Brief Bowl Recap

I am certain we’ll get a more in depth, “on the ground” recap from Jeff and/or other SFN bloggers shortly. But here is the thumbnail review from someone who just watched on TV (and based on the stadium shots ESPN showed, there were quite a few people who chose the same route that I did).

The Wolfpack defense was simply dominant. One would expect a physical, athletic defense should pick apart a one dimensional offense. That didn’t happen against Wake Forest, but undoubtedly did against the Bulls, who never found any sort of offensive flow. Unfortunately, the primary playmakers were either seniors or sure-fire early entrants for the NFL draft.

Aside from a 3rd quarter fumble, Marcus Stone avoided the turnover bug and generally did a good job not screwing up, which is all he really needed to do. He did throw a nice fade pass for the first touchdown of the game. It was classy for Amato to have Jay Davis close the game out, and he proved just as adept at handing off as Stone.

All of the scoring came in the 2nd quarter. It was remarkable to see such poor offensive play from both teams, with weather clearly not a factor. I can only imagine that this is how college football looked in the 1920s (except for the successful kicking of extra points), when you frequently saw scores like 12-0. I wonder if anyone without a rooting interest actually watched the entire game. If so, they probably need to seek professional help.

It was nice to get a win, allowing Amato and company to earn an overall “C” grade for the 2005 season. But the game did little to answer the questions that will linger for 2006 and beyond.

About BJD95

1995 NC State graduate, sufferer of Les and MOC during my entire student tenure. An equal-opportunity objective critic and analyst of Wolfpack sports.

General

4 Responses to Brief Bowl Recap

  1. Class of '74 12/31/2005 at 5:36 PM #

    If Marcus Stone is a quarterback then I’m an astronaut. Fortunately we have one heck of a defense. Next year’s success will depend on getting a lot more production out of our offense since we can not count on the same level of defense with the attrition we face. I hope Brent Schaeffer saw this game because he would then know he could start the minute he got on the practice field in Raleigh.

  2. Chris 01/02/2006 at 8:45 AM #

    “The Wolfpack defense was simply dominant. One would expect a physical, athletic defense should pick apart a one dimensional offense. That didn’t happen against Wake Forest, but undoubtedly did against the Bulls, who never found any sort of offensive flow.”

    I disagree about the Wake Forest game. We lost, what, 27-19? 14 of those points were directly from INT’s returned for TD’s. That leaves 13 points yielded strictly from the defense. I think this was also the game the D started to really turn it around. This defense has been dominate since about the second quarter of that Wake game (maybe excluding BC).

  3. Trout 01/02/2006 at 10:17 AM #

    ^ Agree. The D played well enough vs Wake to win. The 2 Pick 6’s lost that game.

    “Unfortunately, the primary playmakers were either seniors or sure-fire early entrants for the NFL draft.”

    Not Tulloch, the bowl MVP.

  4. BJD95 01/02/2006 at 12:23 PM #

    oops, I thought Tulloch was a senior. My bad.

    Wake moved the ball pretty well in the first half against us. Didn’t they start the game with 2 very long drives?

Leave a Reply