• 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!

Not all Sam's fault

If Roberson is playing to maximum effectiveness in the slot, the staff apparently does not want to move him because of that. Instead, they moved Morin out wide. Have hard time questioning where WF is playing Roberson when his last two games in the slot resulted in the following:

- 7 catches for 130 and a TD
- 12 catches for 167 and two TDs

Keeping the slot as position of maximum strength makes sense given that production.
 
Pilchard said:
If Roberson is playing to maximum effectiveness in the slot, the staff apparently does not want to move him because of that. Instead, they moved Morin out wide. Have hard time questioning where WF is playing Roberson when his last two games in the slot resulted in the following:

- 7 catches for 130 and a TD
- 12 catches for 167 and two TDs

Keeping the slot as position of maximum strength makes sense given that production.
Click to expand...

I really like his production and completely understand the notion that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", but I just wonder if his production would be similar on the outside. I don't have any statistical breakdown to back it up, but it seems like he makes a lot of his catches further down field (more than 7 yards) and toward the boundary. That screams outside receiver to me. He has long arms, long stride and is over 6' tall. With serious depth issues, I'm just suggesting moving him outside and leave the smaller and quicker guys in the slot. I absolutely want him on the field. I'm just hoping really good production from 2 positions outweighs great production from 1 position and zero from another.
 
skinnydeac said:
I really like his production and completely understand the notion that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", but I just wonder if his production would be similar on the outside. I don't have any statistical breakdown to back it up, but it seems like he makes a lot of his catches further down field (more than 7 yards) and toward the boundary. That screams outside receiver to me. He has long arms, long stride and is over 6' tall. With serious depth issues, I'm just suggesting moving him outside and leave the smaller and quicker guys in the slot. I absolutely want him on the field. I'm just hoping really good production from 2 positions outweighs great production from 1 position and zero from another.
Click to expand...

Tough question time for the friendly media and that includes Les Johns. Ask the hard questions. And Dell can delve into these particulars as well and avoid the banal, "So. Hey Coach! How do you get over losing to Carolina?" Whoever asked that "how do you bounce back" question of Sam Hartman in the post game persser got a really good terse response, "Show up the next day and play football." DC is an Xs and Os guy. Chase down those issues please media.
 
skinnydeac said:
I really like his production and completely understand the notion that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", but I just wonder if his production would be similar on the outside. I don't have any statistical breakdown to back it up, but it seems like he makes a lot of his catches further down field (more than 7 yards) and toward the boundary. That screams outside receiver to me. He has long arms, long stride and is over 6' tall. With serious depth issues, I'm just suggesting moving him outside and leave the smaller and quicker guys in the slot. I absolutely want him on the field. I'm just hoping really good production from 2 positions outweighs great production from 1 position and zero from another.
Click to expand...

As much as I believe "if it ain't broke", I'd agree it doesn't hurt to try for a half. Roberson can always return to the slot at any time.
 
Should change to thread title to not at all Sam's fault.

Also, if we are without Greene and Perry then we will struggle bigly. Might beat Duke but we gotta be full strength to beat miami.
 
Considering some of the key talent we lost from ly I have to say I've been very impressed with "some" of our play this season. I really didn't expect us to be this competitive. That we lost to Clemson and UNC is strictly a matter of pure talent disparity. Anyone who thinks that's something easily fixed is just dead wrong. We're not perfect. We only played well in parts of the game at UNC. But if you think a typical Wake team could've always competed like that you're wrong. When our opponents are talented we are who we "really" are. It's tough. But we're very good for us this year.
 
That loss was not due to lack of talent. We’ve got the talent. We didn’t have adequate experience at key positions.
And we may not have had adequate experience dealing with the explosiveness of a team of that sort on our staff.
Abandoning the run game and not using TEs and outside runs against a stacked D is problematic. The “head fakes” got to our staff. You don’t drop a 21 point lead and allow 5 consecutive scores just because the other team has more recruiting stars. Our backbreaking play was off the hands of one of our highest starred players. We took the gas off the pedal in one form or fashion in the second half. Call it wrong scheme or call it lost focus but it wasn’t for lack of talent.
 
Yea our lack of talent is the reason we had a 21 point lead in the middle of the third quarter.
 
Guess a lot of people here expected this team to score 60 to 70 points at Chapel Hill. Understand that WF had 45 in the 3rd quarter, but that doesn't mean that the scoring was going to continue at that rate in the 4th quarter "with the right play calls". The other team has highly paid (cheater) coaches and talented players. Greene left the game and UNC stacked the box; they wanted WF to run. FWIW, if WF had called a majority of run plays and gotten stuffed, a lot of Monday Morning QBs here would've lamented how WF got too conservative and should've kept throwing the ball.

