Did we really run that many bubble screens? Our offense sucked, but I wouldn’t say that was The reason.
Predictable play calling, a lot of third and long plays, and absolutely no ability to handle pressure and have easy to find hour routes off pressure.
It was more when they, and the dreaded jet sweeps, were called.
You're running down someone's throat, you have an important 3rd and short, run a play that takes a long time to develop and that, if the defense sees it, will have a 90% of stuffing it.
That happened like two or three times all year. Pete’s offense sucked. It wasn’t really sideways tho. Sideways probably would have worked better with Ahmed. It was bland and predictable and the players were often confused. It seemed to take everyone doing their job perfectly for plays to have success.
Jimmy hired Donovan and is a complete retard until proven otherwise. W/ respect
His fascination with 'NFL' coaches is concerning. While I'm sure he learned a lot from smart people in the NFL, the NFL has also consistently proven to have a lot of dumb fucks.
It’s a good problem to have in a way, but if Lake is good and gets a chance, he’s bouncing to the NFL.
Did we really run that many bubble screens? Our offense sucked, but I wouldn’t say that was The reason.
Predictable play calling, a lot of third and long plays, and absolutely no ability to handle pressure and have easy to find hour routes off pressure.
It was more when they, and the dreaded jet sweeps, were called.
You're running down someone's throat, you have an important 3rd and short, run a play that takes a long time to develop and that, if the defense sees it, will have a 90% of stuffing it.
That happened like two or three times all year. Pete’s offense sucked. It wasn’t really sideways tho. Sideways probably would have worked better with Ahmed. It was bland and predictable and the players were often confused. It seemed to take everyone doing their job perfectly for plays to have success.
This is exactly the problem, right here. The offense just made everything look so hard because everything was so dependent on at least 8 players winning individual battles in perfect sequence for the timing to work out.
I liked the wildcat runs you tried against the ducks in 2019. I hope that kind of sneaky trickeration still has a place in the husky offense going forward.
Jimmy hired Donovan and is a complete retard until proven otherwise. W/ respect
His fascination with 'NFL' coaches is concerning. While I'm sure he learned a lot from smart people in the NFL, the NFL has also consistently proven to have a lot of dumb fucks.
Good point. Some coaches in the NFL are the best at what they do. Others not so much. Kind of like any other level.
Coaching is important at any level, but NFL players are mostly self motivated and half of them are barely hanging on and will do anything they can to stay. Most of them can be cut with very little ramifications.
Did we really run that many bubble screens? Our offense sucked, but I wouldn’t say that was The reason.
Predictable play calling, a lot of third and long plays, and absolutely no ability to handle pressure and have easy to find hour routes off pressure.
It was more when they, and the dreaded jet sweeps, were called.
You're running down someone's throat, you have an important 3rd and short, run a play that takes a long time to develop and that, if the defense sees it, will have a 90% of stuffing it.
That happened like two or three times all year. Pete’s offense sucked. It wasn’t really sideways tho. Sideways probably would have worked better with Ahmed. It was bland and predictable and the players were often confused. It seemed to take everyone doing their job perfectly for plays to have success.
This is exactly the problem, right here. The offense just made everything look so hard because everything was so dependent on at least 8 players winning individual battles in perfect sequence for the timing to work out.
The shift and motions slowed guys down a lot. They had too many things to go over presnap and DC’s were aware it was merely window dressing.
So you have some talent but not an overwhelming amount and they are all bogged down by pre-snap shit. They don’t have confidence from making a ton of plays, and according to Hugh our OL scheme was really dated. Our identity was having an offense that was overly complicated and used a lot of shifts and motion. Not a power run game, an explosive passing game, or all around balance, but pre snap shifts and motions. That’s what we were known for.
It was a mess from the day Pete took over and had started with Pete prior to his arrival at UW. The 2016 team gave Pete the false hope that it wasn’t his offense that was broken but a talent and execution issue.
I liked the wildcat runs you tried against the ducks in 2019. I hope that kind of sneaky trickeration still has a place in the husky offense going forward.
“Our numbers showed how productive those plays had been for us.”
That was with Gaskin and Newton, Pete. Not with a 4th strong RB named Kamari Pleasant who has poor vision and runs straight up.
Let's talk Jet Sweep. I thought that perhaps it was just UW that couldn't run it. Then I noticed an 81% failure rate across the board. Everyone sucks at it. When it does work it looks great and the announcers marvel at it and the defense looks like idiots. When it works. Occasionally
Coaching is guys watching TV like we do and trying what works. If you recruit great or draft great your a genius. If not you get fired
Mike Riley and OSU is only program to run it successfully. Everybody else went backwards
I liked the wildcat runs you tried against the ducks in 2019. I hope that kind of sneaky trickeration still has a place in the husky offense going forward.
I liked the wildcat runs you tried against the ducks in 2019. I hope that kind of sneaky trickeration still has a place in the husky offense going forward.
