ETSU Post Game Musings

[The Jackal]

Just a few thoughts after last night's game.

1. We are not where we all hoped/expected to be. Other than 0-4, this is about as bad a start as we could have imagined for this season. Three losses, home game canceled, and have not really looked all that good.

2. There were some positives from last night. I thought Cam Burnette looked good. I think we have some really good looking running backs.

3. Watching the games and listening to CCH's comments post-game, we are clearly not where we want to be on the OL. We started four sophomores last night, and it is plain we are missing Schmidt and Bush as anchors inside. The good news is, of course, that we have a lot of young players and a good coach leading them.

4. QB is still a rough spot. Roberts looked better than we've seen at that position this year, but his stat line still wasn't exactly eye popping. 10-21 is not going to get it done in our offense.

5. Offensively, we have added a number of different looks from last year. We are heavy on the I-Formation, which we rarely saw last season. I am also seeing some different wing-looks that more closely resemble Todd Monken's (Army) version of the option attack.

6. We simply ground to a halt midway through the third quarter. Hard to explain. We got pinned deep and just couldn't seem to string enough plays together to get us out of there. ETSU just took advantage of great field position.

7. We had a crippling error by a true freshman kick returner implementing a brand new rule. It's tough he had to learn that lesson in a tie ball game in the fourth quarter, but I doubt he'll make that mistake again.

8. Defensively, I thought we did alright. Coverage was there most of the night. They had a big gainer on a quick screen as the QB was getting taking to the turf. We had a pick, forced fumble, and, I think, 5 sacks. That will get it done most nights.

9. It was a disappointing loss, no question. Still, it was one conference loss. None of us expected to run through SoCon play unscathed. Mercer also had a disappointing loss. So did Samford. Furman has plenty of time to try to get things right and get back in the saddle. New season starts tomorrow.

[Flagman]

Thanks for bringing us back from the edge.

[The Jackal]

Thanks for bringing us back from the edge.

I used to get wrapped up in this sort of stuff, but in reality, a football game is small potatoes.

Sure, I'd have liked it if Furman won, but I'm not going to lose too much sleep over a game.

[youwouldno]

I didn't lose any sleep over it but bad football is bad football.

[The Jackal]

I didn't lose any sleep over it but bad football is bad football.

I don't think anyone disagrees that some things could have gone better last night.

Commentary about the trashiness of the program, how we'll never be good again, and general whining is stuff I would expect from my six year old, not grown men.

[youwouldno]

I didn't lose any sleep over it but bad football is bad football.

I don't think anyone disagrees that some things could have gone better last night.

Commentary about the trashiness of the program, how we'll never be good again, and general whining is stuff I would expect from my six year old, not grown men.

Some things, huh?

Here are the past 10 years of FCS Massey ratings for Furman, beginning with 2018:
53, 30, 48, 52, 68, 31, 50, 31, 29, 16

For perspective, there aren't too many more than 50 full scholarship teams in all of FCS.

It's a bad program. That's just a mathematical fact. I think a little allowance could be made for Furman fans being disappointed by the realization that last season's apparent promise was a mirage akin to 2013.

I think a lot of it relates to the broader structure of college football . . . the proliferation of mid-major FBS teams in the Southeast, for instance, and perhaps changes in the population of high school football players (e.g., less high-academic talent playing the sport).

It is what it is, but there's nothing really to be gained by pretending otherwise.

[Affirm]

I didn't lose any sleep over it but bad football is bad football.

I don't think anyone disagrees that some things could have gone better last night.

Commentary about the trashiness of the program, how we'll never be good again, and general whining is stuff I would expect from my six year old, not grown men.

Some things, huh?

Here are the past 10 years of FCS Massey ratings for Furman, beginning with 2018:
53, 30, 48, 52, 68, 31, 50, 31, 29, 16

For perspective, there aren't too many more than 50 full scholarship teams in all of FCS.

It's a bad program. That's just a mathematical fact. I think a little allowance could be made for Furman fans being disappointed by the realization that last season's apparent promise was a mirage akin to 2013.

I think a lot of it relates to the broader structure of college football . . . the proliferation of mid-major FBS teams in the Southeast, for instance, and perhaps changes in the population of high school football players (e.g., less high-academic talent playing the sport).

It is what it is, but there's nothing really to be gained by pretending otherwise.

