Nut the F up on Navy, wimps!

[blacklistedbully]

They damn near lost to:

UConn (3-9)
Tulane (4-8)
Houston
ND (4-8)
Tulsa


They did lose to Air Force and USF. Only D1 team with a winning record they beat by more than 1 score was Memphis. Ole Miss beat Memphis worse than Navy did.

Playing triple option teams with 2 weeks to prepare is not a bad thing, unless you lose your DC right before, or don't have the athletes and discipline to play assignment football.

We struggled vs GT in the OB because Collins screwed us. We lost to AF in '91 because we took them lightly, thinking we were going to just show up and steamroll them.

We pretty much suck vs the pass...but we have the d-line and LBs (assuming they tackle) to give the running game fits. If we can take away the dive, and jam up the middle with our d-linemen, we're looking at our LB corp being athletic and savvy enough to play the QB properly...then the pitch-man, assuming we force the QB to pitch. I like our LBs in that scenario.

I also like the thought if Simmons & James clogging up the middle, smothering the dive and making the interior a jumbled mass of humanity. I like the idea of Jefferson and Calvin on the ends, and Brown, Lewis & JT Gray our starting LB's.

The only thing that scares me is our DB's recognizing coverage responsibilities, etc. That's a definite concern, but I do think, assuming our guys tackle well (a big assumption), we have a great chance of forcing enough 3rd & 5 or more that we could get off the field defensively and allow our offense to kick some ass.

I think we'd give up a lot of yards and points, but ultimately win a high-scoring game.

[MetEdDawg]

Two thumbs up. Would read again because I agree. Navy is good. But it's our best chance for some street cred in a bowl game I think. Chance at another Top 25 victory. We need to sack up and quit whining about who we play. We can be tentative about winning, but we should never back down from a challenge.

Time for the fan base to mature from the we just need to win these games so let's play someone easy and get to the point where we are willing to put our nuts on the line and play good teams.

[Todd4State]

I agree also. Plus Coman is much better against the run.

[tcdog70]

the plus with playing Navy is they don't PASS. QBs that pass are what kill us. Let's play the middies.

[blacklistedbully]

And if our offense is rolling (thinking Fitz and Williams would have a field day), we could get up by 3 scores early and be in great shape. TO offenses are not built to "come from behind".

[maroonmania]

When it comes down to it, beggars can't be choosers. At 5-7 I'll gladly play whoever they send our way.

[thf24]

X's and O's guys, how does the flexbone match up against the 3-4? Seems from my mostly casual perspective that our 3 down front might be harder to cut block to the degree they want.

[AusTexDawg]

the plus with playing Navy is they don't PASS. QBs that pass are what kill us. Let's play the middies.

This year's Navy team is a slightly different model than recent years. They've proven capable of hitting explosive pass plays when needed in a few games. They just don't need them often.

I'm just glad we're going to get the extra bowl practices. Getting to see the Dawgs in DFW is just gravy if that's how it works out.

[CadaverDawg]

I don't want to play Navy...and you'll see why if we play them. Navy hasn't punted in a month, and our 2016 defense couldn't hold 2014's jock strap.

Granted, I'm just glad to be bowling...but I would rather play anybody but Navy given the choice. I can't remember the last time we actually stopped a Triple Option...and 2 of the times we were destroyed by them was...wait for it...IN BOWL GAMES, with weeks to prepare AND when we had better defense's.

I'm not saying we couldn't beat them...I'm just saying I like our chances far better of beating a less unorthodox offense, and one we've never really beaten before...or even come close.

So it's not about "nutting up". It's about "waking up" to the fact that it wouldn't be a good matchup for us. Personally, I'd like to ride a wave of momentum into the offseason, and getting DL hurt due to cut blocking all night, and getting routed by a good Navy team, is not my idea of momentum. And history supports that us getting routed is the more likely outcome (Air Force, GT, GT, GT)

But that's just my opinion. If we're going to play a good team...sign me up for MSU vs Boise St in the Las Vegas Bowl. At least a loss to them wouldn't be as frustrating as watching the same play wear our asses out all night like the triple option would.

