Personnel changes on the OL

[sufandu]

Ok. That's fine. Was not recalling anything major from GT game. As I mentioned, I was not saying oline and coach may not be an issue, especially from last game. Obviously the lack of a running game against Stanford was not good. Let's see how things gel or don't gel. To early to say unequivocally anything one way or another.

Sure, that's fair. I was just pointing out that not everyone was ignoring obvious weaknesses during the wins and just waiting for a loss to pounce. I'm not saying you were accusing people of that but some do. There were people that were touting the great performances of McCord and the receivers while pointing out the oline had some holes that would be exposed at some point.

 

[sufandu]

Why do fans on this site think they know more than the coaches? The coaches see these kids in practice and this is what they do for a living. I was surprised about some of the OL starters...but I TRUST THE COACHES KNOW MORE THAN I DO...

I don't think we necessarily think we know more than the coaches, but coaches DO make mistakes (4th and 9). And there have been times fans have seen things that seemed obvious that coaches missed. In 2020 how did coaches go all preseason thinking Sean Tucker was the 4th best RB on the team? It took one game for us to see he had tools we hadn't seen at SU in more than a decade.

 

[anomander]

I think we need to use Villari more on shorter passes and let him do his thing breaking tackles

I think we’ve seen enough. I’d rather see Tremble running routes. Villari isn’t an athletic pass catching TE, and neither is he a good blocker. That run at the end of the season was a fluke out of necessity. I wasn’t expecting it to carry over to him being an offensive weapon all a sudden.

 

[FrancoPizza]

PFF has him graded at only giving up one sack at Syracuse.

It’s not me making that stat up.

What were his PFF scores last year? Giving up sacks can be very misleading stat in isolation because garret had a tendency for leaving the pocket.

This is like arguing over who can hold their breath the longest on the titanic. Cmon guys let’s just hope the coaches can figure something out so we don’t waste this season.

 

[Scooch]

I can't believe long time fans still roll out the "coaches know more than us!" argument. Like, I don't need to have 30 years experience coaching football to know that whatever Dino was doing as HC the past few years wasn't good enough.

Coaches make mistakes. Coaches make poor decisions. We see it all the time. It's not the end of the world, but it happens.

I have no clue who should start on the OL, but I do know that last game was an abomination. Somehow it needs to be fixed, pronto. If the staff trots out the same personnel and they flop again, then that's a mistake. The great thing about sports is that we'll all find out soon.

 

[sufandu]

I think we’ve seen enough. I’d rather see Tremble running routes. Villari isn’t an athletic pass catching TE, and neither is he a good blocker. That run at the end of the season was a fluke out of necessity. I wasn’t expecting it to carry over to him being an offensive weapon all a sudden.

I think he can help but he's not good at certain things like route running. He's good with the ball in his hands, so make things simple for him. It seems like he's thinking too much.

 

[Doc5120]

Pretty creative stat keeping. You want proof? Watch #57 where I have it cued.


There's also a whiff at 7:35 that would have been a sack if Petry hadn't screwed up worse.

I got nothing against Cruz. I also don't see why anyone thinks he's the answer.

"That is sack # 8." Didn't need to see this again. Man, the Oline needed (and needs) work.

 

[bnoro]

PFF is terrible for college (and is getting bad for NFL too). Stop using it to back up arguments and use your eyes.

 

[tep624]

I think we’ve seen enough. I’d rather see Tremble running routes. Villari isn’t an athletic pass catching TE, and neither is he a good blocker. That run at the end of the season was a fluke out of necessity. I wasn’t expecting it to carry over to him being an offensive weapon all a sudden.

Honestly to me it looks like Villari has like what they call the Yips in baseball. He looks like a completely different player than last year. I'm not sure what happened with him, but he's quickly becoming a liability out there. It really pains me to say that because I was really high on him.

I was expecting to see him build on his flashes last year and work on the areas of weakness (ball security, body control). But he looks like a completely different player all together and just hasn't been very effective.

 

[tep624]

I can't believe long time fans still roll out the "coaches know more than us!" argument. Like, I don't need to have 30 years experience coaching football to know that whatever Dino was doing as HC the past few years wasn't good enough.

Coaches make mistakes. Coaches make poor decisions. We see it all the time. It's not the end of the world, but it happens.

I have no clue who should start on the OL, but I do know that last game was an abomination. Somehow it needs to be fixed, pronto. If the staff trots out the same personnel and they flop again, then that's a mistake. The great thing about sports is that we'll all find out soon.

