FB: Duke 44, Army 3 - Postgame Thread

[Acymetric]

Heck of a beat down! No good reason we shouldn't be ranked this week going into the bye. Let's get some guys healthy and get ready for a big game two weeks from now!

[tux]

Heck of a beat down! No good reason we shouldn't be ranked this week going into the bye. Let's get some guys healthy and get ready for a big game two weeks from now!

Agree. Worried about the injuries. Hopefully Brown and others can get healthy over the bye week. I thought the team did exactly what they were supposed to do against an overmatched opponent. Also thought Parker Boehme looked really good throwing the ball in the 4th quarter. Sirk also played well, but IMO doesn't move through his progressions consistently; either locks in too early on a receiver or dumps it off too quickly w/o giving the WRs a chance to get open.

It was good to see a few catches by our TEs.

Huge opportunity in two weeks to both get to 6 wins and solidify ourselves as a force in the coastal. May be ranked by that game; either this week, or by moving up during the bye week with losses by other ranked teams.

[Bob Green]

Through six games, our defense is yielding 9.3 points per game. That is impressive. The opposition stiffens in the next six games, but we did play two Top 25 teams during the first half of the season so our defensive numbers are legitimate.

Nice game by Jela Duncan today!

[OldPhiKap]

Solid effort, and things to work on.

Hope Brown and Sngleton (and Rahming) are okay.

[moonpie23]

rest, get healthy, next game.....

congrats to the team

[loran16]

Solid effort, and things to work on.

Hope Brown and Sngleton (and Rahming) are okay.

Apparently Deaver also has back issues? Laura Keeley tweeted like it was common fact, but hadn't seen that before.

Overall a successful game (duh) minus the injuries. Still some things to work on.

The D, particularly he run D has repeatedly grinded down in the 2nd halves of these games. In the 3rd Q, Army made two major successful drives down the field, tripling their yardage from the first half. The D held at the end with a FG and a fumble when they were at our 1, but against better teams, you can't let them get that far down. This is likely a depth issue, and the injuries to Kyler and Wray are not going to help there.

The Offense still needs work. Losing Rahming and Deaver obviously hurts - but Nash could be a revelation if he continues this, alongside Rahming in the future. Similarly they did target the TEs more than before, just Deaver wasn't there so Reeves caught a few and Scheider had the TD. If Deaver is healthy, this is a pleasant development.

That said, the offense again relied too much on swing passes. Our swing passes basically just have one or two WRs as blockers, and they're not very good at blocking, and they're also not exactly surprising opponents. These plays should be burned. Sirk also is still WAY too conservative on passes - in one of our FG drives, the 3rd down play featured him throwing away the ball when he saw no one open despite him facing basically 0 pressure. The Offensive line isn't very good at the moment, but Sirk basically has no feel for extending a passing play. He has the legs for it, but never tries.

[sagegrouse]

Apparently Deaver also has back issues? Laura Keeley tweeted like it was common fact, but hadn't seen that before.

Overall a successful game (duh) minus the injuries. Still some things to work on.

The D, particularly he run D has repeatedly grinded down in the 2nd halves of these games. In the 3rd Q, Army made two major successful drives down the field, tripling their yardage from the first half. The D held at the end with a FG and a fumble when they were at our 1, but against better teams, you can't let them get that far down. This is likely a depth issue, and the injuries to Kyler and Wray are not going to help there.

The Offense still needs work. Losing Rahming and Deaver obviously hurts - but Nash could be a revelation if he continues this, alongside Rahming in the future. Similarly they did target the TEs more than before, just Deaver wasn't there so Reeves caught a few and Scheider had the TD. If Deaver is healthy, this is a pleasant development.

That said, the offense again relied too much on swing passes. Our swing passes basically just have one or two WRs as blockers, and they're not very good at blocking, and they're also not exactly surprising opponents. These plays should be burned. Sirk also is still WAY too conservative on passes - in one of our FG drives, the 3rd down play featured him throwing away the ball when he saw no one open despite him facing basically 0 pressure. The Offensive line isn't very good at the moment, but Sirk basically has no feel for extending a passing play. He has the legs for it, but never tries.


