Eating Their Dust
Fordham dominated almost every aspect of the game to reclaim the Liberty Cup (CREDIT: FordhamSports.com)
Columbia fell to Fordham last night, 27-10.
(You can hear the audio archive of the game, and my debut as color commentator by first clicking the link above and then clicking the audio icon at the top of the story).
WHY FORDHAM WON
The Rams dominated the line of scrimmage all night and ran the ball at will. Freshman Xavier Martin and senior Jonte Coven both easily eclipsed the 100-yard mark and allowed Fordham to rack up 353 total yards on the ground. The Rams only threw the ball 15 times despite lining up in the four wide receiver set all night.
WHY COLUMBIA LOST
They gave up huge holes to the Fordham runners time after time, then made it worse by failing to wrap up the runners for key missed tackles. On offense, the Lions had no running attack of their own, and they committed two costly turnovers.
KEY TURNING POINTS
Leading 7-0 late in the second quarter, Fordham faced a 2nd and 9 from their own 49 when Xavier Martin broke several tackles on his way to a 51-yard touchdown run. On the ensuing possession Hormann threw his first interception of the game, which the Rams quickly turned into 3 points on a short field goal to make it 17-0.
COLUMBIA POSITIVES
1) It may not have been the best night for Craig Hormann, but he looked totally healthy and his injured knee certainly didn't play a big role in the loss.
2) Austin Knowlin lived up to his billing as Columbia's "go-to guy," with 9 catches for 130 yards, (some of them spectacular grabs), and one touchdown. Knowlin also had some good kick returns, including one that set up Columbia's first score of the night. If Columbia can find another consistent offensive weapon, especially on the ground, this team could take off.
3) Jon Rocholl was only 1 for 3 on field goal attempts, but they were all very long attempts and he did make the 49-yarder to end the half.
COLUMBIA NEGATIVES
1) The aggressive and effective Columbia defense of 2006 was mostly M.I.A. last night. Besides the missed tackles against the Fordham runners, the Lions blew some sack opportunities as well.
2) Jordan Davis ran for 73 yards on 13 carries, but most of those yards were gained late in the game when the contest was already decided. Against the first team Fordham defense, the Lions were as inept on the ground as they were most of last season.
3) Hormann's best quality in 2006 was avoiding the interception, but last night he threw two picks when he should have eaten the ball or thrown it out of bounds.
MVP
An easy choice here: Austin Knowlin. The Columbia single season receiving yards record is an even 1,000 held by Don Lewis, (in the John Witkowski era). With 130 yards in game 1, Knowlin is well on his way to challenging that record, something I said he must do in a post I wrote more than five months ago.
Jake on the Mic
It was a lot of fun working in the booth with Jerry Recco in the first game, but I definitely need some more work. The game moved extremely quickly with no media timeouts, (plus the refs moved things along as if they were double-parked on Fordham road), and I was not ready for that fast pacing.
Hopefully, I and Columbia team will sound and look a lot better next week.
posted by Jake @ 5:58:00 PM
45 comments
45 Comments:
Jake, you were fine-and you as well as the Lions will only get better with experience. I was shocked, however, at how easily Fordham ran the ball. It looked like our D-line was unable to shed their blocks all night long. The linebackers (spurs) were also being driven back behind the line of scrimmage so their ballcarriers just followed the seam in the line and broke the plays anyway they wanted. Is this a factor of size, technique, or experience? I really wonder whether this 3 man front is going to work this year. Another observation- where were our Tight Ends last night? Seems like they were under utilized making Knowlin our go-to guy all night. On a positive note I thought Hormann was very poised most of the night. His knee looked strong and he probably would have had a better game if we were not facing frequent 3rd and longs.
No mystery last night. We were outplayed at the point of attack. Our D Line looked small and slow and our O Line looked small and incapable of getting a push. I think that the three man rush requires a stronger point of attack at NT. As fo the O Line, we still looked smallish to me. PS, I think that playing at Fordham at night is a downer and hope we can move the next away game to a 1 PM start.
The only question is how Xavier Martin ended up at Fordham rather than Penn State or Miami. It would be nice if we had a running back with 4.41/40 speed.
Jamal Russell did not play last night, presumably due to injury. Troy Evangelist looked o.k. in his first full game as a Lion. He's going to be a very good tight end. Freshman Andrew Kennedy had a nice reception on the touchdown drive. No question that these guys are very good athletes who need to be involved in the passing game for the Columbia offense to be successful.
Austin Knowlin was amazing last night. He's a great athlete with excellent football instincts. Very smart player who realizes what is going on the field and adapts quickly. That's why he can catch passes in triple coverage. Taylor Joseph also catches the ball well. Columbia has several other good wide receivers including Tim Paulin and Nico Guttierz. The two tight ends-Evangelist and Kennedy--are big, athletic guys who should be good for at least five or six catches a game. I think the passing game will work out fine, it's the running game that's the problem.
On the bright side , Rocholl almost made a 55 yard field goal. (He did make a 49 yarder later on). At least we can kick a field goal (this puts us 1 up on Penn).
Jake, do you have any information on the two freshman running backs, Leon Ivery and Zack Kourouma? Do we have any breakaway runners on the team?
Here is the issue. We are not making plays in the box. We are being pushed back on the running game by big OLs, at least last night. We need a defensive push from the NT. Mitchell was invisible last night. When we had the ball the could not open any holes for Davis or Rangel. We gave up on Stoll as a lead blocker. And more importantly, as much as I like CH, he locks in on his primary receiver and does not go downfield. Knowlin is going to be doubled and triple all year because CH locks in on him. Nico can be the guy on the deep ball. But the real key is that we just were playing a slower game than Fordham. The hurry up offense was a big problem for us. We also seemed to be playing a lot of freshmen on defense. Tehre were a lot of surprises on the two deep; Jake, any comments?
Pretty disappointed in the run defense. It will make for a long year if we continue to play defense like that.
reality is Fordham is one of weakest teams we play(outside of Marist and possibly Dartmouth). Lafayette will flat out embarrass us if this doesn't straighten out asap. Surprised Norries would have two lines(after all the offseason hype) that were manhandled all night. Skilled positions get you nothing without decent lines.
Considering the size and experience of the Fordham offensive line, as well as the speed of their running backs, I was not all surprised with their success running the ball against us. Mitchell, had a strong game with plenty of stops and two sacks. Walz came on well as the game progressed. The problem was that the linebackers simply didn't have a super game Columbia fans grew accustomed to last year. In the Ivies, a huge portion of the tackles are made by the linebackers. Quinn is obviously dealing with a leg injury and Adam Brekke and Justin Nuzez were sorely missed. I think Justin Masorti, and several of the talented freshmen--Morretto, Holloway, Gross, England and Otis -will start making an impact next week against Marist.
Jake: a splendid job! You know your beans. Why didn't Masorti start?
Who did Veldman beat out at OG? There were some other surprises in the two deep, including a few first years. Jake, what do you know? And will we see Ivery and Kourouma (phonetic) any time soon? What about more reps for Nico G?
Maybe I'm missing something but the Rams back (25) was the best player on the field last night. He ran well behind a good blocking scheme that took advantage of a known weakness of the 3-4 scheme! We'll need more aggressive play from defense but remember one of our LB was trying to play on a bad ankle and that certainly hampered his play. Last night we were not as strong up the middle and that was a problem that will get better as the season progresses.
On offense, we had problems with down and distance situations that made play calling predictable and allowed the wholesale defensive changes that you saw all night from Fordham. When you're playing from behind most of the game its tougher on play callers and players. Hormann looked a lot like he did at the beginning of last season, he needed a game to get in the groove and I'd look for a lot of improvement next week. The O-line was ok, better on some plays than others but Jordan Davis did average 5 yards a carry and all backs averaged around 3 YPC.
I think we have a great kicking game but they also had better special teams last night. Their punter (18) flipped the field in a couple of key situations and might have averaged 50 yards per kick.
Disappointing to lose one that we thought we should win but my view is this Fordham team is MUCH better than the one we saw last year. With 2 games under their belt they were game ready and we were a little green, especially on defense.
Fordham's punter is excellent; he is NFL caliber. I agree that CH looked a lot like he looked early last season. If Quinn is not ok he should be held out next week because we will need him at 100%. I didn't see the defense playing with much passion last night. Tackling was sloppy; basic stuff like wrapping up the runner. Pass defense was good. I saw that Masorti didn't start and was puzzled by that. Shalbrack also had a quiet game. I am most concerned by the play of the front 7, especially the front three. Jake, I know you expected Mitchell to dominate this year. He was very quiet last night. Our play at NT is going to be an issue. I just don't think we have found the right guy to stand up the center and clog the inside running lane. But our biggest problem was the poor offensive line play. CH was pressured most of the night, and the holes were not there on the run game.
Hey guys, let's get it right. Phil Mitchell actually had two tremendous quarterback sacks last night to lead both teams. Since Fordham didn't throw the ball very much last night that's quite an achievement. Fordham ran away from him most of the game. He's our best defensive lineman by far and will only get better.
Great, easy, Cross Bronx-less ride into Fordham from Jersey. Close-in parking for a relatively cheap $10. Then a pretty good dinner on E 187th.
After that, nothing the slightest bit encouraging. Fordham's punter sure is NFL-quality (Rocholl's punts by contrast were just "workmanlike" in a kind of rote Ivy League way) but the Rams clearly don't have a very good QB. Yet they still beat a sluggish-looking Lions team, which lost almost every non-passing defensive down at the line of scrimmage. Casting the game as anything other than disaster for the Lions is a mistake.
Mistakes, luckily, are correctable. And it's very early in the season. But for all the optimism on this site (my own included), no, last night was not at all encouraging. Our running game in particular was, as it's usually been the last several years, non-existent, and Hormann's pass protection was decidedly spotty. (Jake, how come you never mentioned the possibility here of Hormann playing?)
Oddly, too, there was no Roar-ee and not even the band and the cheerleaders made the short trip to the game as far as I could tell. I'm not saying their presence would have helped, but it would have indicated some real fan involvement in the game on the student level, and I'd expect better for at least close-in Princeton and Lafayette.
RS
I believe the band has been banned from Fordham. (some of the members were in the stands). I suspect that the cheerleaders and roar-E were not allowed either.
I can’t believe that no one has brought up the pathetic play calling and coaching we witnessed last night. Everyone in the stadium knew what play was coming next. We have plenty of talent, speed, and size on this team, particularly on offense. Part of the blame must rest with the coaching staff on this one. Why are trying to run the “west coast” offense on a team that has already proven they were weak against the run? Why did we abandon the run game in the first quarter? Everyone else knew how to attack Fordham except our coaches. Our player’s are much better than what was shown at this game!
Well, I wouldn't hang this one on VM or LF for playcalling. On offense, if we'd converted a few catches and had better 3rd downs to play (or converted a few second downs) then we'd would have had an easier night of it. We need to make better use of first down! we're committed to a 1 back look and we're got great players for a "west coast" type of system (whatever that is these days). I wish we could have gotten the ball to our tight end in space when they went nickel and dime. We had a huge size mismatch there that we couldn't ever convert into positive yardage.
For the run game, If you average 3 yards per carry you'll beat most teams! When you're behind the play calling gets tougher.
If we'd connected on the first 2 FG and been played ahead then the game would have taken on a different flavor. We needed a game! We also need to keep our players enthusiasm up! Football can be a game of emotion and the kids need to know that they're excellent players playing in an excellent system. If they believe in what they do, they'll have more success.
As the parent of a first year and a newbie to the long suffering ways of Columbia football, and as hard as the loss to Fordham is to swallow, this coaching staff will make it happen, will improve this team, will win games. You have to believe and stay positive. Many of us have expressed the exceptional quality of the coaches and why our sons chose Columbia over other programs. Have faith in these young men and in the outstanding leadership abilities of NW.
Glad to see the comment from a parent of a first year. Look at the number of freshman and sophs on the squad and their dominance on the two deep.
This is a YOUNG group. I believe they will get better and play their best games at the end of the season.
Get on board!!
The principal problem is not in play calling. As a long time supporter of the program, I think it is too glib to say that the play calling could have been better. This game still comes down to blocking and tackling. On offense we were not getting much of a push in the running game and our pass protection was spotty. On defense we were being driven off the line of scrimmage and were not wrapping up on tackles. Perhaps first game jitters, especially with so many young players, perhaps playing a 6 PM game in a very unfriendly environment (the visiong team sitting all alone across the field is something straight out of high school, and perhaps CH's cobwebs. We just seemed about a step too slow; I expect a huge improvement on Saturday (that would have been the gmae to play at 6 PM in light of the holiday!) And best wishes to all of the parents of players--don't take the criticisms too seriously; we old timers love and admire the coaches and the guys who chose to play for them!
