It’s fair to say that expectations are extremely high for Hobart in 2009 with the pre-season national ranking, and defending another league championship. Further, the Statesmen gained national respect in DIII circles just for holding their own for one half before eventually getting blown out by perennial powerhouse Mount Union.
That said, I have no idea how this Statesmen team will perform. They could go 9-0 and back into the NCAAs or end up 5-4. Realistically, 8-1 or 7-2 is the more likely scenario since: that a) Hobart hasn’t gone undefeated in LL play since 2004 and b) the Statesmen have lost one LL game a year (either to Union or RPI) since then. Either way, the keys to another successful run will likely depend on:
1. Reloading at QB – It is no coincidence that Hobart’s success in the past 8+ seasons is based on two key elements: great defense and great QB play. Although Doyle did a solid job (and certainly earned his spot in the record books for having one of the better seasons at QB for Hobart), he wasn’t the prototypical all-around-athlete Statesmen fans have grown used to after guys like Swanson ’04, Mizro ’07, and Strom ’08). Vella showed this same athletic potential – especially against RPI – but flamed out the next week. His development, or lack thereof, will have a big impact on 2009 for Hobart. The guys waiting in the wings could be really strong as well, so we’ll have to see how it plays out.
2. Improving the rush defense – The Statesmen defense was, as it almost always is for a Cragg coached team, a cornerstone to the 2008 season. That group will certainly be remembered for all-time performances such as 21 tackles by Hager against CMU. However, Hobart also gave up an average almost 150 yards rushing a game and were torched on multiple occasions for north of 200 by talented RBs and/or mobile QBs. The primary issue seemed to be weakness of pursuit off-tackle by the DE and OLB positions given the interior defense was extremely stacked. For example, Union’s Coney made a living running off tackle in last year’s Union game and the Wing-T (CMU) and other strong rushing teams gave Hobart fits. Still, Hobart lived, as they have for many years on their own “bend-but-don’t-break” style of ball-hawking, big-play, goal-line-stand, and winning-the-turnover-battle type of play (in other words: what do I know . . . ?).
3. Developing a “feature back” – Hobart has yet to really have a true “feature back” since the graduation of Doug Blakowski ’07 and have relied primarily on a “committee approach” to their rushing attack during the ’07 and ’08 campaigns. Although it’s great for multiple guys to get touches in games, in general I’d argue most coaches would prefer to have a RB they know they can hand the ball to 15-20 times a game and get consistent yardage. Marlier has the opportunity to fill this role for the ’09 edition of the Statesmen. Even after a slow start, Marlier came into his own late in 2008.
4. Improving in the red zone – Last season the Statesmen were only 55% (vs. 65% for their opponents) successful in red-zone TDs going 28 for 55 (opponents were 20 for 31). Hobart also came away with points on 36 of 51 (or 71% vs. 23 for 31 or 74% for opponents). All this analysis I have proffered here doesn’t mean a thing if Hobart can’t score more points than their opponents.
Okay, enough analysis and speculation – I hope you’ve enjoyed these initial posts and are half-as-excited as I am about the upcoming season. I plan to update the Statesmen’s status as the season progresses. Any additional insights, coverage, etc. is welcomed as I am all the way out here in Los Angeles with only the Internet and WEOS to keep me posted on Hobart’s progress.
Thanks again for reading and GO BART!
No comments:
Post a Comment