That is true, but if you do the same thing for their back JJ Taylor, his average is even less. We don’t have stellar running backs so I stick with what I said. I wouldn’t expect much more out of our running game overall unless one RB really steps up. Better calls in the red zone are needed though.
1 Like
The read option and the RPO are central staples of Dana’s offense tho
I agree with most of the rest of what you said, with the caveat that, though the OL is better, it still isn’t good.
You technically have the straw man argument. You are the one that brings up execution but our offense was 100% better in the first half than the second half. We scored more in the first half. We had more yardage in the first half. We had more first downs in the first half. So your argument is that either Arizona’s defense started executing better in the second half or we started executing worse. Logic would say that the play calling changed, not the execution. Coaches make halftime adjustments.
Considering it was the first game, against a p5 opponent, on the road, with a 9:30 local start time I was satisfied. There are a lot of things to be improved, but with so many changes I came away thinking we will be really good. I don’t see anything that should make people panic too much. I was really impressed with our Defense. I expect a clean, and complete effort against Rice to prep for Tech.
1 Like
Lol No,
the premise of my argument was: [quote=“xsmithcoog116, post:23, topic:8180”]
Some of you guys need to get off of the “playcalling was bad” train. If it works no one would complain. It’s up to the players to execute the play call.
[/quote]
I should have never entertained his/her post because it in itself was a straw man argument.
Now I’m going to entertain your straw man argument because I’m extremely bored. I never once said Arizona’s defense was executing better and we started executing worse( though, that may have been the case). My original argument is that play calling should be treated independent from execution. The two aren’t married to each other, they’re two different phases to the game. Yes, there are some instances where play calling doesn’t make sense(given the situation), but that wasn’t my argument (see above). Now, I’m going to use an example from the game to illustrate what I mean. I think it was 3rd and 1 near the end zone, and we had two receivers to one side and one corner on the line and the other playing a few yards off of the ball. Allen snaps the ball and throws a quick pass to Dunbar who really has one man to beat. Bonner gets pushed back into Dunbar and those two defenders make the play. Schematically(play calling), it was good “if” Bonner got better push, and “then” Dunbar ran his man over (who was playing soft coverage) for a first down. [quote=“xsmithcoog116, post:23, topic:8180”]
If it works no one would complain. It’s up to the players to execute the play call.
[/quote]
Couldn’t the argument be made that it was poor play calling because the defensive player read the play perfectly, allowing him to make the play of pushing Bonner back into Dunbar? If a better play is called, the defensive player is not in perfect position. Too many of those screen play calls require the receiver or blocker to make a good to great play or it gets blown up completely, and if the defense isn’t fooled, they will always be in position to make the play whether they make it or not.
I’m not in favor of running an air raid type offense, but one thing I like about them is the plays are designed to have positive development even if a great play isn’t made. On a 5 yard slant, even if the offensive player doesn’t make a play other than the catch, 5 yards is gained. If the player makes a play, it goes for more. In our offense, with the run up the middle on a run/pass option or a bubble screen, if a play isn’t made, it’s a zero or negative yardage experience.
It seems this offense requires a higher level of player execution for a basic play for average yards or it fails. I’d rather the scheme require less need for a high level of player execution to be a success. We aren’t OSU. We aren’t UT when Applewhite was there. We aren’t Bama. Those teams can have a lower level of execution because the talent and athleticism will make up for that. In this offense, it seems like we’re going to require perfect player execution and that can’t be expected.
If players can’t master a play, why have it or run it? I know they don’t have 300 plays that you can hit scramble and call one, but can you start off practicing with even 10 plays and find 5 that the players can master? I don’t see 5 different running plays in this offense and I see even less that they’ve mastered or that work when the defense has no problem reading the same play. It seems like our staff says these are our few plays. These are the only ones were going to use. And if our team can’t run some of those plays, we’re going to use even fewer of them.
You obviously have more football x & o knowledge, so yes I’m arguing points to learn as well as inform… so based on your knowledge how many different running RB plays do you see? Since it almost always looks like the same formation and execution, I don’t see many. My point about the Cowboys game wasn’t they have time and talent to try different things, it’s that with them I see an I formation, I see 1 or 2 TEs formations. I see hand offs. I see pitches. That’s not something that requires a large amount of time to implement. I see lots of college football teams do that. But our run first offense appears to have none of that.
Same with our passing. I see primarily bubble screens in varying WR formations. I see a few mid to deep passes to the outside. I’d like to see more 8 to 12 yard routes even more than the deep routes every one else wants to see. I’d like to see more slant routes. We can’t see the whole field on TV so maybe they are running them and they’re not open or KA is not seeing them open. But I don’t see many of those type routes and I think those would be much more successful using KA’s talents than bubble screens.
And I’d LOVE to see routes on 3rd down that are past the sticks. I’m not a fan of bubble screens or short routes that require a play to be made after the catch. Run the routes past the sticks and let the catch be the only play needed.
1 Like
I agree, but it would depend on the severity of the poor execution. Asking a larger receiver to run over a smaller player, and gain a yard is better than asking a right tackle to pull all the way left, get out in front ,and block a faster outside backer who has already read the play. Or even worse, everyone executes the play instead of a receiver who drops a 50 yard bomb. I completely understand what you’re saying, hence the name “chess master” when referring to coaches who can make that happen. However, it’s all meaningless if a player can’t execute the check mate.
I don’t know if we have to have perfect execution, we just need to be better than every team that we play each Saturday. Look at the tough triple option teams, we know they have maybe 10 plays in their entire offensive playbook, right? Easy to stop that right? Nope. They run the same plays over, and over, and over until they are really, really, good at it. That’s one reason they are always tough to beat. But somehow they don’t go undefeated every year. And that’s were scheme is important. I do believe we will be a lot better by the time we get to game 3 or 4. For one, Allen is very talented, a third receiver will emerge (my money is on Corbin), the Oline will have better communication, and the defense will be more exotic.
1 Like
My perfect execution comment is based on the defense not being fooled and being in position if we don’t make the perfect play.
To be honest, so far from what I’ve seen of our offense, I might prefer the triple option. There are more running play options. You can run a full back up the middle. QB can run it. You can pitch it. You can go left or right.
It seems like with our playbook, there is primarily just a run up the middle hoping the defense is playing the pass. Although we did run an option to the short side of the field which was a spectacular failure.
Ahhhhhhh Now I see,
Yea there’s no excuse for not having more running plays. However, it’s still early, but if you’ve followed Urban Meyer, Dan Mullen, etc…you’d see that they are very multiple. I’m going to go out on a limb and say Brian Johnson will bring close to the same amount of formations. I’m going to watch a couple of games from the 2011-2013 Utah Utes and see. Now, given that, maybe he’s saving a lot of that for Tech and beyond. I’m going to also assume that our coaches had a lot of faith in our offense and little in Arizona’s defense if that truly is the case. lol That would be insulting.
lol Please no. But it would be bad ass to see it come back to where it all started!
One thing I liked about Briles was his willingness to go under center in short yardage.
Please forgive me, but I grew up an OU fan in the 1970s (born in OK and much of my extended family went to school there) so I had an affection for the triple option long before I became a UH fan and went to school there.
I’d like to see two tight ends on the field within the 5. That’d be some big boy football.
1 Like
I hope not. I’d hate that. We barely squeaked by Arizona. If it wasn’t for our defense, we would have lost. If we’d lost trying to hide our future offense, shame on our coaching staff. If our offense could have scored some TDs in the 2nd half if we hadn’t been hiding plays, we needed to do it.
Besides if we don’t run these plays, how will they be able to execute them later when they’re needed? If the only way they work is based on the element of surprise, they shouldn’t be in our playbook unless they’re once or twice a season trick plays.
Nice!
So you got to see magic happen! I’m largely a fan of the triple option because is sends a message to the team you’re playing. It would be cool if we subbed in King and went into a triple option formation, they’d assume he’d run but he can pass too. The defense would be really stressed! lol
1 Like
Billy Simms was my favorite player as a kid. The first college game I ever attended in person was a 1985 OU home game. That team went on to win the national championship.
As someone who followed Switzer and Yeoman, I’m not sure you can just put in a triple option play in the playbook. Those guys preached that those plays worked because that’s all you practiced and reads and executions became instinctive. But maybe they’d work as a rare surprise trick play. Couldn’t be something you ran several times a game if it’s not the base offense.
1 Like
This team ain’t as good as it’s been the last 2 years. If they can go 8-4 this year, it’s a win. Next year though, UH suppose to be really good again; due to the ridiculously infusion of talented transfers. Hopefully, they shock me this year.
2 Likes
This is a hard argument to make because the comparison is apples and oranges. I agree that talent-wise, this year’s team isn’t as good as last year’s team. But, I actually think we’ll have a better record this year than last because we won’t play as tough a schedule. Our most difficult conference games (except for USF and maybe Tulsa) are all at home and our non-conference slate is a cake walk compared to last year. Rice should provide a nice scrimmage atmosphere for us to work out the kinks we saw against Zona, then a real test against a real offense in Tech. I’d be shocked if we lost 4 games this year due solely to the softness of our schedule.
- We don’t know that yet. We’ve seen 1 game, a win over a PAC 12 team.
- If we take care of business and beat the teams we should, we’ll win double digit games. Last year’s team lost games that they shouldn’t have because of lack of focus, for reasons we all know. This year’s team will be favored in all but 1, maybe 2 games. This year’s Coogs could easily win 10 games, despite not having marquee wins like OU or Louisville.
2 Likes