WAKE FOREST WEEKLONG DISCUSSION THREAD

[b0mberMan]

Clemson got a lot better. They ARE better (particularly on defense.) That is what changed from last year.

Middle Tennessee put six times the yardage on Clemson's D.

Middle Tennessee clearly is a better team than BC!

[b0mberMan]

Bomber,

Clemson got a lot better. They ARE better (particularly on defense.) That is what changed from last year.

BC did not get better. The Head Coach, the OC, the Line Coach, etc, changing, is not why they got their dicks stepped on so badly.

FUCKING EXPLAIN WHY HALF THE TIME OUR OFFENSIVE LINE BLOCKED AIR INSTEAD OF A CLEMSON SHIRT!

seriously, this is the part you're just thick-headedly ignoring. This is the same fucking line that blocked the same fucking front 7 last year. Did they wake up and forget? OR ARE THEY RUNNING AN ENTIRELY NEW SCHEME?

And why isn't our OC calling for bubble screens or end around's to get around to get by the 7/8 being stacked int he box? ISN'T THAT THE OC'S JOB?

At this point, I have to imagine you're being this thick on purpose. Or you live on a nuclear test site out there in Arizona. No one is this stupid naturally.

[b0mberMan]

The Head Coach, the OC, the Line Coach, etc, changing, is not why they got their dicks stepped on so badly.

Coaching has no effect on players. When Dana Bible left and Steve Logan came in, Matt Ryan's numbers went through the roof, but it had nothing to do with coaching or the play book.

[innocentbystander]

Middle Tennessee put six times the yardage on Clemson's D.

Big fucking deal. Did they beat Clemson? No, not even close. Are you saying that Middle Tenn's offense exposed such a weak Clemson D? Did those directional Tennesee yards come at the end of the game when Clemson had the game well in command? I'm guessing yes to that one without even looking it up.

[innocentbystander]

Coaching has no effect on players. When Dana Bible left and Steve Logan came in, Matt Ryan's numbers went through the roof, but it had nothing to do with coaching or the play book.

I didn't say that. Stop errecting strawmen.

All I'm saying is that BC didn't improve from last year and 7 ACC teams did.

[talon]

Middle Tennessee put six times the yardage on Clemson's D.

Big fucking deal. Did they beat Clemson? No, not even close. Are you saying that Middle Tenn's offense exposed such a weak Clemson D? Did those directional Tennesee yards come at the end of the game when Clemson had the game well in command? I'm guessing yes to that one without even looking it up.

You seem to be attributing BC's anemic offense to clemson just having an insanely awesome defense. If Clemson's insanely awesome defense could shut down BC's offensive line, then MTSU shouldn't have gained a single yard.

[b0mberMan]

Coaching has no effect on players. When Dana Bible left and Steve Logan came in, Matt Ryan's numbers went through the roof, but it had nothing to do with coaching or the play book.

I didn't say that. Stop errecting strawmen.

All I'm saying is that BC didn't improve from last year and 7 ACC teams did.

You said that it didn't matter that we have new coaches, new playbooks, new schemes. So I'm just seeing how else that holds true.

Ok, so Steve Logan helped Matt Ryan. Tranquill and Devine did nothing to the O Line and had no effect on Tuggle's performance based on their playcalling. What else?

[innocentbystander]

If Clemson's insanely awesome defense could shut down BC's offensive line, then MTSU shouldn't have gained a single yard.

Look, you do your own research Talon. Early in the 4th quarter, when BC was down 19-7, they still had a chance. They had a chance that Middle Tenn never had. So Clemson kept their defense on the field.

Clemson probably pulled all their defensive players off the field when Mid Tenn gained most of those yards.

[billyshelby]

My personal favorite was quotes in the paper from somebody on our line saying that they didn't see what Clemson did to us on film. What a shock. I seriously think the coaching staff didn't even account for the fact Clemson played two unconventional offenses and figured they'd just do the same thing against us.

[innocentbystander]

Ok, so Steve Logan helped Matt Ryan. Tranquill and Devine did nothing to the O Line and had no effect on Tuggle's performance based on their playcalling. What else?

Bomber, you spend way too much time looking at pretty pictures with arrows on Atlanta Eagle's blog. Eagle in Atlanta has made his mind up, has you convinced, the fault in the Clemson game is with the O-Line, his words identifying the O-Line as the "main" problem. You are drawing the next logical conclusion in saying that if it is all the same players on the O-Line (which it is), then what changed is the coaches, the line coach. Blame the coaches for the loss.

I told Eagle in Atlanta the same thing I'm telling you, there were way too many "main problems" with the offense to lay all the blame on the O-Line or even the coaches. These "main problems" are magnified by the fact that we don't have a QB. 5 guys who were more than adequate just a year ago didn't all of sudden become stupid and useless (blocking air) just because they have new coaches and new schemes. A shitty O-line coach can't make an effective O-lineman "unlearn" how to block if they already learned it. What you had on Saturday, was every orange jersey sitting on the defensive line (which was a change from 2008) and O-linemen being outnumbered at specific points of attack on the line (at other points the lineman was "blocking air", your words.). You had a defense that was much better than the defense these O-lineman faced just one year ago. And they would have been fine in the trenches if BC only had a QB that could take full advantage of a defense totally comitted to stop the run. Alas, (for the second year in a row) BC does not have a QB. And Dabo Sweeney knew this. He knew this last year.

Did Spaz coach a good game? No, he did not. He did a shit job Saturday. Was Tranquil good at OC? NFW. Would it have made a damn bit of difference in the outcome of Jags and Logan were still here? Doubt it. Jags and Tranquil couldn't beat this team last year in Boston. No way do they beat an even better Clemson team in South Carolina.

I know this sucks guys. We want to be awesome. But players like Matt Ryan only come around once in a couple/three decades at the most. And it is at QB where BC has separated itself from so many ACC teams in recent years. We don't have that separation right now, haven't had it since 2007. So we are likely to struggle if the other teams in the ACC get stronger. In 2008, the better ACC teams were weaker and our lack of a QB didn't matter until the championship. This year, the other teams appear stronger. That is what happened on Saturday, BC lost to a stronger team (a team that kept BC from getting a first down.) Losing to stronger teams this year is what will happen vs VPI, FSU, UNC, Notre Dame, and perhaps NCState and Wake Forest if we aren't careful.

You must have a QB to widen the field and to keep our opponent honest. We don't have one right now. Having the best O-Line in the world will do no good if your opponent has defensive linemen that are almost as good as your O-line (which is what Clemson had that Kent and Northeastern didn't) and your opponent completely gives up on defending the pass to completely stop the run the way Clemson and Dabo did on Saturday. When that happens, the coach has the QB take what the defense gives him. We don't have a QB. We aren't "taking" anything.

[b0mberMan]

Ok, so Steve Logan helped Matt Ryan. Tranquill and Devine did nothing to the O Line and had no effect on Tuggle's performance based on their playcalling. What else?

Bomber, you spend way too much time looking at pretty pictures with arrows on Atlanta Eagle's blog. Eagle in Atlanta has made his mind up, has you convinced, the fault in the Clemson game is with the O-Line, his words identifying the O-Line as the "main" problem. You are drawing the next logical conclusion in saying that if it is all the same players on the O-Line (which it is), then what changed is the coaches, the line coach. Blame the coaches for the loss.

I couldn't get beyond this piece of utterly condescending bullshit. I had my mind made up watching the game and seeing the product on the field, fuckface. You have no idea what the hell you're talking about, and think the longer you type, the more convinced people will be that you're smart.

I'm foe-ing you so I don't have to suffer through any more of your tripe.

[innocentbystander]

I'm foe-ing you so I don't have to suffer through any more of your tripe.

Well I'm sure that is much easier than admitting you are wrong. At least this way, you can keep your pride.

[h2o]

[NJM89]

It was only one game. Tuggle is only a redshirt freshman who played at an away game with poor weather conditions. His line could not block for him and Clemson had two terrific pass rushers all up in his face all day. Everyone has their crappy days, granted his was terrible but i feel that we bounce back this week. Our D seems is solid and i feel Tuggle and the line will get better through the season. IMO Tuggs has a good game this week and we win

[tallsy]

I'm not sure that ND is all that good. They have a miserable DLine, and Floyd is out for the year. And because they're so pass oriented that it keeps the other team in it.

The reality is that this loss was the responsibility of the OLine, Tranqull and Spaz.

[h2o]

Quotes from today's papers:

"There's never a quick fix."
"I think we'll be better."

The good times are back.

The full quote gives a different vibe than the parts you picked out...

“There’s never a quick fix,’’ said Spaziani. “Losing maximizes the problems. The problems aren’t going away. It’s how we address them. We have to manage them differently. The problems are correctable.’’

That's a little bit more optimistic than just the first tidbit... Still not what I'd like to hear, but hey, we have a winning record, don't we? Err...

The problems are correctable but the problems aren't going away? What the fuck in Gods name does that mean? Can someone translate for me?

[1981Eagle]

Tw,

Don't bother responding, that's the last of your retardedness that I am reading for the day.

Good. Put me on ignore and go coach the team if you think you can do any better, dickhead. Ignore is exactly where you are going right now.

Bomber,

We're not in the same place we were last year.

You know what, we are not entirely in the same place we were last year, but we are pretty close. Last year, Clemson beat BC IN Chestnut Hill. Moreover, Clemson was going through a mid-season head coaching change, and they STILL beat us (specifically because we had no QB.)

This year? We had the coaching change (not Clemson) and no QB (again.) Clemson routed us. So far bomber, no change. So yeah, we are not in the same place, but we're pretty damn close. We haven't improved, that is for damn sure.

Last year, without a good QB, we won 9 games. We were never limited to that pathetic an output by a long shot. So what changed from last year to this year that made us so pathetic? It wasn't the quarterback, if we believe you that we had no QB last year and we have no QB this year.
What changed? So much has changed, but not with BC...

Last year, the ACC was balanced parity. They were all so-so, pretty good, 7-5 to 8-4. And a BC team with two legit first round defensive linemen (albeit, no QB) could take full advantage of that parity. There wasn't a single game that BC played in last year, where they couldn't have won the game if they had gotten a couple breaks. One big play vs GTech, they win. One big play vs Clemson, they win. It was that close.

This year? 3 teams in the conferance grew weaker from 2008 to 2009 (Maryland, UVa, and Duke.) It appears 2 teams haven't changed that much (BC and Wake.) You could argue that BC grew weaker on defense losing all those linemen and linebackers. The rest of the conferance has grown stronger. Five teams in the conferance have grown considerably stronger from 2008 to 2009 (VPI, FSU, Miami, Clemson, and G-Tech). 2 teams have grown just a weee bit stronger (NCState and UNC.) Did you (or any of you) watch any of the BYU-FSU game Saturday Night? If you did, then you already know that the Miami-FSU game that was played on Labour Day might turn out to be the ACC Championship preview. Clemson lost to a Georgia Tech team that was utterly pummelled by Miami. And we were pummelled by Clemson.

If we go 6-6, we beat UVa, Maryland, Central Michigan, and Wake Forest if we are lucky. If we are not so lucky, we go 5-7. BC did not improve in the one area we needed the most improvement, QB. I don't think it really would have mattered this year considering how well Miami is playing (and with USC losing, Miami may have a shot at something bigger than the Orange Bowl), but if we don't get Rettig signed on the dotted line early next year, we may be in trouble for some time to come. It wont make a damn bit of difference who the coach is.

And yeah, I fucked up in my evaluation of Shinskie. So be it. It will be a cold day in hell before some of the most prideful posters on this board ever admit they were wrong about anything.

Based on Saturday, if we go 6-6 then I will be shocked. This is a 2-10 to 4-8 year. We will lose 2-4 games from coaching alone. Spaz, Tranq and special teams are just horrible. If they had been dressed in blue and gold then I would swear I was watching an ND game from 2 years ago. It was that bad. I am so pissed at GDF right now I could strangle him with my bare hands. He f-ing ruined this program just when it was poised for greatness with this shxtass hire. GDF, for the first time since I started posting, please DO NOT BOTB. Take USC off the schedule and load the schedule with cupcakes. This is a disaster.

[hansen]

Tw,

Don't bother responding, that's the last of your retardedness that I am reading for the day.

Good. Put me on ignore and go coach the team if you think you can do any better, dickhead. Ignore is exactly where you are going right now.

Bomber,

We're not in the same place we were last year.

You know what, we are not entirely in the same place we were last year, but we are pretty close. Last year, Clemson beat BC IN Chestnut Hill. Moreover, Clemson was going through a mid-season head coaching change, and they STILL beat us (specifically because we had no QB.)

This year? We had the coaching change (not Clemson) and no QB (again.) Clemson routed us. So far bomber, no change. So yeah, we are not in the same place, but we're pretty damn close. We haven't improved, that is for damn sure.

Last year, without a good QB, we won 9 games. We were never limited to that pathetic an output by a long shot. So what changed from last year to this year that made us so pathetic? It wasn't the quarterback, if we believe you that we had no QB last year and we have no QB this year.
What changed? So much has changed, but not with BC...

Last year, the ACC was balanced parity. They were all so-so, pretty good, 7-5 to 8-4. And a BC team with two legit first round defensive linemen (albeit, no QB) could take full advantage of that parity. There wasn't a single game that BC played in last year, where they couldn't have won the game if they had gotten a couple breaks. One big play vs GTech, they win. One big play vs Clemson, they win. It was that close.

This year? 3 teams in the conferance grew weaker from 2008 to 2009 (Maryland, UVa, and Duke.) It appears 2 teams haven't changed that much (BC and Wake.) You could argue that BC grew weaker on defense losing all those linemen and linebackers. The rest of the conferance has grown stronger. Five teams in the conferance have grown considerably stronger from 2008 to 2009 (VPI, FSU, Miami, Clemson, and G-Tech). 2 teams have grown just a weee bit stronger (NCState and UNC.) Did you (or any of you) watch any of the BYU-FSU game Saturday Night? If you did, then you already know that the Miami-FSU game that was played on Labour Day might turn out to be the ACC Championship preview. Clemson lost to a Georgia Tech team that was utterly pummelled by Miami. And we were pummelled by Clemson.

If we go 6-6, we beat UVa, Maryland, Central Michigan, and Wake Forest if we are lucky. If we are not so lucky, we go 5-7. BC did not improve in the one area we needed the most improvement, QB. I don't think it really would have mattered this year considering how well Miami is playing (and with USC losing, Miami may have a shot at something bigger than the Orange Bowl), but if we don't get Rettig signed on the dotted line early next year, we may be in trouble for some time to come. It wont make a damn bit of difference who the coach is.

And yeah, I fucked up in my evaluation of Shinskie. So be it. It will be a cold day in hell before some of the most prideful posters on this board ever admit they were wrong about anything.

Based on Saturday, if we go 6-6 then I will be shocked. This is a 2-10 to 4-8 year. We will lose 2-4 games from coaching alone. Spaz, Tranq and special teams are just horrible. If they had been dressed in blue and gold then I would swear I was watching an ND game from 2 years ago. It was that bad. I am so pissed at GDF right now I could strangle him with my bare hands. He f-ing ruined this program just when it was poised for greatness with this shxtass hire. GDF, for the first time since I started posting, please DO NOT BOTB. Take USC off the schedule and load the schedule with cupcakes. This is a disaster.

if you are really a Gasson Level contributor, then call up your buddy Leahy and convey your displeasure with the team's performance and .

[twballgame9]

Ok, so Steve Logan helped Matt Ryan. Tranquill and Devine did nothing to the O Line and had no effect on Tuggle's performance based on their playcalling. What else?

Bomber, you spend way too much time looking at pretty pictures with arrows on Atlanta Eagle's blog. Eagle in Atlanta has made his mind up, has you convinced, the fault in the Clemson game is with the O-Line, his words identifying the O-Line as the "main" problem. You are drawing the next logical conclusion in saying that if it is all the same players on the O-Line (which it is), then what changed is the coaches, the line coach. Blame the coaches for the loss.

I told Eagle in Atlanta the same thing I'm telling you, there were way too many "main problems" with the offense to lay all the blame on the O-Line or even the coaches. These "main problems" are magnified by the fact that we don't have a QB. 5 guys who were more than adequate just a year ago didn't all of sudden become stupid and useless (blocking air) just because they have new coaches and new schemes. A shitty O-line coach can't make an effective O-lineman "unlearn" how to block if they already learned it. What you had on Saturday, was every orange jersey sitting on the defensive line (which was a change from 2008) and O-linemen being outnumbered at specific points of attack on the line (at other points the lineman was "blocking air", your words.). You had a defense that was much better than the defense these O-lineman faced just one year ago. And they would have been fine in the trenches if BC only had a QB that could take full advantage of a defense totally comitted to stop the run. Alas, (for the second year in a row) BC does not have a QB. And Dabo Sweeney knew this. He knew this last year.

Did Spaz coach a good game? No, he did not. He did a shit job Saturday. Was Tranquil good at OC? NFW. Would it have made a damn bit of difference in the outcome of Jags and Logan were still here? Doubt it. Jags and Tranquil couldn't beat this team last year in Boston. No way do they beat an even better Clemson team in South Carolina.

I know this sucks guys. We want to be awesome. But players like Matt Ryan only come around once in a couple/three decades at the most. And it is at QB where BC has separated itself from so many ACC teams in recent years. We don't have that separation right now, haven't had it since 2007. So we are likely to struggle if the other teams in the ACC get stronger. In 2008, the better ACC teams were weaker and our lack of a QB didn't matter until the championship. This year, the other teams appear stronger. That is what happened on Saturday, BC lost to a stronger team (a team that kept BC from getting a first down.) Losing to stronger teams this year is what will happen vs VPI, FSU, UNC, Notre Dame, and perhaps NCState and Wake Forest if we aren't careful.

You must have a QB to widen the field and to keep our opponent honest. We don't have one right now. Having the best O-Line in the world will do no good if your opponent has defensive linemen that are almost as good as your O-line (which is what Clemson had that Kent and Northeastern didn't) and your opponent completely gives up on defending the pass to completely stop the run the way Clemson and Dabo did on Saturday. When that happens, the coach has the QB take what the defense gives him. We don't have a QB. We aren't "taking" anything.

FULL RETARD. NO OSCAR.

[talon]

InnocentB -

Did a man named Tugg Speedman ever spend time with you just to observe?

[mod6A]

line : F

qb : could not judge.


i like BC football. i hate BC losing at football. i understand it does happen. but our line should never be abused like that. never. even doc walker couldn;t believe it.

[joemack13]

We are in a far worse position than last year. Last year we had an offensive line, a running game, and a competant offensive coordinator. This year we can't even make a block. How can you even evaluate the quarterbacks when they have to run for their lives before they even touch the ball? By that token our running backs and receivers are god awful as well. The offense never played this bad last year and we had DD trying his best to hand it to the other team.

[billyshelby]

The only thing I really learned about Tuggle as a passer is he struggles with the bomb on 3rd and 13 under massive pressure.

[twballgame9]

The only thing I really learned about Tuggle as a passer is he struggles with the bomb on 3rd and 13 under massive pressure.

Pretty much. But he throws a nice emergency freak pass on 3rd and goal with the entire defense in his face 2 seconds after the ball is snapped.

[BCMurt09]

The QBs weren't the problem in Clemson because they didn't have any time to be the problem. I said it before, but its hard to do anything when you have a Clemson D-End bearing down on you as soon as the ball is snapped and that's an issue of the Oline. Anyone who was at the game on Saturday could tell you that the OLine was the problem and logically, if you have five guys returning from a solid Oline last year who now this year aren't as effective, well then things point to coaching. We even heard rumblings last week against Kent State that there were OLine problems and Clemson exploited and highlighted those problems. Any QB we have this year only needs to exist in those five seconds between the snap and handing it off to the tail back or toss it up in the vicinity of one of our pretty talented receivers and frankly no one could do that when Da'Quan Bowers is bearing down on you as soon as you drop back into a collapsing pocket. InnocentB, I'm sorry, but its ignorant to think that the QBs are the problem right now. There is no excuse for the OLine play considering who is on that line right now so logically its coaching.

[innocentbystander]

InnocentB, I'm sorry, but its ignorant to think that the QBs are the problem right now.

Let me try this a little bit differently.

Clemson had 7 to 8 in the box pretty much all day to stuff the run. And that is exactly what they did. They stuffed the run, utterly. The O-Line could not handle 8 in the box. I don't think any O-line could handle 8 in the box.

Ok, so the next logical question for all you would be coaches is this: why doesn't every team (high school, college, and pro) just stick 8 in the box on every play and take advantage in this flaw in the game? Why didn't BC stick 8 in the box all day? (By the way, both these questions have the same answer.)

The answer (of course) is because even a moderate QB can take advantage of that. You 'check' at the line of scrimmage (call a tight end dump audible), dump it off, and torch a defense for 10-12 yards. You take what the defense gives you. That is exactly what Parker would have done if BC had stuck 8 in the box.

We didn't have a QB that could do that last year. We don't have a QB that can do that this year. We don't have a QB. So (from a defensive coordinator standpoint) there are no real risks to stacking the line, puting the linebackers in the gaps, and depleting the backfield.

Let's roll the tape back a bit to Georgia Tech, 2007 (the last time we actually HAD a QB.) GTech was (at that time) #5 in the country, and this was BC's first away game. The game was nationally televised and not many "experts" predicted this over-acheiving BC team to go from 2-0 to 3-0. But that is exactly what they did.

Georgia Tech stacked the line, blitzed Ryan (5 to 6 men) on every single passing down and our O-Line was called for holding 5 times. That is 50 yards of lost offense for you BC engineers. Okay, so with 8 in the box and a super aggressive G-Tech defense totally determined to take away BC's running game (a BC running game that GTech took away, by the by as evidenced by a mere 92 yards of offense) how did Ryan do?

Well.... http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/recap?gameId=272580059

Yes, he threw 435 yards passing, going 30 for 44. He was insane that night and BC dominated G-Tech IN Atlanta. That is what a QB can do, even in a hostile environment. Oh and by the by, two of those linemen down in Atlanta were the same two guys worthlessly blocking for Tuggle on Saturday.

I don't expect Tuggle to be Ryan. That is too much to ask anyone. But I do expect a QB to take advantage of a defense that refuses to cover receivers. 23 yards on a 4 for 20 afternoon is unacceptable. I don't give a shit how bad the O-Line played. There are certain things you can expect of a BCS level QB (even a 19 year old Tuggle.) You can expect them to audible at the line and even step back into the shot gun for an extra second if needs be, dump the fucking ball if the defense over-commits. We didn't get that Saturday afternoon. And all I'm hearing from most of you is a boat-load of excuses. Too many of you are channelling .

-IB

[twballgame9]

You think a 19 year old freshman with essentially 4 quarters of Division II ball under his belt is allowed to audible to pass plays at the line of scrimmage? You are a fucktard.

[wakeforest22890]

Hey obviously I'm a Wake fan and I have been reading over your board the past few days. Decided to drop in and post on this thread so if anyone has questions about Wake's team they can ask. I did read someone said that we'll watch tape and stack the box with 8 and blitz on most plays, and I'll go ahead and say that's false we've probably only called 10 blitzes total in our first 3 games so I don't see us putting too much pressure on the QB unless Grobe decides to put pressure on Tuggle (if he's the QB who plays). Also someone said our OL is "not any better and is just one more year experienced of awful" which isn't entirely true. We returned Chris Degeare who was academically ineligible last year but was 2nd team All-ACC the year before.

Last year was a great game and I can't wait for Saturday, I think it could go either way and should go down to the wire. Maybe we can get some payback for Davis' bomb at the end of the game. Good luck and I'll be around this week to answer questions/endure any smack talk.

[innocentbystander]

The only thing I really learned about Tuggle as a passer is he struggles with the bomb on 3rd and 13 under massive pressure.

Every QB struggles with the bomb on 3rd and 13 under massive pressure. What you need to ask yourself is this, why were there so many 3rd and 13s for Tuggle?

[twballgame9]

Welcome. Do yourself a favor, and start your journey to this freak show of a board by putting InnocentRetard on "foe", which is our version of "ignore"