TrueGSU.com

Follow GSUFANS.com on
     
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 50 of 50

Thread: Consistency ... this is what we need.

  1. #41

    Default Re: Consistency ... this is what we need.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1peatfor7 View Post
    I thought I heard NDSU will have another 1st round QB draft pick this season.
    yep, another lightly recruited diamond in the ruff and like I posted before, I have no idea how they do it year in and year out. 30-40% of their team, year in and out could play FBS football somewhere.

  2. #42

    Default Re: Consistency ... this is what we need.

    Quote Originally Posted by garns 4 View Post
    yep, another lightly recruited diamond in the ruff and like I posted before, I have no idea how they do it year in and year out. 30-40% of their team, year in and out could play FBS football somewhere.
    GOOD recruiting. Like Jeff Monken used to do.

    We haven't seen that in quite some time. That actually may have been the ONLY thing Summers was decent at...not good...decent.

  3. #43

    Default Re: Consistency ... this is what we need.

    Quote Originally Posted by GIEAGLE View Post
    Thank you for your response, gsu57. Sometime back I made a post that run plays out of the Hambone hit the los much faster than run plays out of the shotgun and that put more pressure on the interior of the defense. Seems I remember somebody posted that it wasn't in fact that much faster and so it didn't make that much of a difference.

    As somebody that's been there done that, it's good to have your knowledge and experience telling us what our eyes can see. The Hambone hits much quicker. Our O linemen have to hold their blocks very briefly for the play to be successful time after time when using the Hambone scheme. Running the ball out of the shotgun requires the O linemen to hold their blocks a much longer time for the play to be successful time after time. "Slower developing plays", which take more time giving the defense the time it needs to read and react successfully to the play, are part of the reason we get stuffed when we have to have the run yardage in critical downs. Hence, our offensive attack looks slow, is slow, and give us the results we've been seeing when we have to execute a play for the necessary yardage needed to move the chains. Defenses shut our run game down and force us to punt or attempt field goals instead of us being able to move the chains and score touchdowns as we did when we had a solid run game out of the Hambone scheme. Campbell did that to us again if I remember right.

    I'm still of the opinion if we're gonna be committed to running the ball we need to be under center (elimination of high or low snap problems too) and hit the los fast and hard with play action passing working off our run success. If we're gonna be a throwing team, then by all means line up in a shotgun or pistol and throw away. Running option out of the shotgun hasn't gotten our offense where it needs to be. I'm pretty tired of seeing us break a big play or 2 getting us down close to the red zone and seeing us get stuffed at that point. I don't recall that happening very much with our Hambone scheme based O units of the past. I don't put too much stock in looking at "averages". That figure is skewed too much by big plays. Keeping the chains moving and scoring touchdowns wins football games. A good run game gets that done. Consistency. Not good "averages" as some folks like to like to look at.

    Thank you again for your response, gsu57.
    GI ---

    If someone says, "The back gets to the LOS out of the gun in about the same time as the B-Back when under center", they should seek medical attention immediately. Just look at film. Under center, the B-Back comes out of a 3-point stance, 5 yards deep, and takes a straight line toward the guard. In the shotgun, the back, 6 yards deep, standing up, has to wait on the snap (see the delay on film). Then, once the QB receives the ball, the mesh begins. In most cases, the RB does not take a straight line to the hole. He breaks after a few steps (holding the defenders in place). Last, remind the person who needs medical attention ... The average football play lasts 4 seconds.

    The delay of 1.0 second, or even 0.5 second, is huge! Anyone who has not played college football cannot imagine the speed of the game. It looks much slower from the stands.

    OK --- If you refer to my original post, I did not outline an opinion on what offensive philosophy I feel works best.

    Obviously, I am a fan of the old spread option game. 3 foot splits, running off the ball, violent collisions, a lot of man-to-man combat, and much faster developing plays.

    Now, on the other side. 3 items I do like with our gun option:

    --- I like the ability to hold combo blocks longer. In doing so, the OL should generate greater push while working to the 2nd level.
    --- I like the blocking angles. I especially like it when we can zone block away from the play. Again, if we can generate push, and not miss assignments, we literally build a wall. Then, we should have 3 v. 2 on the option (WR/TE, or lead Back - Please make your block).
    --- Visibility. It is so much easier to identify, 1, 2, and 3 for the QB and RB's. Instead of running laterally and reading these 3 defenders, the QB (assuming #1 takes dive) can attack the outside should of #2 running downhill. Also, visibility and reads in the passing game should be easier from the gun.

