Thru 4 Games

We are not finished talking about the BC game yet. We’ve got a variety of additional comments that I hope to post today.

Until then, our fellow Wolfpack bretheren on the internet have added some related things to what we are going to say.

RAWFS tackles a couple of game & coaching related items that didn’t get past us, either. (Link) To be honest, with the clock and game management “strategy” that our staff employed on Saturday night I am shocked that we were still in a position to win at the end.

Section Six talks about the statistics of the Wolfpack’s football season that continue to tell a pretty ugly story. (Link)

'06 Football General

43 Responses to Thru 4 Games

  1. noah 09/27/2006 at 11:47 AM #

    “What did that extra one point give us?”

    Nothing. As I said, I’m sure he was simply caught up in the end-of-game hysteria and it was overlooked. Happens.

    I bet it doesn’t happen again.

    it hardly seems worth discussion.

  2. choppack1 09/27/2006 at 11:52 AM #

    O – good breakdown on the penalty thing. I had forgotten how last year’s first half ended in Boston – after we were lucky enough to get our own roughing penalty.

    On the positive side – the team did an excellent job in not getting a penalty for excessive celebration.

    Regarding the PAT – I might have gone for 2 on a very conservative running play. (That was my big beef – “Why weren’t we going for 2??”)

    I also agree w/ not kicking out of bounds.

  3. cfpack03 09/27/2006 at 12:03 PM #

    RAWFS is blocked from my work but its probably for the best since I’d get irritated by the nitpicking too. I agree with Chuck’s no TO decision at the end of the 1st half. Talk about risk? Ending the half in that situation was the option with the LEAST risk. Also the PAT at the end, we probably should have downed it, but I’m not getting worked up over it.
    (If I have to choose), the coaching decision I question the most is after Baker’s scramble to the 7 yd line. 1st and 2nd downs were respectively run then pass in the corner, which I like. But then 3rd down, instead of trying for the endzone again, we call a conservative run inside the tackle (but Brown then jumps outside and is tackled for a loss). We even telegraphed the run by lining up our blocking FB. I’d rather see us go for the endzone again, playaction, bookleg, anything just go for it instead of almost settling for the endzone. (the damn announce even called it)Anyway, this was Trestman’s call, not Chuck’s. But again, I’m not worked up about it because it was early in the game, our 1st time in the redzone, and Evans hadn’t thrown a lot at this point.

  4. cfpack03 09/27/2006 at 12:06 PM #

    ^settling for the FG, not the endzone. I didn’t review, sue me

  5. redfred2 09/27/2006 at 12:14 PM #

    Unbelievable ending, great win for the program, great for the morale…But perfect? No way.

    Haven’t seen one yet that was.

    I’ll take it…be damn happy with it…then cross my fingers that it’s the start of something better.

    I say stop reacting, try to dictate the game early on, play it full bore and start laying the all cards on the table from the onset, set the opposing team back on it’s heels for once, and then let the defense do it’s job.

    I’m just wonder if the QB position was put under that kind of pressure to produce, with pressure being dictated by the coaching staff instead of the scoreboard in the future, and for all four quarters of the game, while allowing for, and readily accepting that some mistakes will be made along the way, if just maybe there wouldn’t less need for goal line stands, sorry officiating to determine the outcome, late and failed attempts to break plane of the goal line, or last second desperation heaves into the back corner of the end zone?

    Except for maybe watching all those happening to the opposing team for once?

    DISCLAIMER: The statement that you just read is in no way intended to imply that the writer thinks that he is a college football coach. Nor does that statement mean that the writer is not 100% behind the coaching staff that is in place. The writer also wishes to make it clear that he does not BOO his own coaches or players. This statement is just a simple point of view, it means nothing else at all.

  6. CaptainCraptacular 09/27/2006 at 12:35 PM #

    Mr. O: I’ll point to 2 specific examples from this year. As for other seasons, well my memory isn’t so good anymore. Versus Akron, Chuck called a timeout after 3rd down and medium with the ball on the 12 or 13 yard and 1.5 minutes remaining. While this may have set up the touchdown that happened on the 4th down play, the 3rd down play that happened after the timeout was unsuccessful. The timeout *may* have been necessary, but I feel it was used at the wrong point. If you must use it, use it before the 4th down play. And if you don’t really have to use it, let the clock run down to a point where you don’t leave Akron enough time to come down the field and win it. This was a questionable use of the timeout. As there was no timeout, there was no recourse to challenge the play at the end.

    Then there is the kicking of the extra point vs BC. I’m of the opinion that it was just too risky, with absolutely zero reward. Take a knee. As others have said ad nauseum, imo it was a poor game management/strategy decision.

    As for other seasons, I’ll have to

  7. CaptainCraptacular 09/27/2006 at 12:37 PM #

    ADD acting up again. Can’t finish sentences.

  8. CaptainCraptacular 09/27/2006 at 12:45 PM #

    Ok, here’s one from 2004. A game we know oh so well. @ UNC. 7-8 seconds left. No timeouts. Enough time for 2 plays if executed well. Chuck’s ego saying: We are going to win by pounding it directly up the middle and you can’t stop us. He made that call. Problem: Everyone, especially the Carolina staff and defense knows this, and is prepared. Why why why wouldn’t you call a play action roll out pass. Could be executed in 5 seconds. If unsuccessful, then you have one more chance with 1 or 2 seconds left. Hindsight is 20/20 of course. But giving yourself one chance to win, damn the torpedoes, is incredibly foolish when you could have 2 chances.

    I would categorize this as poor game management.

  9. sholtzma 09/27/2006 at 12:53 PM #

    I too had questions about time and game management, but most of those (on careful thought) have good enough answers.

    I join those who still question why not take a timeout before BC punted at the end of the first half. Why call timout? Because if something goes wrong with BC’s punt (wrong for BC), you want to have time to take advantage of it. Say the ball is snapped over the punter’s head (which came close to happening more than once). Say that the punter shanks a punt (I know he had been punting well). Say that we get a short enough punt to merit a runback, and then run it back to their 45 yard line. Even if we had not tried to block it, the punting play might have worked for us. And then we would have needed time left on the clock to work at least into field goal range. If nothing good happened for us on the punt, we could have chosen to take a knee down until the clock ran out. But save clock so that we can choose what to do with it.

    The other question I still have is about the XP at the end. I still see no good reason to try it, and plenty of good reason to take a knee down. There were, what, 5 seconds left, so we had to kick off after the final TD. The clock starts on the kickoff this year, so most likely that the kickoff (say, a high skykick that uses up seconds) plus return will run out the clock, precluding the possibility of a hail mary. So, there were two scenarios in which we could lose: 1) have the XP blocked and run back for 2 points, or 2) having the kickoff run back for a TD. By taking a knee down, we could have eliminated #1. And we could not avoid having to stop #2. So, why allow for one more avoidable way to lose?

    But I allow for some mistakes. I care only that the coaching staff carefully review their decisions and figure out which ones to make differently next time.

  10. BoKnowsNCS71 09/27/2006 at 2:38 PM #

    Redfred — I love the disclaimer. Helps put the commentor as well as the comment in perspective. Kudos on that one.

  11. Pack Laddie 09/27/2006 at 3:22 PM #

    the right decision on the extra point would have been taking a knee.

    You take a knee during the normal course of play when running out the clock, to prevent a turnover. You don’t need any more points, you just need to avoid giving the opponent the opportunity to get some.

    1 point meant absolutely nothing. A bad snap, a mishandled snap, a block, and they are possibly heading the other way for 2 and a win. Don’t give them that chance. Kneel down, kick it off, watch the final 8 second tick off, and get out of there with the W.

  12. Rick 09/27/2006 at 5:14 PM #

    Agreed on the knee.

    One question I had was this. At the end of the first half, why did we have them rekick the punt? It makes sense if we are going to go all out at the punter but we did not. We should not even have had a guy back (he was not going to catch the ball anyway, what if he fumbled it). We should have had all of them on the line and been going full bore at them. Even if we got a penalty they were too far to really have a chance to score and if we get it we are close enough to take a stab at the end zone.
    It made no sense to me.

