Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Gowolves, i think hits it on the head…I’d add that in addition to Stevens, Wright back on the field and more snaps for Pratt has helped in pass coverage.
How does the playcalling change on offense and defense in the weeks to come as we face more difficult challenges?
More blitzes to generate pressure when we can’t or don’t get to QB with front 4? We’re not the same team that lost to SC, and we can improve. I think we’ll need to, both in situational coaching decisions, and in onfield performance. That’s not a complaint.
You play who’s on your schedule. At this point, I’m just not sure we’ve played a team that ends the season in the top-25 yet.
Excited about the upcoming two…but…the “big wins” this year don’t really look too big in hindsight. Big perhaps in terms of building momentum and confidence, and FSU and Louisville may well get it going. But based on the ball I’ve seen, the two best clubs we’ve faced thus far were SC and SU. SC is beat up to hell now without 3-4 starters at least, a far cry from who we played.
The good news, we still haven’t played our best game for 4 quarters. The bad, better play 4 good ones the next two. More speed on both sides of the ball than we’ve seen so far. And some solid interior line play to go with it.
I said I’d become a believer after the Louisville game…I lied. Still not there, a little closer. I want to pour it on at Notre Dame. Beat em by 3 scores.
My guess is that the NCAA ultimately made a decision that they had to cut their losses on this to focus on the more important unresolved issues stemming from the O’Bannon case.
There were some that assumed because of that case, the NCAA had to show a hard hand. But that was far from true. The pressure had to come from other schools and conferences, and it hasn’t. Until that happens, the shenanigans will continue.
Say what you want, UNC managed this to perfection. It wasn’t just the obfuscation, it was the intentional blurring of lines. The issue should’ve never been about “paper classes.” Ever. Stupid line of inquiry. That’s what an independent study largely is. There are plenty of classes that aren’t independent studies where a prof may require little work beyond a paper. And this has zilch to do with STEM school vs. “liberal arts.”
But the NCAA didn’t really make an effort to distinguish between these “paper classes” and the courses and grades that were entirely fabricated. I’ve never read the Weinstein report in full, but to my knowledge, the Weinstein report also failed to distinguish. The focus shoul’ve always been on fraudulent, as in, not appearing on a course catalog, not a properly authorized or supervised Independent Study. How many of these were available to the general student body?
More importantly, the academic angle led to a focus away from the glaring access to cars, paid for tickets, and a whole laundry list of impermissible benefits that there’s no evidence the NCAA ever explored adequately. They certainly don’t appear to have devoted anywhere close to the time on this as they did the academic angle. And it was all there.
^Think there’s something to the boundary pass observations. Safer for sure. And I suspect that the spread to run is definitely at play, with a preference for throwing wide to let the big WR block instead of running into a congested middle. I get all that strategy wise. But where I see it bogging down is in the red zone. Teams are more prone to blitz there, and you have less room to work. That leads to vulnerabilities and getting behind the sticks on second and third down. And it seems to me the risk of playing side to side there isn’t as effective.
Teams with fewer vulnerabilities on defense, like Notre Dame and Clemson, will present fewer weaknesses to exploit. I don’t see us getting the advantage against those teams playing side to side. Just as last year, the way you attack Clemson is straight ahead, even with big Dex stuffing the middle. I think they’re better on defense from what I’ve seen. Boulware was stout but he was a liability in the pass game. We hurt them last year when we got him isolated on Samuels and a few other. Went and saw the Irish whack the Holes this weekend, and I’m impressed by Notre Dame. That close early GA loss is looking better and better.
^Yep, Grey, I’ve heard the same on Pratt. Know his high school coach pretty well. Agree on the third down substitutions. I think the redshirt year helped him.
I don’t base my observations about the middle of the field on the Louisville game. It’s only year 2 with Drink, I know. As some of commented here before, very few slants, very few fades in red zone. Some nice throws against Louisville but the routes don’t tend to be in middle of the field. If it works, it works. But I think against better defenses, we need to utilize the whole field.
