1/4-pole storylines

[billsin01]

I think quarter-pole is an actual phrase but either way I like that it sounds vaguely dirty, so I'm going with it. Anyway, 2-2, four games in the books a little better idea of what we have in Shafer/GMC -- let's recap and look forward:

So how poorly could we have played the QB decision again?
I know we all would love to have that PSU game back and I know there are some here who who are completely confused (perhaps rightfully so) as to why Drew Allen was ever the starter. But I actually think the bigger questions are these two:

1. Why did we recruit Allen to begin with?
   I mean, in theory, it made sense. Experienced guy to add depth and compete for a starting job that appeared up for grabs. But if Hunt had a good spring, which he did, and Loeb isn't a complete mess, then we should have only really been involved on Allen if we were convinced he was a legit starter and/or he wasn't worried about any promise of playing time. Something tells me the staff got some bad info on the kid and/or fell in love with his high school film.
2. Why didn't we just dispense with the mythical strategic advantage of not naming a starter and just commit to playing 2 QBs?
   Both had good camps, both have some talent and you can avoid a QB controversy by simply giving each some PT to begin with. I know the old adage that if you have 2 QBs you have none, but if they had painted themselves in a corner by promising playing time, it seems like this would have been the way to go. Regardless, I feel like the way it was played was pretty bad.

The offense remains a question mark
It's nice to see the productivity the past two weeks but Tulane and Wagner aren't Clemson and Va Tech. There's also been a bit of a struggle to break big plays -- neither Gulley nor Smith are averaging 5 ypc and outside of West, there hasn't been many big plays. Clemson will answer some of the lingering questions here and it's hard not to feel much better with Hunt at the helm, but the jury is still out.

Welcome to defense in an offense-heavy era
Somebody posted that mediocre defense is the new thing in college football but I think the point is simply that offenses are really good and it's just tough to throw a blanket on an opponent. The vast majority of teams are running some sort of spread and the toughest thing to do in football is make a tackle in space (my limited time playing football is my basis for this statement. I remember trying to time my spot in line in pit drills to match up with the only two kids I could tackle in space on our whole team. Even then I didn't make many tackles.) We are aggressive and try to make big negative plays or force turnovers. The downside is that you're going to give up some yardage and struggle against some teams that execute well. It happens. But ultimately I think it's the right approach.

Definitely a deeper team than in years past
Go did a good job of breaking this down in his post but I can't remember the last time we lost a player like Welch and had a kid with the athleticism and disruptive qualities of Johnson waiting in the wings. Morris looks good as well. A good sign going forward.

We won a game with special teams ... no, seriously, we did
We're not going to block three kicks in a game again this year but it was fun to at least see positive contributions from that group. Desir is a solid return guy. If we can get Norton kicking the ball in the end zone again, we should be in really solid shape.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

This post should have more attention. The only problem with it is that your math is off - we're at the third-pole.

 

[upperdeck]

maybe he is looking at the bowl game in jan 1st..

 

[IthacaBarrel]

quarter pole means one thing and one thing only...

I think it was me talking about the defenses today, lock down defenses in college football are so few and far between these days, expecting it is really almost crazy. I love our defense, if we can produce on offense it's really the way the game is being played today. SCORE POINTS and make a few stops on defense, a few turnovers, etc.

The D was absolutely torched versus NW but the offense needs to score points, plain and simple. Obviously, Bullough is super aggressive, he is going to blitz all day every day, we will make some big plays but we are going to give up our share but as long as the O can produce we will be fine. You cant white knuckle victories in college football on a consistent basis

My biggest concern is the run blocking, talent is talent but if we can push around Wagner and Tulane you have scheme issues as well. One thing about P and D and even Browning when he was here, they could find a way to run the ball versus teams that they should be able to run against. We need to figure out quickly or we could be in trouble because the D ain't going into lockdown mode versus many of these teams. Once again, I believe the biggest issue on this team is the O Line, not a lack of playmakers. We need to recruit better here once again.

 

[SmilinBob]

This post should have more attention. The only problem with it is that your math is off - we're at the third-pole.

Actually SU playing in the ACC Championship game and a bowl makes him closer than you are!

Bi-polar season so far. Played two real good teams and played well enough to win once. Played two below average teams and scorched them.

Pluses: Staff, qb, rb, wr, pass blocking, dl, Lack of fumbles, punt return and special blocks
Not sure: LB's and DB's vs pass, punting/placekicking.
Minuses: Tackling, O-Line run blocking, struggle vs mobile qb and Kickoffs

 

[billsin01]

This post should have more attention. The only problem with it is that your math is off - we're at the third-pole.

Ah yes, math. I never did spend much time checking my work

 

[billsin01]

quarter pole means one thing and one thing only...

I think it was me talking about the defenses today, lock down defenses in college football are so few and far between these days, expecting it is really almost crazy. I love our defense, if we can produce on offense it's really the way the game is being played today. SCORE POINTS and make a few stops on defense, a few turnovers, etc.

The D was absolutely torched versus NW but the offense needs to score points, plain and simple. Obviously, Bullough is super aggressive, he is going to blitz all day every day, we will make some big plays but we are going to give up our share but as long as the O can produce we will be fine. You cant white knuckle victories in college football on a consistent basis

My biggest concern is the run blocking, talent is talent but if we can push around Wagner and Tulane you have scheme issues as well. One thing about P and D and even Browning when he was here, they could find a way to run the ball versus teams that they should be able to run against. We need to figure out quickly or we could be in trouble because the D ain't going into lockdown mode versus many of these teams. Once again, I believe the biggest issue on this team is the O Line, not a lack of playmakers. We need to recruit better here once again.

Really good post. Agreed on the run blocking. I guess a more accurate point would have been that we haven't been able to generate big plays -- for the Rbs it seems to be a function of not having much room to run And not getting a lot of blocking on the second level. But yes, OL is something of a concern. I'm hoping last year was more than just an outlier and that this group proves as we go.

Defensively I love the aggressiveness but wouldn't mind seeing them dial back the blitzing a little bit. I don't want it to be conservative but there is a point at which you can blitz too much and I think we've been there at times. There was a safety blitz on 3rd-and-long vs Tulane that seemed bizarre with pressure we were already generating. Love the blitz but I think we're over-using it a bit. Perhaps that's not-picking tho.

 

[billsin01]

Actually SU playing in the ACC Championship game and a bowl makes him closer than you are!

Bi-polar season so far. Played two real good teams and played well enough to win once. Played two below average teams and scorched them.

Pluses: Staff, qb, rb, wr, pass blocking, dl, Lack of fumbles, punt return and special blocks
Not sure: LB's and DB's vs pass, punting/placekicking.
Minuses: Tackling, O-Line run blocking, struggle vs mobile qb and Kickoffs

Meant to mention the DBs. Like our talent there but think the communication has to be better. On 3rd-and-5 you either have to try and jam the WRs or squat the short routes. Can't line up 6 yards off and drop a few more at the snap. Even Deion sanders isn't breaking up a short out-cut in that set.

 

[TheCusian]

I disagree with 1 and 2. I think the coaches did okay making the best decision they could with the knowledge that the had at the time.

They didn't know that Drew had no game day QB skills and that Hunt has it in spades. Drew probably looked better in practice, film room, etc.

No problem with them waiting to tell everyone who the QB was. What's the benefit to naming a starter early?!? None.

 

[OrangeTarheel]

I agree about the QB situation, seems like a huge mystery at this point but someone mentioned that Hunt may flat out operate better in a game situation than in practice. That is rather simple and would explain a lot.

Re: the defense -- seems to me that a productive offense would clear up a lot of issues on defense.

I'll add my own question -- looking ahead, if Hunt struggles who takes the blame? McDonald is off the hot seat with Hunt on fire. Is he back on if Hunt cools off?

 

[billsin01]

I disagree with 1 and 2. I think the coaches did okay making the best decision they could with the knowledge that the had at the time.

They didn't know that Drew had no game day QB skills and that Hunt has it in spades. Drew probably looked better in practice, film room, etc.

No problem with them waiting to tell everyone who the QB was. What's the benefit to naming a starter early?!? None.

Coaches can wait to name a starter. I'm ok with that. I just don't get it. Like I've said before -- if you're deciding between mike Vick and Jim drukenmiller then I get it to some degree. But the notion that ped state cared who we started is bizarre. That's my only point on that front. Coaches can do it but I don't buy into the value of doing it.

As for Allen v. Hunt, I can't believe that Allen looked that good in practice only to fall horribly flat in games. It had to be at the very least close. Why not say both will play? Let it play out. If Allen blows everyone away, then great -- hunt plays mop up and takes over next season. But if Allen really struggles you can play hunt and not worry too much about the qb controversy. Allen can still play and if his struggles continue then hunt takes over.

Instead they may have painted themselves into a corner and potentially cost themselves the ped state game.

 

[SmilinBob]

Meant to mention the DBs. Like our talent there but think the communication has to be better. On 3rd-and-5 you either have to try and jam the WRs or squat the short routes. Can't line up 6 yards off and drop a few more at the snap. Even Deion sanders isn't breaking up a short out-cut in that set.

Good points also let's face it, when you blitz you are out there hanging and if you don't get to that qb early enough you're going to have problems.

 

[BlazeOrange]

I've griped about the schedule sequencing in other threads, going as far as recommending bonuses or firings of the scheduling department if we start out 2-0 or 0-2 in any season. I'm fine with including one of the tougher matchups as the opener or in the second week, but there's no way a schedule should be set up with even more than the slimmest possibility that we'd start 0-2.

Looking back at this season so far, say I had somewhat had my wish and we played Tulane instead of PSU or NW (not going to bother discussing Wagner) - Allen would've been the QB. Could we have lost that game as well?