• 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!

Fire the OC

Buttermaker said:
Do you think Kearns gives us a better chance to beat BC than Wolford?
Click to expand...

I think the combination of Kearns and running under center rather than delayed hand-offs out of shotgun 30x a game give us a better chance than the status quo. Since I'm not greedy, I will be content with one of the two.
 
wfu22fan said:
Yes. We might score a TD.
Click to expand...

You do realize that after the long Serigne pass we rushed the ball exclusively to score the TD? IOW, a broken cvg play and then rushing it, which had no bearing on Kearns as a passing QB. In his only other throws into the EZ later, there were two incompletions, regardless of the fault of QB or receiver. The degree of hate for Wolford is over the top on this board and it's mostly irrational.
 
Lohengrin said:
You do realize that after the long Serigne pass we rushed the ball exclusively to score the TD? IOW, a broken cvg play and then rushing it, which had no bearing on Kearns as a passing QB. In his only other throws into the EZ later, there were two incompletions, regardless of the fault of QB or receiver. The degree of hate for Wolford is over the top on this board and it's mostly irrational.
Click to expand...

Some of it is irrational. I don't hate Wolford, I'm just confident I've seen our ceiling with him at qb, and it's not nearly good enough.
 
Wolford would be 8-3 if he were Alabama's starting QB.
 
Totally agree that anti-Wolford sentiment is unfounded. Against Clemson, WF had it's lowest total yardage since the Tulane opener. Kearns was 7 for 18 for 126 yards (by way of example, Pitt's QB went 22 for 37 for 308 and 5 TDs against Clemson the week before). Seems like WF's backup QB could be a potted plant, and some here would argue for the potted plant to start.

If Wolford is healthy, he will start, and he will give WF the best chance to beat BC. Next year, it may be a different story, but to win one game, this year with Hinton unavailable, Wolford is WF's best option.
 
Pilchard said:
Totally agree that anti-Wolford sentiment is unfounded. Against Clemson, WF had it's lowest total yardage since the Tulane opener. Kearns was 7 for 18 for 126 yards (by way of example, Pitt's QB went 22 for 37 for 308 and 5 TDs against Clemson the week before). Seems like WF's backup QB could be a potted plant, and some here would argue for the potted plant to start.

If Wolford is healthy, he will start, and he will give WF the best chance to beat BC. Next year, it may be a different story, but to win one game, this year with Hinton unavailable, Wolford is WF's best option.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I agree. This is a game that the staff needs to get the team fired up to win. I understand not wanting to get Wolford hurt even more, playing against Clemson, but he is our best chance to beat BC. Hope he is healthy and has a great game Saturday
 
Why we were running the read option with a QB who can't run, says it all.
 
Pilchard said:
Totally agree that anti-Wolford sentiment is unfounded. Against Clemson, WF had it's lowest total yardage since the Tulane opener. Kearns was 7 for 18 for 126 yards (by way of example, Pitt's QB went 22 for 37 for 308 and 5 TDs against Clemson the week before). Seems like WF's backup QB could be a potted plant, and some here would argue for the potted plant to start.

If Wolford is healthy, he will start, and he will give WF the best chance to beat BC. Next year, it may be a different story, but to win one game, this year with Hinton unavailable, Wolford is WF's best option.
Click to expand...

Way too much certainty in this post. The only certainty at this point is that Wolford stinks. Yes, Wolford is probably better than Kearns, but I'd at least claim that, despite his shoddy #s against Clemson, there is a nonzero chance that Kearns doesn't suck, which is more than you can say for Wolford. The conditions against Clemson were terrible, receivers did him no favors, and he improved as the game progressed. I'd like to see more of him.
 
BC game is big. From a momentum/VIBES standpoint, huge difference in closing out the season with a win to get to 7-5 and losing five of the last six to finish .500.
 
Lohengrin said:
You do realize that after the long Serigne pass we rushed the ball exclusively to score the TD? IOW, a broken cvg play and then rushing it, which had no bearing on Kearns as a passing QB. In his only other throws into the EZ later, there were two incompletions, regardless of the fault of QB or receiver. The degree of hate for Wolford is over the top on this board and it's mostly irrational.
Click to expand...

Don't hate him. Just seen enough of him for three years. He and the OC need to go.
 
Pilchard said:
Totally agree that anti-Wolford sentiment is unfounded. Against Clemson, WF had it's lowest total yardage since the Tulane opener. Kearns was 7 for 18 for 126 yards (by way of example, Pitt's QB went 22 for 37 for 308 and 5 TDs against Clemson the week before). Seems like WF's backup QB could be a potted plant, and some here would argue for the potted plant to start.

If Wolford is healthy, he will start, and he will give WF the best chance to beat BC. Next year, it may be a different story, but to win one game, this year with Hinton unavailable, Wolford is WF's best option.
Click to expand...
Apples and oranges. Please don't compare our OC to Pitt's. This was Kearn's first start and it was against Clemson in horrible passing conditions for the first and fourth quarters. Wolford's QB rating is putrid and he sucked against Army in a game we should have won. Tulane was even worse. 32 college starts vs first start. Come on.
 
ReplacementDeac said:
Way too much certainty in this post. The only certainty at this point is that Wolford stinks. Yes, Wolford is probably better than Kearns, but I'd at least claim that, despite his shoddy #s against Clemson, there is a nonzero chance that Kearns doesn't suck, which is more than you can say for Wolford. The conditions against Clemson were terrible, receivers did him no favors, and he improved as the game progressed. I'd like to see more of him.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I believe someone posted that Wolf was DFL in passer rating among p5 teams. If there is a 20% chance Kearns is better I'd like to see him get the chance. It's not like the downside is that great.
 
Kearns starts and we beat BC by two touchdowns.

Everyone will see that Kearns is going to be very good for

Vegas is calling for a 19-16 game but we win 24-10.
 
Could be dead wrong on this, but Newman will go right by Kearns in the offseason unless they change the offense. They clearly put a premium on the QB being able to run, something Newman, Hinton, and Wolford can all do. Kearns is a pocket guy. It is strange we took him in the first place given he is a pure passer.
 
seriously how can anyone except this piece of shit offensive coaching and special teams staff???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top