Serious blow to cornerback depth.
Printable View
So sorry to hear for both Mark & Josh. Unfortunately, we're keeping Dr. Amendola pretty busy it appears.
I only saw parts of the game, but would agree that the difference in physicality was readily apparent (BC hit much harder than ND in my view). But physicality has been a hallmark of the BC program going back to the Tom Coughlin days, so it was on Cut and staff to have our guys prepared for that. It sure didn't look that way, though, and we seemed to shrink from the moment more and more as the game went on.
I think we've run out of excuses, given the number of severe clunker games in the past year or two.
This has been the biggest change (per the eye test) for me in the last few years. We used to play very conservative, don't beat yourself football. We won the turnover and penalties battles. We played bend don't break defense and forced the other teams to match our discipline.
I don't see that brand of football anymore.
Who starts at cornerback with Blackwell and Gilbert out?
My guess:
1. Leonard Johnson and Jeremiah Lewis
Or
2. Leonard Johnson and Michael Carter II
Carter has game experience at corner and the team remains deep at safety so moving him to corner is an option.
yeah, I don't think defense, even with the injuries is our major concern. Finding a pulse, any pulse, on our offense is what is so badly required.
Uniform:
Blue helmet with black Iron D, White jersey, Blue pants
I agree with you guys more than I disagree, but I have to say that any decent football team, at any level, comprised of guys WHO LOVE TO PLAY FOOTBALL! -- should not have to be "prepared" to face a "physical" opponent! My size got me only to HS football, but I don't know any of us who had to be prepared for the other team's physicality. We couldn't wait to impose our our physicality on them. That is one of the essential joys of playing football!
And this does bother me very much about what I watched on Saturday. BC's O line did seem bigger and stronger, but where was our ferocity? I just don't understand how a good college team can shrink from being challenged physically.
Finally, it's pretty obvious, isn't it, that any winning team has to excel at both physical play and smart execution? These aren't elective choices. I saw so many times where we were both non ferocious and also out of position. sigh.
I agree on the physical play of our Blue Devils. It looks like in some games it's men against boys, with Duke being the boys. I know a lot of teams are bigger than our guys but that shouldn't mean our guys can't be just as physical. It comes down to "attitude". Like the tale of where the head coach is talking to an assistant coach about a prospect they are recruiting. The head coach says, see that play. The guys knocks the other player down and he get's jumps back up. The assistant says, yeh coach, we want that player that got right back up. The head coach says, no way, we want that kid who just knocked the other one down. Duke needs more players that are knocking the opponent down.
GoDuke!
I believe much of this non-physical play discussion is overblown. Duke's defense sacked the BC quarterback multiple times. Our defensive line is plenty physical.
My sad prediction - Cavs 31 - Devils 16