TCY Groupthink - North Carolina State Wolfpack

[CraigSca]

Sweet, thanks Ben!

[WSUCougar]

Aaagh! I feel like I'm already way behind.

First, a few critical (to me) issues I need to know:

1. What was the resolution of the issue replacing TCY files? If this entails losing my current dynasty I'm afraid I must bow out. On a related note, can someone please either post or PM me a step-by-step process of what exactly to do in terms of the files (which ones, where to put them, etc.).

2. What is the targeted pace of this Group Think? I realize this is the exciting start-up phase, but you guys are jamming and I'm wary of committing to something if the rest of the staff is geared up for fast-paced progress and I'd slow things down too much.

3. How are we divvying up the Recruiting Coordinator duties, Coach? Or is that up to me and cthomer to work out?

Thanks.

Coug

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Without a strong QB, I'd say that FB Pete Dodge will help us more offensively than adding a third WR. RB Orlando Macri has the potential to be a star, but could use the extra blocker at least for this year. The offensive line is a little better at run blocking than pass blocking right now as well. I'd be concerned about leaving our QB back there in this league--unless we throw a *lot* of short passes.

but do you think it's worth switching an offense our coordinator has 5 years experience in when I'm sure you guys will be trying to replace the O.C. next year anyway?

IMHO, I don't know if getting an FB in the mix is worth the loss of formation experience. You could always red-shirt any good FB's we have, let some walk-ons take their spots on the active roster, and then unleash them next year.

just a thought from one of your scouts.

[Huckleberry]

My other concern, even though the FBs may make it a solid idea, is that it seems we have the ability to run a normal set this year and then trips next year. I don't think we'd want to go through 2 consecutive years of formation change.

WSUCougar -

I think you're right about this being the startup phase. I don't plan on being able to devote 30 minutes every night to the project. I did want to get a good start because the most work will be in week one and then it should be less intensive from there, right? I will be taking another look tonight at my position unit and finishing up what I consider to be my pre-season one activities.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by cthomer5000

but do you think it's worth switching an offense our coordinator has 5 years experience in when I'm sure you guys will be trying to replace the O.C. next year anyway?

IMHO, I don't know if getting an FB in the mix is worth the loss of formation experience. You could always red-shirt any good FB's we have, let some walk-ons take their spots on the active roster, and then unleash them next year.

just a thought from one of your scouts.

That's an excellent idea! I could definitely get behind this:

1. Stick with trips this year.
2. Redshirt both Senior FB's.
3. Give the walk-ons 50 in study hall time so they don't hurt us academically.
4. Evaluate the FB/WR situation during recruiting this year and let that be a primary determinant of our long-term offensive set.

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

2. What is the targeted pace of this Group Think? I realize this is the exciting start-up phase, but you guys are jamming and I'm wary of committing to something if the rest of the staff is geared up for fast-paced progress and I'd slow things down too much.

I don't know, but I think now might be a good time for me to make it clear I do not have game access during the work day.

3. How are we divvying up the Recruiting Coordinator duties, Coach? Or is that up to me and cthomer to work out?

I'll split it anyway you'd like. I think by positions or states are the easiest (only?) way to do so.

[WSUCougar]

Originally Posted by cthomer5000

I'll split it anyway you'd like. I think by positions or states are the easiest (only?) way to do so.

You take offense, I'll take defense?

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

You take offense, I'll take defense?

works for me. If you even want to swap occasionally (or each year), I'd be fine with that.

I think we'll really have to get together on planning visits. We need to stretch every dollar we can out of the travel budget.

[MikeVick7]

Red-shirt questions for the defensive staff (Quiksand...Vegas Vic & Tredwell)

Quiksand - D-Line
- Do we lift the red-shirt off of our best DE CJ Schmaltz?
- If so...since we have 6 on the roster...do we RS Blaine Finch or Timothy Carter? Those are the only two possibilities when looking at red-shirting someone else.
- With our DT's...is Grant Singh our best bet in the red-shirting department?

Vegas Vic - LB's
- Does red-shirting Levon Poston make sense? We seem to have enough depth at OLB to stick someone in as a back-up.
- Of our 4 senior OLB's...do we look at slapping the RS on Erik Hoke? He seems to be the most underdeveloped of all the seniors.

