I don't think that anyone's concerned about this game anymore, but just in case:
Re-watched it. I believe that our assessment should rest entirely on the first half. We won that half 31-10. WF moved the ball some, but mainly by not trying to run much and relying on an extremely competent short-passing QB.
Our DLine rush did not get to him because he was so quick, but enough pressure occurred anyway to keep almost all plays to shorter non-home-run attempts --- so WF had to string multiplay drives down the field to score, which basically they didn't.
Concerning the 10 points they DID get. Three points were in the first quarter --- Morgan and Coney played that entire quarter as Elko was being careful with Martini. If people insist on blaming Martini for anything regarding opponent ball movement, those yards had nothing to do with him. Morgan was largely unheard of --- also not his "fault" --- as Elko uses him as the fifth blitzer through the meathouse middle, as he is the stronger of the three MLBs. The WF scheme was too quick for Morgan to get all the way there just like the DLine.
The touchdown they got in the second quarter was a wide gashed middle run essentially untouched to the house. Morgan was on the bench, and Coney and Martini on the field. C&M were positioned outside the tackles with a middle gap. When the line opened up, Coney didn't see it until too late, and though unblocked did not get there. Martini DID see it, but had two blockers to fight through. Neither safety saw the play in time. So whose fault was this? One might blame the DLine for not closing the gap better, or Coney (the closest unblocked linebacker) for missing the read, or more justly one of the safeties for not at least stopping a touchdown. I would rather say that "sometimes the other guys just make a good play."
In my opinion, after leading 31-10, it was tough for the staff to fire up an exam-week tired, and emotionally slightly depressed team (due to Wimbush and Adams injuries), and we just came out flat wanting to get it over with.
One other thing of interest to me and possibly no one else: of the 31 first half drives/points, Tommy Kraemer was the RT on 28 of them. The Hainsey/Kraemer alternation is surely a good idea, or Harry wouldn't be doing it, but Big Tommy is a fooler --- WAY better in an all-results evaluation than some might think. Harry must have a plan which is a good one, so this leaves me to speculate. My (arrogant) guess is that St. Harold sees Hainsey as a coming ZMart-quality force at tackle because of his quickness and footwork, and the other BIGBOY as a roadgrader extraordinaire at guard next year.
The Miami game interests me for many reasons obviously, but one of them is how our two young stud RTs do on their shifts.