[Bothrops]

We'll have to score 75 to beat them. No thanks.

[CadaverDawg]

We'll have to score 75 to beat them. No thanks.

Yep

[BeardoMSU]

Yep

Double yep.

[MabenMaroon]

We'll have to score 75 to beat them. No thanks.

76 - they hung 75 on SMU a couple of weeks ago.***

[Todd4State]

I don't want to play Navy...and you'll see why if we play them. Navy hasn't punted in a month, and our 2016 defense couldn't hold 2014's jock strap.

Granted, I'm just glad to be bowling...but I would rather play anybody but Navy given the choice. I can't remember the last time we actually stopped a Triple Option...and 2 of the times we were destroyed by them was...wait for it...IN BOWL GAMES, with weeks to prepare AND when we had better defense's.

I'm not saying we couldn't beat them...I'm just saying I like our chances far better of beating a less unorthodox offense, and one we've never really beaten before...or even come close.

So it's not about "nutting up". It's about "waking up" to the fact that it wouldn't be a good matchup for us. Personally, I'd like to ride a wave of momentum into the offseason, and getting DL hurt due to cut blocking all night, and getting routed by a good Navy team, is not my idea of momentum. And history supports that us getting routed is the more likely outcome (Air Force, GT, GT, GT)

But that's just my opinion. If we're going to play a good team...sign me up for MSU vs Boise St in the Las Vegas Bowl. At least a loss to them wouldn't be as frustrating as watching the same play wear our asses out all night like the triple option would.

You're looking at the results and not the cause of the results.

[msstate7]

As much as you guys don't wanna face navy, navy's DC feels the same way about our offense. We'd score at will. They have no athletes that can match ours.

[blacklistedbully]

I don't want to play Navy...and you'll see why if we play them. Navy hasn't punted in a month, and our 2016 defense couldn't hold 2014's jock strap.

Granted, I'm just glad to be bowling...but I would rather play anybody but Navy given the choice. I can't remember the last time we actually stopped a Triple Option...and 2 of the times we were destroyed by them was...wait for it...IN BOWL GAMES, with weeks to prepare AND when we had better defense's.

I'm not saying we couldn't beat them...I'm just saying I like our chances far better of beating a less unorthodox offense, and one we've never really beaten before...or even come close.

So it's not about "nutting up". It's about "waking up" to the fact that it wouldn't be a good matchup for us. Personally, I'd like to ride a wave of momentum into the offseason, and getting DL hurt due to cut blocking all night, and getting routed by a good Navy team, is not my idea of momentum. And history supports that us getting routed is the more likely outcome (Air Force, GT, GT, GT)

But that's just my opinion. If we're going to play a good team...sign me up for MSU vs Boise St in the Las Vegas Bowl. At least a loss to them wouldn't be as frustrating as watching the same play wear our asses out all night like the triple option would.

Vs GT in the OB, we were left with no DC, and it showed. They ran the dive on us all night and we never seemed to make any adjustments. Having 2 weeks to prepare is nearly worthless if you don't have a qualified coach on staff to help you prep.

I remember the AF bowl game well. I absolutely remember us taking them very lightly, and all the talk of them being so small, we would just man-handle them. We went into that game thinking we could just show up.

Also, that was back when CJS was running things, and he didn't view that bowl as much more than a vacation for the kids.

3 of our 4 regular season losses that year were by 6 or fewer pts, 2 of those were to #6 UT & # 7 Bama. A 3rd loss was to #14 UF. We were very disappointed to be going to the Liberty, and played like it.

[CadaverDawg]

Vs GT in the OB, we were left with no DC, and it showed. They ran the dive on us all night and we never seemed to make any adjustments. Having 2 weeks to prepare is nearly worthless if you don't have a qualified coach on staff to help you prep.

I remember the AF bowl game well. I absolutely remember us taking them very lightly, and all the talk of them being so small, we would just man-handle them. We went into that game thinking we could just show up.

Also, that was back when CJS was running things, and he didn't view that bowl as much more than a vacation for the kids.

