[rtb72]

Well, I know we had this before all of the technical issues, but I'd like to maybe see if we can get it going again. Worth a shot, I suppose. Nevertheless....

LU v. JMU (-6.5)

Tie breaker - Total rushing yards for the Flames

LU 17 - JMU 28
221

[AATL]

Might as well start the year off with optimism! Who knows how long it will last

Chadwell picks up where he left off vs Napier -- 30-27 good guys

[jmclaughlin]

LU 29 - JMU 24...We miss an XP, because Chadwell loves kickers.
Rush for 193 yards

[Chippy]

L - 20-13

JMU dominated our O line. This team is better than last year's team. Had our opportunities, a lot of self-inflicted wounds. I'm hoping we can still go 9=3 (7-1 in CUSA).

[rtb72]

1st half was awful. This persistent slow start which aligns with last year has got to end. Constantly having to coming from behind is just not going to lend to many wins. Penalties, poor clock management, stalling in the red zone and play calling…… yet again. 2nd half was much better and at least gives us some hope. Albeit an unpopular opinion, I still question if Chadwell can get us where we need/hope/should be. Nevertheless, we did give ourselves a chance against JMU. I guess we will know if that matters as the season goes on. I’m not sure JMU is the same pedigree as previous years, so that also is yet to be seen. .

[AATL]

I feel better after the game than I did during it. I'm excited about Coleman, and I really liked seeing them try to get him into space on the edges on the first drive. I'm encouraged that Jackson seems like a legitimate jump-ball target, which we've sorely lacked since CJ Daniels. I'm cautiously optimistic about the secondary. The 3rd & 3 shovel pass to LaKelsey Johnson made me grin.

That said, JMU's front seven ate the OL's lunch. Red zone was the difference, in large part because yardage between the tackles was non-existent there. I thought the edges generated good pressure, but it seems like we haven't had a block-shedding, scramble-eating DT since Kendy Charles.. I'm going to have nightmares about JC Evans scrambling into green grass on 3rd downs. Clock management at the end of the first half was bad bad bad and left points on the board.

Going into the year, I'd have called 3-1 in the non-conference with a split vs JMU/CCU an acceptable result. It feels doable after seeing the 2nd half, but that feeling might change if next week brings 10 more penalties.

[jmclaughlin]

It would have been great to walk out of there with a W but i do feel like it was more encouraging than discouraging. Many of the newcomers popped in moments and will make a sizable difference during the '26 campaign. I really think Purdie has a chance to be a solid QB. He was certainly off on some of his throws but he has the best arm we have had behind center since Malik. The Purdie - Jackson connection can be special. The RBs didn't have a standout performance but we have a full stable to play with. Kam is a horse and will be huge in those 3rd / 4th and short situations that we have struggled in the past few seasons. They didn't feature him much but the TE Johnson (From Baylor) should be another weapon that we have not had. He did miss some assignments (looked like) and had a critical FS that cost us a drive. Still think he can be the best TE we have had in a while.
Disappointments: 1. Pre-snap penalty's 2. Poor tackling at the point of contact 3. Another kickoff out of bounds 4. Poor play calling in critical moments 5. Clock management at the end of the 1st half 6.Subpar OL play (Second half was much improved)
Almost all of those I lay at coaching...even the poor tackling. I think we were so careful to come out healthy from fall camp that i bet tackling was limited. Not saying that i blame that approach. The most frustrating sequence for me was LU's final drive. Just picked up a huge 3rd and 8 conversion and we enter the redzone and out comes VASKO in a critical moment on a first down play and we call a designed QB run? Netting a 1.5 yard play??? It just didn't make any sense. We had momentum and immediately let the air out of the balloon. 3 plays later we have a 4th and short, call a timeout to draw up a play to convert. The play: Rollout to the boundary side of the field and scheme 2 receivers in the same tight window. I can understand the thought is to give Purdie 2 options in the same window but there was no room for any layering to happen. It is a bad play call.
I give the first half a draw because we were trying to establish our identity on the ground and just didn't get many chunk plays out of it. The run is how we are going to beat teams this season. that is how this team is constructed. The more balanced approach in the 2nd was a good tweak by the coaches and was nice to see. If Purdie can hit those downfield shots it will do wonders for our running and RPO calls.
This team will be a fun watch this season. Our return game has the chance to be fun again and the D looks much faster and longer than the past 2.
Light'emUp!