Another game where we ran the ball less than we should have, and another loss.

28 rush attempts, 38 pass attempts. Evans gives us hope, but we should still run the ball more often and stick with the run longer.

Updated stats:

Since Marc Trestman arrived as NC State's offensive coordinator, the Wolfpack is 9-1 when NC State has more rushing attempts than passes. When NC State passes more times than it runs, the Wolfpack is 1-7.

Andre Brown is still averaging over 6 yards/carry. Evans has 3 INTS. Brown has never fumbled the ball at NC State.

So why aren't we running more?

10/16/2006 9:09:28 AM

um....brown didnt fumble the ball for a safety when we could have run the clock out and gone to halftime with the lead but wake got the ball back and we ended up down 8 no that didnt happen


but yeah we need brown to have 20 carries and baker to have 15 a game.

10/16/2006 9:14:22 AM

Apparently ESPN doesn't actually report fumbles in their stats, so I stand corrected about AB's fumbles.

But still, run attempts > pass attempts = victory.

10/16/2006 9:35:16 AM

Quote :

"But still, run attempts > pass attempts = victory."

This was discussed in the other thread already and it's a dumb statement. On that last two drives, if we were in the lead, all those pass plays we ran, would be run plays, and the run/pass ratio would probably be 50/50.

We were up against a very well coached, 5-1 basically top 25 team where a player trying to be a hero yet again in a situation that didn't warrant it made a turnover and altered the course of the game.

10/16/2006 10:49:28 AM

^You're fucking dumb.

Quote :

"On that last two drives, if we were in the lead, all those pass plays we ran, would be run plays, and the run/pass ratio would probably be 50/50. "

Everybody knows the "if you're down, you pass, if you're in the lead, you run" argument. Knowing that...we STILL don't run enough. With our running backs, you keep plugging away. With more carries, we probably get one or two more 40-yard big runs like Andre Brown's in the 4th quarter. Andre Brown will break 2 or 3 40+ yarders a game if he gets 20+ carries. It's that simple.

Quote :

"where a player trying to be a hero yet again in a situation that didn't warrant it made a turnover and altered the course of the game."

He floated a pass, on the run, while trying to escape a sack. Yeah it was probably a bad decision...but he either gets sacked (and we more than likely lose right there) or throws the ball away. And with my fading memory...I don't know how feasible it was for him to throw it away. And the WR was kind of open...it was just a difficult throw. Blaming this on Daniel Evan's play at the end of the game is idiotic.

10/16/2006 11:25:47 AM

Quote :

"It's that simple."

Well, it isn't but I don't feel like discussing in hypotheticals like you do to try and prove a point.


Sorry, I wasn't talking about Evans being a hero. I was talking about Brown shifting the ball from his right hand to his left 1 second before he was about to be blown up by a lineback for a loss, 20 yards from his own goal line. He didn't get the ball firmly secured before the LB hit him, knocking the ball loose. If he just takes the 3 yard loss instead of trying to bust it, Wake for sure doesn't get that safety, and we can only guess at how the rest of the half would have played out. Would we get 0, 3, 7? Would the D get more of a rest and help keep wake out of the endzone, forcing them into another long field goal attempt?

10/16/2006 11:30:57 AM

Quote :

"Sorry, I wasn't talking about Evans being a hero. I was talking about Brown shifting the ball from his right hand to his left 1 second before he was about to be blown up by a lineback for a loss, 20 yards from his own goal line."

Gotcha.

Quote :

"Well, it isn't but I don't feel like discussing in hypotheticals like you do to try and prove a point."

In my opinion...our ratio should be more than 50/50 pass run. It should be at least 60/40 run to pass.

10/16/2006 11:44:59 AM

Opinions are like assholes.

10/16/2006 12:04:35 PM

its not so much the amount of pass plays but the quality of pass plays. A more vertical passing game beat FSU and BC. We have receivers that are tall and fast, Evans puts it up and they can jump for it. Dunlap and James have the size advantage on every DB on WF's roster. The slot passing game should be an occasional change of pace using Blackman not Lamart or Dunlap. I just want our receivers to be put in situations that suit there athletics talents.

10/16/2006 12:08:35 PM

Also, once we got to Wake's 40 yard line with a minute to go, we could have ran a run play or two to try to get Deraney closer instead of throwing the ball. Likely no INT and we send out Deraney to try to win it with a 40 yarder.

It's a hindsight thing, but if we had ran the ball more in general, we probably would have won that game. That's the whole point.

Just because we finally have a QB who can throw the ball doesn't mean we should have more passes than runs.

10/16/2006 12:11:24 PM

Quote :

"Also, once we got to Wake's 40 yard line with a minute to go, we could have ran a run play or two to try to get Deraney closer instead of throwing the ball. Likely no INT and we send out Deraney to try to win it with a 40 yarder."

You mean, if we would have picked up 17 yards in that "play or two" (with no timeouts), Deraney would have had a 40 yarder.

Durrr.....wonderful strategery there buddy.

10/16/2006 12:15:53 PM

If we had picked up 10 yards it would have given him at least a chance. We dont need timeouts to pick up 10-15 yards in 40 seconds...see boston college game

10/16/2006 12:20:25 PM

Quote :

"We dont need timeouts to pick up 10-15 yards in 40 seconds...see boston college game"

Running?

10/16/2006 12:41:05 PM

you could run one time then spike with 40 seconds left.

10/16/2006 12:43:10 PM

nothing you are posting follows the real discussion, but, thanks for trying...i guess?

10/16/2006 12:47:13 PM

you posted that we needed 17 yards in a play or two and that running was a stupid idea with no timeouts. I just gave an example of where we had less time to move the ball over a greater distance. I didnt specify running, but we could have run on saturday once.

10/16/2006 1:08:45 PM

With 1:00 to go and being just outside Deraney's range, I would have ran it. At least once. Probably twice.

Run and if he doesn't get the first down, spike it. More if you run a sweep or bounce it to the outside.

Probably have about 30-40 seconds left. Then run again possibly. Protect the ball and run the clock down. Spike again. Then throw on 3rd down to the outside.

Go for the FG instead of the TD. All we needed was 10-15 yards.

But the point of this whole thread is that we should run more almost every game. When we do, we win.

10/16/2006 2:24:20 PM

You mean, when we win, we run more.

10/16/2006 2:29:05 PM

^Opinions are like assholes.

10/16/2006 2:30:36 PM

What I just stated was an opinion? I thought it was a fact, presented in this thread and in other threads?

10/16/2006 2:35:27 PM

y'all are retarded. You don't run in that situation

10/16/2006 2:35:48 PM

Quote :

"What I just stated was an opinion? I thought it was a fact, presented in this thread and in other threads?"

You're switching up cause and effect.

It is your opinion that we run more when we win.

It is other people's opinion that we win when we run more.

^And nutsmakr is right...only a dumbass would have run in that position.

10/16/2006 2:40:42 PM

Our play calling problem was not that we called too many passing plays. We called too few vertical passing plays. I have no idea why we were aggressive attacking FSU through the air, but was unwilling to attack Wake...who has the worst secondary in the conference. FSU does play more press coverage, but Wake did play some. We could have done some real damage with deep PA passes on 1st down now and then. Wake's secondary gave up 300+ passing yards to Duke, who could have had over 400 if their receivers didn't drop so many catchable balls.

10/16/2006 2:50:39 PM

Quote :

"We called too few vertical passing plays."

FSU and Wake play different defenses. FSU does A LOT of man coverage. They were also thin in the secondary after a couple injuries. Therefore we exploited a lot of one-on-one coverage with our tall WRs.

Wake plays a lot of zone and the vertical passing game just wasn't available.

10/16/2006 2:58:04 PM

Wake does play much more zone, but they played a lot with no safety help over the top. They have been torched in the vertical passing game by other teams. The short passes of the West Coast Offense don't work well without some downfield threat to keep a defense honest. A weak secondary shouldn't have success on us with a ten yard zone, no deep coverage.

10/16/2006 3:04:04 PM

Seems like Trestman went away from it because of the dropped balls, and forgot to go back.

I still haven't seen printed why James got so little PT.

10/16/2006 3:08:03 PM

^I swear I think James is in the dog house with the coaching staff. Amato always says great things about him, then acts like James fucked up in practice something fierce.

He's got all the physical tools as far as speed and height goes, but I think he either cat catch a cold in practice or has some attitude problems. Based on the FSU game, there's no reason that he's not the leading receiver on the team other than something we're not seeing.

10/16/2006 3:42:31 PM

[QUOTE]y'all are retarded. You don't run in that situation[/quote]

Why wouldn't you run in that situation? A FG can win the game and we were about 10 yards out of Deraney's range.

One play in hindsight is not the point of this thread, but why wouldn't you protect the ball and run a few times to get closer instead of relying on Evan's arm.

Saying "when we are winning, we run more" is true, but not the point of this thread. Several of the games that I've cited we've been down most of the game, won, and still had more run attempts than pass attempts.

And only one game in recent memory was a complete blowout where we could not come back with the run. All the other games (besides Southern Miss) that we've lost could have used more run, less pass, including the Wake game.

10/16/2006 4:26:42 PM

Quote :

"Why wouldn't you run in that situation? A FG can win the game and we were about 10 yards out of Deraney's range. "

Up until that one long run by Brown, he was averaging about .3 yards per carry. Unless you think he was going to get another big run magically in those last plays (which might have been possible if they were sitting on a pass), running is a really dumb idea, and you lose all credibility for suggesting it.

10/16/2006 5:25:06 PM

But why?

You can run a play to the outside and Andre would get out of bounds when he isn't going to make more progress.

And if that failed, you spike it.

All you need is a FG.

And hindsight speaking, we wouldn't have thrown a pick.

So please explain why it's such a dumb idea that I "lose all credibility".

10/16/2006 5:32:55 PM