The persistent hard-on for "big plays" is the root cause of Smith's mediocrity. Run with conviction; throw short; avoid penalties; and concentrate on manufacturing and converting favorable down&distance situations. These are the things your players are good at, so just stick to them, and the "big plays" will come. Trust your playmakers to go get YAC on the edges; they don't need 40-yard downfield heaves.
Jesus. Big plays are good things. And the Huskies have been successful this season in both being incredibly efficient and explosive.
I don't think Smith is a very good playe caller overall, and I will celebrate when he is hired away, but this criticism reads like the Huskies go 3 and out all the time because they are constantly throwing deep. They don't and they aren't.
If Smith called games the way you are suggesting, there would be a huge uproar because the Huskies offense would score a lot less and would be both boring and predictable.
The USC game was a poor gameplan, executed poorly. But the rest of the season, I can't fault the mix of calls that much.
If you don't think UW throws deep too much and goes 3&out too much, you haven't been paying attention.
Against outmatched opponents, Smith could literally draw plays out of a hat, and most will work. UW's offense has really only been tested by two good defenses all year: Utah and USC. And there really isn't any debate that the offense earned low grades against both. They'll face a third good defense tonight; more of the same could get them beat.
Bottom line: UW has better players than CU. "Boring and predictable" will beat them. In fact, it will beat anyone in the country, excepting Bammer.
Boring and predictable can work fine in a given game for the Huskies because they have established that they are a dangerous team that will throw the ball over the top, etc. A steady diet of boring and predictable makes a team easy to defend if the opposing DC isn't nervous about getting torched.
And the Huskies have gotten at least one first down on 82% of their non-garbage time drives this season, which ranks 4th in the country. Against USC, they had two 3 and outs out of 11 possessions. Other bad things happened too, but 3 and outs weren't a big problem in that game.
Against Utah, they had three 3 and outs. Too many, certainly, but let's not pretend it is a friggin epidemic. And one of those (the first possession of the game) came when the Huskies tried to just run the ball three straight times. So your "strategy" isn't immune from generating 3 and outs.
The persistent hard-on for "big plays" is the root cause of Smith's mediocrity. Run with conviction; throw short; avoid penalties; and concentrate on manufacturing and converting favorable down&distance situations. These are the things your players are good at, so just stick to them, and the "big plays" will come. Trust your playmakers to go get YAC on the edges; they don't need 40-yard downfield heaves.
I don't get the "Smith's mediocrity" thing. I agree that he gets too cute at times and shit the bed in the 2nd half against USC, but UW offense is #3 in PPG in college football, and a whopping .5 PPG from #1. No doubt, some play calls are head scratching, but the body of work suggests he's certainly not mediocre.
Answer: Playmakers. Dawgs are overloaded with physically talented athletic weapons, good enough to make even a FS OC look good at the end of the day. But UW cannot expect to have such high levels of talent every year, and/or to avoid key injuries. And even our offensive beasts cannot turn shit plays into gold, as we've seen all season with repeated 3 & outs.
How the fuck does UW ever go 3 & out multiple times per half with all the talent we have? Answer: Smiffy's diaper gravy playbook.
The persistent hard-on for "big plays" is the root cause of Smith's mediocrity. Run with conviction; throw short; avoid penalties; and concentrate on manufacturing and converting favorable down&distance situations. These are the things your players are good at, so just stick to them, and the "big plays" will come. Trust your playmakers to go get YAC on the edges; they don't need 40-yard downfield heaves.
I don't get the "Smith's mediocrity" thing. I agree that he gets too cute at times and shit the bed in the 2nd half against USC, but UW offense is #3 in PPG in college football, and a whopping .5 PPG from #1. No doubt, some play calls are head scratching, but the body of work suggests he's certainly not mediocre.
Answer: Playmakers. Dawgs are overloaded with physically talented athletic weapons, good enough to make even a FS OC look good at the end of the day. But UW cannot expect to have such high levels of talent every year, and/or to avoid key injuries. And even our offensive beasts cannot turn shit plays into gold, as we've seen all season with repeated 3 & outs.
How the fuck does UW ever go 3 & out multiple times per half with all the talent we have? Answer: Smiffy's diaper gravy playbook.
The persistent hard-on for "big plays" is the root cause of Smith's mediocrity. Run with conviction; throw short; avoid penalties; and concentrate on manufacturing and converting favorable down&distance situations. These are the things your players are good at, so just stick to them, and the "big plays" will come. Trust your playmakers to go get YAC on the edges; they don't need 40-yard downfield heaves.
