Schiano and Rutgers

[ktuck911]

Nice win on the road against Michigan State. Watched some of the game on rewind (the quick 60 minute version)... Schiano has his guys firing off the ball... I mean they're comin downhill like a freight train on both sides of the ball.

We gotta get back to that kind of playing... Yeah, we'll give up points but we'll keep fighting... Haven't seen that here in 10 years....

 

[uconndogs]

We used to have very physical teams built around a solid running game. The defense wasn't blitz heavy, except under Brown, but they hit you.

By the time Diaco finished that was all gone. Whether or not Edsall can rebuild that culture remains to be seen.

 

[Palatine]

It's a mirage.

 

[UConnJim]

I don't think Schiano was enamored with the Rutgers roster when he took over and 16 kids hit the transfer portal in 2020 and 6 kids are in the portal this year already. Of the 16 who left last year, only 2 went P5, 1 G5, 7 FCS or below, and it looks like 6 ended up nowhere. So, the kids who left Rutgers weren't in high demand. Schiano brought in 11 from the portal, 9 from P5 schools, 1 from UCF, and 1 FCS. So, it does appear that Rutgers did upgrade the roster through the portal transactions, but most of the upgrades are one and dones, so it's not a long term fix.

All that said, Rutgers beat Michigan St. by 11 points after Michigan St. had 7 (not a misprint) turnovers (Rutgers had 3 which is a bad number as well.). Rutgers was outgained 369 yards to 276 yards and averaged 5.7 yards per pass and 2.6 yards per rush. Three of their TD drives were under 26 yards.

It's nice that Rutgers ended their 21 game Big 10 losing streak, but I don't think they have turned the corner in year 1 of Schiano. Schiano's strength has never been his game day coaching, but his ability to recruit, so I would expect the turnaround at Rutgers to be slow and steady.

 

[Irishfan]

I don't think Schiano was enamored with the Rutgers roster when he took over and 16 kids hit the transfer portal in 2020 and 6 kids are in the portal this year already. Of the 16 who left last year, only 2 went P5, 1 G5, 7 FCS or below, and it looks like 6 ended up nowhere. So, the kids who left Rutgers weren't in high demand. Schiano brought in 11 from the portal, 9 from P5 schools, 1 from UCF, and 1 FCS. So, it does appear that Rutgers did upgrade the roster through the portal transactions, but most of the upgrades are one and dones, so it's not a long term fix.

All that said, Rutgers beat Michigan St. by 11 points after Michigan St. had 7 (not a misprint) turnovers (Rutgers had 3 which is a bad number as well.). Rutgers was outgained 369 yards to 276 yards and averaged 5.7 yards per pass and 2.6 yards per rush. Three of their TD drives were under 26 yards.

It's nice that Rutgers ended their 21 game Big 10 losing streak, but I don't think they have turned the corner in year 1 of Schiano. Schiano's strength has never been his game day coaching, but his ability to recruit, so I would expect the turnaround at Rutgers to be slow and steady.

an 11 point win when you are an 11 point underdog, is never an insignificant accomplishment. Forcing 7 turnovers is also a sign of an aggressive defense. And to your point, it’s hard to put up impressive offensive numbers when the turnovers you force allow you to score three touchdowns with drives of 26 yards or less. No doubt the fact that the stadium was almost empty Probably helped Rutgers, but from a Rutgers perspective this game was great start to the season. Remember, thiswas a team that beat Rutgers 27-0 last year.

 

[businesslawyer]

an 11 point win when you are an 11 point underdog, is never an insignificant accomplishment. Forcing 7 turnovers is also a sign of an aggressive defense. And to your point, it’s hard to put up impressive offensive numbers when the turnovers you force allow you to score three touchdowns with drives of 26 yards or less. No doubt the fact that the stadium was almost empty Probably helped Rutgers, but from a Rutgers perspective this game was great start to the season. Remember, thiswas a team that beat Rutgers 27-0 last year.

Good for Rutgers that they won. Seriously.

But wanting to read a complete performance, or future performance, into a game where you gained less than 300 yards of total offense is pretty darn dumb. Let's see if they can win a game where the other team doesn't self destruct. I hope they do. But we'll see.

 

[BigTenFan]

Good for Rutgers that they won. Seriously.

But wanting to read a complete performance, or future performance, into a game where you gained less than 300 yards of total offense is pretty darn dumb. Let's see if they can win a game where the other team doesn't self destruct. I hope they do. But we'll see.

IU by 2 touchdowns Saturday

 

[Irishfan]

IU by 2 touchdowns Saturday

Are you basing this pick on the fact that IU beat Penn State? Note that IU gained only 211 total yards against PSU while Penn State gained 488. Some posters here seem to think that if you get outgained, the win means nothing.

 

[businesslawyer]

Are you basing this pick on the fact that IU beat Penn State? Note that IU gained only 211 total yards against PSU while Penn State gained 488. Some posters here seem to think that if you get outgained, the win means nothing.

