We have plenty of weapons

[OrangePA]

I agree with you but QB and OL still concern me. I don't care how T Hunt did in the Spring game, you would expect him to be rusty, but I think he is who he is, and what he is on a good day is a serviceable QB. As far as the OL, I cut Adam a lot of slack last year due to the injuries but between Palmer's comments and Shafer giving Moreland half the line basically, I wonder how things will look there.

If Terrel were just a bit quicker on his feet!!!

 

[GoSU96]

Nonsense. We moved the ball against one team once our slide commenced: Maryland.

Talent--or lack thereof, more accurately--was a HUGE issue for all other games from Maryland on. That doesn't mean that it was the only reason or mutually exclusive to efficiency, coaching, injuries, etc. But to pretend that our playmaking talent was on-par with other teams or "good enough" is bunk. Unadulterated bunk--I invite anyone who thinks that to watch other teams, and gauge the difference between real skilled talent versus ours--the difference is both stark and clear. Heck, it was both stark and clear even when we played the likes of peer programs like Maryland, NC State, Pitt, and BC.

And for the record, we didn't have talent to gain yards. That was a fallacy that a small group of posters clung to after the Maryland game to rationalize the loss. Shortly thereafter, we couldn't gain yards OR score points. And the lack of skill talent / playmaking was an enormous reason why. That's what happens when you lack speed and don't have players that the opposing DC needs to worry about / game plan for.

First 8 games.

Non top six defenses: 320 vs Nova, 464 vs CMU, 589 vs UMd, 429 vs ND, 412 vs FSU, 370 vs Wake.

Vs #6 Lville 245, vs #1 Clemson 170.

McDonald was an idiot. The overall talent on the roster is better than it was 10, 5, and 3 years ago. It's not nearly as bad as they performed last year.

Are these guys good enough to just throw them out there, no, nobody is saying they are just going to out talent opponents, that's why you need great coaching in a program like this.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

My fear is that we're going to battle with axes and spears against teams with tanks and drones.

 

[OrangePA]

If we have "weapons" they are either stealth or we have mostly been shooting at ourselves for the past 15 years.

I know you are only stating your opinion, and that is fine. But, just to give your opinion a little more perspective, are you aware that even if we could "put up 25 or more a game," that would still rank us outside of the top 100 scoring offenses in FBS?

When the starting QB tells us that many on the offensive side last year did not know how to run the plays - that the offense was the master of nothing - that tells you that coaching was a huge problem last year.

I don't knock coaches as a rule. I feel that talent is almost always the answer.

But when the guys don't know how to run the playbook - they go into a season without having mastered any portion of the scheme - the predominate issue is the coaching.

Clearly this season, with a more simplified and efficient approach, we should learn much more about the talent level of the program.

 

[tipphill]

the only weapons of consequence at this point is the qb and the oline--everything else imho is a non entity at this time---its all smoke,and no substance without a competent qb and oline---and we do not have that. all the rest of what they write about is koolaid---sorry seen all this before MANY TIMES

 

[RF2044]

First 8 games.

Non top six defenses: 320 vs Nova, 464 vs CMU, 589 vs UMd, 429 vs ND, 412 vs FSU, 370 vs Wake.

Vs #6 Lville 245, vs #1 Clemson 170.

McDonald was an idiot. The overall talent on the roster is better than it was 10, 5, and 3 years ago. It's not nearly as bad as they performed last year.

Are these guys good enough to just throw them out there, no, nobody is saying they are just going to out talent opponents, that's why you need great coaching in a program like this.

#1, I never find arguments convincing when its suggested that you throw away a subset of the data to paint the rest of the data in a flattering light. Talk about artificial confirmatory bias.

#2, generally yards are a pretty good indicator of wins--but last year was a complete exception. Precisely because we couldn't score points. That was a season long problem, it wasn't just attributable to after injuries set in. The offensive skilled talent stunk from the opening kickoff of the first game and struggled for the entire rest of the year. Generally speaking that was a season long trend.

#3, to highlight the offensive futility, consider the following: how many TDs did our running backs score last season? How many after the opening game, which was against a FCS opponent? How many TD passes did our QBs throw? How many total TDs did we score as a team? The output was pathetic. Yes, injures played a part. So did coaching. But the main reason was lack of talent. If those players hadn't gotten injured, would it have improved the offensive production? Undoubtedly, but that would only put lipstick on a pig. The results still would have sucked.

