Syracuse Post Game

[Richland County]

Perhaps you don't miss him, but most of the rest of us do. He has 3.5 sacks and 2 forced fumbles in 2 games so far for South Carolina this season. Our entire defense has 2 sacks and 1 fumble recovery through 3 games.

You see chicken soup and I see chicken $hit. All good we just value this individual different. May I ask what you miss? Production can't be the answer. He was one of the reasons the defense was statistically one of the worst in college football last year.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

I think there’s good rationale both ways. I don’t think it’s a right/wrong binary choice thing, it’s a “how do I want to play this” thing.

Oh, I agree completely. I was just giving reflection back at the attitude that says any time I disagree with the coach it means the coach is wrong, needs to be big enough to admit it, and should be better prepared next time.

 

[awbuzz]

Oh, I agree completely. I was just giving reflection back at the attitude that says any time I disagree with the coach it means the coach is wrong, needs to be big enough to admit it, and should be better prepared next time.

This ^^^°

 

[yeti92]

You see chicken soup and I see chicken $hit. All good we just value this individual different. May I ask what you miss? Production can't be the answer. He was one of the reasons the defense was statistically one of the worst in college football last year.

Then you should get your eyes checked. If you can't even attempt to be honest I'll just put you on ignore. Kennard was 6th on the team in total tackles with 54, including 6 sacks and 11 TFL, and also forced and recovered 2 fumbles and had an interception. Best of any of the DL we had in all 6 categories and leading the whole defense in sacks and TFL. Paul Moala @ LB was the only other player to have that type of impact, nobody else was really even close. He did make mistakes as well and incurred a few big penalties, but acting like he was a negative for our defense is just troll behavior.

 

[AugustaSwarm]

Oh, I agree completely. I was just giving reflection back at the attitude that says any time I disagree with the coach it means the coach is wrong, needs to be big enough to admit it, and should be better prepared next time.

Are you suggesting that an anonymous poster on the internet might be wrong about something????? For GOD'S SAKE MAN! PULL IT TOGETHER!

 

[AugustaSwarm]

Then you should get your eyes checked. If you can't even attempt to be honest I'll just put you on ignore. Kennard was 6th on the team in total tackles with 54, including 6 sacks and 11 TFL, and also forced and recovered 2 fumbles and had an interception. Best of any of the DL we had in all 6 categories and leading the whole defense in sacks and TFL. Paul Moala @ LB was the only other player to have that type of impact, nobody else was really even close. He did make mistakes as well and incurred a few big penalties, but acting like he was a negative for our defense is just troll behavior.

The fact that your buddy only posts on here after a loss is the first clue. He's whisper quiet after wins. Don't feed the trolls...

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Are you suggesting that an anonymous poster on the internet might be wrong about something????? For GOD'S SAKE MAN! PULL IT TOGETHER!

Sorry, I lost my head.

 

[leatherneckjacket]

I think the penalty decision could have gone right or wrong either way. I do not think it was necessarily a bad decision though it may have been wrong. Who knows and who cares.

The play calling and clock management at the end of the first half was a complete disaster, though. As was the predictability of our offensive play calling and the lack of a viable defensive game plan for three quarters of the game. Also, the team seemed flat and played soft on both sides of the ball.

That is where we should focus our criticism of Key and the coaching staff. Not a single decision to accept or decline a penalty.

 

[gte447f]

Regarding the last possession of the first half, I was a little surprised that our team let so much time run off the clock during one huddle in particular. I got the impression that our strategy was maybe to score with little to no time left on the clock to prevent Syracuse from getting another opportunity to score before halftime. I think that strategy made sense considering how easily Syracuse was moving the ball on offense at that point in the game. However, the strategy seemed to backfire because our offense really struggled on that possession. If memory serves, it took a pretty good final play from scrimmage just to get into reasonable field goal range. Then of course we missed the field goal, but it wasn’t an easy field goal. In my opinion, the problem with that last possession before halftime was not necessarily the strategy toward clock management, but just the ineffectiveness of our offense.

 

[apatriot1776]

Regarding the last possession of the first half, I was a little surprised that our team let so much time run off the clock during one huddle in particular. I got the impression that our strategy was maybe to score with little to no time left on the clock to prevent Syracuse from getting another opportunity to score before halftime. I think that strategy made sense considering how easily Syracuse was moving the ball on offense at that point in the game. However, the strategy seemed to backfire because our offense really struggled on that possession. If memory serves, it took a pretty good final play from scrimmage just to get into reasonable field goal range. Then of course we missed the field goal, but it wasn’t an easy field goal. In my opinion, the problem with that last possession before halftime was not necessarily the strategy toward clock management, but just the ineffectiveness of our offense.

Yup Key said the goal was not to give Syracuse the ball back. I get it - if you play to drive the length of the field you easily risk Syracuse getting the ball back with 40 seconds and McCord on fire. We're going into halftime down by 7 or 4, we don't want to go into halftime down by 10. It's a one possession game, get your troops together, make some adjustments, and take the game back.

