haha agreed.

9/29/2008 12:21:48 AM

Quote :

"Every loss, its the same handful of douchebags that like to come on this board and act like they are the fucking know it alls of the football world."

haha, we have played this 10 yards off crap since TOB has been here, regardless of if we have injuries or not the right recruits, it just doesn't work...bend but don't break is a terrible philosophy....

you're probably one of those people that thinks if nate irving played, we would have won the game, hahaha

9/29/2008 9:12:41 AM

clearly nate irving would not have won this game for us, but this defensive scheme has been working well this year. what are you talking about?

this is the first loss we've had that hasn't been due to the offense not scoring any points.

9/29/2008 10:07:50 AM

Quote :

"bend but don't break is a terrible philosophy...."

you're right, it is against a team as precise as South Florida, they just build momentum, but for the most part in college football, enough mistakes are made by receivers and quarterbacks that this style defense caters to more turnovers/momentum shifts. UGA uses it, as well as Auburn, and USC for the most part... they just have the athletes to outplay their opponent even in this style, so it's not as obvious.

9/29/2008 10:22:40 AM

there are plenty of comments in hurr.

9/29/2008 11:48:47 AM

Well........he didn't help his cause today.

If it hadn't been for 2 fumbles and an INT by BC we likely give up 52 points or more.

10/4/2008 4:24:01 PM

Horrible scheme. No pressure on the QB = pitch and catch.

Irving would've been responsible for covering those TE's. Cash would've helped get pressure on the QB.

Knowing the injuries that we have, you have to change the scheme to compensate for our deficiencies and it doesn't look like Archer is doing that.

10/4/2008 4:37:02 PM

i can't believe this guy was on a coaching staff with dick lebeau.

10/4/2008 4:43:57 PM

its Cover 2 all game long no pressure middle of the field is wide open.

10/4/2008 4:44:18 PM

haven't read all of this, but archer is a damn idiot.

I didn't see one defensive adjustment the whole game. He lost this game for us.

10/4/2008 4:46:17 PM

^ and ^^ yep

10/4/2008 5:06:17 PM

I remember when I first heard that "bend dont break" philisophy, and my first thought was, well you keep bending, thats 7 points for the other team. We made their QB look so good today that I had to ask a couple of times to make sure that Matt Ryan had in fact graduated.

10/4/2008 5:50:28 PM

428yds

10/4/2008 6:39:55 PM

a defense that has played pretty strong all year long...bent over and took it today

10/4/2008 6:54:23 PM

I think the last two teams have figured it out.

1) Play 4-5 wideouts and then have them run to the GAPING holes in our soft zone.
2) Throw balls to holes.
3) Rack up 400+ passing yards
4) Profit

10/4/2008 8:17:39 PM

^^and who is that?

10/4/2008 8:22:23 PM

^^actually, there were more 2 or 3 receiver sets. They just protected and waited for someone to inevitably come open. It's when they stopped doubled teaming everyone that we were able to get pressure.

Both our lines and secondary sucked balls. The secondary was out of position and late 90 percent of the time, even when there were only 2 receivers.

10/4/2008 9:30:40 PM

I don't think it was Archer not making ANY adjustments that made our defense blow. I'm sure he made adjustments, any dumbass watching the game knew something needed to be done. It's either he made the wrong adjustments or our players just couldn't implement the shit on the field. I'm willing to guess it was the latter. We just don't have the talent on defense right now due to injuries and inexperience to make plays, especially at LB. D coordinator always becomes the scapegoat in these situations. It might turn out that he is a dumbass but I'm going to reserve judgement until we at least get a couple important guys back out there (mainly Irving but it will probably take more than just him).

10/4/2008 9:44:26 PM

Quote :

"Our linebacking corps features a 205lb walkon manning the boundary, which means he gets to cover 260lb tight ends. We have a 220 middle linebacker who should be a safety, and 2 true freshman playing the weakside, and they are completely lost."

Some guys on sfn said this, and I just don't get all the whining about Archer when you look at this fact. No coverage scheme would have made a difference. When we blitzed, they either sat behind where the blitz came from (or, in one instance I remember) ran right past Robbie Leonard coming in off the edge. If anything, going to man + more blitzing with the beast of an OL that BC had would have meant 50 yard plays rather than 25 yard plays as they ran past the coverage.

Just chill out people. With the broken team we have and still had a chance to win it is just more than you should ask for this year.

10/4/2008 9:51:14 PM

^ What's your excuse going to be next year?

10/4/2008 9:56:22 PM

...