#4, one of the main reasons we amassed so many yards in the first 2/3 of games is that we were often behind--significantly, and we threw because we had to. Opposing teams were willing to concede meaningless yards between the 20s, because we couldn't score. In large part because our skilled offensive talent was subpar.

#5, another reason we amassed so many yards in the first 2/3 of games is that we were pretty good at forcing turnovers. Which in turn led to an artificially high number of possessions in several games. But unfortunately, we couldn't do anything substantive with the ball because, again, we lacked talent and couldn't score.

I honestly think that people get so hung up on trying to point to one root cause / magic bullet and one root cause only that they slap blinders on and pretend that other issues weren't as significant as they actually were. Any attempt to paint our skilled talent as anything more than decidedly below average is misguided. Even our peer programs had game breakers. My kingdom for a Stefan Diggs, because a player like that--even just ONE player like that--would literally transform our offensive gameplan and make us exponentially more difficult to defend.

I'm a serial optimist--one of the more positive people on the forum when it comes to football and our team's chances. But I don't know how anyone could have experienced last year and not come away with the conclusion that our skilled talent is significantly lower than even our peer programs, let alone top 25 caliber programs. The fact that there were other significant problems contributing to our offensive woes too doesn't alter that fact.

 

[RMH44]

#1, I never find arguments convincing when its suggested that you throw away a subset of the data to paint the rest of the data in a flattering light. Talk about artificial confirmatory bias.

#2, generally yards are a pretty good indicator of wins--but last year was a complete exception. Precisely because we couldn't score points. That was a season long problem, it wasn't just attributable to after injuries set in.

#3, to highlight the offensive futility, consider the following: how many TDs did our running backs score last season? How many after the opening game, which was against a FCS opponent? How many TD passes did our QBs throw? How many total TDs did we score as a team? The output was pathetic. Yes, injures played a part. So did coaching. But the main reason was lack of talent. If those players hadn't gotten injured, would it have improved the offensive production? Undoubtedly, but that would only put lipstick on a pig. The results still would have sucked.

#4, one of the main reasons we amassed so many yards in the first 2/3 of games is that we were often behind--significantly, and we threw because we had to. Opposing teams were willing to concede meaningless yards between the 20s, because we couldn't score. In large part because our skilled offensive talent was subpar.

#5, another reason we amassed so many yards in the first 2/3 of games is that we were pretty good at forcing turnovers. Which in turn led to an artificially high number of possessions in several games. But unfortunately, we couldn't do anything substantive with the ball because, again, we lacked talent and couldn't score.

I honestly think that people get so hung up on trying to point to one root cause / magic bullet that they slap blinders on and pretend that other issues weren't as significant as they actually were. Any attempt to paint our skilled talent as anything more than decidedly below average is misguided. Even our peer programs had game breakers. My kingdom for a Stefan Diggs, because a player like that--even just ONE player like that--would literally transform our offensive gameplan and make us exponentially more difficult to defend.

I'm a serial optimist--one of the more positive people on the forum when it comes to football and our team's chances. But I don't know how anyone could have experienced last year and not come away with the conclusion that our skilled talent is significantly lower than even our peer programs, let alone top 25 caliber programs. The fact that there were other significant problems contributing to our offensive woes too doesn't alter that fact.

Or a Jamison Crowder or even a Jamel Riddle. Anyone that can hit an occasional home run...or an extra base hit.

Hopefully, we have at least one of these (Estime, Custis, Erv) on the roster this season.

 

[007]

When the starting QB tells us that many on the offensive side last year did not know how to run the plays - that the offense was the master of nothing - that tells you that coaching was a huge problem last year.

I don't knock coaches as a rule. I feel that talent is almost always the answer.

But when the guys don't know how to run the playbook - they go into a season without having mastered any portion of the scheme - the predominate issue is the coaching.

Clearly this season, with a more simplified and efficient approach, we should learn much more about the talent level of the program.

Yeah, I think the coaching and game planning was just as culpable as the talent in the disaster that was last years's offense. I also know the game well enough to know that opposing staff's were comfortable playing straight up man on the "talent" we had at WR, which allowed them to cheat the SS up to take away anything else we had. D coordinators likely did not know how well the players knew or didn't know the plays. But, they sure did play us as if didn't matter. We simply did not have a difference maker anywhere on offense that would force teams to game plan for.

 

[orange79]

Ishamel is the only guy I see who could be classified as a possible weapon, and depends what your definition of that is. Mike Williams was a weapon on a very very bad team. If receivers don't dicate double teams and running backs can't break a play for a TD at any point, I don't see weapons. The offense stinks for many reasons, coaching, scheme, lack of playmakers, ( poor recruiting and or talent) is one as well.

Weapons!!!

I see what you did there

 

[RF2044]

The overall talent on the roster is better than it was 10, 5, and 3 years ago. It's not nearly as bad as they performed last year.

Go, I'm not trying to be argumentative, but honestly--do you believe that statement is true? I certainly don't--not after what we saw last year. Full disclosure, before last season, I DID believe that our skilled talent was good enough for us to get to 7-8 wins. But considering how things turned out...

Let's examine your point above. We certainly are NOT better at QB than we were 3 years ago [Nassib], or 5 years ago [Paulus was better than Hunt was last year]. 10 years ago, we're talking about the Andrew Robinson's / Cody Catalina's / David Legree's of the world -- I don't think it is clear that Hunt [last year only] was even better than that motley crew, given his on-field performance. It was that bad. And once he went down, and we promptly ran through the other three QBs at various times, I think it is fair to question whether our situation at QB was any better than it was 10 years ago--which was as poor of an era of football in program history.

I like Prince Tyson-Gulley--a lot. I think he was misused last year, and wasn't given the ball nearly enough. I also think that his numbers suffered as a function of the high level of OL injuries. Despite that, I'm not sure that PTG, as much as I liked him, was honestly any better than the RBs we've had for the past 10 years. We've had thousand yard runner after thousand yard runner. Very solid players like Curtis Brinkley, Delone Carter, Damien Rhodes, Antwon Bailey, even Jerome Smith. Quality backs. PTG had some impressively long runs. Love the kid. But I don't know that he was necessarily "better" than his predecessors from the previous 10 years.

At WR, we were awful. Flat out awful. Some of that was on the QBs, but a lot of it had to do with the talent. West had a fantastic year [even though he finished with ZERO touchdowns]. Ismael was a true frosh, and he flashed. That's about it. Nobody else did anything noteworthy. Was that really better than three years ago, when we had Lemon / Sales? Hell no. You can make the case that it was better than the Rice Moss / Tim Lane era of 10 years ago, but BFD -- that was the nadir of our WR talent. We'd better be better than that sorry level... and we marginally were, but not much more.

Again, I just think some are significantly overestimating the skilled offensive talent on this team, top to bottom, across every positional unit. I was just as guilty of that prior to last year, expecting Hunt to have a big season and the skilled players to be more solid than they were. But the proof is in the pudding, and last year's group of skilled talent compares unfavorably with as poor of talent as we had even 10 years ago, at the pinnacle of our decline.

That's a big problem--especially as we try to climb back to respectability.

The entire group has a LOT of proving to do this year. It will be interesting to see whether Ismael, Custis, Enoicy, Morris, McFarlane, Dunk, Parris, Hunt, etc. can deliver better contributions than what we got last year from our skilled "talent." Given last year's performance, I think there are a lot of unfounded attributions being made about how good the skilled talent on the team was. They were below average, at best--especially compared to high performing programs. I'm not sure how that can be legitimately debated, all you have to do is watch college football beyond our games.

 

[money3189]

Im actually excited about the WR's. Despite some drops during the spring game I think they are the strength of the team. They can all do different things. Really like some of the pass concepts along with the TE's. Really up to our running game and Hunt. Hunt just needs to be at a 58% completion rate, and 18 TD's to 6 Int with 2400 yards. Atleast thats what Im hoping. lol...

 

[retro44]

Im actually excited about the WR's. Despite some drops during the spring game I think they are the strength of the team. They can all do different things. Really like some of the pass concepts along with the TE's. Really up to our running game and Hunt. Hunt just needs to be at a 58% completion rate, and 18 TD's to 6 Int with 2400 yards. Atleast thats what Im hoping. lol...

I am with you on the W.R. as what i saw on Saturday tells me that when Enoicy and Custis gets their long strides going full bore they can be very special players in the near future. Enoicy showed that he can blow by the CB'S with his strides,all we need is an accurate throwing QB to hit him in stride. These two can fly by CB'S with their 6'5"-6'6" frames.

