• 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!

Lobo

I don't get why we didn't run a play-action off that option/pitch/whatever play. The DBs were releasing every time after the first time we used it.

Our best drives in the past two games have been pass heavy. It's not very hard to see.

I think the coaches are worried about having our defense out there for too long given our lack of depth and our tendency to wear down late in the game as a result, but the three-and-outs aren't doing diddlysquat.
 
Last edited:
Honestly I think Grobe is still shell-shocked from the end of the half vs. VT.
 
A decade of above .500 football. Many of our peers would hope for 1 or 2 years of above .500 football in a decade.
 
As someone mentioned earlier, what drives me mad is the repeated playcalling, that appears to be setting something up that we never do.

That "option" pitch we ran 5 times against ND was tailor made to see what the defense was doing (over-pursuing) and to use that against them. I kept waiting all night for us to use that play, or any other play, to actually run a counter.

ND left no one but the cornerback on the backside of SO many plays Saturday night, but we never once ran a counter play. Honestly, I can't remember us running a counter all year.

Opposing fans still talk about our misdirection offense, but I think all it means any more is that we typically go in the wrong direction when running the ball.
 
ChrisL68 said:
A decade of above .500 football. Many of our peers would hope for 1 or 2 years of above .500 football in a decade.
Click to expand...

we were 62-60 from 2001-2010. Yes that's technically above .500, but basically that's a .500 team. You can call it above .500, I just wanted to provide color on exactly how far above 500. That includes 32-48 in ACC play, good for 10th of 12 in the conference over that stretch.

A few other points:

1) Only UNC and Duke had a worse record than us over that decade. UVA was also 2 games over .500. Thus, most of our peers (i.e. the other ACC teams) would be hoping for much better than that. Note: Syracuse was also worse, so we were tied for 10th-11th out of 14 with UVA over that stretch of time.

2) Our record on its own isn't proof of what Lobo has or hasn't done. As crazy as it sounds, one of the coordinators can make a team either better or worse than it would have otherwise been with an average replacement. In our best stretch (2006-2008), our defense was far superior to our offense all three years and carried us. A prevailing (but far from unanimous) thought is that with a better offense to match the D, we could have won more games, especially in 2008.

3) I will grant you that going over.500 was better than our past history by leaps and bounds. In fact, so much so that 99.9% of the Wake fan base is still in full support of Grobe even after two straight seasons without a bowl game (when 70 teams go), and his worst year in year 10 of his contract. You won't see that at many schools. It speaks volumes to what he's done.

However, Lobo is still taking heat, because much (most) of the fanbase senses that we could produce even better results than we have if we change the OC position. It could probably be worse. But there are dozens of coaches at even less prestigious schools whose offenses have performed consistently better with lesser talent.
 
Haros said:
However, Lobo is still taking heat, because much (most) of the fanbase senses that we could produce even better results than we have if we change the OC position. It could probably be worse. But there are dozens of coaches at even less prestigious schools whose offenses have performed consistently better with lesser talent.
Click to expand...

:werd: We could have been better, even if what we've been was already better than where we came from.
 
The most successful periods of Wake football have generally been with offensive strategies that weren't fan favorites.

So we really don't know if we could have done better.

Just sayin
 
ChrisL68 said:
The most successful periods of Wake football have generally been with offensive strategies that weren't fan favorites.

So we really don't know if we could have done better.
Click to expand...

Sure, but it's not exactly illogical to suggest that if our offense had been better (i.e. not one of the worst in the ACC), our team would have been better. We lost a lot of close games during the last 10 years where one more score would have been a big deal. Last year, of course, our offense could have been great and we still probably wouldn't have one many/any more games.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top