Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

The O line

2

Comments

  • lawsandl
    lawsandl Member Posts: 1,555
    GrundleStiltzkin said:

    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 keep hearing this.
    It’s like being the tallest of the midgets.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • dtd
    dtd Member Posts: 5,260 Standard Supporter
    Since when did actually being productive on offense mean a team was "getting cute"?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • DoogCourics
    DoogCourics Member Posts: 5,739
    dtd said:

    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.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • backthepack
    backthepack Member Posts: 19,937
    Curne is a superstar
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • backthepack
    backthepack Member Posts: 19,937
    edited November 2020
    BeerThirty said:

    backthepack said:

    Curne is a superstar

    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.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • DoogWhisperer
    DoogWhisperer Member Posts: 1,035
    BeerThirty said:

    backthepack said:

    Curne is a superstar

    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.
    Lol reverse racism...

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • FremontTroll
    FremontTroll Member Posts: 4,744
    Woof said:

    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...

    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:

    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.
    Deserves own thread!

    To be fair to little btp since he is taking quite the beating lately and hasn’t yet quit again...the stats do show UW ran more to the left and had more success on that side as well.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Sources
    Sources Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 4,331 Founders Club
    Woof said:

    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...

    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:

    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.
    Westover, 100%. Best offensive player. Case closed.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • GrundleStiltzkin
    GrundleStiltzkin Member Posts: 61,516 Standard Supporter
    Woof said:

    For @Crow_T_Robot

    Success rate is a measure of whether you can get 40% of yards to gain on 1st down, 60% on 2nd down, and 100% on 3rd or 4th down. Some sites adjust that for CFB to 50%, 70%, and 100% respectively, but I didn't because I'm lazy and I found sites doing it both ways.

    @Woof


    @TacoSoup used to be here
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • dnc
    dnc Member Posts: 56,839
    Woof said:


    Play by down and distance:
    1-3 yards to go - 87% run
    3-7 yards to go - 75% run
    8+ yards to go - 65% run

    That's play by distance not down and distance. If you have it broken down by down and distance that would be chinteresting. Obviously first down is mostly 10 yards to go but second down 1-3 yards to go, 3-7 yards to go etc and same for third down would be chinteresting.

    Also this is probably unrealistic but if you have numbers for averages either in CFB or P5 to have a baseline to compare against that would be quite helpful.

    Not expecting you to, but ye have not because ye axe not, yada yada.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • dnc
    dnc Member Posts: 56,839
    DoogCourics said:

    Woof said:

    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...

    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:

    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 love this stuff and I love you @Woof ! JonDon fan club for life!

    In addition to your hard work, here are some more notes (thanks Caple!)

    Sports Info Solutions (slightly different than your count, but basically the same):

    - UW had at least two tight ends on the field for 57.3% of its offensive snaps.

    - Otton was on the field for every snap, along with Morris and the OL

    - Jack Westover played 44 snaps, only behind Otton and Terrell Bynum (47) for pass catchers.

    - Westover and Otton both lined up at fullback during the game.

    - Mark Redman played 22 snaps, all a part of 3 TE set (29% of plays).

    - 2019 UW used multiple tight ends on 74.1% of plays, but often lining up Bryant as a receiver.

    - Against OSU, UW used multiple tight ends on 36 of their 51 rushing attempts (only seven of Morris’ 24 pass attempts).

    - Corey Luciano had 13 snaps as a sixth offensive lineman, including seven of 14 plays on their final possession, all rushes.

    - UW played Otton, Westover, Redman and Luciano together on a total of six snaps, including Kamari Pleasant’s 15-yard TD.

    - 26 snaps Rome Odunze and Puka Nacua for third-most among wideouts. 21 of those were single WR sets and 23 came with either Redman or Luciano in jumbo sets.

    - Either Rome is a great blocker or they are setting teams up later in the season for a deep play action to a very fast Rome.

