The O line
Comments
-
It’s like being the tallest of the midgets.GrundleStiltzkin said:
I keep hearing this.Kingdome_Urinals said:Having and offense that doesn't confuse the fuck out of the OL is a good place to start. Let the big men eat, and I like Davis, Pleasant, and McGrew.
We have the best talent in the Pac, so we should try to physically dominate with our talent. It starts at the OL. -
I aim to be a quality content provider.creepycoug said:
I haven't been able to get through the first two sentences of any post you've made since we? went to sigs.pawz said:
You should consider self-immolation. Its for the good of the bored. And for the good of Husky Football.backthepack said:
He’s not good enough for where we want to be.GreenRiverGatorz said:
You keep stacking the bad takes like cordwood.backthepack said:Bain and Curne are amazing.
Ale is getting there.
Kirkland and Wattenberg suck
YWFMS.
-
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.dtd said:Since when did actually being productive on offense mean a team was "getting cute"?
My point is this didn’t happen in this game. The run was working and UW stuck with it without the bullshit fluff. -
Curne is a superstar
-
You like Curne because he is black, has a huge ass, and DDY told you to.backthepack said:Curne is a superstar
You don't like Kirkland because...well...figure it out.
Prove me wrong. -
BeerThirty said:
You like Curne because he is black, has a huge ass, and DDY told you to.backthepack said:Curne is a superstar
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. -
Lol reverse racism...BeerThirty said:
You like Curne because he is black, has a huge ass, and DDY told you to.backthepack said:Curne is a superstar
You don't like Kirkland because...well...figure it out.
Prove me wrong.
-
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.Gladstone said: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...
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. -
I refuse to believe Fudgie would ever mislead us.Woof said:
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.Gladstone said: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...
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.
