Gavin Wimsatt Commits to Kentucky!!
- Thread starter Knight Shift
- Start date
Bills invite pro lacrosse player Zed Williams to rookie minicamp
NFL scouts need to be willing to look for talent anywhere they can find it.
www.nbcsports.com
Again, unless the QB coach is going to throw the short passes, the Coach can't do much more. The best thing to make that work is for it to click for GW. It is possible.
If you think Gary's hands aren't all over the offense, you're more lost than Wimsatt reading a coverage.
I didn’t realize how lost I was. Thanks for enlightening me.
I think Greg tells his OCs to devise an offense that keeps turnovers down, but otherwise gives them a free hand .
You can say the demand of running the type of conservative offense Schiano wants ties the OC's hands ,but the OC runs the show under those conditions..
HCs, with some exceptions, that started out on the D side tend have their OCs run a more conservative offense.
While HCs that started out on the O side tend to play the O more aggressively
Limiting turnovers were a must IMO. He says it almost daily right. I also think we wanted to control clock. Keep the D fresh. Limit injuries and win the games we can.
We opened it up in the games we needed to with mixed results. Each game is a one game season with different gameplans based on our opponents. But in general, it is true Greg leans conservative on Offense and aggressive on Defense. IMO.
Exactly. Having someone run a hurry up offense means our D is going to be right back on the field.
This is something that has been missed by many- Our defense is our strength at this time and we did not have any explosive WR's.
Controlling the clock and minimizing TO's is huge with where we are at this point.
Yeah- some team just say F-it and go all offensive showtime and it wins them games, but you don't do that when your defense is your strength.
Makes it not look pretty but gets you wins against the teams you can have a chance to beat.
As for Greg and the offense- I am sort of in the agree but disagree.
Somehow- this is the coach that was the first to ever have a RB 2k yds, QB 3k, RB 2k
Also a Coach that in the 2nd half of 2008, could score on anyone.
But- he does tend to get too involved...that 08 team should have been scoring 30 on everyone and never should have had that horrid start. Some of the moves made to correct the offense, was against his will. At least, he listened.
Shoukdnt it be the opposite?
If your defense is great, that gives you the leeway to take more chances on offense.
Because the defense can cover it up.
Our offense needs every shortcut and advantage possible
A bad "fast offense" is just as detrimental as a bad "slow offense".
A "slow" offense 3-and-out takes less than 2min off the clock.
It's the bad part that is the issue. Not the speed.
If you want to "protect" the defense then the offense needs to be productive.
Not "bad but a little slower".
I get the point but...a bad offense chewing up clock for a very good defense to get in while rested is so much better that a bad offense having 4-5 more 3 and outs
Good post. Only point I'll add though is that the game is vastly different today than it was 15-20 years ago.
But any bad offense isn't chewing up clock.
A "slow 3 and out" takes 2min off the clock. That's it. I'm sure defenders are doing backflips (yes I'm being facetious).
I'm not sure where this narrative started.
Any 3 and out is bad - full stop.
Slow or fast doesn't matter.
The objective is to not have as many 3 and outs.
Not have "slower" 3 and outs.
Run the offense with the best odds of not having a 3 and out.
Instead of the offense that runs the slowest 3 and outs.
Would it backfire sometimes?
Sure. But the run up the middle 3 times offense backfires too. With the minimal benefit of a slower 3 and out.
A ball control offense will take more time off the clock for the same amount of points yards it gets vs. a fast offense. That means the D gets more rest, and will spend less total time on the field and have to play fewer snaps. So if you don't have depth on D, a ball control offense constitutes "complimentary" offense.
If you have no depth on D, wouldn’t scoring more points be better than scoring less points?
Assuming the “slow offense” and “fast offense” offer the same production per play (as you said) the fast offense would run more plays, get more yards and presumably score more points.
The “slow offense” would take more time but end up with less production and less points since they are running less plays and “wasting” more time between plays.
I’m trying to think of a way to explain this. OK, two teams play each other. One runs a slow offense one runs fast offense. Both teams score every possession through the first 3/4 of the game. In the fourth quarter which team’s defense has been on the field longer?