We only got a peep show on Saturday... I hope

 

[syr02esq]

Broyld, Ish, Tdunk, Irv, Corn, Custis, Eoincy, Lewis, Avant, Throw in the RB's a veteran line, QB, and Kicking game and we should be able to score this year

I didn't watch the spring game. But if we are really going to run a "power run" game with two TE sets, I just don't see how we are going to move the ball especially against ACC teams stacking the box. Do we honestly think we can play smash mouth football with the front seven of a FSU, Clemson or Vtech? Considering the current state of affairs with the OL, I find it hard to believe we'll be able to move the ball consistently. I'm really afraid we are going to return to G Rob bad offense. Here's hoping I'm very wrong.

 

[Ringostar57]

We need some weapons that can fire 30 50 caliber. Ishmael is the closest to 30 caliber...

 

[rrlbees]

When the starting QB tells us that many on the offensive side last year did not know how to run the plays - that the offense was the master of nothing - that tells you that coaching was a huge problem last year. I don't knock coaches as a rule. I feel that talent is almost always the answer. But when the guys don't know how to run the playbook - they go into a season without having mastered any portion of the scheme - the predominate issue is the coaching. Clearly this season, with a more simplified and efficient approach, we should learn much more about the talent level of the program.

Sometimes words are just that, words. I saw every game and as much as the offense struggled, I don't remember once saying to myself that these players don't know the plays. It was always either a bad play call for the situation or more often lack of execution/talent.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

When the starting QB tells us that many on the offensive side last year did not know how to run the plays - that the offense was the master of nothing - that tells you that coaching was a huge problem last year.

I don't knock coaches as a rule. I feel that talent is almost always the answer.

But when the guys don't know how to run the playbook - they go into a season without having mastered any portion of the scheme - the predominate issue is the coaching.

Clearly this season, with a more simplified and efficient approach, we should learn much more about the talent level of the program.

McDonald truly was gifted. I know of no other coach that only ran one play that had a team full of players that couldn't grasp the entirety of the playbook.

 

[TheCusian]

McDonald truly was gifted. I know of no other coach that only ran one play that had a team full of players that couldn't grasp the entirety of the playbook.

Surely you don't believe this. The word out of camp for two years was the thickness of the playbook. Many here rallied for simplicity ala 2012.

 

[TheCusian]

Sometimes words are just that, words. I saw every game and as much as the offense struggled, I don't remember once saying to myself that these players don't know the plays. It was always either a bad play call for the situation or more often lack of execution/talent.

Yeah right.

 

[orange79]

Surely you don't believe this. The word out of camp for two years was the thickness of the playbook. Many here rallied for simplicity ala 2012.

Going out on a limb here, but I'm pretty sure it was hyperbole/a joke/all of the above

 

[TheCusian]

Going out on a limb here, but I'm pretty sure it was hyperbole/a joke/all of the above

Ahh - I'm slow on the uptake. Up with the flu all night.

 

[SoBristol]

Better to forget 2014 -- after Hunt went down, we had obvious talent limitations at QB. After Foy went down, we were running tryouts at R-OT and the OGs were playing through injuries. Two of our better WRs (Broyld & Estime) were out. The offense was a disaster in November.

The question is whether we have talent on offense in 2015, with Hunt back (providing a running threat that was absent after the first 5 games last season). Ishmael having a year under his belt, and Enoicy and Custis starting to emerge.

And it is a mixed bag. Our RB unit would rank dead last in the ACC -- we have to hope McFarlane emerges. The OL has plenty of experience, decent size by SU standards, but is small and slow by ACC standards. Good OLs get push on 3rd and 2 -- do we? It isn't coaching -- it is strength and physical ability. Bottom line we have not recruited at RB or OL on a par with our rivals. Parris has yet to be productive at TE and what do we have behind him?

Where we have some promise is in the collection of Phillips, Ishmael, Custis & Enoicy -- receivers who look like they can develop into weapons. I would add Avant based on what he did on Saturday. We have not had this depth in a long time.

Mixed bag. No easy fix for the OL or the RBs. A lot depends on Hunt's ability to add that running dimension and improve his accuracy.

 

[orangechef]

I think there is some truth to both sides of this discussion. Great coaching, game planning and the correct system for the talent you have can go a long way, see the N.E. Patriots. Straight up mega talent can also be successful, see Florida State over the years. I have been underwhelmed by their scheme and play calling over the years, they just line up and over power you. Syracuse is never going to be the latter. Syracuse has to be smarter and more efficient than their opponents to win consistently, again see the Patriots, or, if you like, see Boise State. Both of these teams win regularly without top to bottom overwhelming talent. Syracuse had their most recent brush with success during Nassibs senior season. That team was well coached and had scheme and play calling that fit our talent, it worked. I think this years team has at least comparable talent, not the same at every position, but overall. Obviously not as good at the QB position, but bigger, stronger, faster and more athletic than that team was on offense. A case can be made that the George M. offense, HIS vision and leadership, did not fit our personnel, and game planning and play calling were visionless, it didn't work. It is yet to be seen what kind of success this years offense will have, what kind of leader he'll be , what vision and scheme Lester will have and employ. I do think the tools are available, ridiculous numbers of injuries aside, to have a competitive, successful D1 offense that gives us a chance to win. Go Orange!!!

 

[Cusefan78]

The problem we have had for years is the lack of qb play. Yes Paulus was serviceable for one year and nassib had a good senior year but hunt is not serviceable. Yes he can run for a few yards but his passing game is lacking. I read a comment about rust. Come on he has been throwing for a while now. He has never had a capable arm and I don't see any reason to think that has changed. We need a qb badly. Best case scenario is dungy comes in and lights it up and is better then anyone thinks he is and starts. If not we need to recruit someone who can throw. Until that happens we will never turn the corner. Receivers are only as good as the guy throwing to them.

 

[rosconey]

a good staf will play to its qb's strengths - not force him into doing what he cant-

we will see pretty early on if this season is boom or bust

 

[GoSU96]

#1, I never find arguments convincing when its suggested that you throw away a subset of the data to paint the rest of the data in a flattering light. Talk about artificial confirmatory bias.

#2, generally yards are a pretty good indicator of wins--but last year was a complete exception. Precisely because we couldn't score points. That was a season long problem, it wasn't just attributable to after injuries set in. The offensive skilled talent stunk from the opening kickoff of the first game and struggled for the entire rest of the year. Generally speaking that was a season long trend.

#3, to highlight the offensive futility, consider the following: how many TDs did our running backs score last season? How many after the opening game, which was against a FCS opponent? How many TD passes did our QBs throw? How many total TDs did we score as a team? The output was pathetic. Yes, injures played a part. So did coaching. But the main reason was lack of talent. If those players hadn't gotten injured, would it have improved the offensive production? Undoubtedly, but that would only put lipstick on a pig. The results still would have sucked.

#4, one of the main reasons we amassed so many yards in the first 2/3 of games is that we were often behind--significantly, and we threw because we had to. Opposing teams were willing to concede meaningless yards between the 20s, because we couldn't score. In large part because our skilled offensive talent was subpar.

#5, another reason we amassed so many yards in the first 2/3 of games is that we were pretty good at forcing turnovers. Which in turn led to an artificially high number of possessions in several games. But unfortunately, we couldn't do anything substantive with the ball because, again, we lacked talent and couldn't score.

I honestly think that people get so hung up on trying to point to one root cause / magic bullet and one root cause only that they slap blinders on and pretend that other issues weren't as significant as they actually were. Any attempt to paint our skilled talent as anything more than decidedly below average is misguided. Even our peer programs had game breakers. My kingdom for a Stefan Diggs, because a player like that--even just ONE player like that--would literally transform our offensive gameplan and make us exponentially more difficult to defend.

I'm a serial optimist--one of the more positive people on the forum when it comes to football and our team's chances. But I don't know how anyone could have experienced last year and not come away with the conclusion that our skilled talent is significantly lower than even our peer programs, let alone top 25 caliber programs. The fact that there were other significant problems contributing to our offensive woes too doesn't alter that fact.

1. What it does illustrate is that outside of a couple of the best defenses in the sport last year the team was capable of moving the ball.

2. No . Pretty funny when I pointed out the efficiency problem after CMU, and it was consistent with the year prior, you told me I was hand wringing and that it was too early to make an assessment. Some of us don't need a seasons worth of data.