10/4/2008 9:57:59 PM

frankly, after the way we were completely raped on D the first three series, I would have prefered us singling up on the wideouts and bringing some heat. If they get beat, so be it, but at least we would have been taking some chances.

10/5/2008 8:21:35 AM

^ uh, isn't that basically what we did? we brought extra rushers often, the fact is that they just got mauled by BC's line, and since we brought them we had an even LARGER gaping hole in our zone.

Did you people seriously expect wonders out of our defense this year?

Frankly I'm happy we put up 31 points on BC. Allowing 500 yards of offense is terrible, but that's just the state of NCSU football at the moment.

[Edited on October 5, 2008 at 8:27 AM. Reason : .]

10/5/2008 8:25:43 AM

^^ Would you listen to yourself? We had the game tied up with 3 minutes to go. What more can you ask for? The D was getting mauled, but from time to time we got stops, and we had a bit of turnover luck. Do you people not remember the Amato years when we played man all the time with no pash rush, it was ugly, very ugly, and that was with healthier bigger more experienced players in the secondary.

10/5/2008 9:08:43 AM

yes, man-to-man didn't work years ago under a different head coach and with different players


it obviously will NEVER work! let's keep playing a zone and giving every receiver 5-10 yards to catch a ball and then come up and NOT tackle them.

10/5/2008 9:14:06 AM

You guys just don't have a clue. Here, you missed it the first time, read it again

Quote :

""Our linebacking corps features a 205lb walkon manning the boundary, which means he gets to cover 260lb tight ends. We have a 220 middle linebacker who should be a safety, and 2 true freshman playing the weakside, and they are completely lost.""

Our 2 best defensive guys were out. I think Byers went out and never came back in. It's a miracle we didn't give up 800 yards. Leave the coaching to the guys that get paid more than you'll ever make in your life.

10/5/2008 9:17:05 AM

you're one of those idiots who thinks the defense is nate irving


yeah we can agree he'd probably help but last two games are god awful by everyone involved with the defense

i said it at the beginning of this thread, usf figured out and now everyone is going to watch the tapes and do it all game to us, im sure bc was having fun out there today

10/5/2008 9:45:51 AM

I'm one of the idiots who thinks you don't have a clue about football. More than 50% of everything that was caught or went over the middle yesterday would have been snuffed out by Irving (this is before we talk about not having AMC out there either). He's that good. He reacts a ton quicker to the QB, finds the man coming into his space, and shuts him down. That would give the guys on the edge more opportunity to play a bit tighter to their guys, shutting down that out pass better. Or, maybe you missed it when ECU was doing that a ton too, only, they only got a couple-few yards when they ran it and not 5-10 like when BC was in.

Your grasp of the game of football is embarrassing for all State fans everywhere. Please study it some more, then come back to this thread.

10/5/2008 9:54:13 AM

Quote :

"Do you people not remember the Amato years when we played man all the time with no pash rush, it was ugly, very ugly, and that was with healthier bigger more experienced players in the secondary."

wait, wait, wait.

Incorrect. We had the #1 defense in the nation with this scheme. We had mad pass rushing. Only in Amato's last two or so years did he lose his defensive talent and thus the effectiveness of this scheme.

I would take Amato's style defense any day over archer's lazy soft ass zone bull shit.

10/5/2008 10:01:59 AM

^took long enough for someone to call him out on that. thank you.

amato had a lot of deficiencies as a head coach at state, but i don't think defense was ever one of the more pressing ones.

10/5/2008 11:16:23 AM

signed, Akron

10/5/2008 11:53:02 AM

Quote :

"we brought extra rushers often, the fact is that they just got mauled by BC's line, and since we brought them we had an even LARGER gaping hole in our zone."

bullshit. We rushed 4 90+% of the time. And before halftime, it was near 100%.

So the QB had an hour of time every single play, and then to make things worse, we played a 10 yard cushion zone. The few times in the second half when our receivers played up close on the wideouts and we brought an extra man or two rushing, we managed to not make their QB look like peyton fucking manning.

Yes, we have injuries. Yes, they likely would have made a huge difference for our defense in this game. No, I don't think that is an excuse we can use for why we made an average offense look like the dallas cowboys yesterday. When guys like Irving and cash are out, and you have guys that aren't big/experienced enough to play the under routes on a zone and we can't generate a pass rush with 4 guys, you change the fucking scheme!

10/5/2008 12:03:01 PM

^ just calm down.

to complain that we're bad is one thing, but to complain that mike archer doesn't know the very basics of football defense is stupid.