Normally I’d agree with you, but not with last season’s personnel. We had a QB who is pretty good at executing most types of design pass plays (except the laterals), but struggles with in game adapting so much so that he was programmed to throw the ball away immediately when a play breaks down.
When your winning 24-0 in the 3rd (and don’t have the ability to execute short safe throws), eating clock by keeping the ball on the ground is playing your hand correctly IMO. I say this because odds of successfully executing enough rehearsed design pass plays to get in scoring position after a full half of game film is available to the opponent is low. Your better off taking the sure time off the clock if you know for sure your going to ask your QB to throw the ball away immediately if the intended receiver isn’t open . Just my opinion.
And when I wrote about 3 and outs, it didn’t mean the bad offense was going to just have slower 3 and outs. But if you try to make them just air the ball more, there will be more 3 and outs
Another point that gets overlooked is we were #11 in sacks allowed. Greg hates negative plays so we throw the ball away a lot and we had a mobile QB. And yes we ran a lot so tough to get sacked.
In my opinion the staff got the most out of our personnel and the players did what they were told to do. We made a big leap forward last year.
As you said, he had some of the best offenses RU has seen and those teams finished 7-5 and 8-5. We also have had some great Defensive teams that were one play away for Conference championships in 2006 and 2012. One play each season OR one less blown call by the refs and those teams win the conference. So that also plays into why Greg coaches as he does.
Last edited:
The ball seemed to be to be thrown away a lot last year, even when the QB was trying to complete the pass.
I'm critical of Greg but I agree, staff got the most out of the team given the limitations at QB. then again, Gav should never have been the QB and Greg should have made that a priority earlier.
but yes, definitely got the most out of the players and that is excellent
Except you're not taking personnel into account. Unless you think anyone can run the air raid offense with any QB and group of recievers. You're also not taking into account turnovers as well as opponent defensive strengths and weaknesses.
I hear what your saying but when you really think it through, the bind we were in really wasn’t Greg’s fault. At the time we signed Gavin, we needed a spark plug - something, anything to feed moral. Greg inherited a disaster like no other rock bottom. Bringing a 4 star QB recruit after his Jr year created buzz that we badly needed. After his redshirt year, Gav struggled early and then got hurt before working his way back for the last few games. Thats where we were last off season. It was a crummy position. We couldn’t go out and recruit a clear starter over Gavin at that point. Building the culture at Rutgers matters - Gavin’s legacy here had to be about “family” giving the 4 star kid who believed in Rutgers when nobody else did the opportunity to step up. It makes sense that we went with what we had last year.
My guess is that Evan couldn’t have added that much and we got more value out of riding that culture message with Gav getting a full, healthy year to show he should be our guy.
have to disagree, he's the steward of the program and buck stops with him. Not having an open comp and bringing in better QBs is 100% on him. Our QB room, until the year was pretty abysmal, not sure anyone would argue otherwise
Correct - our QB room hasn’t been good, but the head coach is managing a multitude of different things at the same time and program perception is another big component of recruiting. We’re not, and will never be a blue blood. If you think otherwise, your not being realistic. The appeal Schiano is marketing is the family culture, and that would’ve taken a sizable hit, if Gavin was kicked to the curb too early after we had convinced his family to have him sacrifice his senior year to come play for RU. There was no way we couldn’t brought in a proven transfer to play over him at that time.
Agreed.
I would say the culture under HC Schiano is opposite.
It's not about making sure one particular player is successful above the team.
Every position is up for grabs.
Nobody is guaranteed anything.
It's all about the team above all else.
It's also directly contradicted by this off season.
Gavin led us to a bowl game and HC Schiano brought in competition anyway. Gavin's feelings be damned.
But we could bring in a proven transfer after Gavin led us to a bowl game?
The actions this off season seem to indicate HC Schiano did follow your reasoning last year. But then realized it was actually a mistake.
look, I can tell you first hand several higher profile QB prospects families almost laughed at the suggestion of coming here because of how we employ and use our QB etc..