Tredwell - DB's
- Do we have the ability to RS any of our 5 CB's? I think we have to when taking next year into consideration.
- If so...is Henry Westbrook our best bet?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Balldog

Sorry, keep in mind I haven't seen the roster yet. Just seen a couple people suggest sticking with the trips, I personally would prefer to eventually run out of the I or single-back have my backfield coach slit his wrists.

Fixed it for ya!

[cthomer5000]

I think there is little doubt SkyDog wants the FB involved in the offense. I guess I or pro-form are our only real options, right?

[WSUCougar]

*begins chanting*

Veer Veer Veer!

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by cthomer5000

I think there is little doubt SkyDog wants the FB involved in the offense. I guess I or pro-form are our only real options, right?

I wouldn't go that far. Just messin' around right then. My post before that expresses my true feelings. I think that decision should get made based largely on how things look early on with the FBs/WRs that we are eyeing in recruiting.

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

I wouldn't go that far. Just messin' around right then. My post before that expresses my true feelings. I think that decision should get made based largely on how things look early on with the FBs/WRs that we are eyeing in recruiting.

(Ok, slipping into my actual role now)

Given the pressing needs at 3+ other positions (I think CB, DT, and G are critical) it certainly would be easier to just not recruit one more position.

So (as a scout) I'm inclined to say, lets scrap the FB so we can go after more immediate needs. That would probably be the best move for year 2 success.

However, we all want to be in this for the long haul. I think we can afford to make a better long-term decision even if it makes this season's recruiting more of a balancing act.

Also, I'm not averse to giving out more scholarships than I usually would in a single year. We have a lot of needs for next year.

[Coffee Warlord]

I won't get to look at the situation till tonight, but I'm of the opinion we break out whatever formation we're gonna stick with For All Eternity this year.

Trips or Single Back are fine with my pass happy self.

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

I won't get to look at the situation till tonight, but I'm of the opinion we break out whatever formation we're gonna stick with For All Eternity this year.

While I can understand this thought, I don't know if you'll feel the same way once you see our offensive coordinator.

I'm more in the 'lets use whatever (little bit) this guy can give us and then can his ass' camp.

I think we may just need to make do with some lamde-duck staff members before unveiling the 'true' Wolfpack program next year.

[TredWel]

Originally Posted by MikeVick7

Tredwell - DB's
- Do we have the ability to RS any of our 5 CB's? I think we have to when taking next year into consideration.
- If so...is Henry Westbrook our best bet?

I think we have to redshirt one of the seniors - they'd be more valuable as a starte next season than a nickleback this season. I vote for Shane McNeil. I'd much rather he be the feature corner next season than Henry Westbrook. Westbrook comes from a 0 Athletic Prep school, so it's doubtful if he'll ever realize his potential in his time with us. McNeil is just as good as Westbrook will ever be. It'll be better next season to make McNeil the playmaker. Westbrook can survive as the #2 CB behind this year's playmaker, Ralph Spaulding.

And for safety, I suggest redshirting Roy Murphy. He's got plenty of talent to grow into, and will probably start next season when O.J. Brooks graduates.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by cthomer5000

While I can understand this thought, I don't know if you'll feel the same way once you see our offensive coordinator.

I'm more in the 'lets use whatever (little bit) this guy can give us and then can his ass' camp.

I think we may just need to make do with some lamde-duck staff members before unveiling the 'true' Wolfpack program next year.

He must go, and go quickly.

[cthomer5000]

man that guy sucks. he's very congenial though, I'll give him that.

[Huckleberry]

Oh my goodness, Mack Brown is our offensive coordinator!!!



Please note that the injury avoidance rating disagrees.

ed. - Does this mean we should take a couple of chances in recruiting offensive players this season with his terrific congeniality?

[WSUCougar]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

Oh my goodness, Mack Brown is our offensive coordinator!!!



Please note that the injury avoidance rating disagrees.

ed. - Does this mean we should take a couple of chances in recruiting offensive players this season with his terrific congeniality?

LOL

(And that's not a bad idea.)

[Coffee Warlord]

Oh dear god. Hookay, this season we do whatever.

[MikeVick7]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

He must go, and go quickly.

Well as bad as our O-Coordinator is...take a peek and see how bad our D-Coordinator is. Good lord.

[Coffee Warlord]

Post it.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

Post it.

Looking now...

[Ben E Lou]

[Coffee Warlord]

Welp.

At least I now know where John Shoop and Greg Blache are.

