That spread offense that we ran today looked badass

GTKyle

GTKyle

Dodd-Like
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
6,625
Taylor was completing passes left and right with it. Why aren't we running it more?!

Maybe Army was just unprepared?
 
Army's defense probably just sucks. If we had thrown more against ND or Samford you probably would have seen him completing passes left and right, just like you did last year against WVU(though he also had Calvin that game...but all his throws looked great).
 
I was impressed with Army. They have a good program moving forward in my opinion.

James Johnson hurt his, what I am guessing is, ribs again. The five wide is going to be difficult for us to maintain.

But since we have no RB's any more, I see the spread with Nesbitt or even Taylor running the ball.
 
Alright...this is in response to several comments in this thread.

BC's offense played almost identical to ours vs. Army. They won 37-17 and they were up 16-7 at halftime.

Wake Forest got 21 in the first half...and then they were shut down in the second half in a 21-10 lead.

By those comparisons, our offense played pretty well against a hard-hitting defense...by no means a dominant defense though.

Yes...a 5-WR set will be difficult if JJ is out as it leaves only 4 scholly WR's. Andrew Smith would have to be the 5th. JJ seems to have the worst luck with receiving big licks...probably two years of high passes from Reggie and Taylor.

We are fortunate to have a full stable of RB's. Should TC and Grant be down...Evans looked fantastic (will get better with reps) and Dwyer actually showed a sign of making a read or two on a run play. Before yesterday everything went outside...even though he did try to pop one outside too soon against Army. He will get better. It does appear Rashaun Grant will be fine for VT. We will see about TC.

We are fortunate to have 5 highly recruited RB's...and are able to redshirt one in Roddy Jones. That is hard to do because backs typically transfer (i.e. Choice) when they see limited playing time. Do not be surprise if one does transfer.
 
I'd put Mr. Jones in there right now if I was Chan, particularly this year. I would not count on Grant being effective the rest of this season. High ankle sprains leave you at about 80% for the next year. We have the chance to have a very good year yet this year, Make it happen Chan.

We are not that deep at RB. Next year we'll have 1 Sr, 1 SO, 1 RSFR (if it stays that way), and 2 Fr. There is plenty of playing time, I don't see a reason why someone would leave over that issue (now if someone knows something).

I agree that Army was a fine football team. A break here or there and we are pants would have been messy.

Regarding WR, I'd also burn another redshirt here if we have one to burn. I don't think we have a player sitting here so it's another very good reason to start playing Roddy Jones. He can go wide out or single back in a 3rd and long. We need him now, if he really was as good as folks said he looked.
 
Midaltantech, I've seen you mention that your high-ankle sprain lasted a year, now I see you say they "leave you 80% for the next year". First off, you heal much faster when you are younger, and secondly you have no idea if the sprain was minor or major. Thus it is kind of misleading to suggest/guess how long Grant will be out. Respectfully...Mike
 
I agree.... just to keep the 5 wide on the table...Teach Nesbitt a route and have him out there, or someone just to keep it going. I think it's a wrinkle that we need with our RB situation getting thin. Heck, have Cox or Peek lineup out there as an 4th or 5th option.
 
midatlantech said:
We are not that deep at RB. Next year we'll have 1 Sr, 1 SO, 1 RSFR (if it stays that way), and 2 Fr. There is plenty of playing time, I don't see a reason why someone would leave over that issue (now if someone knows something).
Click to expand...

I hate to disagree with you mid....but 5 is a ton of RB's...particularly when they are all high quality. Roddy would have liked to play....but given finding a ball for him to carry would have been difficult...he is glad he is redshirting.

Next year we have:
Jonathan Dwyer -So
Jamaal Evans- Jr
Roddy Jones- Fr-R
Richard Watson- Fr
Embry Peeples- Fr

These are five quality RB's...you are fortunate if you have two quality backs and 3 backups.

We will have those five for two consecutive years...plus we will probably bring in one TB next year...two if they are big-time.
 
I expect we'll see a 5 WR set for 5 plays per game, if we have 5 healthy WRs. It's something Bond likes, and clearly Bennett felt comfortable in it.
 
beej67 said:
I expect we'll see a 5 WR set for 5 plays per game, if we have 5 healthy WRs. It's something Bond likes, and clearly Bennett felt comfortable in it.
Click to expand...
Let's see:
James Johnson
Greg Smith
Bebe
Corey Earls
DJ Donley
 
hiveredtech said:
I hate to disagree with you mid....but 5 is a ton of RB's...particularly when they are all high quality. Roddy would have liked to play....but given finding a ball for him to carry would have been difficult...he is glad he is redshirting.

