theant
(College of Technology Grad 1981, Bring back REAL Shasta!!!)
1
I would like to watch all over again to see specific movements and am by no means an expert. I am learning…
With 3 offensive linemen on Ed, why could we not penetrate quickly enough to at least shorten the time the QB had to scan the field?
It seemed that we tried putting more in the backfield but I tend to think all that did was make more confusion, maybe assumptions teammates were would cover receivers passing through zones. It was as though we simply had no formation for that situation.
One thing I picture is a defensive line that knew Ed would be triple teamed creating a hole for two defenders.
Those should be quick and have strong tackling hands. Sounds like defensive ends and linebackers, right?
Ed needed breaks which meant back to single, maybe double blocking depending on the defensive personnel so we change to whatever formation and defense that worked best for the personnel.
The trick would be having the right people in for the run and the right ones for short or long pass plays.
I would hope that our coaches were many steps beyond my analysis as football is not what I do for a living.
On the Offensive side it seemed like we began to miss on breakaways either with drops or King lost some of his accuracy mojo. It seems like everything got clustered up in the box and King could not “scramble” although he hit some narrow lanes at times. Am I wrong in that we lost any ability to string out plays horizontally to create holes? It seems the trick plays suffered penetration all along the line of scrimmage.
Obviously we suffered because the offense worked best when it worked quickly leaving the defense gassed. We used to do this to other teams.
In sum, those are my thoughts on the game, I’ll try to sit back and just listen and learn.
The game plan that Kliff ran on offense was absolutely genius to neutralize our strength, which is our defensive line. It allowed the offensive line to double and triple team Oliver and with quick out passes to the sidelines we were screwed since our cornerbacks couldn’t cover anything our linebackers would have to shed to the side to quickly help with not only coverage but tackling as well. This prevented us from getting any kind of penetration into the backfield.
So in my opinion the problem isn’t the front seven but instead our extremely inept secondary. I can’t tell you how many times I saw Robinson and other linebackers having to make a tackle after two cornerbacks couldn’t bring down a wide receiver. When our linebackers are continually having to bail out the secondary there is no way that they can participate in the blitzes or backfield penetration.
Kliff had a good plan.
Early in game they were throwing quick WR screens off Counter Action.
So they had 3 OL block down and pulled backside OG & OT and faked handoff to RB.
Our LBs and DL are reading keys and they are leading LBs to side showing counter and throwing to WR on other side. They can’t ignore it because they also ran Counter as well. It keep inside help from getting outside. Pretty smart
So I’m thinking what could we do? And you don’t know when they are gonna run it. Can’t tell team to disregard counter action because when they run counter our LBs will have vacated middle and get gashed. Also the ball is out quick no chance for pressure
But we could have saved a lot of yards and some points by just tackling. And covering the right guy
The DC sets the standard for what he accepts tackling-wise. If a team doesn’t tackle it certainly reflects poorly on coaching. The worst tackling teams I remember were Skladany’s and Bryant’s with Bryant’s being marginally worse over the season.
I’m having a hard time accepting we’ve devolved to that degree though. I want to say, no. But 63 points are whispering “yes…yes…yes” in my ear.
3 Likes
theant
(College of Technology Grad 1981, Bring back REAL Shasta!!!)
5
Yes I noticed that too. Appeared we were physically over-matched. I guess they had strength with height.
I think conditioning played a big part in yesterday’s game. After the half we looked gassed, much moreso than Tech. I’m not sure I buy that their 2nd team players are a great deal better than ours or that we have no depth. We’ve played P5 teams better than theirs and won before, and thsoe wins didn’t happen just because of our starters.
The D looked gassed and out of sorts in the 3rd quarter, and in that situation when you fall behind it tends to snowball. I don’t think they are all that good, but as a home team they are going to give anyone a hard time when their O is clicking. Add to that the pressure our players were putting on themselves and getting behind tends to just snowball. It’s not the end of the season, and one bad game doesn’t mean we need to fire the coach.
theant
(College of Technology Grad 1981, Bring back REAL Shasta!!!)
8
Coaching certainly is mostly attributable to coaching. That said, you coach it and move on with that understood as elementary… of course coaches have to catch backsliding and that is what happened to us, imo.
theant
(College of Technology Grad 1981, Bring back REAL Shasta!!!)
9
I think the TTs were “charmed” somehow. Everything that could go perfectly for them seemed to. Maybe it was beginner’s luck if you believe in that sort of thing. Ever take your wife fishing?
Conditioning indeed seemed to be our problem and not theirs.
Yes, our D was on the field so much but their offense was out there just as long.
In Ed’s defense I believe he gave his all but just the frustration of taking 3 away from their offense and nobody else putting pressure has to take the wind out of your sails.
With that amount of fatigue in any other game Ed would have sacks, pressures, TFLs, and tackles all over the place.
To sum it all we got out-coached and out-prepared, and then, out-coached again negating any adjustments made halftime or otherwise. Kliff was coaching for his job, imo and proved himself.
We are better that we showed and TT played above their heads, imo.
Really, a P.S.: I believe our coaches should have been coaching for their jobs as well.
I remember Orlando being great in high profile games but our D looked miserable on those we were supposed to but did not win. It seemed they could coach heart to play above our heads and have great game plans in the Herman days. Coaches’ infidelity talking to other teams showed us just how much of a buzzkill their secrets could be.
CMD is not going anywhere this year, but if I was CMA I would dictate that we become a lot more aggressive against passing teams for the rest of the season. As the HC, CMA should leave CKB to his business and spend the next 2 weeks driving the defensive staff and players to improve. Let’s try 6 men on the LOS, with 0-2 dropping into coverage. Let’s work on actual pass rushing techniques that get people to the QB. Seems to me that our Dline typically bull rushes and our delayed blitzes look more like playing patty cake. Have the DBs in bump & run, man coverage. They might get burned some and there will be PI calls but it makes the opposing O actually have to execute under pressure. These next two weeks is a perfect time to reset the scheme. Averaging 46/game with this offense, even a small D improvement might be all we need.
Ok. That is off my chest. Been having trouble breathing ever since #4 starting abusing our CBs yesterday. Horrible thing to watch. Really made for a terrible ride home today, but I am recovering.
We do still completely control our destiny. Go Coogs!
theant – all true but a tired D is much more detrimental than a tired O. It’s a lot harder to stop someone from scoring when you’re tired than it is to be on the other side. And our D spent a heckuva lot more time on the field than theirs did.
theant
(College of Technology Grad 1981, Bring back REAL Shasta!!!)
12
The delayed blitzes only gave a LB a chance to watch it happen before he got there.
Re: “Have the DBs in bump & run, man coverage.” Did we go the whole game without even trying that? Seems like it. It seems like we had a game plan that did not work and we didn’t invest many plays trying different things.
Trick plays, imo, are just more plays to open things up whether they work or not.
I wonder if an offense could be mostly trick plays with the usual arsenal sprinkled in as teams make adjustments… Like a bowl game taken to the extreme all year, heh.
I agree with bump and run coverage…especially with a Fr QB.
Don’t let him get free timing patterns to gain confidence.
Make him survey the field and find a receiver.
Giving a free release made it easy to hit the short post and the short out.