3 of our 4 regular season losses that year were by 6 or fewer pts, 2 of those were to #6 UT & # 7 Bama. A 3rd loss was to #14 UF. We were very disappointed to be going to the Liberty, and played like it.

Ha, a coachless D in 2014 was better than what we had this year. Plus, who says we will adjust this year? We haven't adjusted to shit all season on D.

Bottom line...you're just throwing hope out there. My reasons are based on our history of not stopping the option. No DC begs to face the option. None. So not sure why our fans ignorantly would.

[CadaverDawg]

As much as you guys don't wanna face navy, navy's DC feels the same way about our offense. We'd score at will. They have no athletes that can match ours.

But their OC & HC are dying to face our D.

[CadaverDawg]

You're looking at the results and not the cause of the results.

Doesn't matter. We had one of the worst defenses in school history this year and you wanna tell me our DC leaving in 14 outweighs that? Not buying it. Y'all are looking at the EB and not thinking about our full season. Asking for Navy is just ignorant. Nobody WANTS to play a Triple Option attack that cuts your legs all game, puts up 50+ in many games, and hasn't punted in a month! Ha, especially anybody with OUR defense.

Yall wanna see us play Navy? Fine. But just don't try to justify why we SHOULD want to face them like BLB is saying...bc that is nonsense

[msstate7]

But their OC & HC are dying to face our D.

I watched south Florida with a dual threat qb completely dismantle them. Navy scored a ton of meaningless points to make the final respectable, but it was a butt kicking big time. USF ran zone read and PA off it and navy looked about like us facing Arkansas.

[Todd4State]

Doesn't matter. We had one of the worst defenses in school history this year and you wanna tell me our DC leaving in 14 outweighs that? Not buying it. Y'all are looking at the EB and not thinking about our full season. Asking for Navy is just ignorant. Nobody WANTS to play a Triple Option attack that cuts your legs all game, puts up 50+ in many games, and hasn't punted in a month! Ha, especially anybody with OUR defense.

Yall wanna see us play Navy? Fine. But just don't try to justify why we SHOULD want to face them like BLB is saying...bc that is nonsense

Deshea was our DC and he was totally confused the entire game. Statistically we are way worse against the pass than the run. I thin Peters is coming into his own at CB and he and Durr should be fine against their WR's. I would be the most worried about Richie Brown because he misses a ton of tackles. Simmons and James would cause them problems big time. We ended up seventh on the SEC in rushing defense compared to dead last in pass defense.

I don't care if we play them or not. I'm not scared of playing them though if that's how it works out. Like 7 said they would have a lot of problems with our skill guys and our o-line. we also run the ball well enough that I think we could keep their offense on the sideline some which a lot of Navy's opponents can't do.

[blacklistedbully]

Ha, a coachless D in 2014 was better than what we had this year. Plus, who says we will adjust this year? We haven't adjusted to shit all season on D.

Bottom line...you're just throwing hope out there. My reasons are based on our history of not stopping the option. No DC begs to face the option. None. So not sure why our fans ignorantly would.

Ignorantly?? Really?? Well hells bells, I guess it's a minor miracle everybody's not still running the triple option, Cadaver. I mean, it's not as if the only D1 schools running it are the military academies and GT, right?

No...what's "ignorant" is not grasping that there is a reason why all but a handful of schools don't run the triple option.

Ignorant, my ass!

[blacklistedbully]

Deshea was our DC and he was totally confused the entire game. Statistically we are way worse against the pass than the run. I thin Peters is coming into his own at CB and he and Durr should be fine against their WR's. I would be the most worried about Richie Brown because he misses a ton of tackles. Simmons and James would cause them problems big time. We ended up seventh on the SEC in rushing defense compared to dead last in pass defense.

I don't care if we play them or not. I'm not scared of playing them though if that's how it works out. Like 7 said they would have a lot of problems with our skill guys and our o-line. we also run the ball well enough that I think we could keep their offense on the sideline some which a lot of Navy's opponents can't do.

Todd, don't try using logic on Cadaver. He's decided what the truth is, so anybody who disagrees is just ignorant or full of nonsense.***

I'm sure we'd do much better vs a team with a prolific passing attack.**

[CadaverDawg]

Todd, don't try using logic on Cadaver. He's decided what the truth is, so anybody who disagrees is just ignorant or full of nonsense.***

I'm sure we'd do much better vs a team with a prolific passing attack.**

Sorry Drama queen. Didn't mean to upset you.

[blacklistedbully]

Sorry Drama queen. Didn't mean to upset you.

Who's the drama queen? GL, you pull this shit all the time. You say something snotty about somebody...then when they come back at you, you berate them again for having the nerve to call you on it.

GFY

[CadaverDawg]

Who's the drama queen? GL, you pull this shit all the time. You say something snotty about somebody...then when they come back at you, you berate them again for having the nerve to call you on it.

GFY

LOL

[CadaverDawg]

Who's the drama queen? GL, you pull this shit all the time. You say something snotty about somebody...then when they come back at you, you berate them again for having the nerve to call you on it.

GFY

"Wanting" Navy is ignorance. Sorry. It just is.

I'm not going to play your little SECrant game though, so carry on with your "we want Navy" nonsense. I can assure you, Peter Sirmon does not.

[blacklistedbully]

LOL

Whatever, dude. 99% of the time I think you're a damn good poster. It's just that 1% you can be a real asshole for no reason.

[CadaverDawg]

Whatever, dude. 99% of the time I think you're a damn good poster. It's just that 1% you can be a real asshole for no reason.

I'm not being an asshole. I just disagree and 99% of logical football minds that are fans of our team do not think Navy is a good matchup. So I'm not following how I'm an asshole? You just love arguing on message boards...it's your schtict. And that's fine, but I'm just not interested. I'm interested in throwing out the opinion of 90+% of our fans.

[blacklistedbully]

"Wanting" Navy is ignorance. Sorry. It just is.

I'm not going to play your little SECrant game though, so carry on with your "we want Navy" nonsense. I can assure you, Peter Sirmon does not.

A) I never said I "wanted" Navy, rather I said those pussies who are scared to play them need to grow some balls.
B) I pointed out I think we have the personnel that could give Navy trouble if we are coached up on gap assignment, block down-step down technique, how to feather the QB, cover the pitch-man, and if we TACKLE.
C) As I and others have pointed out....we are worse against the pass than we are the run. Logic would dictate our chances might be better if we face a run-oriented offense combined with an opposing defense that hasn't shown they are capable of stopping an offense like ours.
D) Your best argument against has been our performance vs GT in the OB and AF in the Liberty 25 years ago. When countered with reasonable responses, you come back with, "ignorant" and "nonsense".

Posters can respectfully disagree. I'm not always respectful myself, but neither are you...and you're a damn mod.

[CadaverDawg]

A) I never said I "wanted" Navy, rather I said those pussies who are scared to play them need to grow some balls.
B) I pointed out I think we have the personnel that could give Navy trouble if we are coached up on gap assignment, block down-step down technique, how to feather the QB, cover the pitch-man, and if we TACKLE.
C) As I and others have pointed out....we are worse against the pass than we are the run. Logic would dictate our chances might be better if we face a run-oriented offense combined with an opposing defense that hasn't shown they are capable of stopping an offense like ours.
D) Your best argument against has been our performance vs GT in the OB and AF in the Liberty 25 years ago. When countered with reasonable responses, you come back with, "ignorant" and "nonsense".

Posters can respectfully disagree. I'm not always respectful myself, but neither are you...and you're a damn mod.

At least my argument has some merit. Yours is all "I think we could do ______."

Sorry I came across rude. My apologies.

I just figured a guy that titles a thread "Nut up", might be able to do the same when someone acts a little disagreeable. You get so defensive so quick. I'll try to keep that in mind. Sorry

[msstate7]

I think you two need to duke this out**

Yeah, I wasn't saying I want navy, but I don't think it would be hopeless if we do. Pretty much this whole board thought we were gonna get destroyed by om too, but it didn't happen. We're 5-7 and getting a bowl. I don't care who we play... bring on anyone

[CadaverDawg]

I think you two need to duke this out**

Yeah, I wasn't saying I want navy, but I don't think it would be hopeless if we do. Pretty much this whole board thought we were gonna get destroyed by om too, but it didn't happen. We're 5-7 and getting a bowl. I don't care who we play... bring on anyone

I agree with this.

I don't think it's hopeless...I just think if someone is going to call people wimps for wanting to play an obviously better matchup, he damn well better have some reasons why. More than "I think we could____".

I'm just glad to be bowling, and I'm hopeful we can play Boise, SDSU, or Wyoming in Las Vegas...get us a W...and then close strong in recruiting.

[msbulldog]

I don't want to play Navy...and you'll see why if we play them. Navy hasn't punted in a month, and our 2016 defense couldn't hold 2014's jock strap.

Granted, I'm just glad to be bowling...but I would rather play anybody but Navy given the choice. I can't remember the last time we actually stopped a Triple Option...and 2 of the times we were destroyed by them was...wait for it...IN BOWL GAMES, with weeks to prepare AND when we had better defense's.

I'm not saying we couldn't beat them...I'm just saying I like our chances far better of beating a less unorthodox offense, and one we've never really beaten before...or even come close.

So it's not about "nutting up". It's about "waking up" to the fact that it wouldn't be a good matchup for us. Personally, I'd like to ride a wave of momentum into the offseason, and getting DL hurt due to cut blocking all night, and getting routed by a good Navy team, is not my idea of momentum. And history supports that us getting routed is the more likely outcome (Air Force, GT, GT, GT)

But that's just my opinion. If we're going to play a good team...sign me up for MSU vs Boise St in the Las Vegas Bowl. At least a loss to them wouldn't be as frustrating as watching the same play wear our asses out all night like the triple option would.

The last time we beat the Triple Option 1980 Alabama. Emory Bellard "Pardnuhs I invented the Wishbone, I'm gonna show you how to stop it".

[blacklistedbully]

At least my argument has some merit. Yours is all "I think we could do ______."

Sorry I came across rude. My apologies.

I just figured a guy that titles a thread "Nut up", might be able to do the same when someone acts a little disagreeable. You get so defensive so quick. I'll try to keep that in mind. Sorry

Dude...grow up. You're little more than a whining cry-baby...a spoiled brat who "stomps his feet" when he doesn't get his way. In all the MB's I've ever been on, I've never once seen any mod come close to approaching the level of immaturity and hostility toward board members you occasionally display.

Every other board I've seen expects a certain baseline of civility and self-control from mods. They expect mods to be more peace-makers and/or watchdogs against shit-disturbers...not an active bomb-thrower.

You stand alone in your ineptitude as a mod.

[blacklistedbully]

I agree with this.

I don't think it's hopeless...I just think if someone is going to call people wimps for wanting to play an obviously better matchup, he damn well better have some reasons why. More than "I think we could____".

I'm just glad to be bowling, and I'm hopeful we can play Boise, SDSU, or Wyoming in Las Vegas...get us a W...and then close strong in recruiting.

Wow...so now you're not just a crybaby, you apparently can't read very well either.

So, my reasoning according to you has been nothing but, "I think we could____". Yet anyone with half a brain and the integrity to be honest knows I've mentioned our personnel, our ability to perform better vs the run as compared to the pass, our likely ability to have our offense run rough-shod over Navy's defense, the advantage a team can gain over a triple option offense if said team's offense is able to get an early lead, and more.

When confronted with your opinion that we couldn't stop them because we didn't perform well vs GT and AF, I gave you plausible, reasonable explanations of why those games turned out the way they did. That was also not a "I think we could...".

"I think we could..."? WTF is that supposed to mean anyway? Pretty much everybody's post is about what, "they think" about a subject. Your opinion is "what you think", no mater how much you want to believe your's is fact, while other's opinions are "nonsense" or "ignorant".

Want to know another thing that is ignorant? How about holding up as "proof" we can't handle a triple option a game we played 25 YEARS AGO.

