Open Practice Report

[Millhouse]

There were three games after WFVU last season where our first drive had three straight running plays and three straight three and outs. A mentality to establish the run with a production result of throwing a lot aren't necessarily irreconcilable.

this is.. what's the word i'm looking for... bullsh!t

somehow the first two plays of the game mean everything

OMG we ran the first play of the game and had a 3 and out. we shoulda passed!

newsflash, we had lots of 3 and outs. because the offense sucks.

if you're picking 3 of the games after WVU, that means you're leaving out 2.

quite a trend you plucked out there. sometimes we run, sometimes we pass. OMG

this board should rid itself of "establish" bullsh!t

sometimes a play or a series is just a play or a series.

 

[kcsu]

this is.. what's the word i'm looking for... bullsh!t

somehow the first two plays of the game mean everything

OMG we ran the first play of the game and had a 3 and out. we shoulda passed!

newsflash, we had lots of 3 and outs. because the offense sucks.

if you're picking 3 of the games after WVU, that means you're leaving out 2.

quite a trend you plucked out there. sometimes we run, sometimes we pass. OMG

this board should rid itself of "establish" bullsh!t

sometimes a play or a series is just a play or a series.

I think the point is that Doug wanted to establish the run so badly that he stuck to his guns way too long in many games. If you cant establish the run within the first series or two you should know that a change in strategy is required

 

[Millhouse]

I think the point is that Doug wanted to establish the run so badly that he stuck to his guns way too long in many games. If you cant establish the run within the first series or two you should know that a change in strategy is required

go look at the drive charts. the reason people are so hung up on the first series is that the second series often hurts their point.

whenever it is that they dare to call run, that's the pivotal moment where the bullsh!t is established

 

[Moontan]

Arguably the best pass of 2011 was Lemon to Chew.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

somehow the first two plays of the game mean everything

OMG we ran the first play of the game and had a 3 and out. we shoulda passed!

Your reading comprehension is getting worse.

On the first three drives of those three straight games we called only running plays.

Call me crazy, but if a coach states they want to "establish" something, the time when they would be doing the establishing is right at the start of games.

 

[Chip]

myth

This is such a strange thread, people thinking we don't pass enough, or try to run too much (however you want to phrase it).

The issue, and problem, is that we don't pass the ball down the field enough. And we haven't had guys who can take the short pass and turn the corner and take it down the field.

Marrone has said over and over and over this offseason that we need to create big plays. So I assume he's addressing this, because he won't stop saying it. Reading this thread you'd think that most people think our plan is to run on 1st down, run on 2nd down, and on 3rd and 8 throw a Provo like pass to the TE and watch him get caught from behind by a DT before he can turn the corner.

Between you and me (and others), of course, we're not going to create the big plays if the QB deep throws continue to be off the mark at a near 100% clip. Or if he continues to check down when he needs to take that chance. Or if he just doesn't see a WR running open deep, which has happened a few times as well.

 

[Millhouse]

Your reading comprehension is getting worse.

On the first three drives of those three straight games we called only running plays.

Call me crazy, but if a coach states they want to "establish" something, the time when they would be doing the establishing is right at the start of games.

louisville they ran twice and threw on 3rd and long

uconn they fumbled on 2nd down.

USF, they had a 3rd and 1 and didn't pick it up.



big *cking deal

games where they established the run, the offense sucked

games where they established the pass, the offense sucked

You leave out Cincy. Nassib threw an incompletion, then bailey ran for 24 yards.

OMG we've found the formulas for success!

 

[sutomcat]

we were 31st in the country in % of plays that were passes.

i wouldn't call that trying to hold the ball all game long with a power running attack.

for those who just want to compare to big east teams, only WVU threw on more of their plays.

how much do people want this guy to throw the ball?

aye yi yi

I didn't word that paragraph well. Let me try and elaborate a little.

From my perspective...

We spent last year milking the clock every possession on offense, trying to shorten the game
We used formations with 2 TEs an alarming percentage of the time
We used a FB an alarming percentage of the time
When we passed, we rarely passed downfield, and often times, we only had 1 or 2 receivers even running routes.

I think ignoring the whole change in tempo thing is ill advised. Going with a quick tempo, even for brief periods, can force defenses to play with the wrong package, is more likely to cause confusion and force mistakes to occur.

I think playing 2 TEs who run 4.7 or 4.8 40s, and a FB who runs a 4.7 40, and doing this on a regular basis, even in passing situations, is ill advised. These guys struggle to get open, if they get open it is at or near the LOS and even if you can get the ball to them, they don't have the ability to beat anyone in the open field.

I think playing a RB who can't beat anyone in the open field, and basing a large part of your offense on getting the ball to that RB in the open field is ill advised.

I want to see more playmakers on the field. Don't really care if they are FBs, TEs or WRs but I want to see people who when they get the ball can beat a linebacker or a defensive back and consistently get yards after the catch. We had Lemon last year and no one after him (Provo in my opinion was a decent TE but not the kind of athlete you need at that position, at least not if you want to play a TE a lot and want to have an effective offense).

In passing situations, I want to see 4 or 5 receivers running around trying to get open. Receivers who can run, can catch, physical and athletic enough to get open and get yards after the catch.

My problems are not with the run-pass breakdown. They are with formations, skill levels, basic approaches and basic offensive philosophies.

I believe that the way our offense is currently structured, it plays directly into the hands of defenses. It is almost as if we are trying to make ourselves as easy to defend as possible.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

We spent last year milking the clock every possession on offense, trying to shorten the game
We used formations with 2 TEs an alarming percentage of the time
We used a FB an alarming percentage of the time
When we passed, we rarely passed downfield, and often times, we only had 1 or 2 receivers even running routes.

My problems are not with the run-pass breakdown. They are with formations, skill levels, basic approaches and basic offensive philosophies.

I believe that the way our offense is currently structured, it plays directly into the hands of defenses. It is almost as if we are trying to make ourselves as easy to defend as possible.

Great thoughts.

 

[RF2044]

I didn't word that paragraph well. Let me try and elaborate a little.

From my perspective...

We spent last year milking the clock every possession on offense, trying to shorten the game
We used formations with 2 TEs an alarming percentage of the time
We used a FB an alarming percentage of the time
When we passed, we rarely passed downfield, and often times, we only had 1 or 2 receivers even running routes.

I think ignoring the whole change in tempo thing is ill advised. Going with a quick tempo, even for brief periods, can force defenses to play with the wrong package, is more likely to cause confusion and force mistakes to occur.

I think playing 2 TEs who run 4.7 or 4.8 40s, and a FB who runs a 4.7 40, and doing this on a regular basis, even in passing situations, is ill advised. These guys struggle to get open, if they get open it is at or near the LOS and even if you can get the ball to them, they don't have the ability to beat anyone in the open field.

I think playing a RB who can't beat anyone in the open field, and basing a large part of your offense on getting the ball to that RB in the open field is ill advised.

I want to see more playmakers on the field. Don't really care if they are FBs, TEs or WRs but I want to see people who when they get the ball can beat a linebacker or a defensive back and consistently get yards after the catch. We had Lemon last year and no one after him (Provo in my opinion was a decent TE but not the kind of athlete you need at that position, at least not if you want to play a TE a lot and want to have an effective offense).

In passing situations, I want to see 4 or 5 receivers running around trying to get open. Receivers who can run, can catch, physical and athletic enough to get open and get yards after the catch.

My problems are not with the run-pass breakdown. They are with formations, skill levels, basic approaches and basic offensive philosophies.

I believe that the way our offense is currently structured, it plays directly into the hands of defenses. It is almost as if we are trying to make ourselves as easy to defend as possible.

Outstanding post, Tom.

 

[SoBristol]

I would add Sales to the '"new weapon" category as well.

Yes -- but I am not convinced, yet, that he is better than a healthy Van Chew. Maybe he is more durable. Gulley, if healthy all year, would be another new weapon that we didn't have in the second half of last season.
But my point was that our newest weapons (AB and Thompson) are big,physical guys who will help move the chains, more than quick strike weapons.

 

[Millhouse]

I didn't word that paragraph well. Let me try and elaborate a little.

From my perspective...

We spent last year milking the clock every possession on offense, trying to shorten the game
We used formations with 2 TEs an alarming percentage of the time
We used a FB an alarming percentage of the time
When we passed, we rarely passed downfield, and often times, we only had 1 or 2 receivers even running routes.

I think ignoring the whole change in tempo thing is ill advised. Going with a quick tempo, even for brief periods, can force defenses to play with the wrong package, is more likely to cause confusion and force mistakes to occur.

I think playing 2 TEs who run 4.7 or 4.8 40s, and a FB who runs a 4.7 40, and doing this on a regular basis, even in passing situations, is ill advised. These guys struggle to get open, if they get open it is at or near the LOS and even if you can get the ball to them, they don't have the ability to beat anyone in the open field.

I think playing a RB who can't beat anyone in the open field, and basing a large part of your offense on getting the ball to that RB in the open field is ill advised.

I want to see more playmakers on the field. Don't really care if they are FBs, TEs or WRs but I want to see people who when they get the ball can beat a linebacker or a defensive back and consistently get yards after the catch. We had Lemon last year and no one after him (Provo in my opinion was a decent TE but not the kind of athlete you need at that position, at least not if you want to play a TE a lot and want to have an effective offense).

In passing situations, I want to see 4 or 5 receivers running around trying to get open. Receivers who can run, can catch, physical and athletic enough to get open and get yards after the catch.

My problems are not with the run-pass breakdown. They are with formations, skill levels, basic approaches and basic offensive philosophies.

I believe that the way our offense is currently structured, it plays directly into the hands of defenses. It is almost as if we are trying to make ourselves as easy to defend as possible.

Again aye yi yi

I never ignored tempo. It's just math. If the improvement in your offense is more than offset by the downside of the other offense getting more plays, it's not worth it. The more you suck, the more likely that more plays will amplify the opponents per play advantage.

You can't simultaneously bemoan the lack of speed at WR and lack of ability to throw the ball downfield while complaining about using TE and FB

"We have no WR! Also, we use TE and FB too much!"

What should we do play 7 on 11?

"We have no playmakers and we're at a huge yard per play disadvantage! We need to speed up the game and have more plays!"

Good offenses want more plays in a game. Bad offenses want less.

The smart guys on this board would fight Tyson by trading punches as fast as you can. "I might land more punches if i speed up the fight!" This may be true but you're going to lose much worse.

We're trying to read marrone's mind too much. The offense sucks. Sped up crap is still crap. Marrone's philosphy isn't making the offense crappy. If anything you guys should be encouraged that he throws as much as he does.

 

[All4SU]

Yes -- but I am not convinced, yet, that he is better than a healthy Van Chew. Maybe he is more durable. Gulley, if healthy all year, would be another new weapon that we didn't have in the second half of last season.
But my point was that our newest weapons (AB and Thompson) are big,physical guys who will help move the chains, more than quick strike weapons.

I am. By the end of his Frosh year, Sales was the best receiver on the team. He still needed to work on his downfield blocking. But he was better than everyone else.

 

[sutomcat]

Again aye yi yi

I never ignored tempo. It's just math. If the improvement in your offense is more than offset by the downside of the other offense getting more plays, it's not worth it. The more you suck, the more likely that more plays will amplify the opponents per play advantage.

