UNC beset by familiar problems in a 27-10 loss against South Carolina

acarter@newsobserver.comAugust 29, 2013 

— Despite the loss of its two best defensive players from a season ago, and even amid injuries that decimated its depth, North Carolina defended its defense throughout the preseason. It would be better, the Tar Heels insisted. It would allow fewer game-changing plays, they believed. Just wait and see.

The wait didn’t take long. South Carolina needed three plays and 79 seconds Thursday night to prove that, maybe, UNC’s defense hasn’t progressed nearly as far as it thought it might have. The Gamecocks’ 65-yard touchdown less than two minutes into the game was the first long scoring play the Tar Heels allowed.

It wasn’t the last in their 27-10 loss to sixth-ranked South Carolina at Williams-Brice Stadium. The Gamecocks gained a quick 17 yards on their first two plays – two runs from Mike Davis, a sophomore running back. Then came Connor Shaw’s 65-yard touchdown pass to Shaq Roland.

On that play, Roland ran free after Shaw executed a play-action fake. There was no safety help in the defensive backfield – just wide open empty space. Roland ran into the void, past UNC cornerback Tim Scott, and caught Shaw’s pass in stride on his way to the end zone. Scott described it later as “a messed up play.”

“We knew mistakes were going to be made the first game, so we didn’t try to get too mad at it,” Scott said. “But the ones that we did mess up were game-changing – so we’re a little frustrated about that.”

The first major defensive lapse helped put the Tar Heels (0-1) in a hole early. Their final major defensive lapse helped South Carolina (1-0) put the game away. That came midway through the third quarter, after the Tar Heels had cut the Gamecocks’ lead to 20-10.

UNC had hope then, however slim, that it might be able to come back. Instead, it surrendered a 75-yard touchdown run by Davis, who broke through a hole on the right side, eluded a couple of defenders and sprinted past the Tar Heels on his way to the end zone. The touchdown gave South Carolina a 27-10 lead.

Davis’ long run, and Roland’s catch before it, were exactly the kind of plays UNC has tried to so hard to defend.

“We worked a lot on eliminating big plays – and limiting big plays,” UNC coach Larry Fedora said. “And you can’t give up two big plays like that. You can’t do that, you can’t drop a punt at the 50-yard line. You can’t do a lot of things that we did. But yeah – those were disappointing.”

Both plays represented a microcosm of the night for the UNC defense, which rarely generated pressure and routinely allowed receivers to run open. The Tar Heels’ offense eventually settled in and completed a couple of long scoring drives that provided hope – however brief.

At the start, though, UNC’s ineffectiveness on offense buoyed South Carolina, which scored on its first three possessions. The Gamecocks settled for a 39-yard field goal on their second drive – a moral victory for the UNC defense – but South Carolina needed just seven plays and a little more than three minutes to score another touchdown just before the end of the first quarter.

That one came on a 29-yard pass from Dylan Thompson, South Carolina’s second quarterback, to Kane Whitehurst. He wasn’t quite as open as Roland was on the Gamecocks’ first touchdown, but Whitehurst still had plenty of room thanks to another Tar Heels defensive breakdown.

By then South Carolina led 17-0. At the end of the first quarter, the Gamecocks had outgained UNC 203 yards to 35. South Carolina had nine first downs in the first quarter to the Tar Heels’ one, and the Gamecocks averaged nearly a first down on each of their 22 plays in the first quarter.

That North Carolina trailed by so much so early wasn’t necessarily a surprise. South Carolina, after all, entered the season with its highest preseason ranking in school history, and plenty of questions surrounded the Tar Heels. What was a surprise, though, was the dominance of South Carolina’s offense.

The Gamecocks entered the season with a new starter at running back and uncertainty at receiver. But at times, yards and points came easily against the Tar Heels.

The Tar Heels, at times, matched their defensive struggles of a season ago. In 2012, there were easily identifiable reasons for UNC’s deficiencies. Injuries. The natural difficulties that come with learning a new playbook, in this case a 4-2-5 defense that can be complicated.

UNC players and coaches insisted that now, the Tar Heels better understood the scheme. They were playing faster, Fedora said, and that was because they better understood.

That’s not often how it looked Thursday.

“I think we had a chance to make a lot of plays,” said Norkeithus Otis, UNC’s junior bandit. “We just didn’t make them.”

By the time Davis ran into the end zone after his 75-yard run, the Gamecocks had amassed 335 yards, and 140 of them came on the two long touchdown plays. After a 104-minute lightning delay that halted the game with 8 minutes, 20 seconds to play, South Carolina, which punted just once before that delay, finished with 406 yards – 228 of them rushing yards.

The defense wasn’t solely responsible for the defeat. There was blame to go around – from T.J. Thorpe’s fumbled punt return in the second quarter, to the offense’s inability to score a touchdown after having first-and-goal on the 6 in the third quarter.

Defensive deficiencies, though, were perhaps the most glaring of the Tar Heels’ problems. Players and coaches spent weeks promising a new beginning, a fresh start. Things would be different, they said. In the first game of a new season, though, familiar problems persisted.

Carter: 919-829-8944; Twitter: @_andrewcarter

News & Observer is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

Commenting FAQs | Terms of Service