Fallacies about Neb and the UT offensive lines

H

High Fidelity

< 25 Posts
The success or failure of the UT season will fall on the shoulders of the offensive line. That is by no means a prophetic statement or anything, the success of any football team ultimately falls on the five men across the front.

For Texas, if we get offensive line play that resembles the Texas teams of 93-98, then we have a legit shot at 10 wins and more. If we get offensive line play that resembles 99 and 00, we will again be pushed to win more than 9 games.

Skill position talent is fantastic and our skill position talent rivals that of any team in the country. But a quarterback can't throw from his back, a wide receiver can't catch a ball that isn't thrown and a running back, no matter how good, can't make his own hole carry after carry. Again, it's offensive line play that makes or breaks offenses.

But it's a misnomer to think that you have to be other-worldly talented to have great offensive line play. Nebraska has gotten outstanding offensive line play in 5 of the last 7 years from a group of players that are no more distinguishable from the players before them or after them. How many Nebraska offensive line do much of anything at the next level?

Nebraska's offensive line success and the success of its offense hinges on getting more people to the point of attack than the defense can counter with. Everybody knows Nebraska is going to run, but knowing it and stopping it are two different things.

When Nebraska runs the options (and the run distinct variations of the option), Nebraska blocks down on the playside, loads the fullback on the LB and gets the QB into space as quickly as possible. It's very key that the RB follows the QB to keep pitch-relationship and simply looks for the pitch. The key is to either make the cut on the safety or get the ball to the corner ASAP and get up the field. Nebraska frequently asks the runner to go one-on-one with a defender, but never a DL. Once the quarterback is in space, he either keeps or options off the defender whether it be the DL that they left unblocked or the LB crashing from the outside or the safety in the secondary.

Again, the key is forcing the defense to have to commit resources to the point of attack in order to stop the option. This is done not by blitzing, the option kills the blitz, but by stringing the play wide, cheating the SS up to play almost as a fourth backer (which leaves the FS in the deep center all by himself, but even he has run responsibilities) and letting him get to the QB quickly to force the pitch.

Nebraska runs the quick-hit trap as well as any team in America and this is the bread-and-butter play of the Nebraska offense. Try and catch the MLB cheating to a side or the noseguard slanting to a side with a trap between the guard and center and get the big boy up in there! Even if it goes for 0-3 yards, it keeps the noseguard or MLB honest in the middle. I have seen Nebraska run the quick hit trap 10 times in a game for 10 yards and then have the 11th go 55 yards for a touchdown. I would take 65 yards on 11 carries from my fullback.

Nebraska waits for the defense to do this and then pulls back on the option and hits the TE streaking down the seam or a wingback who floats behind the backers. When Nebraska was at its very best (94-97), they had excellent passing seasons from both Frasier and Frost. This year, Crouch was not good passing the ball and defenses were able to beat Nebraska's option. Same thing with us in '99. How different is that game if those two incompletions to Wistrom when he was all alone downfield had been touchdowns? Yikes.

What does this mean for Texas? It means that we shouldn't try and reinvent the wheel. Let's have a lighter offensive line that can move and get out in front of our running backs. Pulling, trapping, etc. are staples of every successfull running game and should be a staple of ours. If you look at the 1998 offensive line that didn't pull or trap, they had extreme issues getting room for Ricky Williams to run. UCLA, KSU and Tech (coincedentally, the three teams that beat us) were able to beat the one-one-blocks and did an outstanding job on Ricky (spare me the UCLA stats, all of Ricky's yards came when the game was out of reach).

This is not a fire a coach thread or anything like that. No matter what your opinions are about Davis or Nunez, they will be wearing orange just like Simms and Roy Williams in 2001.

It's just that getting effective blocking from the offensive line isn't that hard especially if you have talented kids which I like to think we do. Whether the kids we have recruited have the abilities to pull or trap, I don't know as I have not seen them do it in the three years Mack has been here. But I would be surprised if they couldn't. Let the big boys get out there in space and pick-off some poor LB or DB, or trap down on some DL. As it is, most DL are poor at reading the trap (Casey Hampton was the best I have ever seen in college at feeling for the trap and closing down on it which is what allowed him to play bigger than his physical stature) and they will almost inevitably run themselves out of the play anyways.

