2005: Beatdown in Beantown - StateFans Nation StateFans Nation

One of the great things about this blog is the volume of archived information that exists with each passing day.

Today, we thought that it would be an interesting exercise to take a quick look back to State’s 30-10 loss at Boston College last year – the only loss of the Marcus Stone’s starting streak last season. If you remember, this was the game where the Eagles pulled the old high school trick of intentionally watering their artificial turf to slow down the quicker Wolfpack.

The “Beatdown in Beantown” link unfortunately stated all that you needed to know about our performance last year – and perhaps portends some pretty big negatives this year.

“Bad QB play, and terrible OL play make for a long night”

Does that sound familiar?

“The first 8 minutes were enjoyable, but the rest was excruciating. The O-line was like swiss cheese. That Kiwanuka guy proved he should be taken ahead of Mario Williams in the draft. Stone was pretty bad, but he was harassed all night long. Jay Davis looked relieved that he didnâ€™t have to take the beating. Andre Brown looked human. I canâ€™t think of many positives to take from the game. We looked soft in the cold weather. We had heaters and long sleeves while BC had none of that stuff. Weak showing if you ask me, but if you like being tortured, go ahead and give the game a looksee.”

VaWolf shared “Another Pathetic Performance” as his first entry to the site and can be seen by clicking here. This link is where you will see more commentary about the game.

After Stateâ€™s abysmal performance Saturday night, there is not a lot to be happy about. However, anyone who was truly surprised by Stateâ€™s performance hasnâ€™t been paying close attention over the last two seasons. How many times have weâ€™ve seen:
* INTâ€™s turned into seven points for the opposition;

* The RBâ€™s tackled in the backfield;
* Stateâ€™s QBâ€™s harassed and sacked over and over again;
* Short passes thrown in a different zip code than the receiver;
* A weak secondary exposed anytime the defensive line doesnâ€™t dominate the line of scrimmage;
* the opposing teamâ€™s tight ends or running backs wide open in the secondary?

While we are looking to the past and while we are on the topic of the Wolfpack’s continued struggles with the offensive line and quarterback positions, we couldn’t help but turn your attention to this link and the links embedded in it. If you ever question the importance of a good/great quarterback leading the team then these comments – and the last two and half years of NC State football – will help you understand more.

6 Responses to 2005: Beatdown in Beantown

Clarksa 09/22/2006 at 9:08 AM #

I had a great experience attending the game, despite the outcome. It was very cold sitting in the stands. That game is definitely on the permanent travel list.
choppack1 09/22/2006 at 11:03 AM #

Clarksa – I had a blast too. Me and a friend of mine did the trip in one day – flying up Saturday morning into New Hampshire, finally settling into Beantown around 1:30 or 2pm. We had some drinks at the Top of the Hub and watched the UNC-UMd game while enjoying a spectacular view of the city. We met some other friends at Cheers – stayed too long, caught a cab to Fenway, ate a burger, then caught a cab to the game. I had really hoped to do a Subway Pub crawl to Chestnut Hill culminating w/ an arrival about 1:30 before kickoff to experience the local campus scene, but we were behind all day. All we could think of the next day was that we were coming back w/ the wives and staying longer so we could really enjoy the town.
vtpackfan 09/22/2006 at 11:07 AM #

Sone threw off his back foot (if not his back end) for the final 3 qtrs. It is one reason that I pointed out this match up couldn’t be better timed for a QB change. The Eagles staff will be analyzing tape of how they ran rough shot through our O-line last year (although some of those DL’s and LB’s have since graduated), but they will not be able to study the individuals (Stone) tendencies in the pocket. This stragegy may play a key role in allowing our team to get out of the first six minutes Sat. night. It is crucial that as a team they see some positive things happen after the last two weeks early on in the game. That game last year in Chestnut Hill left my stomach feeling ill.
redfred2 09/22/2006 at 1:19 PM #

^vt

I don’t think you intended, but your logic there implys that CA and staff may have indeed been holding something back until the start of conference play, though I don’t believe it and I don’t think you meant it that way. Either way, I’m hoping that the coaching staff does have at least something up their sleeves for this game in particular, and hopefully bits and pieces of workable strategies will be tacked on over the rest of the season.
vtpackfan 09/22/2006 at 4:26 PM #

My beleif is that CA and Trestman would have three games under their belt in the “new stone age”. Their hopes of starting conference play opponets was to be that tape from last years games would look foreign to what has gone on early in the ’06 campaign. It hasn’t worked at all from, IMHO. The offense minus one quarter out of a possible twelve has looked worse then at any point last year.
I was actually looking at this, for once, where I ought to be looking at it from. An idiotic bystander who may perceive a glimmer of hope that could come out of the cards that are being dealt. Coachs and asst. coaches have dozens of wrinkles and disguised schemes cooking up for every opponet (right Chuck?), so I could scarcely beleive that one could have been in the works preseason to sand bag our offense in an efforts to come out rope a dope style against BC in our ACC opener. My comments were meant, although I realize not properly comminacated, that the situation at hand could turn out as a fortunate opportunity as chance. I didn’t say that they kept DE out as long as they could in case the BC game up and the “stone age” returned to the past tense, but you can. I would even say nice point.
redfred2 09/22/2006 at 4:55 PM #

vt,

I know exactly what you meant in your first and didn’t mean to imply otherwise. It was just a rushed and bad post from me. My bad.