-
Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts, upgrade to remove ads and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your BigSkyFans.com experience today!
McNeese State Thread
- Thread starter PSUVikings2
- Start date
McNeese75 said:
Don't let the low number of returning starters on defense fool you. Or the defensive stats from last year for that matter. We played three D1A schools last year, one of which (a bowl team) we didn't let reach the endzone. Take away the Cal and Oregon games and you're looking at a top ten defense from last year. The shift to a 3-4 and the four returning starters may make have some programs coming in with false confidence early in the season...
PSUVikings2
Active member
McNeese75 said:
We held the Griz to 26 points, look at you guys, gave up 31 points in the snow. /users/31/07/37/smiles/246125.gif Really it seems the only thing MSU has on us right now is the weather and home field advantage. PSU won the last meeting big, we payed the tougher schedule last season and won just as many games, and we now have a better coaching staff. So all I've heard this off-season is "It's going to be hot".....thats it......anything else MSU fans? Like I don't know something about your football team?
JohnStOnge
Member
PSUVikings said:
I think being more accustomed to the heat and humidity will be one thing to favor McNeese. Also, it will be PSU's first game utilizing totally new systems. There may be some changes at McNeese because Viator took over in the middle of last season. But he was already the offensive coordinator and I don't think he'll change the defense that much. He's going to run some 4-3 instead of all 4-2-5 but I don't think that's as much of a change as PSU's is implementing.
One team, McNeese, is going to have a lot of starters back playing in schemes similar to what they're accustomed to. PSU won't have that.
Another thing: McNeese's big weakness last season was that it couldn't stop power running games. It had a lot of speed on defense but was small and soft in the middle. I think an offense like the run and shoot would have been a better matchup for last year's McNeese team than a smash mouth offense was. Montana did what it did to McNeese by playing smash mouth. Yes, it did well throwing the ball too. But the Griz had McNeese reeling trying to stop the run.
As for the 2004 PSU/McNeese game: That may have been McNeese's worst team since 1987. There was a 3-8 McNeese team in 1996...but that one was in a lot of close games and actually scored more points (236) than it gave up (225) for the season. The 2004 team was outscored by 423 - 262.
What I'm [/i]hoping is that this McNeese team will be back up to the standards usually prevalent during 1991 - 2002. In particular, I'm hoping it's a lot stouter on the inside on defense against power running games this year.
But, like I said, I think the kind of offense PSU is planning to run is actually a good matchup for McNeese's defensive personnel.
PSUVikings2
Active member
JohnStOnge said:
Thank you John, been waiting for something like that. We have only 1 power RB that has proven himself on the field, named Bobby McKlintock, he is a pre-season All-American and will start at RB mainly cause of his blocking ability. Our only struggles last year were on offense, Sawyer Smith, our former QB, was not clutch to say the least. When we needed him to come through he didn't. This year we have 2 QB's with lots of talent, Former Colorado QB Brian White and Tygue Howland, as of todays practice Howland is the starter. The WR's you need to be worried about are Reggie Joseph and most of all Tremayne Kirkland. On Defense will we be strong once again. We see FCS teams beat FBS teams all the time, but few can hold them to 6 points as we did to New Mexico, who ended up in a bowl game. Our defense will be anchored by LB Jordan Senn, FS Micheal Dorsey, and highly touted LB Andrew Schantz. So none the less we will field a very good team again. Don't let that 7-4 record fool you, we would have been 9-2 had we not played 2 FBS Top 25 schools.
JohnStOnge
Member
I have a lot of respect for what PSU did on defense last year. I think PSU should have been in the playoffs. However, I tend to have my hope for having McNeese beat PSU bolstered by the observations that 1) PSU only has 4 2006 defensive starters returning and 2) it will be the first live game for PSU players who've been there (starters or not) playing in Glanville's 3-4 defense.
And I know I already said it but I'm optimistic about the chances of McNeese's defensive personnel being able to match up against a "run and shoot" type offense. Honestly, I'd be more concerned about Portland State's offense if it were not changing to the run and shoot.
And I know I already said it but I'm optimistic about the chances of McNeese's defensive personnel being able to match up against a "run and shoot" type offense. Honestly, I'd be more concerned about Portland State's offense if it were not changing to the run and shoot.
PSUVikings2
Active member
JohnStOnge said:
This offense has had incredible results everywhere its been, the only issue I see with the MSU game is we have no time to work the kinks out. This offense has more ways to beat teams then just passing. It all about the QB and his WR's, If Howland/White can start getting to the WR's early(Kirkland, Tarver, Joseph) then MSU could be in trouble. You never want to be in a shoot out with PSU. But that would only happen if we came out on absolute fire. But realtistically it will proabbly take time. Working the kinks out on a ranked team wasn't the best idea.
JohnStOnge said:
There were times last year when I wished that we'd switched to the run and shoot at halftime. ;-)
JohnStOnge
Member
martymoose said:
You have to understand that, from my standpoint, the problem McNeese had last year is that it had small D tackles and linebackers and teams could run right at them with power. From what I've seen of the run and shoot...which is basically from watching the Houston Gamblers (was that the name) of the USFL when Mouse Davis was there and Hawaii...I think that type of offense is the best type for McNeese's defensive personnel to match up with.
I'm hoping they're stronger inside against the run on defense against power attacks this year, but if they're not I'd rather see them playing against the run and shoot than against...say...the type of offense Youngstown State traditionally played.
PSUVikings2
Active member
JohnStOnge said:
There have been lots of teams that have great secondaries that have been toasted by the R&S, many teams that tried to put 5 guys out to watch the WR's, sometimes it worked, most of the time it didn't. This offense isn't like your typical spread offense that Urban Meyer runs at UF, the reason I see PSU having success against MSU is because they are not familiar with it. Like I said this offense isn't just passing 40 times a game, there are lots of other ways to beat you guys with it.
McTailGator
Active member
McNeese72 said:
Heat Stress Calculations for Lake Charles for this week.
Practical Heat Stress Calculator
Task Identifier Lake Area weather
Physical Parameters of the Task and Environment (Actual or Simulated)
Dry bulb (standard) temperature °F
[enter as Celsius or Farenheit] 95
Relative Humidity (%) 76
Evaluate workforce acclimatization
Evaluate impact of clothing, FRCs and certain PPE
Evaluate the level of the physical workload
Evaluate the solar load
Calculated Parameters of the Heat Stress Model
Heat Index (°F) 126
Heat Index adjustment due to workforce acclimatization 10
Heat Index adjustment due to impact of PPE or other clothing 0
Heat Index adjustment due to the physical workload 5
Heat Index adjustment due to the solar load 0
Heat Stress Interpretation
Adjusted Heat Index (°F) 141
NONE - Adjusted Heat Index less than 90°F (32°C). No adverse impact expected
LOW RISK - Adjusted Heat Index more than 90°F (32°C) and less than 104°F (40°C). Heat exhaustion or cramps possible.
MEDIUM RISK - Adjusted Heat Index more than 104°F (40°C) and less than 130°F (54°C). Heat cramps or exhaustion likely. Heat stroke possible.
HIGH RISK - Adjusted Heat Index more than 130°F (54°C). Heat stroke very likely
Severe Heat Illness Risk Level High
Recommended Actions
Reschedule activity to a time when the adjusted heat index is lower or find other means to reduce heat load
Allow workers time to acclimate
Reduce the level of physical effort involved in the task
Source = US Army Training tool
McTailGator
Active member
McNeese75 said:McNeese72 said:
Doc, let me add, I am watching the 10:00 PM local weather and the heat index is still 91
Sure is toasty in Cowboy land /users/31/07/37/smiles/smily34.gif
Sure wish it was 68 degrees here (like it is in Portland at 8:30)
Practical Heat Stress Calculator
Task Identifier Portland Area Weather
Physical Parameters of the Task and Environment (Actual or Simulated)
Dry bulb (standard) temperature °C °F
[enter as Celsius or Farenheit] 75
Relative Humidity (%) 57
Evaluate workforce acclimatization
Evaluate impact of clothing, FRCs and certain PPE
Evaluate the level of the physical workload
Evaluate the solar load
Calculated Parameters of the Heat Stress Model
Heat Index (°F) 78
Heat Index adjustment due to workforce acclimatization 0
Heat Index adjustment due to impact of PPE or other clothing 0
Heat Index adjustment due to the physical workload 5
Heat Index adjustment due to the solar load 0
Heat Stress Interpretation
Adjusted Heat Index (°F) 83
NONE - Adjusted Heat Index less than 90°F (32°C). No adverse impact expected
LOW RISK - Adjusted Heat Index more than 90°F (32°C) and less than 104°F (40°C). Heat exhaustion or cramps possible.
MEDIUM RISK - Adjusted Heat Index more than 104°F (40°C) and less than 130°F (54°C). Heat cramps or exhaustion likely. Heat stroke possible.
HIGH RISK - Adjusted Heat Index more than 130°F (54°C). Heat stroke very likely
Severe Heat Illness Risk Level None
Recommended Actions
No action need at this time
Notes on the Use of this Tool
When measuring Dry Bulb Temperature, be sure to measure the temperature at the point work is being performed in case a heat source greater than ambient temperature is collocated to the work area and impacting the crew.
Individual reactions to heat will vary. Risk levels are determined based upon the responses to heat stress of average males of average fitness level. Individual differences may increase the risk levels and should be considered when evaluating the heat stress risk level.
Chart provides guidelines for assessing the potential severity of heat stress. This chart is not meant to replace heat stress assessments using Wet Bulb Globe Temperature Index or Required Sweat Rate. If the appropriate psychometric measuring capabilities are available, then they should be considered for use and the results considered more accurate than those obtained from the above methodology
References
U.S. National Weather Service
U.S. NIOSH Publication 86-113 “Occupational Exposure to Hot Environments”
HSE RESEARCH REPORT 008 – “The development of a practical heat stress assessment methodology for use in UK industry”, Damian Bethea & Ken Parsons, Department of Human Sciences, Loughborough University
U.S. Army CHPMM – Heat Stress Assessment
McTailGator
Active member
laxVik said:
Great, now turn the water off, put on a bunch of pads, bring in the sunlight with 90 other people in your bathroom and go run about 4 miles in that.
But the real numbers you need to look at is the Heat Stress Interpretation or the Adjusted Heat Index of 141 (°F) in Lake Charles vs 83(°F) in Portland.
That is what it will feel like wearing pads and helmuts and running around on September 1st.
That is a 58° difference! There is a difference.
I was in the Army and trained at Fort Polk in June. The heat with all my equipment on was not that great of a factor. I've also lived my entire life in the North West. So you can put out all the statistical data from the Army you like. In the end the players on the field will decide the out come of the game not the weather. PSU's biggest obsticle will be your defense against out new system of offense. I wish I could go watch the game, because I think it will be a good one.