We can him and haw all day long about who should be the starting quarterback or running back, but it won't matter a lick if the offensive line doesn't play up to snuff.

And remember this, the only thing keeping UT from having dominating, 'turn outthe lights the party is over' offensive lines on a year-in and year-out basis is Texas itself.
 
pongo, if you get a chance, watch the A&M-UT game from 1993. It is the single best blocked game I have ever seen from a UT team. The UT offensive line was a talented oline (Neil and Brockermeyer were both there) and they did an outstanding job against an outstanding A&M defensive line. This performance was even more remarkable considering the weather and Morenz's passing performance. The UT OL kicked the A&M DL up and down the field that night, just couldn't stick it into the endzone.

Say what you want to say about Mackovic, but his offensive line play was always above average and frequently outstanding (the '97 UCLA game notwithstanding) and much better than anything I have seen from UT in '99 and 2000.

Remember, Ricky Williams went for 1800 yards in 1997 despite having nothing at QB or WR to take the pressure off. I realize that the '97 schedule wasn't overly arduous, but our team was very bad and we all we had on offense was ricky and the five men upfront.

By the way, Mackovic's blocking schemes did leave backside guys unblocked and used influence away with the RB to avoid the backside crashing. Sometimes this worked, sometimes it didn't.

Another fantastically blocked game was against Nebraska in the '96 Big 12 title game. Simply amazing what that group did against an outstanding Nebraska front-7.
 
The Cowboys O-lines of the mid 90's refute your assertion that pulling and trapping are the foundations of all great running games, but when you factor in that they were likely the best in NFL history, it's pretty clear that they're the exception that proves the rule.

You're right on about outnumbering - or even having the same number - at the point of attack as the key to a good running game. In the military they call it concentration of force, or as Nathan Bedford Forrest called it "Gettin' there firstest with the mostest"; whatever you call it, we do a pretty poor job of it against real defenses in Nunez and Davis' current schemes. Watching us dive Victor Ike into a nine man front in our traditional two back set on short yardage in the Oregon game made me seriously question if Davis wasn't the least creative offensive coordinator in college football. But I tend to overreact slightly. We appear to be undergoing a slow transition so we'll see where it goes.

"Zone blocking" really is effective and useful when you can guarantee 6-7 man fronts because a defense fears/respects your passing game. Then defenders lined up in the gap can be taken for a ride whichever way they want to go and you let your RB run to daylight. But watching it against 8 man fronts is a recipe for frustration.

If you'd like to see what our OL is capable of when facing "even odds" simply watch us in the Red Zone when we put in our jumbo packages. We almost always power it in with solid point of attack blocking. It's when Davis tries to get cute with standard sets near the goalline - diving Hodges Mitchell into a nine man front - that I seriously consider driving a railroad spike through someone's head with the aid of a dead marmot's carcass.

One point: we certainly did some pulling this year and our OL showed the ability to pull it off, particularly Holloway and Kirk-Hughes. It's more a question of whether we have the will to spend more time on it.

Nor do I think our fortunes for this year's team hinge any more on the OL than on the play of our front 7 on defense.

Good post.
 
You make good points, and I know this is a heated debate due to the frustrating performance of our offense in seemingly simple situations last season, but.........


If you develop the best receiving corps in the country, with a TALL QB who's forte is the long ball, coupled with wide out speed at the tight end position, then by god get a OL who's talent lies in pass protection and a RB who can catch, break arm tackles on the draw, and pick up a blitz.

How pissed would we all be if we put all the skill positions were in place to be a vertical passing nightmare, but we had an OL designed to run the option?

At some point we have to commit to one of these styles or be mediocre at both.

We have the horses here, like never before, to do something really special in this passing game.

I am as frustrated as all of you with our inability to run in short yardage situations, and our giving the defense no rest with our third and long plays that end up at the feet of the receiver on a short out rout.

But I also believe that with a confident, incredibly talented QB, All World receivers that have some experience, and a viable (hell - BADASS ) tight end option..... a more effective running game will unfold and a VERY exciting offense will profit.

I just don't think you switch ships midstream and start devoting practice time and resources to being a run oriented team when every thing else you have done for the last three years has you on the brink of being one hell of a passing team.

When we blow doors throwing down field, the run will come!

btw, we also need to stop spending so much time before the snap, checking and rechecking the play before the snap, which not only lets the defense know exactly when the play will begin, but ultimately affords the opposing DC the opportunity to call our plays for us, but that is another thread entirely.


Also, you make good points above, and like you say, "we all wear Orange", this is just my opinion.




"Hit it where they mow".....Harvey Penick
 
Nice thread.

It's natural I guess when discussing running games to immediately go to Nebraska as an example of what to do and how to do it, but I don't think it's particularly helpful. I've said before that I doubt we could pull that sort of scheme off in any context- even if we wanted to. Tenopir's program is heavily 5th year senior laden- almost all obligatory redshirts except the occasional a-hole like Raiola, with smaller more mobile O-line who are trained to ear-hole someone on the Dline about 25 times a game. Frazier and Frost notwithstanding, Notice that they generally cant pass to save their life (or just so, if you think about it) and you've got a system that 1. we don't have the horses for 2. Would take years to be beneficial and 3. Anyone with the IQ of jj's cousin or greater would doubt Nunez and Davis's ability to install.

Of course if you're just talking about being more creative with Oline responsibilities and blocking in the general sense then I agree with you completely. Notice the one game we ran a quasi-counter a few times last season the O-line made Kenny Hayter look like Earl Campbell. Hell, we all got wet after seeing a simple reverse to Williams against Kansas and aTm that probably took about 15 minutes to scheme out and practice. How pathetic is that?

I also agree that it's usually preferable to have an angle on someone and let your facemask hitting his helmet decal be the first thing he notices when stunting to an open gap. From what I heard of Spring practice there wasn't a hell of a lot of attention paid to that sort of thing, though I did hear about a shuffle pass. Yay.

As far as Oline size, if you look at the Spring roster, the O-line in general is slimmer than last year- averaging around 6' 4" ,315 lb depending on whos starting. Also figure that Anderson, Williams and Kirk-Hughs are Seniors with 9 letters among them and Doane, Baker and Dockery are Juniors with 6 letters and it's a safe bet that we should see better and more experienced play this season. WR and TE play should soften the box as well, so we have that going for us, which is nice.

All in all I'd settle for passing almost at will and running hard several downs in a row to kill the clock or in the red zone when we need to and the defense knows we need to and can't stop it anyway. Can our O-line pull off that kind of domination up front consistently? Not without some coaching personnel changes if one uses the last two seasons as data points. Note that Stanford and UO games could have been very different last season if so. Perhaps GD/TN will surprise everyone and I'll have to eat my words, or at the very least that dead marmot Scipio is flinging about, which seems like a fair trade at this point.


Doperbo.
 
The Cowboys of the 90s were very big, but they were very mobile. Nate Newton pulled extremely well, Erik Williams was the best OL in football, Mark Stepnoski was at worst the 3rd best center in football and Mark Tunei was outstanding as well. That is a group of players that all went to pro bowls and that doesn't include Ron Stone whose loss Dallas never replaced or Larry Allen who was drafted after the '93 Super Bowl win. With these guys in their prime, you could do whatever you wanted, zone block, influence, trap, pull etc. and be successful. The Cowboys did all of the above and did it exceptionally well. But that's Dallas and we're not Dallas.

Also, it's a fallacy that Texas saw a 9 man fronts in 99 or 2000. Texas hasn't seen an 8 man fronts with regularity since '98 or a 9 man front since 97. How do you know this? Actually, I would PRAY that this is true because if it isn't, then it doesn't bode well for our QBs who can't recognize a 9-man front and audible to the inside slant, fade or streak with our wide receiving corps. Again, Texas never saw more than a 7-man front in 2000.

Also, don't confuse a BLITZ with a 9-man front. A team can bring the safety and a corner and that does not make it a 9-man front. It simply means that they have done a good job disecting our tendencies, took a chance and got the job done. Again, either our QBs aren't able to read the blitz or our offense is so predictable that the other team fells it can blitz at well in certain situations.