IIRC (and there is always a first time) Army had 44 yards rushing and zero yards passing in the first half. The Black Knights finished with 113 rushing and 55 passing for a total of 168. I really don't think giving up 124 yards in the 2nd half can be fairly criticized, especially with a 27-0 halftime lead.

The goal line stand in the third quarter is the stuff of legend:


1st and 0 at DUKE 2
(2:20 - 3rd) Matt Giachinta run for 1 yd to the Duke 1

2nd and 0 at DUKE 1
(1:47 - 3rd) Ahmad Bradshaw run for a loss of 1 yard to the Duke 2. Amazing tackle by Cash.

3rd and 0 at DUKE 2
(1:04 - 3rd) Ahmad Bradshaw run for a loss of 15 yards to the Duke 17 Ahmad Bradshaw fumbled, recovered by Duke Jeremy Cash

[Kedsy]

IIRC (and there is always a first time) Army had 44 yards rushing and zero yards passing in the first half.

If you are correct, it would be the second straight week we gave up 0 yards passing in the first half. I'm not a football wizard, but that sounds pretty amazing.

[Listen to Quants]

If you are correct, it would be the second straight week we gave up 0 yards passing in the first half. I'm not a football wizard, but that sounds pretty amazing.

Yeah.Combo of an excellent pass D and a very carefully selected brace of opponents.

[Listen to Quants]

....

Sirk also is still WAY too conservative on passes - in one of our FG drives, the 3rd down play featured him throwing away the ball when he saw no one open despite him facing basically 0 pressure. The Offensive line isn't very good at the moment, but Sirk basically has no feel for extending a passing play. He has the legs for it, but never tries.

I have signficant hope that he will improve on that. He sure has the tools with good ability to run and to throw on the run. The lack of pocket awareness is not surprising, given his lack of experience.

[75Crazie]

Yeah.Combo of an excellent pass D and a very carefully selected brace of opponents.
I feel we have yet to play a team with any semblance of a significant passing game. I am impressed with the defense that we have been playing, but I want to see how they play against a team that doesn't allow us to focus on one dimension.

[Scorp4me]

Because our backfield is so weak??? Wasn't that supposed to be our strength? Just seems a strange comment, but maybe you're right.

And I haven't seen anyone mention that Sirk is leading the conference in total yards. Did I hear that right? Were the announcers right?

[budwom]

It's true that while our defense has been absolutely outstanding, BC and Army are two dreadful passing teams. We certainly will have a problem
if Singleton's injury is significant. (he's both a great pass defender and tackler).

BC's ineptitude on offense was spectacular today vs Wake...

[Wander]

I am impressed with the defense that we have been playing, but I want to see how they play against a team that doesn't allow us to focus on one dimension.

Fair point, but it might be the case that UNC is the only opponent on our entire regular season schedule that is a decent passing team.

[Olympic Fan]

Heck of a beat down! No good reason we shouldn't be ranked this week going into the bye. Let's get some guys healthy and get ready for a big game two weeks from now!

I wish I could share your optimism regarding the polls, but it's going to be close.

Duke was No, 27 in both polls after last week, with 31 points in the AP (less than half of No. 25 Boise State) and 59 in the coaches (just nine less than No. 25 Memphis).

The problem is that there aren't many teams we can jump over. As impressive as the Army win was to us, it isn't getting a lot of national attention.

We do catch one break -- with Oregon -- No. 26 in both polls this week -- losing to Washington State tonight (their third loss), they are no longer a factor.

But of the teams ranked 16-25 in the AP poll, the only losers were No. 19 Georgia (to Tennessee) and No. 17 Southern Cal (to Washington State). N. 20 UCLA and No. 16 Stanford are off (they play each other next Thursday night). Also, No. 23 Cal is losing 24-17 at the half at No. 5 Utah. That might be our chance -- although considering the opponent, the margin of that one might dictate whether we can jump them or not.

Our chances are better in the coaches poll. Again, the only losers in the final 10 of the top 25 were No. 16 Georgia, No. 17 Southern Cal ... and probably No. 22 Cal.

There is a danger of Houston (tied with us in the AP and No. 28 in the coaches) jumping us -- they are undefeated (with a win over Louisville) and are coming off a nationally televised Thursday night beatdown of SMU. They could steal our spot in the top 25.

