Getting Nasty Out There for A Coach

We work hard for the analysis and commentary that you find on SFN to be accurate. But, whatever is blogged here will almost always be blogged with uncompromising emotion because we are fans. In case you didn’t notice, the name of the site is StateFANSnation.

In today’s N&O, Chip Alexander highlighted most of the key on-field/execution problems surrounding NC State football this year and penned a nice article that was dead on with many of the observations that you have read here — just without the ‘fan emotion’.

In ‘Slumping Wolfpack seeks solutions’ Alexander goes into detail about:

(1) A SLOW-STARTING OFFENSE
(2) THE RASH OF PENALTIES
(3) THE TURNOVER MARGIN
(4) SHAKY KICKING GAME

Alexander also references a video that has popped up on YouTube highlighting many of the Pack’s problems this year by using the team’s video introduction that is played on the Carter-Finley scoreboard before every game. (Which is odd since we have never been able to find the actual Carter-Finley scoreboard intro on YouTube!)

The video that Alexander is referencing is actually the second video embeded in this entry. We are calling your attention to another video that was done last year in the first video below to highlight the consistency of the broken-record of the problems within NC State football regardless of what year the calendar shows.

About StateFans

'StateFansNation' is the shared profile used by any/all of the dozen or so authors that contribute to the blog. You may not always agree with us, but you will have little doubt about where we stand on most issues. Please follow us on Twitter and FaceBook

'06 Football Chuck Amato General

123 Responses to Getting Nasty Out There for A Coach

  1. Packaholic1 11/01/2006 at 5:21 PM #

    Bobby Bowden said it best: “If a coach starts listening to the fans, before long he’ll find himself sitting with them.”

  2. class of 74 11/01/2006 at 5:44 PM #

    ^I’d say so far CTC hasn’t listened to anybody. This mess is his own creation and that’s the problem. He doesn’t know how to fix what he’s messed up, he has no earthly clue. In business it’s called the Peter Principle and he is a classic example.

  3. legacyman 11/01/2006 at 5:55 PM #

    I would guess that Chuck knows quite well how to fix the so-called mess but there isn’t another Philip Rivers available at this point for us. There are a few high profile programs having similar problems and so why is it so odd that we might have a down year? I mean FSU, Miami, unc-ch, Alabama, UCLA(I think maybe), etc. It happens. Unless you are a ND or OSU or someone similar then you don’t have a world beater team every year and maybe you have two or three crap teams before you can restock and reload. I really enjoyed the Gator Bowl year and so we are paying for it now as the law of averages bites us. The tarheel fans would trade their record under Bunting for our record under Chuck.

  4. db321 11/01/2006 at 6:53 PM #

    ^ Apparently Amato is still God in your eyes because of one Gator Bowl trip, which State got only because our fans travel better than the two other schools that actually finished ahead of us in the standings.

    And you say, “a down year”, as in one down year? Try four down years. That’s right, F-O-U-R years of underachieving. Rivers’ senior year was a disaster because Chuck would not adjust his defense to compensate for no pass rush. He stubbornly played man coverage all year long, while our DBs were beaten week after week. I believe we had the 2nd worst pass defense in the nation that year. Our offense was great and had Amato not been so stubborn, we could have won many more games that year. The two years and this year were clearly down years.

    Considering how down the ACC is this year and how weak our OOC games are, we should have a much better record than we have now. The bottom line is Amato has been underachieving for a long time.

  5. Wolfpack4ever 11/01/2006 at 7:40 PM #

    cfpack03 Says: What’s the best offensive approach to beat GT?

    Clemson pounded away, rushing “straight up� for the majority of the game, to beat GT. I know B&B are fully capable, but with all the complaints about our OL, are we man enough for this?
    GT blitzes and blitzes often. Will Evans have enough time for a throw downfield?
    Quick swing passes to the flats can be effective against secondary blitzes, but we all hate seeing them called. Any suggestions?”

    For one the shovel pass (which I haven’t seen all year) takes advantage of hard charging linemen AND can be “up the gut.” “Hot reads” vs. the blitz get the ball in areas where they ain’t. Fake dives plays with quick passes on slants (hard to do to WR with both split wide) to the tight end have been effective. Inside reverses get the ball in the hands of our running backs while creating blocking angles that make it easier for our line. Middle screens to the running back or FB (Toney Baker) I formation with a lead blocker which I saw once (could have been more) in the Wake game. As a defender wouldn’t you hate to decide which back was getting the ball — AB or TB — using quick hitters and counters. Again good blocking angles.

    If this isn’t enough, drop by any midget league practice and observe.

  6. Wolfpack4ever 11/01/2006 at 7:47 PM #

    GAWolf Says: “Amato has failed every year to put an emphasis on the O-Line in recruiting in leiu of picking up the flashy back or receiver.”

    I know these have been the results but I was wondering how you knew that was his emphasis. Others here seem to think he whiffed on good O-line recruits.

    Which leads to the question, why are O-linemen so scarce? I got an opinion. Acknowledging that opinions are like assholes — we all got them and they all smell — here goes: it is more fun racking up stats and aclaim racking and sacking than it is being anonymous in the O-line. So more good athletes of size and agility are playing on the D side of the ball.

    Any other thoughts or ideas or opinions?

  7. Woof Wolf 11/01/2006 at 7:48 PM #

    Michigan State is firing thier coach. The first two possible replacements mentioned on ESPN were Butch Davis and Norm Chow.

  8. redfred2 11/01/2006 at 9:13 PM #

    I had an elaborate stat post on the 2 drives out the total of 12 for the day. The one that ended in a missed FG late in the 2nd , and the late drive for a TD in the fourth. But everything has already said in great posts from others like Mr O and Woof Wolf.