Some good wins. And we’ve still not seen a complete game of well played football for 4 quarters. I’ll be impressed when I see 4 quarters, and we dispatch the middle of the pack crowd. Win at Pitt. Give yourself a shot at South Bend. But good sign to win without having to be perfect.
Last year, the staff can say what it wants, but I think they drank their own Kool Aid after the close loss at Clemson. As deflating as that loss was, that game could’ve easily swung to a 3-4 TD loss, which was roughly the spread, if not for some untypical plays and turnovers by the Tigers. My point, we should, as Mac does, and the coaching staff says it does, continue to harp on improvement. Because there is plenty of room for it.
1. Drink is good between the 20s, but playcalling stinks in red zone.
2. Too often, we still seem to have a difficult time getting off the field on 3rd and medium or long.
3. Special teams, special teams, special teams.On 1, plays are too slow developing inside red zone. Some of the trick plays just seem badly conceived. Even if they’re designed correctly, the personnel is either wrong, or the execution is bad. TOO SLOW. Easily identifiable. And with the kicking game ups and downs, you have to think that you call the game down there as if you’re in 4 down territory if 4th is manageable.
Drink doesn’t utilize the middle of the field enough in the passing game. Not sure why. We have some success there.
Defense. More snaps for Pratt. Not just saying that because of the Pick6. As someone alluded to earlier, he’s too athletic to not be out there against spread teams.
Haven’t seen the Orange play much. Does their tempo include many substitutions? Or do they try to avoid it? Our depth on DL is moot, at least for a series, if they avoid it.
Good win. Credit to both sides of the ball. Still room for improvement.
For me, the good:
1. Made field goals
2. Exploited FSU’s weaknesses–QB and O’line plus their speed/aggressiveness
3. Maintained poise in and responded in spite of some hiccups late
4. Pressured the QB
5. Improved DB and LB playAreas for improvement:
1. I generally think Drink calls a good game between the 15-20’s, but red zone calls leave something to be desired. Slow developing runs outside or short passes to the outside; too often goes away from what’s been successful at critical times; it’s like he has a bag of tricks and needs to use them instead of sticking with what works. Even the 4th down successful TD was a head scratcher imo given the previous sequence.
2. Nothing we can change immediately, and our line strength will allow us to compete, but I still we look slow in the back 7. Maybe some improvement there as injured players return, but NC, Ville’, and CU will better exploit those than Jimbo and a Fr. QB on Saturday after a lay off. Hux gonna have to dial it up more going forward.Being without Richardson on o-line hurts. Special teams, ick. I thought the secondary was competitive yesterday, at least gave us a chance.
But like chop say, scheme and philosophy are the bigger issues. Anybody notice that when we brought pressure from corner and safety or rover spots, we had a lot of success. IMO, Hux is too vanilla, possibly at the head mans direction, waiting to blit until we get backed into a corner, or poorly disguised blitzes. Nobody in their right mind will try to run into the teeth of that line. But we’re not good enough still in back 7 to chase receivers, especially an all conference SEC
Even with 10 catches, Harmon wasn’t targeted enough with 60+ throws. They had no answer for him. And Finley has improved but we still don’t utilize the middle of the field
I’m probably in the minority, and I’m no Bilas fan, but I tend to agree that the NCAA has already bungled this one. Because of the class action suit, they’re trying to show a heavy hand and involvement on the academic side. But UNC has been wise to point out the availability of these classes to non-athletes. They’ve done a masterful job reshaping the narrative. And it’s not clear that the NCAA is really addressing this properly, or won’t subject themselves to more litigation.
In my opinion, it doesn’t really matter if the classes were available to non-athletes. Their eligibility status isn’t in question. The question should’ve always been eligibility due to fraudulent classes, and a distinction should’ve been drawn by the NCAA between fraudulent (as in, not just any old independent study, but an independent study in violation of the school’s own independent study guidelines, which was graded by an unapproved faculty member or graduate student, and benefited an athlete by enhancing their GPA and making them eligible). That’s the key. You’d have to look at each case and determine how it impacted eligibility. Were grade changes involved? Having worked in academia briefly, I’ve seen all kinds of independent studies offered for a variety of reasons. What was going on at UNC isn’t the norm, but by itself, independent studies should be up to the school to regulate.
More importantly, this has really become the focal point and completely distracted from the plethora of other benefits being offered, some of which should’ve been investigated more fully. The research into this, even among the PP folks, hasn’t adequately focused on a number of other facets.
I’m no Avent apologist, but….
On recruiting…
1. Baseball in warm weather South recruits itself.
2. Fuhcilitees haven’t hurt recruiting
3. Because of the draft, and player development from 15-18, and allotted schollies, recruiting baseball is a tough chore no matter where you are. IMO, Avent is an average to above average evaluator of talent.On the season…
1. Our preseason rankings were too high, as I predicted
2. Pitching was a major weakness, exagerated by Brown’s injury early and what appeared to be late season fatigue or soreness (just my observation)
3. Bad regional draw. We should’ve been a #2 IMO, and may have landed in a better bracket. Kentucky was the better club.Now on player development and game management, that’s another story..Never been impressed with any of those, especially the latter. But from my perspective, I can’t really criticize Avent too much for the postseason play. There have been plenty in years past. And you really can’t inspect him to manufacture runs, or use his pitching staff wisely, since his history in those areas is just…well, predictably gosh awful
But I am glad baseball fanatics everywhere got to witness his antics with the cap check episode. Reminiscent of many an unwarranted angry protest at the Doak.
^This. Musical chairs all over again. Bats are swinging it. Some of the Jrs who had off seasons, at least compared to last year, look a little more comfortable and confident at the plate. If we can get 6-7 of solid pitching on the front end, we can possibly make some noise. Late season push has up from one of the last projected #3 seeds in a regional to one of the lower $2 seeds, and probably headed to Corvallis unless we can beat the baby blues and BC this week. Lose to BC again and the Holes, and we may fall to a 3 again depending on movement in other tournaments.
Grey, try not to make it so hard to agree with you, which I do on about 95% of your analysis of the staff and team. If I wasn’t clear, never did I say 7 wins wasn’t enough, or never did I call for DD’s head if he can’t pull off 8+. Our talent and depth, in spite of the improvement since DD’s arrival, is not large enough to overcome in-game coaching gaffs, or in my observation, a defensive plan, that doesn’t always play to its strengths. Not sure what I think about Drinkwitz yet.
If you have a problem with a post, how about discussing the content–in my case, an observation about Hux, and the front 4’s pass rush without the blitz. Agree or disagree, I don’t care, but I’m not engaging in this rear view mirror nonsense.
I’m not a believer, and I consider myself among the impartial, without an axe to grind. The, “Oh we were so close” Spring preview and comments, I’m just not buying. Last season, I think we stole one due to a hurricane, beat up on some chumps, didn’t win many of the toss ups, or games we needed to win to push upward, and lost to a miserable BC team. We were physical against Clemson, but that game could’ve just as easily been a loss by 3 scores or more, probably closer to the spread, than a win with a made FG. Tigers moved the ball at will all day long; Watson threw an uncharacteristic pick-6, something I don’t think he did his entire career, and they coughed it up inside the 10 at least twice if I recall. I’m all for celebrating the positives, and you’ve got to start somewhere, including being in a position to win (If I”m the coach, I’m talking about how close we were, too!), but a little objectivity is in order.
Defensively, our pash rush was slow out of the gate for a D-line that was billed among the best last year. We didn’t get great pressure until began bringing a fifth or more, and I don’t think Hux is dedicated to pressure. Without it, I don’t think our backend holds up. For the record, I’m not saying we can’t win more than 7. I’m saying, we won’t.
^For those so inclined, there is a fantastic Civil War history by Jeffrey Rogers Hummel titled Emanicipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men, which presents one of the more unique interpretations of the Civil War and its effect. Hummel is a Friedmanite, trained as an economist and historian I think, and he taught history and economics for years. It’s unique in many ways, but most notably in than it lacks the nationalistic, moralistic bias inherent in most narrative accounts from academia or popular historians. Basically, his argument is that the Civil War was a net loss. He argues that slavery’s enforcement costs were beginning to render slavery unprofitable in the South (a controversial position), and that it would have eventually died out without expansion, or war. Again, this is highly controversial. Hence, it was the North’s refusal to enforce the Fugitive Slave laws that really drove the South out (not the gradual depiction of conflict and decay of the 2nd party system that most argue). And the constitutional violations of Lincoln, economic costs of war, enlargement of the federal government, were net losses given what his premise…
I haven’t read it in years, and I’m not sure how much research has been done on the enforcement cost element to his argument, but if you like Civil War history, and want a unique perspective, it’s a must read.
Conference not good this year, at all. When Coach Marshall mentioned all the bad ball played in the Power 5’s, he should’ve just said the ACC and NC State.
I’m behind our guy 100%. When I said be scared of Keatts, it was premature on my part and based on the limited action I’ve seen, the Louisville recruiting incident, and some doubt about his scheme working against top-tier talent on a regular basis. And I emphasis regular. It’s one thing to surprise someone you don’t see frequently in a tournament; it’s completely another to face top talent and coaching 1-2x a year, and surprise them. I still think the jury is out on that one. How well he learns and can adapt to his personnel and game situations will demonstrate how good a coach at this level he is. But I like what I now know, and I have some very close family and friends with deep ties to him while he was a Ferrum as a player and student.
Marshall would’ve always been my #1 for three hiring cycles now. I thought it less likely he’d come here this go around than the past 2, simply because he’s making a pile, he has a daughter that’s a JR or SR in high school, and we screwed up with him twice before (Fowler didn’t even call; Yow went after Smart, then probably low-balled and/or offered a short-term deal not befitting his resume than still almost lured him away). But to suggest there are any coaching doubts about Marshall is nuts. He’s as sure fire a winner as there is. He’s widely been touted as an excellent evaluator of talent going back to his assistant coaching days in Charleston. Signing stars is overrated. There are plenty of Felipe Lopez’s out there. Being able to distinguish talent and teachability from stars and AAU hype is the key, and integrating that talent into a team is pivotal. Cleanthony Early is the best player Marshall has had in 20+ years. He would’ve killed it here but it wasn’t the right time. My thinking is that if he is going to make a move, it will probably happen at the end of next season. I don’t see IU getting him right now.
Call me not ready to jump off the ledge. I’m sure Yow made a crappy sell and offer to Arch, and Marshall for that matter (who I’d have mortgaged the house to get), but I think Keatts will recruit. More importantly, he’ll probably be able to retain most of this roster, which could help. I see the defensive stats but I haven’t watched them enough to say if they just suck, if they blew out people, or if they got lazy on defense late in games. But if he’s coached under Pitino, he knows a little about defense. Whether he can teach it or implement it is another question.
Ima gonna change course and declare this the greatest hire that’s ever been made. I didn’t know this about Keatts. But he has roots at Ferrum College. That little school nestled in the Blue Ridge produces winning coaches. I kid you not. Something about it. It’s a tiny juggernaut that’s produced many diamonds in the rough.
Welcome Mr. Keatts.
1. Anyone who is holding out for the UN* job, I don’t want for my coach
2. If we whiff it’s because we didn’t offer a long-term deal with enough base and big incentives–and part of the reason we didn’t is because we overpaid a loser coach
3. ADs and search firms are risk averse. They like hiring one-hit wonderboys. Be scared, be very scared.Pony up the money. If you have to get into the second tier, there are far better options than Wade and Keats
The guy is a first rate louse, and I don’t mean Mac. Questioned the hire but knew it wouldn’t pan out after meeting him twice. No business in Raleigh. Get out. I’m proud that my support of Wolfpack athletics did not benefit that turd.
