Does anyone else think Coach Drink is a mastermind? Seems to me he draws up a game plan of just what we need to do, almost the bare minimum in order win. He doesn't ever seem to show his hand or deviate from his plan to blow someone out.

I thought last night especially and in the UNC game, we could've torched them throwing the ball. It was like we got the lead and did just enough to keep us ahead. When we needed to, we took some chances and got the points we needed. I feel like we still have a good chunk of our offensive playbook wide open moving forward.

If this is in fact what is going on, I can't wait to see us open up the playbook.

NeersBy90 wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 10, 2019 7:25 am

Does anyone else think Coach Drink is a mastermind? Seems to me he draws up a game plan of just what we need to do, almost the bare minimum in order win. He doesn't ever seem to show his hand or deviate from his plan to blow someone out.

I thought last night especially and in the UNC game, we could've torched them throwing the ball. It was like we got the lead and did just enough to keep us ahead, when we needed to, we took some chances and got the points we needed. I feel like we still have a good chunk of our offensive playbook wide open moving forward.

If this is in fact what is going on, I can't wait to see us open up the playbook.

When drink does it hes a mastermind, but when satt called runs up the middle up 3 he was not....

If you think running Thomas over and over, and letting him get smacked around some, was a game plan..... Well.....

yosef69 wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 10, 2019 7:26 am

NeersBy90 wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 10, 2019 7:25 am

Does anyone else think Coach Drink is a mastermind? Seems to me he draws up a game plan of just what we need to do, almost the bare minimum in order win. He doesn't ever seem to show his hand or deviate from his plan to blow someone out.

I thought last night especially and in the UNC game, we could've torched them throwing the ball. It was like we got the lead and did just enough to keep us ahead, when we needed to, we took some chances and got the points we needed. I feel like we still have a good chunk of our offensive playbook wide open moving forward.

If this is in fact what is going on, I can't wait to see us open up the playbook.

When drink does it hes a mastermind, but when satt called runs up the middle up 3 he was not....

Yep. I've noticed that same thing. The end of the UNC game and most of this one looked VERY similar to a Satt called game. People got so upset and called him too conservative. The plan for this one was kind of hard to figure out. I think (just my opinion) that Drink went more conservative because they were getting penetration and disrupting the passing game somewhat. There were 3 near interceptions in the first half because Zac was under pressure. Add to that the sacks and he made adjustments. We might see a very different looking offensive game plan if we have a rematch for the conference championship. We will see.

The final drive was an absolute masterclass. I didn't like our overall offensive gameplan as a whole, but the performace in crunchtime over the last 10 minutes makes up for a lot of meh calls in the first 3 quarters.

We had some killer drives, but the last one was the championship drive.

UL keyed on Evans all night and didn't deviate, so Zac was able to take advantage of it and we got the win.

If UL comes to Boone in December and Billy is worth his salt, he's gonna have to plan on stopping Thomas.

The fumblerooski call helped stall a drive. We didn't need to trick them when we were dominating them on that drive.

The Lewzianna DC did a good job of disguising where the pressure was coming from that blew up the play action stuff.

I did surely expect to have more downfield passes, in the first qtr it didn't seem they could cover at all.

ASUTodd wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 10, 2019 7:30 am

If you think running Thomas over and over, and letting him get smacked around some, was a game plan..... Well.....

I agree with you in gest, but I guess my thought was, I never felt like the game was in doubt after we went up 7-0 because of how well our defense played. I was screaming at the TV to run play action on first down the whole second half. They were selling out on the run, I think play action was open the whole second half, even if it was a slant to Henni or something short and quick instead of a home run play.

I also didn't like the trick play Fumble-Ruski on 2nd and 3 from mid-field. It seemed to throw us off track, led to a punt and their lone score of the night.

I'm wondering if he felt like we didn't need to, so we didn't put anything extra on film? Maybe I'm just trying to rationalize why we played conservative and talk myself into believing, there has to be some strategy behind it. Who knows?...

I felt like the offense could have scored more, especially in the first half. Had we not run the trick play and instead run the ball on a "normal" play and eventually scored a TD on that drive, I think the floodgates may have opened up. All in all, I'm certainly not disappointed with a win, but there's definitely growth to be had on that side. I also felt Drink either called it very conservative in order to not show much to the rest of the conference, or their defense did just enough to force the slow play calling - I think it was probably a little of both.

This is a championship football team, last night proved it. If they continue to grow as a team in all aspects, we will be very, very hard to beat this season.

If we didn't open it up for UNC or UL, which is supposedly the biggest competitor in the conference, when would we?
You can't save everything, because sometimes it may be too late.\
Not sure what the game plan was, but it was really conservative for some reason. Drink, i'm sure, knows that winning by bigger margins helps our ranking quest, so I feel like if he thought something would be successful, he would have done it.

The Rock wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 10, 2019 7:54 am

If we didn't open it up for UNC or UL, which is supposedly the biggest competitor in the conference, when would we?
You can't save everything, because sometimes it may be too late.\
Not sure what the game plan was, but it was really conservative for some reason. Drink, i'm sure, knows that winning by bigger margins helps our ranking quest, so I feel like if he thought something would be successful, he would have done it.

Once we got up, and seemed like they couldn't score, we didn't need to open it up. We answered the UNC long drive/score and scored in 5 plays... which makes me think we could've scored more in that game if we wanted to. Why show your hand if we don't need to in order to win? I think (hope may be a better word) we will be ranked with some help from some back half of the ranked folks losing this week, so no need to run it up and show our hand moving forward. The less tape of what we're capable of, the better.

The Rock wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 10, 2019 7:54 am

If we didn't open it up for UNC or UL, which is supposedly the biggest competitor in the conference, when would we?
You can't save everything, because sometimes it may be too late.\
Not sure what the game plan was, but it was really conservative for some reason. Drink, i'm sure, knows that winning by bigger margins helps our ranking quest, so I feel like if he thought something would be successful, he would have done it.

While I tend to agree with this line of thinking, it could be that Drink felt that we could easily win with the game plan he had called, in addition to the defense playing extremely well. Just playing devils advocate, as I have no idea what was going through his head.

I think that those early near-interceptions, especially the one where Hennigan made an incredible play and picked up the first down which very easily could have been a pic 6, changed Drink's play calling to be more conservative. Also, UL said they were going to shut Evans down and they pretty much did but that's what gave Zac those amazing runs. Seeing how the defense was in control on their side allowed Drink to go conservative instead of airing it out.
I'm a little concerned with our punting units now, both kicking and receiving, they've been great all year but had a bad night giving the offense horrible field position and UL's offense good field position.

We missed some opportunities to separate from them in the first half but made plays when we had to in the second.Their punter was lights out and their best weapon. We won with ball control and defense.

We had it 2nd and 2 from about midfield in the second quarter when we ran that trick play and then on third down got tackled for a loss. That was the one series that stood out to me where I thought we could have got some more points before half. Other than getting a little run heavy in the second half I thought Drink was really trying to milk the clock and trust the defense since they were playing so well.

The game was definitely 100% different than what we've seen the rest of the year. I like that in some regards - it shows we aren't a one trick pony and can adjust to the flow of the game and what the defense is giving us.

I like that Drink seems to hold his cards close, but I'd like to see him protect our qb more, especially when we have so many offensive weapons. It was a great game though, I think I paced a hole in my patio.

It might have been worth the 15 yard penalty to have laid their punter out. He was having too easy of a time pinning us.

I expect some adjustments to be made, if they come to Boone, slow their gunners down and not let them win that facet of the game. Those plays should have been game changers, but we worked out of them.