Major talent watching the “TEAM” lose from the sideline.
All these “coaches are to blame” posts from “Anonymous” are sounding like sour grapes to me – especially with that last comment.
What talent that was watching is so “major” that it would have made a 23-point difference tonight?
This was a talent mismatch, not a coaching mismatch. Granted, with equal talent, it might’ve ultimately been a coaching mismatch. But, we’ll never know because the talent mismatch was so great. Especially Green O vs. Blue D.
@voy vey
Let’s start with the facts:
1. The coaches evaluate talent and select the players who take the field for the Bulldogs.
2. The players the coaches selected aren’t getting the job done.
3. It’s the responsibility of the coaching staff to make personnel changes when warranted.
As for what player(s) could make a 23 point impact – that IS a matter of opinion.
The best predictor of future behavior or performance is past behavior or performance.
How did the 2016 season play out for the Bulldogs? How about the 2016 Harvard Yale game? What changed?
History repeats itself.
If the Bulldogs want to be competitive this season put the right players on the field.
This is D1 football. Players come to win.
@ Anonymous –
Agree on points 1,2,3.
But, if the players that are available to fill in aren’t as good or better than those on the field, it’s just an exercise in making things worse.
Again, looking at the roster, I don’t see many options –especially when injuries are taken into account — where someone who is getting zero playing time is a better than choice than those who are on the field.
On defense, there is significant rotation taking place, so presumably everyone deserving of playing time is doing so. Same at the WR position. If there are OL’s or TE’s — or even some guys on defense not currently in the rotation — who are so vastly superior to those getting playing time, I’m skeptical. Certainly skeptical that they could make any sort of difference in the performance we saw Friday night.
Regarding your comment:
“How did the 2016 season play out for the Bulldogs? How about the 2016 Harvard Yale game? What changed? History repeats itself. If the Bulldogs want to be competitive this season put the right players on the field.”
The starters in the Harvard game compared to every other week of that season were essentially the same. In fact, the one significant difference for the Harvard game was NOT any particular player at all, but rather, the Defensive Coordinator. The one whose schemes gave up 37 points per game was replaced by the one who won the Harvard game (after admittedly giving up 31 to P’ton the week before). So I fail to see how your “players on the field” comment has any bearing on ’16 Y-H.
I’d be curious to know exactly who you think should be playing that isn’t. I don’t want to put you on the spot, though. I honestly just don’t feel that there’s a multitude of All-Ivy talent riding the bench in the Bowl.
Last year’s defense was something special — but most of those players are gone, and we’re seeing the impact of that. We also lost a DB coach since then, FWIW. And an O-Line coach.
And to Anon.11 and Ray – does putting Lager at TE score us 24 more points on Friday night? Does it prevent Dartmouth from scoring touchdowns on 5 of it’s first 6 possessions?
@ v
“looking at the roster, I don’t see many options…where someone who is getting zero playing time is a better choice than those who are on the field..”
Response: 0 playing time vs Dartmouth.
Find: “…One man wrecking crew”
(headline local press)
On the sideline.
Quietly, patiently, silently, watching…
(as is his way)
resume= results
@ Anonymous –
(PS – that was voy vey, not “v” – hit send too soon)
Got your point. Which side of the ball are you implying he should he have been on? His last-year position? Or the current roster position?
@voy vey
He’s an impact player who contributes in all 3 phases of the game. His fierceness, competitive drive, and sheer will to win are unmatched.
Now that you know who I’m talking about, don’t take my word for it – read the press. GOOGLE, Twitter. There’s so much of it out there.
To answer your question – wherever he can contribute to the team’s success and help the Bulldogs W-I-N. That’s why they work so hard and play the game.
Like Lager?
YES !
Really?
I don’t know if they were outmatched but they definitely were unprepared. The could not handle rushing attack especially the read option. The linebackers were fooled time after time
Our team battled hard against a very powerful experienced Dartmouth team with an all ivy offensive line. Tough match up for anyone in this league. The top two teams appear to be well ahead of the rest of the league but more games to play before the final gun. I loved seeing the two back set being used, however late, by the Yale OC. Please keep it going. Rawlings is a true leader who leaves it all on the field. Hopefully the coaches will protect him from himself and give him some breathers to stay healthy.
