Now that I've had some time to think and reflect, here are my thoughts/opinions on the game: (please note that this thoughts are based only on my recollection of watching the game at Ryan Field and a very cursory review of the highlights - I haven't had the stomach to re-watch the full game.)
Offense:
1. Had to end up being one-dimensional due to the 21 point hole they were put in by the defense and the inability of the OL to create holes for the RBs. Passing game wasn't perfect, but certainly was good enough to put us in a position to win at the end. A faster start on our first few offensive possessions would have been nice.
2. Hull is clearly our MVP at this point. His ability to catch the ball out of the backfield, especially on screens, kept us in the game. Yes, it would have been awesome if he could have held on to the ball as he was crossing the goal line. But that one play should not overshadow what was an awesome performance.
3. Gordon is a beast. Incredible hands and appears to be a match-up nightmare against most defenses.
4. Pass protection was excellent. One sack was on a blown running play, where clearly Hilinski turned to hand off the ball the wrong way, and the second, he have stepped up and avoided the rush and the fumble.
5. Hilinski played okay, especially considering that he had no running game help and had to throw the ball 60 times. Decision making wasn't quite as good as the Nebraska game in terms of which receiver to target - it looked like he forced it into tight coverage a couple of times when a checkdown was available. And the two mistakes on the two sack plays.
6. Run blocking was terrible. Looks like this was multifactorial: Duke loading the box with 8 defenders on a regular basis, Rowley going down with injury. But mostly I saw two issues: whiffed blocks due to poor technique, and lack of a push/winning one-on-one battles. Both of these are puzzling - on paper, I think we should have dominated the Duke DL from a physical strength/talent standpoint, and blocking technique against Nebraska was excellent. I can't see that this was a scheme or play-calling issue. This appears to have just been poor execution on the part of the OL. There were certainly plays that showed what our OL is capable of - Hull's rushing TD (our first score of the game) in the second quarter is a good example - everybody engages their blocking assignment, a push is generated, and a nice hole opened up for Hull to get through the line. It just didn't happen for most of the day.
Defense:
1. We got gashed over and over again on the same play: a rushing play with OL movement to one side and the RB cutting back to the other. While the entire defense shares responsibility for the poor run defense, my opinion is that this primarily falls on the LBs. Too often, they flow too much with the OL. At least one of them is supposed to maintain gap discipline to prevent the cutback. But too often, the middle of the field was wide open when the RB cut back, because the LBs had all over-pursued the play.
2. The DL could have played better, no question. But on most running plays, it looks like they didn't get pushed around that much and kept the OL off of the LBs. Would have liked to have seen them generate a little more pressure with a 4-man rush on pass plays, given that we rarely blitzed.
3. Could definitely feel the loss of Azema and his role in run support. While he wouldn't have been able to fix all the problems the LBs were having, his presence likely would have kept the cutback runs to 5-7 yard gains, rather than the 10-15 yard gains Duke seemed to get everytime.
4. The play by Mitchell where he gave up the 81 yard completion was just unforgiveable. I see that he was upset about what he felt was a push-off by the Duke receiver, but he absolutely cannot stop to complain to the ref while the receiver gains an additional 35 yards. I wonder what Fitz had to say after reviewing the tape on that one. Otherwise, the secondary defended well against the pass.
Special Teams:
Not much of a factor. Adam Stage is doing the best that he can, considering that he was never supposed to be our primary placekicker. Akers got lucky on his first punt, but really didn't play as big of a role, since we only had to punt twice. (This is what I will point to in saying that the offense wasn't the main problem in our loss.)
Coaching:
Play-calling on the offensive side seemed fine. Bajakian adjusted well to what Duke's defense was giving us and used screen plays in particular to great success. I don't think there was anything that could be done from a scheme/play-calling aspect to fix the run-blocking issues - no scheme can fix poor execution.
Play-calling on the defensive side - I think there was the opportunity to bring up an extra man into the box and dare Duke to throw on us. Or perhaps use run-blitzes on occasion. But the problems on the defensive side were more on scheme/preparation/etc. This game felt much more like so many of last year's defensive performances, with so many players out of position. Hard to tell if this is on the coaches for not preparing/teaching the players better, or on the players for not executing properly.
Overall game management - no issues that I can see here. Clock management was fine, and I didn't have any problems with any of the decisions re: FG attempts or 4th down attempts.
Both sides of the ball came out flat to start the game however. Need to get these slow starts corrected. Cannot continue to play from 1st quarter deficits like this in conference play.
