Football, Game 11: The Citadel vs. Samford

Posted on November 18, 2010 by Sandlapper Spike

Factoids:

— Gametime/location:  2:30 pm ET/Seibert Stadium, Birmingham, Alabama

— Both teams are known as the Bulldogs.  Really, one of the requirements for Samford to join the Southern Conference should have been for the school to change its nickname.

— Samford is 4-6, 2-5 in the SoCon; The Citadel is 2-8, 0-7.

The Citadel’s game notes

Samford’s game notes

—

I wrote this in my preview of the first game of the season (the game against Chowan):

While I am looking forward to the season, this year I am a bit apprehensive about what lies ahead for the Bulldogs on the gridiron.  The Citadel is going to the triple option on offense, with a head coach who has never run the offense (or any similar offense) before, and with players who were mostly recruited for a very different kind of system.

The players who were recruited with the triple option in mind, of course, are all true freshmen.  The quarterback position will likely be manned by one (or more) of those true freshmen. The “knob”-starting quarterback double is a rare one, and for a reason. It’s an exceedingly difficult combination.

The Southern Conference media and coaches agree that this season could be a long one for The Citadel, just as the last two seasons have been.  The media picked the Bulldogs to finish last in the league.  The coaches ranked The Citadel eighth out of nine teams, ahead of only Western Carolina.

So I guessed I called this one…

—

The Citadel is hoping to go out with a bang after a whimper of a season.

“Next season starts this week,” was Higgins’ message Monday at his final weekly news conference of the season, as The Citadel prepares for Saturday’s season-ender at Samford.

“We need to keep building on some of the things we’ve done and see if we can get next season off to a great start on Saturday,” Higgins said.

Higgins is using the bye week to make the Samford game the football equivalent of MayMester, which isn’t a bad idea.  Motivation is presumably an issue for both The Citadel and Samford, neither of which have a chance at a winning season, or a winning league campaign.

I would be cautious about making too much of the offense’s improvement against Elon.  I’m not sure what it says about the unit’s progress when just being able to successfully complete the center/QB exchange is considered a breakthrough.  (That said, I do think Mike Sellers shows considerable promise.)

—

Samford and The Citadel match up statistically in a lot of areas, including red zone offense and defense, third-down conversions, scoring defense, and rush defense. The Citadel has a better passing defense (by about 40 yards per game), but Samford is much more balanced on offense.  Of course, most teams are more balanced offensively than The Citadel.  In this case the result is Samford averaging about 80 yards more in total offense.

That said, Samford hasn’t really lit up the scoreboard in SoCon play much more than The Citadel.  While Samford hasn’t been shut out twice like the Cadets, it has only scored 20 or more points in two league games, not coincidentally the two games in the conference Samford has won.  One of those was a 38-7 rout of Western Carolina, while the other was a 20-13 upset of Georgia Southern.  Both of those games, interestingly, were on the road.  At home, Samford is averaging just 10 points per game.

The lack of point production comes despite the presence of Alabama’s all-time leading rusher.  That would be the State of Alabama’s all-time leading rusher, to be more specific.  Chris Evans will probably cross the 4,500-yard mark in Saturday’s game, which is more career rushing yards than Bo Jackson, Shaun Alexander, Mark Ingram, Sherman Williams, Johnny Musso, William Andrews, James Brooks, Lionel James, Cadillac Williams, Ronnie Brown, Major Ogilvie…etc.

That’s not bad (and a cheat of a trivia question, too).

Two years ago Evans rushed for 174 yards against The Citadel and scored two touchdowns as Samford won easily at Seibert Stadium, 28-10.  Samford’s huge offensive line dominated the line of scrimmage in that game, and Evans took full advantage.  That’s something Pat Sullivan’s crew will try to do again on Saturday, and he’s bringing another sizable o-line to the proceedings.  Samford’s offensive line starters average a meatball over 298 lbs.

Last year, though, that plan of attack didn’t work out, as The Citadel beat Samford 28-16, and the defense limited Evans to 52 yards rushing.  That game featured a freshman starting quarterback named Tommy Edwards.

Tangent:  If you want to impress your friends, ask them to name the three quarterbacks to start against Samford for The Citadel.  The three QBs in question are Edwards, Jack Douglas (in the 1989 contest that marked The Citadel’s first game back at Johnson Hagood Stadium after Hurricane Hugo) and Cam Turner.

There will be another freshman starter for The Citadel this Saturday, as Ben Dupree will make his second consecutive start (and third overall).  Dupree didn’t turn the ball over against Elon, which was probably more than enough for him to get the starting nod again.

—

I don’t have any idea how the game on Saturday will go.  Samford is not a particularly good team, but it is better than Western Carolina, and it is good enough to have beaten Georgia Southern.  Samford will be playing at home, which should give it an edge, although that hasn’t been born out in its league results.

A win at Samford would be a nice way to close out the season for The Citadel, and would give its players and fans some positive vibes for 2011.  Let’s hope for the best.