Absolutely BW2, totally agree.
That was an an embarrassing effort on national television and very difficult to watch. My thoughts after watching every play of the debacle:
1. The team was not ready to play a physical game at home for whatever reason.
2. There was a problem with the defensive scheme. The Yale outside LBS kept playing the inside hand-off, allowing the Dartmouth QB to run untouched around end. I refuse to believe those LBS were fooled 8-10 times….it had to be a scheme issue where others were expected to handle the QB and they got blocked or couldn’t get there.
3. The Yale finesse passing game is ill suited to the sand and mud surface of the Yale Bowl. Same with our speed running backs. Now we are going to try and effectively rotate four backs at one position?
4. Without singling out any of the young men, there were players at key positions who were manhandled so badly it greatly affected team offense and team defense.
5. The play of the defensive front seven and their backups in the first half was the worst I’ve witnessed in years.
6. In my opinion, coaching turnover in the off season is hurting this team and that was very evident today. We looked confused, frustrated and lacking in confidence at times last night.
7. The condition of the playing surface is a disgrace. It is dangerous and unsuited for a college football game…..and there was no rain folks. Casual observers are highly critical. How do you think the players and recruits feel about it. The new AD is not to blame. This is an administration and operations shortcoming going back several years. Yale has a $30 Billion Dollar endowment and can’t assign turf management and resources to the issue at a cost of less than one Associate Provost, Assistant Vice President, or Assistant Athletic Director.
8. I’ll venture this opinion with certainty….Yale will play much better on Penn’s artificial surface because their talent can be exhibited, not hindered by playing on a surface more suited for cattle and swine.
Agree, that it looked like our players were being “manhandled” at times but I’m afraid that had less to do with being “unprepared” and new coaches and more to do with Yale being outsized at key positions. Most notably, Dartmouth unleashed a running qb who is as big or larger than our DE’s and LB’s and certainly a physical mismatch for our DBs.
Agree fully concerning the “disgraceful” conditions of the field – that required Rawlings to constantly have to clean the mud off his cleats between plays and off his helmet after being tackled.
I will repeat what I stated before on this blog – the buck stops at the office of the coach and AD on this one. The Yale Bowl is the home of Yale football and they are the ones charged with overseeing that its historic playing field never falls into shameful disrepair.
That’s weird cause Dartmouth looked great out there on Yale’s dumpy grass
GDX, You should be a TDX!
Dartmouth looked great because they took advantage of the horrible playing surface. They destroyed Yale with the no-handoff power wildcat running attack. No finesse, no read option, very little passing.
They took advantage of the slop and their senior offensive line and overpowered Yale on both sides of the ball. Those who are encouraged by Yale’s racking up dink it down the field passing yards after falling behind by three touchdowns are drinking the Blue Kool-Aid.
The Dartmouth coaching staff deserves credit for a great plan that their players bought in to. Dartmouth looked like they enjoyed playing in the mud…..our guys were looked like they didn’t want to get their jerseys soiled.
gentlemen; my post mortum analysis indians on the warpath pushed our blue all over the field, linebackers out of position and when they were in position missed tackles. our safeties need to come up quicker to make tackles. two lost touchdowns due to penalties and poor tackling gave the indians two touchdowns. the fourth quarter defensive adjustments should have been made after after indian first drive. the two halfback offense has potential.
Im tired of hearing were young. Thats crap just an excuse we were out coached every where on the field. Put the players who have done there time on the field. Let the SR. and JR play the play may be better.
The young crap is an excuse! The best player on defense from what I saw was a freshman.
I think the gloom and doom is a bit overdone.
There were some positives. Before the game all we heard was that this was a Dartmouth defense for the ages. Yet Yale had no problem moving the ball. I can’t think of too many 3 and outs. Penalties hurt, but at least a couple of those penalties were questionable.
It’s a little more difficult to see positives on defense, but until Princeton we are not likely to face another great offense which will give the defense a chance to hopefully improve.
If we can get Dudek healthy, he, along with Lamar and the freshman running backs can take some pressure off Rawlings and the receivers.
By the way. Would any Yale fan trade Rawlings for any other QB in the league. I wouldn’t.
There are some reasons to be optimistic gong forward.
I’m looking forward to the last six games.
If Cahill stays with the same offense it will be tough to win another game. Put in a fullback do something different .Every one knows were the ball is going.
Every year we hear the team is “very young.” Why is that? Last year was somewhat of an exception, but now we are back to “very young” again. What happens to these highly recruited freshmen when they become juniors and seniors?
This year’s senior class has laid an egg. Next year’s should be champs.
Who was the ass that said Keith Clark was not a elite offensive line coach.Dartmouth shoved that ball down our throats . Cahill should take a look at his offense it stinks.To win football games you have to be able to run the football.There is no rushing offense with this team.Mr. Cahill change the schemes or the same results will happen with Mercer.To Let V next year same offense same results period.
I agree that the “We are Young” excuse is getting stale. We seem to use that every season outside of 2017. Under Reno we seem to be at the top of the so called expert recruiting rankings every year in the Ivies, yet continue to hear the young and lack of depth excuses.
Injuries seem to be a major reason for the “Forever Young” trademark of many Reno teams – most notably at rb. Injuries to upperclassmen propelled Lamar(2016), Dudek(2017), and Alston(2018) to be starters. Not all positions are as deep in talent as rb.
Back in the days when the starters played both ways I remember Yale coaches would say for every freshman starter you were likely to have one losing game. Obviously the way the game is played has changed dramatically from those days, but there is little doubt young teams rarely win championships.
Back in the day of two way ball, the freshman (sorry, first years) had their own seasons. It was starting sophomores who supposedly cost you dearly.
My error you are correct back then it was sophs who were first years.
gentlemen; back in the day freshman squads played nearly a full schedule of ancient eight members including the indians, tigers and cantabs. most notably the tiger clash within the shadows of palmer stadium was played the morning of the varsity contest. old blues’ would roam the sidelines evaluating who may be the next starter in the future.
31 replies on “Yale 18 Dartmouth 41”
The coaches are responsible for the loss.
Major talent watching the “TEAM” lose from the sideline.
All these “coaches are to blame” posts from “Anonymous” are sounding like sour grapes to me – especially with that last comment.
What talent that was watching is so “major” that it would have made a 23-point difference tonight?
This was a talent mismatch, not a coaching mismatch. Granted, with equal talent, it might’ve ultimately been a coaching mismatch. But, we’ll never know because the talent mismatch was so great. Especially Green O vs. Blue D.
@voy vey
Let’s start with the facts:
1. The coaches evaluate talent and select the players who take the field for the Bulldogs.
2. The players the coaches selected aren’t getting the job done.
3. It’s the responsibility of the coaching staff to make personnel changes when warranted.
As for what player(s) could make a 23 point impact – that IS a matter of opinion.
The best predictor of future behavior or performance is past behavior or performance.
How did the 2016 season play out for the Bulldogs? How about the 2016 Harvard Yale game? What changed?
History repeats itself.
If the Bulldogs want to be competitive this season put the right players on the field.
This is D1 football. Players come to win.
@ Anonymous –
Agree on points 1,2,3.
But, if the players that are available to fill in aren’t as good or better than those on the field, it’s just an exercise in making things worse.
Again, looking at the roster, I don’t see many options –especially when injuries are taken into account — where someone who is getting zero playing time is a better than choice than those who are on the field.
On defense, there is significant rotation taking place, so presumably everyone deserving of playing time is doing so. Same at the WR position. If there are OL’s or TE’s — or even some guys on defense not currently in the rotation — who are so vastly superior to those getting playing time, I’m skeptical. Certainly skeptical that they could make any sort of difference in the performance we saw Friday night.
Regarding your comment:
“How did the 2016 season play out for the Bulldogs? How about the 2016 Harvard Yale game? What changed? History repeats itself. If the Bulldogs want to be competitive this season put the right players on the field.”
