A few positives to go with the unsurprising negatives

[swish7]

While a 49-14 beatdown is only a cat's whisker away from the 55-7 beatdown Clemson put on blind kid's university last week, I have to think that we gave them a better run for the money. In the 3rd quarter we had at least 2 great chances to bring it to within 14, but just could not do it.

I'm extremely disappointed, but really not surprised, that we gave up 21 in Q1. I expected a beatdown, but was judging this team based on how well they competed. As another poster said, it seems like we "literally gave away 28 points". It's one thing to not be able to stop someone, it's quite another when the opponent's receivers are operating, consistently, with 10-15 yards of open space around them. That's not competing.

Too often, we were lost on defense. We can get beat legitimately, as in giving up that 91 yarder in the 3rd. But, being completely lost on defense, as we were for a good 2 quarters is completely unacceptable. Put another way, it is on our coaches to prepare our guys such that they are consistently in good position and executing. Then, if we're still getting beat, the issue can then be limited to recruiting.

As far as positives, you have to love Shafer's willingness to go for it on 4th, and the fake punt. It tells me he is a coach who can get in tune with the moment, as opposed to only taking cues from his binder. There is a lot with the program he has to shore up, but at least he's got some attributes to work with.

Ya gotta love our players never giving up.

For 1 quarter, Shafer and the players had me believing. Getting within 14 would have been sweet.

People can complain about Broyld, but he is the only guy who can compete against powerhouse defenses. He needs to practice catching 1,000 balls a day. 88 did jack, and gives up on plays. A couple of those interceptions could have been made a lot harder if he adjusted back to the ball and interferred with the defender.

That 3 yard pattern on 4th and 4 was awful.

Well, it's over. Two of our opponents thus far look like they are onto the path of major bowl games. And hopefully, we are on a path to bowl eligibility.

 

[SoBeCuse]

Good post and really well said. Those of us without the orange goggles knew we would get pounded but the utter confusion (STILL) and not competing in the secondary is maddening. Agree about Broyld. He's the only guy who can hang vs great teams.

 

[orangenauburn]

Not sold on coach Reed or Bullough

Rough start playcalling by GMcD as well

Just never in sync and that is a concern seeing we had Two weeks to prep

 

[Cuseregular]

that's a great take Swish, and thanks for putting my thoughts into words!

I will add I'm not sure that Hunt is the long term answer. Just based on arm strength alone. He's clearly the best we've had here in 10 years so I think he's the man going forward, but to compete at that level not sure he can take us over that type hump. Do think he'll be good though.

Love what Shafer did as you note and like a guy who errors on the intense side. I just hope he doesn't feel he HAS to sit back and let his coaches coach (as he's said he didn't like it too much when he was the asst. the HC being too hands on), hope he realizes his success is rooted in getting more hands on in this way.

And along those lines and what retro said, there better be a hard a$$ coaching message to those db's, despite the one McNabb to Harrison like 90 yarder that was put talent, the rest were break downs and incompetence.

 

[tbonezone]

broyld.

 

[CuseOnly]

Actually in the 3rd Qtr, we had 3 chances to score TD's inside the 20 and blew them all.

Why were we trying to get to the edges against one of the fastest teams in the country? When we threw over the middle to Broyld, we were successful...why do we constantly go away from things that work?

Running between the tackles with Jerome worked, trying to run Gulley between the tackles worked. Why try to run either of them off tackle?

Keep running the plays that work until they stop it for Pete's sake. Stop trying to out think yourself.

 

[tbonezone]

we avg'd 6.7 yards per carry.

 

[CuseOnly]

Pinstripe bowl...we ran the same play over adn over and over and over, they couldn't stop it so we kept running it.

Marrone always said that sticking with what works was difficult, our young coaching staff hasn't figured out yet how to stick with what works.

I would rather have had them play bump and run man coverage all game or just simple man coverage 5 yards off the ball and 2 deep safeties than give up 4 50+ yard touchdowns. Let them try to beat us with the run which they are not good at. It would have shortened the game as well.

 

[CuseOnly]

This is also a game where we could have run between the tackles with Cutler as our fullback, Blast and dive plays.

Armchair coaching I know.

 

[OrangeDW]

that's a great take Swish, and thanks for putting my thoughts into words!

I will add I'm not sure that Hunt is the long term answer. Just based on arm strength alone. He's clearly the best we've had here in 10 years .

What? You mean, "other than Nassib" right?

 

[bevosu]

The game was a disappointment, but not a surprise.

Dixon and McFarland looked good.

 

[alphaorange]

we avg'd 6.7 yards per carry.

And if you remove Jerome's one long run? Different picture.

 

[tbonezone]

And if you remove Jerome's one long run? Different picture.

not really. if you give jerome 33 yds instead of the 66 we still average over 6 per tote. if you want to eliminate that play all together like it never happened then we're still a respectable 5.5. we could move the ball on the ground against the tigers.