Yes, the broader structure of CFB over the past 15 years is something that has impacted FU FB. However, the structure of 2018 is the same one under which schools presumably similar to FU (Wofford, Samford, Wofford, Mercer, Wofford, Elon, Wofford, Richmond, Wofford, Citadel, Wofford, etc.) operate. What is the reason for FU to not be able to compete against those similar to FU? I realize Samford, Mercer, Elon, and Richmond are each considerably bigger. Wofford is NOT bigger. Not sure about Citadel. (Including all students, Citadel may be slightly larger than FU.). We should be able to regularly compete very well against ALL 6 of those, plus other similar schools - though there may not be many more that are similar. Whether we consider that doing so is a high enough priority for FU is THE question. (Note: silly repetition of Wofford in the list is for emphasis, because they are closest and most similar though actually smaller, but we’ve be unsuccessful against them for too long.)

[The Jackal]

I didn't lose any sleep over it but bad football is bad football.

I don't think anyone disagrees that some things could have gone better last night.

Commentary about the trashiness of the program, how we'll never be good again, and general whining is stuff I would expect from my six year old, not grown men.

Some things, huh?

Here are the past 10 years of FCS Massey ratings for Furman, beginning with 2018:
53, 30, 48, 52, 68, 31, 50, 31, 29, 16

For perspective, there aren't too many more than 50 full scholarship teams in all of FCS.

It's a bad program. That's just a mathematical fact. I think a little allowance could be made for Furman fans being disappointed by the realization that last season's apparent promise was a mirage akin to 2013.

I think a lot of it relates to the broader structure of college football . . . the proliferation of mid-major FBS teams in the Southeast, for instance, and perhaps changes in the population of high school football players (e.g., less high-academic talent playing the sport).

It is what it is, but there's nothing really to be gained by pretending otherwise.

Yes, the broader structure of CFB over the past 15 years is something that has impacted FU FB. However, the structure of 2018 is the same one under which schools presumably similar to FU (Wofford, Samford, Wofford, Mercer, Wofford, Elon, Wofford, Richmond, Wofford, Citadel, Wofford, etc.) operate. What is the reason for FU to not be able to compete against those similar to FU? I realize Samford, Mercer, Elon, and Richmond are each considerably bigger. Wofford is NOT bigger. Not sure about Citadel. (Including all students, Citadel may be slightly larger than FU.). We should be able to regularly compete very well against ALL 6 of those, plus other similar schools - though there may not be many more that are similar. Whether we consider that doing so is a high enough priority for FU is THE question. (Note: silly repetition of Wofford in the list is for emphasis, because they are closest and most similar though actually smaller, but we’ve be unsuccessful against them for too long.)

I have responses to this, but I'm tired of arguing about it.

If everyone wants to assume the sky is falling, so be it. I'll keep watching the games.

[Flagman]

And I'll keep attending the games. If the sky's falling, I'll pull out the poncho.

[Jasper]

I am not an X and O guy and often times am too results oriented but I think many are downplaying the obvious from Saturday night's game. From a Furman standpoint it was a very poorly coached game. I am shocked by that and have no idea why it happened but it certainly did. From inexplicable QB switches to bizarre play calling and a failure to adjust to ETSU half time changes in their passing schemes, the staff did an uncharacteristically poor job. I am well aware that coaches do not drop passes, miss open receivers, make bone head mistakes or poor on field decisions but this team seems tentative, unprepared and not well motivated. We appeared to be in a panic in the final quarter even while we still had the lead. That is on the coaching staff. I can only hope that was all an aberration. I have two questions that I wish someone could answer or me:

1. We are apparently not running the offense that was so successful for us last year. Why not? Drew Cronic does not have a patent on it.

2. A true freshman made a critical error late in the game that gave us terrible field position because he apparently did not understand a rule change that has caused lots of problems in football this season. (It was a known problem)Why didn't someone from the staff grab the kid before he ran out and emphasize that he had to make a fair catch signal on the field of play? The staff should do things like that as a matter of course when dealing with young players in highly stressful situations. Drill it into him in practice and remind him repeatedly when the situation arises in the game - the way its done in BB during critical time outs regarding time left on the clock.

[apaladin]

I can answer #2 I think. CCH said he told the youngster before hew went out there to fair catch the KO so we could start on the 25. Why he didn't signal, who knows?

[The Jackal]

I am not an X and O guy and often times am too results oriented but I think many are downplaying the obvious from Saturday night's game. From a Furman standpoint it was a very poorly coached game. I am shocked by that and have no idea why it happened but it certainly did. From inexplicable QB switches to bizarre play calling and a failure to adjust to ETSU half time changes in their passing schemes, the staff did an uncharacteristically poor job. I am well aware that coaches do not drop passes, miss open receivers, make bone head mistakes or poor on field decisions but this team seems tentative, unprepared and not well motivated. We appeared to be in a panic in the final quarter even while we still had the lead. That is on the coaching staff. I can only hope that was all an aberration. I have two questions that I wish someone could answer or me:

1. We are apparently not running the offense that was so successful for us last year. Why not? Drew Cronic does not have a patent on it.