As for the win over Army, it was almost perfect, except for the injuries to Brown and Singleton (and possibly Wray, although he looked okay). Also, did anybody hear what was the story on Rahming? He wasn't on Thursday's injury list.

The best thing about the win was that we got to play so many people -- especially on defense, where I know that Boyce and Price and Bere and Humphries all had tackles for loss. Jeremy McDuffie made the breakup that led to McCarthy's interception. Nash had a breakout game on offense, Schreiber had his first career TD catch, and Barnes had the best deep catch he's made in his career. Duncan looked like his old self. Boehme had his most significant action of his career -- I as very happy to see him running the Connette Package successfully.

If there is one thing I'm mad about, it's the injury to Singleton. The injury to Brown was just one of those unfortunate things -- he got his leg caught awkwardly as he made a play in traffic. But the injury to Singleton was a dirty play -- a chop block well away from the play. Singleton was being blocked high and from behind by an Army receiver downfield, when another Army blocked him at the knees. It should have been a penalty, but the refs didn't see it. Still, it was a downright dirty play.

At least Duke has two weeks for the injuries and bumps and bruises to heal. We're going to need those guys -- our next four games are going to be tough: at a revived VPI, Miami at home (they showed how good they can be tonight), at UNC and Pitt at home.

[nyesq83]

An Old School Just the Facts, Ma'am article summarizes the game effectively, I believe, on SB Nation. Kudos.

[brevity]

I wish I could share your optimism regarding the polls, but it's going to be close.

Duke was No, 27 in both polls after last week, with 31 points in the AP (less than half of No. 25 Boise State) and 59 in the coaches (just nine less than No. 25 Memphis).

The problem is that there aren't many teams we can jump over. As impressive as the Army win was to us, it isn't getting a lot of national attention.

We do catch one break -- with Oregon -- No. 26 in both polls this week -- losing to Washington State tonight (their third loss), they are no longer a factor.

But of the teams ranked 16-25 in the AP poll, the only losers were No. 19 Georgia (to Tennessee) and No. 17 Southern Cal (to Washington State). N. 20 UCLA and No. 16 Stanford are off (they play each other next Thursday night). Also, No. 23 Cal is losing 24-17 at the half at No. 5 Utah. That might be our chance -- although considering the opponent, the margin of that one might dictate whether we can jump them or not.

Our chances are better in the coaches poll. Again, the only losers in the final 10 of the top 25 were No. 16 Georgia, No. 17 Southern Cal ... and probably No. 22 Cal.

There is a danger of Houston (tied with us in the AP and No. 28 in the coaches) jumping us -- they are undefeated (with a win over Louisville) and are coming off a nationally televised Thursday night beatdown of SMU. They could steal our spot in the top 25.

Not much I can add to this. There's a good chance that Duke ascends into the Top 25. There's also the possibility that they slip a little. We may have reached the part of the season where voters are more accepting of 2-loss teams like Georgia and USC and might keep them ranked. Heck, even Cal might still be ranked.

But even if one or more falls out, we have the Toledo/Memphis problem. Duke has more AP votes than Memphis (31-19), but Memphis is ranked by the coaches. Duke has more coaches' votes than Toledo (59-24), but Toledo is ranked by AP. Then there's Houston, as provided above, and also undefeated Temple. So, in theory you can see Duke move down one or two places if Georgia, USC, and Cal stay ahead, while Toledo/Memphis and Houston and/or Temple leapfrog.

If Duke is not ranked, I like their chances after their bye week. UCLA and Iowa (and USC) have road games against ranked opponents (assuming Northwestern is still ranked). Memphis hosts Ole Miss. A ranking or higher ranking is way more impressive than whatever paper victory UNC is celebrating.

[Bob Green]

Schreiber had his first career TD catch, and Barnes had the best deep catch he's made in his career. Duncan looked like his old self. Boehme had his most significant action of his career -- I as very happy to see him running the Connette Package successfully.

Erich Schneider had his second career TD catch. Schneider caught a 1 yard TD pass last season in the 20-13 win over Virginia.

[devildeac]

From the News and Observer this am:


http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/duke/article38696406.html

Some highlights:

"41-point win largest against FBS opponent since 41-0 at UNC in 1989" (I always enjoy this statement.)

"The injuries have started to pile up—tight end Braxton Deaver (back muscles), and wide receiver T.J. Ramming (leg) were injured in practice this week and did not play, and starting defensive tackle Carlos Wray (hand), safety Deondre Singleton (leg) and defensive end Kyler Brown (leg) left the game with injuries." (I don't enjoy reading this info. Confirms what we suspected while watching about Rahming and why Deaver's # wasn't called.)

From the "Three Who Mattered:"

"Dwayne Norman: senior linebacker finished with 11 tackles, 10 of them solo and one for a loss." (Another article gave him credit for blowing up Army's 3rd and goal at our 2, causing the fumble that Cash recovered and might have taken 85+ yards for a TD if one of our players hadn't fallen on/tackled him:o.)

Really, really good article from Saturday's edition featuring Norman:


http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/duke/article38234277.html

Enjoy.

[porkpa]

I'm guessing Coach K must be somewhat ambivalent about the beatdown. I'm sure he wanted Duke to win. But to see his alma mater annihilated in this manner had to hurt.

[budwom]

I guess we'll find out more today, but the prelim word on Brown's injury is not good (wearing a cast, out for a long period).
I sure hope Singleton is OK....his level of excellence can't be replaced, though we have decent fill in candidates.
He's a superb tackler and very good cover guy...Wray looked to be OK.

Always interesting to see the unannounced injuries...though the injuries might (perhaps/maybe) have happened late in
the week, there was nothing in the injury report on Rahming or Deaver...our injury reports have consistently been incomplete, for what that's worth.

[Bob Green]

I sure hope Singleton is OK....his level of excellence can't be replaced, though we have decent fill in candidates.
He's a superb tackler and very good cover guy...

All the injuries are concerning, but I agree with you on Singleton. We cannot afford any dents to our secondary, which will be leaned upon heavily as we face teams with better passing efficiency.

[ArnieMc]

... Also thought Parker Boehme looked really good throwing the ball in the 4th quarter. Sirk also played well, but IMO doesn't move through his progressions consistently; either locks in too early on a receiver or dumps it off too quickly w/o giving the WRs a chance to get open.Are we ready for a quarterback controversy? Sirk has played well and has very good numbers, but I really like Boehme. He goes through his progressions smoothly, does not telegraph his passes, throws crisp passes to - not behind - the receivers, and looks poised in the pocket. He also has some moves running.

Obviously, Coach Cut is the quarterback guru and knows best, and he sees them everyday in practice, but I'm looking forward to seeing more of Parker.

[Bob Green]

Sirk is a work in progress; however, he leads the ACC in Total Offense Yards at 267 per game. I'm very happy Boehme saw extended playing time yesterday as it is vital the back-up gain experience, but I don't believe any QB controversy is brewing. Sirk is and will continue to be our starter.

[sagegrouse]

Are we ready for a quarterback controversy? Sirk has played well and has very good numbers, but I really like Boehme. He goes through his progressions smoothly, does not telegraph his passes, throws crisp passes to - not behind - the receivers, and looks poised in the pocket. He also has some moves running.

Obviously, Coach Cut is the quarterback guru and knows best, and he sees them everyday in practice, but I'm looking forward to seeing more of Parker.

Boehme was indeed impressive in the fourth quarter of a blowout. I'll leave it to the coaches to decide who starts, but I would look forward to Parker getting some more reps at the goal line and elsewhere.

Now, if you really want a controversy, start messing with the running back rotation. The explosive Jela Duncan should get more carries, but Cutcliffe likes his backs to feel they are part of a unit, where everyone has his role and Shaquille Powell is the leader. (At least, that's how it looks from the stands and through the TV screen.)

Kindlt,
Sage
'Is one still allowed to say, "TV screen," or is that a relic?'

[loran16]

I wish I could share your optimism regarding the polls, but it's going to be close.

Duke was No, 27 in both polls after last week, with 31 points in the AP (less than half of No. 25 Boise State) and 59 in the coaches (just nine less than No. 25 Memphis).

The problem is that there aren't many teams we can jump over. As impressive as the Army win was to us, it isn't getting a lot of national attention.

We do catch one break -- with Oregon -- No. 26 in both polls this week -- losing to Washington State tonight (their third loss), they are no longer a factor.

But of the teams ranked 16-25 in the AP poll, the only losers were No. 19 Georgia (to Tennessee) and No. 17 Southern Cal (to Washington State). N. 20 UCLA and No. 16 Stanford are off (they play each other next Thursday night). Also, No. 23 Cal is losing 24-17 at the half at No. 5 Utah. That might be our chance -- although considering the opponent, the margin of that one might dictate whether we can jump them or not.

Our chances are better in the coaches poll. Again, the only losers in the final 10 of the top 25 were No. 16 Georgia, No. 17 Southern Cal ... and probably No. 22 Cal.

There is a danger of Houston (tied with us in the AP and No. 28 in the coaches) jumping us -- they are undefeated (with a win over Louisville) and are coming off a nationally televised Thursday night beatdown of SMU. They could steal our spot in the top 25.

As for the win over Army, it was almost perfect, except for the injuries to Brown and Singleton (and possibly Wray, although he looked okay). Also, did anybody hear what was the story on Rahming? He wasn't on Thursday's injury list.

The best thing about the win was that we got to play so many people -- especially on defense, where I know that Boyce and Price and Bere and Humphries all had tackles for loss. Jeremy McDuffie made the breakup that led to McCarthy's interception. Nash had a breakout game on offense, Schreiber had his first career TD catch, and Barnes had the best deep catch he's made in his career. Duncan looked like his old self. Boehme had his most significant action of his career -- I as very happy to see him running the Connette Package successfully.

If there is one thing I'm mad about, it's the injury to Singleton. The injury to Brown was just one of those unfortunate things -- he got his leg caught awkwardly as he made a play in traffic. But the injury to Singleton was a dirty play -- a chop block well away from the play. Singleton was being blocked high and from behind by an Army receiver downfield, when another Army blocked him at the knees. It should have been a penalty, but the refs didn't see it. Still, it was a downright dirty play.

At least Duke has two weeks for the injuries and bumps and bruises to heal. We're going to need those guys -- our next four games are going to be tough: at a revived VPI, Miami at home (they showed how good they can be tonight), at UNC and Pitt at home.

Rahming and deaver were hurt in practice. As this was a non conference game, duke was not required to give an official injury report, so it looks like they half assed it. Rahming has a leg injury and deaver a back injury.

[Olympic Fan]

Sirk is a work in progress; however, he leads the ACC in Total Offense Yards at 267 per game. I'm very happy Boehme saw extended playing time yesterday as it is vital the back-up gain experience, but I don't believe any QB controversy is brewing. Sirk is and will continue to be our starter.

Bob, I agree with your assessment of the QB situation 100 percent ... I don't think that three completed passes at the end of a blowout is enough to suggest a change at QB. I think it's the classic "backup quarterback" syndrome. Boehme did look good and that's promising -- especially since Cut seems to have reinstalled the Connette Package for short yardage. I wish we had tried that at the one against BC last week,

But one small correction: Sirk is no longer leading the ACC in total offense -- he's No. 2 behind Miami's Brad Kaaya.

[Acymetric]

Sirk is a work in progress; however, he leads the ACC in Total Offense Yards at 267 per game. I'm very happy Boehme saw extended playing time yesterday as it is vital the back-up gain experience, but I don't believe any QB controversy is brewing. Sirk is and will continue to be our starter.

I don't think there is a controversy yet either (although limited evidence does suggest Boehme might be a better passer), but Sirk's yardage is inflated by our insane number of QB keepers...I would really like to see more of those go to our running backs. The QB keeper gets us yards but does not appear to be doing anything to help set up the rest of our offense and I think his ypc will go down now that teams are figuring out that it is one of our go to plays.

ETA: 24th in the coaches poll!

[BigWayne]

I don't think there is a controversy yet either (although limited evidence does suggest Boehme might be a better passer), but Sirk's yardage is inflated by our insane number of QB keepers...I would really like to see more of those go to our running backs. The QB keeper gets us yards but does not appear to be doing anything to help set up the rest of our offense and I think his ypc will go down now that teams are figuring out that it is one of our go to plays.

