Backing up a bit, plus an answer

Hey guys. I had a family thing Sunday, was in the office Monday and was at the Red Sox game Tuesday, so I haven't had the chance to sit down and blog in a while.
First off, thanks to Andrew Lovell for helping me with the Brian Fowler news from Tuesday. I got a tip, passed it on to him from Fenway, and he did a nice job giving you the particulars.
I'm going to practice Thursday, so I'll talk to Mac then, but for now I think it's fair to assume Nate Pagan is the new No. 1 back, though Everette Benjamin will get the chance to earn some more playing time as well. Eric Richardson's fullback role just became a lot bigger, too.
Do I think this changes the offense? In effectiveness, yes. I think Fowler was on the verge of a breakout year, and obviously he won't get that chance now. Do I think the others can develop into good backs? Yes. Do I think that happens as quickly as Fowler would have? No.
Both backs are inexperienced. Maybe they can develop into a thunder and lightning type of combination. If there's any good news to come from this, it's that they have two weeks to get things in order before NEC play starts.
Do I think this changes the way Central plays? Not even a little. Coach Jeff McInerney will talk about opening it up more, especially now, but we all know that, at the start of the day, never mind the end of it, he will be a run-first coach. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, just telling it like it is.
Which leads me to Big Blue's comment here, which I was going to make a separate post but I think it fits nicely here.
I think your sentiment is correct, but you're using the wrong word, which in this case is a big deal. It's not accurate to say Central isn't prepared to play first halves. Quite the opposite is true. They know their plan long before the game starts. It's to run it first and often as Blue said, until the defense is worn down. Part of the reason they had so many comebacks last year is because they wore down the opposition with the "ground and pound" as the coach of my Jets likes to call it.
You may not agree with the plan, and that's perfectly understandable. It's not always pretty football and it leaves VERY little margin for error. But you have to look at it as a give and take. Mac's theory, as best as I've figured it out over the last five years, is this: For every game Central might have put away earlier with more passing, the Devils have stayed in one longer by keeping things close with the running game.
Again, I'm not saying I always agree with the plan, though I am a big believer in ball control myself. And I'm not trying to convince you that the coach is right. I've criticized him too often on here to say anything like that. But don't mistake what you may feel is an ill-advised plan for a lack of preparation.
Central is prepared to run the ball until the game ends. For better or worse.
As for those adjustments: Of course Central makes some at the half, every team does. But I think it's more a case of the other team getting worn out, or stuffing the box to the point where something else has to be open more than Central adjusting on offense. Defensively, I think, is another story.
But as for New Hampshire? I think the biggest adjustment in the second half was the Wildcats deciding to be polite hosts. I'm not saying Central didn't play much better after halftime, it did. But UNH didn't seem like it was trying to run it up, either.