I liked the wildcat runs you tried against the ducks in 2019. I hope that kind of sneaky trickeration still has a place in the husky offense going forward.
“Our numbers showed how productive those plays had been for us.”
That was with Gaskin and Newton, Pete. Not with a 4th strong RB named Kamari Pleasant who has poor vision and runs straight up.
That quote drove me up the fucking wall. The entire point of that was to get your playmakers in space with an extra blocker. Gaskin and Newton. Not the formation in and of itself. Beyond stupid. Bush too.
The NFL is an incestuous, nepotistic cornucopia of vomit coaches who parrot each other and continually redefine incompetence.
This also applies to NCAA D1 with equal force
Mostly yes, at least P5. The stakes are almost as high as the NFL, there is little appetite for innovation. The evolution of strategy has to come from lower levels which are not life or death.
Coach K's genius mostly blossoming at UW is a beautiful thing, and the fact he has no head coach desires makes him a bona fide blessing. The top priority for UW over the next decade is keeping him happy.
I liked the wildcat runs you tried against the ducks in 2019. I hope that kind of sneaky trickeration still has a place in the husky offense going forward.
“Our numbers showed how productive those plays had been for us.”
That was with Gaskin and Newton, Pete. Not with a 4th strong RB named Kamari Pleasant who has poor vision and runs straight up.
That quote drove me up the fucking wall. The entire point of that was to get your playmakers in space with an extra blocker. Gaskin and Newton. Not the formation in and of itself. Beyond stupid. Bush too.
Having your 4th best RB run those plays was stupid. As was bringing in Malik Braxton each time and completely telegraphing it every time. If I notice we run that formation with those guys in the stands, I’m sure the Oregon DC noticed too.
I liked the wildcat runs you tried against the ducks in 2019. I hope that kind of sneaky trickeration still has a place in the husky offense going forward.
“Our numbers showed how productive those plays had been for us.”
That was with Gaskin and Newton, Pete. Not with a 4th strong RB named Kamari Pleasant who has poor vision and runs straight up.
That quote drove me up the fucking wall. The entire point of that was to get your playmakers in space with an extra blocker. Gaskin and Newton. Not the formation in and of itself. Beyond stupid. Bush too.
Having your 4th best RB run those plays was stupid. As was bringing in Malik Braxton each time and completely telegraphing it every time. If I notice we run that formation with those guys in the stands, I’m sure the Oregon DC noticed too.
The whole concept is stupid, and it goes to your original point: The offense often fails because plays are predicated on too many things going right. So let's look at the wildcat: You have your unathletic quarterback out there playing split end, so he's not a threat. The corner over him is playing inside leverage and looking inside every time, so he can be in the box in about a second and a half to take away the cutback lane. Otherwise, you've got nine blockers and a ball carrier to take on ten defenders in the box. No problem!
Ignoring talent on my roster, quality of ball carrier, etc., I'm going to think of a play like this: If I have a ball carrier in space against a single defender, I have something like a 50/50 shot of a successful play. If I have a ball carrier and a blocker against two defenders, the odds drop a little, as now I need a successful play by the ball carrier and a successful block. If I have a ball carrier and two blockers against three defenders, the odds decrease even a bit more.
The wildcat is the ultimate fuck-you to this simple math. It's, "Come on, motherfucker, let's go 10-on-10 with you knowing it's coming." Blocks become less critical the further from the point of attack, but a successful wildcat play is still requiring at least a half dozen successful blocks and the back making a correct choice and/or making somebody miss to be successful. It's the "half a dozen successful blocks" part that's the killer. The 3rd down fs wildcat against Oregon didn't fail because Pleasant sucks, it failed because Hunter Bryant blocked about as well as a parking cone would have, and even had he stayed engaged with his man, Pleasant would have still had two unblocked defenders to beat. There was a cutback lane that was good for another two-on-one chance, I guess.
We all want to be smashmouth, but modern football is all about exploiting numbers. Spread to run, play action out of heavy sets (one-on-one coverage on the outside is the equivalent to that dream 50/50 scenario in the running game), simplicity and execution. If John Ross has to beat man coverage in three seconds for a play to be successful, I like my odds. If I need three yards and I can put my running back in space with a single defender, I like my odds. I never want to take on all 11 of their defense, I want to isolate a little group over here or over here and try beating it.
I liked the wildcat runs you tried against the ducks in 2019. I hope that kind of sneaky trickeration still has a place in the husky offense going forward.
“Our numbers showed how productive those plays had been for us.”
That was with Gaskin and Newton, Pete. Not with a 4th strong RB named Kamari Pleasant who has poor vision and runs straight up.
That quote drove me up the fucking wall. The entire point of that was to get your playmakers in space with an extra blocker. Gaskin and Newton. Not the formation in and of itself. Beyond stupid. Bush too.
Having your 4th best RB run those plays was stupid. As was bringing in Malik Braxton each time and completely telegraphing it every time. If I notice we run that formation with those guys in the stands, I’m sure the Oregon DC noticed too.
