The Unofficial Furman Football Page

The Cats are coming off an embarrassing effort in Macon. They'll be playing to avoid their third conference loss, which will all but eliminate them from the SoCon title race.

Statistically, this looks like your typical WCU team. Average about 500 yards and 34 points on offense. They surrender 382 yards and 33 points on average on defense. Their defense looks a little more respectable than in most years.

WCU is a pretty staggering -10 in turnovers. 13 interceptions easily leads the league. They were picked off four times today against Mercer.

I suspect Mercer and Samford probably put a good bit on film on how to attack the Catamounts. Of course, our defense is going to need to clean up some of the big plays on defense.

Their offensive points per game are skewed by them scoring 129 points on CSU(52) and PC(77). They have scored 18 points in the last 2 weeks against good SoCon teams all on FG’s, no TD’s.

The Jackal wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 08, 2022 11:40 pm

The Cats are coming off an embarrassing effort in Macon. They'll be playing to avoid their third conference loss, which will all but eliminate them from the SoCon title race.

Statistically, this looks like your typical WCU team. Average about 500 yards and 34 points on offense. They surrender 382 yards and 33 points on average on defense. Their defense looks a little more respectable than in most years.

WCU is a pretty staggering -10 in turnovers. 13 interceptions easily leads the league. They were picked off four times today against Mercer.

I suspect Mercer and Samford probably put a good bit on film on how to attack the Catamounts. Of course, our defense is going to need to clean up some of the big plays on defense.

Jackal. Thanks.

different system but sounds a little like Samford. Traditional great scoring But somewhat better D this year. . We better be ready !!!

And yes, we HAVE to quit with the big plays our D is giving up. Again, our own former players on radio - McMorris or someone — were saying (paraphrase) “what is the deal with us leaving a receiver wide open so often the past few weeks”? That would be a killer vs WCU offense. One of best O in league by WCU.

(. Citadel has horrible offense. They do. . In 3 past games they have ONE TD (the one today vs us). Wow. 3 games. One TD. citadel OL is BAD. a freshman new QB too.

I think there's some context.

We aren't just deciding not to cover receivers. The teams we are playing have D1 athletes and coaches too. They scheme us the same way we scheme them.

On the touchdown throw, it appears they are running a double post/wheel route combination against our cover 4. That is a good call against our defensive look in that it pressures both safeties with three men running into the vertical space.

My guess is because the opponent is the Citadel, our linebackers have virtually no pass coverage responsibility. The safeties don't get quite as deep because they are not only responsible for the vertical routes, but also have to cover any crossing routes/digs cut off around 10 yards. So, the route combination catches us both having to defend intermediate routes as well as the deep vertical routes.

Furman nearly sacks the QB off the snap. Not sure how the Citadel didn't get a body on the 300 lbs nose guard, but he blew right past them. As you saw most the day, as soon as the linebackers read "pass" one of them is responsible for firing into the backfield to pressure the QB. I'm not even completely sure the QB is throwing to the receiver who catches it. I think he's just throwing it to where he hopes they'll be.

We can defend this better, but it was a good call by the Citadel.

Here's another long pass, but I'm not super worried about it.

It's 2nd and 1 on maybe the second play of the game from the Bulldog offense. You aren't necessarily expecting a long downfield pass in that situation against an option offense. Good call from the Citadel early in the game.

As a defense, you can live with this.

I realize that we went into conservative mode up three scores against the Citadel's offense. I still thought that we showed some creativity on offense.

1. We took several shots downfield, something we haven't done a ton of this season. Not great throws, but still were looking for them.

2. I loved the coach's commitment to a physical run game. It really took some of the fire out of the Citadel's defense. Here's Roberto just sticking his facemask in the linebacker's chest and driving him into the end zone.





3. There was a nifty pass play in the fourth quarter on a slip screen to Dean. Furman attempted two passes in the fourth quarter, and the pass to Dean had some nice window dressing showing a bubble screen to Anderson and slipping Dean underneath for 11 yards.

4. Finally started getting some chunk plays in the run game. Nothing sexy here, just a physical well-blocked run against a 7 man box.




5. Loved the short yardage call on the goal line for the touchdown. 3 TEs, 2 RBs. Watch that defensive line move as soon as Hicks hits the hole. He's looking like the next Furman power back.



6. Not a great offensive day yardage-wise, but some of that was the opponent and their style of play. Some of that was that a key part of our offense - the running QB - wasn't available to us yesterday. Hopefully Huff continues to improve health wise and adds that element back to the system.

Jackal — glad you posted those plays and comments.
Roper is showing some much-needed creative offensive wrinkles.
I thought the shovel pass on third down was another nifty play call.

AstroDin wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 09, 2022 11:13 am

Jackal — glad you posted those plays and comments.
Roper is showing some much-needed creative offensive wrinkles.
I thought the shovel pass on third down was another nifty play call.

I had forgotten that one, but yes. Excellent play call.

I'm also a big fan of using Gissinger as a receiver. He caught another big third down conversion yesterday.

Defenses get so preoccupied with Miller on third downs that they will frequently lose track of Gissinger. We've utilized him on third downs several times the last few weeks. He doesn't appear to be a guy that's going to outrun defenders, but at 6'4 he's a big target for a quick pass against a smaller defender.

The Jackal wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 09, 2022 11:52 am

AstroDin wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 09, 2022 11:13 am

Jackal — glad you posted those plays and comments.
Roper is showing some much-needed creative offensive wrinkles.
I thought the shovel pass on third down was another nifty play call.

I had forgotten that one, but yes. Excellent play call.

I'm also a big fan of using Gissinger as a receiver. He caught another big third down conversion yesterday.