    Two simple but blaring similarities on those drives:

    1) Both scoring opportunities were set up totally by the pass, nothing else. There were less than 10 yds rushing combined, on the two best scoring opportunities all day.
    2) Both were LATE, when the clock was becoming a factor.

    There were 12 possessions last week, we scored on ONE. A 90 yd drive with 87 of those yards via the DOWN FIELD pass.

    I think this may a similar situation to the early season QB debacle in that these coaches are kinda slow to change their minds and move in a different direction, but when they finally do…

    I expect to see the ball in the air, down field, early and often this upcoming Saturday night. There were 11 scoreless possessions last weekend, so is the difference with a turnover through the air. Give me one or two scores every week, and the defense can hold up it’s own end.

  9. redfred2 11/01/2006 at 9:15 PM #

    ^so “what” is difference

  10. redfred2 11/01/2006 at 9:17 PM #

    typo correction of typo correction ^so “what” is “the” difference

  11. Woof Wolf 11/01/2006 at 9:58 PM #

    “typo correction of typo correction ”

    Have another beer.

  12. Wolfpack4ever 11/01/2006 at 11:22 PM #

    RAWFS Says: “So average fans like us know more about which plays have a better chance of succeeding than men who are highly compensated and have years of experience playing/coaching at various levels of football?�

    People may not know what would work better, but they can certainly identify what didn’t and second-guess it.

    If the coaches had tried the plays that “work” and they didn’t work, could it be because the opponents DC knew we were going to try the plays that worked and were ready for them? 😉 Said another way, execution makes plays work, not the plays themselves.

  13. Pack Laddie 11/02/2006 at 8:47 AM #

    “high profile programs having similar problems and so why is it so odd that we might have a down year? I mean FSU, Miami, unc-ch, Alabama, UCLA”

    did I just read high profile program and UNC-CH in the same sentence? this ain’t basketball

    LMFAO

  14. cfpack03 11/02/2006 at 10:33 AM #

    It will be interesting to see how we come out on Saturday. Personally, I’d like to see some no-huddle. It seems like Evans handles it extremely well and maybe it’ll put the D on their heels a bit.
    Amato is quoted in the observer as saying GT has the most elaborate blitzing scheme in the nation.

    Also, Glenn states in the comments section of his most recent post, that UNC is all about Butch Davis until you hear otherwise.

  15. partialqualifier 11/02/2006 at 11:59 AM #

    Let’s hope that Ga Tech doesnt have the most complicated blitzing schemes in the country. Hell, we cant even figure out how to move the ball against UVa’s vanilla blitz packages!!

    And Kudos for mentioning the incredible mismatch b/w our OC & Tech’s DC! That’s like me vs that Russian kid in Chess!!! Blow out city BABY!!! (Hey….bball season is coming so why not a Dickie V reference!!!)

  16. redfred2 11/02/2006 at 2:15 PM #

    “Amato is quoted in the observer as saying GT has the most elaborate blitzing scheme in the nation.”

    Of course Amato said that. He’ll be staring that elaborate blitz package squarely in the face this Saturday night. He wants all of us Wolfpack fans to know just how well coached and “elaborate!!!” the Yellow Jacket’s defensive schemes are.

    Kind of an early reality check/early warning for us, just in case…

  17. Packaholic1 11/02/2006 at 5:49 PM #

    “If this isn’t enough, drop by any midget league practice and observe.”

    That’s the level of “expert” comment we get from fans on the internet…

  18. Wolfpack4ever 11/02/2006 at 11:11 PM #

    Packaholic1 Says: ““If this isn’t enough, drop by any midget league practice and observe.â€? That’s the level of “expertâ€? comment we get from fans on the internet”

    Packaholic1 Says,Tanks for the perfect example of taking something out of context that you find on the internet.

    What preceded your attempt to ridicule by taking remarks out of context was: ‘For one the shovel pass (which I haven’t seen all year) takes advantage of hard charging linemen AND can be “up the gut.â€? “Hot readsâ€? vs. the blitz get the ball in areas where they ain’t. Fake dives plays with quick passes on slants (hard to do to WR with both split wide) to the tight end have been effective. Inside reverses get the ball in the hands of our running backs while creating blocking angles that make it easier for our line. Middle screens to the running back or FB (Toney Baker) I formation with a lead blocker which I saw once (could have been more) in the Wake game. As a defender wouldn’t you hate to decide which back was getting the ball — AB or TB — using quick hitters and counters. Again good blocking angles.’

    I looked for to see what you thought might work against GT but couldn’t find it. Would you mind posting it again?

  19. Packaholic1 11/03/2006 at 8:38 AM #

    I looked for your credentials to post “what you thought might work against GT” but couldn’t find any.

  20. brown pelican 11/04/2006 at 1:28 AM #

    evans in the no-huddle is a great idea—he thinks and sees things quickly—might just give us an edge—he made it work in high school with a group of overachievers—give it a try

  21. Wolfpack4ever 11/04/2006 at 9:56 AM #

    Packaholic1 Says: “I looked for your credentials to post “what you thought might work against GTâ€? but couldn’t find any.”

    I’m registered here. That’s all it takes or haven’t you noticed.

  22. Wolfpack4ever 11/04/2006 at 10:06 AM #

    Packaholic1 Says: “I looked for your credentials to post “what you thought might work against GTâ€? but couldn’t find any.”

    I’m registered here. That’s all it takes or haven’t you noticed. Paackaholic, I find your attempt at put down for having an opinion here on SFN quite comical. What are the qualifications? Having one to many beers? Having the ability to take something out of context? Tell me, what list of quailfications should one strive for in order to suggest something as was the request?

  23. Packaholic1 11/05/2006 at 3:41 PM #

    You well meet the qualifications to be an internet expert – I was in error.

Leave a Reply