|
|
Post by fc4life on Sept 3, 2015 22:03:55 GMT -5
Well, that was fun. Right? No. Another ACC opponent, another blowout.
Trust me, I hate being negative. However, I've been around a long time and refuse to not see things honestly.
Positives:
* We got paid.
* Our DL looked decent at times.
* Our new unis looked good.
* No major injuries.
* No turnovers.
Negatives:
* Our veteran DBs looked bad. Really bad. The Zone D was diced apart.
* We still don't know who our QB is. Why start DT and then play CC most of the game? Weird.
* We gave up 591 yards of O.
* We had as many rushing first downs as those gained by penalty.
* We did not get past midfield until the 3rd QTR.
*Our play calling is suspect. Two 4&2 situations down big and we punted. Not to mention we run very, vanilla stuff. I know we are young. However, the scheme is rough.
* Our scheme on O is slow and not very imaginative. Our running plays take forever to develop. Death for a spread.
* Our technique in tackling is brutal. Way too many arm tackles broken and really poor angles.
* Our receivers dropped way too many balls.
* The O averaged 3.2 yds a play.
I'll leave it at that.
These games are not measuring sticks. They are just plain ole beat-downs. They should not be played. We need to either play another FCS school or a low-level FBS school. Enough of the power conferences. I know we have Akron coming up at some point. I'm not sure that is any better.
I'll support this program until I die. However, this is really getting old. Blank's hire of Swepson set this program back at least a decade. That should never, ever be forgotten.
|
|
|
|
Post by elonfan85 on Sept 3, 2015 23:36:39 GMT -5
D played well until they got worn down mentally and physically. I thought in the beginning the D kept us in the game.
The O was terrible. Same plays over and over. No diversity. No creativity. No adjustments. I don't see us doing well with a pro style drop back qb. We need a mobile dual threat qb. Not sure who's best for that. The O scheme reminded me of last yr.
|
|
ncjon
New Member
Posts: 169 
|
Post by ncjon on Sept 4, 2015 2:25:16 GMT -5
The next three FBS teams on the schedule are Charlotte (2016), Toledo (2017), and South Florida (2018). The level of difference in competition between those teams and Elon should be much closer than it has been with the ACC teams. I don't think games between FCS teams and the so-called Power Five conference teams should occur. Maybe there's a case to be made for the very top tier FCS teams to play them, but even then.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2015 6:15:16 GMT -5
Well, that was fun. Right? No. Another ACC opponent, another blowout. Trust me, I hate being negative. However, I've been around a long time and refuse to not see things honestly. Positives: * We got paid. * Our DL looked decent at times. * Our new unis looked good. * No major injuries. * No turnovers. Negatives: * Our veteran DBs looked bad. Really bad. The Zone D was diced apart. * We still don't know who our QB is. Why start DT and then play CC most of the game? Weird. * We gave up 591 yards of O. * We had as many rushing first downs as those gained by penalty. * We did not get past midfield until the 3rd QTR. *Our play calling is suspect. Two 4&2 situations down big and we punted. Not to mention we run very, vanilla stuff. I know we are young. However, the scheme is rough. * Our scheme on O is slow and not very imaginative. Our running plays take forever to develop. Death for a spread. * Our technique in tackling is brutal. Way too many arm tackles broken and really poor angles. * Our receivers dropped way too many balls. * The O averaged 3.2 yds a play. I'll leave it at that. These games are not measuring sticks. They are just plain ole beat-downs. They should not be played. We need to either play another FCS school or a low-level FBS school. Enough of the power conferences. I know we have Akron coming up at some point. I'm not sure that is any better. I'll support this program until I die. However, this is really getting old. Blank's hire of Swepson set this program back at least a decade. That should never, ever be forgotten. ^^^^. Especially the last paragraph. On the positive side, I don't remember any sacks. |
|
homer
Elon Only
Posts: 583
|
Post by homer on Sept 4, 2015 7:52:47 GMT -5
O line pass blocked very well. That's a great sign for the rest of the season.
Couldn't run, I think, because WF has the best line backers in the ACC. And it showed. CC was our leading rusher.
Rotating QBs didn't work. No rhythm whatsoever. I though CC looked smoother, more composed. But the constant horizontal passing needs to stop.
Receivers. Yikes. Drops. Drops. More drops. And very little, if any separation. WF secondary isn't THAT good.