[blacklistedbully]

The last time we beat the Triple Option 1980 Alabama. Emory Bellard "Pardnuhs I invented the Wishbone, I'm gonna show you how to stop it".

How many times have we faced a triple option since then? How many times when we've had more than a well to prepare?

[CadaverDawg]

Wow...so now you're not just a crybaby, you're a moron as well.

So, my reasoning according to you has been nothing but, "I think we could____". Yet anyone with half a brain and the integrity to be honest knows I've mentioned our personnel, our ability to perform better vs the run as compared to the pass, our likely ability to have our offense run rough-shod over Navy's defense, the advantage a team can gain over a triple option offense if said team's offense is able to get an early lead, and more.

When confronted with your opinion that we couldn't stop them because we didn't perform well vs GT and AF, I gave you plausible, reasonable explanations of why those games turned out the way they did. That was also not a "I think we could...".

"I think we could..."? WTF is that supposed to mean anyway? Pretty much everybody's post is about what, "they think" about a subject. Your opinion is "what you think", no mater how much you want to believe your's is fact, while other's opinions are "nonsense" or "ignorant".

Like I said, this is your schtict. I'm surprised you aren't linking this thread to other boards like you link rant threads here to try and get some support. There's only one person crying in this thread and it's you. You are one sensitive fella.

Take your own advice, Nut the F up, and quit bitching. Grow some thicker skin, and quit calling "but you're a mod", as if you repeating that is going to get me kicked off the board something. Grow up and move on, dude. Jesus. This could have ended yesterday if you weren't so sensitive and thin skinned. I'm done responding to you.

[CadaverDawg]

The last time we beat the Triple Option 1980 Alabama. Emory Bellard "Pardnuhs I invented the Wishbone, I'm gonna show you how to stop it".

Yep

[blacklistedbully]

Like I said, this is your schtict. I'm surprised you aren't linking this thread to other boards like you link rant threads here to try and get some support. There's only one person crying in this thread and it's you. You are one sensitive fella.

Take your own advice, Nut the F up, and quit bitching. Grow some thicker skin, and quit calling "but you're a mod", as if you repeating that is going to get me kicked off the board something. Grow up and move on, dude. Jesus. This could have ended yesterday if you weren't so sensitive and thin skinned. I'm done responding to you.

Pot...meet kettle. It's amazing how much like an Ole Miss fan you sound.

I'm not lobbying for anything. I'm simply pointing out how ill-equipped you are to be a mod. But that's not my decision. You are, without doubt, the worst one I have ever witnessed...and it's not even close.

You take personal shots...get insulting...then when someone responds in kind, you accuse them of being "thin-skinned", "drama queens" or whatever other insult you choose to use before then criticizing the one who fights back for using insults, etc. That's your "schtict".

I guess it never occurred to you that this latest exchange could have not even begun had you not started it. Newsflash...you don't get to, "go there" without the expectation of being called out for it.

LMAO that you called me thin-skinned. Irony.

Think I'll go talk with the adults now.

[blacklistedbully]

Like I said, this is your schtict. I'm surprised you aren't linking this thread to other boards like you link rant threads here to try and get some support. There's only one person crying in this thread and it's you. You are one sensitive fella.

Take your own advice, Nut the F up, and quit bitching. Grow some thicker skin, and quit calling "but you're a mod", as if you repeating that is going to get me kicked off the board something. Grow up and move on, dude. Jesus. This could have ended yesterday if you weren't so sensitive and thin skinned. I'm done responding to you.

I don't link "rant" threads. I'm not even signed up there, I don't think. I have linked Rivals threads here from time-to-time to share some of the stupid, nasty shit their fans post over there. I've also once or twice encouraged some here to join in over there because I've been fighting dozens of them by myself over there for years, and it's time consuming to be the only one there putting up a fight.

Oh, and by my count on this thread, it looks like about 60% favor or have no problem with us taking on Navy...so not getting your "90, 95 or 99%" referenced support for your POV. Not that it actually alters the reality one bit. Sometimes the majority is just wrong. After all, Clinton won the popular vote.

[blacklistedbully]

The last time we beat the Triple Option 1980 Alabama. Emory Bellard "Pardnuhs I invented the Wishbone, I'm gonna show you how to stop it".

In 2013 we faced an Oklahoma State team that had just hired a new OC. They were a pass-heavy attack the prior years, so we prepared for that, and shut it down early. Then, 25 minutes into the game, on OSU's 6th drive, they completely changed to a triple-option offense. They had 4 productive drives and scored 21 points before our DC Collins realized what adjustments needed to be made.

Once he made those adjustments, we shut the OSU offense down again...but due to our offense going MIA, it was too little too late.

The point is...having a capable DC on staff allowed us to adjust on-the-fly, during the game with positive results. Not having that guy when we played GT was clearly crippling.

[CadaverDawg]

In 2013 we faced an Oklahoma State team that had just hired a new OC. They were a pass-heavy attack the prior years, so we prepared for that, and shut it down early. Then, 25 minutes into the game, on OSU's 6th drive, they completely changed to a triple-option offense. They had 4 productive drives and scored 21 points before our DC Collins realized what adjustments needed to be made.

Once he made those adjustments, we shut the OSU offense down again...but due to our offense going MIA, it was too little too late.

The point is...having a capable DC on staff allowed us to adjust on-the-fly, during the game with positive results. Not having that guy when we played GT was clearly crippling.

That was nowhere near a wishbone/flexbone Triple Option. And they ate us up in that diamond formation (not "Triple Option"). Poor example IN MY OPINION

[blacklistedbully]

That was nowhere near a wishbone/flexbone Triple Option. And they ate us up in that diamond formation (not "Triple Option"). Poor example IN MY OPINION

From our DC Geoff Collins:

"When they came out with the triple-option stuff it took us a while to get adjusted. You sit there all week and prepare to stop such a high-powered offense, and then all of a sudden a novelty shows up, and that’s how they get to you."

He describes the Cowboys' read option in the diamond formation as an inverted wishbone, and notes after the game that in addition to being one of Oklahoma State's lesser-used tactics, the offense changed personnel.

Collins: "What we saw on film was a two-fullback, one-tailback set they ran out of, and what they did against us was a two-tailback, one-fullback group. That added to the deception initially, and it hurt us."

Think I'll take Collin's opinion over yours.

[blacklistedbully]

Collins: "It took us a little while to get adjusted to it, but when we did, we’d get tackles for loss."

With the game out of hand, Oklahoma State took the ball with 8:50 remaining. The Cowboys' previous drives of 75, 52, and 82 yards yielded 14 points, but the Cowboys would punt with 5:50 remaining after just five plays, two of which were tackles for loss on runs out of the diamond.

To MSU, this is evidence that they solved the problem, just not fast enough. To the outside observer, it's arguable that had MSU scored even one touchdown up to this point that there would still be a game worth playing.

Collins: "When we first saw the runs, we were two hats short on coverage from what we were in. You need three people on the perimeter: someone outside and someone inside to take on the different parts of the option."

The stop did rally MSU to some degree, and the Bulldog offense marched to the OSU 31-yard line before backup QB Dak Prescott would throw an interception.
Collins: "If we played them next week, I’d run with the plan we put it in at the end of the third, start of the fourth quarter to stop the diamond. We'd be ready for it."

[blacklistedbully]

It was on tape, somewhere, but that's the only thing the two coaching staffs could agree upon. Oklahoma State's sudden departure from one of the most potent passing offenses in the country to a triple-option running attack had some precedent. Just where it came from is the debate.

"We saw their offensive coordinator run it at … California, was it? Ship? I knew it was one of the Pennsylvania schools," Mississippi State head coach Dan Mullen said in the post-game press conference

Mullen and defensive coordinator Geoff Collins said it came from Division II Shippensburg University, where new Oklahoma State offensive coordinator Mike Yurcich spent last season calling plays.

Think I'll also take Mullen's opinion over yours.
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2013/9/4/4686372/oklahoma-state-offense-jw-walsh-mississippi-state

[blacklistedbully]

So....Temple just manhandled Navy, holding them to just 10 points. Anybody else starting to come over to my way of thinking on this?