    OK ... What philosophy is best?
    (A) What my team is running.
    (B) What puts more points on the board.
    (C) None of the above.

    I have no clue, but look for a lot of gains in OL play from game #1 to game #2.

  4. Default Re: Consistency ... this is what we need.

    I'm not much for technicality, but from what little I do understand, it seems to me (from reading between the lines of your post) -

    Gun option opens up the passing game more than veer option. So if you have a QB that is inefficient, then you need to rely on the OL to hold their blocks for the full engagement and then some in order to make something out of it. So if your OL is inefficient, I would think you're pretty much fubar.

    It would seem to me that the veer option would be the "safer" version of the gun option if your OL can't hold blocks long enough, yes? Is being an OL harder in the veer than the gun?

    Sorry the ignorance. I never played football. In fact I didn't break 150 lbs in weight until after college. I could walk on wet cement without leaving a trace.


    Quote Originally Posted by gsu57 View Post
    GI ---

    Now, on the other side. 3 items I do like with our gun option:

    --- I like the ability to hold combo blocks longer. In doing so, the OL should generate greater push while working to the 2nd level.
    --- I like the blocking angles. I especially like it when we can zone block away from the play. Again, if we can generate push, and not miss assignments, we literally build a wall. Then, we should have 3 v. 2 on the option (WR/TE, or lead Back - Please make your block).
    --- Visibility. It is so much easier to identify, 1, 2, and 3 for the QB and RB's. Instead of running laterally and reading these 3 defenders, the QB (assuming #1 takes dive) can attack the outside should of #2 running downhill. Also, visibility and reads in the passing game should be easier from the gun.

  5. #45

    Default Re: Consistency ... this is what we need.

    The gun allows for better visibility of the defense pre-snap and as the play develops versus under center. Under center, the QB is required to read the defense while performing a 3, 5, or 7 step drop. In the gun, the QB is already 5 yards deep and can read while utilizing some form of play action. Of course, back in the '80s, we had zero straight drop back pass plays. QB would set up behind the tackles or we rolled out.

    To me, zone blocking is easier to much execute versus veer blocking. I say this as the typical #1 on the read is taught to keep the OT off of the ILB. In such a scenario, the tackle must either veer-in or veer-out with interference from the D Lineman. In performing the veer, in an even front, this leaves the guard one-on-one without a combo or other assistance. The Tackles are more like Dancing Bears while the Guards are more like Road Graders, and the Center is a combination of both.

    For our offense (gun option), I like our blocking scheme very much. We need the OL to develop more and work as a unit. This is challenging when players to the right or left are replaced. I am not saying the replacements are not capable, but little things like timing, blocking routes, communication, etc. vary from one person to another. Example: Dance with the wife/girlfriend then dance with another lady. If the significant other does not kill you first, do they dance the same??? Probably not ...

  6. Default Re: Consistency ... this is what we need.

    That's a pretty solid example. I can relate to that one for sure. My uncle was one of the fundraisers to get GS football up and going, worked for GS football for little bit. Came from UGA when Erk did if I remember correctly. It's cool to actually talk to someone who was one of the original ones. Obviously, I have a soft spot for the veer.. Wonder how Monken and PJ were able to teach OL to have an immediate impact when ours is struggling for impact in year 2? Anyway, thanks for the info, it's good to know.

  7. #47

    Default Re: Consistency ... this is what we need.

    Quote Originally Posted by gsu57 View Post
    GI ---

    If someone says, "The back gets to the LOS out of the gun in about the same time as the B-Back when under center", they should seek medical attention immediately. Just look at film. Under center, the B-Back comes out of a 3-point stance, 5 yards deep, and takes a straight line toward the guard. In the shotgun, the back, 6 yards deep, standing up, has to wait on the snap (see the delay on film). Then, once the QB receives the ball, the mesh begins. In most cases, the RB does not take a straight line to the hole. He breaks after a few steps (holding the defenders in place). Last, remind the person who needs medical attention ... The average football play lasts 4 seconds.

    The delay of 1.0 second, or even 0.5 second, is huge! Anyone who has not played college football cannot imagine the speed of the game. It looks much slower from the stands.

    OK --- If you refer to my original post, I did not outline an opinion on what offensive philosophy I feel works best.