I'm going to park this here to think about:

Effectively what the general vibe in this thread is to bench a starting portal lineman after 3 games and optically for all intents and purposes after one bad game. It really doesn't matter how the representative film geeks or PFF obsessed rationalize it, that's the optics of it. I would think that would be an excellent negative recruiting tool for any future in demand portal lineman we pursue.

There's more at play here to consider. Now I'm not saying swapping out Lineman isn't potentially the right solution, but there are other peripheral factors at play. So if we're going to do it, it better damn well result in a dramatic change in the OL. If it's more of the same and there's no noticeable change, if I'm an opposing coach on the recruiting trail I'm going to be all over that.

 

[Chip]

PFF is terrible for college (and is getting bad for NFL too). Stop using it to back up arguments and use your eyes.

I remain mystified by the PFF system, although I do look at it because, well, why do we look at any rankings?

But the thought that they could watch every play of every college football game, grade out every player's performance, and have that data released by Monday? And is there a position specialist assigned to each, or does one guy just evaluate everyone in a particular game? How big is this army of employees?

It feels outrageous to even consider. That said, I'll probably still look at the rankings if some paying member releases them. Axe has been sending it on the text thread each week.

 

[Scooch]

I'm going to park this here to think about:

Effectively what the general vibe in this thread is to bench a starting portal lineman after 3 games and optically for all intents and purposes after one bad game. It really doesn't matter how the representative film geeks or PFF obsessed rationalize it, that's the optics of it. I would think that would be an excellent negative recruiting tool for any future in demand portal lineman we pursue.

There's more at play here to consider. Now I'm not saying swapping out Lineman isn't potentially the right solution, but there are other peripheral factors at play. So if we're going to do it, it better damn well result in a dramatic change in the OL. If it's more of the same and there's no noticeable change, if I'm an opposing coach on the recruiting trail I'm going to be all over that.

I think it's a dangerous to start playing the "what will potential recruits think about this decision" game if you're a coach.

Coaches should be putting who they believe to be the best players on the field. Period.

In this case I really have no dog in the fight. I just want a functional OL, however we get there is fine by me. My point was simply to address the "coaches know more than us" argument that I find to be a loser. Seeing guys in practice every day doesn't mean a coach is evaluating them properly and is infallible about who gets the most snaps.

 

[upperdeck]

Wohlabaugh is the key here. Is he close to being in game shape and is he a step up?

Really a question of what oline do we roll out at UNLV and forward from that.

But still many of the issues are mistakes, not talent related.

 

[rrlbees]

I remain mystified by the PFF system, although I do look at it because, well, why do we look at any rankings?

But the thought that they could watch every play of every college football game, grade out every player's performance, and have that data released by Monday? And is there a position specialist assigned to each, or does one guy just evaluate everyone in a particular game? How big is this army of employees?

It feels outrageous to even consider. That said, I'll probably still look at the rankings if some paying member releases them. Axe has been sending it on the text thread each week.

WHO IS DOING THE GRADING?​

PFF employs over 600 full or part-time analysts, but less than 10% of analysts are trained to the level that they can grade plays. Only the top two to three percent of analysts are on the team of “senior analysts” in charge of FINALIZING each grade after review. Our graders have been training for months, and sometimes years, in order to learn, understand and show mastery of our process that includes our 300-page training manual and video playbook. We have analysts from all walks of life, including former players, coaches and scouts. We don’t care if you played.

YOU DON’T KNOW THE PLAY CALL?​

We are certainly not in the huddle, but we are grading what a player attempts to do on a given play. While football is extremely nuanced regarding the preparation and adjustments that go into each play call, once the ball is snapped, most players are clear in what they’re trying to accomplish on each play, and we evaluate accordingly. Of course, there are always some gray areas in football. Plays in which there is a clear question mark regarding assignment, we can defer to a “0” grade and not guess as to which player is right or wrong. These plays are few and far between and since we are grading every snap, missing out on a handful throughout the year should not affect player evaluations. Examples of potential gray areas include coverage busts, quarterback/wide receiver miscommunications and missed blocking assignments.

 

[upperdeck]

They make it sound so easy.

Oline play is hard to understand. When a tackle gets beat thats pretty easy. But when teams stunt and guys get handed off who knows who is breaking down. One guys mistake can make the oline 2 guys away look bad.

the worst part I see is the TEs blocking air way too often. on several plays last week both of them missed guys.

 

[bnoro]

Honestly to me it looks like Villari has like what they call the Yips in baseball. He looks like a completely different player than last year. I'm not sure what happened with him, but he's quickly becoming a liability out there. It really pains me to say that because I was really high on him.

I was expecting to see him build on his flashes last year and work on the areas of weakness (ball security, body control). But he looks like a completely different player all together and just hasn't been very effective.

He's a QB playing TE. Nothing happened, he's not a fit.

 

[upperdeck]

His best asset is running with the ball but he hasnt had much chance with the drops and poor throws.

 

[bnoro]

WHO IS DOING THE GRADING?​

PFF employs over 600 full or part-time analysts, but less than 10% of analysts are trained to the level that they can grade plays. Only the top two to three percent of analysts are on the team of “senior analysts” in charge of FINALIZING each grade after review. Our graders have been training for months, and sometimes years, in order to learn, understand and show mastery of our process that includes our 300-page training manual and video playbook. We have analysts from all walks of life, including former players, coaches and scouts. We don’t care if you played.

YOU DON’T KNOW THE PLAY CALL?​

We are certainly not in the huddle, but we are grading what a player attempts to do on a given play. While football is extremely nuanced regarding the preparation and adjustments that go into each play call, once the ball is snapped, most players are clear in what they’re trying to accomplish on each play, and we evaluate accordingly. Of course, there are always some gray areas in football. Plays in which there is a clear question mark regarding assignment, we can defer to a “0” grade and not guess as to which player is right or wrong. These plays are few and far between and since we are grading every snap, missing out on a handful throughout the year should not affect player evaluations. Examples of potential gray areas include coverage busts, quarterback/wide receiver miscommunications and missed blocking assignments.

60 analysts breaking down plays subjectively in one weekend? Especially when one of their "gray areas" is line play.

And we see all the time that people don't understand line play to begin with. If you haven't played OL, it's a lot harder to understand what their responsibilities are.

 

[Dcuse]

He's a QB playing TE. Nothing happened, he's not a fit.

" He's a QB playing TE" LOL!!

 

[rrlbees]

60 analysts breaking down plays subjectively in one weekend? Especially when one of their "gray areas" is line play.

And we see all the time that people don't understand line play to begin with. If you haven't played OL, it's a lot harder to understand what their responsibilities are.

600. The 60 approve and finalize the work.

 

[cuseincincy]

I think it's a dangerous to start playing the "what will potential recruits think about this decision" game if you're a coach.

Coaches should be putting who they believe to be the best players on the field. Period.

In this case I really have no dog in the fight. I just want a functional OL, however we get there is fine by me. My point was simply to address the "coaches know more than us" argument that I find to be a loser. Seeing guys in practice every day doesn't mean a coach is evaluating them properly and is infallible about who gets the most snaps.

"Dangerous" is putting it kindly. I would venture to guess that few coaches (zero good ones) make current season decisions based on what a potential recruit may think. I'll defer a little more to the coaches because they do see them compete in practice and know much more about specific expectations for each position. That said, with so much emphasis on analytics these days its silly to think that only coaches can relate what happens on the field to the mathematics produced by analytics.

 

[tep624]

I think it's a dangerous to start playing the "what will potential recruits think about this decision" game if you're a coach.

Coaches should be putting who they believe to be the best players on the field. Period.

In this case I really have no dog in the fight. I just want a functional OL, however we get there is fine by me. My point was simply to address the "coaches know more than us" argument that I find to be a loser. Seeing guys in practice every day doesn't mean a coach is evaluating them properly and is infallible about who gets the most snaps.

It's all speculation anyway because at the end of the day, irrespective of what is discussed here, Washington is starting against Holy Cross.

 

[tep624]

"Dangerous" is putting it kindly. I would venture to guess that few coaches (zero good ones) make current season decisions based on what a potential recruit may think. I'll defer a little more to the coaches because they do see them compete in practice and know much more about specific expectations for each position. That said, with so much emphasis on analytics these days its silly to think that only coaches can relate what happens on the field to the mathematics produced by analytics.

While agree 1000% with HS recruits, Portal recruits have added a Free Agent wrinkle to CFB that never existed before. It is somewhat different.

 

[tep624]

He's a QB playing TE. Nothing happened, he's not a fit.

He looked pretty good as a receiving TE last year against arguably our best opponent. That's what you define as a flash.

 

[tep624]

I think we’ve seen enough. I’d rather see Tremble running routes. Villari isn’t an athletic pass catching TE, and neither is he a good blocker. That run at the end of the season was a fluke out of necessity. I wasn’t expecting it to carry over to him being an offensive weapon all a sudden.

I think looking back, the Clemson game was what I was expecting him to grow into over time. An aggressive pass catching TE with strong athleticism. He's definitely regressed from that arc this season and it looks like he's being used as a block first TE now which definitely doesn't seem to be a fit for him.