ETA: 24th in the coaches poll!

A QB run is a completely different play than a RB run, chiefly because you have one more blocker.

[Richard Berg]

Sirk is a work in progress, but I'm not sure he's the limiting factor. The last few games have seen several perfectly-thrown balls dropped. I credit Boehme's success mostly to the fact our 2nd-string receivers have a bigger edge on Army's 2nd-string DBs than our 1st-string guys do. We still have yet to see someone really distinguish themselves out wide -- Rahming was the most promising, but now he's out.

Ryan Smith has shown great shake-n-bakes on punt returns. Barnes has great straight-ahead speed. Rahming has (had?) some of both. Why aren't we running any jet sweeps or end-arounds or reverses to let these guys accelerate around the edge?

[sagegrouse]

A QB run is a completely different play than a RB run, chiefly because you have one more blocker.

The difference being, I suppose, that the QB is allowed to run and get pounded but not allowed to block and pound someone else? In jest.

[Bob Green]

But one small correction: Sirk is no longer leading the ACC in total offense -- he's No. 2 behind Miami's Brad Kaaya.

Thanks for the correction. Kaaya is not a bad guy to be behind.

[BigWayne]

The difference being, I suppose, that the QB is allowed to run and get pounded but not allowed to block and pound someone else? In jest.

Theoretically there is no difference, but it is very rare to see designed plays where the QB blocks. It can be very effective occasionally due to the element of surprise.

[sagegrouse]

Theoretically there is no difference, but it is very rare to see designed plays where the QB blocks. It can be very effective occasionally due to the element of surprise.

It's tough to block AFTER the QB hands the ball off to the RB.

[Olympic Fan]

It's tough to block AFTER the QB hands the ball off to the RB.

Sometimes a QB is in blocking position on a reverse ... but as you say, rarely after handing off.

I should point out that many of Sirk's runs come out of the zone read ... it's an option look that forces the defense to cover both the QB and the RB. And most of his QB draws are out of the spread formation -- which naturally spread out the defense too.

Plus, Sirk is our biggest runner and maybe out fastest in terms of top-end speed (not as much in quickness).

[Listen to Quants]

Sometimes a QB is in blocking position on a reverse ... but as you say, rarely after handing off.

I should point out that many of Sirk's runs come out of the zone read ... it's an option look that forces the defense to cover both the QB and the RB. And most of his QB draws are out of the spread formation -- which naturally spread out the defense too.

Plus, Sirk is our biggest runner and maybe out fastest in terms of top-end speed (not as much in quickness).

<my bolding> Those run, if successful as they have been, serve to slow down the rush as rushers must think about staying 'in lanes' and keeping an eye on QB at all times. We saw against Army that Sirk can be very accurate when given the time and room so slowing the rush is great of course.

[tux]

<my bolding> Those run, if successful as they have been, serve to slow down the rush as rushers must think about staying 'in lanes' and keeping an eye on QB at all times. We saw against Army that Sirk can be very accurate when given the time and room so slowing the rush is great of course.

Just like to add that Sirk is our tallest runner, but not sure if he's the biggest. Definitely not the most powerful. Let me know when Sirk has a TD run like Duncan's last week...

I have no problem with the zone-read offense, as I like the misdirections and flexibility. But often Sirk is just straight running from the shotgun position. And he's done a nice job, but I haven't gotten the impression of a dynamic runner, just a guy who runs hard and doesn't mind getting hit. Our offense is pretty conservative. I mean, a QB run requires only a single exchange from the center, so is almost by definition the safest play you can run. I also feel like opposing defenses know we want to get the ball to our "playmakers" without taking big risks, so all those screens and bubble screens are seeing diminishing returns. A little bit of an option game with Sirk and Wilson could be effective...

Sirk has been pretty efficient, but I really think he's taking the check downs too soon and not moving in the pocket very well. A good QB has a feel for the pocket and can sidestep the rush to buy 1-2 more seconds to let WRs get open. Sirk is mobile enough to do that, but Duke seems really focused on ball protection and not taking sacks. I.e., those impressive sack numbers have less to do with the line IMO and more to do with Sirk getting rid of the ball. With such great special teams play and a very good D, that's not a bad strategy for Duke but it's hard to shake the feeling that the O could be doing a lot more damage out there...

