My Obervations

[Furmanoid]

I’m afraid they’ve already tried everything they can think of. So either they aren’t up to the task of figuring it out or our uber talented team really isn’t all that talented and there aren’t any viable fixes.

[Sad Din]

Yep. with 3 games to go probably will go 1-3. 2-3 would be great and 3-0 would be a miracle

If there was a bye week could put some things in. But at this point doubtful

Maybe they could try some simple things to try to confused the opposing D a little such as:

1. Wildcat formation
2. give a series to Hamp or another QB
3. Pitch more

Will say this, Dins used to be pretty good at winning the corner. Anderson is a speedy back. Not any more. Those corner plays are sniffed out for no gain

IDK if the issue is wih blocking by the receivers. There are some schools that run this a good bit. The other team knows this but they are still successful

Some gotta find a way to either score 2 TDs per game or kick 5 FGs per game. Beleive it or not that gives Dins a chance to win

[Paul C]

Yep. with 3 games to go probably will go 1-3. 2-3 would be great and 3-0 would be a miracle.

Not sure what you’re saying here.

[MNORM]

Yep. with 3 games to go probably will go 1-3. 2-3 would be great and 3-0 would be a miracle.

Not sure what you’re saying here.

I'm pretty sure he meant to write, "with 3 games to go probably will go 1-2. 2-1 would be great and 3-0 would be a miracle".

[The Jackal]

I look at UGA's football team right now and see a template.

I don't say that because UGA is clearly the best team in the country. I say that because of how they got there.

UGA is not outstanding in many aspects of offensive football. They are 9th in the SEC in passing yards per game. They are 6th in rushing yards per game. 9th in passing yards.

They score a good bit, but some of that is skewed by the large number of non-offensive touchdowns they are able to score on defense and special teams.

UGA's offense rotates a bunch of running backs. No single running back is top 10 in the SEC in rushing yards. They have an undersized QB without a stellar arm. They don't have a standout receiver. Their leading pass catcher is a TE.

The defense, however, is outstanding. Teams struggle to score on them.

How are they so dominant? My opinion:

(1) Excellent defensive football. The defense will give the offense the ability to stay in the game.

(2) They don't expose their QB. Stetson Bennett isn't a standout athlete (comparatively) nor does he have a big arm. He's not thrown more than 21 passes in a game. He can run. He completes a high percentage of passes, but most of his passes are to the TEs.

(3) They commit to the run game. They have some talented backs, and they ride them. This helps limit exposing their QB in bad situations.

(4) Big receiving options that are excellent route runners. They don't throw it a ton, and their receivers aren't physical freaks, but they are great route runners and get themselves open.

This is a winning formula. You can win football games committing to this. Play good D. Run the ball. Make timely throws.

In fact, it's how UTC and ETSU beat us the last two weeks.

[apaladin]

The next 3 games we play 3 teams with bad defenses. If we continue to struggle to score then the problem is even worse than we thought.

[The Jackal]

The next 3 games we play 3 teams with bad defenses. If we continue to struggle to score then the problem is even worse than we thought.

I think in the last two games our coaches assumed we were going to be unable to run on them. They didn't approach, say, Wofford this way.

We also need to figure out what life after Devin Wynn is going to look like. If Devin Abrams is going to be the guy, let's get him going.

[Jasper]

I look at UGA's football team right now and see a template.

I don't say that because UGA is clearly the best team in the country. I say that because of how they got there.

UGA is not outstanding in many aspects of offensive football. They are 9th in the SEC in passing yards per game. They are 6th in rushing yards per game. 9th in passing yards.

They score a good bit, but some of that is skewed by the large number of non-offensive touchdowns they are able to score on defense and special teams.

UGA's offense rotates a bunch of running backs. No single running back is top 10 in the SEC in rushing yards. They have an undersized QB without a stellar arm. They don't have a standout receiver. Their leading pass catcher is a TE.

The defense, however, is outstanding. Teams struggle to score on them.

How are they so dominant? My opinion:

(1) Excellent defensive football. The defense will give the offense the ability to stay in the game.

(2) They don't expose their QB. Stetson Bennett isn't a standout athlete (comparatively) nor does he have a big arm. He's not thrown more than 21 passes in a game. He can run. He completes a high percentage of passes, but most of his passes are to the TEs.

(3) They commit to the run game. They have some talented backs, and they ride them. This helps limit exposing their QB in bad situations.

(4) Big receiving options that are excellent route runners. They don't throw it a ton, and their receivers aren't physical freaks, but they are great route runners and get themselves open.

This is a winning formula. You can win football games committing to this. Play good D. Run the ball. Make timely throws.

In fact, it's how UTC and ETSU beat us the last two weeks.

Really ? UGA football is the right model for Furman to follow. Wow!

[The Jackal]

We can't recruit the way they can, but you can win games with a good defense, solid special teams, running their ball, and not leaving your QB in difficult positions. It can be done.

[Affirm]

We can't recruit the way they can, but you can win games with a good defense, solid special teams, running their ball, and not leaving your QB in difficult positions. It can be done.

And how do you get those things?
Why do you not think our coaching staff already know that you can win games with those obvious things?

[Paul C]

We can't recruit the way they can, but you can win games with a good defense, solid special teams, running their ball, and not leaving your QB in difficult positions. It can be done.

I remember a time when that was our philosophy. Like the late 80s.

You left out one key point. A laser focus on execution.

[youwouldno]

Actually I think it's fairly clear, for purposes of this topic, that it's Furman's recruiting advantage that ruins the Georgia comparison.

Georgia has to compete against multiple conference foes that have some recruiting advantages over them. Alabama (Saban) and Florida for instance, and soon to be Texas. The SoCon is, uh, a bit different.

Posters such as Jackal have said many, many times that Furman's recruiting classes under CCH have been the best in the SoCon. We hear it every year, and on paper it seems credible.

Within the SoCon, Furman has solid financials, highest football attendance, the best recruiting classes. The real question is how any competent offensive staff could **** up this badly. What series of excuses could justify a program in that position having the worst offense in scholarship FCS, nationally?

Everyone from CCH on down acknowledges there's a huge problem. But the degree of the problem is so severe, and so impossible to excuse, that there's no credible solution except new blood.

[The Jackal]

I don't think replacing the coaches makes sense. That's reactive and probably gets us nowhere different.

Are we philosophically in line with what we are able to execute? I think we have talent. We're young in some positions, but have quality depth.

I suppose one positive is that the last time we had a championship caliber defense supporting an anemic offense was 2003. The next two seasons we were among the nations' elite teams. Maybe lightning strikes twice.

[youwouldno]

I don't think replacing the coaches makes sense. That's reactive and probably gets us nowhere different.

Are we philosophically in line with what we are able to execute? I think we have talent. We're young in some positions, but have quality depth.

I suppose one positive is that the last time we had a championship caliber defense supporting an anemic offense was 2003. The next two seasons we were among the nations' elite teams. Maybe lightning strikes twice.

Of course replacing coaches makes sense. It's literally the only thing that makes sense. It's what any sane organization on planet Earth would do in the face of such complete failure, in any profession.

How can CCH and GQ hold their players accountable when they as coaches are experienced, grown adults, being paid good money, have all kinds of advantages, and yet are literally putting out the worst-coached offense in scholarship FCS?

And even putting that aside, how can the offensive players go through this and not be negatively impacted? They are just supposed to be robots who aren't affected by the failure they are experiencing as a result of bad coaching?

There is literally zero chance of a miraculous turnaround. Not one in a hundred, not one in a thousand, not one in a million - absolute zero. The 2003 team was significantly better than this one and was in a completely different situation.

I mean, CCH himself has admitted that, after decades in offensive coaching and in year 5 as Furman head coach, he has no idea how to score points. There's no story in college football history that goes from there to success. This is not even a rational topic of debate - there is only one answer, and then there's denial of reality.

[The Jackal]

I don't think replacing the coaches makes sense. That's reactive and probably gets us nowhere different.

Are we philosophically in line with what we are able to execute? I think we have talent. We're young in some positions, but have quality depth.

I suppose one positive is that the last time we had a championship caliber defense supporting an anemic offense was 2003. The next two seasons we were among the nations' elite teams. Maybe lightning strikes twice.

Of course replacing coaches makes sense. It's literally the only thing that makes sense. It's what any sane organization on planet Earth would do in the face of such complete failure, in any profession.

How can CCH and GQ hold their players accountable when they as coaches are experienced, grown adults, being paid good money, have all kinds of advantages, and yet are literally putting out the worst-coached offense in scholarship FCS?

And even putting that aside, how can the offensive players go through this and not be negatively impacted? They are just supposed to be robots who aren't affected by the failure they are experiencing as a result of bad coaching?

There is literally zero chance of a miraculous turnaround. Not one in a hundred, not one in a thousand, not one in a million - absolute zero. The 2003 team was significantly better than this one and was in a completely different situation.

I mean, CCH himself has admitted that, after decades in offensive coaching and in year 5 as Furman head coach, he has no idea how to score points. There's no story in college football history that goes from there to success. This is not even a rational topic of debate - there is only one answer, and then there's denial of reality.

Hendrix just got an extension, so the "reality" is that he's not going anywhere. You can beat that drum, but it's not going to happen.

I'm not sure the answer. What I'm pretty sure of is that Furman continuing to do what it is currently doing likely will not lead to different results.

Should we slow the offense down? Huddle? Use position packages that have WRs playing WR and RBs playing RB. Stop trying to be so clever in our personnel groups at the cost of execution?

Maybe changing the play caller would do something. Quarles hasn't had a ton of success at OC. There are plenty of OCs that don't call plays, which is pretty common in the NFL. Maybe let Bratton have a shot or let Hendrix call the offense.

At this point, we've scored fewer than 20 points in 9 of the last 14 games we've played. That's not going to get it done. The sample size is large enough with Quarles to suggest it's not really working at this point.