O line position discussion/revision 2/spring practices

[AZGrizFan]

Awww. Imitation, the sincerest form of flattery. I thought I sensed you had a little man crush going. Next I suppose you'll want to know what kind of car I drive and beer I drink.

It's not about the nail. :ugeek:

 

[AZGrizFan]

AZ, we ran the ball really well last year against teams that sucked, and sucked against teams with decent defenses (not even good defenses. We got completely shut down by good defenses)

The offensive change was pitched as a return to a dominating rushing attack that would wear down teams and open up the passing game.

We ended up with a rushing attack that was easily shut down, and a passing attack that excelled in spite of not being able to rush the ball.

1122: The stats don't necessarily back that up...

(W) App St: 52 attempts for 246 yards (4.7 ave)
(W) UND: 37 attempts for 233 (6.3 ave)
(W) OPSU: 45 attempts for 262 (5.8 ave)
(L) NAU: 26 attempts for 55 (2.1 ave) - NAU #1 in total defense in the conference
(W) PSU: 47 attempts for 378 (8.0 ave)
(W) UCD: 51 attempts for 255 (5.0 ave)
(W) Cal Poly: 30 attempts for 73 (2.4 ave) - CP had best rushing defense in the conference
(L) EWU: 38 attempts for 140 (3.7 ave) - stopped running in 2nd half, when the "wear them down" theory would supposedly kick in
(W) Sac St: 29 attempts for 91 (3.1 ave) - This one IS puzzling, then again, we passed at WILL against them...
(W) USD: 24 attempts for 52 (2.2 ave) - Another puzzler...they gave up an ave of 177/game
(W) WSU: 60 attempts for 338 (5.6 ave)
(W) MSU: 42 attempts for 115 (2.7 ave) - weather?
(L) CCU: 34 attempts for 169 (5.0 ave)

Now, I get that stats don't tell everything...and many times the game flow has more to do with the #'s than anything else...my biggest complaint was not about their execution, it was about the play selection by coaches at critical points on the field...about a strange love affair with the long bomb on third and short yardage...and about an apparent inability to see/change to what was open or what the defense was giving us until late in the game (in those games where the running game struggled)...sometimes TOO late in the game, particularly the EWU, NAU, Sac State & CCU games.

Then again, just because your OBJECTIVE is to have a punishing running game that opens up the passing game, doesn't mean it's going to work against every single defense...it was obvious our O-line had difficulty against certain types of defenders (as witnessed in the NAU game)...and it's possible that occasionally teams just have better athletes on the other side of the ball, ones who were able to make a few more plays than ours were. There's a reason why NAU was the #1 overall defense in the conference, and why Cal Poly was the #1 rushing defense in the conference. They were THAT good--at least at that phase of the game.

Just looking at statistics, the only REAL puzzler to me that sticks out is the USD game...and other than it being a road game late in the season, I see no logical reason why we couldn't run against them when apparently everyone ELSE that played them could. Then again, that game was just ugly from the get-go... :| :|

One interesting side note: Four of our five worst rushing games (CP being the exception) were ALL on the road. Not sure what (if anything) can be read into that....just an interesting tidbit. Then again, we went 4-1 in those 5 games

 

[PlayerRep]

Thx for providing the stats and analysis. I wonder if health of UM's rb's may have impacted some of the results.

Note that stats and game plans/play-calling (during games) can be impacted by how the defense defends the rush. A defense can put more defenders in the box, and defend against the rush better (and presumably leave more openings for the pass). Offenses either do or don't adjust, and if they do, they may pass more instead of trying to block an extra defender or two in the box.

 

[AZGrizFan]

Thx for providing the stats and analysis. I wonder if health of UM's rb's may have impacted some of the results.

Note that stats and game plans/play-calling (during games) can be impacted by how the defense defends the rush. A defense can put more defenders in the box, and defend against the rush better (and presumably leave more openings for the pass). Offenses either do or don't adjust, and if they do, they may pass more instead of trying to block an extra defender or two in the box.

Exactly. And I had more of an issue with our coaches' apparent unwillingness to adjust their playcalling when faced with that defensive philosophy....many times when our RB's were getting hit at the LOS (or even behind it) it was because the defense loaded the box and sent 7-8 defenders, while we tried blocking those 7-8 guys with 5. That ain't gonna work very often...and has little to do with the O-lineman's actual skill or ability.

 

[PTGrizzly]

Thx for providing the stats and analysis. I wonder if health of UM's rb's may have impacted some of the results.

Note that stats and game plans/play-calling (during games) can be impacted by how the defense defends the rush. A defense can put more defenders in the box, and defend against the rush better (and presumably leave more openings for the pass). Offenses either do or don't adjust, and if they do, they may pass more instead of trying to block an extra defender or two in the box.

Exactly. And I had more of an issue with our coaches' apparent unwillingness to adjust their playcalling when faced with that defensive philosophy....many times when our RB's were getting hit at the LOS (or even behind it) it was because the defense loaded the box and sent 7-8 defenders, while we tried blocking those 7-8 guys with 5. That ain't gonna work very often...and has little to do with the O-lineman's actual skill or ability.

Psh...if we had good coaching AND talent like NDSU, we could block all 11 guys with 5 O-lineman. Totally unreasonable that we can't even block 7 or 8 guys. Pathetic.

 

[AZGrizFan]

Thx for providing the stats and analysis. I wonder if health of UM's rb's may have impacted some of the results.

Note that stats and game plans/play-calling (during games) can be impacted by how the defense defends the rush. A defense can put more defenders in the box, and defend against the rush better (and presumably leave more openings for the pass). Offenses either do or don't adjust, and if they do, they may pass more instead of trying to block an extra defender or two in the box.

Exactly. And I had more of an issue with our coaches' apparent unwillingness to adjust their playcalling when faced with that defensive philosophy....many times when our RB's were getting hit at the LOS (or even behind it) it was because the defense loaded the box and sent 7-8 defenders, while we tried blocking those 7-8 guys with 5. That ain't gonna work very often...and has little to do with the O-lineman's actual skill or ability.

Psh...if we had good coaching AND talent like NDSU, we could block all 11 guys with 5 O-lineman. Totally unreasonable that we can't even block 7 or 8 guys. Pathetic.

Well, sure. :lol: :lol:

 

[alabamagrizzly]

Time to build some more depth. Only one new face from last year in Rockich. Everyone eles got to play some. I'd like to see Todd, Deitrich, and Kelly get some more reps. Really leanin' towards Weyer startin' at G this year and moving back to C in '15. Gonna be good to see the Hines brothers finnaly get a chance to play. They've been here for forever.

Also didn't notice Colin McGillivray's name in the spring report for incoming Fr. I hope that's just cus he was a late addition.