ADVERTISEMENT

Fedora

Cal
Hatton projected starter is out. Spain breaks hand early in game. Spain is ONE obvious difference maker and that was a close game. Though I felt the D blew that game. So maybe this was a loss regardless Spain/Hatton, but our Run game was moving, so perhaps those two help us RUN more, preventing our INTS.

Louisville.
Spain is out. Sweet and Andre miss half the game, yet we're winning at the start of the 4th quarter. So 3 difference-makers miss that 4th quarter.

Duke.
Out - Sweet, Andre, Thomas Jackson
Hurt prior to 4th quarter: Carl Tucker, Austin Proehl, Tyler Powell *started that game)
YET we're winning start of 4th quarter. SIX starters and difference-makers that could've helped 4th quarter.

GT was close at half til the D broke down. Dalton, Tyler Powell, Andre Smith are three starters that missed that game entirely. And of course having some WR that could catch drastically change that gm.

UVA and Miami were close games. Some sure-handed WR alone would've helped in those games and Proehl/Jackson/Tucker are exactly that. Britt has been okay but Donnie Miles is better and he missed both.

5 games above were winnable in my opinion even with our bad QBs and so-so OL if we have healthy Dalton, Andre, Powell, Miles on D, Jackson, Proehl, Spain, Carl Tucker on O, or maybe half these guys.
During every Bunting season, there were people online doing for every loss what you are doing here. Even in Bunting's last season, that crowd either went silent or else continued making excuses to the bitter end. Perhaps one or two of them admitted that we who wanted fired after Year 2 or 3 were correct, but I don't recall any doing that. What I recall is that most of the big Bunting defenders (BobLee Says is one well known example) hated Butch from the hiring and opposed him at every opportunity.

The reason that excuse making like yours doesn't work is that it fails to take into account similar factors for all the opponents. The approach assumes that all the excuses for us in losses are the only factors that could have altered the outcome. But what if those opponents, any or all of them, had issues that kept players off the field?

When Bunting was fired, he was reported to have left the building and seeing reporters and some of his supporters to have said, while holding his thumb and forefinger an inch apart: "We were this close."

Bunting's attitude was that time was all he needed. It was always a matter of his losses being easily explained away, and then time would make it all work out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hark_The_Sound_2010
During every Bunting season, there were people online doing for every loss what you are doing here. Even in Bunting's last season, that crowd either went silent or else continued making excuses to the bitter end. Perhaps one or two of them admitted that we who wanted fired after Year 2 or 3 were correct, but I don't recall any doing that. What I recall is that most of the big Bunting defenders (BobLee Says is one well known example) hated Butch from the hiring and opposed him at every opportunity.

The reason that excuse making like yours doesn't work is that it fails to take into account similar factors for all the opponents. The approach assumes that all the excuses for us in losses are the only factors that could have altered the outcome. But what if those opponents, any or all of them, had issues that kept players off the field?

When Bunting was fired, he was reported to have left the building and seeing reporters and some of his supporters to have said, while holding his thumb and forefinger an inch apart: "We were this close."

Bunting's attitude was that time was all he needed. It was always a matter of his losses being easily explained away, and then time would make it all work out.
I'm curious why you quoted me before getting so wordy. One poster said the injuries only account for about 2 losses, I say they account for much more.
 
During every Bunting season, there were people online doing for every loss what you are doing here. Even in Bunting's last season, that crowd either went silent or else continued making excuses to the bitter end. Perhaps one or two of them admitted that we who wanted fired after Year 2 or 3 were correct, but I don't recall any doing that. What I recall is that most of the big Bunting defenders (BobLee Says is one well known example) hated Butch from the hiring and opposed him at every opportunity.

The reason that excuse making like yours doesn't work is that it fails to take into account similar factors for all the opponents. The approach assumes that all the excuses for us in losses are the only factors that could have altered the outcome. But what if those opponents, any or all of them, had issues that kept players off the field?

When Bunting was fired, he was reported to have left the building and seeing reporters and some of his supporters to have said, while holding his thumb and forefinger an inch apart: "We were this close."

Bunting's attitude was that time was all he needed. It was always a matter of his losses being easily explained away, and then time would make it all work out.
Are you lumping Bunting and Larry into the same group?
 
The reason that excuse making like yours doesn't work is that it fails to take into account similar factors for all the opponents. The approach assumes that all the excuses for us in losses are the only factors that could have altered the outcome. But what if those opponents, any or all of them, had issues that kept players off the field?

Generally speaking I agree with this point. But this year we undoubtedly have had more setbacks from injury than any other team in the ACC, possibly even the country. I'm not saying we would have been a great team this year, but injuries have hurt us more than any team we've played this year and it isn't even close.
 
