Everyones favorite OC

Hippopeteamus

https://twitter.com/A_Jude/status/641697967464812544

CokeGreaterThanPepsi

Hippopeteamus said:

https://twitter.com/A_Jude/status/641697967464812544

Well, he's not wrong. Like I said, they ran cover 2 almost exclusively.

That being said, he still has to be able to figure out a way to get them out of that look. It is a joke that we couldn't find a way to run against a 6 and 7 man front.

Hippopeteamus

CokeGreaterThanPepsi said:

Hippopeteamus said:

https://twitter.com/A_Jude/status/641697967464812544

Well, he's not wrong. Like I said, they ran cover 2 almost exclusively.

That being said, he still has to be able to figure out a way to get them out of that look. It is a joke that we couldn't find a way to run against a 6 and 7 man front.

I agree. A lot of people are complaining about the lack of a vertical passing game, but the focus needs to be on getting the run game going. That is the real failure of the offense.

CokeGreaterThanPepsi

Hippopeteamus said:

CokeGreaterThanPepsi said:

Hippopeteamus said:

https://twitter.com/A_Jude/status/641697967464812544

Well, he's not wrong. Like I said, they ran cover 2 almost exclusively.

That being said, he still has to be able to figure out a way to get them out of that look. It is a joke that we couldn't find a way to run against a 6 and 7 man front.

I agree. A lot of people are complaining about the lack of a vertical passing game, but the focus needs to be on getting the run game going. That is the real failure of the offense.

Yup, I actually understand why we didn't get the chance to throw downfield, because the look was never there pre snap for Browning. But the only reason they were in that look is because our run game was absolute shit.

doogville

Dear J. smith,

Slants are a hell of a drug. I hear they can work quite well if you can't run block and the defense has two safeties deep.

Now don't twist, I am merely a madden expert. But I may have to send my resume to Coach Pete.

AEB

Perk or Double D up the seam either holds a safety or is open. Combo routes on the outside could help. Just a few thoughts from a nearly forty, semi-fat, rich white guy.

RoadDawg55

Hippopeteamus said:

CokeGreaterThanPepsi said:

Hippopeteamus said:

https://twitter.com/A_Jude/status/641697967464812544

Well, he's not wrong. Like I said, they ran cover 2 almost exclusively.

That being said, he still has to be able to figure out a way to get them out of that look. It is a joke that we couldn't find a way to run against a 6 and 7 man front.

I agree. A lot of people are complaining about the lack of a vertical passing game, but the focus needs to be on getting the run game going. That is the real failure of the offense.

Abundance. It would have also been nice to see some intermediate passes instead of ones within a couple yards of the LOS.

Nevadaduck

Run seam and a sideline go. Make make the fucking safety choose the receiver he going to defend. Throw it to the other one. New shit, I know.

if you want to get really complicated, have the QB send the safety to the other receiver by staring him down before coming off to his target.

Cutting edge shit.

Dardanus

Establishing a running game is one of the most essential elements of football. Not being able to do that against a defense that should allow it is unacceptable.

The blame lands squarely on the coaches. Especially Peterman. A head coach should make sure that his team can run the ball. Unless you're Mike Leach, in which case FYFMFE.

devildawg

If the QB running the pistol or read options actually ran the ball the safety's would move up in a hurry...when the d gives you numbers up front then take them Smith..it's basic math!

If not line up under center with an I back...it was no secret where we were going to run

If you can't run the ball vs BSU playing cover 2 what's going to happen against Pac 12 teams than can actually score 30 plus a game? Get a quick lead and pin your ears back... Brownings going to get ktfo

Gladstone

Smith needs to shut the fuck up until he can get anything resembling at least a decent high school offense going. He has no leverage or ground to stand on.

Passion

Dwayne Washington and Jonathan Smith were crap. Sure.

But our offensive line should be embarrassed.

Doogles

Passion said:

Dwayne Washington and Jonathan Smith were crap. Sure.

But our offensive line should be embarrassed.

I think that might be the last we see of James...McGary is clearly the better option/worth developing. As mentioned before, no way McGary gets pancaked like James on that crucial sack.

HFNY

I agree, the coaches are high on James but wish he had one more year with Socha's hands on him before giving James lots of snaps. I'm guessing McGary will get a lot more snaps vs. Sac State.

If Charles hadn't had to retire, Eldrenkamp would be at LT and Shelton would be at RT but since Mr. Fuckin' Fight On shat the bed on OL recruiting from 2011-2013, we're forced to play guys before they are ready.

Doogles said:

Passion said:

Dwayne Washington and Jonathan Smith were crap. Sure.

But our offensive line should be embarrassed.

I think that might be the last we see of James...McGary is clearly the better option/worth developing. As mentioned before, no way McGary gets pancaked like James on that crucial sack.

Tequilla

AEB said:

Perk or Double D up the seam either holds a safety or is open. Combo routes on the outside could help. Just a few thoughts from a nearly forty, semi-fat, rich white guy.

The combination route idea is the one that really bothers me the most. There are opportunities to create easy throws in the passing game by clearing out an area with the first WR and then come behind the cleared out area with the second one ... particularly against a zone.

And while I agree with Smith that Boise continued to be in the Cover 2 look throughout the game, the fact that he "confirmed" with the Boise coaches after the game that doesn't exactly reassure me.

BayDawg

Tequilla said:

AEB said:

Perk or Double D up the seam either holds a safety or is open. Combo routes on the outside could help. Just a few thoughts from a nearly forty, semi-fat, rich white guy.

The combination route idea is the one that really bothers me the most. There are opportunities to create easy throws in the passing game by clearing out an area with the first WR and then come behind the cleared out area with the second one ... particularly against a zone.

And while I agree with Smith that Boise continued to be in the Cover 2 look throughout the game, the fact that he "confirmed" with the Boise coaches after the game that doesn't exactly reassure me.

Combination routes work great in some situations, but the way they were playing out twin wideout formations was essentially a 3 on 2 situation. We were covered.

Ive called plays at the HS level (i know, cool story bro) and against the defense they were playing, which was essentially a 4-2 cover 2, with a rover in the flat to the wide/strong side, its not easy to throw it. What can you do? Run it, and run it some more. If you cant run the ball against that alignment YOU. ARE. FUCKED.

As much as it pains me to say it Smiffs not wrong. Yes you can scheme a bit better, and they can be violated deep in the middle of the field off off play action, for the most part its a pretty standard rule: Cover 2 with 6 in the box, Run it.

Hippopeteamus

BayDawg said:

Tequilla said:

AEB said:

Perk or Double D up the seam either holds a safety or is open. Combo routes on the outside could help. Just a few thoughts from a nearly forty, semi-fat, rich white guy.

The combination route idea is the one that really bothers me the most. There are opportunities to create easy throws in the passing game by clearing out an area with the first WR and then come behind the cleared out area with the second one ... particularly against a zone.

And while I agree with Smith that Boise continued to be in the Cover 2 look throughout the game, the fact that he "confirmed" with the Boise coaches after the game that doesn't exactly reassure me.

Combination routes work great in some situations, but the way they were playing out twin wideout formations was essentially a 3 on 2 situation. We were covered.

Ive called plays at the HS level (i know, cool story bro) and against the defense they were playing, which was essentially a 4-2 cover 2, with a rover in the flat to the wide/strong side, its not easy to throw it. What can you do? Run it, and run it some more. If you cant run the ball against that alignment YOU. ARE. FUCKED.

As much as it pains me to say it Smiffs not wrong. Yes you can scheme a bit better, and they can be violated deep in the middle of the field off off play action, for the most part its a pretty standard rule: Cover 2 with 6 in the box, Run it.

Did you notice if the running game calls could have been different? I have a hard time believing Boise outmatched UW that much in the trenches/rbs. It seems like they could have run some fly-sweep stuff or tried something else besides a run off-tackle or a pitch. It looked like the run plays were pretty straightforward to this untrained eye.

AEB

BayDawg said:

Tequilla said:

AEB said:

Perk or Double D up the seam either holds a safety or is open. Combo routes on the outside could help. Just a few thoughts from a nearly forty, semi-fat, rich white guy.

The combination route idea is the one that really bothers me the most. There are opportunities to create easy throws in the passing game by clearing out an area with the first WR and then come behind the cleared out area with the second one ... particularly against a zone.

And while I agree with Smith that Boise continued to be in the Cover 2 look throughout the game, the fact that he "confirmed" with the Boise coaches after the game that doesn't exactly reassure me.

Combination routes work great in some situations, but the way they were playing out twin wideout formations was essentially a 3 on 2 situation. We were covered.

Ive called plays at the HS level (i know, cool story bro) and against the defense they were playing, which was essentially a 4-2 cover 2, with a rover in the flat to the wide/strong side, its not easy to throw it. What can you do? Run it, and run it some more. If you cant run the ball against that alignment YOU. ARE. FUCKED.

As much as it pains me to say it Smiffs not wrong. Yes you can scheme a bit better, and they can be violated deep in the middle of the field off off play action, for the most part its a pretty standard rule: Cover 2 with 6 in the box, Run it.

Our offense was approaching David ShawFS levels.

RaccoonHarry

All this football talk is giving me a headache...

BayDawg

There were a mix of different running plays, none really all that effective. I would have liked more counters, you can get a numbers advantage when you pull guys and its less reading the hole for the back. The man on man zone plays just didnt go. For the most part we got whipped in those situations, and the hole shows up in different spots. Washington is not very good at feeling that.

My biggest complaint Is that we didnt try more play action to take a shot deep down the field. The safties were starting to get pretty close to the line of scrimmage for cover two, take a chance. Probably gonna be incomplete most of the time, but if you dont throw a few up for grabs and keep them honest, it really crowds the intermediate zones that can get open flooding zones, ie combo routes.

Probably too much detail. Someone post a picture of a really big set of tits.

Swaye