Tuesday, October 24, 2006

The 2007 Out of Conference Schedule

Today Pat Hill made it public that the Bulldogs will more than likely open the 2007 season at home against Sacramento State. Yes Sacramento is a Divison 1-AA school but to begin the season against them is not something I am against necessarily. I know most fans want the Bulldogs to play BCS schools but we already have Kansas State at home and Oregon on the road in 2007. Oregon on the road should be a tough one considering that a good number of their players will be back for 2007. Some rumors for one of our final non-conference games is that Cincinatti is going to step up and trade us a one for one with the Bulldogs going there in 2007 and Cincinatti returning th efavor in 2008. To me that is exactly the kind of schedule the Bulldogs need in 2007. In one sense we will be completely starting over on the defensive side of the ball as Andrews and McCauley will be gone. If we have to revamp our defense completely we need to open up against a team that we can almost practice against. I am not sure of the Oregon date but I am guessing it is going to be quite early in the season as it usually tends to be. The Dogs will have to get ready for Oregon because they will be the toughest game of 2007 and opening against a D1-AA team will only help the Dogs to get ready. Regardless here are the hurdles the 2007 schedule will now offer:

Kansas State @ home, Oregon on the road, Hawaii on the road, Boise State at home, Cincinatti on the road

Now I realize Cincinatti is not the single best OOC game but if we do indeed play them our schedule will fit this team quite well. I feel like the 2008 team is going to be the one that we will remember for a very long time while 2007 is a bridge year to build up the team for 2008. I feel like Sean Norton is going to have a very good Junior year along with Miller, West, Moore, and Pascoe. With another year left to follow the Bulldogs offensive game should be quite amazing. If the defense can begin to fix what is wrong this season, next year should be decent but not outstanding. 2008 could be amazing for the Dogs and I know many of you are going to argue that I should not look forward to the future but let's be honest here: We are all Bulldog fans and will be for many years to come. Why would I not look forward to what we will have with this team down the line? This year ended up being a failure but it does not mean next year will be. Formerdog, Pat Hill is not going to be fired and the play calling is going to suck for the rest of the season. As long as our coach feels that the way to win is run the ball we are going to run it more than we throw it. Is this always the right thing to do? That all depends on who we are playing. This upcoming week against Boise we should throw 60% of the time. Will we? I seriously doubt it but the way to beat Boise is through the air.

As I said before many of you will not be pleased with the 2007 schedule but it looks as if we will play 12 games, 6 at home and 6 on the road. I think this is a good schedule for this team and gives us a great chance to win eight or nine games on the season. Hopefully in the next few weeks the Dogs will show everyone why I am so positive about 2007. I would hate to look like an idiot once again for having faith in my favorite college football team. But in the end that is what college football is all about; Having faith in your team. The Bulldogs need us as fans right now more so than ever and I just hope that most of you will continue to support them regardless of what happens the rest of the season. Every team has a bad season, just know 2007 will be better because it can't possibly get any worse.


evolution2.0 said...


I agree. I have been a total supporter of the strong OOC schedule. But, this year it certianly took it's toll. I think P. Hill noticed it too. If we can manage to pull one off against Oregon and Kansas State, it would be a major accomplishment after a year like this. Sometimes you need to take a step backwards (in schedule strength) to take a step forward. I didn't expect to need to do that this year. But, if it had been Oregon instead of LSU and some I-AA team instead of Oregon, I think this year would have have had a much different outlook.

Then again this might have been the only way we would have seen Norton.


I guess I really don't have a problem with 54% run with DW in the backfield. Although, it seems lately teams have found an answer for him. A couple of catches and the LSU game would have taken on a much different look. They would have had to back off and it would have opened the run up more.

I think they are still trying to ease Norton in. Remember the "problem" with him was his knowledge of the offense, not his throwing ablity. And tossing a INT-for-a-touch last game probably didn't inspire an all-out air attack. Which for us is is like 60%+ pass. I don't even know if we had that with Dave Carr (I remember being frustrated even then with the "1st down run" signature of our offense).


evolution2.0 said...

I believe that most of our problem has and will be our lack of a shut-down defense. If we even came close to playing D like LSU, the last ten-years would have been amazing.

LSU's D would have shutout any offense from the WAC, even the super Hawai‘i one, not too mention Boise.

We have had a couple of good players on D. It would be interesting to see how many of them are playing in the NFL verses our O's players. I think it's probably like 5 to 1 or something like that. For us to make the leap to the next level, I think we really need to even that ratio out.

The offense is just fine if you look at holding Hawai‘i to say 7 points. 37-7 and we would be singing the praises.


formerdog said...

evolution 2.0:

Agreed about the defense. However, the offense I disagree. FSU has ALWAYS been known as a strong offensive team yearly and we have pretty much been ranked in the top 10 for offense in the nation every year.


It is ALL on the shoulders of Hagen. Again, I'm NOT excusing POOR execution, but Hagen's head has to roll or FSU WILL NEVER get the offense back on track.

vs. LSU:

Besides the first drive for LSU, our Defense played a GREAT 1st half! That first big TD run for LSU showed just how much BETTER their athletes are than ours.
However, the D came to play. An unexcused TD on the punt return and we were looking at 0-14 EARLY in the game.

OUR OFFENSE WAS PITIFUL and NEVER gave us ANY chance to catch up. Watch the 1st half again and look at the called plays - they were flat out wrong vs. the #1 defense in the nation. We COULD have tied and event went ahead in the 1st half.

Congrats to the FSU defense for their 1st half play. The 2nd half again just goes to show that FSU's athletes and depth is far INFERIOR to the 'big boy' BCS teams and we ran out of gas and they kept pounding us into submission and we COULDN'T match it.

I am pis*ed at PH for jusr running the ball in the 4th quarter. This to me is just giving up and not even trying to win.

RE: last night's Cowboys vs. Giants game:

The Cowboys were getting handed by the Giants, but at least they NEVER STOPPED TRYING to attack on offense and actually started to come back. Bottom line is - they kept trying and didn't quit!

Again: I can preach stats out of my a*s, but unless this offense CHANGES, we can NEVER put enough points up to win.

You know how I feel about Dan Brown already so I won't go there.

Q; Don't you think that if Pat Hill went to Stanford he would completely change that loser program to a national contender?.....

I do - he could get the recruits that FSU cannot and compete every week in the PAC 10. What kid wouldn't want to play for Pat and his 'anyone anywhere anytime' mantra vs. PAC 10 schools every week?

I do know this - they would be the 'toughest' 'nerds' in the nation and boost a 4.0 pga!

Anonymous said...


evolution2.0 said...


Agreed on the LSU game. It was like not just "playing not to lose", but "playing not to lose by a lot". I guess if you compare it to Hawai'i it worked. Well maybe not, 31 point margin vs. 32.

I just think Hagan has had some really good calls and some games that he made good adjustments. My jury is still out, I'll give him the rest of the season before I make my final judgement. I just want to see how he handles Norton (against something different than the #1 defense in the land).

But, you are right about one thing... this D can't be fixed by Dan Brown's D scheme. So we need more points to win and running the ball isn't going to get that done.

As for P. Hill at Stanford, if he can't win there, then he really doesn't deserve to coach. That place is stocked and ready to become a major time program. Brand new stadium, brand new weightroom, top of the line practice facilities and just being in the Bay Area, the only thing they are missing is the players. That is the hardest part I can see about Stanford, mixing the talent with the scholastic entrance requirements.