Overall impressions:
Slow start + terrible run defense + bad run-blocking on offense = disappointing loss.
Offense:
1. Had to end up being one-dimensional due to the 21 point hole they were put in by the defense and the inability of the OL to create holes for the RBs. Passing game wasn't perfect, but certainly was good enough to put us in a position to win at the end. A faster start on our first few offensive possessions would have been nice.
2. Hull is clearly our MVP at this point. His ability to catch the ball out of the backfield, especially on screens, kept us in the game. Yes, it would have been awesome if he could have held on to the ball as he was crossing the goal line. But that one play should not overshadow what was an awesome performance.
3. Gordon is a beast. Incredible hands and appears to be a match-up nightmare against most defenses.
4. Pass protection was excellent. One sack was on a blown running play, where clearly Hilinski turned to hand off the ball the wrong way, and the second, he have stepped up and avoided the rush and the fumble.
5. Hilinski played okay, especially considering that he had no running game help and had to throw the ball 60 times. Decision making wasn't quite as good as the Nebraska game in terms of which receiver to target - it looked like he forced it into tight coverage a couple of times when a checkdown was available. And the two mistakes on the two sack plays.
6. Run blocking was terrible. Looks like this was multifactorial: Duke loading the box with 8 defenders on a regular basis, Rowley going down with injury. But mostly I saw two issues: whiffed blocks due to poor technique, and lack of a push/winning one-on-one battles. Both of these are puzzling - on paper, I think we should have dominated the Duke DL from a physical strength/talent standpoint, and blocking technique against Nebraska was excellent. I can't see that this was a scheme or play-calling issue. This appears to have just been poor execution on the part of the OL. There were certainly plays that showed what our OL is capable of - Hull's rushing TD (our first score of the game) in the second quarter is a good example - everybody engages their blocking assignment, a push is generated, and a nice hole opened up for Hull to get through the line. It just didn't happen for most of the day.
Defense:
1. We got gashed over and over again on the same play: a rushing play with OL movement to one side and the RB cutting back to the other. While the entire defense shares responsibility for the poor run defense, my opinion is that this primarily falls on the LBs. Too often, they flow too much with the OL. At least one of them is supposed to maintain gap discipline to prevent the cutback. But too often, the middle of the field was wide open when the RB cut back, because the LBs had all over-pursued the play.
2. The DL could have played better, no question. But on most running plays, it looks like they didn't get pushed around that much and kept the OL off of the LBs. Would have liked to have seen them generate a little more pressure with a 4-man rush on pass plays, given that we rarely blitzed.
3. Could definitely feel the loss of Azema and his role in run support. While he wouldn't have been able to fix all the problems the LBs were having, his presence likely would have kept the cutback runs to 5-7 yard gains, rather than the 10-15 yard gains Duke seemed to get everytime.
4. The play by Mitchell where he gave up the 81 yard completion was just unforgiveable. I see that he was upset about what he felt was a push-off by the Duke receiver, but he absolutely cannot stop to complain to the ref while the receiver gains an additional 35 yards. I wonder what Fitz had to say after reviewing the tape on that one. Otherwise, the secondary defended well against the pass.
Special Teams:
Not much of a factor. Adam Stage is doing the best that he can, considering that he was never supposed to be our primary placekicker. Akers got lucky on his first punt, but really didn't play as big of a role, since we only had to punt twice. (This is what I will point to in saying that the offense wasn't the main problem in our loss.)
Coaching:
Play-calling on the offensive side seemed fine. Bajakian adjusted well to what Duke's defense was giving us and used screen plays in particular to great success. I don't think there was anything that could be done from a scheme/play-calling aspect to fix the run-blocking issues - no scheme can fix poor execution.
Play-calling on the defensive side - I think there was the opportunity to bring up an extra man into the box and dare Duke to throw on us. Or perhaps use run-blitzes on occasion. But the problems on the defensive side were more on scheme/preparation/etc. This game felt much more like so many of last year's defensive performances, with so many players out of position. Hard to tell if this is on the coaches for not preparing/teaching the players better, or on the players for not executing properly.
Overall game management - no issues that I can see here. Clock management was fine, and I didn't have any problems with any of the decisions re: FG attempts or 4th down attempts.
Both sides of the ball came out flat to start the game however. Need to get these slow starts corrected. Cannot continue to play from 1st quarter deficits like this in conference play.
Overall impressions:
Slow start + terrible run defense + bad run-blocking on offense = disappointing loss.