[Bob Green]

A little bit of an option game with Sirk and Wilson could be effective...

I agree. The staff needs to get Wilson running outside the tackles to take advantage of his shiftiness and breakaway speed.

[killerleft]

Just like to add that Sirk is our tallest runner, but not sure if he's the biggest. Definitely not the most powerful. Let me know when Sirk has a TD run like Duncan's last week...

I have no problem with the zone-read offense, as I like the misdirections and flexibility. But often Sirk is just straight running from the shotgun position. And he's done a nice job, but I haven't gotten the impression of a dynamic runner, just a guy who runs hard and doesn't mind getting hit. Our offense is pretty conservative. I mean, a QB run requires only a single exchange from the center, so is almost by definition the safest play you can run. I also feel like opposing defenses know we want to get the ball to our "playmakers" without taking big risks, so all those screens and bubble screens are seeing diminishing returns. A little bit of an option game with Sirk and Wilson could be effective...

Sirk has been pretty efficient, but I really think he's taking the check downs too soon and not moving in the pocket very well. A good QB has a feel for the pocket and can sidestep the rush to buy 1-2 more seconds to let WRs get open. Sirk is mobile enough to do that, but Duke seems really focused on ball protection and not taking sacks. I.e., those impressive sack numbers have less to do with the line IMO and more to do with Sirk getting rid of the ball. With such great special teams play and a very good D, that's not a bad strategy for Duke but it's hard to shake the feeling that the O could be doing a lot more damage out there...

I'm not sure what you mean by the bolded statement above. Sirk has had several "highlight film" runs for Duke. He's mostly run through, rather than around folks, but Sirk can break tackles very well in the open field.

[tux]

I'm not sure what you mean by the bolded statement above. Sirk has had several "highlight film" runs for Duke. He's mostly run through, rather than around folks, but Sirk can break tackles very well in the open field.

I mean that in terms of running the ball, I consider Sirk to be a downgrade from any of our current RB options (Powell, Wilson, and Duncan). It's not a bad option sometimes, given the extra blocker but I would rather see our RBs get the lion share of the carries. And I haven't seen every Sirk run over the past two seasons, but I'm racking my brain trying to remember any "highlight film" runs. He's had some nice long runs, for sure. But maybe we just have different thresholds for a "highlight".

Just to be clear: I'm not down on Sirk. I have high hopes for him over the next two seasons. The offense has been inconsistent for reasons that aren't super clear to me. On the one hand, Duke has put up points on all the lesser defenses they've played. But there's been a lack of consistency along with some weird play calling and clock management (IMO). My eyes/gut tell me that Sirk is the key to any major improvements but if someone said it was our WRs/TEs not getting open, I'd probably believe that too...

[Olympic Fan]

I mean that in terms of running the ball, I consider Sirk to be a downgrade from any of our current RB options (Powell, Wilson, and Duncan).

I don't know if I agree with that.

Sirk (4.3 ypc) is averaging significantly more per carry than Wilson (3.7) and about the same as Powell (4.4). Actually, if you factor out the yardage lost on sacks, which are passing plays, Sirk is averaging 5.6 yards a rushing attempt -- significantly better than any other running back other than Duncan -- and his 7.1 ypc is based solely on his success at Army ... he has just 16 carries so far this season.

I think that's very significant heading to Virginia Tech. The Hokie defense over the last two years has been pretty good, except against running QBs. They've had a terrible time containing running QBs. Sirk's running ability is going to be our best option in Blacksburg.

[duke09hms]

I don't know if I agree with that.

Sirk (4.3 ypc) is averaging significantly more per carry than Wilson (3.7) and about the same as Powell (4.4). Actually, if you factor out the yardage lost on sacks, which are passing plays, Sirk is averaging 5.6 yards a rushing attempt -- significantly better than any other running back other than Duncan -- and his 7.1 ypc is based solely on his success at Army ... he has just 16 carries so far this season.

I think that's very significant heading to Virginia Tech. The Hokie defense over the last two years has been pretty good, except against running QBs. They've had a terrible time containing running QBs. Sirk's running ability is going to be our best option in Blacksburg.

True, but Sirk got a LOT of those yards running against overmatched defenses (half our games). Also, his designed QB runs never seem to get him out of the pocket, he tends to just bull ahead into the line. Against strong opponents (BC/NWU and even GT), he got stopped for minimal gains. I really liked the Parker Boehme run on Saturday where he saw the opening on the left side and broke off his run up the middle to trot into the endzone for a TD untouched.

[Bob Green]

True, but Sirk got a LOT of those yards running against overmatched defenses (half our games). Also, his designed QB runs never seem to get him out of the pocket, he tends to just bull ahead into the line. Against strong opponents (BC/NWU and even GT), he got stopped for minimal gains.

Sirk has 325 yards rushing in six games. He had runs of 17, 13 and 11 yards against Georgia Tech, Northwestern and Boston College respectively. I wouldn't characterize those runs as "minimal gains." Also, when Sirk is sacked the yardage counts against his rushing statistics.

He is a good runner.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/player/_/id/530478/thomas-sirk

[killerleft]

I mean that in terms of running the ball, I consider Sirk to be a downgrade from any of our current RB options (Powell, Wilson, and Duncan). It's not a bad option sometimes, given the extra blocker but I would rather see our RBs get the lion share of the carries. And I haven't seen every Sirk run over the past two seasons, but I'm racking my brain trying to remember any "highlight film" runs. He's had some nice long runs, for sure. But maybe we just have different thresholds for a "highlight".

Just to be clear: I'm not down on Sirk. I have high hopes for him over the next two seasons. The offense has been inconsistent for reasons that aren't super clear to me. On the one hand, Duke has put up points on all the lesser defenses they've played. But there's been a lack of consistency along with some weird play calling and clock management (IMO). My eyes/gut tell me that Sirk is the key to any major improvements but if someone said it was our WRs/TEs not getting open, I'd probably believe that too...

Yes, perhaps our definitions are different. From my observation, Sirk is probably the Duke runner that tacklers least like to see in front of them. He has a knack for 'popping' the opponent at the moment of contact that is quite punishing. Just because he can't/doesn't juke as much as our other runners doesn't make him any less effective. Sirk doesn't have the initial burst of the other backs, but he shrugs off tacklers well and once he takes a couple steps he can really motor.

Sirk's decision making is not up to snuff yet in the passing department. I do think this is partially because the receivers aren't able to gain separation. But just watching Boehme drill a few passes Saturday made me realize that Sirk isn't as natural a passer as Parker. Sirk just hasn't put many passes dead on the money so far. I hope he figures it out and the game becomes 'slower' for him. It wouldn't hurt to throw a softer pass on the short routes as well.

The bye could be just what our offense needs.

[tux]

Yes, perhaps our definitions are different. From my observation, Sirk is probably the Duke runner that tacklers least like to see in front of them. He has a knack for 'popping' the opponent at the moment of contact that is quite punishing. Just because he can't/doesn't juke as much as our other runners doesn't make him any less effective. Sirk doesn't have the initial burst of the other backs, but he shrugs off tacklers well and once he takes a couple steps he can really motor.

Sirk's decision making is not up to snuff yet in the passing department. I do think this is partially because the receivers aren't able to gain separation. But just watching Boehme drill a few passes Saturday made me realize that Sirk isn't as natural a passer as Parker. Sirk just hasn't put many passes dead on the money so far. I hope he figures it out and the game becomes 'slower' for him. It wouldn't hurt to throw a softer pass on the short routes as well.

The bye could be just what our offense needs.

That's a fair characterization of Sirk's abilities. He runs hard for sure, and I admire that. There are a lot of QBs who wouldn't stick their nose in there like he does. But, to be fair, a lot of teams would err on the side of protecting their QB...

Agree about the bye week. I hope to see a Duke offense in Blacksburg that has taken yet another step in the right direction.

[OldPhiKap]

Goduke.com always has Cut's post-game PC. At home, but not away. Assuming there was one, does anyone have a link?

His press conferences are always worth the time, I highly recommend.