Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
We know in college football that the large state schools with the big alumni bases have a sognoficant advantage. What most strikes me as odd about this is how there are 6 teams in the ACC whose fans seemingly care (and this would expect the school to be trying). Four of those are in one division.
What’s also interesting was the placement of Louisville into the league. It was a time to rebalance things or at least shift a UVA or Pitt over.
I decided to sit on this one a bit before posting. The State boards were in meltdown mode, and I decided to let it simmer a bit.
I was frustrated watching it in front of the TV, and I wasn’t sitting out in the rain doing it. I can see how those sitting in the rain would have been highly frustrated. Maybe those were some posting, but I suspect that it was at most 50/50.
Before adding anything further, I figured I would mention that my preseason prediction was 8-4 (4-4) with a loss to Louisville. I figured these teams would be fairly even talent wise but Louisville had Petrino and would come in battle tested. I had hoped we’d win this, but wasn’t surprised that we didn’t.
I don’t want to rehash a bunch of stuff, other than some quick points:
– QB play: JB to me is more of a game manager and leader than a great throwing QB. He works best in a running offense throwing out of play action. He’s not good at routes of 10+ yards or checking down from his primary read.
– Louisville at 1-3: Their QB play has really improved. I think many of our fans (and maybe our players) looked at that record and thought it’d be an easy game. No moral victories, but that’s a better team than their record.
– Playcalling: Not a referendum on Canada, but not a defense either. It’s hard to call plays when the QB has a game that bad and the OL doesn’t open any holes for the running game. I did see open receivers. I didn’t see a lot of completed passes.
– Samuels: Absolutely needs the ball more. With Shad out, he’s the biggest weapon we have.
– Shad out: Was a distraction for the team.
– Weather: No excuses there. Both teams played in it.
– Early fumble: Really changed the tone of the game. Have a team that is 1-3 and if they give up an early score they start thinking “here we go again.” Instead they get that and then break the long run and it was huge for them. Bad break.
– Defense struggled with the QB read option. That’s a problem because most teams have that look now. Otherwise, they were pretty good.
– Schedule: Dead horse beaten, but we weren’t prepared by our schedule to play a good team. You could see it on the first long run when the guys were shocked we couldn’t just run the QB down.Here are some things that I’ve not really seen mentioned as much that concerned me:
– Sense of urgency: Once we scored early in the 3rd quarter, we basically shut it down for the rest of the game. I understand a defensive struggle, but it was like we kept hoping that Louisville would make a mistake and give us the ball in scoring position. Effectively we played right into Louisville’s hands by helping them burn the clock, shortening the game and limiting possessions. It’s fine to play that way, but you need to do it when you’re up 7, not down 7.
– Louisville defensive player saying in a post game interview that they knew what was coming based on how we were lined up. I’ve argued this many times over the past year. We’re multiple in looks, but very limited in options out of those looks. That might be great for a bowl game if you’ve not done it all year (think Rivers and NC State vs Kansas in that bowl), but if it’s the same 2-3 plays out of certain looks time and again (particularly in certain situations), it’s eventually easy to scheme around.
– BJD mentioned it, but the actual play call on 4th and 1 at the end was baffling. It was the best shot at play action to slip a guy like Samuels out with a chance to break one. Even if we’d have gotten that first down, we had no time outs and would have been deep inside our own territory. Clock management and situational awareness are things that this staff seems consistently weak on. The sense of urgency was bigger than this one play, but this play shows what I thought I was seeing time and again in the second half.foose: I’m not saying that we made this move because of other personnel. We made this move because the hand was essentially forced. Too many mistakes, and a media making a bit much ado than they would in a similar situation over at the Hill.
Regardless, I’ve felt we’d potentially see transfers or re-positioning in the RB space. We have a lot of talent there.
Also, I felt back in Dec/Jan when we were signing this many backs that we didn’t think Shad would be here. Maybe I’m wrong, but I thought it was a smart move at the time. I also thought it was a good hedging of bets.
grey: I started out there. Then I read that the Moped wasn’t titled and was being ridden on the sidewalk. If you do these, you’re playing with fire.
Now would I have handled the actual accident any differently? Probably not.
Did the kid or his mom smell some $$$? Probably.
Is it unfortunate? Yes, for all parties.
Too bad. The hand was seemingly forced. I agree with TexPack in that it wasn’t about this incident, but was about all the stuff leading up to it.
I always liked Shad and think he is a great talent. I think he can make a NFL roster, but it will be a large amount of work.
In a way this helps us out with the log jam in the backfield. I kind of felt like the staff didn’t think Shad would be here given we recruited so many backs.
Holy obscure channel Batman. This one WASN’T on the channels that the channel guide suggested. That has Lamar playing someone. In my market it’s on the “Live Well” network, which is an embedded 3rd channel off of a main channel.
Wild, but I’m watching, so I can’t complain.
Also Iām not sure V (or even Sloan or Case) would be so successful today as the landscape has changed much.
I can’t agree with this. V would have absolutely killed it if at NC State during the last 15 years.
What made UNC and their media lackeys hate him so much were the very things that were so far ahead of his time:
– TV personality
– National TV presence
– Tied in with SonnyV and Nike
– Fantastic interview and a sound byte a minute
– No publicity is bad publicity
– Good recruiter that could quickly retool a roster
– Fantastic in game coach
– Peaked in the postseason
They’d have made him wildly successful today.NC State would have had the type of run that Duke and UNC have had. Now, maybe because there were three horses as opposed to two, there wouldn’t be as many absolute titles, but I think we’d have at least had what Maryland and Wake had over those awful years.
I will agree that Gott is the best coach since V. He’s brought excitement and actual tangible results back to the program.
Talent and stacked classes are what we need to push us over the top. What NC State fans have failed to realize over the years is that it doesn’t take one top 5 type class to win a title. Kentucky, Duke, UNC, Kansas and to a lesser extent Louisville, Arizona, Michigan and UCLA are pulling in top 10 classes every year. Yes, they have attrition (but we do too). What they’re left with though is deep talent at every class, not one class trying to pull up the other 2-3 classes.
This staff is starting to stack classes and that’s the key. Sorry, but no in game coaching is going to make up for a severe talent gap. Even the most recent examples that people like to point to of coaching making up a delta (Butler under Brad Stevens and Bo Ryan at Wisconsin), they still had some really good players.
Not sure if those predicting 9+ are optimistic, or if I’m just pessimistic. It could be a little bit of both.
I do think that if the OL has a season like the last time we had 9+ regular season wins (Gator Bowl year), then we’ll win 9+ again. This offense has the balance needed to do so, and we have enough skill players. It will come down to the line.
I really hope those that are optimistic are right. My 8-4 prediction is admittedly “pulled down” by the history of NC State football. I don’t actually think Louisville and VT are very good, or on paper really better than we ware. I expect we’ll lose one of those, and possibly a WTF game at Wake or BC.
Maybe I’m just not drinking the Kool Aid like I should, but I don’t see 10 regular season wins on the schedule given that we play FSU, Clemson, Louisville and travel to VT. I don’t even seen 9. Mix that in with a trap game against BC, and I see 4 ACC regular season losses.
We’ll start off going 4-0 playing a soft schedule (though in S. Alabama a team better than its name suggests). From there, I think we’ll be 4-4.
We’re a year away. I kind of agree with BJD’s assessment.
I think we’re all a little close to this one because we’re all Rivers fans. Some of us are also San Diego fans.
I love Rivers. I’d rather have him than all but a few NFL starting QBs. I feared from the second Rivers went to SD that he’d end up like Marino. I was hoping he’d get out, but it hasn’t happened. It’s a shame.
Let’s look at this another way. Let’s say another middling small market team bouncing around the playoff marker (say KC Chiefs, Cincinnati, Minnesota, Buffalo) just made E. Manning the highest paid QB in football. What would we say? What would we say if they did that, and they were also rumored to be moving? What would we say if Eli had been there for years, is probably going to move out of his prime, and yet they still signed him despite never really winning anything? I’m just looking at this from a business angle.
rthomas44: It seems like you and I view it the same way. It’s possible to like Rivers, but not think that was a wise contract move by SD. I’d say the same thing if they inked Eli or Rothlesberger to the same contract.
There are some narratives here that kind of jump to mind:
– Rivers has been held back because of playing at SD. They have so many roster gaps that an aging QB isn’t going to fix them all.
– Rivers may have inflated stats because he’s been surrounded by a bad team.
– Rivers may have reduced stats because he hasn’t had good receivers.
– For whatever reason, Rivers hasn’t been able to put them over the hump. Some years they’ve not even made the playoffs.
– Because there are holes everywhere, sometimes it is wise to trade away the best assets one has in order to build for the future.I don’t know that there’s one universal truth. I kind of think all of them are true in a way.
I think this is a move to try to maximize wins in the short term. To me, that seems to suggest a desire to make the franchise as attractive as possible for a move.
Tau: I figured that was your opinion. It doesn’t make my opinion wrong.
On the metrics, I’m using the same source as you. I just interpret them differently than you. That can always be done with statistics/metrics.
The original point is what I would have done, which would not have been to extend unless I were moving the franchise and felt that having Rivers made franchise movement more attractive to LA. That’s the angle from which it makes sense to me, so that is what I suspect will happen. We shall see.
VAWolf82: I agree with you and mentioned that in the Marino parallel. I fully suspect that this contract will be revisited.
Tau:
Could it be possible that the local talk media for the Bolts spins things in a way that is appealing to the local fan? Might that analysis be possibly slanted to what people want to hear?
LA has a mixed history with NFL football. I’d argue the support isn’t necessarily automatically there given how many teams have moved out. You have to look no further than UCLA or the Lakers to see that the stadiums there get full for a winner, but people don’t show up for a loser. If you’re moving to LA, it’s better to bring something you can sell a ticket to. If that’s SD management’s thinking, then good for them.
Prior to this Rivers move, SD was 12th in the league in open cap space. After this move, they’ve still got open cap room. Maybe that’s good cap management, or maybe it’s a sign that they’re cheap? If you look at future projected cap spending in guaranteed contracts and take out the Rivers spend, they’re near the top in open cap space. Outside if this deal, it kind of supports the theory that the franchise is being run on the lower end of the scale. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but is consistent with the opinion of the Chargers from people who live in other markets.
Then you’ve got the general view of SD franchise management as a whole. The Mannings made the power play to avoid SD and they did it for a reason. Elway made a similar move years ago to get away from the Colts and it turned out to be a great thing for him. It looks like the same for Eli, with Rivers on the unfortunate end of that. Let’s be honest. Is there any doubt that Rivers would have been better off with the Giants?
I say all of this as someone who lives in a city with a horrible NFL team. It has terrible ownership and has a mess at the QB spot. I’d personally much rather have Rivers than the QBs this team has, but I see the teams as somewhat similar — with a lot of holes to fill. I’d also absolutely understand a player making a power play like Eli made to avoid playing on this particular team.
I personally wouldn’t have paid Rivers that. He’s a great player, and I love the guy, but he’s 33 years old, which by most studies of NFL positional age is on the back side of his career. The peak for QBs is typically 32 with performance reduction each season afterwards. This contract runs through when he’s 37. Very few QBs have played at a high level at that age and the ones that do are typically surrounded by very good teams. I already think he’s been playing injured for at least one full season.
Is that a combination that would result in making him one of the highest paid players in the NFL? Not personally for me. Given the backdrop of SD management, and the “bigger fish” (it’s in quotes because I’m not sure that I necessarily believe that) of LA, I think the reason they did was to make the move.
Of course, I could be completely wrong. I’m sure all Bolts fans in SD hope that’s the case.
Tau:
One thing we both have failed to mention is that it is the owners that ultimately pay these salaries. As you say, McCoy and Telesco could be on the street in a couple of years. I would argue that performance could be defined differently by different people. It’s not always about the W/L, but often about the bottom line of the business. When I think of SD as a franchise, I think of one that has historically been run on the cheap. I suspect one of McCoy and Telesco’s metrics that they’re measured on is probably the bottom line.
The one thing that I think might be in play here is that Rivers on the Bolts makes them better in the short term. That makes them more attractive for a move to LA. I suspect that could be the thinking of the owners. They can pitch “an emerging contender with a franchise QB” as opposed to a “young team that is building towards the future.”
I see this deal as a sign that the Bolts are moving, and that Philip is moving with them.
As much as I like PR, I wouldn’t have paid him that. I’d have probably traded with Tennessee for future draft picks, and built towards the future.
And as for PR, by taking this, he can almost guarantee that he won’t make the Super Bowl. Of course that might be the case with any of the teams that traded for him.
I am afraid that PR is following the path of my favorite football player of all time — Dan Marino. The parallels are eerily similar. I suspect that PR will end up renegotiating that contract down later in his career the exact same way.
With each passing year, the power play by the Mannings looks smarter and smarter. I hate to see Eli getting rewarded for that move, but it was a brilliant one.
I like looking at it this way and thinking about it this way. It feels like we’re all in for DSJ. That’s not meant as a slight to Dorn. It just feels like he is more of a combo.
I think Rowan is more of a scorer than a pure shooter like Wood was coming in. I think he can fill it up, but wonder how efficient a scorer he is. That will be interesting to see. He can already dunk more than Scott Wood. š
I loved Wood’s game and his shooting. We can only hope to have another one like him.
As for a step back, Lacey had a pretty good one last year. Really, he had pretty much all the types of shots.
Very good pick up and in my opinion our prize of this class (which also includes Dorin). I think he is a 4 year player and one like a Wood that other teams’ fans are going to think is here forever. I suspect that he’ll get significant minutes and shots this year. Can he play D? Remains to be seen.
I’m like Packfanistan. I think the goal for the season has to be getting that double bye. That would represent a consistently solid team, night in and out. That’s the next step for this program. I do think that like last year, we will be a dangerous team come tourney time. The three keys for whether we can take that next step seem to be keeping Cat healthy, how quickly we gel and whether we play any D.
It seems like a pretty simple scenario to me. When you:
– Charge students to show up to games, and raise student fees or actually charge ticket prices on top of student fees
– Make it hard for them to get there (off campus stadiums)
– Constantly interrupt the experience inside the stadium for TV interruptions
– Schedule games around TV, with their actual kick off time sometimes not decided until about a week before
– Charge $5 for a drink and $10 for a sandwich
– Have 1/3rd the games against opponents that no one cares about (and everyone does this, including the SEC except ironically the independents like ND or BYU)
– Chase the almighty dollar by catering to TV, but also over saturating the product
– Have a 4+ hour game experience for what amounts to about 45 minutes of actual on the field action.
– Have set up a system where 4/5s the games at the latter part of the season really don’t matter outside of local rivalries.You create a cocktail where college football has to compete against other ways to spend time and often comes out behind. The students aren’t dumb and they’re not a captive audience. I’m not surprised they’re taking their dollars and time elsewhere.
College football should look at golf. There are some striking parallels there.
The Universities should really care about this because of long term donations. One of the ways they surely justify the college sports investment (most running in the red) is for return on the back end with alumni giving. If people aren’t showing up to college events that “draw them to the school” then I suspect they’re not going to give as much down the road (at least at these large state schools).
It would be huge if we could land these two. Both of them can shoot, which is what we really need. I think our offense is a good fit for both and we’ve had to have shown from how we’ve handled other players in their positions that we’re going to let them shoot.
I’m not sure if Papa is going to play ball in the US. If so, then I think it’s Oregon and then NC State. He seemingly is thinking about his “brand” and the Nike connections. I have no clue whether that is remotely realistic, but it might be abroad.
Rowan might end up at SJU because of his dad. You also have to think Mullin is going to value perimeter shooting. I’d really like him because he looks like a 4 year player.
Kentucky has just reloading. I suspect these guys are a little “below” their radar.
I will say this. With Kirk, Dorn (admittedly has to sit) and these two guys, the staff will have done a great job with late recruiting. Of course that’s if we land either……..
The NCAA is going to do nothing. Be ready for it.
This Dean Smith award is another example. What does that award really mean? Systemic cheating?
And Roy’s as dirty as it gets. I really dislike him.
And, with that, they lose some leverage (and therefore cockiness) and often are better cultural fits for programs because their ass is now over a barrell!
So you like transfers because we’ve got leverage over them? Sorry, that’s just a bad message even if that is the way you feel.
I tend to think of them as somewhat risky. The pluses are that you have real film, that the second time through the process they may better understand what they’re looking form, they have something invested in the transfer year and they have a year to learn the system.
The cons are that they’ve “quit once,” that they may have some academic issues to make up in that off year, that they’re older (see Lacey), and that you invest in them a year before you get them on the court.
I don’t see why a kid won’t redshirt a year and develop, but will transfer and be forced to sit that year out. I don’t understand why programs won’t redshirt a player, but will take in a transfer (seemingly the same financial commitment). I think redshirting was the best thing that happened to Vandy while he was here.
Now, back to the original point of the post up top, I think Dorn was a good pick up for us. We’ve had good luck with transfers so it seems like this staff does a good job of evaluating them. If so, then this could be another valuable piece. If nothing else it gets us better players to practice with. I’m happy with the addition.
Woohoo!!! About @#($* time. And limiting this to the 18 years is generous.
Given these are academic scandals that undermine the mission of the university, I’m amazed they can stay accredited. I’m also amazed that they can stay in the Association of American Universities. Those are the ones that could really sting.