A win is a win. Rutgers won. More power to them. Nothing I'm about to say takes away from that, but I made it clear the first time.

But if you're talking about the future, and not the past, HOW you win is important as a predictor. Winning by getting 7 takeaways is unlikely to keep happening. On the other hand, winning because you outplayed and outgained the other team from scrimmage over 60 minutes is far more valuable as a predictor.

 

[Palatine]

I watched a tiny bit. The MSU QB is pretty bad. This is not your father's Michigan State. It's a mirage.

 

[ktuck911]

Wish we win some games with 7 TOs while having 3 of our own... I'll take that any day...

 

[Irishfan]

A win is a win. Rutgers won. More power to them. Nothing I'm about to say takes away from that, but I made it clear the first time.

But if you're talking about the future, and not the past, HOW you win is important as a predictor. Winning by getting 7 takeaways is unlikely to keep happening. On the other hand, winning because you outplayed and outgained the other team from scrimmage over 60 minutes is far more valuable as a predictor.

re-read your post. It certainly sounds like something you said was trying to take away from the fact that Rutgers won. In fact, everything you said seems to try to take away from the fact that Rutgers won. Winning by forcing turnovers is a well established predictor of winning teams. It’s interesting that box scores actually keep track of turnovers. Somebody must think that they are Important. Even though obviously you don’t.

 

[businesslawyer]

re-read your post. It certainly sounds like something you said was trying to take away from the fact that Rutgers won. In fact, everything you said seems to try to take away from the fact that Rutgers won. Winning by forcing turnovers is a well established predictor of winning teams. It’s interesting that box scores actually keep track of turnovers. Somebody must think that they are Important. Even though obviously you don’t.

Now I can't tell if you're trolling or serious. I'll assume the latter and try one more time.

Turnovers are absolutely critical to who wins a game. Rutgers won the game and that's all that matters with respect to Saturday.

However, if you're trying to determine if Rutgers is significantly better -- if winning that game means they are likely to win other Big Ten games -- having outplayed MSU from scrimmage would have been a much better predictor of RU being good in the future than a game where they gain less than 300 yards and are the beneficiaries of 7 turnovers. Smart money would congratulation Rutgers on their win without being at all sure that the result will be duplicated from the way they won. I can't be more clear than that.

What an absurd discussion. I'm glad for Rutgers. I prefer New Jersey to the Midwest and always watched Rutgers rise while we were rising as similar stories. And I respected what Schiano did. Good luck to them.

 

[Irishfan]

Now I can't tell if you're trolling or serious. I'll assume the latter and try one more time.

Turnovers are absolutely critical to who wins a game. Rutgers won the game and that's all that matters with respect to Saturday.

However, if you're trying to determine if Rutgers is significantly better -- if winning that game means they are likely to win other Big Ten games -- having outplayed MSU from scrimmage would have been a much better predictor of RU being good in the future than a game where they gain less than 300 yards and are the beneficiaries of 7 turnovers. Smart money would congratulation Rutgers on their win without being at all sure that the result will be duplicated from the way they won. I can't be more clear than that.

What an absurd discussion. I'm glad for Rutgers. I prefer New Jersey to the Midwest and always watched Rutgers rise while we were rising as similar stories. And I respected what Schiano did. Good luck to them.

at least we can agree that the whole discussion was absurd.

 

[Waquoit]

Wish we win some games with 7 TOs while having 3 of our own... I'll take that any day...

Watching a FB game with 10 turnovers seems like a total waste of time.

 

[Irishfan]

Watching a FB game with 10 turnovers seems like a total waste of time.

unless you are a football fan.

 

[gioff2323]

unless you are a football fan.

we prefer10 punts a game - so much better.

 

[Irishfan]

we prefer10 punts a game - so much better.

essentially, a punt is a turnover. One team has it at the beginning of the play, the other team has it at the end. Just the ball placement is usually better after a punt.

 

[Dean Wormer]

Watching a FB game with 10 turnovers seems like a total waste of time.

Rutgers sucks, so does MSU. But better an ugly win vs a pretty loss. Kudos on getting the W, but they're gonna see better teams coming up. Anyway this year is one big nothing-burger, but a good start for Schiano 2.0.

 

[Waquoit]

unless you are a football fan.

And a fan of one of the teams, I can see that. But without a dog in the hunt?

 

[Irishfan]

And a fan of one of the teams, I can see that. But without a dog in the hunt?

like watching a basketball game where one team forces a bunch of turnovers. If you are a fan of one of the teams you can watch it, but if not, it’s just a waste of time. Unless you like watching a team play good defense.

 

[metsfan2323]

It's starting to look like Schiano will have to wait until next year to get win number 2. That's a shame.

 

[CL82]

It's starting to look like Schiano will have to wait until next year to get win number 2. That's a shame.

Ya hate to see it.