Vedral harassed all game, he still played clean no turnovers, we win end of discussion.
DELETE
- Thread starter RepeatedCrown6
- Start date
Tommy Devito throws a nice deep ball. What did that get Syracuse yesterday? A loss.
How about: Vedral might not win a game for you but he also won't lose one?
I seem to recall a guy named Nova who would do both. And people went nut about that too.
I seem to recall a guy named Nova who would do both. And people went nut about that too.
I don’t think he’s a P5 starter talent but it’s clear we’ve got nobody better.
What I don’t buy into is the view that we’re saving ‘better’ offense until we need it. We got a few lucky breaks and pulled out a close win.
This wasn’t a masterful job of showing just enough to win, that’s for sure. Could easily have lost with this lack of creativity and production.
What I don’t buy into is the view that we’re saving ‘better’ offense until we need it. We got a few lucky breaks and pulled out a close win.
This wasn’t a masterful job of showing just enough to win, that’s for sure. Could easily have lost with this lack of creativity and production.
Wait a minute a few lucky breaks? What are the three turnovers 2 of which were strips, I think we coach that, an interception to close down their last drive,? Korsak switching the field and putting three or four punts inside the 20 with an overall +20 punting differential, and the offense not turning the ball over, I do agree we were not saving anything, Vedral certainly isn’t a dynamic QB, but he managed the game didn’t make a signiicant error threw his best pass of the day for the go ahead TD.
You can run circles around most of us with your knowledge? Bold words. You must have a ton of head coaching experience in both sports at the college or HS level. I’d be curious to know where you got all that superior knowledge.
Although, it kind of doesn’t matter, right? Being “more knowledgeable“ about sports than a bunch of other sports fans on the internet doesn’t mean you‘re more knowledgeable about football than Schiano, right? Or are you also claiming that you could coach better than Schiano? And Schiano keeps choosing Vedral. He also said Vedral did a good job on Saturday after the game. Hm.
I‘m just trying to establish some credibility for your claim of superiority over most of us. So do tell.
Jake….and you think Schiano was holding back offense and was satisfied with no points in the first half ? He was definitely not saving anything at the expense of possibly losing. You only hold back if the game is already locked up.
We made good plays, but the SU red zone fumble toward the end of the half was a lucky break because there wasn’t a camera angle to possibly overturn the call. Did you think he was down ?
And the boneheaded Babers penalty was lucky for us.
Despite the many good plays by the D and ST, I don’t think we’d have won without either or both of those things
We made good plays, but the SU red zone fumble toward the end of the half was a lucky break because there wasn’t a camera angle to possibly overturn the call. Did you think he was down ?
And the boneheaded Babers penalty was lucky for us.
Despite the many good plays by the D and ST, I don’t think we’d have won without either or both of those things
You could try his name. Something like “Vedral clearly has limitations that will prevent this offense from being elite, or maybe even average.”
Instead, you went with “pile of waste” and “trash.”
Do you really not see the difference? No one is asking you to sing his praises. Just have a mature adult discussion.
BOTH Cuse QBs completed 60%-plus of their passes. 191 passing yards combined.. Vedral completed more passes, a higher 78% percentage, for 50 yards LESS on only 3 fewer attempts.
If you actually watched, you would have seen Devito begin the game hitting many passes on timed routes.. that is, 2-3 step drop and THROW.. no waiting for a rush to get him. You need accuracy and timing to do that. Certainly, we have seen MANY teams come in with the same plan vs Schiano defenses.. most notably Cincinnati was famous for it and that famous UNH and Nova losses were because of that.
In this case, Rutgers D adjusted.. not taking as many chances.. mixing up blitzes and covering more.
I repeat, Vedral is not very good... or, rather, he did not play well THIS game nor the prior game. He has had a few better games.. he knows it.. the coaches know it.. we all know it. He has run hard and with desire at times last year. We have not seen that this year.
I am not convinced the playcalling and design are working to his advantage. But there were many cases where Vedral seemed to have an option to keep or handoff and in each case he chose the wrong option.
He has to see that himself watching game film. Anyone with eyes can see it if you are willing to look for such things.
EDIT: I just reviewed the top of the thread... OP DID INDEED got to "pile of waste" after a simple and calm response to his hyperbolic OP.
Okay.. he probably deserved the names tossed his way. But some here are using his behavior to justify branding every who is publicly criticizing Vedral as morons, d-bags, etc. That's as least as bad as what OP did about one QB.
In most cases (and this one included) the "lucky break" argument is weak. There are key plays on both sides that go into a win or a loss. Melton dropped a TD Pass, another called back for Offensive Interference, miss on a chippy Field Goal attempt etc. There are also boneheaded or bad penalties for both sides as well that tie into sustaining or killing drives. Bottom line - RU was not "lucky" and to break the game outcome down into luck on single plays is silly. There are 3 units (Offense, Defense and Specials). We won because of better Defense & superior Specials combined with a plus 3 Turnover margin.
I don't believe that RU is holding back on offense. That being said, it's as if some of you are expecting the aerial show of Mahomes and KC Offense to step out on the field every week. For a team like RU who with Schiano has re-emerged from the shadows but still isn't exactly a powerhouse - game planning every week (especially on offense) will likely create different looks each week. For instance, you may see more gadgets and a higher degree of RPO come into play against a team like Michigan on the road in two weeks. It was apparent to me that the plan against Syracuse was to establish and leverage a power running game early. When that was derailed, Option B appeared to be to go to a short, passing game to replace the ineffective run game. The overall offensive line play was not very good in neither the running nor passing attack. The reason that Schiano praised Vedral after the game is that he (Schiano) knows very well how bad his O-line play was and gives credit to his QB for not making costly mistakes when faced with that.
Insanity...yes, there's a luck to every aspect of the game. Bad luck for a receiver to drop a pass, good luck for a punter to get a 15 yard roll and bad luck for the turf monster to tackle a runner. That's football. Luck is part of sports.
But the two examples I cited above weren't 'just football'. The fumble was probably a bad call and it was lucky that no camera had the definitive angle. And the Babers penalty had nothing at all to do with Rutgers play so was also pure luck.
I'm glad we got those two calls. I don't think we'd have won otherwise. Especially the fumble. If we go down 7-0 there, or even 3-0...even though just the first half, I think we lose given the state of the offense.
But the two examples I cited above weren't 'just football'. The fumble was probably a bad call and it was lucky that no camera had the definitive angle. And the Babers penalty had nothing at all to do with Rutgers play so was also pure luck.
I'm glad we got those two calls. I don't think we'd have won otherwise. Especially the fumble. If we go down 7-0 there, or even 3-0...even though just the first half, I think we lose given the state of the offense.
Last edited:
as an FYI ......the OP has posted similar in other threads about Vedral (i.e. the Simon thread).
I also don 't believe we are holding too much back and that worries me
Regarding holding back. No, we are not Ohio State or Oregon, but here's what Ohio State's DC had to say about their loss to Oregon. Maybe RU has not shown everything, and maybe they are working on some plays. We shall see.
Oregon had particular success on plays to the boundary side of the field. Coombs said that was something the Ducks hadn't shown in last week's 31-24 win over Fresno State.
"I think that that's where we had difficulty," he said.
Oregon had particular success on plays to the boundary side of the field. Coombs said that was something the Ducks hadn't shown in last week's 31-24 win over Fresno State.
"I think that that's where we had difficulty," he said.
“Saving better offense”? No. Deciding not to run with the higher risk / reward style of play calling we saw last year at any point in either of the two first games this season where we were favored to win both match ups and never trailed in either game? That seems pretty reasonable to me.
I disagree and think we are holding some stuff back. But we have no way to prove it. Guess we'll find out when we play MSU.
I expect that the bland play-calling will continue for the Delaware game. And, unless our O line improves drastically between now and the UM game, I expect that we'll be overmatched enough in the OSU and UM games that our QB(s) will be running for their lives rather than being able to pick apart the opponent's defenses with precision passing.
I would be ecstatic to be proven wrong about that. But I won't be judging our QB room or play calling based on those two games, not unless we pull off a surprise upset. I think we'll plan to open things up more, but won't have a lot of success.
Once we get to the Michigan State game, though, I think we will finally have a game in which I think GSII and crew will open things up on offense and we'll have enough success at it to fairly measure play calling and QB play against good competition. I think we'll see a ton more vertical passing, especially to tight ends.
Do you mean Michigan Sept. 25, or Michigan State on October 9. Because if you do, we should open up the playbook sooner, giving RU a better chance to beat BOTH Michigan and Ohio State.
Mild...your methodical, planned schedule for a real college offense would make sense if our QB and skill position guys were new starters.
They aren't. And you can be sure Schiano doesn't determine how far into the playbook to go based on which team is favored. That makes absolutely no sense.
Games start 0-0 and from that point on the objective is to score. Still having 0 at halftime is not the plan.
They aren't. And you can be sure Schiano doesn't determine how far into the playbook to go based on which team is favored. That makes absolutely no sense.
Games start 0-0 and from that point on the objective is to score. Still having 0 at halftime is not the plan.
In both the UM and OSU games, think we will try all kinds of stuff, with no restrictions other than whatever the game context suggests. No holding back.
I just don’t think it will work well enough, or that we’ll even get enough opportunities on O, to learn anything useful about about our play calling or QB play. So while we’ll plan to show more, it’ll be a case of having a wide open, everything but the kitchen sink, plan - but being punched in the mouth, to use a Tysonism.
We’re just not, IMO, playing anywhere near the level those two teams appear to be playing right now. So I think we’ll be too overmatched to use either game as an indicator of how we’ll play against more mid-tier conference opponents.
Again, I really want to be proven wrong.
Yes, you're a troll because of comments like this:
I never suggested that the plan is to be 0-0 at the half. Although, considering where we’re at, that would be an excellent result against UM and OSU and give us a much better shot at winning than being down by 40, having thrown 4 INTs in the first half, right?
Holding stuff back isn‘t a binary thing. It’s not like we either open 100% of the season playbook that we installed in camp, or else keep the whole thing closed. It’s a game by game, context-driven thing where the coaching staff will do whatever they think gives us the best chance to win the game on any given day.
If the coaching staff doesn’t see a need to demonstrate our vertical passing game against Delaware to beat them, then we probably won’t see much vertical passing again. We’ll practice it, in case we need it, but won’t show it unless we need it on game day.
I think we have a lot more in the bag and that we’ll try to pull some of it out versus UM and OSU, with limited success. But that we’ll do better, especially with vertical passing, in the MSU game.
Did you see Rutgers' first offensive series? We almost scored, and then we scored and were penalized. It was "almost" 14-0.
I agree with you. We saw at least a couple of plays with longer passes (one for a TD to Haskins (30 yards), and another one where Vedral overthrew Melton by about 3-5 yards (just out of his reach when he dived/dove for the ball).
Those plays are part of what makes me think we're practicing and probably even somewhat confident to throw the ball vertically more often, if we need to do so.Did you see Rutgers' first offensive series? We almost scored, and then we scored and were penalized. It was "almost" 14-0.
I agree with you. We saw at least a couple of plays with longer passes (one for a TD to Haskins (30 yards), and another one where Vedral overthrew Melton by about 3-5 yards (just out of his reach when he dived/dove for the ball).
Also, somebody, a player or coach, mentioned during the preseason that the team has been practicing a lot w/more explosive (i.e. long-yardage) plays. I *think* it might have been Vedral that said it. That makes me think that we're likely to see more attempts as passing downfield, over the middle, slants, slots, etc. as the season progresses.
Might not show up much against UM/OSU, although we'll try. But hopefully it'll appear often after that.
It's all guess-work for now. But I'm excited to see what actually happens. Either way, the OL issues need to be at least somewhat fixed. Be nice to dominate Delaware's DL, give our guys some confidence and reward for what I'm sure is a lot of hard work they're putting in.
UM defense was nasty against Washington.
Allowed 50 yards of rushing. 4 sacks, 5 QB hurries.
RU had 50 yds rushing against Syracuse.
Exactly. I think we're in for a tough time in the UM game. But who knows, maybe Washington's OC isn't as clever as Gleeson. Maybe we match up better in some ways. Maybe our OL will magically solve all their issues in the span of two weeks.
Yeah his decision-making on the options have been off this year. Hopefully he cleans that up and we start seeing some better decisions that lead to bigger plays and not as many "stuffs" at the LOS.
That is exactly it. Don't know if Greg was being cagey, but he specifically addressed how Syracuse had defensive packages that were unique and difficult to prepare for. Maybe it was (and always is) coach speak and being deferential to your opponent.
Here’s to hoping the ’Cuse defense was truly very good. Or at least a really bad matchup for our O. Otherwise, we could be in for a lot of pain in some games this season. LOL.
Every game is it's own entity and can be thrown off by poor matchups.
Freaking Ohio U (not tOSU) had 346 total yards of offense, 212 passing, 134 rushing and 5/12 on 3rd downs. Is Ohio U better than RU on offense?
Ohio U lost to FCS Duquesne this past Saturday, gaining fewer yards on offense (307), 168 passing and 139 rushing, and only 1/7 on third downs. Is Duquesne's defense better than Syracuse's defense?
It has been a weird couple of weeks with FCS and low-level FBS teams knocking off FBS and P5 teams. Except that previous statement does not apply to UConn!!!!
You want me to sugar coat things. We are never allowed to say anything bad about a player's abilities.
He's absolutely horrendous as a P5 Starting QB. That doesn't mean he is a bad person, or a bad teammate. He just isn't talented enough to play the position he has been put in.
Calling someone trash, garbage, pile of waste, etc. is behavior which should definitely be called out. You should be ashamed of referring to a college kid like that just because he doesn't live up to your expectations in how he plays a game.
He is not a kid, he is actually classified as an adult
Well don’t talk like that about kids or adults. Not difficult.
I'm inclined to think that it's not really that we are holding things back.
It's more that each game plan is made based on anticipated matchups. In our games to date the staff's game plan did not include a lot of flashy offense. More likely they are hoping to establish a running game as you said above.
Vedral did throw downfield a few times in the SU game, and was pretty successful in those plays (one was a TD. one was a TD called back for OPI, and one was dropped in the End Zone, another one was incomplete / overthrown). So while were not playing the run & shoot, we are throwing downfield occasionally.
Crown...coming from someone who doesn't think Schiano deserved an 8 yr contract, who thinks when RU wins it's more often despite him rather than because of him, and who thinks he has a knack for always making the wrong QB decision....even for me the 'pile of trash' description of Vedral goes too far.
I've said that he's not P5 starter talent. Your characterization of him goes beyond football, which is obviously undeserved.
I've also described Myles Johnson similarly, but the negative stuff is only about the athlete, not the person.
I've said that he's not P5 starter talent. Your characterization of him goes beyond football, which is obviously undeserved.
I've also described Myles Johnson similarly, but the negative stuff is only about the athlete, not the person.