The Big East Thermometer is a weekly postgame feature that attempts to analyze the "hotness" or "notness" of a team's performance. It is based on a points system that contains no substantive guidance and is sure to be rife with errors, omissions, and inconsistencies.Tiquan Underwood: +5
Underwood's final statistic line is impressive -- 10 receptions for 248 yards and two touchdowns -- but it is his first half performance that really generated the point pump -- nine receptions for 228 yards and two touchdowns. To put that in context, Buffalo managed to put together only 74 total yards in the game's first stanza. That's just not an Arena Football-style performance; it's Playstation-esque.
The only thing holding back Underwood from a double-digit point pump is that his efforts came against arguably the worst back seven in college football. Buffalo's secondary is an absolute mess and simply does not maintain the kind of athletes necessary to contain a receiver of Underwood's talents. Once it became apparent that Rutgers was going to press the pass throughout the first half, the Bulls quickly retreated into a soft zone that merely attempted to contain the middle post. As a result, Underwood was able to abuse sideline, exploit the short corner, and sprint freely underneath the Buffalo umbrella on crossing patterns and hook routes. Had Underwood not turned in the performance he had, one would have seriously questioned his route choice and coverage identification.
Pedro Sosa and Mike Fladell: +3
Ray Rice scampered for 184 yards and three touchdowns, but the real heroes of the rushing game were Sosa and Fladell. Anchoring the left side of the Rutgers offensive line, the two seniors absolutely demolished their competition. On Rice's two touchdowns in the first half, the Heisman hopeful ran untouched for paydirt not because of his escapability and fluidity, but rather because Sosa did such a terrific job closing the defensive end and Fladell moved forward to isolate the outside linebacker. Their play will not show up in the statistics log, but their performance were necessary cogs to Rice's success.
Mike Teel: -3
Mike Teel is going to be the death of the Scarlet Knights. His lack of completeness was noted in the preseason and he managed to hammer home his deficiencies Thursday night.
Statistics are inherently strong indications of competency and such value-oriented data should not always be ignored. However, Teel's performance cannot be viewed in such a vacuum. In his three quarters of play, Teel went 16 for 23 with 328 yards passing and two touchdowns. That performance is good for a 218.05 passer rating.
What the above line fails to show, though, is that Teel looked more like Eli Manning than Peyton Manning. Despite eons to deliver the football (he did not take a hard lick via the sack all evening), Teel still managed to scatter the pigskin like buckshot. Balls were consistently delivered over and behind wide open receivers, forcing targets such as Tiquan Underwood to make terrific efforts on the ball to mask Teel's errant deliveries. Moreover, while Teel managed to end the game interception free, there were, at minimum, three overt instances where Buffalo had a more direct opportunity for a pick than Rutgers had at a reception.
Such play may carry the day against the MAC's second-worst squad, but it is a recipe for disaster against the Big East's middle and upper echelon teams.
Greg Schiano: -4
Despite Schiano's reputation, little can be questioned of his in-game coaching. Throughout his seven-year tenure, Schiano has put together a program that emphasizes a punishing, multifaceted defense and an offensive philosophy that plays to the team's conservative, yet effective grinding pace.
Against Buffalo, however, Schiano seemed to have a brain fart that lasted almost 30 solid minutes. With Buffalo out of the game the moment the Bulls walked off of the bus, Schiano held fast to playing the majority of his starting units strongly through the fourth quarter. This would not have been an issue had Buffalo shown any signs of playing a consistent style of competitiveness, but with a halftime lead of 28-0 that eventually swelled to 35-3 at the close of the third quarter, Rutgers was tempting fate with such an aggressive mentality.
It is understandable that Schiano may have wanted to get his guys into prolonged game action. With a summer spent in shells and modified contact, it is undoubtedly helpful to get in as much live hitting and scenario scheming as possible. However, there is little to no need to see Teel, Underwood, and a host of others running from potential injury in the fourth quarter of a game that was decided more than 20 minutes prior. Schiano's saving grace, however, was his decision to prohibit Rice from playing in the fourth quarter. Had Rice broken the Rutgers all-time rushing mark last night and suffered a serious injury, the Scarlet Knight's opportunities for success would have infinitely diminished.
Outside of Schiano's personnel decisions, it should also be noted that the reigning National Coach of the Year may have tipped his hand too much against the Bulls. Featuring an offense that showed more than a dozen different offensive formations and motion packages, a first quarter flea flicker, and a 56-yard field goal attempt, Schiano forced future opponents to scheme around such efforts, but also provided such teams with ample opportunity to distinguish tendencies and preferable offensive philosophy in many different formations and scenarios. Schiano played with a double-edged sword and may have cut himself more than he originally intended.
The Rutgers Faithful: +1
Buffalo is far from a sexy home opponent, but those dressed in scarlet turned out in nice numbers Thursday evening. Better yet, however, much of the crowd stayed well into the fourth quarter for a game that turned many diehard college football fanatics away from the television at halftime.
TOTAL POINTS: +2
SEASON TOTAL: +2




















Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
8-31-2007 @ 1:11PM
roger rainey said...
sorry, but this is idiotic
Reply
8-31-2007 @ 1:43PM
BMXAction said...
