|
|
Post by monty on Jul 8, 2010 17:28:36 GMT -8
I think you are assuming that it is a problem of too predictable, teams gearing for the run vs. just being incapable of running. When you average what we did per run last year you are running poorly on every down. The point is to get to 3 and 3 or less as often as possible. We weren't going to consistently get many 6 yard carries last year regardless of down and distance and defensive personnel (though we did have some good runs against WYO, but then couldn't get 1 and half yards on two carries to seal the game). Until we show we can run the ball, no team is going to overscheme us against the run on 1st down. I agree. I am only saying we have to force the defense to respect our passing by double covering our wide outs. If they don't, we need to pass until they do. Though I'm pretty sure the word is out on the pair - half a season of film on each being pretty damn good each dominant at times; we also ran a lot on first down last year and pretty blandly. I would expect teams are going to scheme for the pass until we run them out of it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2010 17:42:26 GMT -8
exactly. If I'm playing us, I shut down the pass as much as I can. Dare you to run.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztech on Jul 8, 2010 17:58:42 GMT -8
If we want to see Sandifer and Umuolo do their thing then rather than *****footin' around, insert those JC olinemen beginning with game 1. Four games is enough to get in sync. Even if they aren't in sync during the OOC schedule, we should have enough talent to still go 3-1.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Jul 8, 2010 18:17:42 GMT -8
I've written it often on here - I see tight ends as being the equivalent of knights in chess. They don't often go deep, but they are big enough to go over the middle and take a hit from corners or safeties. One of the main things I've always hated about the 1-back is that it turns a TE into just another O-Lineman instead of being an offensive weapon.
=Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2010 18:50:56 GMT -8
Craft's offense set an all-time NCAA record for yards and completions for a set of WR. I wouldn't mind having him as our OC this year. I know he was your guy, but I have to disagree. Phil Steele constantly looks for criteria he can use to predict how teams will finish each year. He then touts himself as the most successful prognosticator - if he in fact is, as is often the case - of the many pre-season publications. In addition to such things as "turnovers equals turnarounds" (i.e., an inverse relationship between the prior year's turnover ratio and predicted improvement since those things are often a matter of luck, which is cyclical), Steele has seen a positive association between wins and points per yard. During the year you reference, Craft's offense had one of the lowest points per yard ratio in the country. The main reason was we that despite the facts Craft inherited several O-linemen who had a cup of coffee in the NFL and our two excellent wideouts precluded defenses from putting too many men in the box, we averaged a pathetic 2.6 ypc. As horrible as our running attack has been the last several years, it has never averaged less than 2.9 ypc. There are reasons we threw for a gazillion yards in 2002 yet finished only 4-9 and the main one is Craft's offense might be successful in the red zone in JC ball where the corners can't even cover anybody on a short field, but it's ineffective at the DIA level where they can. So when you get into the red zone in DIA ball, you have to have some semblance of a rushing attack yet with the exception of 2003 when Lynell Hamilton starred, Craft's offense never could do that. (BTW, although we rushed for 1,470 yards in 2003, that number was skewed considerably by the fact we played two DIAA schools that year and 461 of those yards were gained in those two. So even with Lynell, in the 10 games we played against DIA competition, we averaged just 101 yards a game rushing.) JMO, of course. I know yours differs considerably. |
|
|
|
Post by gettough on Jul 8, 2010 19:10:42 GMT -8
My goodness! Look at this thread. Susie sunshine suddenly smiling into to prolonged summer gloom and someone actually started stirring the kool-aid.
|
|
|
|
Post by dshawfan on Jul 8, 2010 19:46:25 GMT -8
Was watching the UNM replay the other night on CSTV and got to thinking about the possibilities for these two in our offense this year. If our OL makes it to average this year and if Brown and Sampson are both healthy all season, I've got to think that there is going to be lots of room for Sandifer & Umuolo to operate. It's sort of a pick your poison for secondaries trying to defense Brown and Sampson, so I'm thinking we could see some very nice numbers from these two while defenses focus on the big boys. Looking forward to seeing how these two develop this year. alston has added a good 20+ lbs of muscle over the offseason, as well as shed some fat. He is a very impressive physical specimen and yet has the skills to make some amazingly athletic plays. He first caught my eye during a scrimmage in Hoke's first Spring Ball with the team. He ran a simple seam route into the endzone and while back pedaling into the end zone with the defender's face buried in his chest calmly reached around the defender's torso and plucked the ball off the defender's back for a TD. Should be interesting to see the growth in the attack from year one to year two. |
|
|
|
Post by RiffelBooks on Jul 8, 2010 19:50:30 GMT -8
I'd like to split Umuolo wide in a formation with both Sampson and Brown. That would make a DC's eyes open.
|
|
|
|
Post by RiffelBooks on Jul 8, 2010 19:53:23 GMT -8
I tend to agree with you. As fun as 2002 was, we still lost most of our games. We're going to need to run to win games, and we're going to have to force the issue early to develop the running game. Remember, we have games in late-October at New Mexico and Wyoming. Odds are better than 50-50 that will mean the passing attack will be adversely affected by weather conditions. That means we need to run the ball to win. We probably need to win one of those games to go bowling. Craft's offense set an all-time NCAA record for yards and completions for a set of WR. I wouldn't mind having him as our OC this year. I know he was your guy, but I have to disagree. Phil Steele constantly looks for criteria he can use to predict how teams will finish each year. He then touts himself as the most successful prognosticator - if he in fact is, as is often the case - of the many pre-season publications. In addition to such things as "turnovers equals turnarounds" (i.e., an inverse relationship between the prior year's turnover ratio and predicted improvement since those things are often a matter of luck, which is cyclical), Steele has seen a positive association between wins and points per yard. During the year you reference, Craft's offense had one of the lowest points per yard ratio in the country. The main reason was we that despite the facts Craft inherited several O-linemen who had a cup of coffee in the NFL and our two excellent wideouts precluded defenses from putting too many men in the box, we averaged a pathetic 2.6 ypc. As horrible as our running attack has been the last several years, it has never averaged less than 2.9 ypc. There are reasons we threw for a gazillion yards in 2002 yet finished only 4-9 and the main one is Craft's offense might be successful in the red zone in JC ball where the corners can't even cover anybody on a short field, but it's ineffective at the DIA level where they can. So when you get into the red zone in DIA ball, you have to have some semblance of a rushing attack yet with the exception of 2003 when Lynell Hamilton starred, Craft's offense never could do that. (BTW, although we rushed for 1,470 yards in 2003, that number was skewed considerably by the fact we played two DIAA schools that year and 461 of those yards were gained in those two. So even with Lynell, in the 10 games we played against DIA competition, we averaged just 101 yards a game rushing.) JMO, of course. I know yours differs considerably. |
|
|
|
Post by jdaztec on Jul 8, 2010 19:54:29 GMT -8
With all of the weapons available a lot will depend on Linley's ability to look off his recievers and make good quick decisions.
|
|
|
|
Post by dshawfan on Jul 8, 2010 20:49:59 GMT -8
With all of the weapons available a lot will depend on Linley's ability to look off his recievers and make good quick decisions. And much of that will be determined by the growth of our OL. If they can protect him, it will be awfully tough to defend our available weapons as you mention. |
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jul 8, 2010 22:15:34 GMT -8
With all of the weapons available a lot will depend on Linley's ability to look off his recievers and make good quick decisions. He also can't have some truly horrendous games or early meltdowns. There are some weapons, they need to stay healthy and Lindley has to show what starting 20 some games and a ton of physical ability has wrought. |
|
|
|
Post by 06aztec on Jul 8, 2010 23:48:04 GMT -8
If we get a substantial running game going, Lindley will be drooling more than he is already.
|
|
|
|
Post by fowl on Jul 9, 2010 9:01:27 GMT -8
Those three-wide, one-back sets with Sandifer and Hillman could be lethal. Each of the five options has the ability to get open under any coverage and take it to the house.
If I am a DC I am blitzing every play given the OL. That is how you neutralize weapons like that. As someone else said, let them (us) try to beat you with the run.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2010 9:17:36 GMT -8
from what I remember from his recruiting film, Hillman has some good hands outta the backfield with potential to take it to the house. Those three-wide, one-back sets with Sandifer and Hillman could be lethal. Each of the five options has the ability to get open under any coverage and take it to the house. If I am a DC I am blitzing every play given the OL. That is how you neutralize weapons like that. As someone else said, let them (us) try to beat you with the run. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jul 9, 2010 9:49:36 GMT -8
I've written it often on here - I see tight ends as being the equivalent of knights in chess. They don't often go deep, but they are big enough to go over the middle and take a hit from corners or safeties. One of the main things I've always hated about the 1-back is that it turns a TE into just another O-Lineman instead of being an offensive weapon. =Bob No wonder you lose at Chess - you try to use your knights like tight ends  |
|
|
|
Post by k5james on Jul 10, 2010 0:03:29 GMT -8
Cell phone video of screen in my mancave. Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by sdsuphilip on Jul 10, 2010 0:21:35 GMT -8
Umuolo will get his chances imo and become a bigger threat, Sandifer may be a better player this year than last, but I don't see him getting more chances with emergence of Nicholas, Brown and Sampson healthy, and a improved running game
|
|
|
|
Post by k5james on Jul 10, 2010 0:48:24 GMT -8
Umuolo will get his chances imo and become a bigger threat, Sandifer may be a better player this year than last, but I don't see him getting more chances with emergence of Nicholas, Brown and Sampson healthy, and a improved running game So Nicholas is going to beat him out for playing time this year when he couldn't do it last year? Not gonna happen. |
|
|
|
Post by sdsuphilip on Jul 10, 2010 0:53:03 GMT -8
Umuolo will get his chances imo and become a bigger threat, Sandifer may be a better player this year than last, but I don't see him getting more chances with emergence of Nicholas, Brown and Sampson healthy, and a improved running game So Nicholas is going to beat him out for playing time this year when he couldn't do it last year? Not gonna happen. I didn't say he would, but he will get some time |
|
