• 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!

Clawson Credibile! (will reconsider if he sits Newman for another scrappy gym rat QB)

SDeacz said:
Your Oline has to pick up more than 2 guys of their blitzing 7 to have any chance at any play working.
Click to expand...

So why don't defenses blitz 7 every play so they can stop any play?
 
PhDeac said:
Just a reminder of what we're talking about:


It's weird to hype of the offensive cred of an OC from a game in which the offense scored 10 points.
Click to expand...


Not hyping anything. I'm surprised we scored 10 against that D. My argument was that Lobo is better than Ruggiero and he gets a really bad rap, especially for that particular play call.
 
If you have 2 TEs, or 1 TE and a FB, all 7 guys would be accounted for. Don't think college football restricts the number of people that can block...
 
PhDeac said:
So why don't defenses blitz 7 every play so they can stop any play?
Click to expand...

Well if you blitz every play, eventually your oline would pick up enough guys to complete long pass plays, I think. On that particular play, we weren't executing any play based on the effort I saw from the oline.
 
tigerswood said:
If you have 2 TEs, or 1 TE and a FB, all 7 guys would be accounted for. Don't think college football restricts the number of people that can block...
Click to expand...

COllege football doesn't. But the ability of our oline does.
 
SDeacz said:
Not hyping anything. I'm surprised we scored 10 against that D. My argument was that Lobo is better than Ruggiero and he gets a really bad rap, especially for that particular play call.
Click to expand...

Everybody but Arizona the next week scored 10 against that D. Great D but we could have scored 17.
 
PhDeac said:
Everybody but Arizona the next week scored 10 against that D. Great D but we could have scored 17.
Click to expand...

Huh? Just so we have a complete point of reference, after Wake:

Arizona (Scored 7)
Notre Dame (Scored 10)
Penn State (Scored 14)
Illinois (Scored 10)
#14 Wisconsin (scored 23)
#13 Michigan (scored 31)
Northwestern (scored 14)
#10 Iowa (scored 14)
#4 Ohio State (scored 16)
Indiana (scored 16)
#11 Georgia (scored 34)

So three teams scored 17 or more on that d that year, and they were ranked 11, 13 and 14 in the nation.

Purdue was the #14 defense in points scored on the year.
 
Last edited:
PhDeac said:
Everybody but Arizona the next week scored 10 against that D. Great D but we could have scored 17.
Click to expand...

But I agree. We could have. I would have loved to see a quick fade route to Jason Anderson who was 1 on 1. I think that was our best shot on that play to get the ball out quickly. It was against an NFL corner, so who knows, but I'd like to think it was 50/50. OR an RPO with Cro, and roll away from the pressure up the middle. Although if the edge doesn't make a block, and nothing about that play tells me anybody would have made the necessary block, likely TFL/Sack

In terms of Defensive ranks - points scored. We scored 28 on #10 Defense Florida State, 28 on #6 defense Maryland, and 45 on #20 defense Clemson. So, does Lobo get credit for those offensive outputs?
 
Sure he gets credit. But scoring 28 points in a college football game isn't a huge achievement.
 
PhDeac said:
Sure he gets credit. But scoring 28 points in a college football game isn't a huge achievement.
Click to expand...

I'd take it over 3 second half points against a Ted Roof Defense, which Lobo ABUSED while at Wake. I think 35 points in a half, twice, when Roof was at Duke?
 
I mean, one of Lobo or Grobe thought it was a good idea to run the option with Tanner Price.
 
Deacsfan27 said:
Who should we hire and why?

What offense should he run and why?
Click to expand...

An offense coordinator (or HC if it comes to that) who doesn't line up in a generic base offense and tries to overmatch the other team.

Someone innovative who's willing to take risks and is adaptive in game situations. The only time Wake has ever won anything is when our offense played that way.
 
BillBrasky said:
An offense coordinator (or HC if it comes to that) who doesn't line up in a generic base offense and tries to overmatch the other team.

Someone innovative who's willing to take risks and is adaptive in game situations. The only time Wake has ever won anything is when our offense played that way.
Click to expand...
Actually most winning seasons, including our most recent acc championship season, we ran a generic base offense. We still ran an occasional orbit sweep in 2006. We have tried that a few times this year but haven't executed it well.
 
Last edited:
whether its the stratigically correct call or not, watching Carney get stuffed on 4th and 1 on that shotgun run felt like an absolute inevitability from the moment they lined up
 
I was frustrated with the in-game play calling too.

I thought we threw too much in the 2nd half and I thought Cade should have been in start the 2nd. Obviously the false start and the snap that went right by Wolford threw off the first drive.

I just fundamentally disagree with the philosophy behind our running game---the running in place and taking forever to hand the ball off on basically every play is infuriating so I am at odds with the coaching staff there. Our line has blocked well at times this year, but the false starts, holds, and lack of execution kills us on longer drives. I know that some of that is to set up the RPO, but it puts our line in a bad position to succeed.

I think if anything Dave Clawson tries to do too much "out-thinking" of the opposing coach. We finally get the running game working well (as GT has struggled to stop backs all year), but instead of making Tech show that they could stop the run in the 2nd half, we came out throwing and throwing and throwing.

We don't go for 4th downs ever early in the game, and when we finally do go for 4th downs out of necessity, our play calling doesn't reflect the knowledge that we will go for it on 4th. We continue to try to get all the yardage on 3rd instead of chunking it down to make it more manageable on 4th.

For once in a while we have talent that seems to be on par with teams that we are playing and our lack of discipline and execution, coupled with questionable coaching calls are what is holding us back.

It's definitely frustrating. I think that the staff has shown that it is very good at building a program and getting guys in here that can succeed, but there are a lot of questions as to whether or not they have the play calling/strategic chops to "match wits" at this level, which is shocking given the academic backgrounds of a lot of these guys. Time will tell whether or not they can do so.
 
Last edited:
Also, quite frankly, our offense performed much better than its counterpart (defense) on Saturday. We averaged 6.22 yards per play (2nd best of the year excluding Presbyterian) and had a 43% success rate (best of the year) against a top 35 defense nationally.

The national average is 5.45 yards per play. We exceeded the national average in pretty much all of the offensive stats that matter (slightly under points per opportunity inside opponent's 40 yard line). The stats don't exactly reflect how we felt like the game went Saturday, but I think a lot of the frustration stems from going away from what was working in the first half (out-smarting ourselves).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top