You can't simultaneously bemoan the lack of speed at WR and lack of ability to throw the ball downfield while complaining about using TE and FB

"We have no WR! Also, we use TE and FB too much!"

What should we do play 7 on 11?

"We have no playmakers and we're at a huge yard per play disadvantage! We need to speed up the game and have more plays!"

Good offenses want more plays in a game. Bad offenses want less.

The smart guys on this board would fight Tyson by trading punches as fast as you can. "I might land more punches if i speed up the fight!" This may be true but you're going to lose much worse.

We're trying to read marrone's mind too much. The offense sucks. Sped up crap is still crap. Marrone's philosphy isn't making the offense crappy. If anything you guys should be encouraged that he throws as much as he does.

Putting aside the straw man stuff (in my post I never said go fast tempo all the time or any of the other fantasy quotes you made up), I will agree with you that given the talent that was available last season, especially in the second half of the season, there wasn't a whole lot that could have been done to make the offense better.

Chew got hurt as he always did and was useless after a couple of games. Kobena was not ready to play and also got hurt, Lemon got hurt (but was still able to play with one arm), Gulley got hurt, AAM got hurt, Sales was not available, Foster got hurt almost as soon as he started playing (I am a huge fan of him BTW and look forward to his return next season). The OL could not pass block well, neith could our RBs. And the QB had problems throwing long on the rare times when we ran deep routes and got decent pass blocking.

Those are serious constraints.

Still, Stevens could have been used a lot more. He was our only TE who might be able to get yards after the catch. David can catch and run. Flemming could have been used a lot more. We played a walk on more than we played him. I think the staff really misused Dorian Graham, who made something happen whenever he got the ball. I think Jerome Smith should have gotten a lot more playing time. You have to put your best athletes out there to have your best chance to win.

We didn't have to play 2 TEs and a FB so often. Or even 1 TE and a FB. Especially not in passing situations. I hope this changes this season.

 

[billsin01]

For sure, Marrone is a run-first, meat & potatoes guy, and Hackett is executing an offensive philosophy under Marrone. If you don't like that style of offense, you won't be happy this year either. It won't be a pass-first aerial circus or a track meet with big-strikes. Our new weapons are a big slot back (Broyld) and a big TE (Thompson) and two 300 plus lbs linemen. You can do the math.

I'm fine with meat and potatoes ... if it works. I"m not saying that to be a pr!ck. I'd be perfectly fine with them going wishbone, really, or triple option. But, realistically, we need to be able to move the ball more consistently and if we don't, the guy that will likely take the most heat and take much of the blame (fairly or unfairly) is Hackett. So I don't know how good Hackett is or isn't, I'm just guessing another pretty poor offensive performance is going ot lead to some changes.

On the main point (should Marrone hire a new veteran OC and step back) -- I feel Doug would be frustrated, as he was in his first year, if his OC had a philosophy differing from his own. If the coach played offense, coached OLs and was an OC in the pros, he should have close involvement with the offense.

I don't entirely disagree with this but Marrone's job is to run this program. It's great that he's got a good NFL pedigree, but let's not pretend like a lot of NFL OCs have come to college and been great coaches/coordinators. GRob certainly had defensive pedigree but, well, let's not go there. I'm not saying I think DM is a good or bad offensive coach, but merely that the best use of his time, energy, leadership and knowledge is not inherently in coaching the offensive group.

My bottom line is this -- negativity about Hackett is pointless. He is making progress both as a recruiter and an offensive coach. Marrone likes him.

True, though the 'pointless' observation would apply to most of our discussions here and to being a diehard sports fan in general.

 

[orangepassion]

Agree w/ everything in this post. Also felt all our passes were either really short or really long. Would like to see some 10-15 yard passes. Make the defense guard the whole field.

Putting aside the straw man stuff (in my post I never said go fast tempo all the time or any of the other fantasy quotes you made up), I will agree with you that given the talent that was available last season, especially in the second half of the season, there wasn't a whole lot that could have been done to make the offense better.