What I have a problem with is our complete lack of imagination with the offensive line when the team does play us with 7-8 in the box. Even if the other team does put 8 in the box, either the QB has to make the correct audible or else we have to be creative enough with the playcalling and blocking to win at the point of attack and still gain positive yardage.

To be blunt, I don't think we are going to be anymore successful next year against quality teams (OU, A&M and bowl games) just straight passing the ball. Also, I don't think teams need to worry about our pass setting up the run as we are not a creative offense and we rarely do anything out of the ordinary. Our tendencies are such that I almost bet that a team can blitz us at will in certain situations on certain spots of the field with little or no exposure to us hurting them.

Concerning your point about our front-7 compared to our OL. I have much more faith in what can be done in the front-7 than I do what can be done on the OL.
 
This is a good thread, and you bring up some excellent points. However, I question the scrutiny you use when watching games if you think haven't faced 8 man fronts the past two years. That is just not true. It is also untrue to say that we never, ever pull or trap. We do, just not very often. I agree completely that some of the calls, audibles, and bizarre breakdowns (i.e before half-time in both the a$m and Oregon games) are inexcusable at best. I simply question how much of the fault lies directly with Tim Nunez and Greg Davis, and how much of it is poor execution by individual players. Again, the point can be made that flawed execution is still the coaches' inevitable responsibility, but we are very quick to damn a scheme that produced a Heisman runner just three seasons ago.

There is really no comparison between our offense and Nebraska's, and there never will be under the current regimes. There is no doubt that Big Red is very, very successful at running the pill; however, if they fail at that, they are SCREWED. The Greg Davis scheme as it is relys heavily on individual players making YAC (catch or contact). The running game that has been less than successful at times has suffered due in part to a running back who had a difficult time breaking arm tackles along the D-line and getting a high number of Yards after Contact. Our running game necesitates a RB to hit seams and creases, then get as many yards as possible. Would I prefer more plays that blow open holes along the line, crush blitzing linebackers, and use misdirection to take advantage of over pursuit? Yes, definitely. I believe we will be seeing more of that this season, but I also believe we finally have a back that is PERFECT for the scheme we are attempting to run. A guy who BLASTS through the slightest crease with such body lean and balance that he will often get 2-3 yards just by falling forward.

This offense SHOULD be able to do whatever it wants to to move the ball this season. It is that talented and that good.

And I completely agree about the blocking in the Big 12 Championship in '96. It was amazing, including our running back.

I myself dabbled in pacifism once. Not in 'Nam, of course.
-Walter
Edited by Sejjr on 5/15/01 01:07 AM.
 
Sejjr, one simple question to start, what if Cedric Benson isn't god? Do we just chunk the whole season and start talking up next year's savior running back?

To you point about 8-man fronts, too often on this board I see people confuse a blitz with a front. 8 in the box means that you LINE UP with 8 in the box. What does that mean? That means you have man-to-man on the corners with very little to zero help from the free safety. To be blunt, I can't see any team putting 8 in the box to stop our run as we are more than competent at stopping our own running game. What I can see teams doing is lining up with 8 in the box and dropping two into the underneath zone coverage in the hopes of getting a cheap interception on a slant route. But playing us 8 in the box straight away? No way, it probably didn't happen more than 3 times in any one game the last two years and for sure not against teams that were our quality or better.

From your description, it seems that the Greg Davis schemes needs superhuman players to be anything close to productive. When we only have normal or average players, we can't be productive at all. Case in point, how many tackles did Travis Minor or Quentin Griffin break this season? I would bet that neither broke as many as Hodges Mitchell much less Ricky Williams.

Also, outside of the Oklahoma State game this fall, name me a game in the Mack Brown era were we trapped or pulled more than twice a game if that.
 
I know what 8 in the box means. An 8 man front is also a look that is given by teams before the snap; they often will disguise zone blitzes with it. I am not going to go back and start pointing out individual moments where we trapped or pulled over the last two years. I was merely disagreeing with your statemnet that we hadn't.
I do have a problem with this statement, however:
In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
How many of Simms' INT's came from audibles?

