• 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!

Official Wake Forest Vs. Virginia Football Gamethread

Les at Scout said that "reinjury" is overstating what happened to Hinton. That it was more of a "tweak". Nevertheless he didn't dress for UVa and I sense some concern that his full complement of abilities has not reappeared yet. As I've been all season I'll be cool with however the staff manages this situation. Don't forget we also have a bowl game on the schedule now, so that's another game Kendall could play in.
 
liveanddiedeac said:
Yeah, but that's not the case here. He wasn't even dressed against UVA, so he's not playing against Louisville. Apparently 2 months wasn't enough time for his injury to heal, 1 or 2 weeks isn't enough to heal a re-injury. At best maybe he's cleared to play against Clemson and I'm not sure you want to trot him out there coming off injury when Clemson's 310lb manchild DE is coming at him. I hate it, I was beyond excited after the way he played against Duke and the way he started against Delaware.
Click to expand...

Do you think Hinton should play if he is healthy and cleared to play?
 
PhDeac said:
Do you think Hinton should play if he is healthy and cleared to play?
Click to expand...

If coming into this week, he was healthy and cleared to play, then yes. If the best he can do is get back in time for the last 2 regular season games and the bowl game, then I can see Clawson wanting to take the redshirt year for him and keeping 3 years of eligibility. If it weren't for our mess at QB, he should've redshirted last year, so if he shirts this year he's really on the schedule he should've been in the first place. I mean I kind understand if your of the opinion that he should come back if he's cleared and healthy at any point the rest of the year, but in my opinion it's getting late to waste a year of eligibility for him.
 
Ok. I just don't think it's a waste to try to win these games.
 
PhDeac said:
Ok. I just don't think it's a waste to try to win these games.
Click to expand...

If we knew we were getting a 100 percent healthy and prepared Kendall Hinton then yeah, but it's getting really late to think we'd get that Kendall Hinton this year. More likely we could get an 80 percent, rusty Kendall Hinton this year and the question becomes would it be worth it? I think Clawson has probably already made up his mind and his opinion is the only one the matters really.
 
The good thing is that I believe Clawson has said he's only going to play Hinton if he's able to "be Kendall Hinton". Not going to play him if he's not up to speed or able to make ALL the moves he's capable of.
 
Lohengrin said:
The good thing is that I believe Clawson has said he's only going to play Hinton if he's able to "be Kendall Hinton". Not going to play him if he's not up to speed or able to make ALL the moves he's capable of.
Click to expand...

Wonder if that is what caused the "re-injury" or "tweak" was the coach's testing him to see if he was able to be "Kendall Hinton" in practice. I don't mean that in a derogatory way, just that I'm sure they had to see if he could go full speed at some point and they got their answer.
 
He was taking the first team snaps.
 
If Hinton had played on Saturday and gone 9-10 with a passing TD and a 65 yard rushing TD we'd swear he was the 2nd coming of Riley Skinner, vs. wanting to run the kid out of town.
 
UVA's sideline warning was obviously planned and a very effective motivation technique. They went crazy with excitement when the ref called it. Refs should probably figure out that they're just playing into the team's hands when they do it. Maybe get rid of the warning entirely and go straight to a penalty. Or else we should start doing it too!

But on the subject of in-game motivation, our video on "the process" at the start of Q4 was very effective. Our guys were watching it and it definitely pumped them up.
 
DeacDaddy said:
UVA's sideline warning was obviously planned and a very effective motivation technique. They went crazy with excitement when the ref called it. Refs should probably figure out that they're just playing into the team's hands when they do it. Maybe get rid of the warning entirely and go straight to a penalty. Or else we should start doing it too!

But on the subject of in-game motivation, our video on "the process" at the start of Q4 was very effective. Our guys were watching it and it definitely pumped them up.
Click to expand...

I noticed our guys were watching it too. At first I thought they were just not paying attention to their captains or coaches in the huddles, but on 2nd look it was obvious they were supposed to be checking it out. Kind of hokey how UVA tried to use our videos , cheers and piped-in music for their own motivation, but kind of smart too in a "this is OUR house" way. Glad it backfired, b/c I think it pissed off our guys.
 
DownEastDeac said:
I noticed our guys were watching it too. At first I thought they were just not paying attention to their captains or coaches in the huddles, but on 2nd look it was obvious they were supposed to be checking it out. Kind of hokey how UVA tried to use our videos , cheers and piped-in music for their own motivation, but kind of smart too in a "this is OUR house" way. Glad it backfired, b/c I think it pissed off our guys.
Click to expand...

I like that video, pumps me up!

We might need one to play at the start of the 3rd quarter though, we came out flat and UVA hit us in the mouth.
 
Last edited:
Pilchard said:
It's been posted here before: Wolford and Hinton have the same 40 time. Wolford is deceptively fast. When healthy, Hinton is better at making people miss. Although he only threw a handful of passes, Wolford threw the ball with significantly more zip this week than against Army.

Very happy with the win, but Clawson and staff got to stop playing for long field goals. Over the last two games, WF has faced a 4th and 4 or less and elected to try field goals of 46, 47 and 48 rather than go for the first down (also the 3rd down calls on each occasion were runs up the middle). WF has ended up with a total of 3 points on those three possessions. On both Weaver misses, WF was up 3 in the 2nd half; so, even if Weaver makes the field goal, it's still a one score game. While Clawson's conservative ball-control minimize mistake philosophy has largely worked, when WF has a lead in the 2nd half, touchdowns win games and put the other team away...
Click to expand...

The field goals are driving me absolutely insane.
 
Deacsfan27 said:
The field goals are driving me absolutely insane.
Click to expand...

I don't mind FG's if you're trying your best to not settle for them. Handing the ball of on 3rd and 6 or whatever it was to basically settle for a 48 yard FG try is crazy. Weaver is a good kicker, but 48 yards is probably a 50/50 shot for him in game conditions. I wish Clawson had watched the tape of the 2007 game vs. UVA before he decided to do that.
 
liveanddiedeac said:
I don't mind FG's if you're trying your best to not settle for them. Handing the ball of on 3rd and 6 or whatever it was to basically settle for a 48 yard FG try is crazy. Weaver is a good kicker, but 48 yards is probably a 50/50 shot for him in game conditions. I wish Clawson had watched the tape of the 2007 game vs. UVA before he decided to do that.
Click to expand...

Probably less than 50/50. The point expectancy and win expectancy say to go for it almost every single time there. I get being conservative, but if he really wants to do that then we might as well just punt and pin them inside the 10.
 
point expectancy higher for a punt than a FGA?
 
I don't mind running it on 3rd and 4 at the opposing 32 yard line IF we've already decided to go for it on 4th down regardless. But yes, to run it on 3rd and 4 and then try a 48 yarder? Definitely hard to defend that type of coaching philosophy.
 
TownieDeac said:
point expectancy higher for a punt than a FGA?
Click to expand...

The theory is that if you punt and pin them deep; you will get the ball back on their side of the field with a fresh set of downs. If you miss a long FG, the opponent has the ball in good field position.

WF tried long field goals with short 4th downs three times and ended up with 3 points. That's one point per possession. If WF had gone for it on 4th down and that had led to a touchdown on any of the three possessions, that would've been 2+ points a possession (even if WF had been stoned on the other two fourth downs), and if WF had scored a TD and then made a shorter FG on one of the other possessions that would've been more than 3 points per possession. Other than end of half, end of game and 4th and 8+, doesn't typically make sense to go for long field goals unless your kicker is Sam Swank.
 
Good post, Pilch.
 
I don't have a big problem with attempting an FG on 4th and 3 or so if it's in range, what I have a problem with is settling for it by calling a play that really doesn't give you a great chance to pick up the first down. Short of Wolford taking a kneel down on that 3rd down, we couldn't have made a weaker attempt to make a first down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top