    - Only 30.7% of their offensive plays were out of the shotgun. Shotgun was used 56.5% of the time in 2019, least in the Pac-12. Jimmy and JonDon are going hard the opposite direction of the rest of CFB, at least after 1 game.

    SoFuckingIrritating.gif
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Woof
    Woof Member Posts: 770
    dnc said:

    Woof said:


    Play by down and distance:
    1-3 yards to go - 87% run
    3-7 yards to go - 75% run
    8+ yards to go - 65% run

    That's play by distance not down and distance. If you have it broken down by down and distance that would be chinteresting. Obviously first down is mostly 10 yards to go but second down 1-3 yards to go, 3-7 yards to go etc and same for third down would be chinteresting.

    Also this is probably unrealistic but if you have numbers for averages either in CFB or P5 to have a baseline to compare against that would be quite helpful.

    Not expecting you to, but ye have not because ye axe not, yada yada.
    Yeah, you're right. I have it, but I have some shit to do now after procrastinating all day. I'll cut that data later.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • GrundleStiltzkin
    GrundleStiltzkin Member Posts: 61,516 Standard Supporter
    Woof said:

    I counted Luciano as an additional TE, so that's the discrepancy on my end. I presumed he was technically eligible, but I don't claim to be an expert on all of this.

    In the doldrums of summer, I actually tried to chart the entire 2019 offense to see if some of my memories were correct. Mercifully, the Husky Archive didn't have recordings of the Colorado or Stanford games, so I was forced to stop after 4-5 games.

    It seems like this was appreciated, so I'll try to keep this up going forward. There are some good sites that compile the stats, but I'd never been able to find personnel groupings or specific plays/formations (wildcat and 5 wide in particular for the 2019 offense), so that's why I just started doing it myself. I'll have to check out this Sports Info Solutions site, but I'm assuming you have to pay for it and I'm a cheap bastard.

    Well, look at that, you drew back @TacoSoup
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • FireCohen
    FireCohen Member Posts: 21,823
    Costco going to play on Sunday
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • PostGameOrangeSlices
    PostGameOrangeSlices Member Posts: 27,158
    Why anyone even reads BTP posts never made sense to me
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Woof
    Woof Member Posts: 770
    TacoSoup said:

    Woof said:

    I counted Luciano as an additional TE, so that's the discrepancy on my end. I presumed he was technically eligible, but I don't claim to be an expert on all of this.

    In the doldrums of summer, I actually tried to chart the entire 2019 offense to see if some of my memories were correct. Mercifully, the Husky Archive didn't have recordings of the Colorado or Stanford games, so I was forced to stop after 4-5 games.

    It seems like this was appreciated, so I'll try to keep this up going forward. There are some good sites that compile the stats, but I'd never been able to find personnel groupings or specific plays/formations (wildcat and 5 wide in particular for the 2019 offense), so that's why I just started doing it myself. I'll have to check out this Sports Info Solutions site, but I'm assuming you have to pay for it and I'm a cheap bastard.

    It is appreciated.

    I started charting personnel last night for my own archives. Fwiw I disagree on calling Westover a TE when he lines up in the backfield in a 3-pt stance but it’s negligible :)
    I went back and forth, but I think the main reason for tracking personnel is to understand who is on the field when good things happen as opposed to where they are lined up. If heaven forbid we go in Wildcat and Morris splits out wide, I don't think he becomes a WR. I can kind of see the counter argument, I just don't think it's as helpful. I think it's the nuance between personnel and formation, and I don't plan on tracking formations unless some god awful abomination like the wildcat shows up that we all hate.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • HFNY
    HFNY Member Posts: 5,383
    Westover is a hybrid (TE and H-back).

    I like Pleasant but not sure he should get many carries over McGrew and Newton.

    I still think the offense will put up 30+ against Arizona and we'll see more play-action. Wonder if we'll see Thomson for a series to mix it up if he is healthy.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter