• 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!

Boston College - Game Time Moved to 5:30pm Kickoff

Rafi said:
We scored 34 points. Yes, more redzone conversions into TDs by the offense would have been big, but what hurt us way more than that (and it's not even close), was the defense giving up so many explosive plays (many of them for TDs).
Click to expand...

Neither I nor anyone else has argued otherwise. "...even if not of the caliber of the defense's problems."
 
Lohengrin said:
For those saying the offense was "fine" and pointing to 500 yds of offense, I think you need to pump the brakes. If you take away the 13 yd "drive" when the ST recovered the muffed punt, with 500 yds of offense we scored only 2 TDs, compared to 6 by our opposition (who also had 500 yds of offense). That is similar to the Tulane game where we had big offensive yards and only 2 TDs to show in regulation. Offensive yardage without scoring is essentially meaningless in terms of winning games. Scoring offense is a thing.

As Clawson the Wise noted in his postgame, the offense failed to score in the red zone. That's a problem too, even if not of the caliber of the defense's problems.
Click to expand...

Yes. This is concerning. 2 FG, 1 missed 4th down after an 82 yd drive, and 2 INT (both after driving 40+ yards). A lot of our offense is predicated on space and taking what the defense gives you. This, it tends to stall in the red zone.

However, tightening up some throws/catches would do wonders. The quick slants in the RPO are open in the end zone.
 
RacerDeac said:
That photo was from 7:15. It shows plenty of the West stands. The crowd and hill were shown plenty on TV. There was nothing approaching 90% on either the West stands out the hill. I don't really get the need to make stuff up.
Click to expand...

I've never understood posters on this board (and prior message boards) who obsess over the attendance at games but make no effort to attend.

Especially those who live within a short driving distance.

If attendance is so important to you then by all means be a part of the solution and buy a ticket. Otherwise, stop your incessant bitching over the size of the crowds.
 
Lohengrin said:
Neither I nor anyone else has argued otherwise. "...even if not of the caliber of the defense's problems."
Click to expand...

Here's what Bud posted regarding the offense, "Just a terrible game by the OL (who were trying to get Hartman Killed) and the defensive secondary-- they were not even high school competent. Clawson needs to some serious re thinking this week-end. The OL was suppose to be among the best in the ACC and they were just terrible."
 
Curious why we don’t seem to be running the quick WR screen plays to Dortch that were so successful last year. Maybe it’s a simple numbers thing but seems like it was guaranteed positive yardage with about a 10-15% of popping for a long one.
 
Rafi said:
Here's what Bud posted regarding the offense, "Just a terrible game by the OL (who were trying to get Hartman Killed) and the defensive secondary-- they were not even high school competent. Clawson needs to some serious re thinking this week-end. The OL was suppose to be among the best in the ACC and they were just terrible."
Click to expand...

I admit Bud's post was a bit of hyperbole, but in fact the OL's passpro wasn't up to snuff. Hartman was in hot pursuit most of the evening, throwing on the run a lot.

And it's possible that both offensive and defensive units can have issues, even if one of them is much worse than the other.
 
Colonel Angus said:
I've never understood posters on this board (and prior message boards) who obsess over the attendance at games but make no effort to attend.

Especially those who live within a short driving distance.

If attendance is so important to you then by all means be a part of the solution and buy a ticket. Otherwise, stop your incessant bitching over the size of the crowds.
Click to expand...

LOL. I don't think I bitched at any point Mr. Anus. I said earlier this week that it wouldn't be a good crowd for numerous reasons, all of which make perfect sense.
 
Last edited:
bmoneydeac said:
Curious why we don’t seem to be running the quick WR screen plays to Dortch that were so successful last year. Maybe it’s a simple numbers thing but seems like it was guaranteed positive yardage with about a 10-15% of popping for a long one.
Click to expand...

BC was playing press corner with a safety shading him over the top the whole game. Their game plan on Defense was pretty much let anyone but Dortch beat us. Turns out that other guys will need to step up because it was a pretty good game plan.
 
Also not having Bachman definitely messed up the passing game. We need Dortch and Surratt on one side and Bachman on the other. Hope he gets healthy soon.
 
netflixnchildres said:
BC was playing press corner with a safety shading him over the top the whole game. Their game plan on Defense was pretty much let anyone but Dortch beat us. Turns out that other guys will need to step up because it was a pretty good game plan.
Click to expand...

Yep, BC's gameplan was to blanket Dortch and let someone else beat them. The result, WF ran for almost 300 yards. Love that the offense can change its emphasis on the fly. Tulane stacked the box; so, WF threw all over them; BC took away Dortch; so, WF ran all over them.

A few points about the redzone struggles: Dortch may be the best receiver/playmaker in WF history, but he flat out dropped a perfect pass from Hartman in the 4th quarter on 3rd down inside the 10 that cost WF 4 points. Doubt that will happen again this year; Dortch makes a play which is routine for him, and suddenly WF doesn't have the same redzone struggles. Also, BC is considered to have very good defense. If you told me before the game that WF was going to gain 500+ yards, 298 on the ground,Carney and Colburn were going to run for 100+ yards, and WF would have a special teams score, I would have thought that WF would win comfortably.

The offense is not the problem, despite the limited redzone success and the picks. As Clawson said in his presser, "you can't expect the offense to score 50 points against BC in order to win the game."

WF's defense philosophy has been to leave the corners on an island and play the safeties close to the line scrimmage. Does not appear that WF has players to play that style. Realize that many here hate the "play a soft zone and let teams throw underneath all day, but no one gets beat deep philosophy", but the current press coverage style is not working.
 
Lohengrin said:
I admit Bud's post was a bit of hyperbole, but in fact the OL's passpro wasn't up to snuff. Hartman was in hot pursuit most of the evening, throwing on the run a lot.

And it's possible that both offensive and defensive units can have issues, even if one of them is much worse than the other.
Click to expand...

The pass protection broke down late when BC was bringing the rush in obvious pass situations, but was decently ok-ish early on (not great, but sufficient) - In the first half, Hartman was skittish in the pocket and scrambled a little bit early.
 
Pilchard said:
Yep, BC's gameplan was to blanket Dortch and let someone else beat them. The result, WF ran for almost 300 yards. Love that the offense can change its emphasis on the fly. Tulane stacked the box; so, WF threw all over them; BC took away Dortch; so, WF ran all over them.

A few points about the redzone struggles: Dortch may be the best receiver/playmaker in WF history, but he flat out dropped a perfect pass from Hartman in the 4th quarter on 3rd down inside the 10 that cost WF 4 points. Doubt that will happen again this year; Dortch makes a play which is routine for him, and suddenly WF doesn't have the same redzone struggles. Also, BC is considered to have very good defense. If you told me before the game that WF was going to gain 500+ yards, 298 on the ground,Carney and Colburn were going to run for 100+ yards, and WF would have a special teams score, I would have thought that WF would win comfortably.

The offense is not the problem, despite the limited redzone success and the picks. As Clawson said in his presser, "you can't expect the offense to score 50 points against BC in order to win the game."

WF's defense philosophy has been to leave the corners on an island and play the safeties close to the line scrimmage. Does not appear that WF has players to play that style. Realize that many here hate the "play a soft zone and let teams throw underneath all day, but no one gets beat deep philosophy", but the current press coverage style is not working.
Click to expand...

Except it looks like we already do play a soft zone because on every 3rd and long pass play there is no one near the ball.
 
liveanddiedeac said:
We seem to play less press coverage than most other teams, not sure where he's getting that from.
Click to expand...

WF does like to play its corners up near the LOS, and except in game ending situations, WF almost never plays two deep safeties. WF expects its corners to be handled deep coverage without help. WF doesn't have the CB talent to play that style this year.
 
Pilchard said:
WF does like to play its corners up near the LOS, and except in game ending situations, WF almost never plays two deep safeties. WF expects its corners to be handled deep coverage without help. WF doesn't have the CB talent to play that style this year.
Click to expand...

This, Wake's scheme leaves the CBs on an island with little help over top from the safeties. There were many instances where the corners lined up deeper than the safeties in 3rd and long and obvious passing downs. The safeties either misread or were put in a bad position which opened up huge holes.
 
netflixnchildres said:
Also not having Bachman definitely messed up the passing game. We need Dortch and Surratt on one side and Bachman on the other. Hope he gets healthy soon.
Click to expand...

Only two plays from Scotty Washington didn't help either. That fade thrown to Washington is a much harder job for the defense to cover than throwing it to Dortch.
 
BTW, we should have recruited Jon Lamont, #28 for BC. His name was called often last night. He would work well in the middle of our linebacking group.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top