Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="RF2044, post: 1120418, member: 40"] You're right--they shouldn't. They weren't sharp, which was very disappointing for an offensive unit returning so many starters. But they were beginning to move the ball, and playing poorly to start doesn't necessarily mean that it would have continued for the entire rest of the game. And to answer the question highlighted above--yes, Hunt's absence absolutely was a factor in our defense to give up more points in the second half than the first. How many three-and-outs did we have in the second half after our first possession? I am quite certain that the results would have been different with Hunt. Us having the ball = more TOP in our favor, which means less chances for villanova to score, move the ball, etc. So yes, Hunt's absence certainly factored into our defense giving up points in the second half. While it didn't have anything to do with giving up a TD in 2OT, I'd like to think that it wouldn't have come down to that had Hunt played the entire game. This whole argument comes down to what people expect or believe about Hunt. If you believe that Hunt's thoroughly mediocre start was how he would perform the rest of the game, and that we wouldn't be able to score more with him at the helm than Wilson, then the OP fits that mindframe. If you believe that we would have scored more points, held the ball longer, that the offense might have gotten rolling etc. and that Hunt's start wasn't necessarily how the rest of the game would have played out, then it is reasonable to extrapolate that we would have scored more points and that the model the OP uses would have yielded different conclusions. That's why I'm so eager to see how the offensive performs / responds against CMU. If we come out sluggish again, we may be in for a long year. If they get the missing OL back, Hunt comes out sharp, etc. then the Villanova performance was just a one game anomoly. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?