Chew got hurt as he always did and was useless after a couple of games. Kobena was not ready to play and also got hurt, Lemon got hurt (but was still able to play with one arm), Gulley got hurt, AAM got hurt, Sales was not available, Foster got hurt almost as soon as he started playing (I am a huge fan of him BTW and look forward to his return next season). The OL could not pass block well, neith could our RBs. And the QB had problems throwing long on the rare times when we ran deep routes and got decent pass blocking.

Those are serious constraints.

Still, Stevens could have been used a lot more. He was our only TE who might be able to get yards after the catch. David can catch and run. Flemming could have been used a lot more. We played a walk on more than we played him. I think the staff really misused Dorian Graham, who made something happen whenever he got the ball. I think Jerome Smith should have gotten a lot more playing time. You have to put your best athletes out there to have your best chance to win.

We didn't have to play 2 TEs and a FB so often. Or even 1 TE and a FB. Especially not in passing situations. I hope this changes this season.

 

[billsin01]

Again aye yi yi

I never ignored tempo. It's just math. If the improvement in your offense is more than offset by the downside of the other offense getting more plays, it's not worth it. The more you suck, the more likely that more plays will amplify the opponents per play advantage.

You can't simultaneously bemoan the lack of speed at WR and lack of ability to throw the ball downfield while complaining about using TE and FB

"We have no WR! Also, we use TE and FB too much!"

What should we do play 7 on 11?

"We have no playmakers and we're at a huge yard per play disadvantage! We need to speed up the game and have more plays!"

Good offenses want more plays in a game. Bad offenses want less.

The smart guys on this board would fight Tyson by trading punches as fast as you can. "I might land more punches if i speed up the fight!" This may be true but you're going to lose much worse.

We're trying to read marrone's mind too much. The offense sucks. Sped up crap is still crap. Marrone's philosphy isn't making the offense crappy. If anything you guys should be encouraged that he throws as much as he does.

You are right -- the issue with the offense is that it has stunk. And, yes, it is unfair to suggest a coach make chicken salad out of chicken stuff. (I don't actually subscribe to the theory that our talent is that terrible, but some do.)

However, if the offense isn't significantly improved this year, when will it be? Next year when Nassib/Sales/Lemon/Stevens have gone away? The year after when the savior at QB arrives?

I don't know -- to me there are serious concerns about the offense stylistically in the sense that we're not fooling anyone with anything that we're doing. I keep hearing about talent but that is always going to be a variable.

What is the answer? I don't know but I don't think it's crazy that people are a bit concerned that our offense will forever be 5-yard-slants and running plays out of "big" sets.

 

[kingottoiii]

We didn't have to play 2 TEs and a FB so often. Or even 1 TE and a FB. Especially not in passing situations. I hope this changes this season.

That IMO is a big question. To me it makes no sense to have two WRs out there on a passing down. I rather have a bad WR running a pattern than a mediocre TE or FB. It wasn't even like we were going max protect they were actually going out on patterns. IMO you only help the D when you do that. Put your best threats out there. I would love to hear the strategy on how Stevens in the slot gives us a better chance on a 3rd and long than West, Kobena, Graham, or Fleming.

 

[Millhouse]

You are right -- the issue with the offense is that it has stunk. And, yes, it is unfair to suggest a coach make chicken salad out of chicken stuff. (I don't actually subscribe to the theory that our talent is that terrible, but some do.)

However, if the offense isn't significantly improved this year, when will it be? Next year when Nassib/Sales/Lemon/Stevens have gone away? The year after when the savior at QB arrives?

I don't know -- to me there are serious concerns about the offense stylistically in the sense that we're not fooling anyone with anything that we're doing. I keep hearing about talent but that is always going to be a variable.

What is the answer? I don't know but I don't think it's crazy that people are a bit concerned that our offense will forever be 5-yard-slants and running plays out of "big" sets.

we'll find out in 2013. i think marrone throws lots of 5 yard slants with nassib because those balls can at least stay in bounds. i'm all for really scrutinizing marrone's offense then.

 

[billsin01]

we'll find out in 2013. i think marrone throws lots of 5 yard slants with nassib because those balls can at least stay in bounds. i'm all for really scrutinizing marrone's offense then.

I know he's been atrocious with the long ball but I actually feel nassib is s pretty solid on intermediate range passes. I feel we under-utilized that skill last season. But we differ on Nassib generally, which is fine.

 

[JeremyCuse]

I think Tomcat absolutely nailed in his last two posts about the offense. The issues with personnel and formations have been well documented and bemoaned by many including myself. When you run a four WR set you need to actually have 4 WR in the formation, last year we would have Provo and Harris split out or even Wales and Bailey like that was somehow a bigger threat then playing an actual WR in that position. Most conscious d coordinators know that were not throwing deep to Bailey, Harris, or Wales and that left the only 1 or 2 true WR's covered like a blanket in the secondary. I desperately hope we can run 3-4 actual WR's onto the field in situations when we actually go 3 and 4 wide.

 

[GoSU96]

Again aye yi yi

I never ignored tempo. It's just math. If the improvement in your offense is more than offset by the downside of the other offense getting more plays, it's not worth it. The more you suck, the more likely that more plays will amplify the opponents per play advantage.

You can't simultaneously bemoan the lack of speed at WR and lack of ability to throw the ball downfield while complaining about using TE and FB

"We have no WR! Also, we use TE and FB too much!"

What should we do play 7 on 11?

"We have no playmakers and we're at a huge yard per play disadvantage! We need to speed up the game and have more plays!"

Good offenses want more plays in a game. Bad offenses want less.

The smart guys on this board would fight Tyson by trading punches as fast as you can. "I might land more punches if i speed up the fight!" This may be true but you're going to lose much worse.

We're trying to read marrone's mind too much. The offense sucks. Sped up crap is still crap. Marrone's philosphy isn't making the offense crappy. If anything you guys should be encouraged that he throws as much as he does.

They were also trying to protect the defense.

 

[SoBristol]

I'm fine with meat and potatoes ... if it works. I"m not saying that to be a pr!ck. . . . . So I don't know how good Hackett is or isn't, I'm just guessing another pretty poor offensive performance is going ot lead to some changes.

I don't entirely disagree with this but Marrone's job is to run this program. . . .

I understand your points -- though I also believe Marrone's job (as he defines it) is to rebuild the recruiting networks and contribute his philosophy and his experience on the offensive side, managing the playbook and using Hackett as his young deputy. If you don't like what Marrone/Hackett have been doing, you have to then consider what part is the veteran Marrone and what part is young Hackett.

When the defensive side lost Chandler, and recognized it got rolled by some bigger offensive lines, Marrone/Shafer went out and brought in Marcus Pierce-Brewster and three real big DL guys (Jones, Raymon & Walls) to supplement his hefty recruits, Crume and Sloan.

I don't see a similar effort to bring in talent to run a faster-paced, down the field offense. The JUCOs have been large or extra-large OL guys. Is Hackett responsible for that?

Now, in full disclosure, I agree with Marrone's philosophy of adding toughness on offense and being a team that can establish the run and can use possession passes. In part, I agree because that is the make-up of the team. You go with what you can do. And when he add higher quality receivers, you go with that.

 

[Millhouse]

They were also trying to protect the defense.

Yup. can't blame him. speeding up the game would've hurt us. Everyone wants to know if Marrone is a dynamic offensive coach. I hope we find out but we won't know for another year of two. I actually suspect he is not. if he gets talent and bores us to tears, bye bye. If he doesn't get talent, bye bye. But now, whatever who can blame him for white knuckle shuffle

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[SWC75]

myth

Announced intention.