The Quintessential Jim Grobe/Wake Forest Football Game

[Deacfreak07]

That overall record wouldn't be over .500 without what I posted above. If you think the FRESH DEACS were just lucky, then I'm not sure why you're so supportive of Grobe. That's what his success boils down to.

But he has reloaded. Just as we got a little lucky with the Fresh Deacs, we got a little unlucky with the 10-11 senior class. You have to admit that. The talent we have now is remarkably better and young.

 

[Deacfreak07]

I don't think anyone expected an ACC title this year. I think the fundamental disagreement between fans is whether the close call gives you hope or discouragement. I am very hopeful as a result.

 

[Milhouse]

That overall record wouldn't be over .500 without what I posted above. If you think the FRESH DEACS were just lucky, then I'm not sure why you're so supportive of Grobe. That's what his success boils down to.

we have been consistently competitive since grobe came here. before the fresh deacs, during the fresh deacs and now after the fresh deacs. not big time winners (because that will never ever happen unless we start blatantly cheating), but competitive.

and yes, the fresh deacs was a lucky class. maybe lucky in that the players were better than they were supposed to be, or maybe they took to coaching better. who the hell knows. but it should be obvious to anybody who has watched wake forest football since before 2006 that we caught lightning in a bottle.

you clearly aren't satisfied with a bunch of 6-6 years, some stinkers and some really good ones. just curious, what do you expect as wake's ceiling? 8 wins a year? 9?

 

[PhDeac]

We haven't had a bunch of 6-6 years. We're a 4/5 win program with 3 much better season that consistently fades down the stretch except for one glorious season.

 

[deacz]

I missed the game Saturday, so I watched the DVR last night only after having read some of the comments here. I do not get the criticism of the coaching staff in this game. We continued to throw after going up 14 but Clemson just played better once they got their offense in gear. If Newman makes that 30-yarder and we catch 1-2 of the 5 should-have-been INTs, we win.

 

[deacz]

We haven't had a bunch of 6-6 years. We're a 4/5 win program with 3 much better season that consistently fades down the stretch except for one glorious season.

We've had 5 winning seasons under Grobe, going on 6.

 

[morrison2951]

Once again, we did not finish. We were shut out in the 4th Q. Agree that the short missed FG was huge.

 

[Deacfreak07]

We've had 5 winning seasons under Grobe, going on 6.

He also is great in bowl games.

 

[DCDeac]

A coach's job is to put us in a position to win.

Make a 30 yard field goal and we win.

Get a couple first downs playing to our strength throwing the ball after that 18 yard first down completion and we win or go to OT.

Instead, Newman blew the field goal and Tanner took a bad sack. This team was horrible last year, and we're outraged that they could close out a very good Clemson team at their place for an ACC Championship game appearance?

Sucks that we lost, but putting it on the coaches is a little ridiculous. I also love how many posters are chalking up the "run the clock out" plan to send it to OT as a sure-thing victory. Plus Clemson had two timeouts and would have gotten the ball back either way. Why not pan the decision to go for it on 4th down in the red zone instead of taking the 3 points? That too might have won the game.

Sometimes players have to make plays.

 

[Milhouse]

We haven't had a bunch of 6-6 years. We're a 4/5 win program with 3 much better season that consistently fades down the stretch except for one glorious season.

what do you expect consistently?

7 wins?
8?
9?

 

[DCDeac]

What hyperbole! I haven't read a post from anyone who said anything like that.

What some of us have said is that you try to win the game, but do it in such as way so that if you can't move the ball close enough to win....and with Newman kicking, that's got to be pretty damned close....Clemson can't get the ball back with a lot of the time left on the clock...as well as two of their timeouts.

And there are ways we could have done that. They have been described in detail. Yes, if we didn't get the necessary yardage Clemson would get the ball back....but it would either have been with only a few seconds left on the clock & two timeouts or with a little more time and no timeouts.

There are three goals in that situation:

1) Try to win in regulation.
2) Be sure that you don't lose in regulation.
3) Try to win in overtime....and regardless of all the nonsense that we would have been in some kind of major disadvantage in overtime, that is just pure BS. Overtime would have been a 50-50 proposition. If you play a team even for 60 minutes, there is nothing to say that you can't play them even in an overtime.

What we did was employ the only strategy we could have used to lose the game in regulation.

Ah, the wonders of hindsight.

Everyone (including me) pissed and moaned that we ran the ball too much against Notre Dame and it's "foot off the accelerator" this and "playing not to lose" that. So obviously an aggressive approach to the end of the Clemson game would be the right call? Nope. We should have run it. Or wait, we should have passed on first down for the 18 yards, then we should have run it once and burned clock, then passed it again when the clock was at x:xx...

I can't believe you don't realize you're simply arguing the outcome. I can detail a dozen ways we "could have won the game" and it doesn't mean a thing. Clemson was loaded against the run on our last drive. Run the ball and we go to OT against an offense we couldn't stop in the 4th quarter. 50/50? After that 4th quarter? At Clemson? You've gotta be kidding.

We gave the ball to our best player and said "go win this game." He threw an 18 yard pass right off the bat, then didn't get it done. I liked the call then and I like it now. LOWF runs the ball on first and second down for -5 yards, then punts it back to Clemson in great field position. A least we gave our best players a chance to win it.

If Tanner ducks that sack and throws it to Givens to set up a field goal try and Newman cranks in the game-winner, all you guys are patting yourselves on the back for being so incredibly right about Wake playing more aggressively.

 

[HCF3]

what do you expect consistently?

7 wins?
8?
9?

With the athlete that Wake is able to recruit, especially in terms of speed. Wake can compete with anyone with elite speed. I think 8 to 9 is completely achievable. In fact, I will expect this for next year with the whole team returning minus the OL.

 

[diverdeac]

Ah, the wonders of hindsight.

Everyone (including me) pissed and moaned that we ran the ball too much against Notre Dame and it's "foot off the accelerator" this and "playing not to lose" that. So obviously an aggressive approach to the end of the Clemson game would be the right call? Nope. We should have run it. Or wait, we should have passed on first down for the 18 yards, then we should have run it once and burned clock, then passed it again when the clock was at x:xx...

I can't believe you don't realize you're simply arguing the outcome. I can detail a dozen ways we "could have won the game" and it doesn't mean a thing. Clemson was loaded against the run on our last drive. Run the ball and we go to OT against an offense we couldn't stop in the 4th quarter. 50/50? After that 4th quarter? At Clemson? You've gotta be kidding.

We gave the ball to our best player and said "go win this game." He threw an 18 yard pass right off the bat, then didn't get it done. I liked the call then and I like it now. LOWF runs the ball on first and second down for -5 yards, then punts it back to Clemson in great field position. A least we gave our best players a chance to win it.

If Tanner ducks that sack and throws it to Givens to set up a field goal try and Newman cranks in the game-winner, all you guys are patting yourselves on the back for being so incredibly right about Wake playing more aggressively.

Bobknightfan - I don't know what to tell you

These guys really must be this thick?

Really? So let me try again.

It is football strategy 101 not to give the fucking ball back. You have to burn some clock there with 3 timeouts. This is not even debatable.

Just as running for inches out of the shotgun.

These play call mistakes at the end of games have consistently killed us over the past five years. IF the Wake fan base is too complacent to understand this maybe we are getting what we deserve.

My take is that the staff has done an unreal job everywhere but on game day where they get a C.

Most of this is due to the staff's inability to adjust. Clearly there is a depth issue as well.

In the end it is my OPINION that Lobo is the weak link and after 7 years or whatever it is time for a change there at that spot with all things being equal - we will be better.

Geez!

 

[Milhouse]

With the athlete that Wake is able to recruit, especially in terms of speed. Wake can compete with anyone with elite speed. I think 8 to 9 is completely achievable. In fact, I will expect this for next year with the whole team returning minus the OL.

just so i'm clear, you think wake should win 8/9 games every year.

 

[diverdeac]

With the athlete that Wake is able to recruit, especially in terms of speed. Wake can compete with anyone with elite speed. I think 8 to 9 is completely achievable. In fact, I will expect this for next year with the whole team returning minus the OL.

ABSOLUTELY!


What the dinosaur LOWF folks here do not grasp is that the game is changing. Especially with the amount of money that TV is bringing in to schools like wake the gap is closing.

We are not going to get the idiot neanderthal d - linemen that go to the SEC and Big 10. Outside of that we are as talented as any but the very elite programs.

If Notre Dame or UNC lines up in the I and runs it at us 50 x a game then well - they probably will win, but this is not the game these days. I knew we would match up with Clemson because I understand that our d-backs are fast as hell. NIkita is why this team has a shot because he is a freak.

IF our in game coaching was at b+ like every other aspect of our program we would be in the ACC Championship game this year. Not every year but this year because we got FSU early.

 

[HCF3]

just so i'm clear, you think wake should win 8/9 games every year.

I think currently with what Wake has, and the ability to make a bowl every year, in a weak ACC: yes.

The schedule is so much easier next year, as well.

 

[Milhouse]

i wonder what schools have averaged 8/9 wins a year since 2000. anybody smarter than me have that data?

 

[HCF3]

In the ACC or overall? I think that is very doable in this version of the ACC.

 

[DCDeac]

Bobknightfan - I don't know what to tell you

These guys really must be this thick?

Really? So let me try again.

It is football strategy 101 not to give the fucking ball back. You have to burn some clock there with 3 timeouts. This is not even debatable.

Just as running for inches out of the shotgun.

These play call mistakes at the end of games have consistently killed us over the past five years. IF the Wake fan base is too complacent to understand this maybe we are getting what we deserve.

My take is that the staff has done an unreal job everywhere but on game day where they get a C.

Most of this is due to the staff's inability to adjust. Clearly there is a depth issue as well.

In the end it is my OPINION that Lobo is the weak link and after 7 years or whatever it is time for a change there at that spot with all things being equal - we will be better.

Geez!

Clemson had 2 timeouts. Running clock means running the ball against a stacked line, essentially kneeling on it and going to OT. If we throw once and run twice the only difference in the outcome is they have one less timeout.

You're just flat out wrong if you think it's a given that we shouldn't throw or even attempt to get enough yards to win the game. The only reason we've overachieved this year is because Tanner, Givens, and Camp are elite talents. Our defense isn't, our kicking game sure as hell isn't, and our running game isn't.

Argue all you want that we should have gone run-run-pass, run-run-pass to close out the game and all but assure we go to OT with a tired defense back on the field.

I like going for the win there. The difference between fair-minded Lobo critics and hindsight geniuses is that, regardless of whether it works out or not, you have to give credit for a style change. Wake was CLEARLY more aggressive all day against Clemson, and if Newman puts a 30 yarder through we're playing for the ACC Championship.

 

[DCDeac]

i wonder what schools have averaged 8/9 wins a year since 2000. anybody smarter than me have that data?

If you go back to the late 90's, maybe Michigan and a few others...