The starters in the Harvard game compared to every other week of that season were essentially the same. In fact, the one significant difference for the Harvard game was NOT any particular player at all, but rather, the Defensive Coordinator. The one whose schemes gave up 37 points per game was replaced by the one who won the Harvard game (after admittedly giving up 31 to P’ton the week before). So I fail to see how your “players on the field” comment has any bearing on ’16 Y-H.
I’d be curious to know exactly who you think should be playing that isn’t. I don’t want to put you on the spot, though. I honestly just don’t feel that there’s a multitude of All-Ivy talent riding the bench in the Bowl.
Last year’s defense was something special — but most of those players are gone, and we’re seeing the impact of that. We also lost a DB coach since then, FWIW. And an O-Line coach.
And to Anon.11 and Ray – does putting Lager at TE score us 24 more points on Friday night? Does it prevent Dartmouth from scoring touchdowns on 5 of it’s first 6 possessions?
@ v
“looking at the roster, I don’t see many options…where someone who is getting zero playing time is a better choice than those who are on the field..”
Response: 0 playing time vs Dartmouth.
Find: “…One man wrecking crew”
(headline local press)
On the sideline.
Quietly, patiently, silently, watching…
(as is his way)
resume= results
@ Anonymous –
(PS – that was voy vey, not “v” – hit send too soon)
Got your point. Which side of the ball are you implying he should he have been on? His last-year position? Or the current roster position?
@voy vey
He’s an impact player who contributes in all 3 phases of the game. His fierceness, competitive drive, and sheer will to win are unmatched.
Now that you know who I’m talking about, don’t take my word for it – read the press. GOOGLE, Twitter. There’s so much of it out there.
To answer your question – wherever he can contribute to the team’s success and help the Bulldogs W-I-N. That’s why they work so hard and play the game.
Like Lager?
YES !
Really?
I don’t know if they were outmatched but they definitely were unprepared. The could not handle rushing attack especially the read option. The linebackers were fooled time after time
Our team battled hard against a very powerful experienced Dartmouth team with an all ivy offensive line. Tough match up for anyone in this league. The top two teams appear to be well ahead of the rest of the league but more games to play before the final gun. I loved seeing the two back set being used, however late, by the Yale OC. Please keep it going. Rawlings is a true leader who leaves it all on the field. Hopefully the coaches will protect him from himself and give him some breathers to stay healthy.
Absolutely BW2, totally agree.
That was an an embarrassing effort on national television and very difficult to watch. My thoughts after watching every play of the debacle:
1. The team was not ready to play a physical game at home for whatever reason.
2. There was a problem with the defensive scheme. The Yale outside LBS kept playing the inside hand-off, allowing the Dartmouth QB to run untouched around end. I refuse to believe those LBS were fooled 8-10 times….it had to be a scheme issue where others were expected to handle the QB and they got blocked or couldn’t get there.
3. The Yale finesse passing game is ill suited to the sand and mud surface of the Yale Bowl. Same with our speed running backs. Now we are going to try and effectively rotate four backs at one position?
4. Without singling out any of the young men, there were players at key positions who were manhandled so badly it greatly affected team offense and team defense.
5. The play of the defensive front seven and their backups in the first half was the worst I’ve witnessed in years.
6. In my opinion, coaching turnover in the off season is hurting this team and that was very evident today. We looked confused, frustrated and lacking in confidence at times last night.
7. The condition of the playing surface is a disgrace. It is dangerous and unsuited for a college football game…..and there was no rain folks. Casual observers are highly critical. How do you think the players and recruits feel about it. The new AD is not to blame. This is an administration and operations shortcoming going back several years. Yale has a $30 Billion Dollar endowment and can’t assign turf management and resources to the issue at a cost of less than one Associate Provost, Assistant Vice President, or Assistant Athletic Director.
8. I’ll venture this opinion with certainty….Yale will play much better on Penn’s artificial surface because their talent can be exhibited, not hindered by playing on a surface more suited for cattle and swine.
Agree, that it looked like our players were being “manhandled” at times but I’m afraid that had less to do with being “unprepared” and new coaches and more to do with Yale being outsized at key positions. Most notably, Dartmouth unleashed a running qb who is as big or larger than our DE’s and LB’s and certainly a physical mismatch for our DBs.