You clearly were not playing close attention to who was in the game, and some of the play as well. For example: 1) Rutgers began substituting starters in the first quarter (remember AD coming in the third series), not the fourth, with Rice and Teel exiting in the third. Tiquan Underwood did stay in all game, but only had one pass thrown to him in the fourth, and I suspect this was because of Timmy Brown's injury; 2) After jumping ahead 21 - 0 in the first, RU toned down its separation play calling, to down-tempo the game, and pretty much put the game on slow motion; 3) RU did not punt all game, and the one time when they should have punted, elected for a 56 yard field goal attempt, which would have made little sense, in light of the shutout, unless you wanted to give your opponent good field position, to see how the underclassment would handle adversity. Overall, the Rutgers team showed that it could score with more weapons than last year, but that it still needs some key defenders to come back from injuries to be effective against the run. In terms of Mike Teel's performance, about 80% of his balls were thrown well, which earns him a B+ in my book. Last year, he was around 60%, but a depleted receiving corp made him look even worse than that. The first test for RU comes next week against Navy, as their strength (running the triple option), attacks Rutgers weekness (the top two ILBs are out with broken bones and the #2 DT is out as well).
Reply
8-31-2007 @ 2:02PM
Matt Glaude said...
1) Substitution of Starters
Let's be serious -- there was not a significant exodus of starters until the onset of the fourth quarter. The fact that situtational substitutions were made does not mask Schiano's decision to ride his top horses well after it was necessary.
2) I didn't see RU stepping off the gas. The fact that Rice saw more carries does not necessarily indicate that RU went "vanilla." I still think that RU tried to open up its downfield passing attack (as shown by Teel's 23 attempts). The only time I really saw the RU offense pack it in was when Lovelace entered the game and ran the draw left and right on seemingly every snap (which isn't a bad thing).
3) Why create adversity? That seems counterintuitive to success. There's plenty of time for that on the practice field.
4) If you were impressed with Teel, I think that you necessarily underestimate Underwood's efforts. Underwood made Teel look functional; it was not a symbiotic relationship.
Reply
9-01-2007 @ 11:43AM
bob said...
Nah, GS didn't show much at all against the Bulls. We played vanilla the entire game, offensively and defensively. You'll see.
Reply
9-01-2007 @ 2:07PM
ruinsj said...
I think Matt is pretty much right on I dont really agree with Teel being off the mark a whole lot. I think he had a pretty good game. I do think RU should have subbed more often and try to spread the passing game around some more (only 3 players caught balls). I thought Young should have had more of an oppurtunity to carry the ball.
Reply
9-03-2007 @ 12:07AM
CLAYTON said...
LET'S LOOK AT THE RUTGERS FOOTBALL SITUATION IN THIS CONTEXT: WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME ANYONE CAN REMEMBER RUTGERS BEING RANKED AHEAD OF BOTH PENN STATE AND NOTRE DAME? FOR THE SECOND SEASON IN A ROW, NO LESS... AND, RUTGERS WOULD DEFEAT BOTH THOSE SQUADS THIS SEASON, AS THEY WOULD HAVE LAST YEAR. KUDOS TO THE ENTIRE COACHING STAFF AT RUTGERS. THIS IS NO FLUKE WHATSOEVER.
Reply
9-03-2007 @ 11:37AM
sprnsx2 said...
Underwood made Teel look functional? Watch the game highlights on scarletknights.com. Teel looked sharp I thought. Even more so after I reviewed the 14 minute highlights of the game. Underwood did what a receiver is supposed to do, catch the ball. One of the great catches was the route down the left seam of the defense that he tipped. Sure the ball was not spot on, but it was a good distance downfield and the ball was placed in a good spot. Another catch was down the left sideline, a streak pattern by Underwood. Teel fired the ball between two defenders 15-20 yards downfield and across half the football field. Underwood made a great catch on a laser of a ball. Teel put the ball where he was supposed to and Underwood made some great catches. Give Teel some credit here. I know it was Buffalo, but he was on his game.
Reply
9-03-2007 @ 11:36AM
sprnsx2 said...
Alright, I had to go back and look at the tape again. They showed 11 of Teel's 16 completions. Six were on the numbers to Underwood. The other completions were the previously mentioned 20 yard streak down the left to Underwood, that could not have been thrown more perfectly. One was Underwood's second touchdown where he tipped it. One was about a foot behind Underwood. The final Underwood catch was 15 yards downfield and caught above the knees. Three were to Britt and were good passes. Many of the above plays were 20 yard in routes, 25 yard deep outs, and the 20 yard streak. Most of his passes were five step dropbacks and the ball was quickly delivered. He didn't have "eons to deliver the ball" because he didn't need them. Five steps and he released the ball. Among the announcers comments..."the ball was laid in perfectly", the ball was "on the money", those type of throws are what you "see on Sunday". I invite you to view the tape Matt at scarletknights.com. Teel played well. I know it was an inferior opponent, but he played well. Admit it...would ya?
Reply
9-03-2007 @ 11:35AM
brgoss said...
The praise for Rutgers on these blogs is underwhelming to say the least. 38-3 and mostly nothing good to say about the team or the coach? Every other Top 25 team plays a weak opponent on opening day and creams them, but only Rutgers gets bad mouthed and picked apart for weaknesses.
But maybe that's not surprising since bloggers are even stupider than sports writers. (What sports writer was ever anything but a failure on the field--except at being Water Boy--and a college dropout after two years?) Is it possible for AOL to put someone better on here than this moron who clearly must be a Louisville or WVU fan?
Reply
9-04-2007 @ 9:50AM
Edmund said...
I think Teel had a solid game and so did Schiano ...
And you are right about one thing ... your random numbering is idiotic ....
Teel and Schiano are solid ... If you want to see bad game-calling look at Wannstadt at Pitt or Zook at Illinois ...
Reply