• 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!

Ed Hardin

DeacsOrDie said:
These are rather harsh. Yall are acting like Clawson coaches with his head chopped off. I recognize the complaints regarding Friday and don't entirely disagree (e.g., if we are going to run out the clock, run the play clock to the last second before snapping the ball). Think we need to give Clawson more credit.

Acting like there was no strategy involved or a calculated decision that was made by Clawson and Co. is ridiculous.
There are 2 ways to finish a game with both decisions having its positives as well as its potential for collapse.

1) Keep running the offense, being aggressive. Positives: it could all work out, no turnovers, and you crush them (as everyone wanted). Negatives: start giving up turnovers, pick 6s, and good field position.
2) Run out the clock, being conservative. Positives: You get some first downs, only need a few possessions to run out the clock. Negatives: get complacent, and don't get first downs.

We just so happened to choose option 2, and guess what, we fucking won. Clawson weighed the strengths/weaknesses of the game going into halftime and believed that with UNC's freshman QB, how they couldn't move the ball to save their life, and the way our defense was playing - that that strength outweighed the others. He picked that option and went with it and we won. He put the game on the defense and running the clock out. And guess what? the clock quite literally ran out and defense showed up when we needed. Mission accomplished.

It was going to be a close game, it was a rivalry, and we walked out with a W. Sorry it didn't meet your requirements of a 56-14 blowout we all wanted.

I am not fully vindicating Clawson of this, but I am presenting his mindset, which was a rational and calculated decision. Remember when we doubted whether he would put Bowers in over Hartman to preserve his RS, and much of the fanbase doubted that Clawson "had the capacity" to think about this scenario.

We are 3-0 BECAUSE of Clawson, in who we should Trust.
Click to expand...

Respect this argument, really do. I’m playing the #1 strategy, however, because we have the personnel and I’m confident that we do. DC will let the dogs out this year. I just strongly believe he should have Friday night. Heck, it doesn’t matter anyway now.
 
ChrisL68 said:
Our play calling was not that much different in the second half than it was in the first half. The reason we had trouble sustaining drives was that our passing attack was not very effective. We only had 5 pass completions other than Sage.

Every time we struggle for periods in the game moving the ball everybody complains that our play calling got conservative
Click to expand...

Great observation. If it works = aggressive. If it doesn’t = conservative.
Same lazy analysis on play clock usage. If we get a first down after hiking with 3 seconds on clock = great clock management in rhythm. Don’t get a first down = we ruined our rhythm.

There were 3 distinct 1st downs where Wake cane out throwing deep in the 3rd/4th. One incomplete jump ball, one wise throw away by Newman over Chapman...and the one interception. None of those were “conservative” they just didn’t happen to hit. I liked the play calling.

However, that second to last possession, was just downright bad clock management. Got a 1st down and ran the next play with 30 seconds on the clock. Then did it again the next play. Literally a minute not used, and I just did not see a “rhythm” that would have been disrupted. Further up two scores, should t the “4 minute offense be extrapolated to an “8 minute offense”. Run the clock and get first downs.

I think we were going for the 28/35-3 kill shots. What I didn’t like was not adjusting to clock killing when it was 21-10 and we were having success on the ground. I am hoping our play calling the last 8 minutes would have been different if Carney was available.
 
If you are playing to kill clock, then you run the ball and mix in a very few short, safe passes. Snap the ball with 1 to 5 seconds on the play clock. Don't use the same exact time. Maybe snap between 5 and 10 sec if defense seems to be resting.
 
wakelaw13 said:
Watched the condensed game yesterday after being at the game Friday. This has certainly never occurred to Carolina fans, but we really didn’t play that well on offense. Washington had one big catch, Sage went off, but no other receivers to note. They didn’t have to face our best RB, who could have helped make the second half shorter. Jamie didn’t play his best. But we didn’t need it to beat them.

If the defense plays that well every week, we finish 11-1.
Click to expand...

How do I watch the condensed game?

Edit: Never mind, found it.

https://youtu.be/EGiq_EWnDpQ
 
Last edited:
BeachBumDeac said:
I don’t know if it was scheme or their defense, but I think we only had one catch in the middle of the field. Everything was on the outside. Missing Hinton definitely hurt there.
Click to expand...

Obviously nitpicking, but I remember at least three just off the top of my head. A first down to Sage early through like two linebackers, the TD to Sage and the late first down to Scotty on the last drive. I feel confident there’s probably a few more as well, at least attempts.
 
Deaconblue said:
If you are playing to kill clock, then you run the ball and mix in a very few short, safe passes. Snap the ball with 1 to 5 seconds on the play clock. Don't use the same exact time. Maybe snap between 5 and 10 sec if defense seems to be resting.
Click to expand...

Good points. The staff nearly gave away our victory until the last drive. No halftime adjustment. No counter punch ready for unc. No breakout special team plays. We have a lot to work on for BC.
 
I’d like to see us be more aggressive for punt blocks especially without Hinton back to return. It looks like we are just content to take whatever we get and fair catch.
 
ChrisL68 said:
The good news is that in a game where newman didn't have his best game throwing the football and the receivers really weren't on the same page and clicking we are still able to gain over 400 yards total offense and the defense made plays to win the game
Click to expand...

More good news is that we gained over 400 yds and won the game without Carney and Hinton, no to mention Tyler Williams. Also, no injuries that I’m aware of.
Any time we get a win with no injuries and play decently, I’m happy.
 
Trying to block punts seems like bad strategy to me. Three things can happen: no block, roughing the kicker, or block and I feel like block is the least likely of those.
 
The 2nd half was just frustrating. I think the play calls were much more conservative and predictable. In fact it is predictable that we will try to run clock in the 2nd half if we have a lead. We have a potent offense. I would much prefer that we play wide open until the last half of the 4th quarter.

Why did we not target Claude in the game? I can't recall a single pass thrown to him. They were using press coverage. If he is as fast as they say, we should have at least put his speed on display and demonstrated a willingness to use him deep.

I wonder about moving CBS to flanker, especially if Hinton is out for much longer. CBS needs to be in space in order to use his speed and shiftiness. Walker has earned much more playing time; but I understand that he must learn to block better.

Frustration notwithstanding, it was a very good win. I'll take it!
 
JohnToms said:
Trying to block punts seems like bad strategy to me. Three things can happen: no block, roughing the kicker, or block and I feel like block is the least likely of those.
Click to expand...
Missing some key parts of that analysis...
 
DeacsOrDie said:
These are rather harsh. Yall are acting like Clawson coaches with his head chopped off. I recognize the complaints regarding Friday and don't entirely disagree (e.g., if we are going to run out the clock, run the play clock to the last second before snapping the ball). Think we need to give Clawson more credit.

Acting like there was no strategy involved or a calculated decision that was made by Clawson and Co. is ridiculous.
There are 2 ways to finish a game with both decisions having its positives as well as its potential for collapse.

1) Keep running the offense, being aggressive. Positives: it could all work out, no turnovers, and you crush them (as everyone wanted). Negatives: start giving up turnovers, pick 6s, and good field position.
2) Run out the clock, being conservative. Positives: You get some first downs, only need a few possessions to run out the clock. Negatives: get complacent, and don't get first downs.

We just so happened to choose option 2, and guess what, we fucking won. Clawson weighed the strengths/weaknesses of the game going into halftime and believed that with UNC's freshman QB, how they couldn't move the ball to save their life, and the way our defense was playing - that that strength outweighed the others. He picked that option and went with it and we won. He put the game on the defense and running the clock out. And guess what? the clock quite literally ran out and defense showed up when we needed. Mission accomplished.

It was going to be a close game, it was a rivalry, and we walked out with a W. Sorry it didn't meet your requirements of a 56-14 blowout we all wanted.

I am not fully vindicating Clawson of this, but I am presenting his mindset, which was a rational and calculated decision. Remember when we doubted whether he would put Bowers in over Hartman to preserve his RS, and much of the fanbase doubted that Clawson "had the capacity" to think about this scenario.

We are 3-0 BECAUSE of Clawson, in who we should Trust.
Click to expand...
Well said!
 
Bill George said:
Should’ve kicked the FG from the 6 and gone up 24-0 in the 2nd quarter. Heels would’ve folded.
Click to expand...

I was thinking that too, at least to get the score bumped up. A TD would have been great, a crowd pleaser and a real downer for them. A FG would have been a lesser downer for them but better than a good boost for getting the full stop going to half. Our conversions percentage in short yardage situation has been rather poor, ..again. The call type seems VERY predictable and most get totally stuffed. If its' RPO time down there, it has to have some new wrinkles to keep the defense a bit more off balance.
 
Just re-watched condensed.

Basham is FAST for his size.

Freudenthal was open and needs some targets.

Not sure why we ran up the gut on 3rd and 8.

Last play...the UNC kid was hopping and tapped a left foot out of bounds with 1 second left but it was a quick tap and the ref signaled run the clock. What were they gonna do, hit a Hail Mary? Not likely. Shut up holes.

Clawson is a really smart guy and maybe this teaches him a little about UNC (kind of like UNC/Duke basketball)...don’t ever give them a reason to whine and moan..or in this case...stay in the game.
 
JohnToms said:
Trying to block punts seems like bad strategy to me. Three things can happen: no block, roughing the kicker, or block and I feel like block is the least likely of those.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with the interior D playing contain on every punt, but why not always have a guy from one of the edges come in at an angle, only to go for the punter if there's a bobbled snap or an opportunity to swat the ball off the kick vs. nailing the punter; if nothing else the punter gets it off a little earlier which negates their ability to get coverage downfield. Our local high school team never rushes the punter or even steps into the backfield, and it kills me to watch some 6'250# lineman catch the snap, rotate the thing until the laces are just to his his liking and then club foot the thing as it hops 40-50 down the field.
 
Man if we got back to the OB and had to play App, that would suck.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top