I don't get the "Smith's mediocrity" thing. I agree that he gets too cute at times and shit the bed in the 2nd half against USC, but UW offense is #3 in PPG in college football, and a whopping .5 PPG from #1. No doubt, some play calls are head scratching, but the body of work suggests he's certainly not mediocre.
Answer: Playmakers. Dawgs are overloaded with physically talented athletic weapons, good enough to make even a FS OC look good at the end of the day. But UW cannot expect to have such high levels of talent every year, and/or to avoid key injuries. And even our offensive beasts cannot turn shit plays into gold, as we've seen all season with repeated 3 & outs.
How the fuck does UW ever go 3 & out multiple times per half with all the talent we have? Answer: Smiffy's diaper gravy playbook.
I think overloaded is an overstatement still, strictly from a physical talent standpoint. John Ross is on another level, but I think if you put our? best guys on the flatbed with USC, Oregon, Stanford, maybe Utah's best guys, I'm not sure the difference is anything major. Yet.
The persistent hard-on for "big plays" is the root cause of Smith's mediocrity. Run with conviction; throw short; avoid penalties; and concentrate on manufacturing and converting favorable down&distance situations. These are the things your players are good at, so just stick to them, and the "big plays" will come. Trust your playmakers to go get YAC on the edges; they don't need 40-yard downfield heaves.
I don't get the "Smith's mediocrity" thing. I agree that he gets too cute at times and shit the bed in the 2nd half against USC, but UW offense is #3 in PPG in college football, and a whopping .5 PPG from #1. No doubt, some play calls are head scratching, but the body of work suggests he's certainly not mediocre.
Answer: Playmakers. Dawgs are overloaded with physically talented athletic weapons, good enough to make even a FS OC look good at the end of the day. But UW cannot expect to have such high levels of talent every year, and/or to avoid key injuries. And even our offensive beasts cannot turn shit plays into gold, as we've seen all season with repeated 3 & outs.
How the fuck does UW ever go 3 & out multiple times per half with all the talent we have? Answer: Smiffy's diaper gravy playbook.
I think overloaded is an overstatement still, strictly from a physical talent standpoint. John Ross is on another level, but I think if you put our? best guys on the flatbed with USC, Oregon, Stanford, maybe Utah's best guys, I'm not sure the difference is anything major. Yet.
"Overloaded" being relative. Smiff calls too many passes and too many lateral plays. Period. Fortunately, UW possesses enough talent to frequently make something out of nothing from his shit play calls.
Scrap those bad play calls and the SC game is much closer, and possibly a W. Smiff shit the bed and panicked when SC brought pressure unlike what UW had seen up to that point. While behind by 2 scores, he had his QB winging & hail marying the ball around like they were down by 28.
Lesson is this: Don't give the car keys to the retard. Give him a big wheel on a fenced in parking lot so he can't hurt himself or others.
The persistent hard-on for "big plays" is the root cause of Smith's mediocrity. Run with conviction; throw short; avoid penalties; and concentrate on manufacturing and converting favorable down&distance situations. These are the things your players are good at, so just stick to them, and the "big plays" will come. Trust your playmakers to go get YAC on the edges; they don't need 40-yard downfield heaves.
Jesus. Big plays are good things. And the Huskies have been successful this season in both being incredibly efficient and explosive.
I don't think Smith is a very good playe caller overall, and I will celebrate when he is hired away, but this criticism reads like the Huskies go 3 and out all the time because they are constantly throwing deep. They don't and they aren't.
If Smith called games the way you are suggesting, there would be a huge uproar because the Huskies offense would score a lot less and would be both boring and predictable.
The USC game was a poor gameplan, executed poorly. But the rest of the season, I can't fault the mix of calls that much.
If you don't think UW throws deep too much and goes 3&out too much, you haven't been paying attention.
Against outmatched opponents, Smith could literally draw plays out of a hat, and most will work. UW's offense has really only been tested by two good defenses all year: Utah and USC. And there really isn't any debate that the offense earned low grades against both. They'll face a third good defense tonight; more of the same could get them beat.
Bottom line: UW has better players than CU. "Boring and predictable" will beat them. In fact, it will beat anyone in the country, excepting Bammer.
Boring and predictable can work fine in a given game for the Huskies because they have established that they are a dangerous team that will throw the ball over the top, etc. A steady diet of boring and predictable makes a team easy to defend if the opposing DC isn't nervous about getting torched.
And the Huskies have gotten at least one first down on 82% of their non-garbage time drives this season, which ranks 4th in the country. Against USC, they had two 3 and outs out of 11 possessions. Other bad things happened too, but 3 and outs weren't a big problem in that game.
Against Utah, they had three 3 and outs. Too many, certainly, but let's not pretend it is a friggin epidemic. And one of those (the first possession of the game) came when the Huskies tried to just run the ball three straight times. So your "strategy" isn't immune from generating 3 and outs.
What is boring and predictable? You make it seem like handing it off he majority of the time is boring and predictable. Being run heavy and hitting big pass plays are not mutually exclusive.
I wouldn't give the offense a low grade against Utah. Neither team plays hurry up so the plays were limited. Browning didn't play great, but we averaged 8 per carry in that game against a pretty stout front. If anything, it should have been a game where we ran even more despite Browning only throwing 20 times.
The persistent hard-on for "big plays" is the root cause of Smith's mediocrity. Run with conviction; throw short; avoid penalties; and concentrate on manufacturing and converting favorable down&distance situations. These are the things your players are good at, so just stick to them, and the "big plays" will come. Trust your playmakers to go get YAC on the edges; they don't need 40-yard downfield heaves.
Jesus. Big plays are good things. And the Huskies have been successful this season in both being incredibly efficient and explosive.
I don't think Smith is a very good playe caller overall, and I will celebrate when he is hired away, but this criticism reads like the Huskies go 3 and out all the time because they are constantly throwing deep. They don't and they aren't.
If Smith called games the way you are suggesting, there would be a huge uproar because the Huskies offense would score a lot less and would be both boring and predictable.
The USC game was a poor gameplan, executed poorly. But the rest of the season, I can't fault the mix of calls that much.
If you don't think UW throws deep too much and goes 3&out too much, you haven't been paying attention.
Against outmatched opponents, Smith could literally draw plays out of a hat, and most will work. UW's offense has really only been tested by two good defenses all year: Utah and USC. And there really isn't any debate that the offense earned low grades against both. They'll face a third good defense tonight; more of the same could get them beat.
Bottom line: UW has better players than CU. "Boring and predictable" will beat them. In fact, it will beat anyone in the country, excepting Bammer.
Boring and predictable can work fine in a given game for the Huskies because they have established that they are a dangerous team that will throw the ball over the top, etc. A steady diet of boring and predictable makes a team easy to defend if the opposing DC isn't nervous about getting torched.
And the Huskies have gotten at least one first down on 82% of their non-garbage time drives this season, which ranks 4th in the country. Against USC, they had two 3 and outs out of 11 possessions. Other bad things happened too, but 3 and outs weren't a big problem in that game.
Against Utah, they had three 3 and outs. Too many, certainly, but let's not pretend it is a friggin epidemic. And one of those (the first possession of the game) came when the Huskies tried to just run the ball three straight times. So your "strategy" isn't immune from generating 3 and outs.
“We’re not going to just be going up and down the field and scoring 60, 70 points. I don’t see that coming,” UW offensive coordinator Jonathan Smith said. “So being able to stick and grind through it. But when there are plays to be made we have to make them. You’re going to get maybe half a dozen (chances at big) plays in this game against a good defense. We have to make those.”
I guess the question is "How much damage can six bad play calls create?".
Boobs wouldn't know a fucking fact if it ripped his asshole wide open.
Comments
And the Huskies have gotten at least one first down on 82% of their non-garbage time drives this season, which ranks 4th in the country. Against USC, they had two 3 and outs out of 11 possessions. Other bad things happened too, but 3 and outs weren't a big problem in that game.
Against Utah, they had three 3 and outs. Too many, certainly, but let's not pretend it is a friggin epidemic. And one of those (the first possession of the game) came when the Huskies tried to just run the ball three straight times. So your "strategy" isn't immune from generating 3 and outs.
But UW cannot expect to have such high levels of talent every year, and/or to avoid key injuries. And even our offensive beasts cannot turn shit plays into gold, as we've seen all season with repeated 3 & outs.
How the fuck does UW ever go 3 & out multiple times per half with all the talent we have? Answer: Smiffy's diaper gravy playbook.
Scrap those bad play calls and the SC game is much closer, and possibly a W. Smiff shit the bed and panicked when SC brought pressure unlike what UW had seen up to that point. While behind by 2 scores, he had his QB winging & hail marying the ball around like they were down by 28.
Lesson is this: Don't give the car keys to the retard. Give him a big wheel on a fenced in parking lot so he can't hurt himself or others.
It's what I like to do.
Smiffy, in his appropriate league.
I wouldn't give the offense a low grade against Utah. Neither team plays hurry up so the plays were limited. Browning didn't play great, but we averaged 8 per carry in that game against a pretty stout front. If anything, it should have been a game where we ran even more despite Browning only throwing 20 times.
HTH