[Purple Haize]

I'm surprised BJ hasn't called for this thread to be closed

[GillsHill2013]

I think its a good discussion. Needs to be done

[Purple Haize]

I think its a good discussion. Needs to be done

Went right over your head

[GillsHill2013]

[Purple Haize]

Someone needs to take leadership



https://www.flamefans.com/forums/viewto ... =2&t=22192

[BJWilliams]

I turned on the Clemson-UNC game for a bit and the first play by clemson went for a long touchdown. I bring that up because I think in a game like this we needed to make a statement from the word go after allowing the field goal. the Clemson touchdown came on a seam route off a fake jet sweep. Instead of trying to grind a run against their front, we should have tried going for an explosive play much like Clemson did tonight. we get off to a big start, put their defense on their heels, could be a totally different discussion

[thepostman]

But woodrum would miss the target beej so it wouldn't matter.

[BJWilliams]

I didnt say we had to run that exact play (although that would have been great)...I used that play to underscore that we needed something explosive...even running Gabe or Masha on a gadget pass...something to make them say "what the *bleep*" and give us early momentum

[forbidden]

we don't think aggression, we do need to be more aggressive, we tried to establish the run which did work dj had 50 yds take away the 27 in sack yds. You are right BJ we should hv more aggressive playcalling, but we may drop it, lol. maybe our OL was built more around a run gm featuring Dez, but with his injury we should have "adjusted".

[Chippy]

I turned on the Clemson-UNC game for a bit and the first play by clemson went for a long touchdown. I bring that up because I think in a game like this we needed to make a statement from the word go after allowing the field goal. the Clemson touchdown came on a seam route off a fake jet sweep. Instead of trying to grind a run against their front, we should have tried going for an explosive play much like Clemson did tonight. we get off to a big start, put their defense on their heels, could be a totally different discussion

I think we should have attacked on defense first since we decided to kick off to start the game instead the soft defense let ISU come right down the field and score. We waited way to long to pressure the QB. Nonetheless, the offense never showed. As Lang said in one of his articles we can't let Perish to stay untouched in the pocket or he will dissect the D. His passes were precision like. The D was not that bad but he is the most accurate QB I have ever seen go up against LU.

[BJWilliams]

We may drop it...point is you gotta go after the opposing defense, especially after a result like the defense had, holding them to a field goal. I also agree that we needed to bring the pain much earlier. how many sacks did we get after we started bulldozing the backfield...4? 5?

[flameshaw]

But woodrum would miss the target beej so it wouldn't matter.

Or the receiver would have dropped it.

[GillsHill2013]

But woodrum would miss the target beej so it wouldn't matter.

Or the received would have dropped it.

The receivers probably suffer from confusion when the ball actually hits them in the hands. The ball is usually uncatchable.

[BJWilliams]

Or he catches it and goes in for a TD like Dante did on our SECOND possession. I was very frustrated with our continuing to go to the inside/middle screen and not trying to stretch the field on third down.

[BJWilliams]

Point was, we needed to (pardon my French) get after their a**** (to borrow a phrase from the fans at Georgia Southern). Throw the kitchen sink at them, make a play that they are not expecting...we did not do that

[bluejacket]

I wouldn't trust us throwing a kitchen sink......

[BJWilliams]

Even though you missed my point...I dont think I could trust us throwing a kitchen sink either...

[bluejacket]

Even though you missed my point...I dont think I could trust us throwing a kitchen sink either...