    Obviously, I am a fan of the old spread option game. 3 foot splits, running off the ball, violent collisions, a lot of man-to-man combat, and much faster developing plays.

    Now, on the other side. 3 items I do like with our gun option:

    --- I like the ability to hold combo blocks longer. In doing so, the OL should generate greater push while working to the 2nd level.
    --- I like the blocking angles. I especially like it when we can zone block away from the play. Again, if we can generate push, and not miss assignments, we literally build a wall. Then, we should have 3 v. 2 on the option (WR/TE, or lead Back - Please make your block).
    --- Visibility. It is so much easier to identify, 1, 2, and 3 for the QB and RB's. Instead of running laterally and reading these 3 defenders, the QB (assuming #1 takes dive) can attack the outside should of #2 running downhill. Also, visibility and reads in the passing game should be easier from the gun.

    OK ... What philosophy is best?
    (A) What my team is running.
    (B) What puts more points on the board.
    (C) None of the above.

    I have no clue, but look for a lot of gains in OL play from game #1 to game #2.
    Thank you again, gsu57. I have many fond memories of seeing the Hawg units of our glory years function at such a high level. Your knowledge is very welcome. Always remember you are part of a tremendous legacy the Georgia Southern Hawgs have left in college football. Ya'll will always be remembered as "the weapon that made the Georgia Power Company go". BTW, I too expect to see very different O line execution in game 2. Hail Southern.

  8. #48

    Default Re: Consistency ... this is what we need.

    Quote Originally Posted by gsu57 View Post
    The gun allows for better visibility of the defense pre-snap and as the play develops versus under center. Under center, the QB is required to read the defense while performing a 3, 5, or 7 step drop. In the gun, the QB is already 5 yards deep and can read while utilizing some form of play action. Of course, back in the '80s, we had zero straight drop back pass plays. QB would set up behind the tackles or we rolled out.

    To me, zone blocking is easier to much execute versus veer blocking. I say this as the typical #1 on the read is taught to keep the OT off of the ILB. In such a scenario, the tackle must either veer-in or veer-out with interference from the D Lineman. In performing the veer, in an even front, this leaves the guard one-on-one without a combo or other assistance. The Tackles are more like Dancing Bears while the Guards are more like Road Graders, and the Center is a combination of both.

    For our offense (gun option), I like our blocking scheme very much. We need the OL to develop more and work as a unit. This is challenging when players to the right or left are replaced. I am not saying the replacements are not capable, but little things like timing, blocking routes, communication, etc. vary from one person to another. Example: Dance with the wife/girlfriend then dance with another lady. If the significant other does not kill you first, do they dance the same??? Probably not ...
    The other side of the coin is that the defenses we face can see into our backfield and have a tendency to watch the play develop before they commit.

    They don't have that luxury when we're under center. If LBs and edge players are watching the backfield mesh vs that offense, they have no chance of stopping the B-Back between the tackles or other quick-hitting plays such as the rocket toss.

    I'm interested to see what happens the rest of this season. This is pretty much the last stand of the "gun option," IMO.
    Thanks, Rastabot!
    www.247sports.com/porkchops

  9. Default Re: Consistency ... this is what we need.

    It's also the last stand of the option, period. Our fanbase consists of too many idiots that don't understand the issues and/or have no desire to have a "weird offense"

    Quote Originally Posted by pete4256 View Post
    The other side of the coin is that the defenses we face can see into our backfield and have a tendency to watch the play develop before they commit.

    They don't have that luxury when we're under center. If LBs and edge players are watching the backfield mesh vs that offense, they have no chance of stopping the B-Back between the tackles or other quick-hitting plays such as the rocket toss.

    I'm interested to see what happens the rest of this season. This is pretty much the last stand of the "gun option," IMO.

  10. #50

    Default Re: Consistency ... this is what we need.

    Quote Originally Posted by StingingEagle View Post
    It's also the last stand of the option, period. Our fanbase consists of too many idiots that don't understand the issues and/or have no desire to have a "weird offense"
    I doubt that. We're one of four FBS fanbases who would be ok with a productive flex offense.
    Thanks, Rastabot!
    www.247sports.com/porkchops

Similar Threads

  1. "Offense Still Seeking Consistency: Defense Still Grinding"
    By TrueBlue7 in forum The Flight Line
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 22nd August 2010, 09:32 AM
  2. consistency in one system
    By Large Marge in forum The Flight Line
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 24th October 2008, 09:41 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •