Per the players, the team was “soft.” The team was a lot of things, but I didn’t really see “soft” as a major issue

Posted on September 9, 2026 at 03:05:27 PM by Craig

Or, if I did, it was well down the list of concerns. I’m much more worried about the offense appearing not to know what the fuck they were doing, a guy that doesn’t know how to block getting essentially starter’s snaps at an OL position, and a QB who spazzed out (again).

If anything, the team seemed a little over “hard” early on. Lots of things that could have been called as late hits, lots of tackles that looked like the goal was to decapitate moreso than to wrap up.

Back to the board

Thread:

Per the players, the team was “soft.” The team was a lot of things, but I didn’t really see “soft” as a major issue - By Craig September 9, 2026 at 03:05:27 PM
- one consistent thing i saw was the OL not finishing the blocks/not being nasty. but i trust Jim Harding* - By 6p September 9, 2026 at 03:21:39 PM
- I think the "soft" self-critique is probably just an over-generalization for tape that showed missed blocks on O and yards after contact (particularly late) on D. The latter was probably more due to the time the D spent on the field than anything.* - By ThWard September 9, 2026 at 03:08:47 PM
  - WMU won the battle at the LoS for most of the game and all of the second half. * - By plug September 9, 2026 at 03:19:29 PM
- blocking was definitely soft. Lots of stalk blocking. Lots of going to thump and not driving people back. - By Ronti September 9, 2026 at 03:08:14 PM

The Victors

Per the players, the team was “soft.” The team was a lot of things, but I didn’t really see “soft” as a major issue