Game Review, 2019: Charleston Southern

Links of interest:

– Game story, The Post and Courier

Photo Gallery, The Post and Courier

– WCSC-TV game report (with video)

– School release

– Game highlights (video)

– Box score

Stats of note:

The Citadel Ch. Southern
Field Position* 35.17 (+9.31) 25.86 (-9.31)
Success Rate* 36.67% 27.94%
Big plays (20+ yards) 1 9
Finishing drives (average points)** 6.5 2.5
Turnovers 1 1
Expected turnovers 0.72 1.82
Possessions* 12 14
Points per possession* 1.83 0.93
Offensive Plays* 60 68
Yards/rush* (sacks taken out) 3.57 6.00
Yards/pass attempt (including sacks) 13.17 5.22
Yards/play* 4.53 5.59
3rd down conversions* 3 of 13 5 of 15
4th down conversions 1 for 1 0 for 2
Red Zone TD%** 2 for 2 0 for 3
Net punting 37.6 32.0
Time of possession 36:07 23:53
TOP/offensive play 34.40 seconds 21.07 seconds
Penalties 7 for 57 9 for 41
1st down passing 1/2, 54 yards, TD, sack 4/11, 64 yards
3rd and long passing 0/1 4/10, 92 yards
4th down passing 0/0 0/1
1st down yards/play* 5.00 5.54
3rd down average yards to go* 6.69 8.53
Defensive 3-and-outs+* 7 6

*does not include The Citadel’s final drive of game
**does not include Charleston Southern’s last drive of first half

Random musings on the game:

– I’m going to start with the biggest question I had after the game, easily.

Why on earth did The Citadel go for two points after its third TD? I absolutely did not (and do not) understand that move. There is no reason to go for two there.

The percentage play is definitely to kick the PAT. You want to force the other team to (eventually) make a two-point conversion to tie the game. Even if the Bulldogs had been successful, it would still have been a two-score contest.

It could have been a really damaging decision. The safety helped alleviate things in the end, but still.

– The Citadel’s offense wasn’t particularly sharp last night, which perhaps shouldn’t have been all that surprising, given the injury situation. Charleston Southern’s defense definitely deserves credit for holding the Bulldogs at bay through long stretches of the game, but there was a noticeable lack of cohesion on that side of the ball by the Cadets.

Some of that can be attributed to employing a different quarterback, though Brian Murdaugh certainly acquitted himself well in his first career start. He committed no turnovers (indeed, The Citadel’s only TO came on special teams), and made some tough runs. He made a fine pass on the run to Raleigh Webb for a TD.

Ultimately, the Bulldogs have to improve on first down (so they can improve on third down) once conference season rolls around, which happens to be next Saturday.

– The Bulldogs’ offensive success rate was its lowest in four games, though comparable to its numbers against Elon and Georgia Tech.

– The Citadel’s defense was outstanding most of the evening. The Bulldogs gave up too many big plays, but only one of them directly or indirectly resulted in a touchdown. The Citadel allowed its lowest success rate (by far) of the season versus CSU.

Willie Eubanks picked off a pass, the first of the year for The Citadel. Eubanks had an excellent game, with nine tackles (including a sack). Three of his tackles came on the last three offensive plays of the game for CSU, a significant part of a great goal-line stand by the Bulldogs.

Marquise Blount also stood out for the Bulldogs, tying Eubanks for the team lead in tackles, including 2 1/2 tackles for loss.

– Against Samford next week, The Citadel’s D needs to convert at least couple of those near-miss interceptions it had versus CSU into picks.

– Matthew Campbell’s “bobble the ball, then kick it 62 yards and have it downed at the 1-yard line” punt was one of the plays of the game. Massive credit should also go to Ryland Ayers for hustling down to bat the ball away from the goal line.

The next play was the bad snap/safety that gave the Bulldogs a two-score cushion, which they never relinquished. That doesn’t happen if CSU isn’t backed up to its own 1.

– 49 players participated in the game for The Citadel. That matches the total for the Towson contest. There were 48 Bulldogs who saw action versus Elon. Against Georgia Tech (according to the game summary, anyway), just 35 Bulldogs played.

Okay, let’s talk about Autry Denson’s night…

First, he more or less blew off a handshake with Brent Thompson after the game. It was not a great look.

That was followed up with this postgame quote:

We were the better team again tonight, I’ll stand behind that. The frustration is not with my guys, the frustration again is with the things we can’t control.

