition to what Olympic said, at the Elon game it was evident that Willoughby got more air under the ball on his kickoffs, allowing for
at least a better chance at coverage. Martin hit a few line drives which can't be part of a logical strategy, gotta give your coverage guys
time to get downfield.

Last year, it took a few games (e.g. the ugly Pitt game) before our very young secondary frosh really stepped up and began to play well.
So I'm hopeful that perhaps Carmichael and Holmes will improve rapidly as the season progresses. Might we even see Bere, another frosh
with good potential. The three of those guys bring us some speed at LB we otherwise lack.

None of that has any hope of improving the DLine, which is the major flaw.

(Incidentally, I hate that kickoff strategy, - getting a few stops at the 15 doesn't make it worth allowing the risk of a runback for a TD. )

[jimsumner]

Jake Willoughby! That's it! I thought I had learned his name from the Elon game as being the 2nd KO guy but I swear Bob Harris kept saying Jack Logan on the radio last PM and I believed him:o. Guess I shoulda looked at the roster more:o. I'll be better next week at home. Promise.

It's Jack Willoughby. So, Bob was half right and you're half right.

Of course, that could mean Jake Logan is kicking off. :)

He is a walk-on but made a few appearances last year.

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

None of that has any hope of improving the DLine, which is the major flaw.

(Incidentally, I hate that kickoff strategy, - getting a few stops at the 15 doesn't make it worth allowing the risk of a runback for a TD. )
You've made it very clear you don't believe in our D Line. At all. Time will tell, I guess.

[Scorp4me]

We were 9-1 against the spread going into this game. Our 1 loss came against an outstanding FSU squad. Like many, I use the spread as an indicator of public perception. Considering that we were visiting an opponent that played us very tough last year, I thought 18 points was a little high. Although a 17 point win on the road is great, the fact that we trailed by 11 points in the first half was very concerning and played a huge role in us not covering.

I wonder how much of that was us beating the spread and how much was them being unwilling to give Duke credit with regards to the spread no matter what we did.

[subzero02]

I wonder how much of that was us beating the spread and how much was them being unwilling to give Duke credit with regards to the spread no matter what we did.

I think the odds makers were more than aware of our improved play but the public's betting pattern probably indicated a reluctance to believe in the Blue Devils. If the flow of money wagered shifted towards us, the spreads would've been adjusted to reflect this trend. I believe us being an 18 point favorite at Troy stems from our eye-opening nationally televised performances versus FSU and Texas agricultural and mechanical.

[killerleft]

This was not an impressive win, so I hope people aren't really pointing to the score nearly equaling the spread as a GOOD sign. Let's go over what we saw other than the score, since the score isn't necessarily the most predictive of things given all the lucky factors that go into it:

Offense was generally good

Troy had a disturbingly easy time stopping our rushing attack, with us averaging only 4.4 YPC (and that number inflated by great work by frosh RBs Wilson and Ajeigbe in the last frame) which is not good going forward - Duke's O last year was aided by its best rushing attack in a LONG time, and this wasn't it. Hopefully it was just a blip. That said, the passing attack was strong. Boone had a few brain dead decisions which he was fortunate not to get burned on, but the WRs were for the most part terrific. Blakeney finally looked like the guy we always dreamed about, and I pray this wasn't a blip because if it's for real, he's a weapon that other teams simply will not be able to guard (especially if they have to pay attention to Crowder as well). Overall the O was extremely effective.

The D had a LOT of warts

Here's the thing: the score is misleading as to our D's quality of play yesterday - it was not good at all. Troy killed us with the run - remove the QB rushes (which include Sacks) from the rushing stats, and Troy averaged 4.65 YPC. When Troy didn't go down the middle, our D looked incredibly weak at stopping them, and screen passes (an equivalent to the runs) were similar at killing us.

None of this is surprising: our D line was objectively bad last year and lost its two best players. We run a 4-2-5 and we were playing safeties deep, basically allowing midrange plays and forcing our guys to win clear one on one coverage. Against some other teams (Cough GT cough), this isn't going to work.

Byron Fields also needs to work on defending better - I understand it's tough when you get little support from your D line, but they were targetting him and succeeding quite a bit.

We survived this game pretty much because of their failure on two fourth down plays, but overall the D wasn't succeeding. That won't work in the future.

And I was all happy because I thought WE SUCCEEDED on those two plays. Thanks for the correction. Lucky us!

[Olympic Fan]

(Incidentally, I hate that kickoff strategy, - getting a few stops at the 15 doesn't make it worth allowing the risk of a runback for a TD. )

But you are always risking a runback for a TD. Nobody can ALWAYS kick it deep enough to guarantee a touchback.

Kicking it high and short is easier to cover than trying for the touchback -- and kicking it low and long instead. That's the kind of kickoff that leads to touchdown returns.

A year ago, Duke kicked off 81 times -- 23 were touchbacks and 58 were returned for an average of 20.6 yards. None went for touchdowns. Our opponents' average starting point was the 23.

Our opponents kicked off 74 times -- 35 were touchbacks and 39 were returned ... for an average of 24.6 yards. Two were returned for touchdowns. Our average starting point was the 26.

So a year ago, the strategy of intentionally kicking short is worth approximately three yards a kick -- or 243 yards a season. Our opponents were MUCH better at getting touchbacks -- but overall, our short kickoff strategy was more successful.

[Mal]

A year ago, Duke kicked off 81 times...Our opponents kicked off 74 times.

An interesting debate, but I just ended up focusing on the fact that we kicked off almost 10% more times than our opponents, the underlying set of circumstances that leads to such a statistic, and wondering how long it had been since the last time that occurred. :)

[Henderson]

This was not an impressive win, so I hope people aren't really pointing to the score nearly equaling the spread as a GOOD sign. Let's go over what we saw other than the score, since the score isn't necessarily the most predictive of things given all the lucky factors that go into it:

Offense was generally good

Troy had a disturbingly easy time stopping our rushing attack, with us averaging only 4.4 YPC (and that number inflated by great work by frosh RBs Wilson and Ajeigbe in the last frame) which is not good going forward - Duke's O last year was aided by its best rushing attack in a LONG time, and this wasn't it. Hopefully it was just a blip. That said, the passing attack was strong. Boone had a few brain dead decisions which he was fortunate not to get burned on, but the WRs were for the most part terrific. Blakeney finally looked like the guy we always dreamed about, and I pray this wasn't a blip because if it's for real, he's a weapon that other teams simply will not be able to guard (especially if they have to pay attention to Crowder as well). Overall the O was extremely effective.

The D had a LOT of warts

Here's the thing: the score is misleading as to our D's quality of play yesterday - it was not good at all. Troy killed us with the run - remove the QB rushes (which include Sacks) from the rushing stats, and Troy averaged 4.65 YPC. When Troy didn't go down the middle, our D looked incredibly weak at stopping them, and screen passes (an equivalent to the runs) were similar at killing us.

None of this is surprising: our D line was objectively bad last year and lost its two best players. We run a 4-2-5 and we were playing safeties deep, basically allowing midrange plays and forcing our guys to win clear one on one coverage. Against some other teams (Cough GT cough), this isn't going to work.

Byron Fields also needs to work on defending better - I understand it's tough when you get little support from your D line, but they were targetting him and succeeding quite a bit.

We survived this game pretty much because of their failure on two fourth down plays, but overall the D wasn't succeeding. That won't work in the future.

Eeyore says howdy. Poor Eeyore didn't care that we won on the road by 17. It's his nature.

4326