  13. Wolfpack4ever 09/27/2006 at 5:30 PM #

    Cardiff Giant Says:

    “How do some of us like being insulted and called names here?�

    I think it makes you look like an asshole, actually. Since you ask.

    Cardiff, I just wanted to fit in — with the other name-calling assholes here.

  14. bTHEredterror 09/27/2006 at 9:09 PM #

    There should have been 1:02 on the clock if the timeout was properly taken, and then 5-8 seconds for the punt play. We would have lost 10 seconds on the stupid clock rules while the offense ran on the field, so :45 seconds left seems about right. during the game, I was upset at that call, because I felt like we had some momentum, and a hard push out of our own endzone, points or not would have sustained that for the second half. But upon further review (about 3:00 am Tue) It was just a conservative call and a pretty good one. BC had two TO’s, he envisioned a third down stop deep, and a katie-bar-the-door type puntrush. Considering all the absurd snakebites we’ve seen the last few years, I can accept that call. Its a coaches decision, just like the 4th down INT in our own territory. Which was probably the worst game call he made, except it kept BC’s P out of play saving yards, and their K sucks so there was little threat.

    The challenge was a waste, no defending it. He wanted extra time my ass. What? Was he planning a fumble-friggin-rooskie from the two foot line? Maybe a double reverse? Kill it.

    The eye in the sky theory makes sense and I can accept that, he believed in his assistant and it truned out to be wrong.

    Chuck made some good calls at different times in the game, a couple were possibly questionable, but he was reading the emotion of his players, BC’s strenghts/weaknesses, and the field position. And it would seem, I must admit, he read them right or got lucky. We were due for both. I am not back on Chuck’s bandwagon just yet, now he needs to show me week in week out.

  15. jncope 09/27/2006 at 9:33 PM #

    Mr. O:

    I know the question was for Craptacular but I am remembering a game against Ohio State, then defending national champs, in Columbus. NC State is a team on the rise, we feel like we are on the verge of a break through, we are in double overtime, our defense has just prevented Ohio State from converting their last touchdown and it looks like we are going to make it over the hump. This is our chance to announce to the world that “Hey, this is NC State and we mean business.”

    What do we do? We call not one but two quarterback sneaks from the 5 yard line. Brilliant.

    I think it is unfair to judge a coach by one bad decision (or one bad game or even one bad season) so this one incident doesn’t weigh that heavily in my assessment of where the program is and where it is headed based on all of Chuck’s seasons at State. It is just one small data point.

  16. CaptainCraptacular 09/28/2006 at 7:54 AM #

    I have heard that the second sneak was Rivers checking into that play himself, rather than Mazzone’s call.

  17. redfred2 09/28/2006 at 11:21 AM #

    Not denying that there weren’t mistakes made in the game, but did anyone notice the water cooler? It was resting precariously close to the edge of the table and looked as if it may tip over at any second. I was just waiting for it fall over and then see some player’s torso, lying there, severed completely in half at any second.

    What if, can you imagine, all the blood and everything. Probably would have neccessitated another time out on the field, and one that we sorely needed to hang onto for later on.

    But it didn’t tip over. Whew, that was a close one!!!

    That’s just another, what if?, woulda, shoulda, coulda, in a long line of worse case scenarios, that DID NOT occur in last Saturday’s game. I just thought it may need to explored to it’s fullest right here on SFN.

  18. Wolfpack4ever 09/28/2006 at 6:57 PM #

    jncope Says:

    “…against Ohio State, then defending national champs, in Columbus. …we are in double overtime, our defense has just prevented Ohio State from converting their last touchdown …
    What do we do? We call not one but two quarterback sneaks from the 5 yard line. Brilliant.”

    As all too often happens, Chuck gets the blame when it isn’t his to take. Philip called those at the line of scrimmage. Drop him a line and tell him what a jerk you think he is.

Leave a Reply