• 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!

Props to Wolford

If you watched the game Saturday and thought our offense looked good, more power to you. 13-19 for 151 was not particularly impressive to me.

We've played the worst team on the schedule and what will most likely be between the 2nd-4th worst team on the schedule. I'm happy we won both games. But I haven't seen anything that makes me think this team will consistently get to 28 points per game (ranking #62 last year). Some of that is the scheme, and some of it is the players.

I hope Wolford proves me wrong, but I haven't seen it yet this year.
 
28 points per game is probably a good target. We need to average just over 25 points a game over the remaining 10 to get there.
 
DeaconSig said:
If you watched the game Saturday and thought our offense looked good, more power to you. 13-19 for 151 was not particularly impressive to me.

We've played the worst team on the schedule and what will most likely be between the 2nd-4th worst team on the schedule. I'm happy we won both games. But I haven't seen anything that makes me think this team will consistently get to 28 points per game (ranking #62 last year). Some of that is the scheme, and some of it is the players.

I hope Wolford proves me wrong, but I haven't seen it yet this year.
Click to expand...

We played a top 20 defense and won 34-10 while limiting the amount of sacks and turnovers. Wolford did exactly what he was instructed to do, and think he did it well.

What were your realistic expectations for this year as far as where we would finish offensively? We finished 110th last year, so a 30-40 spot improvement would be pretty good all things considered.

I don't think anybody is happy with where we are as a finished product on offense (I don't see how anybody could be), but our model as a football team right now is clear---limit turnovers and mistakes on offense and rely on a strong defense and special teams to win games. We won by 3 1/2 touchdowns on the road against a team that we were a toss-up against. I think we are moving in the right direction for sure.

The running game still troubles me a bit, but Wolford is certainly getting the job done from what I can tell. We are never going to ask him to air it out and be a superstar passer.
 
I feel like the offense opened up a little when we crossed mid field. It wasn't anything exotic, but didn't we run outside the tackles for a big gain?
 
DeaconSig said:
If you watched the game Saturday and thought our offense looked good, more power to you. 13-19 for 151 was not particularly impressive to me.

We've played the worst team on the schedule and what will most likely be between the 2nd-4th worst team on the schedule. I'm happy we won both games. But I haven't seen anything that makes me think this team will consistently get to 28 points per game (ranking #62 last year). Some of that is the scheme, and some of it is the players.

I hope Wolford proves me wrong, but I haven't seen it yet this year.
Click to expand...

WF has played 2 games.

Presby was the first. Wolford played 5 series in that game. He led the offense to scores on each drive (4 TDs: 3 TD passes and 1 rushing TD).

BC was the second. In the last 5 years BC has played 27 home games and given up 34 or more 4 times: NC Clemson; NC FSU; L'ville twice (including last year with the Heisman Trophy winner).

Wolford accounted for 243 yards, running for a TD; throwing for a TD; Wolford hit 68% of his passes and committed no turnovers. He is WF leading rusher and averaging more than 5 yards a carry. The WF game plan was to avoid turnovers, and to make a freshman QB beat them. That was smart. Once WF had a 21-7 lead at half, there was no chance WF was going to start chucking the ball around so that Wolford could pump up his stats.

The point is to win games, and not sure what more Wolford could do to help WF win games. Can tell you right now that the BC coaching staff would love to have John Wolford as their QB (as would UNC, UVA, Pitt, among many others).

Given how the game went, wonder how any reasonable person would expect more out of the offense, including the QB, this past Saturday. BC couldn't put together drives. Once WF got a lead, the only possible way WF could lose the game would be INTs or sack/scoop/score. The game dictated that WF keep the attack vanilla, and they did.

Really astonishing that there is any grousing that WF didn't score 40 at BC this week.
 
skinnydeac said:
I feel like the offense opened up a little when we crossed mid field. It wasn't anything exotic, but didn't we run outside the tackles for a big gain?
Click to expand...

On Wolford's touchdown run to the left tackle there was nobody around him at all. Great blocking by everybody involved.
 
The offense was better against BC then it's been the past few years. Is it great or even good, no, but it's better. The hard truth is unless you can recruit at a really high level, then things are going to take time to change and improvements in small increments is what we have to hope for. If you look at the offense, we've added one piece over what we had last year, that being Dortch. Outside of him, it's basically the same cast, so to expect some big jump isn't really realistic.
 
Deacsfan27 said:
On Wolford's touchdown run to the left tackle there was nobody around him at all. Great blocking by everybody involved.
Click to expand...

I thought Colburn had a 15-20 yard run around the left side. I think the announcer even mentioned that BC moved Landry to the right side so Wake just went the other way.
 
liveanddiedeac said:
The offense was better against BC then it's been the past few years. Is it great or even good, no, but it's better. The hard truth is unless you can recruit at a really high level, then things are going to take time to change and improvements in small increments is what we have to hope for. If you look at the offense, we've added one piece over what we had last year, that being Dortch. Outside of him, it's basically the same cast, so to expect some big jump isn't really realistic.
Click to expand...

I would hope some players can take big jumps after a full year of starting (some of them for the first time), and another full year of S&C. Not to mention the coaching staff having more confidence and (hopefully) opening the offense up more.
 
Pilchard said:
WF has played 2 games.

Presby was the first. Wolford played 5 series in that game. He led the offense to scores on each drive (4 TDs: 3 TD passes and 1 rushing TD).

BC was the second. In the last 5 years BC has played 27 home games and given up 34 or more 4 times: NC Clemson; NC FSU; L'ville twice (including last year with the Heisman Trophy winner).

Wolford accounted for 243 yards, running for a TD; throwing for a TD; Wolford hit 68% of his passes and committed no turnovers. He is WF leading rusher and averaging more than 5 yards a carry. The WF game plan was to avoid turnovers, and to make a freshman QB beat them. That was smart. Once WF had a 21-7 lead at half, there was no chance WF was going to start chucking the ball around so that Wolford could pump up his stats.

The point is to win games, and not sure what more Wolford could do to help WF win games. Can tell you right now that the BC coaching staff would love to have John Wolford as their QB (as would UNC, UVA, Pitt, among many others).

Given how the game went, wonder how any reasonable person would expect more out of the offense, including the QB, this past Saturday. BC couldn't put together drives. Once WF got a lead, the only possible way WF could lose the game would be INTs or sack/scoop/score. The game dictated that WF keep the attack vanilla, and they did.

Really astonishing that there is any grousing that WF didn't score 40 at BC this week.
Click to expand...


Wake scored 3 TDs on possessions that started at the BC 26, the BC 0 (INT return for a TD) and the BC 2. That leaves exactly 1 TD drive of over 26 yards (an 8 play, 64 yard drive where Wolford played well, btw). Wake had 2 other possessions all game that were worth a shit, both resulting in field goals. 4 1/2 good drives out of 14 is not what I would think would be all a reasonable person could expect.

The QB combination we faced may be the 2nd worst (after Presby) we play all year. I think our defense has played well, but I don't expect us to get 4 TOs, including 3 that put us in business inside their 30, every game.

I think the way the offense played Saturday makes me think it is more likely we win 4-5 than it does we win 6-7.
 
tigerswood said:
I would hope some players can take big jumps after a full year of starting (some of them for the first time), and another full year of S&C. Not to mention the coaching staff having more confidence and (hopefully) opening the offense up more.
Click to expand...

Some players might, but the question is always will enough. I think we're better on offense, but I don't think we can expect some big jump this year. We face several really good defenses too, starting with last Saturday. Still got Clemson, FSU and State's defenses to deal with to.
 
DeaconSig said:
Wake scored 3 TDs on possessions that started at the BC 26, the BC 0 (INT return for a TD) and the BC 2. That leaves exactly 1 TD drive of over 26 yards (an 8 play, 64 yard drive where Wolford played well, btw). Wake had 2 other possessions all game that were worth a shit, both resulting in field goals. 4 1/2 good drives out of 14 is not what I would think would be all a reasonable person could expect.

The QB combination we faced may be the 2nd worst (after Presby) we play all year. I think our defense has played well, but I don't expect us to get 4 TOs, including 3 that put us in business inside their 30, every game.

I think the way the offense played Saturday makes me think it is more likely we win 4-5 than it does we win 6-7.
Click to expand...

I just don't know what your expectations were this year heading into the year from our offense.

Once again, we played a top 20 defense on the road and had (I believe) one sack allowed and one INT.

What would have been your expectations for Wolford on Saturday that didn't get done?
 
Can we all agree that we are glad we won but our offense needs work?
 
PhDeac said:
Can we all agree that we are glad we won but our offense needs work?
Click to expand...

Yes, nobody has said it's a finished product, and we all want the offense to be better. I think setting realistic expectations considering we finished 110th in the NCAA last year in offense is also something that would be nice.
 
As has been implied by others above, the conservatism on offense wasn't Wolford's call. Wolford executed the gameplan. It's not like he couldn't make throws. He was only sacked twice and there were zero QB hurries. He ran the plays called. BC is a top national defense; has been for years. Defensive scores alleviated the need for more aggression on offense, particularly when deep in our territory. Bad punting early on kept our offense "deep in our territory". We weren't going to risk turnovers down there and repeat last season's loss, in DC's mind. It was all in the gameplan.
 
DeaconSig said:
Wake scored 3 TDs on possessions that started at the BC 26, the BC 0 (INT return for a TD) and the BC 2. That leaves exactly 1 TD drive of over 26 yards (an 8 play, 64 yard drive where Wolford played well, btw). Wake had 2 other possessions all game that were worth a shit, both resulting in field goals. 4 1/2 good drives out of 14 is not what I would think would be all a reasonable person could expect.

The QB combination we faced may be the 2nd worst (after Presby) we play all year. I think our defense has played well, but I don't expect us to get 4 TOs, including 3 that put us in business inside their 30, every game.

I think the way the offense played Saturday makes me think it is more likely we win 4-5 than it does we win 6-7.
Click to expand...

Fair points.

Agree that the defense set up the offense; and also agree that no other opponent may turn it over as much. Related to that, the WF plan going into the game was to make BC beat them on offense because the staff didn't think BC could. They were correct. The offense would have taken more chances and gained more yards (but, may have turned it over) if they felt like that was what was needed to win. For example, in the 2nd half, WF put together two 60+ yard drives, ending in FGs. The priority for those drives was to run clock, and to not turn it over. On the 2nd of those drives, WF had first and goal at the 10, and simply ran the ball 3 times. The game dictated the result.

BTW, not trying to characterize the offense or Wolford as anything greater than what it is: functional. Wolford is now experienced QB with some weapons, but this team is far from explosive.

One other point: not sure why the offense gets zero credit for driving it 26 yards for a TD after BC first TO. That TD was key.
 
We should all apologize because BC gave us short fields and be pissed we didn't get to drive the ball 98 yards two or three times.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top