It was disappointing to see our team do poorly on Saturday. There were lots of factures involved including injuries, CH being a little out of practice, first time players, play calling predictable, lots of holding not being called, etc. Fact is, we were not ready and we were just out played.
What I really found disturbing was the way the fans lost interest so quickly during the game. I sat and watched fans "quietly" sitting, shaking their heads. WHERE'S THE EXCITEMENT!!! I know we are not a big ten school with thousands of screaming fans, but LET'S MAKE SOME NOISE! Many games have been turned around by fans getting involved; group cheers, encouraging words. Our fan base sucked.
I had a student sit in front of me and asked the kid next to him, "What are those girls doing down there?" "Ah, those are cheer leaders!" was the reply. "Oh." I don't think this kid has ever been to a football game in his life.
Where's the fun? Where's the excitement? There was a group at the top of the stands near the end of the game, singing our fight song, cheering, rooting us on. THANK YOU!!
Our boys have worked hard for months to get in shape and be ready to go out and beat the "you know what" out of each other, just to entertain us. The least we can do is stand up and show them we care!
Actually, I was very impressed with the turnout on the Columbia side for the Fordham game. There must have been between 1500 and 2000 Columbia fans at the game and they were a pretty raucous and supportive group. In fact, the people near me stood throughout the game, and were very encouraging of the team. But I do agree that we should MAKE SOME NOISE and lots of it at all the games. How about starting with the cheer KNOWLIN, KNOWLIN,KNOWLIN!!! That kid's a great football player. Let's make sure everyone knows about him.
Can someone explain why our mascot, cheerleaders and band were not present at the Fordham game?
Playing at night in the Bronx is a really crummy idea. I think tha Dianne has to insist that we play an afternoon game if we are going to continue this series. We had a better turnout than Fordham, which means that their fan base knows the neighborhood after dark! As for strolling over to Arthur Avenue for a post game meal, not really something that most people want to do at 10 PM in that neighborhood.
Fordham is a better team than people gave them credit for and also had the advantage of having already played two games. Like many CU supporters, I expected this to be a "relatively" easy win. Simply a continuation of last year's successes. Expectations were and are probably a little too high. This is a very young team. The coaches are building a great base for the future (40 talented new players, no quits). The schedule this year is tougher and other teams will be preparing better (and probably a little harder) for CU this year. This is a great group of coaches and I'm sure they will be making the right adjustments as the season progresses. CU will probably lose some that they should win and win some that they should lose. As far as play calling, you can't run the ball very often when you are down by 2 or 3 touchdowns. You simply can't score enough touchdowns running the ball to win the game in the time remaining. Also, it wasn't the coaches losing the battle at the line and missing tackles. I look for steady improvement in the level of CU's play week to week regardless of the final score. I expect to see some more first years start to contribute as the season progresses and they get more adjusted to the level of play and the offensive and defensive schemes. This was only the first game in a ten game season and this is only the second year in a multi-year effort to build a great program. I have little doubt that NW and other coaches will succeed over time. Please don't let the disappointment of overly high immediate expectations spoil your attitude. NW is off to a great start building something special for the players and the fans.
I agree with the last poster; well said. Let's remember that Fordham can turn around its program pretty quickly because it doesn't have the type of restraints that Ivy teams have in recruiting scholar athletes. Granted it is a Patriot League team without athletic scholarships, but they can admit players who are not as strong academically. This isn't sour grapes, just a reflection of the facts of life.
No place to go but up! We still love our guys and know they have it in them to pull through and win some games this season. GO LIONS!
Interesting point made by the poster about Fordham's recruiting advantage. In that regard, I note that the Sunday New York Times article on the Columbia-Fordham game indicated that Fordham's star freshman running back, Xavier Martin, was not cleared to play by the NCAA Clearinghouse until game #3 of the season, which happened to be the Columbia game. What exactly does that mean? The Times sportswriter raised the issue, but then utterly failed to explain what happened. Lousy journalism. Was this a question of Xavier Martin's academic eligibility or something else? Why would it take three games for the NCAA to clear Martin to play at Fordham? Anyone have the answer?
I smell a rat regarding Xavier Martin. somebody should be looking into this. Fordham complains about our not releasing our two deep but then slips a ringer onto the roster. sounds like Penn a few years ago with Mitch Marrow; if Fordham played an ineligible player then it should have to forfeit the game.
Let's try not to go over the top on the Martin issue. The NCAA Clearinghouse could have been waiting for official transcripts of summer school grades that were not reported until late August or maybe late SAT or ACT retake results. It takes some time after all the official paperwork is in to clear the athlete. Privacy laws prevent Fordham from sharing Mr. Martin's academic situation. I doubt that there is any way that Fordham played academically ineligible first year impact player. Do you think no one would notice? If they really were dumb enough to cheat, why hold him out the first two games including their first loss.
I do not believe anyone is seriously suggesting that Fordham did anything improper in playing Martin, but the question has not been answered as to exactly what NCAA Clearhinghouse approval means in this situation. The New York Times sportswriter brought the point up in the beginning of his article and then offered no clarification. I thought NCAA Clearinghouse approval was necessary only when a player's high school grades or test results did not meet a certain bare minimum standard. If the privacy laws prevents Fordham from explaining exactly what happened, then the Times should not have mentioned this is the first place because the kid's academic reputation has been unfairly damaged. I don't think that's being fair to Martin. Fordham should be able to simple say that the NCAA was waiting for this or that result. Then the matter would be closed.
Let's get serious here. At the risk of hearing a lot of sour grapes, it just isn't hard to get into Fordham. There is no banding like we have in the Ivies. It isn't a tough school. Period. They can pretty much admit anybody they want. So they can load their team with ringers.
Actually, it does sound a lot like sour grapes. It is harder to get into Columbia but to suggest that it is a breeze to get into Fordham is pretty silly. We just got beat by a better team. Last year, we were the better team. Let's show some class when we lose.
fordham guy here .....thanks for the cup!!
I'd like to make it be known that although Fordham is not Ivy League, the average SAT score for incoming freshman is around 1400 on the old SAT scale, which does not qualify as "easy to get into." The fact that someone questioned the freshman Martin's eligibility is just asinine. Someone said it right; lose with class (since we didn't do it on Saturday night by leaving our first team offense on the field to score on Fordham's second team D). Let's stop whining, lick our wounds, and get ready for Marist.
Yes, we should move on to Marist, but that last comment criticizing the coaches for keeping the Columbia first team on the field to score against the Fordham second team was totally ridiculous and insulting to the Columbia coaches and fans. I've been around football for thirty + years and have never heard anyone criticize any coach whose team was losing for trying to put some points on the board late in the game no matter who was playing on the defense. Moreover, there were still plenty of first string defenders on the field for Fordham. Finally, Columbia scored on that drive with a couple of reserves of its own on the field. Anyway, let's move on to the Marist game and a victory for Columbia. Go Lions!
All D-1 BCS and FCS football players must be cleared by the NCAA Clearinghouse before they can play. The players must have their official High School Transcript and SAT (or ACT) test scores sent directly to the clearinghouse. The clearinghouse then reviews these documents to insure that the player meets or exceeds the minimum NCAA academic requirements for eligibility. If they meet the minimum requirement, they are cleared to play. If you are late with your transcript (for whatever reason) you won't be cleared until it is in and processed. Martin's documents must have come in late or had some problems that held up his clearance until last week.
I think that all that Fordham did say about Martin was that he wasn't cleared by the clearinghouse to play until last week. It's not that complicated!
Unless someone has very specific information to back up their insinuations then there's absolutely no reasonable basis to question whether Fordham was using "ringers" or otherwise ineligible players. Whatever Fordham fans may think of their overall Athletics Department management, the one thing they haven't had to worry about is NCAA compliance issues or scandals. It could very well be that Martin's start was delayed because of late paperwork or turnaround - these things do still happen, and quite frequently from what I have heard. Those anonymous posters who suggest otherwise need to toughen up their tender egos and learn to lose with some grace and humility.
I agree. Let's stop this academic snobery right now. Fordham is an excellent school and the senior Coven beat us just as badly as the newly-cleared frosh Martin.
Jake, was I seeing straight on Saturday night? The Fordham OL seemed absolutely enormous to me. They looked like an NFL line. What are they feeding those guys?
Not only did Fordham have a big line, but it's a veteran line as well. The more I look at the Ivy League, the more I see offensive line turmoil, even at schools where you don't expect attrition and dissension like Harvard and Penn.
Columbia will face similar challenges when we face Lafayette, but after that things may smooth out.
Post a Comment
<< Home