Ahem, let’s acknowledge that management put the pieces there. ? We like to say that Doeren is incompetent but like Hale said, but for a decent kicker State could have been 10-2 in 2016. That’s not what I call bad management.
This analogy is about comparing a program to an undervalued stock. Do you buy low because you think it might rise? If things were all in place, then that stock would already be performing and not undervalued. Some things are missing.
Our football program is the potentially undervalued stock in this analogy. We have some of the pieces there that looks like we could be on the rise. We don’t have everything though because we’d already be flying high.
The pieces are there from the perspective of the lines. That is the most important thing, and I have given credit to DD and staff many times on their focus on these areas. It’s part of what is clearly being done correctly. There are subsets of things (like S&C), RBs and the commitment to the run (up until last year) that seemingly are being done well, and these are the reasons why we want to see DD ultimately break through.
It is concerning that the architect of the DL is no longer here. It’s great for him that he’s in the NFL now, but will be the next DL coach be able to maintain the same level of talent and depth? One of the issues that has undermined our program in the past is the good assistants perform well and then move along (some up, and some lateral). So will the DL continue to be a long term strength, or are we going to ride a wave of a really good year this year and then fall off? It remains to be seen.
The third piece of that equation is QB. I don’t know where we stand really. I don’t think that NC State needs a NFL starter to have a good season, but we have to get more out of a QB than we have in any year under DD. We were clearly in a bad spot coming into last season, and Drink did what he could to fill it. Will we see a spike this year, or is help 2 years away (and in the form of a freshman)? Time will tell.
We weren’t necessarily a kicker away from 10 wins last year. I’m sorry, but that does not account for what happens after the kick is made. A good team (like national title winning Clemson) can take the ball and go the length of the field rapidly. We clearly have a weakness at kicking and it hurt us, but I can’t say 10-2 if we make a couple of kicks.
If we were merely a kicker away, one would think we would have an incredibly attractive scholarship to offer to a kicker. We are heading into next season with a grad transfer who put up modest numbers and the same practice superstar. If that’s what we thought and were selling, we seemingly didn’t have any buyers. Is the kicking issue addressed? I guess we’ll know by about 3-4 games in, but if Bambgard is back out there for FGs, I can tell you that answer is no.
So to Grey’s point about the management, yes credit has to be given to what is being done well. That doesn’t mean that it’s all there, or the stock wouldn’t be undervalued (and we wouldn’t be coming off 7-6).
I was also trying to be kind because part of the big, glaring issue is just how poor we are on game day, within the games. There’s a reason that on some of these lists the head man is down near the bottom of P5 coaches. I don’t agree with that assessment because I do see some very important things (OL, DL, RBs, S&C) being done well so it’s not all bad. I personally think that the head man costs us 5-7 points a game.
If we were a kicker away from 10 wins, what were we away without DD spotting the other team 5-7 points? Are BC, ECU, Clemson and FSU all wins if DD’s headset were on mute? Those straw men arguments can be built many ways. There are just too many variables to make statements like the kicker.