Greg owns it all, he's the man at the top. We didn't have a better QB room due to his giving Gav the rope he gave him.
and while I'm far from a Greg cheerleader, I like his recent moves and many facets of his coaching. It's just that where he is bad, he's really bad
I don’t see it that way. The bowl appearance doesn’t make Gavin “the guy” in broad perception. Not when he clogged in dead last amongst all D1 QBs in every ranking system out there. To me - the optics going into last off season were - this is our time to see what Gavin can do following a super redshirt year (high school age) and then an injury riddled season. We gave him that chance last year and he produced the numbers he did. It’s not like we didn’t bring in Sheppard and recruit Surace in the pipeline. What we didn’t do was grab a proven starter from the portal because that would’ve “kicked Gavin to the curb” without perceivable giving him a fair shake.
Winning 7 games last season despite Gavin’s numbers just paints the picture that other areas of the program are progressing - we gave Gavin every chance possible to step up here nd it just didn’t work out. No hard feelings - now move on.
But when has HC Schiano ever not brought in competition just to make sure one particular player "got a fair shake"?
That's the disagreement.
HC Schiano went against his culture by not attempting to upgrade the position.
Perhaps he did try and was unable to.
But that is different than "We aren't bringing in competition. Gavin has to get a fair shake because he's a 4 star player."
That's not the "culture" HC Schiano seems to espouse.
But we did bring in a QB. Sheppard. And we had Evan returning who had some experience. The only other step to take would’ve been to go out an experienced player from the portal which, as AK turned out to be, would’ve been a clear sign that we’re looking to move on. It was too soon at that point to do that.
Maybe there's a simpler explanation: Until Kaliakmanis, Schiano didn't see a QB in the transfer portal that he thought would be better than Wimsatt. Keep in mind as well that Kirk Ciarocca had just arrived last year as offensive coordinator and that Wimsatt was a younger player -- it was reasonable to hope that Wimsatt would improve (as indeed he did) under Ciarrocca. Finally, keep in mind there is something unique about Kaliakmanis -- he had QB'd under Ciarrocca and so had a track record with him and familiarity with his offense. I'm not at all sure that a transfer QB would have been brought in otherwise.
To put it differently, I don't think that anything other than football considerations were at work in Schiano's decisions about Wimsatt.
I would be curious of who those families were - over the past few years- very few NJ Kids have been all that high ranked at QB. Steve Angeli at ND looks to be a player but was ranked lower than GW and none of the rest since 21 have really had any playing time. There looks to be less than 5 NJ QB's since 21 that have committed to the P4.
With that said- I have learned first hand that player families don't have any clue about what the kid is going to do...They all think they have his ear but rarely do.
And- I still have a major issue with GS taking an entire recruiting cycle without a QB.
I think we can put to rest GV rating, not even sure how many reasonable scout or coach would have thought him that high from HS and work out films.
I mentioned on the RT last summer and fall including when one visited with Saban. no wb rated worth any salt is really giving this staff a legit look. you are right on the kids however, kids can be fickle
happy to share all I know over a beer one day
The strange thing with NJ "parents" in general- they just look down on Rutgers. And not only for sports. I know so many parents so proud of their kids getting in places like Syracuse and other type places and I ask if they had applied to Rutgers and almost always- "They did but was hoping they wouldn't have to be stuck going there" or something similar.
We have so much infighting in the state about Rutgers that no one is really promoting just how good of an education it is and the status it carries everywhere but in NJ.
Just weird.
Even when our son committed, so many asked- "did he get any other offers?"
Tempo was once a way for the underdog to even out the playing field a little.
Since then, defenses have caught up and the risk/reward is no longer there for teams at a talent disadvantage.
The lone exception is a team that throws 75%+ (like Air Raid and Run n’ Shoot teams). Those teams want to go fast so the defense isn’t given an opportunity to disguise. That in turn helps the QB make better passing reads.
Since then, defenses have caught up and the risk/reward is no longer there for teams at a talent disadvantage.
The lone exception is a team that throws 75%+ (like Air Raid and Run n’ Shoot teams). Those teams want to go fast so the defense isn’t given an opportunity to disguise. That in turn helps the QB make better passing reads.
very true but that's on Rutgers. Rutgers doe not market itself well