Filed under: Football, The Citadel | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

Just make a play

Posted on November 16, 2009 by Sandlapper Spike

““If anybody on offense, defense or special teams had just made one play at any point, it would have been a different game.” — Kevin Higgins

—

To review some of the plays that weren’t made:

— UTC quarterback B.J. Coleman threw 61 passes on Saturday.  He was not sacked.  Not once!  To be honest, that’s hard to do.  You would think that at least one time he would have tripped over a lineman’s foot and fallen down, or suffered a leg cramp while in the pocket, or pulled a Brett Favre-against-Michael Strahan move, but no.

What’s more, when Coleman went back to pass, he wasn’t looking to run.  Coleman threw 61 passes and had no rush attempts for the game.  The Mocs only rushed 12 times during the entire game (for 17 yards), so basically on every play, the Bulldogs knew that Coleman was going to throw the ball, and he was never going to be a threat to take off and run with it (and they also knew he was going to throw in Blue Cooper’s direction as often as possible, but Cooper still caught 14 passes).

The Bulldog D held the Mocs in check for a while, and when Chris Billingslea intercepted a fourth-down pass and returned it to the UTC 49, eventually leading to a Bulldog TD, things were looking good.  Then the Mocs went to a no-huddle attack, and from that point on, The Citadel’s defense turned to mush.  The ensuing drives for UTC were as follows:

  • 60 yards, field goal
  • 56 yards, field goal
  • 80 yards, touchdown
  • 71 yards, touchdown (plus a two-point conversion)
  • 43 yards, field goal
  • 9 yards, touchdown (after a long punt return)
  • 17 yards, turned over on downs (a clock-eating exercise that left The Citadel just 25 seconds to try to score)

You’ll notice there are no turnovers or punts listed.  That’s because there weren’t any to list once the Mocs went to the no-huddle.

— Speaking of turnovers, The Citadel’s defensive backs probably should have intercepted at least three Coleman passes in the second half.  Should have, but didn’t.  Again, someone needed to make a play, but no one did.

— Not only was Coleman not sacked, he was rarely pressured.  Higgins noted that “looking at the tape, we did have five or six hits on him”.  Five or six hits is generally not going to be enough to make an impact against a QB who threw 61 passes, but as it is the official statistics only credit The Citadel with one “hurry” for the entire game.  Of course, the official statistics also list John Synovec as having played quarterback for the Bulldogs on Saturday…

— The actual quarterback for The Citadel on Saturday was freshman walkon Tommy Edwards, who basically performed at the same level as he did against Samford — that is to say, quite well.  You really couldn’t have asked for much more from Edwards, who did a good job throwing the ball and forced the Mocs to honor him as a runner.  He also committed no turnovers.

After a gimpy Bart Blanchard struggled against Wofford, and with Miguel Starks apparently not in much better shape than Blanchard, the coaching staff’s decision to start Edwards was obviously the right call.  It probably should have been the call last week, too.

The offense did bog down in the second half (and the fourth-down playcall that resulted in Terrell Dallas losing two yards was poor), but the bottom line is that Edwards and company put 28 points on the board, including a touchdown with just over ten minutes to play that made the score 28-13.  That should have been enough to win the game, but the defense didn’t hold up its end of the bargain, and neither did the special teams.

The Bulldogs had another makeable field goal go unmade, failed to recover an onside kick, and also allowed a 53-yard punt return to set up the winning touchdown.  Teams don’t win games with special teams that are less than special.

—

The Citadel didn’t perform as badly against UT-Chattanooga as it did against Elon, Western Carolina, and Wofford, but it was still a crushing defeat.  Every week it seems the Bulldogs have another goal for this year go by the boards.  In the case of the UTC loss, that unmet goal is a winning season.

Of course, winning teams make key plays to clinch victories.  The Citadel hasn’t been making those plays for most of the season, and it shows in the win-loss record.

Filed under: Football, The Citadel | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

Same song, different year

Posted on November 9, 2009 by Sandlapper Spike

In college football, there are not that many games in a season, at least when compared to other sports.  For an FCS school, there are just eleven opportunities.  It’s important to make the most of each and every one of them.

The Citadel has played nine games this season.  In three of those games, the team’s performance has been absolutely awful, and I mean awful in the “did they know there was a game today?” sense.  That’s fully one-third of the games.

In sports, every now and then you’re going to have a bad day where nothing goes right (the same is true for life in general).  Most fans can understand that.  Having it happen once every three games — well, that’s not so understandable.  Worse, all three thud-fests were conference games (Elon, Western Carolina, and now Wofford).

In past posts, I called the Elon game a debacle, and the WCU loss a disaster.  I’m not sure what adjective applies to The Citadel’s game on Saturday against the Terriers.  Perhaps I should call it “disheartening” just to stay with the D-word theme.

