ESPN's David Hale pulls no punches

[WoadBlue]

Tar Heel's play calling costs them a chance for a marque win

The problem with his take is that he all but exonerates MW. If your 5th year SR QB throws the ball far over the head of your Wide Open fastest player 4 times in the game and tosses at least 2 passes over the heads of Wide Open WRs who are at least 6-4, and tosses 3 indefensible INTs, then the play calling failure is bound up inextricably with the QB.

When the QB makes those kind of errors, DCs know that in the RZ the team should run the ball. So the D prepares for that. If we cannot count on the QB to keep the D off balance with a sound passing game, then the D will stack the box and stuff the RZ running game.

 

[Roady]

The question of whether they could have held Hood to less than 9 yards in three attempts can't be answered now...but I think the coaching staff underutilized a terrific weapon.

Too bad....I think it will be a lesson learned by the coaches. It will be thumped as another SEC victory over the ACC by the SEC goobers. And Hale was right...this should have been a Tar Heel win.

With Louisville a double digit dog against Auburn and VT a 11 point underdog to Ohio State....the opening weekend could be a rough start for the conference.

 

[strummingram]

And, truthfully, I don't think South Carolina is that good of a team!

 

[franklin street]

The question of whether they could have held Hood to less than 9 yards in three attempts can't be answered now...but I think the coaching staff underutilized a terrific weapon.

Too bad....I think it will be a lesson learned by the coaches. It will be thumped as another SEC victory over the ACC by the SEC goobers. And Hale was right...this should have been a Tar Heel win.

With Louisville a double digit dog against Auburn and VT a 11 point underdog to Ohio State....the opening weekend could be a rough start for the conference.

i don't understand why you think this will be a lesson learned by the coaches.
numerous teams exposed our weaknesses in the red zone last year and we're still doing the same things.
this is a heck of an offense when defenses have to be concerned about someone getting behind them, in the red zone they don't have that worry.

 

[Cyan-gamecock]

And, truthfully, I don't think South Carolina is that good of a team!

Is it really a good idea to say you got got beat by a team that wasn't very good or would it be better to say you played a good team very close? Aren't you saying your team isn't very good if they lost to a team that is not ,"that good?" To me it looks like the Carolina Gamecocks beat a good UNC team.

 

[SeaHawk98]

UNC beat itself. Terrible QB play, yet when the game is on the line you continue to let MW throw when Hood was running over people. Fedora is an idiot and should be fired this year. South Carolina is not very good, but neither is UNC. Both will barely be around .500 and go to crappy bowls if they are lucky.

 

[Tar Healer]

I don't see how people keep making these definitive statements about teams being "good" or "bad" after just one game. Good lord ever watched college football? Certainly right now you can say both teams aren't playing well but every week we trot out a different team. We just need to see a more consistent team week to week and better plans and adjustments by our coaches and QB. To my eye SC does have a solid and talented DB and linebacker core that prevented big plays and helped keep us out of the end zone with the help of our bad decisions there.

 

[Archer2]

Tar Heel's play calling costs them a chance for a marque win

The problem with his take is that he all but exonerates MW. If your 5th year SR QB throws the ball far over the head of your Wide Open fastest player 4 times in the game and tosses at least 2 passes over the heads of Wide Open WRs who are at least 6-4, and tosses 3 indefensible INTs, then the play calling failure is bound up inextricably with the QB.

When the QB makes those kind of errors, DCs know that in the RZ the team should run the ball. So the D prepares for that. If we cannot count on the QB to keep the D off balance with a sound passing game, then the D will stack the box and stuff the RZ running game.

Amen!

With all the talent we have at QB, I'm amazed someone hasn't supplanted Quise as the starter by now. He simply isn't a good passer at all. And worst of all, his decision making is atrocious. The primary thing on his mind when we were in the red zone should have been not to turn the freakin' ball over. Made field goals in two of the three drives would have spelled a win. Once again we snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

 

[strummingram]

Is it really a good idea to say you got got beat by a team that wasn't very good or would it be better to say you played a good team very close? Aren't you saying your team isn't very good if they lost to a team that is not ,"that good?" To me it looks like the Carolina Gamecocks beat a good UNC team.

That's exactly what I'm saying!

 

[TarHeelNation11]

And, truthfully, I don't think South Carolina is that good of a team!

Nope. They won't win 6 games

 

[ball4me2]

Amen!

With all the talent we have at QB, I'm amazed someone hasn't supplanted Quise as the starter by now. He simply isn't a good passer at all. And worst of all, his decision making is atrocious. The primary thing on his mind when we were in the red zone should have been not to turn the freakin' ball over. Made field goals in two of the three drives would have spelled a win. Once again we snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

We do have better QB's, but obviously there is preferential treatment being given to someone who is not good. What speaks louder is that the coaching staff does not seem to care enough about the rest of the team including the QB's that it is willing to make changes and give the TEAM it's best chance to win. Preferential treatment will destroy the team concept.

From what I saw only 3 people lost that game . . . head coach, offensive coordinator and the guy behind the center. The rest of the team played more than well enough to beat SC.

 

[Raising Heel]

We do have better QB's, but obviously there is preferential treatment being given...

Who is a better QB? And tell me why they're the better QB. If it's so obvious, you should have no trouble defending your claim.

 

[ball4me2]

Who is a better QB? And tell me why they're the better QB. If it's so obvious, you should have no trouble defending your claim.

RH,
It's pretty easy to sit from your side and ask that question, as it appears no one else will get the opportunity. All I can say is what I've seen from last year and then against SCar is that I'm ready to take my chances elsewhere. I've said on multiple occasions we did little to nothing to develop Trubisky last year and then Thursday Night with as poorly as MW played again did not give our #2 an opportunity. (It was a slap in the face to Trubisky, Henderson and the rest of the team to take that loss.) Many of us indicated many times last year that with such poor play from MW that we should have begun developing Trubisky or Henderson for this year, but that was not the coaches decision. It was their decision to leave MW in, beat some average to below average teams and then get out butts kicked against Rutgers in a third tier bowl game . . . woohoo!!
The ole ball coach did exactly what I've been saying for over a year, just play contain, force the pocket in on him and force Williams to pass. Now on the other side of the coin Littrell refused to let Hood and Logan run enough and bring home the win, but that is another sore subject.
So the questions, are we poor recruiters at QB? Don't think so as we are after QB's that are highly rated and recruited. Are we poor developers of QB's? Possibly, but we have seen some good moments and only really seen one QB given the opportunity since new OC arrived. We do however see the same people making the same mistakes and constantly struggling with recognizing defenses and/or making the right reads. Is there preferential treatment? Absolutely. Seeing so many games with the same constant mistakes, bone head plays, inability to read the defenses and we are left to wonder how good we really are. If MW is our best option then we must be horrible developers of QB's or unwilling to take him out of the game (preferential treatment).

On the positive side: Great job to Chizik and defensive coaching staff and most of all the defensive players who executed a great game plan against one of the best offensive coaches in college football. Sured look a lot better than last year. Also, great job OL, RB's and receivers.

 

[67gamecock]

We do have better QB's, but obviously there is preferential treatment being given to someone who is not good. What speaks louder is that the coaching staff does not seem to care enough about the rest of the team including the QB's that it is willing to make changes and give the TEAM it's best chance to win. Preferential treatment will destroy the team concept.

From what I saw only 3 people lost that game . . . head coach, offensive coordinator and the guy behind the center. The rest of the team played more than well enough to beat SC.

. . . But you DIDN'T, so quit whining. You guys sound like a gathering of Clemsonites down at the country store wallowing in self pity on Monday morning.

 

[UNC71-00]

Who is a better QB? And tell me why they're the better QB. If it's so obvious, you should have no trouble defending your claim.

The QB's role in this offense should be to not make stupid plays. We have at least 5 guys who are excellent with the ball in their hands- Hood, Logan, Switzer, Howard, Davis. The plan should be for the QB to get the ball to them as efficiently and simply as possible. Don't give the QB (regardless of who it is) an opportunity to lose the game by having him try to make a play- the others are all more than capable of doing that.

 

[UNC71-00]

. . . But you DIDN'T, so quit whining. You guys sound like a gathering of Clemsonites down at the country store wallowing in self pity on Monday morning.

Oh, shut the hell up. You know damn well that we controlled the game and if it weren't for terrible play calling and 2 terrible turnovers (the 3rd turnover was a 4th down play where he had to force it), you idiots would be 0-1.

I would give anything to trade Fedora for Spurrier, just like you would do the same to trade your players for ours. Now go play in traffic son.

 

[Beaverdam Tiger]

Oh, shut the hell up. You know damn well that we controlled the game and if it weren't for terrible play calling and 2 terrible turnovers (the 3rd turnover was a 4th down play where he had to force it), you idiots would be 0-1.

I would give anything to trade Fedora for Spurrier, just like you would do the same to trade your players for ours. Now go play in traffic son.

Waste of time and air to argue with those feathered idiots. Everybody that knows anything about college football is aware of the fact that Fedora blew yet another game for UNC. He is incompetent and should be terminated. Hope you guys make a great hire. Good luck!

 

[UNC '92]

. . . But you DIDN'T, so quit whining. You guys sound like a gathering of Clemsonites down at the country store wallowing in self pity on Monday morning.

You will never get your first "like" that way dumbass.

 

[Archer2]

. . . But you DIDN'T, so quit whining. You guys sound like a gathering of Clemsonites down at the country store wallowing in self pity on Monday morning.

The only reason what we're saying bothers you is that you know it's absolutely true. some of the SC fans who've posted here have been respectful. Others, like yourself, are rude idiots.

 

[Raising Heel]

All I can say is what I've seen from last year and then against SCar is that I'm ready to take my chances elsewhere.

I think that's a pretty good summation of the argument for Trubisky. I'm not saying you're wrong. All I'm saying is there's no guarantee he'll be any better than Williams, and there's factual evidence that says he's not.

Once Gio left, people pissed and moaned about Renner because he wasn't a running threat, which the QB has to be in this offense. Well, we got Williams and look at us now.

 

[Archer2]

I think that's a pretty good summation of the argument for Trubisky. I'm not saying you're wrong. All I'm saying is there's no guarantee he'll be any better than Williams, and there's factual evidence that says he's not.

Once Gio left, people pissed and moaned about Renner because he wasn't a running threat, which the QB has to be in this offense. Well, we got Williams and look at us now.

But did we have to go from one extreme to the other? I think we have QB's on our roster that are capable of running and passing effectively. It doesn't have to be either/or.

 

[Raising Heel]

But did we have to go from one extreme to the other? I think we have QB's on our roster that are capable of running and passing effectively. It doesn't have to be either/or.

And ideally, it's not. I understand what you're getting at and tend to agree that MT could develop into a better balance of the two than MW. However, I also suspect that people over-exaggerate MW's shortcomings as a passer. Games like Thursday only feed that perception, which is why I'm working on a project that will help evaluate him objectively rather than anecdotally.

 

[Archer2]

I understand RH, and I appreciate your being the voice of reason after a very difficult loss. I'm sure no one feels as bad about this loss as Quise.

 

[WoadBlue]

And ideally, it's not. I understand what you're getting at and tend to agree that MT could develop into a better balance of the two than MW. However, I also suspect that people over-exaggerate MW's shortcomings as a passer. Games like Thursday only feed that perception, which is why I'm working on a project that will help evaluate him objectively rather than anecdotally.

MW does not read pass coverage well or quickly.That leads to both his missing wide open receivers and to his happy feet looking to run ASAP. MW also remains a wildly inconsistent passer, all types of passes. A 1st year starter, especially if he is a Soph or Frosh, with those issues persisting all season can be embraced for his potential. A 5th year SR who has started a year and half who still has those weaknesses is going to leave college with them intact.

 

[Raising Heel]

^^^ Hilarious that you quote me saying people over-exaggerate, then go on to do exactly that. We should count the hyperbole in your posts. "Wide open", "ASAP", "wildly inconsistent", "all types", etc. You just can't help yourself.

 

[WoadBlue]

^^^ Hilarious that you quote me saying people over-exaggerate, then go on to do exactly that. We should count the hyperbole in your posts. "Wide open", "ASAP", "wildly inconsistent", "all types", etc. You just can't help yourself.

Let's just stick with Thursday night and the receivers MW saw wide open: How many of the amazingly off passes MW tossed were not to a wide open receiver?

Our WR corps is as deep and good as any in the ACC. You can count on there being at least 1 of 4 receivers on any play being open usually wide open. MW does not check down quickly enough or correctly enough to see them when they are the 3rd or 4th option. And as we saw Thursday, even wide open and seen, like as not MW will sail it 5 yards over the receiver's head.

The MW formula is simple: the 1 thing he does truly well and consistently is run the ball between the tackles. That's it. If MW had meaningful potential in any other area it would have seen the light long before he became a 5th year SR who with a season and a half of starter experience.

MW doing what he does well can deliver some exciting plays and series. And his legs might seem to save us at times. But it necessarily means that we cannot fully utilize and develop at least one of these two: our RBs and our WRs.

I think that major brush up widely reported last year was about MW. I think members of both RB and WR corps voiced their displeasure with the offense called by Fedora/Littrell and, especially, executed by MW. I think they demanded, in a nice and logical way, that MW become a distributor.

And against SoCar we saw MW not bolting from the pocket at every 1st opportunity. And he looked like a deer in the headlights.

 

[Raising Heel]

The MW formula is simple: the 1 thing he does truly well and consistently is run the ball between the tackles. That's it.

That's complete BS. If that were the only thing he did well then one of the other 4-star recruits behind him on the depth chart would be the starter. Since you've proven incapable of getting past your own confirmation bias, I'm done discussing this topic.

 

[shun1]

I support my UNC football team. One game will not change my faith in my TAR HEELS.

!!!!!! GO TAR HEELS !!!!!!