Defenses get so preoccupied with Miller on third downs that they will frequently lose track of Gissinger. We've utilized him on third downs several times the last few weeks. He doesn't appear to be a guy that's going to outrun defenders, but at 6'4 he's a big target for a quick pass against a smaller defender.

Agree,, he had a great catch vs CSU which was a clutch third or 4th down if I recall correctly - i may not, I am too old LOL. Can be a real weapon opposite Miller - even if only once or twice a game... to be opposite Miller probably gets him lost in the "flow" of the game

It really would help if Huff could pull the ball and go for the edge at least 3 or 4 times.. just a few times as that makes a D honest. However, if I were coaching I would first try to see how we do with Roberto and the OL.. and the basic passing game. If, like at Citadel, it appears we are ok then don't run Huff other than his decision (like at Cit) to run once or twice for 4 or 5 yards and take an easy slide. If we find ourselves in a stagnant offense I hope he is healthy enough to run just a little. I'm not saying take hits and try for 20 yards but run for 7 yards when he sees it and slide. That just adds SO MUCH to an offense. Literally that killed ETSU as they - it appeared to me - left a spy later in the game after Huff had gashed them. So we had big runs from him early.. then they lost a defender for the pass opening up the slant pattern later. Occupying a defender like that is HUGE.

He's gimpy so they can only do what they can and they obviously don't want to lose him for the year - clearly Huff isn't 100% as he wasn't running v Citadel and yet the coaches chose him to start over others anyway.

gofurman wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 09, 2022 11:59 pm

He's gimpy so they can only do what they can and they obviously don't want to lose him for the year - clearly Huff isn't 100% as he wasn't running v Citadel and yet the coaches chose him to start over others anyway.

We got the "W", so I'm not going to be too critical of the coaching decision. Still, if we are using RPO, playing a QB who is not allowed to run is like sending a boxer into the ring with one arm tied behind his back. Might shoulda held him out another week. JW has been playing well and is more than capable of beating Citadel.

Davemeister wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 10, 2022 9:45 am

gofurman wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 09, 2022 11:59 pm

He's gimpy so they can only do what they can and they obviously don't want to lose him for the year - clearly Huff isn't 100% as he wasn't running v Citadel and yet the coaches chose him to start over others anyway.

We got the "W", so I'm not going to be too critical of the coaching decision. Still, if we are using RPO, playing a QB who is not allowed to run is like sending a boxer into the ring with one arm tied behind his back. Might shoulda held him out another week. JW has been playing well and is more than capable of beating Citadel.

Based on what we saw from Jace - playing behind Samford - against a defense with two spies. You make an interesting point. I will not critique the coach's call to play Huff at the Citadel. They obviously feel the DINS have a better chance to win with Huff as the starter moving forward.

The offensive play calling more or less protected Huff - we'll probably hear more today on the coach's show. I expect that will not be the case this week.

Davemeister wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 10, 2022 9:45 am

gofurman wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 09, 2022 11:59 pm

He's gimpy so they can only do what they can and they obviously don't want to lose him for the year - clearly Huff isn't 100% as he wasn't running v Citadel and yet the coaches chose him to start over others anyway.

We got the "W", so I'm not going to be too critical of the coaching decision. Still, if we are using RPO, playing a QB who is not allowed to run is like sending a boxer into the ring with one arm tied behind his back. Might shoulda held him out another week. JW has been playing well and is more than capable of beating Citadel.

On the other hand, while I know everyone wasn't excited about the offensive performance, Furman won on the road basically running the RB up the middle the majority of the time.

As Huff improves physically, I think you'll see that read option back in the playbook.

Davemeister wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 10, 2022 9:45 am

gofurman wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 09, 2022 11:59 pm

He's gimpy so they can only do what they can and they obviously don't want to lose him for the year - clearly Huff isn't 100% as he wasn't running v Citadel and yet the coaches chose him to start over others anyway.

We got the "W", so I'm not going to be too critical of the coaching decision. Still, if we are using RPO, playing a QB who is not allowed to run is like sending a boxer into the ring with one arm tied behind his back. Might shoulda held him out another week. JW has been playing well and is more than capable of beating Citadel.

Kinda my thought too. Really thought we would ride JW honestly and that he would get the win. I posted as such - that I figured JW was the guy v Citadel and probably for at least another week before we saw Huff - but I was clearly wrong.

Just seems so limiting to send a dual threat QB out there without half of his game. Glad we won and hope everyone continues to heal up.

( I’m sure the coaches felt Citadel wouldn’t score much and that our OL and Roberto could do better in maintaining a run game vs Citadel than we had prior weeks … so probably didn’t need Huff running much. )

AstroDin wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 10, 2022 9:56 am

Davemeister wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 10, 2022 9:45 am

gofurman wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 09, 2022 11:59 pm

He's gimpy so they can only do what they can and they obviously don't want to lose him for the year - clearly Huff isn't 100% as he wasn't running v Citadel and yet the coaches chose him to start over others anyway.

We got the "W", so I'm not going to be too critical of the coaching decision. Still, if we are using RPO, playing a QB who is not allowed to run is like sending a boxer into the ring with one arm tied behind his back. Might shoulda held him out another week. JW has been playing well and is more than capable of beating Citadel.

Based on what we saw from Jace - playing behind Samford - against a defense with two spies. You make an interesting point. I will not critique the coach's call to play Huff at the Citadel. They obviously feel the DINS have a better chance to win with Huff as the starter moving forward.

The offensive play calling more or less protected Huff - we'll probably hear more today on the coach's show. I expect that will not be the case this week.

Astro. Check your latest PM - the one from today October 10th - and reply please. Thank you in advance !!