• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Wake Forest Football Preseason Thread

There are 253 D-1 football teams including all FCS and FBS teams. Last year, Tulane was the #151 team in the nation (just behind Idaho, NC A&T and Fordham). Elon was the #199 team. So, as of the end of the last year, Tulane was better (but not by a lot) than Elon (according to Sagarin). FWIW, last year, WF was #92. Just behind UCONN and just ahead of Colorado State. WF has more returning experience than just about any team in the nation (which means that WF should be improved from last year). Tulane hired a new coach after last year, and is breaking in a new system, which typically means growing pains.

According to the final standings, if we played on a neutral field against these teams (using last year's rosters):

+4 vs. Indiana
-25 vs. Elon
-25 vs. Delaware
-16 vs. Tulane
-12 vs. Army
 
This will sort itself out. Hinton will have his chance to take the reins- he did last year and did not separate himself. Both QBs are prone to big mistakes and bad decisions- whoever is more efficient and can manage the game without the killing mistakes should play.

I still have my doubts about the mind numbing offensive scheme (gracious to call it a scheme) and as a big Clawson supporter I am reluctantly beginning to wonder like some others on the Board if he has the inclination, imagination, will and ability to develop an offense hoping that his UT experience was an anomaly. Sometimes I wonder if Lobo ever left. Ruggerio has not shown me anything so far and might prove to be the anchor around Clawson's neck.

Right - lots of argument over who is less flawed here instead of who can win games. Assume you have a complete team behind them and then tell me picking Wolford isn't at least reasonable heading into the season.

As for the mind numbing Clawson schemes, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt until we have even a passable offensive line. Even great runningbacks need holes, and great quarterbacks need a couple seconds to get rid of the ball. Can't coach tall in basketball - can't get creative on offense in football when you have no options.

Things should open up a little this year, should be a good measuring stick.
 
Right - lots of argument over who is less flawed here instead of who can win games. Assume you have a complete team behind them and then tell me picking Wolford isn't at least reasonable heading into the season.

As for the mind numbing Clawson schemes, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt until we have even a passable offensive line. Even great runningbacks need holes, and great quarterbacks need a couple seconds to get rid of the ball. Can't coach tall in basketball - can't get creative on offense in football when you have no options.

Things should open up a little this year, should be a good measuring stick.

BINGO !
 
Tulane is a much tougher opener than either of the opening opponents from the past 2 years, Gardner-Webb and Elon. They are supposed to be a bad FBS team, but an FBS team none the less.
 
According to the final standings, if we played on a neutral field against these teams (using last year's rosters):

+4 vs. Indiana
-25 vs. Elon
-25 vs. Delaware
-16 vs. Tulane
-12 vs. Army

Good thing we are playing on neutral sites with last year's rosters.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Right - lots of argument over who is less flawed here instead of who can win games. Assume you have a complete team behind them and then tell me picking Wolford isn't at least reasonable heading into the season.

As for the mind numbing Clawson schemes, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt until we have even a passable offensive line. Even great runningbacks need holes, and great quarterbacks need a couple seconds to get rid of the ball. Can't coach tall in basketball - can't get creative on offense in football when you have no options.

Things should open up a little this year, should be a good measuring stick.

Why would we assume that? We don't have a complete team. We need a QB who can win with the players we have.
 
Yeah no way. I assume the only reason he's talked about is that awful video from the spring. I guess if he shows any ability at pass pro he might get some touches.

You mean the only reason aside from him likely being the starting RB?

The 750 is certainly a big stretch but he's going to get plenty of touches if healthy.
 
Against Tulane, I'll expect a pretty vanilla offense. We'll step it up against Duke. Back it down against the Hens, and step it up against the Hoosiers. We won't tip our hand against the lesser opponents, and save our surprises for the P5 schools. What I want to see is our OL push somebody around and keep them out of the backfield. That will be a sign of progress.


That's exactly what I want to see too
 
I'm concerned a vanilla offense isn't going to get the job done.
 
This will sort itself out. Hinton will have his chance to take the reins- he did last year and did not separate himself. Both QBs are prone to big mistakes and bad decisions- whoever is more efficient and can manage the game without the killing mistakes should play.

I still have my doubts about the mind numbing offensive scheme (gracious to call it a scheme) and as a big Clawson supporter I am reluctantly beginning to wonder like some others on the Board if he has the inclination, imagination, will and ability to develop an offense hoping that his UT experience was an anomaly. Sometimes I wonder if Lobo ever left. Ruggerio has not shown me anything so far and might prove to be the anchor around Clawson's neck.

While I tend to generally agree, our talent is so low on offense it is hard to evaluate the scheme. Having said that, I wish we would be more gimmicky at times just to try something.
 
I'd like to see us start by not running an offense that moves backwards every time we hand the ball off. Let's atleast try getting stuffed at the line of scrimmage instead of handoffs six yards deep. That and get our short ass quarterback out of containment (which isn't really ever contained) so 50% of his passes make it over the d lines heads. This way we can at worst punt from where we receive the kickoff with no return. That would be progress.
 
Last edited:
Yeah no way. I assume the only reason he's talked about is that awful video from the spring. I guess if he shows any ability at pass pro he might get some touches.

Carney is probably going to be the starting RB come next Thursday, so you may want to revise your "prediction" and base it on facts instead of whatever you are basing it on.
 
Carney is probably going to be the starting RB come next Thursday, so you may want to revise your "prediction" and base it on facts instead of whatever you are basing it on.

nah I'm good
 
My bold prediction: if he starts next Thursday, which appears increasingly likely from the reports coming out from practice, then Carney will get touches - even if he doesn't "show any ability at pass pro."
 
Carney will be the best back since Barclay. Been saying it for days upon weeks now.
 
My bold prediction: if he starts next Thursday, which appears increasingly likely from the reports coming out from practice, then Carney will get touches - even if he doesn't "show any ability at pass pro."

Yes, I agree that if he gets the start next week he will touch the ball. I do not think he will receive enough reps throughout the year to hit 750 yards.
 
Yes, I agree that if he gets the start next week he will touch the ball. I do not think he will receive enough reps throughout the year to hit 750 yards.

That's fair and I agree especially with the number of running backs I expect to get touches. That's also substantially different from you "assum[ing] the only reason he's talked about is that awful video from the spring" when he's likely to start in the season opener.
 
Back
Top