10/5/2008 1:31:20 PM

If you think that the whole problem with our defense was the lack of Irving then you weren't watching the game on Saturday. Would Irving have helped? Yes. but there were many more problems, especially with deep coverage that caused our D to stink it up. example-play of the day-morgan runs five yards past his receiver before ever realizing that the guy was no longer there

10/5/2008 1:43:37 PM

lets get two things straight

we never blitzed, 90% of time it was 4 man rush

secondly, irving is good, he's not going to stop 50% of their plays or snuff it out you idiot, you are a moron, how much more are you going to shove irving's dick down your throat

10/5/2008 3:43:30 PM

Quote :

"that mike archer doesn't know the very basics of football defense is stupid."

I actually like archer most of the time, but these last two games are a perfect example of a coach being too stubborn to change schemes based on the personnel we have. Irving does make a big difference, and although I will never like the soft zone archer employs, it has been moderately successful for us until the last two games.

10/5/2008 5:00:48 PM

BEND AND BREAK DEFENSE

10/5/2008 8:02:47 PM

^^ see offensive lines of our opponents in last 2 games vs before that.

Our pass rush just wasen't good enough. If you think changing to man coverage is going to help that, you're crazy.

10/5/2008 8:23:48 PM

^^^

so tell me, what personnel do we have, and how on earth can we keep people from going buck wild on us?

WE'RE JUST NOT THAT GOOD


and, at least according to johnny evans, we did blitz a fair amount. i was on the way to a funeral, so i only got to listen.

[Edited on October 5, 2008 at 9:56 PM. Reason : .]

10/5/2008 9:55:11 PM

The fact that everyone on the team except for irving tackles like 12 year old school girls also points to some coaching issues.

10/6/2008 12:47:49 AM

you're right, I'm sure that TOB and staff are absolutely shitty at teaching players how to tackle.

in fact, I bet they just drink a bunch of codeine syrup and nap on bean bag chairs instead of going out to the practice field.

10/6/2008 12:50:02 AM

Irving is one of our impact players. When he makes a play he gives everyone on the field a motivation boost. Without him, theres nothing to offset the other teams momentum.

10/6/2008 12:54:19 AM

^^ what?



coaches can be bad at teaching technique or could stress big hits over wrapping up... Tennessee has been notorious over the years for trying to kill people instead of wrapping up. They get a lot of big plays (turnovers, injuries etc.) but they also give up some big plays

[Edited on October 6, 2008 at 12:56 AM. Reason : d]

10/6/2008 12:55:59 AM

^ truth, they also fire up the crowd with it... they also injure themselves alot.

10/6/2008 1:02:52 AM

I thought we blitzed a lot more last year but maybe i'm losing my mind.

The argument that we need more guys in coverage doesnt hold any weight because we're giving up 10 yards a play anyway. We may as well rush 6 or 7 and give up 10 yards and have a chance of making the qb fuck up. At least it shows we're trying something different.

10/6/2008 8:17:06 AM

everyone got used to the reggie "blitz every down" herring style of defense.

that would work now.

if we still had manny lawson, mario williams, demario pressley, stephen tulloch, pat thomas, etc. etc....

I'm not crazy about archer either, but our defensive problems are bigger than Mike Archer.

If we even just have Allen michael cash and nate irving healthy, this thread would not exist.

10/6/2008 9:30:02 AM

it was like we didnt adjust at all during halftime
TOB came out saying that they figured out what BC was doing? really, really TOB. sure as fuck couldnt tell on my end of the TV. My buddies and i were all types of pissed off about how wide open most of those receivers were. someone needs to make Archer run some laps or suicides for his ineptness.

10/6/2008 9:55:21 AM

Quote :

"signed, Akron"

that got a resentful chuckle out of me.

10/6/2008 9:58:58 AM

If we had Nate Irving for the BC game, we would have won. Watching the game from home, I kept DVRing back to plays to watch how our LB were getting completely juked on BC's ball fakes. The fact that slow ass Chris Crane ran for 3 TDs is ridiculous and shows how poorly our LBs played.

Had Irving been in there Crane would have been injured on his first TD run and I guarantee Irving would have never allowed him to get that shitty 18 yard or whatever run at the end (not that that TD really mattered as they would have kicked the FG).

Our LBs right now are just too small, slow, and don't have right instincts/experience.

10/6/2008 10:30:25 AM

I think archer was pulling his defensive playcalls from ncaa 09.

10/6/2008 10:40:19 AM