Speaking of D:

  • On the second Wofford series, the Terriers were faced with a 3rd-and-8, and promptly converted it by completing a 23-yard pass — this from a team that rarely throws the ball (Wofford entered the contest last in the nation in passing yardage per game).  You just knew it was going to be a long day for the Bulldogs when that happened.
  • That third-down conversion was one of seven the Terriers picked up in eleven tries.  Wofford had come into the game only converting 38% of its third downs.
  • Of course, Wofford had 13 first downs in which it didn’t even need to convert a third down.
  • Wofford had lost 13 fumbles and thrown 6 interceptions prior to Saturday’s game, but the only Terrier turnover on Saturday came deep in Bulldog territory with Wofford already leading 29-10.
  • That fumble would be the only time the Terriers failed to score in the “red zone” in seven tries (four touchdowns, two field goals).

The defense’s day was probably best epitomized by a play in the second quarter.  Wofford faced a 3rd and 1 at The Citadel’s 33 yard line.  As the Terriers broke their huddle, an image of Terrence Reese in full “make some noise, get pumped up” mode appeared on the video board.  Wofford ran an inside handoff for three yards and a first down, with Reese then penalized for a late hit.  The Terriers scored four plays later.

The defensive issues weren’t particularly surprising, given the Bulldogs’ struggles on D for most of the season, and the success Wofford has had against The Citadel in recent years.  During the Kevin Higgins era, the Terriers have scored at least 28 points in every game against the Bulldogs.

However, unlike last season’s game against Wofford, on Saturday the Bulldog offense was equally disappointing.

I’m not sure what to make of the way the quarterbacks were utilized during the game.  Obviously, Bart Blanchard and Miguel Starks were both coming off injuries, and if they couldn’t play, that would be one thing.  As it happened, they both played, although whether either should have seemed debatable.

Blanchard was clearly struggling with a bad toe (and he’s had a bad ankle all year).  Never the fastest of QBs, he was no threat to run.  Any nominal “option” plays that The Citadel ran with Blanchard in the game were really just handoffs to Terrell Dallas or Van Dyke Jones, and Wofford treated them as such.  He also appeared to be a sitting duck in the pocket.

After the game, according to a story in The Post and Courier, Blanchard was wearing a walking boot in the locker room, just as he had in prior games against Furman and Samford, when he didn’t play.  I’m not sure why he played against Wofford, either.

I appreciated the effort and the determination, though.  Even with a bad wheel, he threw a really impressive pass to Kevin Hardy that would lead to a field goal; I’m not sure all of the fans in the stands appreciated how good a throw that was.  Blanchard did not get much help from his receivers, as there were several dropped passes (a recurring issue for most of the season).

Blanchard was in the game late in the first half when The Citadel got the ball on its own 6 yard line.  There were only 61 seconds left on the clock, and the Bulldogs actually had a little momentum, having scored on their previous drive to cut Wofford’s lead to seven, at 17-10.  The Terriers had just one timeout left, so the Bulldogs could have run out the clock.

However, on first down Blanchard went back to pass and was sacked, fumbling the ball.  Lincoln Kling recovered in the end zone for the Bulldogs, but the result was a safety.  Wofford returned the ensuing free kick to the Bulldog 40 and would eventually kick a field goal to take a 22-10 lead into the locker room.  It was like giving away five free points and all the momentum.  Wofford then got the ball first to open the third quarter, drove right down the field and scored.  Ballgame.

Tommy Edwards replaced Blanchard just before the end of the third quarter, moved the Bulldogs 38 yards in five plays, and then threw an interception.  On the Bulldogs’ next series (now trailing 43-10), Miguel Starks started taking the snaps.  He would lead The Citadel to the game’s final score on his second series of the game.

This I really didn’t understand.  If Starks was injured and couldn’t start, why put him in the game with 10 minutes left and the team trailing by five touchdowns?  I didn’t see the point in that.  If he had been healthy enough to play at all, he should have started over the clearly ailing Blanchard, or come into the game when the outcome was still in doubt.

Kevin Higgins noted that Edwards “doesn’t have much experience at all”, and that’s certainly true, but in retrospect I wonder if it would have been better for all concerned if Edwards had played instead of either Blanchard or Starks.

Of course, I’m just a yokel watching the game.  I don’t have any inside information on what the thinking was regarding playing Blanchard/Edwards/Starks.  It may be that Starks’ injury is the type that won’t get worse, but won’t get much better anytime soon.  If that’s the case, the coaches may have wanted to see what he was capable of doing, so they could take that into account for next week.

—

To have such a trouncing occur on Homecoming was also a bit dispiriting.  Without the TD at the end of the game, the Bulldogs would have suffered their worst Homecoming loss since 1989.  It’s not the best way to impress visiting alums, that’s for sure.

Things I may or may not have heard in and around the various reunion tents:

  • “Why don’t we run the wishbone?”
  • “Well, we’re a basketball school, anyway.”
  • “Maybe the guys on the team would play better if we rewarded a good season by letting them stay at the beach house during second semester, instead of the barracks.”
  • “How long have we been wearing navy pants?”
  • “Skip the orange juice, just give me what’s left in that bottle.”

A few observations about some off the field issues:

— Over the past couple of years, I’ve noticed that a significant number of cadets don’t make it to the game, and I’m not the only one who has spotted this trend.  At Saturday’s game I guesstimated that at least one-third, if not more, of the corps was not in the stands during the game.  Where were they?

This is something that the school administration needs to address before next season.  I know there are some legitimate absences, but the bottom line is that at least 90% of the corps of cadets needs to be in the stands at Johnson Hagood Stadium at every game.  Right now, that’s not happening.

— I’ve said this before, but if I attend too many more games at Johnson Hagood I’m going to eventually go deaf, thanks to the sound system speakers, which, apparently inspired by Spinal Tap, are set at “11”.  At least on this particular Saturday A) the referee’s microphone worked, and B) they didn’t play the “clap your hands” riff as the Bulldogs lined up to punt.

— Video board, good:  the Randy Bresnik message intro was great.  Excellent job setting that up.  I can’t imagine going into outer space.  Of course, I’m not crazy about heights…

— Video board, unintentionally amusing:  the Anthony Maldanado speech (through no fault of his own, of course).  Thank you.  Thank you.  Thank you.  Thank you.

— I thought the attendance was okay (Wofford didn’t bring a lot of fans).  Plenty of alums were wandering around, taking in the sights at the almost brand-new stadium, marveling at bathroom facilities that weren’t holdovers from the 19th century.  Everyone was ready to cheer; there just wasn’t anything worth cheering about, at least on the field.

— MVPs for the day, school of business administration:  both the Class of ’59 and the Class of ’69 presented enormous monetary contributions to the school on Saturday.  Major, major thumbs-up for those two classes.  Outstanding.

— MVPs for the day, school of recreation and leisure:  this would go to the Class of ’89, which had a huge throng of partiers at its reunion tent, all of whom appeared to be having a good time.  Great turnout by that group of youngsters.

—

The Citadel now has two games left on the schedule, road contests against UT-Chattanooga and Georgia Southern.  A winning season is still a possibility, but it will be a tall order to triumph against both an improved Mocs squad and the traditionally tough Eagles.  The Bulldogs will certainly have to play much, much better than they did on Saturday if they hope to win either of those games, much less both of them.

Filed under: Football, The Citadel | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Football, Game 9: The Citadel vs. Wofford

Posted on November 6, 2009 by Sandlapper Spike

I wrote about the series between Wofford and The Citadel during the preview for last season’s matchup between the two schools.  I’m not going to re-hash the history in this post; if anyone is interested, the link will serve to give some background.

This will be the third consecutive meeting between the Terriers and Bulldogs to be featured on SportSouth, which may be the first time The Citadel has played on TV against the same opponent three years in a row.  Tom Werme and Sam Wyche will again call the action from the booth.

—

When sporting events began to be regularly broadcast (first over radio, then television), some of the individuals running sports clubs feared that broadcasting games would lead to attendance declines, because people could just stay at home and listen to the radio, or watch on TV.  This notion was largely debunked by Hall of Fame baseball executive Larry MacPhail (in the 1930s and early 1940s).

Tangent:  this type of thinking had gone on for decades, beginning with clubs trying to deny telegraph operators the right to give scoring updates for baseball games.  In 1876, the first year of the National League’s existence, Hartford owner Morgan Bulkeley (one of the three most undeserving members of the Hall of Fame) attempted to bar representatives of the local telegraph company from buying tickets.

However, the question has to be asked:  if a game is on TV, why would someone choose to see it in person, rather than watch it on the tube?  Going to a game can be very inconvenient and expensive.  Instead, you could choose to not leave your house and watch the game (preferably in HD) while lying on your couch, with all the comforts of home, including a refrigerator, bathroom, and an HVAC system.

A lot of people go to the games anyway, as evidenced by the large crowds that see many different kinds of sporting events.  Even when it is noted that there are empty seats at an arena or stadium (like Doak Campbell Stadium for the North Carolina State-Florida State game last Saturday, the bottom line is that there were still a lot of people who went to the game (in that case, over 50,000).

Why do they go?  Well, tradition, I suppose, along with camaraderie — tailgating, seeing old friends in the same seats every year, that type of thing.  They go for the atmosphere.  Sometimes, that atmosphere isn’t so great.  However, occasionally there is a day to remember, a day when the electricity in the stadium isn’t just being provided by the power company.

It’s the kind of thing that gets people off their couches and in their cars and headed to the game, just for the chance to be a part of a high-voltage event, to be swept along in a moment of nirvana.  Maybe it won’t happen too often, but when it does, it makes up for all the times it didn’t.

Such an occurrence happened at Johnson Hagood Stadium in 1988.  Since this Saturday is Homecoming, I’m going to write briefly about the most memorable Homecoming game in the history of the stadium, which had the most electric atmosphere of any game I’ve ever seen at JHS.

—

***November 5, 1988 — Marshall (#1) vs. The Citadel (#19)***

It was a bright, sunny day when the Thundering Herd and the Bulldogs met on the gridiron.  Marshall had played in the I-AA title game the year before, losing 43-42 to Northeast Louisiana.  After that setback, the Thundering Herd hit the ground running in 1988.  By the time Marshall ventured to Charleston, it was 8-0 and ranked #1 in I-AA football.

The Thundering Herd featured a high-octane offense averaging 32.6 points per game.  Starting quarterback John Gregory threw for 3,127 yards and 21 touchdowns in 1988.  Many of Gregory’s throws went to Mike Barber, Marshall’s All-American wide receiver, who would be named I-AA player of the year in 1988 by the American Football Coaches Association.  Barber had caught 106 passes in 1987 and followed that up with “only” 79 catches in 1988.

When Gregory wasn’t throwing passes to Barber, he was tossing them to Sean Doctor, the Herd tight end, who in just two years in Huntington would accumulate 2,100 receiving yards.  Marshall could run the ball, too, as halfback Ron Darby gained 1,282 yards in 1988 and scored 16 touchdowns.

That was the juggernaut facing The Citadel, although the Bulldogs did not lack for confidence.  The Citadel came into the game 6-2, having won five straight games, including a 42-35 victory over Navy.  That triumph had been led by quarterback Gene Brown.  However, Brown was injured two weeks later against UT-Chattanooga.

Tommy Burriss had ably filled in at quarterback (no surprise, as he was the former starter) to lead the Bulldogs to victories over Boston University (yes, BU still played football back then) and East Tennessee State.  Brown’s return to the field was highly anticipated, though, as he was a truly gifted director of Charlie Taaffe’s wishbone attack.

A crowd of 20,011 showed up to see the matchup, the second time that season more than 20,000 people had attended a football game at Johnson Hagood Stadium.

After a scoreless first quarter, The Citadel would strike first, with Adrian Johnson scoring on a one-yard touchdown run.  Marshall would respond with a short field goal, but the score was only 6-3 at halftime (the Bulldogs having missed the PAT).

However, The Citadel’s offense began to control the game, dominating the time of possession.  Brown entered the game in the second quarter and the rushing yardage started to pile up.  Johnson rushed for 106 yards and Raymond Mazyck added 79 (on just 10 carries).  The Bulldogs as a team rushed for 359 yards, and perhaps more importantly ran 83 plays and kept Marshall’s high-powered offense off the field.

Even when Marshall had the ball, the Herd struggled.  In one sequence, the Herd would run eight consecutive plays inside the Bulldog 5-yard line without scoring a TD.  For the game, Marshall only managed 247 yards of total offense.

The crowd went into a frenzy when Phillip Florence took an end-around 33 yards for a touchdown in the third quarter, and when Johnson scored his second touchdown of the day in the fourth period, it was all over.  20-3, The Citadel.

Well, almost over.  As the game ended, the field was invaded by the corps of cadets, a number of whom headed straight for the goalpost in the south endzone.  The uprights were then torn down…okay, maybe not quite torn down.  The cadets were unable to rip the uprights away from the crossbar, and the crossbar remained attached to the stanchion.  It was the Cardinal Richelieu of goalposts.

It didn’t matter, though, as it was the thought that counted.  The administration didn’t seem to mind having to shell out some cash for a new goalpost, either, which may be the best indication of how amazing the atmosphere at the game really was.

Tangent:  the next week, Marshall’s Darby rushed for 262 yards against Western Carolina, which would have been a Southern Conference record — but on the same day, Brown rushed for 286 yards against VMI (on only 13 carries!) to shatter the mark.  Talk about bad timing for Darby.

Now that was a game worth attending.  What about Saturday’s game?  Will it be worth attending for Bulldog fans?

—

Wofford had enjoyed seven consecutive winning seasons before this year’s campaign.  The Terriers are 2-6, although it should be noted that Wofford played not one but two FBS schools this year, losing to both South Florida and Wisconsin.

However, eyebrows were raised around the conference when the Terriers (picked in the preseason to finish in the league’s top 3) lost 38-9 at UT-Chattanooga.  The Mocs have proven to be the most improved team in the league, but that loss clearly showed that Wofford had some unexpected issues.  The two main themes for the Terriers this year have been injuries and turnovers. 

Wofford entered the season with a fairly inexperienced squad (only nine returning starters), and that inexperience has been compounded by a rash of serious injuries, many of them season-ending.  Only ten players have started every game for the Terriers; in all, 34 different players have made at least one start. 

Many of the losses have been on defense (including pre-season All-SoCon pick Mitch Clark, who has only played one game this year).  The Terriers also suffered the loss of starting fullback Eric Breitenstein (who rushed for 121 yards against South Florida).  Wofford was already missing halfback Jeremy Marshall, who tore an ACL last season against Appalachian State; in this season’s matchup with the Mountaineers, another Terrier halfback, Derek Boyce, tore his ACL.

The Terriers run an option attack known as the “wingbone”, with the emphasis on run.  Wofford, with all its problems, still leads FCS in rushing, averaging 258 yards per game.  However, the Terriers are last in the division in passing, averaging only 70.5 yards per contest.

Quarterback Mitch Allen is completing just 45.2% of his passes.  That’s not a huge problem – after all, he doesn’t attempt that many – but while Allen has thrown five touchdown passes, he’s also thrown five interceptions (in just 62 attempts). 

