1) High percentage of plays w 2 or 3 TEs 2) Run first offense that is keeping the offense "on time" 3) High rate of 3rd down conversions - especially when running 4) Dominating TOP
It's the HH offense people cried for -- one that plays to our proven strengths (RB, O-line, TE) and should help RB recruiting going forward.
I'm looking for any reason to bash the OC but this gameplan all things considered was fine to me. Now if it's the same exact thing against UA...
1) High percentage of plays w 2 or 3 TEs 2) Run first offense that is keeping the offense "on time" 3) High rate of 3rd down conversions - especially when running 4) Dominating TOP
It's the HH offense people cried for -- one that plays to our proven strengths (RB, O-line, TE) and should help RB recruiting going forward.
I'm looking for any reason to bash the OC but this gameplan all things considered was fine to me. Now if it's the same exact thing against UA...
Thank you Doogstone. This is how I felt the last two days as I’ve been reading the boreds. No getting cute when you’re running it down the defense’s throat. No crazy formations with 17 shifts.
OSU had a weakness and Lake kept at it. The drops by Bynum, Puka, Ty, and Rome would have been big conversions and two TDs. Suddenly Morris’ numbers look much better for his first game and throw in 267 on the ground for good measure.
They had a game plan for OSU’s weakness on the line, the weather, and an inexperienced line and WB, and it worked. Lake says they plan for their offense to be able to execute multiple game plans, and we will see if that is true against Arizona. Let’s see if they are a multiple offense that adjusts to their opponent. Let’s see if Lake is all talk.
Throughout camp WR spoke highly of the aggressive downfield passing with chances to make plays. I doubt they say that shit if all they do is block.
1) High percentage of plays w 2 or 3 TEs 2) Run first offense that is keeping the offense "on time" 3) High rate of 3rd down conversions - especially when running 4) Dominating TOP
It's the HH offense people cried for -- one that plays to our proven strengths (RB, O-line, TE) and should help RB recruiting going forward.
I'm looking for any reason to bash the OC but this gameplan all things considered was fine to me. Now if it's the same exact thing against UA...
Thank you Doogstone. This is how I felt the last two days as I’ve been reading the boreds. No getting cute when you’re running it down the defense’s throat. No crazy formations with 17 shifts.
OSU had a weakness and Lake kept at it. The drops by Bynum, Puka, Ty, and Rome would have been big conversions and two TDs. Suddenly Morris’ numbers look much better for his first game and throw in 267 on the ground for good measure.
They had a game plan for OSU’s weakness on the line, the weather, and an inexperienced line and WB, and it worked. Lake says they plan for their offense to be able to execute multiple game plans, and we will see if that is true against Arizona. Let’s see if they are a multiple offense that adjusts to their opponent. Let’s see if Lake is all talk.
Throughout camp WR spoke highly of the aggressive downfield passing with chances to make plays. I doubt they say that shit if all they do is block.
Well, we ran all over Arizona last year and USC put up nearly 500 yards on them last week. So I would expect healthy doses of running. Then, presumably, a healthy portion of those "downfield strikes" we've heard so much about.
Since when did actually being productive on offense mean a team was "getting cute"?
In my poast getting cute was in regards to the tendency of the Petersen offense running a double reverse or some trick play to destroy a drive that had been effective from standard runs.
My point is this didn’t happen in this game. The run was working and UW stuck with it without the bullshit fluff.
You like Curne because he is black, has a huge ass, and DDY told you to.
You don't like Kirkland because...well...figure it out.
Prove me wrong.
Curne graded out significantly higher than Kirkland did last week. Curne didn’t allow a pressure and he was going up against a future NFL player. He was mauling in the run game too.
1) High percentage of plays w 2 or 3 TEs 2) Run first offense that is keeping the offense "on time" 3) High rate of 3rd down conversions - especially when running 4) Dominating TOP
It's the HH offense people cried for -- one that plays to our proven strengths (RB, O-line, TE) and should help RB recruiting going forward.
I'm looking for any reason to bash the OC but this gameplan all things considered was fine to me. Now if it's the same exact thing against UA...
I went back and charted out every single offensive play. RIP my eyes, right @GrandpaSankey ? It's a small sample size, but the data doesn't support what BTP is suggesting.
In our non-penalty, non-garbage time offensive plays this is what happened:
55% of our plays were multiple TE sets. Note: I counted Westover as a TE in this, even if he was lined up in the backfield.
Rushing Ran to the left side 51% of the time Ran to the right side 43% of the time Ran behind the center 6% of the time (Morris sneaks or where I couldn't quite tell)
We ran inside the tackles 86% of the time and outside the tackles 14% of the time.
Our success rates and stats for these runs were as follows: Left-side outside the tackle: 80% success rate, 45 yards, 9.0 YPC Left-side inside the tackle: 55% success rate, 146 yards, 7.8 YPC Middle: 100% success rate, 7 yards, 2.3 YPC Right-side inside the tackle: 47% success rate, 59 yards, 3.1 YPC Right-side outside the tackle: 100% success rate, 24 yards, 12.0 YPC
1) High percentage of plays w 2 or 3 TEs 2) Run first offense that is keeping the offense "on time" 3) High rate of 3rd down conversions - especially when running 4) Dominating TOP
It's the HH offense people cried for -- one that plays to our proven strengths (RB, O-line, TE) and should help RB recruiting going forward.
I'm looking for any reason to bash the OC but this gameplan all things considered was fine to me. Now if it's the same exact thing against UA...
I went back and charted out every single offensive play. RIP my eyes, right @GrandpaSankey ? It's a small sample size, but the data doesn't support what BTP is suggesting.
In our non-penalty, non-garbage time offensive plays this is what happened:
55% of our plays were multiple TE sets. Note: I counted Westover as a TE in this, even if he was lined up in the backfield.
Rushing Ran to the left side 51% of the time Ran to the right side 43% of the time Ran behind the center 6% of the time (Morris sneaks or where I couldn't quite tell)
We ran inside the tackles 86% of the time and outside the tackles 14% of the time.
Our success rates and stats for these runs were as follows: Left-side outside the tackle: 80% success rate, 45 yards, 9.0 YPC Left-side inside the tackle: 55% success rate, 146 yards, 7.8 YPC Middle: 100% success rate, 7 yards, 2.3 YPC Right-side inside the tackle: 47% success rate, 59 yards, 3.1 YPC Right-side outside the tackle: 100% success rate, 24 yards, 12.0 YPC
Comments
2) Run first offense that is keeping the offense "on time"
3) High rate of 3rd down conversions - especially when running
4) Dominating TOP
It's the HH offense people cried for -- one that plays to our proven strengths (RB, O-line, TE) and should help RB recruiting going forward.
I'm looking for any reason to bash the OC but this gameplan all things considered was fine to me. Now if it's the same exact thing against UA...
Thank you Doogstone. This is how I felt the last two days as I’ve been reading the boreds. No getting cute when you’re running it down the defense’s throat. No crazy formations with 17 shifts.
OSU had a weakness and Lake kept at it. The drops by Bynum, Puka, Ty, and Rome would have been big conversions and two TDs. Suddenly Morris’ numbers look much better for his first game and throw in 267 on the ground for good measure.
They had a game plan for OSU’s weakness on the line, the weather, and an inexperienced line and WB, and it worked. Lake says they plan for their offense to be able to execute multiple game plans, and we will see if that is true against Arizona. Let’s see if they are a multiple offense that adjusts to their opponent. Let’s see if Lake is all talk.
Throughout camp WR spoke highly of the aggressive downfield passing with chances to make plays. I doubt they say that shit if all they do is block.
YWFMS.
My point is this didn’t happen in this game. The run was working and UW stuck with it without the bullshit fluff.
You don't like Kirkland because...well...figure it out.
Prove me wrong.
Curne graded out significantly higher than Kirkland did last week. Curne didn’t allow a pressure and he was going up against a future NFL player. He was mauling in the run game too.
In our non-penalty, non-garbage time offensive plays this is what happened:
Formation
11 personnel - 43%
13 personnel - 29%
12 personnel - 18%
14 personnel - 8%
21 personnel - 1%
55% of our plays were multiple TE sets. Note: I counted Westover as a TE in this, even if he was lined up in the backfield.
Rushing
Ran to the left side 51% of the time
Ran to the right side 43% of the time
Ran behind the center 6% of the time (Morris sneaks or where I couldn't quite tell)
We ran inside the tackles 86% of the time and outside the tackles 14% of the time.
Our success rates and stats for these runs were as follows:
Left-side outside the tackle: 80% success rate, 45 yards, 9.0 YPC
Left-side inside the tackle: 55% success rate, 146 yards, 7.8 YPC
Middle: 100% success rate, 7 yards, 2.3 YPC
Right-side inside the tackle: 47% success rate, 59 yards, 3.1 YPC
Right-side outside the tackle: 100% success rate, 24 yards, 12.0 YPC
Success rate by runner:
Newton: 40%
Pleasant: 36%
McGrew 78%
Morris: 100%
Westover 100%
Davis 50%
Bynum 100%
Odunze 0%
McMillan 100%
Passing
We ran play action 8 times, or 33% of the times we dropped back to throw.
Success rate with play action: 50%
Success rate without play action: 40%
I can cut the numbers a few more ways if anyone cares.