Maybe, if WF runs the ball more in the 4th quarter (or throws to the TE more), WF moves the ball better, but maybe not. Clawson and staff understand game situations and opponent weaknesses. UNC left themselves vulnerable to the pass in the 4th quarter, and WF tried to take advantage, but without some of WF's offensive talent available, the offense stalled. This generally happens in most games as the opponent adjusts. Sam Hartman and staff can make the right reads and call the right plays, and sometimes, the opponent makes a play or the receiver drops the pass or runs a bad route.

Just find it remarkable that WF scores 53 points and gains 606 yards, while losing their dominant outside receiver for the 4th quarter, and there's a prevailing notion that offensive play calling or scheme cost them the game. The offense was the only reason WF was in the game; If WF had Duke's offense or VT's offense, the Deacs would've lost 28. WF didn't score 45 points in the first 40 minutes of the game by accident, but WF schemed how to exploit UNC and took advantage. Injuries and adjustments took away that advantage, and unfortunately, the defense (particularly the depleted back 7) could not hang on.
 
DeacAssured said:
Tough question time for the friendly media and that includes Les Johns. Ask the hard questions. And Dell can delve into these particulars as well and avoid the banal, "So. Hey Coach! How do you get over losing to Carolina?" Whoever asked that "how do you bounce back" question of Sam Hartman in the post game persser got a really good terse response, "Show up the next day and play football." DC is an Xs and Os guy. Chase down those issues please media.
Click to expand...

Agree, those questions are awful - Les and Conor get talked over quite a bit with those dumbass questions. No one wants to know that stuff anymore, and it just pisses Clawson and the players off. Its not 1950 where reporters can have drinks with the coach at the bar after the presser and spin yarns, Max Mercy style.
 
Pilchard said:
Guess a lot of people here expected this team to score 60 to 70 points at Chapel Hill. Understand that WF had 45 in the 3rd quarter, but that doesn't mean that the scoring was going to continue at that rate in the 4th quarter "with the right play calls". The other team has highly paid (cheater) coaches and talented players. Greene left the game and UNC stacked the box; they wanted WF to run. FWIW, if WF had called a majority of run plays and gotten stuffed, a lot of Monday Morning QBs here would've lamented how WF got too conservative and should've kept throwing the ball.

Maybe, if WF runs the ball more in the 4th quarter (or throws to the TE more), WF moves the ball better, but maybe not. Clawson and staff understand game situations and opponent weaknesses. UNC left themselves vulnerable to the pass in the 4th quarter, and WF tried to take advantage, but without some of WF's offensive talent available, the offense stalled. This generally happens in most games as the opponent adjusts. Sam Hartman and staff can make the right reads and call the right plays, and sometimes, the opponent makes a play or the receiver drops the pass or runs a bad route.

Just find it remarkable that WF scores 53 points and gains 606 yards, while losing their dominant outside receiver for the 4th quarter, and there's a prevailing notion that offensive play calling or scheme cost them the game. The offense was the only reason WF was in the game; If WF had Duke's offense or VT's offense, the Deacs would've lost 28. WF didn't score 45 points in the first 40 minutes of the game by accident, but WF schemed how to exploit UNC and took advantage. Injuries and adjustments took away that advantage, and unfortunately, the defense (particularly the depleted back 7) could not hang on.
Click to expand...
We didn't need to score 60 or 70 we needed to get some first downs burn some clock and maybe get another field goal and that would have won the game. Our offense does seem to be feast or famine some times even when we're scoring a lot of points. You wouldn't expect a defense to be able to give up a bunch of yards and 45 points and then all the sudden be able to lock down your offense as completely ineffective for five drives.
 
ChrisL68 said:
We didn't need to score 60 or 70 we needed to get some first downs burn some clock and maybe get another field goal and that would have won the game. Our offense does seem to be feast or famine some times even when we're scoring a lot of points. You wouldn't expect a defense to be able to give up a bunch of yards and 45 points and then all the sudden be able to lock down your offense as completely ineffective for five drives.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Pilch likes to speak in absolutes fairly often, which isn't necessary in this case. Of course the loss primarily falls on the defense. However, if the offense was even mediocre (let alone anywhere near as dominant as it had been) for 5 straight drives, we win by at least a TD, likely more. Instead, it became a shell of itself at the most important time of the game, due to a combination of injuries, poor play calling, poor clock management, and poor execution from backup WRs.
 
tigerswood said:
Yeah, Pilch likes to speak in absolutes fairly often, which isn't necessary in this case. Of course the loss primarily falls on the defense. However, if the offense was even mediocre (let alone anywhere near as dominant as it had been) for 5 straight drives, we win by at least a TD, likely more. Instead, it became a shell of itself at the most important time of the game, due to a combination of injuries, poor play calling, poor clock management, and poor execution from backup WRs.
Click to expand...

This was a game where the offense was going to have to carry us and it did to a great extent, but not enough. Honestly our defense was too short handed on the back end to stop UNC. The defense did have a stretch where we were able to build that 21 point lead and we needed the offense to keep being productive and it wasn't. Plenty of blame to go around for the loss, but you can't ask the defense to hold that offense at bay while the offense doesn't do squat for 5 straight drives. We basically needed one scoring drive out of those 5 and we probably win and they didn't do it.
 
DeacAssured said:
That loss was not due to lack of talent. We’ve got the talent. We didn’t have adequate experience at key positions.
And we may not have had adequate experience dealing with the explosiveness of a team of that sort on our staff.
Abandoning the run game and not using TEs and outside runs against a stacked D is problematic. The “head fakes” got to our staff. You don’t drop a 21 point lead and allow 5 consecutive scores just because the other team has more recruiting stars. Our backbreaking play was off the hands of one of our highest starred players. We took the gas off the pedal in one form or fashion in the second half. Call it wrong scheme or call it lost focus but it wasn’t for lack of talent.
Click to expand...

Lack of talent may be an issue on D. Certainly lack of quality depth.
 
Pilchard said:
Just find it remarkable that WF scores 53 points and gains 606 yards, while losing their dominant outside receiver for the 4th quarter, and there's a prevailing notion that offensive play calling or scheme cost them the game.
Click to expand...

it would be remarkable if it were the prevailing notion, but it isn't

the offense was averaging eight inches per play while the defense yielded ten yards per play over the course of roughly 1/3 of the game; seems it took a total team effort to give it away
 
Fusiondad10 said:
Considering some of the key talent we lost from ly I have to say I've been very impressed with "some" of our play this season. I really didn't expect us to be this competitive. That we lost to Clemson and UNC is strictly a matter of pure talent disparity. Anyone who thinks that's something easily fixed is just dead wrong. We're not perfect. We only played well in parts of the game at UNC. But if you think a typical Wake team could've always competed like that you're wrong. When our opponents are talented we are who we "really" are. It's tough. But we're very good for us this year.
Click to expand...

this is the quintessential fusiondad lowf post
 
Can't believe some of yall still fall for the Fusiondad bit.

In full disclosure, I'm the one who asked Hartman "what is it going to take to bounce back from this?" It wasn't my best question, admittedly. Not even sure what I was going for with it, or how he's supposed to answer.

To the main theme of where this discussion has gone: Look, Pilch, you can spew numbers all you want. That's great that they put up 53 points and 606 yards. Those are broad numbers that ignore how the offense fell off of a cliff for a 20-minute segment of this game. I'm sure you can spew more stats that you think prove your point. I'm just going to leave a question to Sean Maginn -- he plays offense -- and his answer from today's interview:

Was Saturday a difficult game to evaluate offensively? You put up 53 points, 600-plus yards of offense, obviously those are good numbers, but you see that you had 45 points midway through the third quarter and only got to 53 because of a 2-minute drill at the end. Does that make things harder to evaluate?

I wouldn’t really say so. I mean yeah, we did good in the first three quarters. But if you look at that fourth quarter, we were downright terrible, to be honest.
We just, three-and-out, three-and-out, four-and-out. Six-play drive, punt. We’ve got to be better than that. We knew UNC was going to come back with that offense.
I mean, it’s not the defense’s fault, to be honest. They did the best they could, they played their heart out, we understood that. We knew we had to step up and just didn’t execute.
That’s what hurts, we just didn’t finish.
We’ve got that bad taste in our mouth and this week we want to go out and prove that we can finish in the fourth quarter.
 
CONeill said:
Can't believe some of yall still fall for the Fusiondad bit.

In full disclosure, I'm the one who asked Hartman "what is it going to take to bounce back from this?" It wasn't my best question, admittedly. Not even sure what I was going for with it, or how he's supposed to answer.
Click to expand...

D'oh! Still the point remains - More Conor and Les questions and less from the guys that are forced to cover the Deacs because they aren't on the UNC beat.
 
CONeill said:
Was Saturday a difficult game to evaluate offensively? You put up 53 points, 600-plus yards of offense, obviously those are good numbers, but you see that you had 45 points midway through the third quarter and only got to 53 because of a 2-minute drill at the end. Does that make things harder to evaluate?

I wouldn’t really say so. I mean yeah, we did good in the first three quarters. But if you look at that fourth quarter, we were downright terrible, to be honest.
We just, three-and-out, three-and-out, four-and-out. Six-play drive, punt. We’ve got to be better than that. We knew UNC was going to come back with that offense.
I mean, it’s not the defense’s fault, to be honest. They did the best they could, they played their heart out, we understood that. We knew we had to step up and just didn’t execute.
That’s what hurts, we just didn’t finish.
We’ve got that bad taste in our mouth and this week we want to go out and prove that we can finish in the fourth quarter.
Click to expand...

Wow, great answer. It's accuracy is backed up by the way it happened - it wasn't UNC making a ton of changes, it was dropped balls, weak cuts, some predictable time-wasting runs that didn't have a chance to go anywhere, etc. It was like a golf round where you shoot 5 under on the front, then 5 over on the back even though the back isn't any harder. You're not psyched that you shot even par, especially if you lost the tournament.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top