• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!

McDowell back in the portal

Status
Not open for further replies.
oldngrizzly said:
I know how the scheduling works. I didn't just come out of the turnip patch yesterday. It is all about money and nothing else. You might think it's hilarious but until you prove me wrong I stand with what I said. Then you might get the last laugh but I doubt it very much.
Click to expand...
Well if you know how it works then you should realize it would be very hard for Montana to schedule really good teams in their non con games. They just don’t snap their fingers and make it happen. It’s not just all about the money. How would you improve on this years non con games which are actually fairly decent.
 
Playing weak teams in the beginning of the season you get exactly what happened last year at NAU. The coaches were caught with their pants down.
 
Am I crazy for feeling like the NAU game last year was a good thing?

"We can't have a repeat of the NAU game", why not? It's arguably the reason we did so well down the stretch. Do people think if we had won that game with Vidlak and continued course with him, we'd have won the Big Sky and gotten to Frisco? I sure don't.

If we played a harder schedule and opened 2-2, we likely don't get the #2 seed and have to play teams on the road in the playoffs.

I dunno, I feel like the NAU game and the lackluster tune up games were exactly what the team needed to find their identity last year.
 
mthoopsfan said:
58% passing is pretty mediocre. Which good college qb's throw about 58%? Every qb in the condference had a higher completion percentage, except for Jacob of No. Colo.

McDowell averaged 50 yards per game last season. If you take his 753 yards, and divide by only 13 games, then he averaged 58 yards (I gave him a break for not starting all games).

In the playoffs, McDowell had 189 yards in 51 carries 51 carries. 47 yards per game. 2, 17, 118 and 52 yards, in reverse order. So, he averaged 3.7 per carry. He lost 92 yards in the playoffs.

So, no, you can't add 50 -100 per game for rushing.

He averaged just under 180 yards per game passing in the playoffs.
Click to expand...
You just said he averaged 58 a game but, then you can't add that? That doesn't make sense. Just stop.
 
uofmman1122 said:
Am I crazy for feeling like the NAU game last year was a good thing?

"We can't have a repeat of the NAU game", why not? It's arguably the reason we did so well down the stretch. Do people think if we had won that game with Vidlak and continued course with him, we'd have won the Big Sky and gotten to Frisco? I sure don't.

If we played a harder schedule and opened 2-2, we likely don't get the #2 seed and have to play teams on the road in the playoffs.

I dunno, I feel like the NAU game and the lackluster tune up games were exactly what the team needed to find their identity last year.
Click to expand...
The one positive from the NAU game wasn't player oriented, it was coach oriented. Check the damn posts from the period. All that do the same thing over and over expecting a different result each time. Crazy. It forced change on Bobby. Hopefully it's a permanent change, or it's deja vu.
 
oldngrizzly said:
Playing weak teams in the beginning of the season you get exactly what happened last year at NAU. The coaches were caught with their pants down.
Click to expand...
The NAU loss wasn’t cus of playing weak teams leading up to it. It was cus we didn’t have a leader at QB yet. Again I ask, what does montana need to do differently to get a tuffer non con schedule? And just saying they need to schedule tuffer teams is not an answer.
 
oldngrizzly said:
Playing weak teams in the beginning of the season you get exactly what happened last year at NAU. The coaches were caught with their pants down.
Click to expand...
The coaches weren't caught with the their pants down. The team played poorly. NAU played well. NAU was a better team than people gave them credit for. UM didn't have a qb yet. After NAU, UM picked McDowell and he did quite well.
 
3-7-77 said:
The one positive from the NAU game wasn't player oriented, it was coach oriented. Check the damn posts from the period. All that do the same thing over and over expecting a different result each time. Crazy. It forced change on Bobby. Hopefully it's a permanent change, or it's deja vu.
Click to expand...
How come you seem to be the only one on this forum that understands football except for me of course ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top