Next year we have:
Jonathan Dwyer -So
Jamaal Evans- Jr
Roddy Jones- Fr-R
Richard Watson- Fr
Embry Peeples- Fr

These are five quality RB's...you are fortunate if you have two quality backs and 3 backups.

We will have those five for two consecutive years...plus we will probably bring in one TB next year...two if they are big-time.
Click to expand...

What makes one think all five of those are high-quality? UGAG has 6 RBs on scholly all of whom are HS AA quality and yet they are about to use a walk-on to play. 5 good RBs might be enough but three of your five have never played a down and the other two have never run more than 100 yards in a game vs. a real team.

I think it's more accurate to say we have no proven RBs for next year than it is to suggest we have 5 good ones. We need skill position players desparately IMO.

I'd burn Roddy's redshirt in a heartbeat if Grant is not 100% next week.
 
I think on a couple of the 5-receiver sets we had Grant in the back field and he motioned out, so that's also there.
 
thwg said:
What makes one think all five of those are high-quality? 5 good RBs might be enough but three of your five have never played a down and the other two have never run more than 100 yards in a game vs. a real team.

I think it's more accurate to say we have no proven RBs for next year than it is to suggest we have 5 good ones. We need skill position players desparately IMO.

I'd burn Roddy's redshirt in a heartbeat if Grant is not 100% next week.
Click to expand...

Using your logic....recruiting more RB's would not help the situation because you would just have more players "that have never run more than 100 yards in a game vs. a real team."

I am not going to argue with you...but next year we should have 5 TB's on roster....several of which we already know can contribute in Evans, Dwyer, and Roddy. Those of us (most importantly the coaches) that have seen Roddy know how good he is going to be.

No...we do not know how the blazer Embry Peeples or 5,000 yd+ Richard Watson will ultimately turn out...but we would not have taken their commitment if we did not think they could contribute.

If you want to look at positions of recruiting need at this point for Feb 2008...keep your focus on TE, OL, and DL.
 
First off I miswrote about Grant and should have said 80% for the rest of the season. Yes, of course the severity matters and yes, last year we played Reggie Ball anyway too. But assuming it's an average sprain, then the effectiveness goes down quite a bit.

Secondly, as thwg said, you are counting on two freshman to be good. Rarely are they a complete back.

The fact remains that next year we will have two backs in the system that have played before: Evans and Dwyer. Dywer is not accomplished right now so we don't know about him. Regardless, one or two is not enough.

If there is any doubt about Grant/Choice then I would be giving practice time to Jones and play him in the VPI game (if he's any good). We need one more body at slotback and/or running back and the experience will only help him for next season.
 
It looked to me like we were holding tryouts for the starting WR jobs. Donley played an awful lot more Saturday than in any other game yet, and James Johnson didn't see the field so much.

I'm thinking the results in that game will have us starting Bebe and Earls, with Donley in the slot and Greg Smith for screens & flats, since he's fast but can't catch so well in traffic.
 
hiveredtech said:
Using your logic....recruiting more RB's would not help the situation because you would just have more players "that have never run more than 100 yards in a game vs. a real team."

I am not going to argue with you...but next year we should have 5 TB's on roster....several of which we already know can contribute in Evans, Dwyer, and Roddy. Those of us (most importantly the coaches) that have seen Roddy know how good he is going to be.

No...we do not know how the blazer Embry Peeples or 5,000 yd+ Richard Watson will ultimately turn out...but we would not have taken their commitment if we did not think they could contribute.

If you want to look at positions of recruiting need at this point for Feb 2008...keep your focus on TE, OL, and DL.
Click to expand...

I agree we don't need more schollies on RBs. Howeverr, we don't know what we have back there. personally, I think roddy should have been returniing kicks all year. how does a RS help? RBs that aren any good never stay as 5th year seniors anwyay. We should burn roddy's reshirt year if Grant is not 100% because right now we have 1 semi-proven RB who doesn't block that well and missis lots of holes.

I wasn't trying to be disagreeable. I'm just not sure we know what we have at RB now or next year. I'd like to think we'll be good but none of them will have Cox blocking for them. I think Roddy is good and we should use him now IMO.
 
The 5th WR was R Grant on over half the occasions. It was G Smith, Bebe, Earls or JJ, Donley or JJ and R Grant motioned out of the backfield on two occasions. Re-watch the game.

Even with JJ out
Earls
Bebe
Smith
Donley
Grant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top