Free pass?

[reedny]

They didn't get pressure unless they were blitzing. We got more done with our DL than they did, by far. The D created 2 TO's and held them to 7 points for the half. That's better than mediocre. Dungey had a 29 yard run for a TD in the 4th Q to tie the game.

I agree with most of that. I'm not saying they embarrassed us or blew us out. I'm saying they were better than we were in all 3 phases (overall). Yes, they needed blitzes to get pressure. But they were effective. We played a so so first half defensively ... we got pressure, we stopped the run, especially up the middle, but their receivers were running open (just didn't connect). Given that they're an FCS team, I don't think we deserve any trophies for holding them in check in the first half. That's why I used the term "mediocre".

The second half ... we did marginally better offensively (mostly with Dungey and Ish). But we couldn't throw downfield, couldn't run (except for our QB getting loose once) and couldn't stop them. It was bad. And, while it's still early and I'm not totally doom and gloom, I don't know what we're going to do with lamar Jackson or Clemson's/Florida state's receivers when we can't stop Middle Tennessee State's.

 

[reedny]

The recruit annually in the 80s. Stop acting like this was Da U or Bama. Do you guys really believe this nonsense? That they were so much more talented than us? Shafer recruited in the 50s. You're making excuses and they don't fly. Are we more talented than VT? No, we simply beat them last year because they weren't prepared. And neither were we.

I didn't say they recruit on our level (they don't). I said they outplayed us, that we couldn't cover their receivers, that we couldn't run the ball on their defense, and that their skill players (RB's, QB, WR's and TE's) seemed better than ours (they did). Our WR's stink (except for Ish). Our RB's stink. It's just reality. The rest I'll chalk off to early-season growing pains, especially the new players on the OL.

 

[TheCusian]

I agree with most of that. I'm not saying they embarrassed us or blew us out. I'm saying they were better than we were in all 3 phases (overall). Yes, they needed blitzes to get pressure. But they were effective. We played a so so first half defensively ... we got pressure, we stopped the run, especially up the middle, but their receivers were running open (just didn't connect). Given that they're an FCS team, I don't think we deserve any trophies for holding them in check in the first half. That's why I used the term "mediocre".

The second half ... we did marginally better offensively (mostly with Dungey and Ish). But we couldn't throw downfield, couldn't run (except for our QB getting loose once) and couldn't stop them. It was bad. And, while it's still early and I'm not totally doom and gloom, I don't know what we're going to do with lamar Jackson or Clemson's/Florida state's receivers when we can't stop Middle Tennessee State's.

That's a fair opinion. They were open - but since we were getting consistent pressure, their QB was letting it fly way early. We didn't get the same pressure in the 4th Q.

 

[cuse309]

The talent gap between us and our peer schools is not vast, that's laughable.

You sure? Unless you have some sort of a talent meter device that I'm unaware of, we'll have to rely on 2 things to determine the talent level.
1- Results on the field. Here are the results. We've beaten a woeful B.C. team, and Va. Tech. We've lost to Clemson, Florida State, Louisville, Wake Forest, N.C. State, and Pitt. I'm not seeing our talent win too may games vs ACC schools
2- A composite of every ACC schools roster, and their talent level according to 247 composite rankings. The lowest team in the ACC got an 82.43 out of 100, while the highest got a 90.94. Florida state got the 90.94, and Wake got the 82.43. We were only ahead of Wake and B.C. and it was very close at 82.93. UVA was a full point ahead of us, which is substantial considering that only 8 points separates Wake from FSU, I'd say our talent level is vast when comparing it to all but about 3 ACC teams.
2017 College ACC Football Team Talent Composite

 

[Pyle]

You sure? Unless you have some sort of a talent meter device that I'm unaware of, we'll have to rely on 2 things to determine the talent level.
1- Results on the field. Here are the results. We've beaten a woeful B.C. team, and Va. Tech. We've lost to Clemson, Florida State, Louisville, Wake Forest, N.C. State, and Pitt. I'm not seeing our talent win too may games vs ACC schools
2- A composite of every ACC schools roster, and their talent level according to At their request, this network is being blocked from this site. composite rankings. The lowest team in the ACC got an 82.43 out of 100, while the highest got a 90.94. Florida state got the 90.94, and Wake got the 82.43. We were only ahead of Wake and B.C. and it was very close at 82.93. UVA was a full point ahead of us, which is substantial considering that only 8 points separates Wake from FSU, I'd say our talent level is vast when comparing it to all but about 3 ACC teams.
2017 College ACC Football Team Talent Composite

MTSU is 78.97. I'd say we are substantially more talented than MTSU based on your scale. And I hate to be the one to break it to you but BC, Wake, those are our peer schools. We haven't been in the same league as VT in 15 years