The whole concept is stupid, and it goes to your original point: The offense often fails because plays are predicated on too many things going right. So let's look at the wildcat: You have your unathletic quarterback out there playing split end, so he's not a threat. The corner over him is playing inside leverage and looking inside every time, so he can be in the box in about a second and a half to take away the cutback lane. Otherwise, you've got nine blockers and a ball carrier to take on ten defenders in the box. No problem!
Ignoring talent on my roster, quality of ball carrier, etc., I'm going to think of a play like this: If I have a ball carrier in space against a single defender, I have something like a 50/50 shot of a successful play. If I have a ball carrier and a blocker against two defenders, the odds drop a little, as now I need a successful play by the ball carrier and a successful block. If I have a ball carrier and two blockers against three defenders, the odds decrease even a bit more.
The wildcat is the ultimate fuck-you to this simple math. It's, "Come on, motherfucker, let's go 10-on-10 with you knowing it's coming." Blocks become less critical the further from the point of attack, but a successful wildcat play is still requiring at least a half dozen successful blocks and the back making a correct choice and/or making somebody miss to be successful. It's the "half a dozen successful blocks" part that's the killer. The 3rd down fs wildcat against Oregon didn't fail because Pleasant sucks, it failed because Hunter Bryant blocked about as well as a parking cone would have, and even had he stayed engaged with his man, Pleasant would have still had two unblocked defenders to beat. There was a cutback lane that was good for another two-on-one chance, I guess.
We all want to be smashmouth, but modern football is all about exploiting numbers. Spread to run, play action out of heavy sets (one-on-one coverage on the outside is the equivalent to that dream 50/50 scenario in the running game), simplicity and execution. If John Ross has to beat man coverage in three seconds for a play to be successful, I like my odds. If I need three yards and I can put my running back in space with a single defender, I like my odds. I never want to take on all 11 of their defense, I want to isolate a little group over here or over here and try beating it.
Comments
Coaching is important at any level, but NFL players are mostly self motivated and half of them are barely hanging on and will do anything they can to stay. Most of them can be cut with very little ramifications.
SIDEWAYS IS A GREAT MOVIE *JIMMY*!!!!!1
So you have some talent but not an overwhelming amount and they are all bogged down by pre-snap shit. They don’t have confidence from making a ton of plays, and according to Hugh our OL scheme was really dated. Our identity was having an offense that was overly complicated and used a lot of shifts and motion. Not a power run game, an explosive passing game, or all around balance, but pre snap shifts and motions. That’s what we were known for.
It was a mess from the day Pete took over and had started with Pete prior to his arrival at UW. The 2016 team gave Pete the false hope that it wasn’t his offense that was broken but a talent and execution issue.
That was with Gaskin and Newton, Pete. Not with a 4th strong RB named Kamari Pleasant who has poor vision and runs straight up.
Now, your previous offense...
Yes. "Wildcat".
Right.
Not a success.
Why?
Well, "Wildcat" was written in a kind of obsolete
vernacular...
"Wildcat". . .
"Wild". . . "cat". . .
"Wildcat". . .
I'm going to go.
I'm taking this off and I'm going.
Stepping out.
What the hell kind of way to act is that?
Open the door.
He's on drugs.
Coach K's genius mostly blossoming at UW is a beautiful thing, and the fact he has no head coach desires makes him a bona fide blessing. The top priority for UW over the next decade is keeping him happy.
Ignoring talent on my roster, quality of ball carrier, etc., I'm going to think of a play like this: If I have a ball carrier in space against a single defender, I have something like a 50/50 shot of a successful play. If I have a ball carrier and a blocker against two defenders, the odds drop a little, as now I need a successful play by the ball carrier and a successful block. If I have a ball carrier and two blockers against three defenders, the odds decrease even a bit more.
The wildcat is the ultimate fuck-you to this simple math. It's, "Come on, motherfucker, let's go 10-on-10 with you knowing it's coming." Blocks become less critical the further from the point of attack, but a successful wildcat play is still requiring at least a half dozen successful blocks and the back making a correct choice and/or making somebody miss to be successful. It's the "half a dozen successful blocks" part that's the killer. The 3rd down fs wildcat against Oregon didn't fail because Pleasant sucks, it failed because Hunter Bryant blocked about as well as a parking cone would have, and even had he stayed engaged with his man, Pleasant would have still had two unblocked defenders to beat. There was a cutback lane that was good for another two-on-one chance, I guess.
We all want to be smashmouth, but modern football is all about exploiting numbers. Spread to run, play action out of heavy sets (one-on-one coverage on the outside is the equivalent to that dream 50/50 scenario in the running game), simplicity and execution. If John Ross has to beat man coverage in three seconds for a play to be successful, I like my odds. If I need three yards and I can put my running back in space with a single defender, I like my odds. I never want to take on all 11 of their defense, I want to isolate a little group over here or over here and try beating it.