Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
|
| Subject: our offensive offense | |
|
Author: hafer |
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 09:11:47 11/03/14 Mon I charted every single offensive formation/result. I then went back again and watched every play several times to try and understand why it's gotten this bad. I'm not going to get into offensive philosophy or have any big picture discussions. I just want to focus on this game and what could have been done differently in this game. The two sets you saw a lot on Saturday were Shot Gun (SG), 3WR, single back (SB), with one tight end, and under center (UC), SB, 2WR, 2TE. They mix up the formations from these groupings, but these are the two they went with more than any other on Saturday in normal down and distance situations. Obviously they went with more jumbo stuff on short yardage, the occasional wildcat, and some 4WR and 5WR stuff on obvious passing downs. Their most successful set by a long shot was the SG, 3WR, SB. They ran the ball better and threw the ball better. From the UC/2WR/2TE set they ran 12 plays in the first half. Seven runs for 16 yards (five of those runs had no chance). Five pass attempts that resulted in zero completions, a penalty, a pick, a sack, and a fortunate PI for us. We can't run the ball from this set because A) the plays take longer to develop and B) our offensive linemen and tight ends can't hold blocks for a little while, let alone for the amount of time these plays require. We can't pass the ball from this set because of A and B. At least from the SG/3WR/SB set we can get the ball out quickly on passing plays, and we very clearly run the ball better from that set (six for 31 yards in the first half). Basically, in the first half we looked moderately competent from one set, and bumbling from the other. The same can be said for the second half. The one good drive was our fourth effort of the half. It started with two UC/2WR/2TE plays that resulted in a delay of game and a two yard rush. We then went SG/3WR/SB (and one 4WR) for seven straight plays, increased the tempo, and did the following- 14 yard pass, 1yd rush, 13 yard pass, 12 yard pass, 9 yard pass, 1 yard loss screen pass, 8 yard TD pass. We were now two scores ahead and had some momentum. We stop Maryland and get the ball back. We come out in our UC/2WR/2TE set and promptly run for a three yard loss. Next drive we come start out with a UC, 1WR, 3TE set, two yard run. Next drive we start out with a UC, 2WR, 2TE set. False start. In the second half we went under center seven times before the second to last drive. Those seven plays, in order, 1 yard run, delay of game, 2 yard run, 3 yard loss, 2 yard run, false start, 6 yard sack. So basically when we went under center in this game we were fortunate to A) get the snap off without a penalty and B) not lose yards. And that's not actually exaggerating. So, that brings us to 3:22 left on the clock, up two. We need a first down. With 3:22 on the clock and Maryland having their timeouts and this being college football and our punters being who they are, it's pretty simple. You just need to worry about getting first downs. So we run three straight UC running plays, including an inexplicable decision to run it on 3rd down from a UC/3TE set, and we punt the ball away and we lose. That's bad coaching. Literally everything that had happened in that game up until that point dictated that the last thing you wanted to do was try and do what they did. If we were better at running the ball from UC sets then go for it. But we had proven all game that anything we tried UC wasn't going to work. Enough about that sequence. So stepping back and looking at the how the game played out, here are my criticisms. First, a disclaimer. The whole offense is just broken right now. People need to understand just how ugly it is on film. There's little point in going through everything and it's easier to just say that it's broken. Hamilton is the only one playing well, and there is a limited amount of stuff you can do in this offense with this personnel. That's not going to change. So there isn't much you can do to make things better this year. But here are my observations. - Run your whole normal down and distance offense from the SG/3WR/SB set. It's an unmitigated disaster when we go under center and run plays that take longer. Just scrap it. The decision to start nine drives with UC sets is not, IMO, defensible. They should have realized what was happening and adjusted. The decision to come out in an UC set for the three drives immediate subsequent to the one successful second half drive strikes me as downright (insert angry word or words). - too many rollouts to the right when too many bad plays come from that. It seems to be Donovan's I'm not sure what to do here fallback option. - Up tempo as much as possible. It's hard because we have so many unsuccessful plays, but you have to keep pushing it. It's the only time this offense looks remotely dangerous. - I would not have called the QB sneak at the end there given how much time was on the clock, but it's not a big deal. - If I was coaching Hack I would be really emphasizing a specific progression. One, quick two, look for the back leaking out. The back is open pretty much every time he leaks out and Hack literally never looks for him. The play where he had Carter wide open and missed badly throwing to his left, Belton was in acres of space leaking out of the backfield. He doesn't have time to sit back there and I would purposefully dump it to the back several times a game, and tell him to look there if options 1.5 aren't open. - If we're going to line up tight ends in the slot a lot, then we need to trust them to use their big bodies to get between the defender and the ball. That's the whole point of lining up tight ends there. You don't need a big window, just a big body to shield. Since we refuse to throw them the ball you might as well put receivers there to get a little more speed on the field. The issue of course being, we don't have the numbers at receiver right now, so it's tough. And Hack isn't terribly accurate with the passes that are required anyway. Now I'm rambling. - Not sure why they like the Wildcat. - it would be nice to see some sight adjustment checks. Examples. One, PSU goes 3TE and Maryland puts 10 guys in the box, Hamilton single covered. The corner is playing well off Hamilton and this should be a pretty simply sight adjustment check to a snap and quick throw, let Hamilton beat his guy with the ball in his hands in acres of space, something he's good at doing. Instead we throw a difficult fade into off coverage, which doesn't make sense. Two, how do we not check out of a draw play that will be run right into a blitzing corner who gives away the blitz too early. Three, first play of the second half, we line up in our a formation we used a lot on Saturday, trips left, SB. They show the exact coverage we want to see for one of our patented WR screens. That should be an automatic check. Instead we hand the ball off for a one yard loss. I would think that Hack has the option to pull the ball and throw the screen there, the receivers certainly acted like it was an option, so that's either on Hack or it should be an option. - this is a tough one and it probably doesn't matter considering the lack of protection, but it would be nice to see the receivers/tight ends have more options with their routes. O'Brien was big on that. It's tiresome watching tight ends lined up in the slot run right to a linebacker who's just sitting down. There are too many wasted routes that are too easily defended. Again, it probably doesn't matter, but it's a difference between last year and this year. Ultimately there's only so much you can do given the personnel limitations and the fact that the offense is so far gone that it's hard to get it back at this point. These are my observations/suggestions, and I think there could be some improvement, but ultimately any improvement would be relatively small. However, small improvement is all that was required for most of these games. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |