The 2nd worst thing about Hunt's injury

[OttoinGrotto]

Now that it's confirmed that Hunt is out for the year (just awful after he worked to get back), I believe the situation is setting up for our staff to play ultra-conservative. I believe we've seen enough of what that style looks like to be pretty sure what the top end potential is for a team coached that way. It might be our best chance to claw our way in to a bowl game, but I think that's about the best result we can hope for. If we ever hope to move forward, I don't think we'll get there by favoring the defense.

That said, here's the mix:

1. Staff supposedly fighting for their jobs under a new AD
2. The defense played lights out against our first opponent, albeit an overmatched one
3. Our best option at QB is a true freshman
4. We seem to have some depth at running back/the position I refuse to call H-back or Express back
5. We took our foot off the gas against a lousy team that offered the best chance this season for our players to have easy in-game success, which seems odd after last season's offensive struggles, and worries me that the coaches started to feel content (OttoinGrotto maxim #2 - Once you are content in today's college football, you have fallen behind)

Therefore, my conclusion is they're going to coach games to be rock fights.

Now, I do think there are some reasons why this might not be the case, and/or there are some reasons why rock fights might be enough to get us in to a bowl:

1. We likely have some sure losses on the schedule, but after the 1st week it looks like the rest of our opponents have some limitations too
2. Specials appear to be much improved. That alone could swing things very positively
3. If it really is true that the staff expected Dungey to pass Hunt at some point in the year, that may mean Dungey's skill set permits the offense to open up in ways it never could under Hunt
4. Part of what made Boise State successful was their offensive ingenuity. If Coyle feels that might be part of what's a necessary part of our program's DNA, he may put pressure on the staff to not be content with low scoring affairs

We are going to know sooooo much about how this season plays out after Wake and CMU.

 

[texascpa]

I don't agree with No. 5. Sometimes it's just a matter of sportsmanship. No need to keep the foot on the gas. I wouldn't have complained if they did, however, but I don't see it as being content. I see it as Shafer and the Rams coach are good friends and he wasn't about to continue to ram it down his throat.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

I don't agree with No. 5. Sometimes it's just a matter of sportsmanship. No need to keep the foot on the gas. I wouldn't have complained if they did, however, but I don't see it as being content. I see it as Shafer and the Rams coach are good friends and he wasn't about to continue to ram it down his throat.

I respect the take. I appreciate Shafer is a classy guy.

Coming off a 3-9 season with a historically bad offense though... punch the punching bag.

 

[FAL]

I respect the take. I appreciate Shafer is a classy guy.

Coming off a 3-9 season with a historically bad offense though... punch the punching bag.

47-zip isn't enough?

 

[retro44]

Dungey could turn out to be a better option after a few games with experience. He is big for a freshmen and has the tools to make all the passes. The game will start to slow with game experience and extensive runs with the 1st. team offense in practice. Lots of unfounded securities going on now.

 

[Shenexon]

I think we had more running plays that went for 10+ yards than passing plays, something like 11-3. Our running game could very well take a lot of pressure off of Dungey and allow the offense to pass when they want to, not just because they need to.

 

[LeMoyneCuse]

I think we had more running plays that went for 10+ yards than passing plays, something like 11-3. Our running game could very well take a lot of pressure off of Dungey and allow the offense to pass when they want to, not just because they need to.

I agree. This was going to be a run-heavy season anyway. I don't know if the philosophy deviates.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

47-zip isn't enough?

In my eyes, when 31 of the 47 comes from the offense against a terrible opponent, I think it's a fair question. I don't think we can expect a defensive score, safety, and special teams score every game.

 

[cuseincincy]

I agree. This was going to be a run-heavy season anyway. I don't know if the philosophy deviates.

Now that it's confirmed that Hunt is out for the year (just awful after he worked to get back), I believe the situation is setting up for our staff to play ultra-conservative. I believe we've seen enough of what that style looks like to be pretty sure what the top end potential is for a team coached that way. It might be our best chance to claw our way in to a bowl game, but I think that's about the best result we can hope for. If we ever hope to move forward, I don't think we'll get there by favoring the defense.

That said, here's the mix:

1. Staff supposedly fighting for their jobs under a new AD
2. The defense played lights out against our first opponent, albeit an overmatched one
3. Our best option at QB is a true freshman
4. We seem to have some depth at running back/the position I refuse to call H-back or Express back
5. We took our foot off the gas against a lousy team that offered the best chance this season for our players to have easy in-game success, which seems odd after last season's offensive struggles, and worries me that the coaches started to feel content (OttoinGrotto maxim #2 - Once you are content in today's college football, you have fallen behind)

Therefore, my conclusion is they're going to coach games to be rock fights.

Now, I do think there are some reasons why this might not be the case, and/or there are some reasons why rock fights might be enough to get us in to a bowl:

1. We likely have some sure losses on the schedule, but after the 1st week it looks like the rest of our opponents have some limitations too
2. Specials appear to be much improved. That alone could swing things very positively
3. If it really is true that the staff expected Dungey to pass Hunt at some point in the year, that may mean Dungey's skill set permits the offense to open up in ways it never could under Hunt
4. Part of what made Boise State successful was their offensive ingenuity. If Coyle feels that might be part of what's a necessary part of our program's DNA, he may put pressure on the staff to not be content with low scoring affairs

We are going to know sooooo much about how this season plays out after Wake and CMU.

I think pretty much the opposite. They have nothing to lose. And as much as some people think we will miss T Hunt I don't think it will be between the lines.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

I think we had more running plays that went for 10+ yards than passing plays, something like 11-3. Our running game could very well take a lot of pressure off of Dungey and allow the offense to pass when they want to, not just because they need to.

I think, no matter what we had done, we would have moved the ball against that team.

Kind of a different way of looking at it - we think Ish is a pretty legit talent, right? He might be our best player on offense.

Does anybody think after 3 receptions for 29 yards that establishing Ish was the focus of this game? I have a hard time thinking that. So add it up - it's possible our best player was deemphasized against our weakest opponent. That could mean different things, some of which I'm not that enthusiastic about.

 

[gocraz4dasu]

I want the rushing attack to control the tempo of play. Doing that doesn't make the offense conservative. Being a coach is all about limiting your weaknesses and our weakness will be dealing with some of the growing pains involved with starting a new QB, especially from a true freshman. If Shafer and co. decide to play a little conservative and focus on running the football then good. If our offense can win the time of possession battle and allow our defense to do what it does best, for the time they are on the field, we could be a tough team to compete with.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

I want the rushing attack to control the tempo of play. Doing that doesn't make the offense conservative. Being a coach is all about limiting your weaknesses and our weakness will be dealing with some of the growing pains involved with starting a new QB, especially from a true freshman. If Shafer and co. decide to play a little conservative and focus on running the football then good. If our offense can win the time of possession battle and allow our defense to do what it does best, for the time they are on the field, we could be a tough team to compete with.

Here's my fear - we will a tough team to compete with. But we'll be a losing team.

 

[SU68]

I don't agree with No. 5. Sometimes it's just a matter of sportsmanship. No need to keep the foot on the gas. I wouldn't have complained if they did, however, but I don't see it as being content. I see it as Shafer and the Rams coach are good friends and he wasn't about to continue to ram it down his throat.

I agree. Only a-hole coaches "hang 50".

 

[Shenexon]

I agree. This was going to be a run-heavy season anyway. I don't know if the philosophy deviates.

I think the coaches showed the parts of the offense that could be expected and have other parts they haven't wanted to show. My initial take on Lester is that all plays are running plays, it's just the way and place the ball gets to the runner that differs. We have a cadre of very good runners with differing styles that could be a lot of fun to watch if the x's & o's work out right.

 

[Briancuse]

Most coaches not named Bobby Petrino are conservative with freshman qb's. He probably is our best option at qb, but we might not see his full ability until next year.

 

[All4SU]

In my eyes, when 31 of the 47 comes from the offense against a terrible opponent, I think it's a fair question. I don't think we can expect a defensive score, safety, and special teams score every game.

After the first couple of series, SU scored on almost every possession in the first half. In the second half, they mostly ran the ball and rested the starters. I don't see the issue

 

[rrlbees]

I think the opposite is true. I think we would be more conservative with Hunt at QB. With Dungey I think we'll pass more than we would have.

 

[upperdeck]

hunt had issues on every throwing play before he got hurt. still locked in and waited too long. we lose some running but we may gain in passing as Bees said. the big question is how much designed qb running was built in that may not happen now.

 

[tipphill]

i believe the opposite to be true. we maybe somewhat conservative with dungey, but not as much as people think. i believe that dungey is a better choice than hunt as a qb. (sorry for hunt re injury). from the get go, dungey looked comfortable and collected. what eric can do is dependent upon the protection he gets. the ol imho is highly suspect. lester will take chances with dungey depending on the opponent. he looks much better in command of the huddle and performance than hunt. wilson had better be ready, dungey will not last long unless the ol greatly improves. i think strickland gets more pt---he is a gamer.

 

[WickedOrange]

I agree. Only a-hole coaches "hang 50".

I have no issues with SU hanging 50 on Clawson's Wake Forest.

 

[ElwoodJBlues]

Lester mentioned in the preseason that they were working with Hunt on going through the progressions longer rather than pulling the ball in and running. I'm wondering if Hunt's predisposition to run the ball limited their ability to call more aggressive passing plays. It looks like Dungey is a bit more willing to let the play develop because he's not as strong a runner as Hunt. Hopefully the offensive line holds up enough so Lester has the option to call more deep route-plays.

 

[CIL]

In my eyes, when 31 of the 47 comes from the offense against a terrible opponent, I think it's a fair question. I don't think we can expect a defensive score, safety, and special teams score every game.

We won't know a lot about the offensive identity until next week. I'm not going to make a lot about our O only scoring 31 against URI considering all of our 2's were in midway through the 3rd quarter and we ran 3 offensive plays (inside zone, jet sweep, and a counter).

We could have hung 50 on them no problem. The issue is URI is awful and won't tell us a lot.

 

[TheCusian]

We won't know a lot about the offensive identity until next week. I'm not going to make a lot about our O only scoring 31 against URI considering all of our 2's were in midway through the 3rd quarter and we ran 3 offensive plays (inside zone, jet sweep, and a counter). We could have hung 50 on them no problem. The issue is URI is awful and won't tell us a lot.

And for the 2nd straight year our starter was replaced by the #2 early in the game unexpectedly. Knowing its Dungey next game will help.

 

[CusefanATL]

I don't agree with No. 5. Sometimes it's just a matter of sportsmanship. No need to keep the foot on the gas. I wouldn't have complained if they did, however, but I don't see it as being content. I see it as Shafer and the Rams coach are good friends and he wasn't about to continue to ram it down his throat.

we took our true freshman QB playing in his 1st game out midway through the 3rd Q (and only came in the game midway through the 1st Q) after throwing 17 passes.

I could not believe we didnt have him throwing at least 35 or 40 passes. we shouldn't have run the ball once in the 2nd half.

We paid Rhode Island to play. We needed the practice.

 

[Toga]

hunt had issues on every throwing play before he got hurt. still locked in and waited too long. we lose some running but we may gain in passing as Bees said. the big question is how much designed qb running was built in that may not happen now.

or Better not happen now unless needed on a game winning drive