Who was the more physical: Stony Brook or NDSU?

[JohnStOnge]

Ok. For a long time I didn't want to come to a place like this and ask this question. But after watching the replay today of the last national championship game curiosity is killing me. I want perspective from people who actually saw both Stony Brook and North Dakota State play. And seeing them on TV is fine.

On the McNeese Delphi Board within the last month or two a poster who I respect greatly...a guy who has been on college coaching staffs and who is now a high school coach in Texas...made a comment about a conversation he had with Sam Houston State's head coach. He said he had a conversation with Coach Fritz and Coach Fritz said that the most physical team Sam Houston State played last season was Stony Brook.

My immediate reaction was to be skeptical because, obviously, Sam Houston State played North Dakota State. I think North Dakota State was a very physical FCS team. That's what I thought when I saw them play Northern Iowa on TV and later play Georgia Southern. And North Dakota State's defense did snuff Sam Houston State's offense.

However, North Dakota State couldn't do much against the BearKats on the offensive side. Stony Brook did do better on offense. Based on the statistics, they were able to run the ball better on Sam Houston State than North Dakota State was.

So if you saw both teams play, do you think it's totally off the wall for Sam Houston State's head coach to say that Stony Brook was the most physical team the BearKats played last season?

[DJH]

Do not EVER question Da Bizon.

[danefan]

Stony Brook was a very ver good team last year. Hard to judge physicality on TV though.

[JohnStOnge]

Stony Brook was a very ver good team last year. Hard to judge physicality on TV though.

As I said, my first reaction was to say, "No way." But what we're talking about here is what I consider to be a very reliable source saying that Sam Houston State's coach told him that Stony Brook was the most physical team his squad played last year.

I'm still skeptical. You say it's hard to judge physicality on TV but to me NDSU looked pretty darned physical on TV. Like I actually went to the McNeese Delphi board and started a thread about how physical they looked against Northern Iowa and how McNeese used to be like that and why can't they be like that any more (they are much more of a finesse type team now).

But I didn't see Stony Brook on TV or otherwise so I'm wondering.

BTW, I was glad to see NDSU win the national championship because to me they were a no frills physical type team that played smash mouth and defense. They showed, as the color guy on the championship game telecast said, that "Old School is Cool."

As I said, McNeese used to be like that. When they at least made it to the national title game twice they had teams that played strong defense and smash mouth offense. Since then they've gone more finesse and haven't even won a single playoff game.

[Strommer10]

Very interesting point. I think that there are different dimensions of being a physical team. I can say that last year I did not see a more physical defense in the entire country than NDSU's defense. On offense, you make a valid point that Stony Brook was able to move the ball much more than NDSU did. Both teams can be viewed as physical, but just in different ways.

To answer your question, no it is not off the wall to say that Stony Brook was the more physical team.
But don't forget who won their game against SHSU

[houndawg]

Very interesting point. I think that there are different dimensions of being a physical team. I can say that last year I did not see a more physical defense in the entire country than NDSU's defense. On offense, you make a valid point that Stony Brook was able to move the ball much more than NDSU did. Both teams can be viewed as physical, but just in different ways.

To answer your question, no it is not off the wall to say that Stony Brook was the more physical team.
But don't forget who won their game against SHSU

Meh. I don't think that it's clear that NDSU is even the most physical defense in the MVC. SIU and UNI are every bit as physical. NDSU ran for 1.8 ypc in C'dale .

Sounds like Fritzi is still a little butt hurt about the azz whuppin...

[Strommer10]

Very interesting point. I think that there are different dimensions of being a physical team. I can say that last year I did not see a more physical defense in the entire country than NDSU's defense. On offense, you make a valid point that Stony Brook was able to move the ball much more than NDSU did. Both teams can be viewed as physical, but just in different ways.

To answer your question, no it is not off the wall to say that Stony Brook was the more physical team.
But don't forget who won their game against SHSU

Meh. I don't think that it's clear that NDSU is even the most physical defense in the MVC. SIU and UNI are every bit as physical. NDSU ran for 1.8 ypc in C'dale .

Sounds like Fritzi is still a little butt hurt about the azz whuppin...

This is true, I guess I was remembering more of the playoff games where NDSU allowed less than 7 ppg. There really isn't a right or wrong answer.

[JohnStOnge]

SIU and UNI are every bit as physical.

I didn't see NDSU play SIU but I watched them play UNI on TV and to me they looked a LOT more phsycial on both sides of the ball than UNI did. The only thing that kept UNI competetive, I thought, is that they had an athletic quarterback who could make plays even though his team was getting whipped at the line of scrimmage. To me it looked like NDSU wore UNI down as the game went on and, near the end, they were lining up in that power formation with what I'd say were two full backs and just smashing UNIs defense.