[Huckleberry]

Um, I guess we'll be good in the trenches?

[QuikSand]

Defensive Line Report

We're not in awful shape here - but we lack sufficient depth to field a high quality four-man line right now. I would support starting out with a base 3-4 setup, or else using a quality LB in the DE position in the 4-3. I will assume that we are using a 3-4, for these purposes.

We must immediately lift the redshort on C.J. Schmaltz and get him slotted at DE. He should be a solid starter for two more seasons, and his development arc has been just fine. Schmaltz and Dwayne Finch should be our starters at DE -- Finch is a solid run stopper in particular, and later in the season we might want to try him out in the middle, even.

At DT, we should be prepared to start our one quality player, David Finley. Our DL reserves will be the respectable Leslie Davis and Timothy Carter. Wayne Davidson has potential, but looks like the type that might never really deliver on his promise -- we'll try to give him some time, but expectations shoudl be tempered.

We should redshirt Grant Singh - he is an academic standout, and if he gives us a decent year of development, he could be useful next season -- perhaps to allow us the luxury of redshirting a top recruit or two. He should do well academically, so having him here for five seasons is just great anyway.

Recruiting at the DT position is a very high priority.

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Recruiting at the DT position is a very high priority.

Noted (and I'm in full agreement). Start pestering WSUCougar with your list of dream recruits.

[CraigSca]

Hmmm....our defensive coordinator not only sucks, but he's a jerk too.

[CraigSca]

As far as timing of the group think is concerned, I was thinking the first week might take a week (our first advance then would be next Friday). After that, I was planning about 3 days in-between weeks, as most of the depth charting and schemes have already been worked out. I'll see how that goes (whether we need more time or not), but I'd certainly like to work at a pace that's at least slightly faster than real life (i.e. I don't want to be ending our first season after Christmas).

Any thoughts?

[CraigSca]

In order to facilitate a sim by next Friday, I will need the following from the coordinators/recruiters.

Offensive/Defensive Coordinators: finalized plans for redshirts, formations, game plans, and time management numbers

Recruiters: Finalized list of recruits, along with communications requested (phone/onsite, visit request?)

Once received, I'll reserve the right to change any of this for the sim, but I guarantee you 99% of it I'll just keep. Before then, however, I will be offering my opinions as we progress.

Buzzbee, feel free to begin preparations for the Ohio game.

[CraigSca]

dola^4

I'm really interested in putting together a balanced offense. I know we need to make allowances for our personnel, but I'd like to see an offense that averages 400 yards per game, split evenly between the run and the pass (and I want it NOW ).

To be a good team, I think we'll need a rushing attack that can eat up the clock (for the days when our defense needs it and the game situation dictates). However, we also need a passing attack to facilitate quick scores when we need it. From a pragmatic point of view, it would be nice to have both so all position coaches are involved as well.

Don't have the game in front of me at the moment, but I'm thinking that means I-formation or multiple pro...any others?

[Coffee Warlord]

That sounds like a plea for the Run 'n Shoot to me.

Nothin' wrong with the I or the Pro Set (I prefer the Pro for a balanced game), other than the point that we can't 'cheat' recruiting and have to recruit personnel at all the offensive positions.

[Buzzbee]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

Buzzbee, feel free to begin preparations for the Ohio game.

Will do. Haven't downloaded the files yet, as Ivan was monkeying around and turned out my lights last night. Should be able to scout Ohio tonight.

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

That sounds like a plea for the Run 'n Shoot to me.

Nothin' wrong with the I or the Pro Set (I prefer the Pro for a balanced game), other than the point that we can't 'cheat' recruiting and have to recruit personnel at all the offensive positions.

Ultimately, I'd like every offensive position coaches position on this. However, just to make it fun for everyone, it's the only way to go (unless someone can explain to me differently).

Edit: And since this is a group think, having holes in a recruiting plan really shouldn't be a problem (as it is in single-player mode) as we have position coaches having their needs heard.

[WSUCougar]

I could be mistaken (since I don't run the Pro) but that might mean we'll need FBs who can run the ball, as opposed to the I fullbacks who are primarily blockers. I realize there are exceptions to those general thoughts, but I thought I'd mention it.

[Huckleberry]

As the receivers coach, I have no issue with any set. I'll have lots of WRs in a run 'n shoot and WRs and TEs in an I or pro set. As I said looking at our personnel, I would like to see the trips. I will yield to those with more TCY knowledge, but I think we can run out of the trips set with good blocking TEs. Obviously you're right that the pound it out game won't be as effective without a lead blocker. Could we recruit one big inside back to have every season to make up for that? I don't know.

I just think it will be a waste with our WR depth next year if it turns out our Terrible receivers scout is close to accurate to only ever have two on the field. Then again, we could set ourselves up for failure to base our future on a Terrible scout's perception of our squad.

On a more personal note, if I got to design a team and all my players, I would have an offense based on the I formation. Once again, tell me if I'm wrong, but a pro formation requires a more versatile fullback than may be available most years. With the I, you can really narrow down the skills your FB position needs to possess. edit - I had the post screen up for a while and WSUCougar touched on this aspect.

[CraigSca]

Fortunately, we have time to decide this, but I'd like to pick formations sooner rather than later as a lot of future input will depend on it. I'll wait for Balldog to chime in with his input, and then we'll make a decision.

As far as defense is concerned, it sounds like a 3-4 is our temporary formation of choice. Fortunately, changing the defensive formation doesn't have the drawbacks that the offense has.

[gstelmack]

Wolfpack Fans Anxious for New Season
Staff Writer gstelmack
RALEIGHT - As a new season gets underway, fans of the N.C. State Wolfpack are anxious to see how the Athletic Department manages to turn things around. There are some concerns that the new era is getting off to a slow start, as much of the original coaching staff remains intact. "Troy Brooks is a nice guy, but being a nice guy leads to an awful lot of 4th-and-7s" said one student interviewed on campus. "And Larry Duffy doesn't even have the nice guy thing going for him".

On the plus side, there are some solid players on the roster. There are some holes for next year at Defensive Tackle, Offensive Guard, and Cornerback, but the staff is working heavily on some promising recruits. The rest of the lineup is at least solid. There's a lot of interest in this years crop of Running Backs, nicknamed "The Young Jedi" in what appears to be an inside joke (no current players would comment, although there was lots of snickering and mention of a "flag" and a "split"). The LB core has some solid depth. And there appears to be a major QB controversy shaping up, which can be both a good and a bad thing.

The real tale for this new Department Staff will be shown next year, when they start acquiring their own recruits and have had a year to evaluate the staff. The fans may give them a honeymoon year, but the controversial decision to take it slow on the staff may come back to haunt them. A few wins will make that decision a distant memory, however.

[MikeVick7]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

As far as defense is concerned, it sounds like a 3-4 is our temporary formation of choice. Fortunately, changing the defensive formation doesn't have the drawbacks that the offense has.

Yes the 3-4 is the consensus so far. I think you can pretty much pencil that in as our base defense this year. I personally would like to look at switching over to a 4-3 base next season, but our strength's obviously in the 3-4.

So Craig...did you want the position specific coaches to come up with their own time management calculations? Or is that something the coordinators should be doing?

[MikeVick7]

Dola - Oh I'm enjoying our staff writer.

[Huckleberry]

Here's an outside the box thought that might be useless because I don't have TCY in front of me:

Can WRs switch to CB in TCY? Perhaps one of our junior WR studs could help shore up the CB position if we switch to a 2 WR set.

[Balldog]

Will download file after work and chime in on thoughts of formation.

[WSUCougar]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

Can WRs switch to CB in TCY?

Yes, they can.

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by MikeVick7

Dola - Oh I'm enjoying our staff writer.

I'm just waiting until he starts writing harsh editorials questioning our staff's decisions.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

I'm just waiting until he starts writing harsh editorials questioning our staff's decisions.

Oh, it's coming...

[MikeVick7]

Originally Posted by TredWel

And for safety, I suggest redshirting Roy Murphy. He's got plenty of talent to grow into, and will probably start next season when O.J. Brooks graduates.

Tredwel - Because we only have 4 safeties on the roster...would red-shirting Roy Murphy cause the game to produce one of those crappy walk-on's that drag down our GPA? I'm definitely all for saving talent for next season where we can but I'm afraid that this will hurt us by creating the walk-on.

Am I wrong in assuming this?

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by MikeVick7

Am I wrong in assuming this?

We can keep cutting the walk-ons until one with a reasonable GPA appears.

edit: or just max out study time since we don't need their on-field skills whatsoever