• 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

Buttermaker said:
What is the difference formation wise between the x and s receiver positions?
Click to expand...

The ball being placed on the left or right hash creates a wide-side and a narrow side of the field. The X-receiver always lines up on the narrow side. Given the more limited space to operate in, there seems to be a premium on getting big, physical receivers to play the X. Since the defense stacks itself towards the wide-side of the field, there also a lot of big play potential for the X if he can beat man coverage.

The S-receiver is the widest on the wider side of the field with the slot/flanker and/or tight end almost always on the same side of the field as the S. While you’d love for the S-receiver to be 6’4/200, you have to balance that against the need for the S to be fast (to stretch the defense and create opportunities underneath for the slot or tight end) and to be able to excel at a variety of routes that are being run in combination with other receivers stacked on that side of the field. So you want the S to be equal parts big, fast and technically sound.

When a receiver comes into the program they are trained in one role. They aren’t interchangeable. Once they gain more experience, a receiver with a good football IQ can develop the ability to play multiple receiver positions.
 
94, the glass half empty types will point out that if you take out each players longest run, we were 57-111, 1.9 yds per attempt. Hinton would have been 11-47, Carney 9-18, Poppyliou 16-22, Byrd 5-7, Reid 5-5, Wolford 7-10 and Colburn 4-2. The longest runs are the anomaly. 1.9 yards per attempt is pitiful. This has me worried.
 
DEACS76 said:
94, the glass half empty types will point out that if you take out each players longest run, we were 57-111, 1.9 yds per attempt. Hinton would have been 11-47, Carney 9-18, Poppyliou 16-22, Byrd 5-7, Reid 5-5, Wolford 7-10 and Colburn 4-2. The longest runs are the anomaly. 1.9 yards per attempt is pitiful. This has me worried.
Click to expand...

First scrimmage and the sky remains high.

Wake will improve on OL but it will not be earth shattering, not in the cards unless we attract 4 stars to the line.
 
DEACS76 said:
94, the glass half empty types will point out that if you take out each players longest run, we were 57-111, 1.9 yds per attempt. Hinton would have been 11-47, Carney 9-18, Poppyliou 16-22, Byrd 5-7, Reid 5-5, Wolford 7-10 and Colburn 4-2. The longest runs are the anomaly. 1.9 yards per attempt is pitiful. This has me worried.
Click to expand...

You can't cherry pick runs to omit and then point to a low YPA. That's not how that works.

What was the YPA if you take out each player's shortest/most negative run?
 
Wake has had productive OLs in the past without 4-star recruits. Bill Dooley's teams had strong rushing attacks using conventional blocking, not smoke and mirrors.

I'm all for 4-star recruits if we can get them. But they shouldn't be a requirement. Look at how Duke did in coming from the basement: A strong ground game w/o stars.
 
Last year F$U busted a 94 yd TD, ND had a 98 yd TD run. Both times it was because of a missed tackle in the hole. If those scores were made on 22 consecutive runs, eating 7 minutes off the clock, it would tell a story of how dominating the OL was. Not Javion whiffing on a tackle. The point I'm trying to make is how feeble our OL is to average such low yardage. Missed tackles do not show improvement of your OL, just screw ups on defense.
 
We were missing a starter on the OL. It was also the first scrimmage of this preseason.

We probably won't have a very good running game this year. But we don't have any real reliable information about whether we will or not at this time.
 
Lohengrin said:
Wake has had productive OLs in the past without 4-star recruits. Bill Dooley's teams had strong rushing attacks using conventional blocking, not smoke and mirrors.

I'm all for 4-star recruits if we can get them. But they shouldn't be a requirement. Look at how Duke did in coming from the basement: A strong ground game w/o stars.
Click to expand...

I don't really care about the star count; I was referring to that type of athlete.
 
DeaconSig said:
We were missing a starter on the OL. It was also the first scrimmage of this preseason.

We probably won't have a very good running game this year. But we don't have any real reliable information about whether we will or not at this time.
Click to expand...

Also was missing Cam Serigne and Devin Pike, the top two TEs on the depth chart - obviously a blow to potential run blocking.

All that being said, injuries happen in the regular season as well.
 
Lohengrin said:
Wake has had productive OLs in the past without 4-star recruits. Bill Dooley's teams had strong rushing attacks using conventional blocking, not smoke and mirrors.

I'm all for 4-star recruits if we can get them. But they shouldn't be a requirement. Look at how Duke did in coming from the basement: A strong ground game w/o stars.
Click to expand...

Caldwell recruited some good OLs, some of whom Grobe inerited and we ran the ball pretty well those first couple of years Grobe was here.
 
DeaconSig said:
We were missing a starter on the OL. It was also the first scrimmage of this preseason.

We probably won't have a very good running game this year. But we don't have any real reliable information about whether we will or not at this time.
Click to expand...

Yeah- this is where I'm at. Scrimmages mean very little and there's no reason to push the panic button until we realize we can't run the ball against Tulane on 9-1. Go Deacs! I'm looking forward to seeing what a team full of Clawson recruits can do in year 3.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top