I was so impressed by how physical they looked in that game that I went to the McNeese Delphi board and basically said, "That is how I want McNeese to look again." Because that's basically how McNeese was when they were a program that frequently fielded teams that had a shot to beat any other I-AA team in the country. Physical offense. Physical defense. Physical on both sides of the ball.

[AZGrizFan]

Stony Brook was a very ver good team last year. Hard to judge physicality on TV though.

Real physicality is easy to recognize.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBgu7GtF ... r_embedded[/youtube]

[danefan]

That's one great hit. That doesn't mean Montana was the more physical team.

[AZGrizFan]

That's one great hit. That doesn't mean Montana was the more physical team.

Watch that game. They were.

[danefan]

That's one great hit. That doesn't mean Montana was the more physical team.

Watch that game. They were.

They might have been. I'm not arguing that point.

To me, the more physical team is the one who wins I'm the trenches. Its about lead blocks setting the edge. Those thing are rarely what I look at when I watch a TV game. Now if I'm going over the same play 4 or 5 times, then you pick those things out, but when I watch a game for entertainment, like I do the playoffs, I'm sitting there with a beer....not a cowboy remote.

[rkwittem]

Physicality is as much about on-field play as it is a mindset. Putting a whooping on your opponent every play and wearing them down over the course of a game is to me much more 'physical' than one or two big hits. You need mental stamina to finish the job.
As to who was more physical, I could care less. I know who was better. I say this without having watched Stony Brook, admittedly. I am aware they are a running team, but that's the extent of my knowledge about them. What's their scheme? Option? I-form (like the 49ers/Stanford)? Doesn't matter per se, I'm just curious.

[JohnStOnge]

Real physicality is easy to recognize.

I only saw Montana play twice this year. First was Central Arkansas. They looked VERY physical in that game. I remember commenting on the McNeese Delphi board that Montana's offensive line vs. UCA's defensive front looked like men against boys.

But then against Sam Houston State they looked helpless on both lines of scrimmage through the first half. It got somewhat better in the second half but they still never established themselves up front. Actually it was hard to believe I was watching the same team as the one I watched push Central Arkansas around like they were a bunch of little girls.

Kind of reinforced my long held belief that Montana in Missoula in the playoffs and Montana on the road in the playoffs are two entirely different things. I realize Sam Houston State was a substantially better team than Central Arkansas but it still just didn't look like the same Montana team. To this day I believe that if the same Sam Houston State had played Montana in Missoula in the 2011 playoffs they'd have been soundly thumped. One of those "never know" things but that's what I think.

I think one of the most important things any Southland team needs to do in order to have any shot to get to the national championship game is to win enough games to make sure that if they play Montana they play them at home because the record of Southland teams trying to beat them up there is a monument to futility even in terms of even staying in the games (with rare exception) while, to my recollection, Montana has never beaten a Southland team in the playoffs on the road (0-3 I think). I realize that to some extent it's because Montana's generally been better when they've stayed home than when they've had to play on the road but I don't think that entirely explains it.

As bad as they beat UNI this year, I really don't know if they'd have beaten them in the UNI dome. In fact my bet would be they wouldn't have.

It's one of the weirdest things in football, I think.

[CSUBUCDAD]

Hey if the coach says SB was the most physical, then so be it. He was right there to hear every hit,

[Pwns]

Doesn't really matter. In my experience MEAC teams are very physical, and it doesn't help them in the playoffs.

On the other hand NDSU doesn't really strike me as being particularly physical, just a team with good athletes that works as a team with sound fundamentals.

[AZGrizFan]

I realize Sam Houston State was a substantially better team than Central Arkansas but it still just didn't look like the same Montana team. To this day I believe that if the same Sam Houston State had played Montana in Missoula in the 2011 playoffs they'd have been soundly thumped. One of those "never know" things but that's what I think.

I think one of the most important things any Southland team needs to do in order to have any shot to get to the national championship game is to win enough games to make sure that if they play Montana they play them at home because the record of Southland teams trying to beat them up there is a monument to futility even in terms of even staying in the games (with rare exception) while, to my recollection, Montana has never beaten a Southland team in the playoffs on the road (0-3 I think). I realize that to some extent it's because Montana's generally been better when they've stayed home than when they've had to play on the road but I don't think that entirely explains it.

As bad as they beat UNI this year, I really don't know if they'd have beaten them in the UNI dome. In fact my bet would be they wouldn't have.

It's one of the weirdest things in football, I think.

Montana would have thrashed UNI in UNI's dome, in St. Louis, or on the moon. Montana's issue against SHSU was having one week to prepare for their unique style of offense. NDSU, on the other hand, had TWO weeks to prepare, after having just played a similar option offense in GSU, and with tons of option offense knowledge on their coaching staff....if Montana had two weeks to prepare for SHSU, you'd have seen a different game.

[houndawg]

Doesn't really matter. In my experience MEAC teams are very physical, and it doesn't help them in the playoffs.

On the other hand NDSU doesn't really strike me as being particularly physical, just a team with good athletes that works as a team with sound fundamentals.

NDSU is plenty physical; some of their fans think that only NDSU is physical and nobody else.

[JohnStOnge]

On the other hand NDSU doesn't really strike me as being particularly physical, just a team with good athletes that works as a team with sound fundamentals.

I guess different people think they see different things. You're a Georgia Southern fan and you don't think they're particularly physical. I watched them play Georgia Southern on line and I came away with the same impression as I came away with after watching them play UNI. They looked like by far the more physical team to me. To me it looked like they wore Georgia Southern down so that by the fourth quarter GSU was gassed and NDSU was having their way with them.

I looked up the stats to check my impression and they're consistent with it. NDSU had 11:09 time of possession in the 4th quarter. They never threw a pass except on a two point conversion yet they were never stopped in the final quarter. Both of their drives ate a bunch of clock and ended in touchdowns. They had more than half (159 of 314) of their rushing yards in the fourth quarter.

To me it looked like the classic scenario in which a team plays physical offense and stout defense then has its way in the fourth quarter with a worn out opponent.

To Sam Houston State's credit they couldn't do that to the BearKat defense. All game long they could never stay on the field long enough on offense to wear Sam Houston State's defense down. Never could really get their physical running game going.

Fortunately for them their defense had Sam Houston State's offense completely figured out.

[JohnStOnge]

NDSU, on the other hand, had TWO weeks to prepare, after having just played a similar option offense in GSU, and with tons of option offense knowledge on their coaching staff....if Montana had two weeks to prepare for SHSU, you'd have seen a different game.

Actually NDSU had THREE weeks to prepare for Sam Houston State; which is something I really don't like about the new FCS playoff format. To me one of the attractions of the old I-AA/FCS playoffs was the challenge of each team having one week to prepare for the next opponent without knowing before that week's prep time who the opponent is going to be. To me it was a real test of coaching staffs.

I do think there's something to what you way. Sam Houston State only scored 3 points against Montana in the second half and that was after Montana fumbled the ball at its own 8 yard line. I'll be interested to see how Sam Houston State does in the Southland this year now that all of the Southland teams have game film of their teams' defenses playing against the unusual offense.

But I still think Montana in Missoula and Montana on the road in the playoffs are two entirely different things.

[No_Skill]

Boy, it's a good thing nobody told Sam Houston they had 3 weeks to prepare for us...

[clenz]

Doesn't really matter. In my experience MEAC teams are very physical, and it doesn't help them in the playoffs.

On the other hand NDSU doesn't really strike me as being particularly physical, just a team with good athletes that works as a team with sound fundamentals.

NDSU is plenty physical; some of their fans think that only NDSU is physical and nobody else.

Wrong....they believe UNI is plenty physical....wait I mean dirty.


Apparently UNI is the dirtiest team ever, and NDSU NEVER EVER EVER does anything "chippy"

[AZGrizFan]

But I still think Montana in Missoula and Montana on the road in the playoffs are two entirely different things.

No shit, Sherlock.

[TheHerd]

I too believe Montana should have beaten SHSU, but the Griz coaching staff failed them and did not have them ready to go and by the time they figured the Bearkats offense out it was too late. The one week to prepare is a factor, but NDSU was able to get a W against the G.Southern with only a week. I was definitely pulling for the Griz though, because Frisco would have imploded with both the Bison and Griz fan bases! I was down there and it was a blast, but it would have been so much more fun if it would have been Bison/Griz!

[htownbearkat]

NDSU, on the other hand, had TWO weeks to prepare, after having just played a similar option offense in GSU, and with tons of option offense knowledge on their coaching staff....if Montana had two weeks to prepare for SHSU, you'd have seen a different game.

Actually NDSU had THREE weeks to prepare for Sam Houston State; which is something I really don't like about the new FCS playoff format. To me one of the attractions of the old I-AA/FCS playoffs was the challenge of each team having one week to prepare for the next opponent without knowing before that week's prep time who the opponent is going to be. To me it was a real test of coaching staffs.

I do think there's something to what you way. Sam Houston State only scored 3 points against Montana in the second half and that was after Montana fumbled the ball at its own 8 yard line. I'll be interested to see how Sam Houston State does in the Southland this year now that all of the Southland teams have game film of their teams' defenses playing against the unusual offense.

But I still think Montana in Missoula and Montana on the road in the playoffs are two entirely different things.

New OC this year for the Bearkats and a new offense to boot. All the major players are back though.