Labor Day Look Back ---

[WVAPPeer]

Well I thought I would start a new thread so you guys can post your thoughts after a couple of days to consider what we saw on Saturday evening --- I will give some of my thoughts - feel free to comment ---
1. The outcome was not surprising at all to most of us - we lost ---
2. I thought the offense would play better but when I heard pre-game that Meadors and Evans both would be out that gave me pause - they both have shown the ability to make game-changing plays ---
3. I admit (as Moose can confirm) I was disappointed in our OL play - we have 3 guys who probably will play at some point in the NFL - however, with more consideration, I must factor in that the UGA defense has many more than 3 guys who will play in the NFL - they were just too big and fast and too many to block on many occasions - our guys will not face anyone else this season who will any where near as good as UGA defensively ---
4. Contrary to what some on here think - I thought Lamb played a very good game - one bad play that hurt but it didn't result in a turnover or quick 6 like has happened in games his first couple of years - I have not watched the tape so I am sure the staff will find other items that need tweaking but Taylor did his job and for some to even question his status of "Our Guy" is troubling, not surprising, but troubling - He will lead us to another outstanding season ---
5. When we get our full stable of WRs back this group should be really good - Hennigan and Malik are going to be special - Ike made a great catch - as stated before, Meadors and Evans are game changers and the back-ups can make plays --- Moore and Upshaw and Marcus Williams will be as good as any RBs we play ---
6. Defense played really well everything considered - their 2 NFL RBs both had a long run but not "to the house" and neither made it to 100 yards - I will bet you now that SEC defenses will give up 100+ yard games to these guys - Their TD pass was an awful pass with the perfect result for UGA - DBs made some good open field tackles and had solid coverage - we played a lot of guys on the defensive side and our back-ups had 2 picks - Have no idea how things changed when Eason went out because the coaches had no film on their 2nd guy - as good as Eason is there was a game plan based on his tendencies, etc., which all went out the door with him - hope he will be OK ---
7. As most on here know, I don't subscribe to calling out our players for their play on the field - we all should know by now that these kids give it all they've got - that being said, I have no problem with calling out guys for stupid penalties and we had a couple ---
8. I am worn out with all the criticism of Coach Satterfield's play calling - you do what you do best!!! - How many times have I heard the complaints over the years about running the same old plays and oops, there we go for a long gain to TD because the D was looking for the same old play - Coach is not a "wild gunslinger play-caller" and we have to keep in mind that he, more than me, you or anyone else, knows exacting what he is doing ---
9. Rubino looked solid - the punting will have to take a little more time to gauge but the best thing about our punting - NO Returns ---
10. This team is going to be very good and the season will be a success - I will say this again, and as most other long-timers know, I rarely make categorical declarations - but here goes ---
WE MUST BEAT WAKE FOREST - PERIOD!!!

[Boone Goon]

What he said!

To quote Aaron Rogers, "R-E-L-A-X".

[PhillyApp1]

I agree except about the variety in play callling.
We have another great year . It hurts to get beat down the first game of the year but in 7-8 weeks we will find out compared to many others we did very well, like the Clemson game.

[AppSt94]

Spot on once again Dude. I have seen several posts of bad secondary play but I didn't think that it was that bad. In fact, did Georgia even throw the ball to Duck's man? One thing that I will say about the kicking game is, while yes they only averaged around 38 yards, the were high punts that allowed the coverage team to get down field. We punted 9 times with 6 return yards.

[bigdaddyg]

Reflection time is always a good thing. One question I have is this- what type of loss would a majority accept? A comparison was made to Va Tech- seriously? That was a complete mismatch beat down. If it had been a UT repeat some would complain that we could have won with one play here or there. A Michigan (part 2) or Va Tech type loss would signal that we are abysmal. In my mind it went pretty much to form. We needed the extra playmakers. The gap between our receivers and their 4/5 sat defense is huge. We had no room for error and we made too many key errors. I still believe we have a team that can run the table. Our O line and backs will run rampant on many of our opponents. TL will light up several teams if we go that route. I see some of our tight ends (big boys) making big plays. Defense as a whole will only get tougher. While I was critical of play calling and disappointed I try not to be delusional. We are going to be very good. It's a shame that college ball has morphed into an all or nothing. For us it's like the season is a failure if we don't get into the NY day game.

[t4pizza]

On the bright side, they really only scored in 2 quarters of the game (moments left in the 1st to moments left in the 3rd), rest of the game we kept them off the board. The dark side to that is they scored in bunches during those 2 quarters. The receiving corps continue to be a concern for me, this time apparently because of injuries. Either way, we are left with wide outs who seem to have difficulty getting open with any regularity. This significantly impacts Satt's ability to open up the playbook. So yes, much like last year, our play calling was a bit vanilla but there's really nothing else you can do when the qb can't stretch the field deep and the wide outs can't get open on short or intermediate routes. Georgia clearly game planned for this and dared us to run. When we couldn't run.....well that was the game. We are a run first, run second and usually a run third type of team and when that isn't working and most of your starting wide outs are in civilian clothes and you are playing a team the caliber of Georgia.... a 21 point loss could have been much much worse. If Eason doesn't go out, it might be a different game because he was inept in limited action. We clearly had him game planned well, and it was working....until a late hit out of bounds. Ironically, our lack of discipline with committing 15 yard penalties might have hurt us a lot more than the 15 yards. I can't really say this game had any surprises, or has me concerned anymore than I was before the game (wr is big issue to me), I just wish we could have been more competitive. At the end of the day I still think we should win 10 games and have a Sun Belt title and beat Wake.

[PhillyApp1]

Hennigan !!!!
My new cheer !!!

[WASU 93]

Spot on once again Dude. I have seen several posts of bad secondary play but I didn't think that it was that bad. In fact, did Georgia even throw the ball to Duck's man? One thing that I will say about the kicking game is, while yes they only averaged around 38 yards, the were high punts that allowed the coverage team to get down field. We punted 9 times with 6 return yards.

Yes, but our punter was rushing his punts. They only came after him once all game, but every punt was rushed. As well as our defense played in the first quarter, we lost ground due to the punting game. Hopefully, as with Rubio, more game experience will help this area.

Overall, our defense played well. We started the game with two three and outs, and were on the way to a third, when we were flagged for a questionable late hit out of bounds (there was contact, but it wasn't major). Overall, five three and outs for the contest.
Also, we had QB pressure on the 34-yard TD. And, we had great coverage. Wims made a big-time receiver adjustment on the ball, when our secondary didn't react. That play could have resulted in an INT. But, the Dawgs do have Top 20 talent.

[mountaineerman]

I agree with a lot of what you said. Defense needs to adjust to the hurry up offenses. This affected many plays Saturday and our ability to get ready or sub. Also seems like at one time we were going to run an offense up tempo ....I think it even had a nickname "jet"? I also thought when satterfield was brought on his style of play leaned more to spread style offense . We are not a spread style at all. All in all this team is good and we will win a lot of games.

[hapapp]

Most teams would take 35-37 yards net punting. I'm not saying we are set there but I don't think it was an issue on Saturday.

Btw, that's what we averaged last year.

[Rekdiver]

We have a game plan and there is Im sure is aPlan B if Plan A isn't cutting it. I never saw Plan B. A reverse, more jet sweeps, screens more read options...5 wideouts. WVA you have to admit you might as well get creative if nothing is working. Didn't see that Saturday.

[WVAPPeer]

We have a game plan and there is Im sure is aPlan B if Plan A isn't cutting it. I never saw Plan B. A reverse, more jet sweeps, screens more read options...5 wideouts. WVA you have to admit you might as well get creative if nothing is working. Didn't see that Saturday.

Well I would say there are several ways to look at your suggestion - yes, we could get creative but what would that have been? - we had a game plan and I would certainly guess it would generally be very similar in all our games with, of course, tweaks for individual opponents so one thought is ... this is what we do - let's continue to work on it against a high quality opponent and try to get better, especially with their quick "onslaught" scoring in the 2nd Q - Now if we were in a winnable game in the second half, especially the 4th Q then I think we might have seen some deviation from the original plans with a chance to win the game --- we must keep in mind that the read options usually involve the QB taking a hit whether he keeps the ball or not - why chance it? - Also we were 3 WRs down before we went onto the field and had 3 freshmen playing - why take the chance on jet sweeps with the guys with the game not winnable - I agree with you on screens as I have thought we utilize those enough over the last couple of years - Just my guesses ---

[ah59396]

Did we have any delay related penalties on defense? e.g. too many men on the field due to late substitutions? I recall that being a constant issue last season, but at least to my recollection, we didn't have any on Saturday. If not, glad to see the coaching staff worked to clean that up.

[MtnDevil95]

There were not any delay related defensive penalties, that I recall. In fact App nearly caught Georgia on the field with 12 men at one point.

Defensively, I will not be surprised to see other SEC teams struggle more with Georgia's offence than App State did on Saturday. Costly penalties did as much or more to keep UGa drives alive than did their 2 stud RBs, especially in the first half. Except for a couple big plays, App really held Michel and Chubb in check. There will be games when those 2 guys combine for close to 300 yards.

Offensively, it was a relatively clean game. Relatively as in a pair of back-to-back 15 yard penalties that turn a 3rd and short to a 3rd in 30+, and Taylor's fumble for a loss of 20+ yards on a 2nd and short deep in Georgia's territory are certainly tough pills to swallow, but otherwise the mistakes were limited. No turnovers, no other big losses, just an inability to consistently move the ball on a bigger, faster defensive front. Given the missing personnel, the relative size and talent of the opponent, I think the App St offense will still see improvements this season compared to last.

There are kinks to be worked out, but it's the first game. Hell, I'd rather see some kinks against the 15th ranked team in the nation on week 1, then against a middle Sun Belt team in week 9. The staff and players have some things to focus on and get worked out. Time to start the march to 11-1.

[WVAPPeer]

Most teams would take 35-37 yards net punting. I'm not saying we are set there but I don't think it was an issue on Saturday.

Btw, that's what we averaged last year.

I agree and I think in today's college football with so many high-powered offenses many coaches of teams receiving punts just want the "return guy" to catch the ball and not make mistakes - from the kicking team's viewpoint, as you said, kick it high-make them fair catch it and don't allow any return yardage ---