2. A true freshman made a critical error late in the game that gave us terrible field position because he apparently did not understand a rule change that has caused lots of problems in football this season. (It was a known problem)Why didn't someone from the staff grab the kid before he ran out and emphasize that he had to make a fair catch signal on the field of play? The staff should do things like that as a matter of course when dealing with young players in highly stressful situations. Drill it into him in practice and remind him repeatedly when the situation arises in the game - the way its done in BB during critical time outs regarding time left on the clock.

A few thoughts

1. We are apparently not running the offense that was so successful for us last year. Why not? Drew Cronic does not have a patent on it.

This is partially true. Furman has gone full "old school." They are featuring a lot of I-pro formation and double wing looks. The fullback has been de-emphasized and the tailback emphasized back into their traditional roles. We are still implementing a lot of the pre-snap shifting that we saw a lot of last year, but this offense is a lot more focused on the fullback as a lead blocker and running the ball between the tackles.

Frankly, this is the offense many on this forum have been screaming for for most of the last 15 years. When the personnel is right and the OL is driving, this sort of offense is virtually indefensible as it is basically one team just running the other one over.

2. A true freshman made a critical error late in the game that gave us terrible field position because he apparently did not understand a rule change that has caused lots of problems in football this season. (It was a known problem)Why didn't someone from the staff grab the kid before he ran out and emphasize that he had to make a fair catch signal on the field of play? The staff should do things like that as a matter of course when dealing with young players in highly stressful situations. Drill it into him in practice and remind him repeatedly when the situation arises in the game - the way its done in BB during critical time outs regarding time left on the clock.

He made a mistake. It happens. I feel quite certain the coaching staff told him what they wanted to do.

[Jasper]

Thank you for your reply, Jackal. As to Question #1 - that is exactly what it looks like to me - old school. It seems to be that for that to work well we would have to have better athletes than we are able to attract. I have seen videos of the old glory days at FU and those players were simply of a higher caliber; the reasons for which are multiple and for our purposed, irrelevant. And that would be particularly true for the offensive line, right? A coach has to play with what he has not what he would like to have. If that takes lots of deception with multiple looks, misdirection, etc. then that is what he has to play. As a matter of fact, I thought we looked pretty good on the read option, didn't you? I know field position was poor later in the second half but we shut down the offense pretty much for the entire 4th quarter. The stats are appalling. I feel our problem was much more play calling than execution. As to Question 2 - I have done two thing in my life that required constant repetition. One was playing basketball. I played the point and was constantly and loudly reminded how many seconds were left in a particular situation by what seemed like everyone in the arena, including the guy selling hot dogs. The other thing was being an infantry soldier - again constant repetition by a very loud DI. Both situations can be stressful and that is what is required to overcome that stress. The last thing that kid saw as he ran onto the field was one of his coaches making a fair catch signal for the umpteenth time. I agree with you, I am sure the poor kid was told about the rule by our coaches. Obviously not enough. I would like to think that particularly mistake will not be made again. But the ensuing play call with the slow developing running play was what cost us the game not the error by a stressed kid. I hope this staff can get it together or this will be a long season in which lots of fans are lost. That would be a real shame. Let's hope last week was an aberration and fruitful changes will be made.

[FU3]

"This is partially true. Furman has gone full "old school." They are featuring a lot of I-pro formation and double wing looks. The fullback has been de-emphasized and the tailback emphasized back into their traditional roles. We are still implementing a lot of the pre-snap shifting that we saw a lot of last year, but this offense is a lot more focused on the fullback as a lead blocker and running the ball between the tackles.

Frankly, this is the offense many on this forum have been screaming for for most of the last 15 years. When the personnel is right and the OL is driving, this sort of offense is virtually indefensible as it is basically one team just running the other one over."

One of the elements to our having a really good season last year was this staff utilizing the talent we had on O and tailoring the scheme to fit that talent. Some of the players that are being touted as key losses didn't have a whole lot of success until our whole design changed. It would have been a lot easier to duplicate a version of last years O than what it appears we are trying to do now. We finally have some real speed at running back and have enjoyed whatever success we have had on the ground getting them in space on the outside,why not make that a focal point to set up our play action game ?

[Davemeister]

After reading all of the above and trying to digest it, I'm feeling kind of numb.

I don't believe the sky is falling, but I don't believe we are going to run the table and make the playoffs either.

Guess that makes me an agnostic because I'm not sure what I believe. But this I know: I'll be at Paladin Stadium this Saturday to cheer on the Purple & White.