We need to be able to run the ball, whether the defense knows it or not.

I myself dabbled in pacifism once. Not in 'Nam, of course.
-Walter
 
Nebraska football is fine and dandy but we are headed the other way. The passing game and defense is what's gonna win games and championships for us, not the run. The traditional Texas smashmouth fans need to realize that we are following the FSU model, not Nebraska's. Gimme strong OLinemen that can pass-block.

If you are so hungry for smashmouth football, you should become a Nebraska fan cos' it ain't gonna hapen here.
 
Whatever else has been said about Mackovick, I would take him as an offensive coordinator in a second. The game he called against Nebraska in the first Big XII championship game was a master piece. We had the blackshirt defense on their heels from the first snap. If Mackovick had had the gumption to hire a first rate defensive coordinator, he would still be here.
We have got to be able to gain 1 or 2 yards running this year. It seems we haven't been able to do that since Ricky was here.

A true ORANGEblood
________
 
"Again, Texas never saw more than a 7 man front in 2000."
Sorry, but that's complete rubbish. Stanford, Oregon, OU, UH and Baylor all showed us 8 man fronts at varying times, almost every other team showed them on short yardage. The teams that respected our passing game and showed us 7 man fronts were precisely the ones we had success running against. I expect to see more of that in 2001, but we'll still see situational 8 man fronts and it's on Davis to deal with them.

"It's a fallacy that Texas saw 9 man fronts in 1999 or 2000."

Apparently you missed the KSU game in which they played eight and occasionally nine man fronts against our two WR sets almost every down. Probably why Davis only ran the ball twice in the second half. That's when the weakness of our WR corps and Applewhite's arm were truly revealed for all to see.

How do you know this?

I can count. I can locate the other team's strong safety. I actually watched the games.

Your comments on fronts and your further contention that we didn't pull lineman in '00 leads me to believe that you didn't really study our team before you made an interesting post about what Nebraska does. Your extrapolating what seems logical to you rather than actually watching the games and learning for yourself; neat theory taking precedence over untidy evidence.
 
Scipio, again, you confuse a BLITZ or a STUNT with a front. Just because a team brings a corner or a safety, it doesn't mean that they are playing an 8-man front. It just means that they can give us a base look and believe (with almost frightening accuracy) that they can blitz almost at will.

Baylor and UH can put the entire student body onto the field and not keep us from scoring. Those two games aren't even worth discussing.

Stanford, Oregon and OU are worth talking about and none of them did anything special front wise to beat us. All blitzed and stunted with amazing success, but they physically whipped at the point of attack which is what allowed them to dominate our running game. They ran the basic 7 front, gave us different looks at times at LB and DB and blitzed at will. Basically, they didn't do anything special at all save for beat us.

KSU in 1999 is a fantastic example of what I am talking about. In a defensive struggle all day, they made plays in the fourth quarter with the blitz, not with putting more men in the box. It was Applewhite's inability or in fairness, the offenses inability to make plays in the fourth quarter which lost us that game. Three fouth quarter turnovers and a punt return for a touchdown and a close game becomes a blowout.

It's amazing to me how easily everybody wants to blame our lack of offense on other teams playing 8-9 man fronts when that just isn't the case.

Gentlemen, if these teams are doing EXACTLY what you are saying, that they are beating us by putting 8-9 man in the box. What does that say?

1) They have ZERO respect for our offensive coordinator and his ability to get the ball to the corner?
2) They have ZERO respect for our QBs to recognize this and audible to pass the ball to our WR corps that has featured a 6'2" leaper in each of the last three seasons (Kavil in '98 and '99, Williams in '00)?

Or worse:
3) That we can't recognize that 8-9 man front to make the correct audible.
4) That we can recognize the 8-9 man front and simply don't have the ability to execute against it.

Hey, I stick by the fact that teams haven't been playing us in a 8-9 man front because they haven't. But if you chose to believe they have, please tell me why they do so. If what you say is true, we might as well not play this year because we seem unable to execute against anything that forces us to do so.
 