The offense needed to get its rear in gear coming out of halftime. We can dissect clock decisions all day but that's where the game was lost. The defense had finally forced a punt going into half. The offense responds by going three and out, while the game was within striking distance. Now your defense that has been torched all day has to trot right back on the field. They slow Syracuse down enough to force a FG, then the offense gets a single first down and gives it right back. The defense forces another punt and the offense turns it over on downs on your own 35. The defense was rough to be sure but we expected a shootout - it's not much of a shootout if GT gets shutout for a whole quarter. Get some points on the board on those three possessions and maybe the whole game doesn't come down to an onside kick or stopping them on 3rd and 10.

 

[leatherneckjacket]

Regarding the last possession of the first half, I was a little surprised that our team let so much time run off the clock during one huddle in particular. I got the impression that our strategy was maybe to score with little to no time left on the clock to prevent Syracuse from getting another opportunity to score before halftime. I think that strategy made sense considering how easily Syracuse was moving the ball on offense at that point in the game. However, the strategy seemed to backfire because our offense really struggled on that possession. If memory serves, it took a pretty good final play from scrimmage just to get into reasonable field goal range. Then of course we missed the field goal, but it wasn’t an easy field goal. In my opinion, the problem with that last possession before halftime was not necessarily the strategy toward clock management, but just the ineffectiveness of our offense.

Regardless of the plan, giving yourself a 4th down play with 13 seconds left to either kick a difficult FG or give them the ball near midfield was a failure of both execution and play calling. We should have been trying to get a touchdown there. Not settle for a FG.

 

[iceeater1969]

Yup Key said the goal was not to give Syracuse the ball back. I get it - if you play to drive the length of the field you easily risk Syracuse getting the ball back with 40 seconds and McCord on fire. We're going into halftime down by 7 or 4, we don't want to go into halftime down by 10. It's a one possession game, get your troops together, make some adjustments, and take the game back.

The offense needed to get its rear in gear coming out of halftime. We can dissect clock decisions all day but that's where the game was lost. The defense had finally forced a punt going into half. The offense responds by going three and out, while the game was within striking distance. Now your defense that has been torched all day has to trot right back on the field. They slow Syracuse down enough to force a FG, then the offense gets a single first down and gives it right back. The defense forces another punt and the offense turns it over on downs on your own 35. The defense was rough to be sure but we expected a shootout - it's not much of a shootout if GT gets shutout for a whole quarter. Get some points on the board on those three possessions and maybe the whole game doesn't come down to an onside kick or stopping them on 3rd and 10.

Are we a slow 3rd quarter team? The 23 Louisville game still gives me bad dreams.
s

 

[stinger78]

Regardless of the plan, giving yourself a 4th down play with 13 seconds left to either kick a difficult FG or give them the ball near midfield was a failure of both execution and play calling. We should have been trying to get a touchdown there. Not settle for a FG.

I agree here. You didn’t play it safe with the D at the end, why with the O at the half? Going vertical doesn’t mean being sloppy, just throw it downfield and at least get your kicker a better placement if not the TD.

That was the difference in the game, score wise.

 

[bke1984]

Actually when I saw our rushing totals in the game from RB position, I wondered if we were tipping off the play.I could not believe Syr could stop us the way they did after the Ohio run game totals.

Well it sure seemed like we ran on every first down there for a while. I think they may have just been gambling on first down runs early in the game and stuffing us. Then after that they would drop back on 2nd and 3rd down.

 

[roadkill]

Well it sure seemed like we ran on every first down there for a while. I think they may have just been gambling on first down runs early in the game and stuffing us. Then after that they would drop back on 2nd and 3rd down.

I went back to check this since I had a similar recollection. 8/12 first-down plays in the first half were runs, vs. 2/14 in the second half. We were particularly stubborn about it in the first drive, even though it wasn't working well. Perhaps just as important, more often than not we followed the run with a pass, making us predictable. Not surprising, if a failed first-down run gets you behind the chains. I haven't seen a detailed play analysis, but it seemed like we weren't as creative as in prior games.

It makes sense that we passed more in the second half when we were behind.

 

[iceeater1969]

I went back to check this since I had a similar recollection. 8/12 first-down plays in the first half were runs, vs. 2/14 in the second half. We were particularly stubborn about it in the first drive, even though it wasn't working well. Perhaps just as important, more often than not we followed the run with a pass, making us predictable. Not surprising, if a failed first-down run gets you behind the chains. I haven't seen a detailed play analysis, but it seemed like we weren't as creative as in prior games.

It makes sense that we passed more in the second half when we were behind.

In our first game in first 3xl quarters the opposing offense ran in the gaps where we had lb. We looked good because they were poorly coached ( maybe due to bad qb and or wr).


SCuse game
Nice info on conservative 1st half.Imo, our first half "passes" were more like long laterals. We turned into running and throwing where they are.

 

[bobongo]

I went back to check this since I had a similar recollection. 8/12 first-down plays in the first half were runs, vs. 2/14 in the second half. We were particularly stubborn about it in the first drive, even though it wasn't working well. Perhaps just as important, more often than not we followed the run with a pass, making us predictable. Not surprising, if a failed first-down run gets you behind the chains. I haven't seen a detailed play analysis, but it seemed like we weren't as creative as in prior games.