Wofford as a team has thrown six picks, and has also fumbled 19 times, losing 13.  Losing two-thirds of their fumbles is a bit of bad luck, to be sure, but the Terriers are at heart a possession-oriented team.  Committing nineteen turnovers over eight games is not typical of a Wofford outfit.  The Terriers have committed 3+ turnovers in four games this season, losing all four.

The Terriers are still a dangerous offensive team, even with the turnover bugaboo, but have been inconsistent.  Wofford rolled up 537 yards of total offense against Appalachian State and another 426 against Western Carolina.  Unlike The Citadel’s last opponent, Samford, the Terriers are more than capable of creating big plays (Wofford has had five plays from the line of scrimmage of over 60 yards).

On the other hand, Wofford only had 170 yards of total offense against Elon (The Citadel can relate) and just 151 against UT-Chattanooga.  Part of the inconsistency can be traced to the Terriers’ third down conversion rate, which is just 38.3%. 

For the style of offense Wofford employs, that isn’t good enough.  The problems converting third down have led to Wofford averaging less than 29 minutes per game in time of possession, definitely not what an all-out running team like the Terriers wants.

When Wofford scores first, it is 2-0; when it doesn’t, 0-6.  Wofford is 0-5 when trailing after three quarters and 0-4 when scoring less than 20 points. 

Terrier opponents are averaging 387 yards per game in total offense.  Wofford has forced twelve turnovers in eight games, including five interceptions.  Much like its offense, the Terrier D has not had a lot of luck in the fumble department, forcing twenty but recovering only seven.  That’s the kind of statistic that will eventually turn in Wofford’s favor; let’s hope it doesn’t happen this week.

Wofford’s opponents have been in the “red zone” 36 times this season, and have scored touchdowns on 26 of those occasions.

The Terriers have a solid kick return game, led by running back Mike Rucker.   Wofford has a net punting average of 35.9, which is quite good.  The Terriers have only attempted four field goals all season, making two (both against Elon).

In last year’s game, The Citadel did a good job offensively but couldn’t stop the Terriers, as Wofford had 409 yards of total offense, including 279 yards rushing.  Andre Roberts had a huge game (14 receptions, 190 yards, 3 TDs) but it wasn’t enough, as Wofford stayed one step ahead of the Bulldogs the whole way, committing no turnovers and converting all three of its fourth-down attempts.

You can bet that Roberts will be priority #1 for the Wofford defense, but you can say that about any defense that faces The Citadel.  Who winds up throwing the ball in Roberts’ direction is anybody’s guess. 

What I hope happens is that if both Bart Blanchard and Miguel Starks are healthy, the coaches rotate them by series instead of by play.  If one of them is moving the team down the field, then that’s the guy that needs to stay in the game.  I’m not forgetting about Tommy Edwards, either.  He got the job done against Samford, and he’ll get the call if need be against the Terriers. 

I would like to see more of the type of playcalling used in the game against Furman, which seemed to suit the offensive line.  Speaking of the o-line, that unit will need to contain Wofford defensive end Ameet Pall, a Montreal native who is having a fine season for the Terriers.  Kevin Higgins was quick to note Pall’s abilities during his press conference on Monday.

It’s been too long since The Citadel won in this series.  Hopes are high that the Bulldogs will end that streak on Saturday, in front of an appreciative Homecoming crowd.  I am not so sure, to be honest, but I’ll be there cheering them on regardless.

Filed under: Football, The Citadel | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

Go East, young man

Posted on November 3, 2009 by Sandlapper Spike

The Citadel 28, Samford 16.

There are two obvious storylines from this game, from the perspective of The Citadel.  The performance of Tommy Edwards is one; the success of the Bulldog defense is the other.  First, Tommy Edwards…

Miguel Starks started the game at quarterback after an outstanding effort against Furman, and soon discovered that the Samford defense was more than ready for him.  Starks was in the game for seven offensive drives (not counting Andre Roberts’ fumbled punt), and on those seven drives The Citadel picked up only two first downs.

It was a lot like the Elon game, except that the opposition wasn’t constantly scoring following the Bulldogs’ three-and-outs.  The Citadel was lucky not to be trailing by more than ten points at halftime.  By then, Starks was out of the game, having injured his ankle — not the ankle that was already hurt, but the other one.  This has not been a good year for ankles attached to Bulldog quarterbacks.

Edwards came into the game with just 37 seconds left in the half, and I thought that The Citadel would just run out the clock.  After all, he is a “true” freshman walk-on who admitted later that his goal entering the season was just to make the travel squad.

Instead, Edwards came out throwing, completing four passes for 30 yards (and having a long pass dropped).  The Bulldogs ran out of time and had to attempt a long field goal (53 yards), which missed, but it was still the team’s most impressive drive of the half.  During that initial drive led by Edwards, The Citadel picked up two first downs, just as many as it had made in the first 29:23 of the contest (to go with just 70 yards of total offense pre-Edwards).

At first there was some suspicion that Samford might have been playing a “prevent” defense, and would have something different in store for Edwards in the second half, but the Cadets continued to improve offensively.  The Citadel started winning the field position battle (key against a grind-it-out team like Samford), and began its second possession of the third quarter on its own 45 yard line.

On first down, Edwards rolled right, then turned around and threw across the field to an open Van Dyke Jones, who slalomed his way to a touchdown.  It was an excellent play call, perfectly executed.

After that, momentum favored The Citadel.  Two possessions later, Andre Roberts returned a punt 41 yards into Samford territory and the home team was in business, eventually taking the lead early in the fourth quarter on another TD pass from Edwards, this one to Alex Sellars.

The defense took care of the rest of the game, with Cortez Allen intercepting two passes, running the second one back for a TD.  He also returned the first one for a score, but one of the officials intervened, mysteriously ruling him out of bounds on the Samford 5 yard line (oh, those wacky SoCon officials).  Terrell Dallas scored on the next play anyway.

—

For any freshman quarterback to arrive on campus in August, come off the bench in a midseason game and lead a team to victory would be impressive.  It’s even more impressive for a freshman at The Citadel to do it, given what “knob” year is like, and particularly when the QB is a walk-on.  Even more unusual, at least for The Citadel, is the fact that Edwards is a native of California.

Over the years, not a lot of football players from the Golden State have plied their trade at the military college, which I suppose isn’t that big of a surprise.  No one can say for certain how many Californians have played for The Citadel, but I would guess that less than twenty football players from California have lettered for the Bulldogs over the years.  As it is, the media guide only lists five, including Valley Village’s McDonald Love (captain of the 1935 team) and North Hollywood’s Brian Baima (an all-SoCon split end in 1971).

When Edwards threw his second TD pass on Saturday, he almost certainly set the career record for TD passes thrown by a Californian at The Citadel, breaking the mark previously held by wide receiver Scott Flanagan of Camarillo, who threw a touchdown pass against Florida last season (off a trick play).  If it is any consolation to Flanagan, he still holds the road record in the category…

—

It was a red-letter day for the defense (or perhaps I should say a navy and light blue day, given the mismatched uniform combination The Citadel wore at Johnson Hagood).  Samford is a run-first, run-second, and then pass if necessary kind of team, and the Birmingham Bulldogs were held to 35 net rushing yards (which included four sacks).  Last season bruising running back Chris Evans rushed for 174 yards against The Citadel; this season, he was held to 52.

The defense kept The Citadel in the game after some early miscues, including a bad punt and Roberts’ uncharacteristic fumble.  Holding Samford to a field goal after the Roberts bobble was critical to the eventual victory.  The Citadel recorded ten tackles for loss, including a combined six from starting defensive tackles Terrence Reese and Kyle Anderson.  Add in the two Cortez Allen interceptions, and you couldn’t ask for much more from the D.

It was easily the most complete game of the season by The Citadel’s defense, although to be honest I thought Samford had a rather unimaginative game plan.  Even a couple of trick plays seemed halfhearted.  Samford lacked dynamism (no run plays of more than 13 yards; no pass plays for more than 20) and didn’t seem to have any answers when it struggled to run the ball, especially when field position in the second half turned against it.

Samford would wind up with 46 pass attempts.  Of those 46, there was just one recorded post route (which went for Samford’s final TD), one deep in route, and one deep out (the pass Allen intercepted and returned for a touchdown).  All three of those passes came in the fourth quarter after Samford had fallen behind by two scores.

Samford actually finished the game with more first downs than The Citadel (15 to 12).  However, other than the final drive, Samford never moved the ball more than the 30 yards it gained on its opening possession.

—

All in all, it was a good day for The Citadel.  As to which quarterback starts against Wofford, who knows.  Jeff Hartsell informs us that the fourth-string quarterback is Irmo’s Brian Hill; maybe he’ll get a shot.  It doesn’t matter as long as the Bulldogs can beat Wofford, which hasn’t happened in a while.  It will also be Homecoming.  The countdown to Saturday begins.

Filed under: Football, The Citadel | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

Football, Game 7: The Citadel vs. Furman

Posted on October 23, 2009 by Sandlapper Spike

If you looked at the overall statistics for last year’s Bulldogs-Paladins game, you might think it had been a competitive game.  It wasn’t.  Furman led at one point by 28 points and scored on every one of its possessions in the first three quarters.

Furman alternated between delayed handoffs and intermediate pass routes, picking up first downs with ease (the Paladins had 22 first downs, only four of which came after a third-down conversion).  It was a lot like the Elon game two weeks ago, only The Citadel actually scored on its first two possessions against Furman (both field goals).

Allowing Furman those kinds of long scoring drives can’t happen on Saturday if the Bulldogs expect to win, but The Citadel’s defense has struggled to get off the field all season, allowing a third-down conversion rate of 51% and failing to create negative plays (only six sacks, and not enough turnovers).  The Bulldogs have only 24 tackles for loss so far this year; opponents have 43.

—

The Citadel desperately needs to get Andre Roberts more involved, and in a position to make big plays.  After all, he is the Bulldogs’ best player.  He did catch 9 passes against Western Carolina (for 78 yards and a TD), but in three conference games Roberts has only 16 catches for 138 total yards and that one TD.