Agree fully concerning the “disgraceful” conditions of the field – that required Rawlings to constantly have to clean the mud off his cleats between plays and off his helmet after being tackled.
I will repeat what I stated before on this blog – the buck stops at the office of the coach and AD on this one. The Yale Bowl is the home of Yale football and they are the ones charged with overseeing that its historic playing field never falls into shameful disrepair.
That’s weird cause Dartmouth looked great out there on Yale’s dumpy grass
GDX, You should be a TDX!
Dartmouth looked great because they took advantage of the horrible playing surface. They destroyed Yale with the no-handoff power wildcat running attack. No finesse, no read option, very little passing.
They took advantage of the slop and their senior offensive line and overpowered Yale on both sides of the ball. Those who are encouraged by Yale’s racking up dink it down the field passing yards after falling behind by three touchdowns are drinking the Blue Kool-Aid.
The Dartmouth coaching staff deserves credit for a great plan that their players bought in to. Dartmouth looked like they enjoyed playing in the mud…..our guys were looked like they didn’t want to get their jerseys soiled.
gentlemen; my post mortum analysis indians on the warpath pushed our blue all over the field, linebackers out of position and when they were in position missed tackles. our safeties need to come up quicker to make tackles. two lost touchdowns due to penalties and poor tackling gave the indians two touchdowns. the fourth quarter defensive adjustments should have been made after after indian first drive. the two halfback offense has potential.
Im tired of hearing were young. Thats crap just an excuse we were out coached every where on the field. Put the players who have done there time on the field. Let the SR. and JR play the play may be better.
The young crap is an excuse! The best player on defense from what I saw was a freshman.
I think the gloom and doom is a bit overdone.
There were some positives. Before the game all we heard was that this was a Dartmouth defense for the ages. Yet Yale had no problem moving the ball. I can’t think of too many 3 and outs. Penalties hurt, but at least a couple of those penalties were questionable.
It’s a little more difficult to see positives on defense, but until Princeton we are not likely to face another great offense which will give the defense a chance to hopefully improve.
If we can get Dudek healthy, he, along with Lamar and the freshman running backs can take some pressure off Rawlings and the receivers.
By the way. Would any Yale fan trade Rawlings for any other QB in the league. I wouldn’t.
There are some reasons to be optimistic gong forward.
I’m looking forward to the last six games.
If Cahill stays with the same offense it will be tough to win another game. Put in a fullback do something different .Every one knows were the ball is going.
Every year we hear the team is “very young.” Why is that? Last year was somewhat of an exception, but now we are back to “very young” again. What happens to these highly recruited freshmen when they become juniors and seniors?
This year’s senior class has laid an egg. Next year’s should be champs.
Who was the ass that said Keith Clark was not a elite offensive line coach.Dartmouth shoved that ball down our throats . Cahill should take a look at his offense it stinks.To win football games you have to be able to run the football.There is no rushing offense with this team.Mr. Cahill change the schemes or the same results will happen with Mercer.To Let V next year same offense same results period.
I agree that the “We are Young” excuse is getting stale. We seem to use that every season outside of 2017. Under Reno we seem to be at the top of the so called expert recruiting rankings every year in the Ivies, yet continue to hear the young and lack of depth excuses.
Injuries seem to be a major reason for the “Forever Young” trademark of many Reno teams – most notably at rb. Injuries to upperclassmen propelled Lamar(2016), Dudek(2017), and Alston(2018) to be starters. Not all positions are as deep in talent as rb.
Back in the days when the starters played both ways I remember Yale coaches would say for every freshman starter you were likely to have one losing game. Obviously the way the game is played has changed dramatically from those days, but there is little doubt young teams rarely win championships.
Back in the day of two way ball, the freshman (sorry, first years) had their own seasons. It was starting sophomores who supposedly cost you dearly.
My error you are correct back then it was sophs who were first years.
gentlemen; back in the day freshman squads played nearly a full schedule of ancient eight members including the indians, tigers and cantabs. most notably the tiger clash within the shadows of palmer stadium was played the morning of the varsity contest. old blues’ would roam the sidelines evaluating who may be the next starter in the future.