I am confused by your terminology. To me there is a big difference between an 8-man front and 8 in the box. This team played against 8 in the box as a standard set until we went with the freshmen WRs last year, and even then still saw 8 in the box pretty often. The 99 KSU game was an exercise in blitzing LBs, which by definition are going to be in the box at the snap. We lost that game because we became one dimensional, even though Hodges was having a nice game running the ball in the first half.

To me the 8 man front signals either a max blitz or a zone blitz scheme, but is more daring generally. We see that often enough that it makes me think the opponent is reading our mail [see Ark game in the CB for a really egregious example].

This team will crush the 8 in the box set this year because we will have 60 catches from the TE position. A great TE threat can occupy a LB and a safety, potentially taking one and sometimes two out of the box. That element alone could really ignite this offense and take off a lot of the pressure.

Add the potential for a more powerful back [although whoever it is would do well to match the productivity of HM] and the OLine could end up looking a hell of a lot better.

"WE'RE READY" --DKR
 
bullzak, I will explain more clearly. When I said 8-9 man front, I took it as a given that everybody would equate it as the same as saying 8 in the box. Clearly, nobody lines 8 men up on the line of scrimmage in any capacity save special teams.

To your point, this team RARELY saw 8 man fronts (or 8 in the box, your choice) last season. Nobody had to put 8 men in the box as our running game was below average and the pass was the strength of our offense. Ask yourself a question, if your a defensive coordinator why give a team that can only pass to move the ball consistent man-to-man coverage?

Nobody did.

Instead, teams would played us almost exclusively in a zone and ran stunts, twists, zone blitzes, etc. to get pressure on us. Whenever they did bring an 8th man, they would bring him off the corner (not necessarly a DB) and drop a linebacker into the soft zone. The hope was that our young QB (Simms) or immobile QB (Applewhite) would feel the pressure, hit the slant to the hot WR and pick the football. Well, Applewhite being the veteran would usually recognize this and either throw the ball away or take the sack. Simms being vastly more inexperienced had to go through the growing pains of seeing this ball picked...and picked...and picked for six before he learned.

A&M gave the world the blueprint to stop our offense in Kyle in '99 and that was to play zone, drop backers, bring DBs and force the QBs to make plays outside of the pocket or in a rush. I am not a fan of Mickey Hankwitz (sp) but that was a great adjustment he made at halftime against us.

It doesn't matter what type of skill position talent we have because the type of blitz that we are seeing will not stop UNTIL we can get an offensive line that can pick it up the middle and a RB who can recognize it and pick it up on the outside. By doing so, we will not have to throw it to our hot WR (which the defense is laying a trap for us to do) and we can then get our tremendous WR one-on-one downfield against DBs who are playing too tight to cover deep.

It all begins on the OL.
 
I call BS.

I glanced over the 1st quarter of the 2000 Kansas game quickly just to check my facts, and the fact is you are dead wrong. We ran against 8-9 in the box the first five series of that game, until Roy opened up the field and made the damn safeties back up and stop hitting Hodges square in the mouth right at the line of scrimmage every other down. And no, they were not blitzing... I know the difference between a SS cheating up in run support and a ******* blitz. They were getting enough pressure with the down linemen that they didn't need it. Simms was sacked in the first or second series when Mike Williams got beat by a DL.

1st series- 2nd down: Base 3-4 defense with FS Nesmith #5 lined up strong side just off the LOS- Hodges hit for a loss.
3rd down: Same 3-4 with SS #27 High lined up like an extra WLB- Inside LB Rogers crushed Hodges at the LOS. - Hodges later remarked that that was the hardest he had been hit all year.

2nd Series- 2nd and long- FS Nesmith again. NO blitz. Short gain.
3rd down- SS High again.

Ad Nauseum. Literally... On the 4th series 1st down Simms torched one to Roy for a 40+ yard 1st down completion and the ******** still didn't drop back into zone yet. The next four tackles were made by Nesmith, Nesmith, High and High respectively. The corners either cheated in or stayed out in man and the safeties basically played run support the entire time, like a pair of extra linebackers. It look like Hodges storming the Beach at Normandy, all by himself. In fact we were driving in the red zone early after a catch out of the backfield and got shut down 3 consecutive times on the 5 yard line- sound familiar?

