Princeton Tigers (2-0) at Columbia Lions (2-0)
October 1, 2022
Kickoff Time: 1:00pm
Robert K. Kraft Field at Wien Stadium
Game Time Weather Forecast: 56 degrees and cloudy
The Line: Princeton is favored by 2 points
TV/Radio: The game is on the SNY network with Lance Medow doing play-by-play and Sal Licata as the analyst. You can also watch it on ESPN+.
Leading Story Lines
1) Defending co-champ Princeton and the promising Lions are both trying to prove they are for real after wins over soft non-conference teams. Both teams face the likelihood of not being taken seriously if they lose this game.
2) The two best, or close to the best, wide receivers in the Ivies will be on display in this game with Princeton's Andre Iosivas and Columbia's Bryson Canty... or will they? The strong chance of rain before the game and likely during the game could hinder some of the passing opportunities. But judging by the way most Ivy games have been played in the rain in recent years, the chances are we'll still see a lot of aerial action.
3) Both teams seem to have left a lot off the table in their first two games and will likely bring some new looks into this contest. Be ready for surprises.
3 Columbia Players to Watch (other than Canty... see above)
-RB Ryan Young is not listed on the two-deep, but he will likely start. In rainy weather, Young has been superb in the past and this could be the best atmosphere for him.
-DE Justin Townsend could be the biggest beneficiary if Columbia blitzes effectively. So far this season, CU has held off on heavy QB pressures and blitz packages, presumably in hopes of not tipping off Princeton. The Tigers O-line has had some pass protection issues so far; giving up a total of seven sacks in the first two games.
-DB Seth Parker will likely be the defender most tasked with trying to shut down Iosivas and some of the other talented Tiger wide receivers, like Dylan Classi. If Princeton avoids Parker, look for numerous balls thrown Bryan Bell-Anderson's way.
3 Princeton Players to Watch (other than Iosivas)
-QB Blake Stenstrom is a transfer from the University of Colorado who has shown fine talent so far, but the jury is still out. Columbia will need to pressure him.
-LB Joseph Bonczek will lead Princeton's efforts to contain Ryan Young, and the rest of Columbia's multi-faceted running attack.
-TE Carson Bobo is a huge target in the passing game and a great blocker with a chip on his shoulder after not being offered by any other Ivy team. If Stenstrom is effectively rushed, Bobo will still likely be available as an emergency option through the air or on screen passes.
17 comments:
Let’s be honest, victories at Marist and Georgetown are nice. They were few and far better for many years, but hopefully those days of yore are gone forever. As today’s headline states, this is the “real test”. Sadly, we have failed tests like this in recent years. Think Yale on the last two occasions. Then again, we have witnessed the gem of the last half century, Dartmouth of last season. This one is not “do or die”. I do not imagine anyone going undefeated in league play. Among Yale, Harvard Princeton, and even Dartmouth; they will beat each other up. One loss in the league will probably earn a share of the title. The problem being, if we go down now, we would have to be perfect from here on out. We also do not have a great history of being able to regroup after defeats in pivotal games. I do not have a feeling for this one, other than I can see it going either way. I also do not have a sense of what would be more detrimental; a close loss, or getting blown out.
Lions win 27-13. Princeton doubles Canty and Painton ( baby Gronk) scores 2 tds
Well offense played great am I right?
Another real test failed unfortunately. No room for error but we made a boat load of them. This is clearly not a championship team but we CAN play better
however you have to be ready when the klieg lights come on and we were outclassed in most aspects of the game. Positives- DE Townsend #36, who was a one man wrecking crew all day. Ryan Young is Back. We stuffed their run game. Negatives- The pass protection. Play calling (particularly when we have the ball with the wind at our back and insist on running draw plays up the middle in the first quarter). DB's who don't look back for the ball, blown coverages etc.Turnovers ! Sons of knickerbocker: we are better than this !!!
A few coaching mistakes—never go for 2 points early in the first quarter; no need to take such a gamble; calling for a wildcat on 4th and 1 at the 5 instead of taking the easy FG again in the first quarter; almost always calling for a run on first down; apparently not instructing our punt returner not to try to handle a ball when inside the 10 yard line. A few highlights: our DE with 3 sacks; the DB who played the deep ball to #9 perfectly and broke up the pass; run defense for most of the game (the Princeton first year RB is a load).
The “Real Test”, was really painful to watch. No one can say that the present Coach has not done an exceptional job. He turned a program around, a feat numerous others failed at miserably. A loss to Princeton is not a fatal blow. The ‘61 League Co-Champions lost to Princeton. (In fact, until the “Cardiac Kids” beat them in 1971, the Lions had lost every matchup going back to 1945.)
However, I have serious reservations as to whether or not, this is a well coached team. We started the year, uncertain about the Defense, but highly confident in the Offense. Having gained only 160 yards, in more than 50 plays, well into the Fourth Quarter should be cause for alarm. I do not see how anyone could not indict the Offensive Coordinator’s strategy; running between the tackles on every first down up through the middle of the Fourth Quarter; at least we did not throw a lateral, but how many quick passes behind the line of scrimmage did we throw?, and as was mentioned, pivotal inexplicable calls. I think it time to lose the “gimmicks”; lining up in a spread formation for every PAT; not huddling up, going to line as if in a “hurry up”, and then waiting twenty seconds to look to the sideline; the Wildcat. How does a steady diet of these make us better? Odds are, we will beat the “hapless”: Penn, Cornell and Brown. We have “Cupcake #3”, next week. We might feed off Homecoming and beat Dartmouth. 7-3. The cheers will resound, after all it is better than the days of 1-9, but it pales compared to what might have, and should have, been.
PS, further to my last note, it was our #9 who made the gorgeous breakup of the long pass to Princeton’s #9. That was an absolutely textbook example of how to play the deep ball. As far as the last comment, the gimmick plays don’t work, nor do the bubble screens. When playing against a stout defense, the RB has to be somebody who can move the pile. Young is that guy. And the passing game needs to be reworked. Why is Painton never used in crossing patterns? and why not more deep balls to Canty, where he should win most 50/50 opportunities?
“Old Lion” is spot on. It is easy to defend against the current offense. You do not have to be concerned with:
a running back challenging the corner off a jet sweep or a quick pitch; you can ignore the threat of the quarterback draw; the tight end might as well be inegible, since you do not ever see a the tight end on a drag route across the middle, or a “seam route; when was the last time a running back ran a “wheel route”, down the sideline? Is there a “middle screen” even in the playbook? Or any play action RPO’s. And this lack of “imagination” applies well beyond yesterday.
Defenses have very little time to practice, why make it easier for them?
Princeton did not lose, only because they played fundamentally sound football. They did not have two receivers in the same spot. They did not try and field a punt over their head. They did not rely on a second string quarterback, beginning three yards behind the football, when all that was needed was one yard. (The odds of gaining that one yard was greater with a quarterback sneak.)
Yes, Princeton botched a swing pass, but watch the films, our Defense was slow to react.
These are fixable problems, provided they are recognized as shortcomings. Sadly, I fear Fabish is held above reproach.
I agree with everything above except the slow reaction by the defense part. Our defense played a tremendous game. The only drive they looked considerably bad on was the first drive where Princeton scored their first touchdown. All of Princeton’s other points game off of turnovers. We cut the turnovers by both teams and it’s a 7-0 game? Coming into the season, everyone had questions about our defense and felt that we were gonna be carried by our offense this year but just as the last couples of years, it seems we are going to rely on the backs of our defense again and again. Defense showed up, offense didn’t. Give credit where credit is due.
The defense was outstanding. The “slow to react” was strictly in regard to jumping on the lateral for the score. They were extremely well prepared and kept the game winnable until the muffed punt. It is odd how we were all worried about their becoming cohesive and had no qualms about the offense
Here is my respectful comment:
Does Fabish “have” something
on Bagnoli that keeps him in his job?
The Fabish Failures are getting old,
very, very OLD. And so am I.
I would like to see the team have some real success, even just one season, under this legendary head coach.
Or is protecting Fabish more important? And
That was an embarrassing COACHING loss! We should have been UP 10-7 at halftime, instead, we were down 6-10. We lost momentum by not kicking the extra point. Can someone please explain why we went for the two point conversion? Also, at what stage in life can we RETIRE the predictable "WILDCAT" formation? Hint, when it's 4th and 1, and you set up for in a wildcat formation (only one-back formation in yesterday's game), the opposition will load the box (and they did). You weren't going anywhere, you didn't go anywhere-except backwards, and statistically, it hasn't worked for us!!!). Soooooo, why it is still in the playbook?
It is utterly embarrassing that we cannot create an offensive scheme to counter an aggressive D-Line. Arguably, PU ran into the same problem with our defense, except they used these things called Tight Ends to resolve this issue. As in, they utilized their TEs when their primary (and secondary) receiver(s) were covered. GREAT job for the most part on defense BTW, but the PU QB just had too much time!!! It is abundantly clear that Green needs to improve his arm strength, especially compared to Stetstrom.
FYI, Harvard is a mirror image of PU (both beatable), so be prepared...
Interesting how nobody will acknowledge that Princeton is a pretty damn good football team with an excellent defense. They are just better thank the Lions. Sour grapes to always blame coaching whenever the Lions lose.
Going for two a two point conversion when you have momentum to tie up the game...
Fourth and 1 and you employ a statistically failed offensive play (over and over)...
NOT having a Plan B (or Plan C) to combat a an aggressive D-Line...
I would say that those were (are) coaching "lapses" and frankly, not being prepared.
Cheers to the RBs, O-Line (for the most part), and defense. Special teams was challenging, but our punting game looked good.
Also, did you miss the part that we only made it over the 50 yard line on offense once in the first half?
The CU defense performed on par with the PU defense, the exception is that, the PU staff knew how to react.
Also, I think it was BS for Surace to constantly question calls and break up our drives.
No I didn’t miss that part. I just don’t take a lot of stock in parents of players questioning coaching decisions
As an ALUM I couldn't agree with you more!
We have been enduring this approach for years now. Year 1, okay, learning curve. Year 2, okay, something different, Year three same old offense with no creativity. Year 4, "thank you" notes from the 7 other IVY Defensive Coordinators for continuing with the same offense.
Look, Al's a loyal guy, great! He's elevated the program BEYOND expectations, great! Keep Fabish as OC, I don't care, just come up with a better game plan, that's all. He has no plan when option A or option B do not work. His offense, especially in the RED ZONE, is predictable. That's not an opinion, that's a fact. Again, keep him at OC, just give him a new playbook for goodness sakes.
The fact that they went for it on 4th and 1, FANTASTIC, but there was no imagination to that play and as soon as we lined up, everyone in the stadium knew where we were going. It worked at Dartmouth last year, but that's because two Dartmouth LBs missed tackles.
I am convinced that we can win the remainder of the games on our schedule. It was just disheartening to see this opportunity fall though our hands like that.
“Keep Fabish out of loyalty to your old
Penn Buddy while the games thrown away keep mounting?”
Don”t use the pass-catch ability of your
best players because the OC is
near-sighted, or asleep or whatever?
No brave Spec reporters around to ask Bagnoli and Fabish what the heck they’re doing?
Are our coaches so confused that they
think they’re in charge of rugby, not football?
Post a Comment