Roberts lit it up against Presbyterian (12 catches, 184 yards, four touchdowns), but I can guarantee you Furman isn’t going to defend him like the Blue Hose did.  Just the opposite, probably.  The Paladins are well aware of how dangerous he can be; in three career games against Furman, Roberts has 28 receptions for 342 yards.

To have a chance of winning on Saturday, The Citadel needs more of the same from Roberts.  Whether the offense is capable of giving him that opportunity is open to question.

Furman’s defense, like The Citadel’s, has struggled on third downs; like the Bulldogs, the Paladins are allowing a 51% conversion rate.  Both defenses are allowing an average of right around 400 total yards per game.  Furman only has five sacks all season (but on offense, the Paladins have allowed just four).

It would seem that The Citadel might be able to move the ball on the Paladins, given those numbers.  However, with uncertainty at quarterback, a lack of a consistent ground game, and the absence of a secondary receiving threat, the Bulldogs may not be able to take advantage of that opportunity.  It’s hard to imagine the team that could only put up 10 points against Western Carolina doing much damage offensively against Furman (which defeated the Catamounts in Cullowhee 33-14).

The revolving door at running back has undoubtably resulted in some of the problems the Bulldogs have had running the ball, but the o-line hasn’t held up its end of the bargain either.  The failure of the offensive line to control the line of scrimmage in most of the games played thus far is arguably the most disappointing part of the team’s play to date.

—

One of the things that will be interesting to follow over the next three weeks is the attendance at Johnson Hagood Stadium.  The last two weeks have not exactly been helpful in terms of generating interest in the team.

Going back to last season, attendance for the Parents’ Day game against Elon was 12,582.  That was very disappointing for a Parents’ Day weekend crowd, even with the weather not being ideal.

Looking at various factors that could affect attendance on Saturday, there is a 30% chance of rain in Charleston by gametime.  Also, Clemson plays on TV at 3:30 pm ET (at Miami), and South Carolina hosts Vanderbilt (also on TV) at night.  Other than that, though, the college football slate on TV is not particularly compelling (and neither of those games is a must-see).

The last time the Bulldogs hosted Furman, it was also Parents’ Day, and 16,272 people showed up to watch one of the wilder games (if not the wildest) in the history of the series.  However, that was a winning Bulldog team playing on a day featuring good weather.

So, which direction will Saturday’s game take, attendance-wise?  I could make a pretty good guess.  What’s more, it’s the first of three consecutive football weekends at Johnson Hagood, and if the Bulldogs don’t make a good account of themselves against the Paladins, that is likely to be reflected in how many people show up to watch the Samford and Wofford games (with the latter being Homecoming).

I’ve written before about attendance, but the biggest factor when it comes to getting people to enter the stadium (as opposed to either not making the trip or just tailgating, which is another subject entirely) is winning.  The Citadel isn’t winning games right now, and attendance is likely to suffer as a result.

—

Bart Blanchard may or may not play against Furman, and Miguel Starks is not 100% healthy either.  Starks is likely to see much, if not all, of the playing time at quarterback, but if both Blanchard and Starks are unable to play, The Citadel’s quarterback will be 5’11”, 185 lb. Tommy Edwards, a freshman walkon from Los Angeles.

Edwards went to Ulysses S. Grant High School (hey, at least he didn’t go to William T. Sherman High School).  Notable alums of Grant High include Tom Selleck, Mickey Dolenz, Mitch Gaylord, Gilbert “Agent Zero” Arenas, three members of the pop/rock group Toto, TV theme kingpin Mike Post, and the late Rod Beck.  Apparently there haven’t been any notable football players to have come from Grant High, though, so Edwards has a chance to break new ground in that respect.

No offense to Edwards, but I really hope he’s not a featured player on Saturday.

—

The Citadel can beat Furman on Saturday, although the last two weeks haven’t inspired confidence in that possibility coming to pass.  The Paladins are a good team, but not without flaws.  The Citadel’s game against Appalachian State showed what the team is capable of doing on a given day, and after two lost weekends in North Carolina, playing at home will surely be beneficial to the Bulldogs.

It’s going to be a big test for the coaching staff.  Kevin Higgins and company have something to prove, too.

The team has to be ready to play from the opening kickoff.  I feel kind of dumb just writing that, but then again, I felt kind of dumb watching the Elon game.  If the Bulldogs’ energy isn’t there from the very start, it’s going to be a very long day for The Citadel.

The playcalling has to get better.  If Blanchard and Starks both play, the coaches can’t telegraph whether the play is a run or pass just by virtue of who is taking the snap from center.  Starks, in particular, has to throw the ball down the field, and he’s got to look for Roberts.

The coaches must find a way for the defense to stop the Paladins on third down (after making sure there is a third down in the first place).  Turnovers, tackles for loss, etc. are musts, not just for the yardage/field position, but to pump up the entire team, along with the crowd.

Of course, an unexpected win by the Bulldogs would really pump up the crowd…

Filed under: Football, The Citadel | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment »