Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Jimmy Lake: "I'm not a sideways kind of guy"
Comments
-
Mike Riley and OSU is only program to run it successfully. Everybody else went backwardsRaceBannon said: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 -
I was being figurative and not literal, as was intended by the great poetsRoadDawg55 said: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. -
*WildcatTheBounceLives said: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 feel like Wes Anderson nailed this oneHuskyJW said:
*WildcatTheBounceLives said: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.
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. -
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.RoadDawg55 said:
“Our numbers showed how productive those plays had been for us.”TheBounceLives said: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.
That was with Gaskin and Newton, Pete. Not with a 4th strong RB named Kamari Pleasant who has poor vision and runs straight up. -
This also applies to NCAA D1 with equal forceGladstone said:The NFL is an incestuous, nepotistic cornucopia of vomit coaches who parrot each other and continually redefine incompetence.
-
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.dooginthehall said:
This also applies to NCAA D1 with equal forceGladstone said:The NFL is an incestuous, nepotistic cornucopia of vomit coaches who parrot each other and continually redefine incompetence.
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. -
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.Gladstone said:
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.RoadDawg55 said:
“Our numbers showed how productive those plays had been for us.”TheBounceLives said: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.
That was with Gaskin and Newton, Pete. Not with a 4th strong RB named Kamari Pleasant who has poor vision and runs straight up. -
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!RoadDawg55 said:
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.Gladstone said:
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.RoadDawg55 said:
“Our numbers showed how productive those plays had been for us.”TheBounceLives said: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.
That was with Gaskin and Newton, Pete. Not with a 4th strong RB named Kamari Pleasant who has poor vision and runs straight up.
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’m hard as a fucking diamond right now1to392831weretaken said:
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!RoadDawg55 said:
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.Gladstone said:
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.RoadDawg55 said:
“Our numbers showed how productive those plays had been for us.”TheBounceLives said: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.
That was with Gaskin and Newton, Pete. Not with a 4th strong RB named Kamari Pleasant who has poor vision and runs straight up.
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. -
Pics?dooginthehall said:
I’m hard as a fucking diamond right now1to392831weretaken said:
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!RoadDawg55 said:
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.Gladstone said:
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.RoadDawg55 said:
“Our numbers showed how productive those plays had been for us.”TheBounceLives said: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.
That was with Gaskin and Newton, Pete. Not with a 4th strong RB named Kamari Pleasant who has poor vision and runs straight up.
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. -
Smash mouth still has a shelf life. The Titans came to a grisly death at KC who throws it 91% of the time. You can't be one dimensional. If you get a lead and can smash some mouths and run out the clock its awesome. But if you can't then run out the clock by throwing it. Don't go three and out like we love to do.
I don't care about systems and I think real genius is knowing the flow of the game and finding what works on any given Saturday and any point of the game
Mike McCarthy got the Cowboy job because he said he has 11 guys doing analytics or is it metrics which makes him a better coach
If you've been doing this 20 years and you don't know when to kick, when to go, when to try for two then you suck and 11 Harvard PHDs aren't going to help you
A coach that will fit his "system" to his players wins the prom queen. What works? Do that.