Looked like the the D started well, then saw the O couldn't do anything and the spark went out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2015 8:05:09 GMT -5
I'm most disappointed in our receiving corps. Drops, improperly run routes, no separation... In a passing predominant offense you HAVE GOT TO HAVE RECEIVERS WHO MAKE PLAYS!!!!! If someone doesn't step up, and quick, this is going to be another long disappointing year. I thought CC did a decent job, not great but decent. I like his running when the play isn't developing. He had much more zip on his passes than DT, not that DT was bad. He was the victim of dropsies and mis-run routes too.
Having said all that, I think there are definitely lots of things to build on. Our freshmen who played for the first time in college and against a P5 team need to keep their chins up. It was a rough way to start, but if they lose confidence now we will follow up a loss to a pretty good team with a loss to a team we should probably beat. Stick with the system & use what has become one of my all time favorite sayings - Sometimes you win and sometimes you learn. Take keep the lessons, throw the rest of the sh!t away and move on.
|
|
|
|
Post by phoenix2008 on Sept 4, 2015 12:08:40 GMT -5
I thought the game was managed well, no turnovers is a great sign...they just wore us down, which is to be expected agaisnt a team with bigger, faster, stronger players. We had several 3rd and longs on defense that if we could have gotten off the field we probably could have made the game closer at half, but overall I thought we kept our heads about us and got a lot of great experience for this young group. That 70 yard QB run was inches from being a huge sack...those kinds of plays need to go in our favor to stay in a game and last night they just did not.
I was a little surprised DT got the start, but the explanation made sense when I heard it. To me though, and this may not be fair to DT, but CC has a swagger about him that I think other guys kind of feed off of. His athleticism (ability to run and zip on his passes) seems better too. Neither has really separated themselves though in my eyes...do you give one the start next week and let them play the whole game (unless they are totally sucking) and then the following week give the other guy the chance to play a whole game? That sounds crazy, but it's the quickest way we would be able to see who should be our starter going into conference play.
It's a little embarrassing anytime you get blown out like last night, but i'm not really disappointed. If we can go into CAA play at 2-1, I think that would be a strong indication that we have improved and are headed in the right direction...
|
|
|
|
Post by whoanellie on Sept 4, 2015 14:01:53 GMT -5
All points taken, My observation was We were really not together, early too many mistakes and lost field position battle We really need a "Playmaker" Someone needs to step up next week in a game We should win. We look like a team as our uni's were freak'n awesome. We did have a good showing out of support. We could not bring the pep "Marching Band? give us some imagination on offense.... Well, that was fun. Right? No. Another ACC opponent, another blowout. Trust me, I hate being negative. However, I've been around a long time and refuse to not see things honestly. Positives: * We got paid. * Our DL looked decent at times. * Our new unis looked good. * No major injuries. * No turnovers. Negatives: * Our veteran DBs looked bad. Really bad. The Zone D was diced apart. * We still don't know who our QB is. Why start DT and then play CC most of the game? Weird. * We gave up 591 yards of O. * We had as many rushing first downs as those gained by penalty. * We did not get past midfield until the 3rd QTR. *Our play calling is suspect. Two 4&2 situations down big and we punted. Not to mention we run very, vanilla stuff. I know we are young. However, the scheme is rough. * Our scheme on O is slow and not very imaginative. Our running plays take forever to develop. Death for a spread. * Our technique in tackling is brutal. Way too many arm tackles broken and really poor angles. * Our receivers dropped way too many balls. * The O averaged 3.2 yds a play. I'll leave it at that. These games are not measuring sticks. They are just plain ole beat-downs. They should not be played. We need to either play another FCS school or a low-level FBS school. Enough of the power conferences. I know we have Akron coming up at some point. I'm not sure that is any better. I'll support this program until I die. However, this is really getting old. Blank's hire of Swepson set this program back at least a decade. That should never, ever be forgotten. |
|
fc97
Elon Only
Posts: 643
|
Post by fc97 on Sept 4, 2015 14:20:53 GMT -5
People will come back when the program does better
|
|
|
|
Post by vabeachelon73 on Sept 4, 2015 16:41:31 GMT -5
I agree with fightinchristian. Swepson set the FB program back a decade. I saw the same thing happen at Syracuse when my daughter was there in 2003. SU hired an unknown with no head coaching experience and it ruined the program. And they still haven't recovered. Did you see the fight VMI put up against Ball State and our old coach?
|
|