It makes sense that we passed more in the second half when we were behind.

When an offense isn't working up to snuff, there's always a discussion about play calling. I understand that and wonder about the play calling myself but perhaps the more important factor in our sputtering is the execution of the plays called. You try to establish a running game, and it isn't working, but when do you abandon it? I've seen running games bog down and then start to work. You could be making a mistake by abandoning it too early. Maybe they were trying to tweak the running game before giving up on it. Looking back, it's easier to see clearly what should have been done and when, because we see what didn't work. What we don't see is whether the other thing would have worked better. Not saying we shouldn't have tried something different, but just saying it's an easier thing to see in retrospect than in the moment. I've thought one aspect should be minimized for another only to see the thing I thought should be abandoned start to work. And though I'm a rank amateur, I'll bet more astute fans have had the same experience.

 

[alagold]

When an offense isn't working up to snuff, there's always a discussion about play calling. I understand that and wonder about the play calling myself but perhaps the more important factor in our sputtering is the execution of the plays called. You try to establish a running game, and it isn't working, but when do you abandon it? I've seen running games bog down and then start to work. You could be making a mistake by abandoning it too early. Maybe they were trying to tweak the running game before giving up on it. Looking back, it's easier to see clearly what should have been done and when, because we see what didn't work. What we don't see is whether the other thing would have worked better. Not saying we shouldn't have tried something different, but just saying it's an easier thing to see in retrospect than in the moment. I've thought one aspect should be minimized for another only to see the thing I thought should be abandoned start to work. And though I'm a rank amateur, I'll bet more astute fans have had the same experience.

Those OFF coaches are paid BIG bucks to anticipate problems and come up with solutions--they didn't and we lost (since our def was not going to stop them --they only punted twice).

 

[roadkill]

When an offense isn't working up to snuff, there's always a discussion about play calling. I understand that and wonder about the play calling myself but perhaps the more important factor in our sputtering is the execution of the plays called. You try to establish a running game, and it isn't working, but when do you abandon it? I've seen running games bog down and then start to work. You could be making a mistake by abandoning it too early. Maybe they were trying to tweak the running game before giving up on it. Looking back, it's easier to see clearly what should have been done and when, because we see what didn't work. What we don't see is whether the other thing would have worked better. Not saying we shouldn't have tried something different, but just saying it's an easier thing to see in retrospect than in the moment. I've thought one aspect should be minimized for another only to see the thing I thought should be abandoned start to work. And though I'm a rank amateur, I'll bet more astute fans have had the same experience.

To your point, I think that's why it's called "establishing" the run. Running the ball is more likely than passing to wear down your opponent's defense, but only after enough attempts. Thus the run game often works better in the third or fourth quarter. Unfortunately for us, we got down by two scores and had to play catch-up by passing more.

As fans, we are often quick to judge and overreact. When a play fails, it's easy to go back and say "Well I would not have called that." As you said, it may have failed due to poor execution rather than a bad choice of play. Also in today's game, most skill players have choices of what to do and when to do it depending on things such as the defensive alignment as well as individual defensive player actions. It's really hard for an uninformed observer to tell exactly what should or should not have occurred on many plays.

For example, I thought the failed fourth-down conversion by Carrie was a called run up the middle. I may have yelled at the TV. King explained that it was an RPO with a give read based on the defense. I still don't like the call, but at least it had other options.

Edit to add: "Run The Bawl" had proven to be highly successful and a key to our winning going back at least to the latter part of the 2023 season. Perhaps it's become less useful now that opposing coaches know we're going to do it, but I can certainly understand Faulkner et al wanting to lean on it at the start of the game.

 

[stinger78]

When an offense isn't working up to snuff, there's always a discussion about play calling. I understand that and wonder about the play calling myself but perhaps the more important factor in our sputtering is the execution of the plays called. You try to establish a running game, and it isn't working, but when do you abandon it? I've seen running games bog down and then start to work. You could be making a mistake by abandoning it too early. Maybe they were trying to tweak the running game before giving up on it. Looking back, it's easier to see clearly what should have been done and when, because we see what didn't work. What we don't see is whether the other thing would have worked better. Not saying we shouldn't have tried something different, but just saying it's an easier thing to see in retrospect than in the moment. I've thought one aspect should be minimized for another only to see the thing I thought should be abandoned start to work. And though I'm a rank amateur, I'll bet more astute fans have had the same experience.

Yes. The coaches are seeing what is happening and are making tweaks to get the plan going. Particularly since we were not getting blown out on the scoreboard, I believe there was a feeling there was time to fix it.

When they went up 17 in the 4th we got desperate and started flinging it vertically. Voila! We scored! Then we scored again. Those 8 deep suddenly were no deterrent, right?

Like all of us, coaches are not immune to overthinking a problem. We have a staff full of very good, young coaches. My hope is maybe we learned a bit Saturday that will win us a game later on.

Next game.