• 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!

Next BOT meeting

Not getting bowl eligibility this year with the team that we have would be a major failure IMO. And it would make a 3-ish win season next year all the worse.

Still work to be done before this season is at all a success
 
i thought this thread was about a meeting of robots
 
ManhassetDeac said:
I think we should win at least 6 games every season to be Bowl eligible. I'm not going to advocate for the firing of coaches if we meet that threshold.

I've watched or attended every game so I know just as well as you about how we've coached and played in individual games. Both the BC and ULM games were embarassing. No argument here, and our Coaches should take their share of blame for both. But conversely, they should be given their equivalent share of praise for the last two games where they did a good job.
Click to expand...

What exactly is their "fair share" of the blame? I think everyone on here has commented that we have been better as coaches and players for two weeks. Wasting half the season and completely demoralizing the team doesn't cut it. Coaches are paid to coach the whole season, and to work in the off season at preparing us for the first game. If you are advocating we pay coaches for wins and not for losses, then I can get behind that.

ETA: And for the record, I think we should have beaten BC and ULM, but BC isn't a gimme. We are talking about 1 win for sure that we didn't get. It's not the end of the world, but it may keep us out of a bowl. My issue is really not wins vs. losses, but the complete ineptitude displayed by the coaching staff leading into the season, and the stubbornness to correct it for four games. Also, I'm pretty sure Grobe thinks the silent practice gimmick and playing with more intensity turned things around. I'm very afraid that he doesn't realize that it was horrific coaching decisions being fixed that made the difference.
 
Last edited:
Strickland33 said:
That is what I'm saying. But I really don't see how waiting-and-seeing is at odds negates, dulls, or even challenges a #WellmanOut and #GroboOut perspective. Not yet, at least.

I'm nowhere near a member of the sunshine brigade, but I enjoy winning. I just hate losing, especially the way in which we've been losing in basketball and football. There's just no excuse for it.

Until our revenue sports start performing better and coaching staffs are held accountable for results on the field, then #WellmanOut.

Until 1) our football team brings 100% effort against Goliaths/good teams and wins games that we should win, 2) our head coach holds his own staff accountable performances on the field, and 3) we start seeing ACC-caliber recruiting and player development, then #GrobeOut.

(I left out LoboOut only because I don't think that LoboOut is a particularly controversial position.)
Click to expand...

with grobe 2-3 aren't gonna happen we've seen... but if he can do 1 well enough nobody will be complaining.

I am a skeptic too, though.

eta: we still run poorly, and so the line in all likelihood still isn't that good. also miami will be the first team with a real chance to prepare for our "new" offense.
 
Last edited:
Turd Ferguson said:
What exactly is their "fair share" of the blame? I think everyone on here has commented that we have been better as coaches and players for two weeks. Wasting half the season and completely demoralizing the team doesn't cut it. Coaches are paid to coach the whole season, and to work in the off season at preparing us for the first game. If you are advocating we pay coaches for wins and not for losses, then I can get behind that.

ETA: And for the record, I think we should have beaten BC and ULM, but BC isn't a gimme. We are talking about 1 win for sure that we didn't get. It's not the end of the world, but it may keep us out of a bowl. My issue is really not wins vs. losses, but the complete ineptitude displayed by the coaching staff leading into the season, and the stubbornness to correct it for four games. Also, I'm pretty sure Grobe thinks the silent practice gimmick and playing with more intensity turned things around. I'm very afraid that he doesn't realize that it was horrific coaching decisions being fixed that made the difference.
Click to expand...

I agree the game against BC was no gimme, even if we weren't running the offense we were at the time, however, the margin of defeat was directly related to 2 fumbles on option plays. So, no it wasn't no gimme, but our offensive struggles lost that game for the most part. I don't think BC's defense is any better than Maryland's or State's. You're right though, the ULM game really stands out because I have no doubt their defense is worse than Maryland's and State's and if we were playcalling then like we are now, I think we win that game by 2 TD's at least.
 
wake20 said:
There will always be ~5 ACC teams on our schedule each year that we can beat. Sometimes we go 1-4 against them, sometimes we go 4-1 against them. No one will be an "easy win" for Wake Forest and wins against teams who have down years don't count less because those teams are down. This year it's BC, State, MD, Cuse, Duke. We're 2-1 so far against them. The ULM loss hurt a lot, and it's a gimme game we need to schedule each year and not lose, but we're back to that 5-6 win team we always were. We may have a few breakthrough years and we may have some 3-win seasons, but we're about what we are.

Basketball, on the other hand, is a whole 'nother story.
Click to expand...


good post. do you mean 5-6 win team we always were/are to be about just the grobe era?
 
Turd Ferguson said:
What exactly is their "fair share" of the blame? I think everyone on here has commented that we have been better as coaches and players for two weeks. Wasting half the season and completely demoralizing the team doesn't cut it. Coaches are paid to coach the whole season, and to work in the off season at preparing us for the first game. If you are advocating we pay coaches for wins and not for losses, then I can get behind that.

ETA: And for the record, I think we should have beaten BC and ULM, but BC isn't a gimme. We are talking about 1 win for sure that we didn't get. It's not the end of the world, but it may keep us out of a bowl. My issue is really not wins vs. losses, but the complete ineptitude displayed by the coaching staff leading into the season, and the stubbornness to correct it for four games. Also, I'm pretty sure Grobe thinks the silent practice gimmick and playing with more intensity turned things around. I'm very afraid that he doesn't realize that it was horrific coaching decisions being fixed that made the difference.
Click to expand...

I mean that the coaches and players share blame. Trying to be an option team was idiotic, but Grobe didn't make some of the awful decisions and pitches that Tanner made against BC. True, he shouldn't have ever been put in that situation, but his play is still on him.
 
liveanddiedeac said:
I agree the game against BC was no gimme, even if we weren't running the offense we were at the time, however, the margin of defeat was directly related to 2 fumbles on option plays. So, no it wasn't no gimme, but our offensive struggles lost that game for the most part. I don't think BC's defense is any better than Maryland's or State's. You're right though, the ULM game really stands out because I have no doubt their defense is worse than Maryland's and State's and if we were playcalling then like we are now, I think we win that game by 2 TD's at least.
Click to expand...

I agree. I think beating BC was a realistic expectation for this team. Someone just called me out (rightfully so) on another thread for taking that win for granted. But I still think if we had spent the off-season preparing for the offense we have run for two weeks then we would have won. Our coaches, however, took any opportunity for winning off the table, and that pissed me off.

Also, it isn't magic that our guys look happier and are playing harder. It is directly related to the coaches putting them in a position to win.
 
ManhassetDeac said:
I mean that the coaches and players share blame. Trying to be an option team was idiotic, but Grobe didn't make some of the awful decisions and pitches that Tanner made against BC. True, he shouldn't have ever been put in that situation, but his play is still on him.
Click to expand...

No, but the decision to put Tanner in that scheme was asinine. That's like saying the coaches made Tanner throw the ball with his right hand all game but he shares some of the blame for throwing 5 picks.
 
dmcheatw said:
with grobe 2-3 aren't gonna happen we've seen... but if he can do 1 well enough nobody will be complaining.

I am a skeptic too, though.

eta: we still run poorly, and so the line in all likelihood still isn't that good. also miami will be the first team with a real chance to prepare for our "new" offense.
Click to expand...

I have more hope being competitive in this game than three weeks ago, but I don't think we can hang with them.

That said, I think we should ditch the running game altogether. Running the ball takes good lineman and good backs. We struggle recruiting and developing at both positions. We do a better job with qbs and receivers. The best play we've run all year was rolling Tanner out of the pocket to the right and then throwing across field to Camp. I still have a hard time believing Lobo drew that one up, but if so, kudos. Move the pocket around/get outside the rush, throw quickly, use the passing game as a run...much better chance at being successful.
 
ManhassetDeac said:
I mean that the coaches and players share blame. Trying to be an option team was idiotic, but Grobe didn't make some of the awful decisions and pitches that Tanner made against BC. True, he shouldn't have ever been put in that situation, but his play is still on him.
Click to expand...


Not when the coaches put a player to try to do something they're not good at. Anyone with eyes could see from the game against Presby, that Tanner didn't have any confidence in what he was doing and neither did the rest of the offense. Trying to make the option a focal point of our offense made no sense and it shouldn't have taken so long to figure it out. If they want to run the option a few times a game, then fine, we actually got a couple of decent 1st down gains Saturday from it, but for the coaches to think we could be successful as an "option" team is laughable. Like has been stated the difference in the morale and confidence in our team is night and day since the coaches finally figured it out.
 
Lohengrin said:
For the record, we're still running "the Option" (tm). Ran it twice I believe vs. Maryland. Not sure how it affects the analysis on this thread.
Click to expand...

I think Lobo throws it out there once or twice a game hoping somebody will break it open, he can claim victory, and we'll move on.
 
Turd Ferguson said:
I think Lobo throws it out there once or twice a game hoping somebody will break it open, he can claim victory, and we'll move on.
Click to expand...

Which is fine as far as I'm concerned, a few times a game just to give the opposing defense more to think about, is okay. However, like I said, to think we had the personnel to be an "option" team was nuts.
 
Turd Ferguson said:
I think Lobo throws it out there once or twice a game hoping somebody will break it open, he can claim victory, and we'll move on.
Click to expand...

I think it has more to do with Grobe's unwillingness to admit catagorically that he was wrong; that the option should have been scrapped last spring. Like Lohengrin said, we definitely pitched the ball out of the option twice Saturday. In both cases it was for a short gain. Personally, I don't think the reward is worth the risk. I'd rip those pages out of the playbook.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top