next year could really be special | Page 2 | Syracusefan.com

next year could really be special

I think having PTG would've won us the game last Saturday

PTG had nothing to do with two blocked field goals, a blocked extra point, an interception in Rutgers territory, inexplicably throwing on 1st and goal from 5 when you're running the ball well, and not going for it with 4th and 6 inches in OT inside the 1.

Bailey fumbled twice, but Bailey was going to get the ball too, and those weren't the egregious things that lost us the game. The first fumble ended up resulting in a defensive fumble returned for a TD. The second one, we should never have gotten that far.

And to get to 8 wins with a win at Tulane would mean going 4-2 in-conference the rest of the way. After losing to Rutgers, I'd be ecstatic with 7-5, and it may be a struggle to get to 6-6.
 
PTG had nothing to do with two blocked field goals, a blocked extra point, an interception in Rutgers territory, inexplicably throwing on 1st and goal from 5 when you're running the ball well, and not going for it with 4th and 6 inches in OT inside the 1.

Bailey fumbled twice, but Bailey was going to get the ball too, and those weren't the egregious things that lost us the game. The first fumble ended up resulting in a defensive fumble returned for a TD. The second one, we should never have gotten that far.

And to get to 8 wins with a win at Tulane would mean going 4-2 in-conference the rest of the way. After losing to Rutgers, I'd be ecstatic with 7-5, and it may be a struggle to get to 6-6.

Right wouldnt have fixed everything but we just needed 1 play all day from the offense that we never got. Would it be wrong to think having an RB other than Bailey or Jerome Smith to go to wouldve netted a different result on any of those plays? How bout the screen pass INT? Do we still throw that if we have a faster RB that can get the corner on a run AND make cuts in the 2nd level? Obviously whit if's but there are about 50 what ifs and all we needed 1 to break or way.
 
Or until he opens up the playbook that he has - if it's in there.

Again with the mythical half-open playbook. I'm pretty sure we've seen it all by now.
 
Right wouldnt have fixed everything but we just needed 1 play all day from the offense that we never got. Would it be wrong to think having an RB other than Bailey or Jerome Smith to go to wouldve netted a different result on any of those plays? How bout the screen pass INT? Do we still throw that if we have a faster RB that can get the corner on a run AND make cuts in the 2nd level? Obviously whit if's but there are about 50 what ifs and all we needed 1 to break or way.

Agree that it would be nice to have had PTG, but not having him wasn't the difference between winning and losing. The screen pass playcall was to the weak side where Bailey was constrained by the sideline. There was another defender in front of him. The play was doomed from the start. If we had PTG, it wouldn't have changed the asinine pass on 1st and goal from the 5 when we were running the ball well.

My point is that it while it would have been nice to have another quality player, we had much bigger problems than he could solve. The playcalling was terrible, and so was the game management. Players make the plays, but coaches put them in the position to be successful.

The blocked kicks show a complete lack of coaching, and the playcalling was just a complete and total unmitigated disaster.
 
Again with the mythical half-open playbook. I'm pretty sure we've seen it all by now.

I don't think the playbook is the issue at this point, it's the play calling, and the reluctance to use what's in the playbook.

Example, the missed deep pass to Chew. Why not try that play again? Chew was wide open. Lemon was also open on the sideline about 20 yards down field. We missed the deep throw once and buried the play. Why not run it again and throw deep or try the intermediate route to Lemon? The play was fine we just didn't execute. Give the guys another shot at it.
 
Agree that it would be nice to have had PTG, but not having him wasn't the difference between winning and losing. The screen pass playcall was to the weak side where Bailey was constrained by the sideline. There was another defender in front of him. The play was doomed from the start. If we had PTG, it wouldn't have changed the asinine pass on 1st and goal from the 5 when we were running the ball well.

My point is that it while it would have been nice to have another quality player, we had much bigger problems than he could solve. The playcalling was terrible, and so was the game management. Players make the plays, but coaches put them in the position to be successful.

The blocked kicks show a complete lack of coaching, and the playcalling was just a complete and total unmitigated disaster.

I can't disagree with any of what you said as a majority of that happened right in front of me from section 309. I just wonder if that screen is called if we had another RB to throw in there. Bailey needs space to work, PTG makes space to work.

The real kick in the teeth is that pick at the goal line is the exact same play Rutgers ran for the TD to Sanu. We just blew coverage. Goggins was dropping but no way in hell he's supposed to be covering Sanu by himself on that play. Sanu should've had a man on him with Goggins rolling from the inside and probably a play better suited to the 6'5 Chan Jones vs the 6'0 Goggins if Chan was playing.

Blown coverage Sanu TD, deflected Foster slant INT, Phillip Thomas dropped pick 6, and roughing the kicker all happened right in front of me as well as some of the missed kicks. Any 1 of those plays ends up differently and we win.

It was all surreal to watch honestly. Side note, I watched the Eagles game with my cousin the next day and in at halftime said "this looks exactly like the Cuse game yesterday". Sure enough, same result.
 
I can't disagree with any of what you said as a majority of that happened right in front of me from section 309. I just wonder if that screen is called if we had another RB to throw in there. Bailey needs space to work, PTG makes space to work.

The real kick in the teeth is that pick at the goal line is the exact same play Rutgers ran for the TD to Sanu. We just blew coverage. Goggins was dropping but no way in hell he's supposed to be covering Sanu by himself on that play. Sanu should've had a man on him with Goggins rolling from the inside and probably a play better suited to the 6'5 Chan Jones vs the 6'0 Goggins if Chan was playing.

Blown coverage Sanu TD, deflected Foster slant INT, Phillip Thomas dropped pick 6, and roughing the kicker all happened right in front of me as well as some of the missed kicks. Any 1 of those plays ends up differently and we win.

It was all surreal to watch honestly. Side note, I watched the Eagles game with my cousin the next day and in at halftime said "this looks exactly like the Cuse game yesterday". Sure enough, same result.

I don't envy you, at least I could turn the channel when that disaster was over. Even if you're going to pass at 1st and goal from the 5, why do you throw a quick slant into traffic? So, so many things wrong on so many plays.

I always support the program, but I'm concerned that we've reached the ceiling for this coaching staff (again minus Shafer).
 
I think you need a 3rd element to the offense to compete and make it tougher to defend and that is a qb that can run the football as well, its almost like they turned Nassib into an NFL guy that rarely runs with the ball, the fact is, if you have triple threat its just harder to defend and another way to open it up, itc common sense really 3 choices versus 2 much harder to defend. Hell even GT has to throw the ball once in a while to keep people honest.
 
I always support the program, but I'm concerned that we've reached the ceiling for this coaching staff (again minus Shafer).

To draw that conclusion based on a game in season 3, when if one player makes a play, we win, just shows that you're viewing this emotionally and not rationally. The job of the coaches is to put the players in situations to make plays to win games. There were 10-12 plays in this game, that if the players make the play, we win. Even the best programs in the country lay an egg every once in a while. The fact remains that this team is 3-2 in the season following our first bowl game in 7 years. All of the guys that have made some big plays failed to make a big play, all in the same game.

If Graham holds onto the pick in the end zone, everyone would be calling it a great play call when Rutgers would be expecting a run. If Thomas doesn't rush straight at the punter (something that every player has been taught, but they sometimes forget) and doesn't rough him, that play is a non-issue. If Thomas makes either of the dropped pick-6s, especially the second one, no one is saying we can get no more of this coaching staff. If Bailey doesn't fumble in OT, I felt like we would have just run the ball down their throats for a TD. If Nassib doesn't way overthrow Chew on the deep ball, we're up 14-0 and I think we win easily. So many things had to go wrong for us to lose that game. Unfortunately, they did. How the team responds this Saturday will show more about the ceiling of this coaching staff than last Saturday did.
 
I don't envy you, at least I could turn the channel when that disaster was over. Even if you're going to pass at 1st and goal from the 5, why do you throw a quick slant into traffic? So, so many things wrong on so many plays.

I always support the program, but I'm concerned that we've reached the ceiling for this coaching staff (again minus Shafer).

Hell of a question and it was 1st and goal from the 4! At that point, with our kicking game in shambles, thats 4 down territory to me. Run the ball 4 times, or if you must pass on first throw the fade route to the back corner. When's the last time we've seen one of those attempted?

To the ceiling part, I'd disagree. The coaches had a mind boggling game but they can learn and get better. I certainly hope that's the case. In certain instances the coaches had the guys in a position to make plays and they didn't. Players will get better, and I'd guess the caoching staff has far from peaked at this point. If we're having this same discussion a year or 2 from now then obviously I was wrong.
 
I think you need a 3rd element to the offense to compete and make it tougher to defend and that is a qb that can run the football as well, its almost like they turned Nassib into an NFL guy that rarely runs with the ball, the fact is, if you have triple threat its just harder to defend and another way to open it up, itc common sense really 3 choices versus 2 much harder to defend. Hell even GT has to throw the ball once in a while to keep people honest.
if you're going to depend on a qb who doesn't give you anything on the ground, you better be able to do better than 35 passes for 200 yards, which is about what we do against AQ schools

short of holgorsen taking over, it's expecting a lot to get from that type of production to approaching 280-300 in AQ type games
 
I think you need a 3rd element to the offense to compete and make it tougher to defend and that is a qb that can run the football as well, its almost like they turned Nassib into an NFL guy that rarely runs with the ball, the fact is, if you have triple threat its just harder to defend and another way to open it up, itc common sense really 3 choices versus 2 much harder to defend. Hell even GT has to throw the ball once in a while to keep people honest.

Nassib is actually not a bad runner. The problem is, he seems hesitant to run.
 
To draw that conclusion based on a game in season 3, when if one player makes a play, we win, just shows that you're viewing this emotionally and not rationally. The job of the coaches is to put the players in situations to make plays to win games. There were 10-12 plays in this game, that if the players make the play, we win. Even the best programs in the country lay an egg every once in a while. The fact remains that this team is 3-2 in the season following our first bowl game in 7 years. All of the guys that have made some big plays failed to make a big play, all in the same game.

If Graham holds onto the pick in the end zone, everyone would be calling it a great play call when Rutgers would be expecting a run. If Thomas doesn't rush straight at the punter (something that every player has been taught, but they sometimes forget) and doesn't rough him, that play is a non-issue. If Thomas makes either of the dropped pick-6s, especially the second one, no one is saying we can get no more of this coaching staff. If Bailey doesn't fumble in OT, I felt like we would have just run the ball down their throats for a TD. If Nassib doesn't way overthrow Chew on the deep ball, we're up 14-0 and I think we win easily. So many things had to go wrong for us to lose that game. Unfortunately, they did. How the team responds this Saturday will show more about the ceiling of this coaching staff than last Saturday did.

This isn't the first time we've seen these types of issues with game management, and I've had these same reservations all season with our management of the Wake, URI, and Toledo games. Even if we would have won, I would still have the same concerns.

I hope that this is a learning experience for a young head coach, and compared to the previous staff he's done a great job with restoring Syracuse football. But I see SU as growing in the ACC back into a major college football program, and games like these just can't happen.

As you said, we'll see this Saturday, we'll be down there and hopefully have a different feeling than last Saturday.
 
Nassib is actually not a bad runner. The problem is, he seems hesitant to run.

Could be our coaches are hesitant to let him run at this point

A) what happens if he gets hurt?
B) he likes to put the ball on the turf a bit much (see: USC game when we dialed up a QB run)

It seems like if something out of the ordinary doesn't work once our coaches refuse to ever try it again. We play aggressive on defense and scared on offense. It's really a stark difference when comparing the 2.
 
Could be our coaches are hesitant to let him run at this point

A) what happens if he gets hurt?
B) he likes to put the ball on the turf a bit much (see: USC game when we dialed up a QB run)

It seems like if something out of the ordinary doesn't work once our coaches refuse to ever try it again. We play aggressive on defense and scared on offense. It's really a stark difference when comparing the 2.

Can't argue with any of this. It does seem like the coaches just throw something away if it fails miserably the first time.
 
Again with the mythical half-open playbook. I'm pretty sure we've seen it all by now.
If that really is true, I am going to come out and say it - both Marrone and Hackett should be sacked. Fired. Canned. Sent down the river without a paddle.
 
If that really is true, I am going to come out and say it - both Marrone and Hackett should be sacked. Fired. Canned. Sent down the river without a paddle.
this is kind of dopey. the types of offenses you profess to want don't have that many plays and they don't wait half the year to use them. this kitchen sink wishful thinking (alright this is the week that we really let em have it!) is silly. you're essentially complaining that the playbook isn't bigger, which goes against the types of offenses you say you want
 
The system sucks, always has and always will, this is year 3 so I feel comofortable judging it. To me that is enough time, The time thing is nonsense, how long has it taken Holgorsen to implement his system.

In addition, why do these coaches not want to run more tempo on offense? Take adavantage of not being able to substitute, etc. marrone said he wants tempo more plays but we aren't seeing it. The tempo seems to work when they do it.

I am just tired of the bullshit, these coaches talk a good game but at the end day we dont see any vision on offense, I think that is apparent, this is year 3. Again, not asking for Marrone to be fired, that is nonsense, just think he needs to relook at his offense and what he needs to do to be productive
 
The system sucks, always has and always will, this is year 3 so I feel comofortable judging it. To me that is enough time, The time thing is nonsense, how long has it taken Holgorsen to implement his system.

In addition, why do these coaches not want to run more tempo on offense? Take adavantage of not being able to substitute, etc. marrone said he wants tempo more plays but we aren't seeing it. The tempo seems to work when they do it.

I am just tired of the bullshit, these coaches talk a good game but at the end day we dont see any vision on offense, I think that is apparent, this is year 3. Again, not asking for Marrone to be fired, that is nonsense, just think he needs to relook at his offense and what he needs to do to be productive

I totally agree with the tempo aspect of the offense. I have been saying that since the WFU game. This team's offense has run so much better when they go up-tempo.
 
this is kind of dopey. the types of offenses you profess to want don't have that many plays and they don't wait half the year to use them. this kitchen sink wishful thinking (alright this is the week that we really let em have it!) is silly. you're essentially complaining that the playbook isn't bigger, which goes against the types of offenses you say you want
The type of offense we have isn't what I want, so the type of offense we have I hope has more than we've seen.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
168,422
Messages
4,775,020
Members
5,949
Latest member
Laxmom2317

Online statistics

Members online
171
Guests online
950
Total visitors
1,121


Top Bottom