What puzzles me is why some want to discount the impact of the injuries and look for other reasons for our issues. Of course we haven't been perfect and mistakes apart from injuries have been made, but I submit that few if any teams could survive the injuries we have had to key players (and depth) without it affecting performance and record. I say it is a bigger factor than some seem to want to admit.
 
I haven't seen many, if any, say the injuries were not part of the problem this year. I have seen many say our problems span more than this year and the injuries just made those problems more visible. The biggest concerns I've seen on the various posts are O line issues, D and O line depth/physicality issues, strange play calling and undisciplined penalties.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Archer2
I'm curious why you quoted me before getting so wordy. One poster said the injuries only account for about 2 losses, I say they account for much more.

How much is "much more" than 2... 5?

Are you suggesting that we'd be 6-3 right now if we had been mostly healthy (or at least averagely healthy as compared to the rest of the conference)?
 
We are now making excuses and including the fact that some games were close or that we were winning when the 4th quarter started?

That in itself says a lot about our program under a Fedora.
 
How much is "much more" than 2... 5?

Are you suggesting that we'd be 6-3 right now if we had been mostly healthy (or at least averagely healthy as compared to the rest of the conference)?
Do you disagree with the stuff I typed regarding the 5 specific games above?

Andre Smith might be the best defender on the team outside MJ Stewart. He elevates our D.

Proehl catches everything and knows how to get open, some call him one of the better route runners in the league.

Give me those two alone and I think we'd be much closer to 6-3 than 1-8. Probably 3 wins so far and favored vs Pitt. Give me Dalton and Sweet as well, or Carl Tucker & no injury for Spain, and make it 4 wins so far.

How many offensive drives have been marked by dropped passes that proehl/jackson would've caught? Imagine if Andre Smith was available rather than having to rely on Jonathon Smith. J Smith played a few games, but we've since gone mostly with Ayden Bonilla or just gone nickel.
 
Do you disagree with the stuff I typed regarding the 5 specific games above?

Andre Smith might be the best defender on the team outside MJ Stewart. He elevates our D.

Proehl catches everything and knows how to get open, some call him one of the better route runners in the league.

Give me those two alone and I think we'd be much closer to 6-3 than 1-8. Probably 3 wins so far and favored vs Pitt. Give me Dalton and Sweet as well, or Carl Tucker & no injury for Spain, and make it 4 wins so far.

How many offensive drives have been marked by dropped passes that proehl/jackson would've caught? Imagine if Andre Smith was available rather than having to rely on Jonathon Smith. J Smith played a few games, but we've since gone mostly with Ayden Bonilla or just gone nickel.

I don't disagree with the impact that some of the injured guys would have had in games. Maybe I don't think the magnitude of the impact is as high as you do.

But I was wondering how many games you were attributing to it. Looks like 4 or 5, so you're insinuating we'd be around 6-3 without injuries.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Archer2
I don't disagree with the impact that some of the injured guys would have had in games. Maybe I don't think the magnitude of the impact is as high as you do.

But I was wondering how many games you were attributing to it. Looks like 4 or 5, so you're insinuating we'd be around 6-3 without injuries.
I think 5 wins even 100% healthy. The ball bounces funny ways and our QBs are still going to fumble and throw INTs even with Proehl's complete route running and better protection on the edge from Sweet or a 2-handed Spain. And I don't think we'd be good enough to blow anybody out.

100% healthy (so assume Hatton instead of Polino/Khaleil and that Spain plays the whole gm vs Cal) I could easily see us having wins over Cal, ODU, Dook, UVA, and I see Miami/Louisville/GT being 50/50. GT aside, we were winning or within 4 pts entering the 4th quarter in ALL those games.
 
^ Even though I could see 5 wins at this point, i think the offense would still be very disappointing relative to previous offenses.
 
Let's say we get everybody back healthy. How many wins do you see with this schedule next year? If I had to pick right now, I'd say the only sure win was WCU. We're just that bad.

Maybe we win against ECU, Pitt, UVA, or Syracuse. Maybe. Our program can't sink much lower. I'd say we win 5 games max.

at Cal...L
at ECU...L?
UCF...L
WCU...W
GT...L
PItt...L?
VT...L
NVSU...L
at d00k...L
at MIami...L
at Syracuse...L?
at UVA...L?
 
Let's say we get everybody back healthy. How many wins do you see with this schedule next year? If I had to pick right now, I'd say the only sure win was WCU. We're just that bad.

Maybe we win against ECU, Pitt, UVA, or Syracuse. Maybe. Our program can't sink much lower. I'd say we win 5 games max.

at Cal...L
at ECU...L?
UCF...L
WCU...W
GT...L
PItt...L?
VT...L
NVSU...L
at d00k...L
at MIami...L
at Syracuse...L?
at UVA...L?
Your hatred of LF is showing too strongly.


Cal - Toss up
ECU - win
WCU - win
GT - Loss
VT - Loss
NCSU - Win
Dook - Win
Miami - Loss
Cuse - Win
UVA - Win
 
I don't agree with ticket very often but I sure hope he's right on this one. I think we win ECU and WCU, lose Miami and VT, and all the others are toss ups. Think Syracuse and UCF are the only teams on the schedule (other than Miami and VT) that might sniff the top 25.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ticket2ride04
We are now making excuses and including the fact that some games were close or that we were winning when the 4th quarter started?

That in itself says a lot about our program under a Fedora.
Uhhh, it says a lot about the injury-situation when you are include it in your win/loss discussion. Question - how many injuries would it take for you to refer to them as a 'reason' rather than an 'excuse'?
 
I don’t hate Fed, he’s a likable guy. I just have no faith in his ability to lead our program out of mediocrity.
okp66FD.gif
 
Let's say we get everybody back healthy. How many wins do you see with this schedule next year? If I had to pick right now, I'd say the only sure win was WCU. We're just that bad.

Maybe we win against ECU, Pitt, UVA, or Syracuse. Maybe. Our program can't sink much lower. I'd say we win 5 games max.

at Cal...L
at ECU...L?
UCF...L
WCU...W
GT...L
PItt...L?
VT...L
NVSU...L
at d00k...L
at MIami...L
at Syracuse...L?
at UVA...L?
Anything less than 6 will be disappointing, but it all hinges on OL's ability to protect and QB's ability to execute a little better.

WR will be better (esp once the rookies acclimate), RB a little improved(better pass pro, Carter is learning how to catch, etc) and TE a tiny bit better (partly thru health, partly cuz Bargas is coming on strong). But losing 4 OL starters means some consistency issues next yr. QB is a giant question mark.

Cayson and Stewart will be tough to replace, but Andre Smith's return will help.

If QB/OL improves AT ALL, I see wins over ECU, WCU, UVA,
Probable wins over Duke, Pitt, Cal, NCSU
Unsure regarding Syracuse, they lose studs WRs and all their LBs, but that QB is a weapon.
Unsure regarding GT (they lose a bunch on D), and we've been playing them pretty well lately.
Losses - Miami, VT, UCF (esp if Frost is still there, though they graduate 4 from their front 7)

We play some very good offenses next yr - NCSU, GT, Syracuse, UCF.
But only two really good defenses - Miami and VT

If QB sucks and OL plays matador, then just 3 or 4 wins.
 
Any year we don't win at least 6 games to be bowl eligible, we should view as a BAD season. No matter the circumstances. The lost practice time and TV exposure are very detrimental to future success.
 
I've said before that I don't have full confidence that Fedora is the right guy for the future. However, I do think he should be back next year due to all of the injuries. Hopefully he will be able to turn things around next year.
 
I'm with you on that MWHeels. I hope Larry can get it done - not looking forward to a start over when I'm not confident we'll attract a great candidate. I think he could do well if he's willing to look at tweaking some of his approach/philosophy and switching out an assistant or two. If he's not, well I think we'll settle into the 6-7 win area with an occasional 8 wins (which is not what I'm looking for).
 
I've said before that I don't have full confidence that Fedora is the right guy for the future. However, I do think he should be back next year due to all of the injuries. Hopefully he will be able to turn things around next year.

I think it's funny how on here some people want to say let's give him more time because of all the injuries this year but what about all the bad coaching bad decisions and bad assistant hires he's made before this year when injuries wasn't an excuse?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hark_The_Sound_2010
How about not recognizing that Elliott was the best qb on this team. Why in the hell did that take so long??
 
How about not recognizing that Elliott was the best qb on this team. Why in the hell did that take so long??
Talent-wise, he's not.

My theory: Fedora and the staff knew this season was a rebuilding year anyway, and they know that, although Elliott gives us the best shot to win right now, he's also not the long-term future. So I think they've been giving every attempt possible to Chazz to try to groom him for the future and see if he's truly "the guy" or if we need a full QB battle next year. JMO.
 
Talent-wise, he's not.

My theory: Fedora and the staff knew this season was a rebuilding year anyway, and they know that, although Elliott gives us the best shot to win right now, he's also not the long-term future. So I think they've been giving every attempt possible to Chazz to try to groom him for the future and see if he's truly "the guy" or if we need a full QB battle next year. JMO.

This is a really important point. Next year will be a bounce back year as well. Which means the staff should be more inclined to give a young guy like Ruder a shot at taking the job as a freshman, knowing he would have three more years ahead of him.

Its essentially the opposite of what happened with Quise. Mitch had more potential, but Quise was probably the guy that gave us the best chance to win football games in 2015, in a year where we had stacked up tons of talent and had a chance to make a run at the playoff. If that had been a rebuilding year, then I'd bet Mitch would have been the starter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TarHeelNation11
How about not recognizing that Elliott was the best qb on this team. Why in the hell did that take so long??

Good question, got any suspicions? Perhaps Fed likes for his offense to suck and not move the chains? Perhaps he'd rather "go back and look at the tape" than figure out which QB is best?
 
Good question, got any suspicions? Perhaps Fed likes for his offense to suck and not move the chains? Perhaps he'd rather "go back and look at the tape" than figure out which QB is best?
Or..... see my above post. He may be stubborn, but the man isn't an idiot. @blazers don't let Woad, GoN, and notashelbyfan turn you into a blind Fedora basher too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ticket2ride04
Talent-wise, he's not.

My theory: Fedora and the staff knew this season was a rebuilding year anyway, and they know that, although Elliott gives us the best shot to win right now, he's also not the long-term future. So I think they've been giving every attempt possible to Chazz to try to groom him for the future and see if he's truly "the guy" or if we need a full QB battle next year. JMO.

Yeah. And if they were aware the even dook and uva would have our QBs ducking for their life, maybe that would've done something differently knowing that it wouldn't help Chazz develop. And Chazz has *probably* not met their expectations even despite the zillions sacks and pressures.

Chazz's release is slow, i'm kinda surprised they didn't just try Elliot sooner.
 
Or..... see my above post. He may be stubborn, but the man isn't an idiot. @blazers don't let Woad, GoN, and notashelbyfan turn you into a blind Fedora basher too.
twas sarcasm. our qb situation has been a quagmire which the armchairs seem to feel is ill-intent or ineptitude by the staff who've coached Chris Leak, the dood at Ok State, MW, Trubisky, Austin Davis and lots of really effective QBs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TarHeelNation11
Yeah. And if they were aware the even dook and uva would have our QBs ducking for their life, maybe that would've done something differently knowing that it wouldn't help Chazz develop. And Chazz has *probably* not met their expectations even despite the zillions sacks and pressures.

Chazz's release is slow, i'm kinda surprised they didn't just try Elliot sooner.
Like @uncboy10 pointed out, if we had the talent to compete for an ACCCG this year, you probably would've seen a much quicker hook with Surratt/Harris. But since this was a rebuilding year anyway, I think the staff made a decision to potentially forsake a couple wins in exchange for giving Surratt every chance because as of now, he's our only hope for the future.

But I think you're correct in that Surratt hasn't impressed, even when taking into consideration the injuries putting us in a tight spot. Once Ruder gets on campus, QB1 is wide open IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: blazers
twas sarcasm. our qb situation has been a quagmire which the armchairs seem to feel is ill-intent or ineptitude by the staff who've coached Chris Leak, the dood at Ok State, MW, Trubisky, Austin Davis and lots of really effective QBs.
Duly noted, and now I see it upon re-reading! My fault. I'm still pretty triggered by this dumb thread ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: NENCHeel
I think bringing in Harris turned out to be our biggest issue. Not blaming Fed for bringing him in because we had no experience at QB heading into the season and I think it was the wise move to get someone like Harris. Whatever the reason was, Harris just didn't work out for us. Fed probably felt like he had to try given that Harris was in his last year and we pulled him in. But having Harris meant either Surratt or Elliott wouldn't see the field early. The way our O line played this year, no matter who started eventually we would need a backup or two. This has just been a difficult situation. Moving on to next year I hope we see much growth out of both Surratt and Elliott - if not, I hope Ruder is ready.
 
I think bringing in Harris turned out to be our biggest issue. Not blaming Fed for bringing him in because we had no experience at QB heading into the season and I think it was the wise move to get someone like Harris. Whatever the reason was, Harris just didn't work out for us. Fed probably felt like he had to try given that Harris was in his last year and we pulled him in. But having Harris meant either Surratt or Elliott wouldn't see the field early. The way our O line played this year, no matter who started eventually we would need a backup or two. This has just been a difficult situation. Moving on to next year I hope we see much growth out of both Surratt and Elliott - if not, I hope Ruder is ready.
great points
 
I think it's funny how on here some people want to say let's give him more time because of all the injuries this year but what about all the bad coaching bad decisions and bad assistant hires he's made before this year when injuries wasn't an excuse?
He had the second best start as a FB coach in UNC history. What are you talking about?
 
I think AJ said a couple of red shirts and a couple of backups are on par with the starters, maybe more upside. Hopefully AJ can chime in. With a good offseason maybe things will be better on the O line. Still think there's something amiss with our O line scheme/prep. We have way too many negative yardage plays.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT