CCH Post Game

[FU3]

Comments up on football Twitter. He states that we have an O that can’t survive no gain plays in a game then sites 4 or 5 plays that changed the game. How about stating the obvious that as coaches we didn’t get the job done all season and as HC I will do whatever it takes to fix this mess ?The problems with this O are systemic and cherry picking a few plays makes it sound like we are close to being ok ... anyone who has watched our O this spring knows we are about as bad on O as college football can be.

[apaladin]

Yes he really didn’t seem upset or anything, sorta like he exoected it. Said he still likes this group, thinks we have some good players etc. Did say they need to look at what they are doing on offense. Why haven’t they already done that? As they said on the broadcast yesterday, and I quote “we just don’t have an offense capable of winning football games”.

[fu77fan]

Clay can say what he wants to . He is the head coach and knows more about football than I do . But the facts are ....
We had 9 yards total offense in the first quarter yesterday .
The story has been the same week after week.
It is more than a few plays here and there.
We cannot run the football.
We have proven that on multiple occasions we cannot score when we have a first and goal inside the 5 yard line.
Our QB does not see the field well .
Our QB is not an accurate passer.
We cannot consistently run or pass the football.
We are fundamentally awful on offense.
You cannot win if your offense cannot score!!

[Sad Din]

Clay can say what he wants to . He is the head coach and knows more about football than I do . But the facts are ....
We had 9 yards total offense in the first quarter yesterday .
The story has been the same week after week.
It is more than a few plays here and there.
We cannot run the football.
We have proven that on multiple occasions we cannot score when we have a first and goal inside the 5 yard line.
Our QB does not see the field well .
Our QB is not an accurate passer.
We cannot consistently run or pass the football.
We are fundamentally awful on offense.
You cannot win if your offense cannot score!!

and from time to time special teams have not been special

[JohnW]

Let me postulate this.... Furman lost it's starting QB like 6 to 8 weeks before the season. A tall, fast QB with a big arm that obliged a defense to defend the entire field. Also unavailable a big fast WR capable of playing QB and a really good TB. With these losses, but primarily the QB, the staff had no choice but to quickly adapt the offense to the roster on hand. It did not go well. Furman was unable to keep the defense honest. O-line overwhelmed, historically productive backs stuffed, QB ineffective. From best offense in the SoCon in 2019 to this.

Coach said this was the plan all along. I certainly hope not.

[Paladin91]

Let me postulate this.... Furman lost it's starting QB like 6 to 8 weeks before the season. A tall, fast QB with a big arm that obliged a defense to defend the entire field. Also unavailable a big fast WR capable of playing QB and a really good TB. With these losses, but primarily the QB, the staff had no choice but to quickly adapt the offense to the roster on hand. It did not go well. Furman was unable to keep the defense honest. O-line overwhelmed, historically productive backs stuffed, QB ineffective. From best offense in the SoCon in 2019 to this.

Coach said this was the plan all along. I certainly hope not.

Except, my understanding was that SIsson was going to be named the started when Grainger decided to transfer - I think that played a part in his decision. The coaching staff bet on Sisson before the season started.

[apaladin]

Let me postulate this.... Furman lost it's starting QB like 6 to 8 weeks before the season. A tall, fast QB with a big arm that obliged a defense to defend the entire field. Also unavailable a big fast WR capable of playing QB and a really good TB. With these losses, but primarily the QB, the staff had no choice but to quickly adapt the offense to the roster on hand. It did not go well. Furman was unable to keep the defense honest. O-line overwhelmed, historically productive backs stuffed, QB ineffective. From best offense in the SoCon in 2019 to this.

Coach said this was the plan all along. I certainly hope not.

Except, my understanding was that SIsson was going to be named the started when Grainger decided to transfer - I think that played a part in his decision. The coaching staff bet on Sisson before the season started.

Just speculating here but I think they knew DG was leaving before they said HS had won the job. If they didn’t, what does that say about the coaching staff? Either that or HS practice game does not translate to game day.

[fu77fan]

Regardless of how we got to where we are, we need to have a QB who has more athletic ability/talent. You can build the team around a talented QB !

[The Jackal]

Let me postulate this.... Furman lost it's starting QB like 6 to 8 weeks before the season. A tall, fast QB with a big arm that obliged a defense to defend the entire field. Also unavailable a big fast WR capable of playing QB and a really good TB. With these losses, but primarily the QB, the staff had no choice but to quickly adapt the offense to the roster on hand. It did not go well. Furman was unable to keep the defense honest. O-line overwhelmed, historically productive backs stuffed, QB ineffective. From best offense in the SoCon in 2019 to this.

Coach said this was the plan all along. I certainly hope not.

Except, my understanding was that SIsson was going to be named the started when Grainger decided to transfer - I think that played a part in his decision. The coaching staff bet on Sisson before the season started.

Here's again where I point out that Grainger didn't exactly set the world on fire last year.

Look at Grainger's offensive numbers in 13 games and Sisson's through 6 or 7.

The issue this year is we can't run the ball. Hard to be 3rd and 8 every series and expect the QB to be lights out.

[FU3]

Grainger was in essence a square peg in a round hole. This staff was determined to try and make him in to a hybrid option ( or whatever term we use for what we attempt to run) QB. He was never really suited for this style but with his arm strength he had the ability to fit the ball in to a tight window and had some pocket elusiveness.He was a project but let’s be honest, Furman is not even vaguely known for it’s QB development.

[JohnW]

Let me postulate this.... Furman lost it's starting QB like 6 to 8 weeks before the season. A tall, fast QB with a big arm that obliged a defense to defend the entire field. Also unavailable a big fast WR capable of playing QB and a really good TB. With these losses, but primarily the QB, the staff had no choice but to quickly adapt the offense to the roster on hand. It did not go well. Furman was unable to keep the defense honest. O-line overwhelmed, historically productive backs stuffed, QB ineffective. From best offense in the SoCon in 2019 to this.

Coach said this was the plan all along. I certainly hope not.

Except, my understanding was that SIsson was going to be named the started when Grainger decided to transfer - I think that played a part in his decision. The coaching staff bet on Sisson before the season started.

Absolutely no evidence of that, nothing had been said about Sisson starting until DG had committed to another school.

[curiousfan]

Let me postulate this.... Furman lost it's starting QB like 6 to 8 weeks before the season. A tall, fast QB with a big arm that obliged a defense to defend the entire field. Also unavailable a big fast WR capable of playing QB and a really good TB. With these losses, but primarily the QB, the staff had no choice but to quickly adapt the offense to the roster on hand. It did not go well. Furman was unable to keep the defense honest. O-line overwhelmed, historically productive backs stuffed, QB ineffective. From best offense in the SoCon in 2019 to this.

Coach said this was the plan all along. I certainly hope not.

Except, my understanding was that SIsson was going to be named the started when Grainger decided to transfer - I think that played a part in his decision. The coaching staff bet on Sisson before the season started.

Just speculating here but I think they knew DG was leaving before they said HS had won the job. If they didn’t, what does that say about the coaching staff? Either that or HS practice game does not translate to game day.

I know for a fact...DG decided to leave AFTER they named HS the team captain in the middle of QB battle. Didn't sit well with him and I don't know many QBs battling for QB1 that it would sit well with. it still BAFFLES me that team captain was decided prior to Winter Break in the middle of a QB competition. They had options, we named the additional captains in 2021.

[curiousfan]

Grainger was in essence a square peg in a round hole. This staff was determined to try and make him in to a hybrid option ( or whatever term we use for what we attempt to run) QB. He was never really suited for this style but with his arm strength he had the ability to fit the ball in to a tight window and had some pocket elusiveness.He was a project but let’s be honest, Furman is not even vaguely known for it’s QB development.

DG is/was much more suitable for this offense, based off of what we tried in the spring. QB run Options are not really options if the QB isnt a feared ball carrier. We can all agree that not one opponent feared our QB running. With the way our line would break down, a bigger, more mobile QB (DG) would have been/should have been a preferred option. Its not a knock on HS, it's just the system that is run at FU.

[Paladin91]

Let me postulate this.... Furman lost it's starting QB like 6 to 8 weeks before the season. A tall, fast QB with a big arm that obliged a defense to defend the entire field. Also unavailable a big fast WR capable of playing QB and a really good TB. With these losses, but primarily the QB, the staff had no choice but to quickly adapt the offense to the roster on hand. It did not go well. Furman was unable to keep the defense honest. O-line overwhelmed, historically productive backs stuffed, QB ineffective. From best offense in the SoCon in 2019 to this.

Coach said this was the plan all along. I certainly hope not.

Except, my understanding was that SIsson was going to be named the started when Grainger decided to transfer - I think that played a part in his decision. The coaching staff bet on Sisson before the season started.

Here's again where I point out that Grainger didn't exactly set the world on fire last year.

Look at Grainger's offensive numbers in 13 games and Sisson's through 6 or 7.

The issue this year is we can't run the ball. Hard to be 3rd and 8 every series and expect the QB to be lights out.

Your analysis is clearly through HS purple-tinted glasses. First off, DG played quite well against two FCS teams in GState and VA Tech. I think everyone was impressed in the GSU game. DG had some really poor games in the rain, which impacted his stats. HS went 89-172 (51.7%) or 1,258 yards...14.9 yds per pass, with 9 INT's. DG went 79-161 (49.0%) for 1,222 yds...15.5 yds per pass, with only 3 INT's. Based on better competition and much fewer INT's - the clear edge goes to DG, who also had a year less of experience in FU's system. But let's look at the rushing stats - HS had 57 attempts for 30 yds (0.5 yds per attempt) with only 1 TD. DG had 93 attempts for 316 yds (3.4 yds per attempt) with 5 TD's. Huge edge to DG, as he was a true dual threat QB for most teams. The reality is most teams didn't fear HS's arm and loaded the box, which stopped our running game this year.

And Jackal, I know you'll say the loss of Thomas Gordon was one of the reasons that HS was ineffective this year. But one of your past posts alluded to the fact that FU had nothing to worry about at the WR position when I stated that we were in trouble, particularly in having receivers with size and speed. This was after Cam Burnette decided to transfer. So if we had nothing to worry about at the WR position, per your words, HS should have been just fine this year.

And maybe just one of the reasons why we can't run the ball this year is because teams realize we have a QB that is not a passing threat, nor a running threat. Furthermore, none of our receivers were real threats, so why not load the box all day long. It's pretty simple - lack of talent on the field.

[Sad Din]

Let me postulate this.... Furman lost it's starting QB like 6 to 8 weeks before the season. A tall, fast QB with a big arm that obliged a defense to defend the entire field. Also unavailable a big fast WR capable of playing QB and a really good TB. With these losses, but primarily the QB, the staff had no choice but to quickly adapt the offense to the roster on hand. It did not go well. Furman was unable to keep the defense honest. O-line overwhelmed, historically productive backs stuffed, QB ineffective. From best offense in the SoCon in 2019 to this.

Coach said this was the plan all along. I certainly hope not.

Except, my understanding was that SIsson was going to be named the started when Grainger decided to transfer - I think that played a part in his decision. The coaching staff bet on Sisson before the season started.

Here's again where I point out that Grainger didn't exactly set the world on fire last year.

Look at Grainger's offensive numbers in 13 games and Sisson's through 6 or 7.

The issue this year is we can't run the ball. Hard to be 3rd and 8 every series and expect the QB to be lights out.

Your analysis is clearly through HS purple-tinted glasses. First off, DG played quite well against two FCS teams in GState and VA Tech. I think everyone was impressed in the GSU game. DG had some really poor games in the rain, which impacted his stats. HS went 89-172 (51.7%) or 1,258 yards...14.9 yds per pass, with 9 INT's. DG went 79-161 (49.0%) for 1,222 yds...15.5 yds per pass, with only 3 INT's. Based on better competition and much fewer INT's - the clear edge goes to DG, who also had a year less of experience in FU's system. But let's look at the rushing stats - HS had 57 attempts for 30 yds (0.5 yds per attempt) with only 1 TD. DG had 93 attempts for 316 yds (3.4 yds per attempt) with 5 TD's. Huge edge to DG, as he was a true dual threat QB for most teams. The reality is most teams didn't fear HS's arm and loaded the box, which stopped our running game this year.

And Jackal, I know you'll say the loss of Thomas Gordon was one of the reasons that HS was ineffective this year. But one of your past posts alluded to the fact that FU had nothing to worry about at the WR position when I stated that we were in trouble, particularly in having receivers with size and speed. This was after Cam Burnette decided to transfer. So if we had nothing to worry about at the WR position, per your words, HS should have been just fine this year.

And maybe just one of the reasons why we can't run the ball this year is because teams realize we have a QB that is not a passing threat, nor a running threat. Furthermore, none of our receivers were real threats, so why not load the box all day long. It's pretty simple - lack of talent on the field.

Quoting facts is not allowed on this forum. Forewarned