This is Denson’s first time as a college head coach. He’ll soon learn there are quite a few things he can probably control, including:

  • Playing the wrong guy at quarterback for the better part of three quarters
  • The consecutive dead-ball personal foul/unsportsmanlike conduct penalties in the Red Zone by the Bucs’ defense that helped the Bulldogs score their second touchdown
  • The sequence in the third quarter when Denson spent almost the entirety of the play clock preceding a 4th-and-1 play arguing with the line judge, perhaps one reason why CSU failed to convert that fourth down try
  • The less-than-stellar clock management at the end of the first half, with the Buccaneers leaving a timeout on the board that they could have really used
  • The timeout Denson had to call to (apparently) calm down his team, with the play immediately following the timeout the one that led to the aforementioned back-to-back dead-ball penalties

Also, when your offense only scores one TD, has zero or negative yardage on exactly half of its plays (34 of 68), gives up a safety on a bad snap, throws a pick inside its own 30, averages only 2.5 points per drive inside the 40-yard line, and is stuffed on four out of five plays in which it needed only one yard for a first down and/or touchdown…well, when you add it all up, there is a strong possibility that your squad was not “the better team”.

I didn’t even mention the TD pass CSU allowed on a 1st-and-25 play, or the Bulldogs’ sizable advantages in field position and time of possession.

Additional thoughts:

– The attendance was 9,626, not terrible (in terms of recent trends) but not that good, either, for the only night game of the season. As has been discussed before, Charleston Southern is simply not a big draw for fans of the Bulldogs, and doesn’t bring that many supporters in its own right.

That is just one of many reasons why any kind of home-and-home scenario between the Bulldogs and Buccaneers would be ridiculous, and not in the best interests of The Citadel. It also confirms the idea that these two programs don’t really need to play every year, because this “rivalry” is simply not that big a deal in the Lowcountry, no matter what the administration at Charleston Southern would like people to believe.

In fact, there seemed to be a limited presence of Charleston media at Johnson Hagood Stadium last night. The local newspaper thought so much of the game that it sent its general sports columnist to Clemson to watch 533 different Tigers run up and down the field against Charlotte.

– Speaking of our friends in the fourth estate: enough of the “inner city rivalry” and “crosstown rivalry” descriptions. Setting aside the rivalry argument for a moment, in what galaxy is this series ever an “inner city” or “crosstown” competition?

C’mon.

– I liked the light blue jerseys/pants combo. To be honest, as a certified old fogey, I prefer the light blue jerseys/white pants look for home games. However, the general concept was solid.

Next week, the Bulldogs make the trek to suburban Birmingham to take on another set of Bulldogs, Samford. The preview for that game will be posted later this week.

This week’s pictures include no 4th-quarter shots and very few 3rd-quarter photos, due to cellphone battery issues. The lack of pictures in those periods will hopefully not endanger democracy as we know it.

2 Responses

  1. Great article as always Spike. In regard to your issue with going for 2…I think I know exactly why he did it and it really wasn’t a terrible idea from a psychological point of view. I realize from the text book it wasn’t a great decision; miss it and we are up 14 (as happened). Kick it and we are up 15. Get it and we are up 16. Basically 2 TDs, with either 2 PATs, one PAT and one 2PT, or two 2PTs. A great risk/reward scenario. Chances were good they would not make two 2 pointers even if they scored twice and that would make it essentially a 3 score lead with only a couple minutes left in third. Had we missed it, even scoring once on O in the 4th would have made it moot. Who figured we wouldn’t? All arguable. But from a specific game decision at that time, I didn’t have that much of a problem with it. Sucked in hindsight. Sure we missed it and they could have scored twice and gone for 2 once and won, had we not gotten the safety. However, in the second half, at the decision point, we had already forced a punt, held them to a FG, held them on 4th down, and had an interception. A risk to be sure, but a good one.

    CSU had disrespected us slightly by going for it on 4th down on our 41 earlier. Basically they were saying they could give us great field position if they failed and it didn’t matter. The next couple plays taught them better. After we intercepted on their next drive, they were losing it and I think the coach wanted to stick a dagger in them. After the 4th down stop, the TD pass, and then the interception, their D was already getting agitated and sloppy and tired (note their 2 personal and 1 unsportsmanship penalties on just two consecutive plays). I am pretty sure had we gotten it, either they would have folded or lost all discipline more than they had at that point. I actually thought to myself after that TD, go for two and end this! Sucks we missed it, but the concept was not bad. I think he had enough faith in our ability to stay just ahead or stop them even if we missed it. I think our goal line stand proved part of that true.

    Again, it is highly arguable and I probably would have wimped out had I been him and kicked it. But I trust our coach in managing the game and the fan in me liked the aggressiveness.

  2. Thompson has been really good in go-for-it situations over the last couple of seasons, and in general I’ve liked his decision-making. You are right that his aggressiveness is usually a plus. I just didn’t understand what the idea behind going for 2 points was last night.

    If it was in fact a psychological ploy, that would be really interesting. I hope someone asks him about it at the Monday press conference.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: