Tudor: Importance of Quarterbacks, II - StateFans Nation StateFans Nation

Before the 2005 Football Season, Caulton Tudor crystalized NC State’s precarious situation at the quarterback position. You can see the quote here.

In an article on Sunday following State’s victory over Maryland, Tudor followed up on his comments:

…it’s difficult to hide an average quarterback, and it’s next to impossible to win championships without one.

The Pack didn’t win a championship in 2005, nor did it come close. But no one seemed to care about that Saturday. The 6-5 regular-season finish obviously pleased Amato and his players.

In one light, such positive reaction was justified. This team was 2-4 not so long ago. At that point, bowl eligibility looked out of the question.

That was when Amato and offensive coordinator Marc Trestman made the switch from Jay Davis to Stone as the starting quarterback. Stone responded with just enough to help the team bleed out a 4-1 stretch run.

“The offense gave us what we needed. They gave us enough,” Hudson said.

But barely enough. More, maybe much more, will be needed from the offense when the Pack next plays a game in Carter-Finley.

5 Responses to Tudor: Importance of Quarterbacks, II

Class of '74 11/30/2005 at 10:01 AM #

I have a question. Our defense is pretty darn good by most anybody’s standards. At some point during preseason that defense had to go up against our offense, so why could we not figure out that we had QB issues and offensive line issues prior to the season and make adjustments to mask those defeciencies?
IMHO, Stone is not the answer possibly Greco or maybe Schaffer if he comes in but not Stone.
VaWolf82 11/30/2005 at 10:27 AM #

How do you propose to make adjustments even if you know what the problems are?

On the OL, wasn’t Herndon moved from the DL and played immediately? Crouch, a true freshman, earned playing time. The coaches obviously wanted McGhee to move to the OL, but he transferred. There is no reason but to think that the coaches did the best they knew how with the talent they had available. You can argue which was worse, coaching or talent, but for this season all that matters is that the net result was unacceptable.

On the QB issue, you have to play the best one you have. Determining who is best is done on the practice field, not during the game. Many fans were screaming for the backup QB, no matter who was starting. They ignored the obvious answer that whoever was on the bench was not as good as the one playing.

I’m sure the coaches would never admit it, but after the WF loss there was simply no reason to stick with Davis…even if they thought he was better. With the 2005 season apparently over, the switch to Stone and a much simplified offense was made. Luckily for everyone involved, the end results improved, even if the QB play did not.

State has serious problems at QB and have for two seasons now, with no apparent answer in sight. There is only so much that coaching can do….this problem has to be fixed with recruiting.
Class of '74 11/30/2005 at 11:43 AM #

Let me ask you this. You can’t pass a lick and you’ve got 5 stud running backs, so we decide to run a pass first offense? It does not make any sense. I submit we erred big time in our assessment of our talents and weaknesses on the offensive side of the ball. Anyone in football will tell you it is easier to run block than pass block. And the more you pass the more you put your defense on the field due to the clock situations. I stand by my argument we blundered big time!
VaWolf82 11/30/2005 at 1:02 PM #

Not only could State not pass, it couldn’t run early in the year either. Look up the stats against UNC, GT, Clemson, and WF. All four games had at least 25 rushing attempts without breaking 100 yards net in any of those games. In fact, other than the VT and FSU games, State didn’t rush effectively against any ACC team.

You have to figure that the coaches knew that they had issues at QB and on the OL. Heck, anyone that watched the 2004 season knew that without watching a single practice. At the first of the year, they tried to win games with the offense…..and they couldn’t. Starting with USM, the game plan switched to insuring that the offense didn’t lose the game. How that game plan was good enough to beat FSU still boggles my mind.
BJD95 11/30/2005 at 1:38 PM #

^ Because FSU has been completely in the crapper above late. Florida had been lackluster (except when playing UGA sans Shockley) for 2 months, and all of a sudden they’re woodshedding the Noles last Saturday. That, and Chuck’s familiarity with the program seems to elevate our ability to scheme against them (but nobody else).