The next series Simms opened up with a 40+ yard touchdown to Roy ( this is the one right before the 2 pt conversion returned for a safety). After that the safeties dropped back into zone and Hodges ran for 30+ yards on the next three plays- the last for a 14 yard TD. You can actually watch Nesmith start off shading the LB and then drop back into coverage- the OL gap block down the DL, the FB Trissel square up with the OLB and Hodges runs through that space the the FS just left 10 seconds earlier for a TD.

He ran like his head was on fire and his *** was catchin' the rest of the game and set a rushing record- after planning to only get about 25 carries going in. Kansas knew that a 7 man front was going to get spanked and they sold out early to stop Hodges- and it workd for 3 or 4 series. If our passing game hadn't opened up it might have worked the whole game- given we were down by 2 touchdowns before anyone broke a sweat.

So the answer to your questions

In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
in reply to....

The next series Simms opened up with a 40 yard touchdown to Roy ( this is the one right before the 2 pt conversion returned for a safety). After that the safeties dropped back into zone and Hodges ran for 30 yards on the next three plays- the last for a 14 yard TD. You can actually watch Nesmith start off shading the LB and then drop back into coverage- the OL gap block down the DL, the FB Trissel square up with the OLB and Hodges runs through that space the the FS just left 10 seconds earlier for a TD


"when we blow doors throwing down field, the run will come"

See?



"Hit it where they mow".....Harvey Penick
Edited by TTomTerrrific on 5/15/01 10:04 PM.
 
Thanks, bo - as usual, I'm feeling the normal amount of paranoia, assuming that I've been sent an alternative set of tapes from the ones you guys are watching. The ones I received in the mail are from Black Helicopter Product. Of the tapes I watched from last year, which is every game, it certainly looked to me like there were often eight-nine guys proximate to the LOS. Whether they were in this thing called the "box", or not, or whether they were going to blitz is beyond me, but they were certainly close enough to play hell with the running game. Of course, they frequently did that until Major audibled out of a running play and then dropped the safeties into a two deep zone. So much for presnap read and deceptive play calls with 1.5 seconds left on the snap clock.
 
PhxHorn -- I guess we can unofficially call this the Dichotomy II post?
HiFi-- you've made some very interesting and apprently very contentious points. If you are wondering about at other games where we were pulling the guard out on quasi-counters, take a good look at the Kansas and Tech games. I froze my *** off watching Tillman Holloway destroy LB's on that trap play-- and loved every minute of it!

As for your 8-9 in a box theory, the real question isn't whether where the defense is set in its "base" formation-- it's where those defenders are when the ball is snapped. After watching tape after tape, I can guarantee you with a high degree of confidence we were running with many 8 in the box sets AS THE BALL WAS SNAPPED, many times with the QB assuming we had 7 in the box.

You do bring up something important, though, and I think it was TTT who stated it the most effectively (and PhxHorn just echoed the sentiment in his last post). Whatever benefit we gained from reading defensive sets under limited offesive formations, we more than lost every advantage by letting the defense have the "last word" by changing their sets at the 1.5 seconds pre-snap. If the defense sees you in a 2 WR, with the FB offset on the strong-side 5 gap-- why not drop the safties back two deep until 3 seconds before the snap and overload the zone in the 5 gap? Well, other DCs were playing the "Why Not Game" last year and got away with it-- big time.

DIMYH -- I don't know if you are still out there, but I did want to get back to you on some very good observations from the "Dichotomy" thread. I think part of the solution about the OL in this scheme that isn't being addressed is how to deal with and minimize situations where defenses zones become "overloaded". Many of our mistakes on running plays is simply due to a "point of attack" problem-- defenses know we base/zone block 80% of the time, disguise defensive sets to make the QB think "run", the defense overloads the zones anywhere between the tackles-- and POOF! Hodges for a 3-yard loss on the up the gut delay. We truly are fooling nobody in these situations. And what's more frustrating is there's little an OL can do but block one man when 2-3 defensive bodies are occupying his "zone"-- this happened numerous times between the guards. Many times our center never had a chance...

Two ways to get around that: (1) more misdirection/angle blocking plays, (2) disrupt the timing of plays by going on quick counts, no huddles, etc. Getting a RB who can hit the seam fast and can break tackles might be (2b), especially if we intend to live or die behind zone/base blocking schemes.

As for your other question, I think the biggest problem we face in run blocking technique is staying low and using the lower body to maintain blocks for a longer period of time. Sometimes OLs just don't realize how important it is to maintain a block for another second or two-- and I wouldn't doubt for a minute that Nunez is trying to teach that to the OL's everyday. Just remember, these are really big kids carrying a lot of weight and blocking some pretty massive fellas-- fatigue certainly plays a part on blocking fundamentals.

To sum it up-- like it or not-- this is an offense based on passing. The OL's will leave this place with the best education and the most practice in zone blocking technique-- and lack the most basic run blocking skills required for NFL success (just see how Big progresses).

As Sejjr so wisely pointed out, this offense depends on a serious "YAC" back-- and that back has to be pretty special to get this offense clicking. Davis could make the burden of the offense a whole lot lighter if he forced defense to run out of their base sets. Last time I checked, keeping the defense on their heels is a GOOD THING.

If Davis changes the offensive rhythm, finds the back he needs, and gets the OL to hold their base blocks for only a half-second longer-- there will be lots of points on the board and dancing in the streets. Possibly some nude dancing as well...

________
Go Horns Go!
 
HornInOz, if what you say about Tech and Kansas is correct concerning Tillman Holloway (who looked like a young Dan Neil against Ok St when we trapped and pulled all damn day) we didn't run that play near enough. Also, where was that play against Stanford, Oklahoma and Oregon? Running it against regularaly against Ok State and once or twice against Tech or Kansas shows nothing. Why not run it against a quality team and try to control the ball? Against OU, it was clear that their offense was clicking on every single level and that our only defense would have been to keep it off the field. Going 3-and-out (or worse) for every possession till our last possession of the half when we scored, killed us.

If our QBs are either taking to long to get to the line of scrimmage or to long to read the defense or to long to make an audible, we really have issues. Since that is a purely speculative post (despite evidence on the field), it's difficult to discuss.

Your other point about always running to the side of the offset tailback (which I can't remember when it wasn't to the strong side) falls squarely on the shoulders of Greg Davis. Obviously, if you load one side so heavily, which is what you do when you have the FB set to the side of the TE, and film after film shows that you run only to that side, it becomes a check call for the defense and they should immediately bring the playside LB crashing and the SS on the outside. I thought that the rocket pitch was supposed to help do away with this tendency but we never seemed to get the blocking on the end (whether it was Leonard Davis or Mike Williams) that would allow Hodges to get outside. But I think the rocket pitch is a stupid play to begin with and I hope its continuous failure will mean its demise.

Running a trap with the fullback back inside off from the offset position once or twice a game would do a better job giving the defense a moments pause than running a rocket pitch that is only successful if the OT hooks the DE, the WR turns the CB outside and that the RB beats the LB to the corner. That is too many IFs for my blood.

Maybe its the gambler in me, but another play that I would love to see if we feel the defense is going to check blitz with the LB and SS if we line up with our FB offset would to bootleg Simms and see if we can hit one of our TEs dragging across or the backside WR on a post route into the zone vacated by the coming SS. If we had any intelligence, we will rolls Simms out left and let him throw it with his body. But I could be wrong. Hell even throwing BACK to the RB (while throwing laterally across the field which is typically unwise) would at least give me a moment of private joy.

But that is neither here nor there. None of us our the OC and to this point, Davis seems firmly entrenched into that position. I would only hope that they have studied films as much as we would if we had their job and found ways to rectify what are clearly problems at the core of our offense.

The thing that hurt me the most this year was when Mack responded after the OU loss that he wanted to "weather the storm" and come back. Weathering the storm is not my way of living life, being proactive is the only way to go. We should use our talent to dictate to our opponents and make them either play to our level, play at a better level or get beat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top