Started By
Message
Our running game: the real problem
Posted on 9/19/17 at 7:08 pm
Posted on 9/19/17 at 7:08 pm
I Posted this on 247 so I thought I'd share here as well.
quote:
It seemed like it should be fairly obvious after seeing that the Snaps count went 47% Dowdle, 35% Williams, 18% Turner while the Carries went 57% Dowdle, 43% Turner, 0% Williams that something had gone terribly wrong. That something was that, other than obvious running down and distance, all of our run plays were coming out of RPOs. The issue with that is that what ultimately determines whether the play ends up being a run or a pass is dependent on how the defense lines up. They are in complete control. To compound this situation, because we are a running back by committee and not a feature back, they not only dictate when we run but also who does the running. If you are an opposing DC and you're looking at our RBs who are you wanting to get the ball? The guy averaging over 5.5 ypc or the two struggling to get 3? The final dagger in the heart of the run game is that other than the jet sweeps, all of our runs are between the tackles. The defense can control when and who runs and knows with a high probability where those runs are going to occur. This is the lack of creativity that we have all been complaining about
3
Posted on 9/19/17 at 8:40 pm to GameCocky88
Posted on 9/19/17 at 9:51 pm to GameCocky88
That is an outstanding point.
Posted on 9/20/17 at 12:08 am to GameCocky88
yeah its a head scratcher to me as well.
AJ should be our scatback, wheel route, sweep runner.
our big backs should pound the middle and off tackle.
Our line gets zero push, so up the gut runs are a no go. Bentley really isn't an option to keep the ball on the read option, so why not just run power I formation and see how that goes?
AJ should be our scatback, wheel route, sweep runner.
our big backs should pound the middle and off tackle.
Our line gets zero push, so up the gut runs are a no go. Bentley really isn't an option to keep the ball on the read option, so why not just run power I formation and see how that goes?
Posted on 9/20/17 at 7:32 am to Mr.Sinister
The irony is that on the only designed run plays in the last game, 3rd &4th and 1 or 3rd&4th & goal, were actually the best scenarios for running an RPO with 10 people in the box.
Posted on 9/20/17 at 8:48 am to Mr.Sinister
If our line gets zero push, lining up in the I isn't going to help anything. We should also want Muschamp to stay far far away from the power run/pro style offense he had at UF.
Posted on 9/20/17 at 10:35 pm to GarnetStrand
quote:
If our line gets zero push
Because of the run pas option of the play...
quote:
lining up in the I isn't going to help anything
If the linemen don't have to hold a space because of a potential pass.... maybe... just maybe... a 2 tight end I formation may create a small crease to pick up 1 yard. Just my thoughts anyways.
quote:
We should also want Muschamp to stay far far away from the power run/pro style offense he had at UF.
Not opposed to the style, we actually have a QB that can do it unlike uf did. I personally prefer a mix of all disciplines of offense but if the QB isn't a threat to really keep it, then the read option will kill the running game kinda like our currently dead running game.
Posted on 9/21/17 at 3:14 am to Mr.Sinister
To be honest I thing we need more true rb screens, this line was built for it with SE, arb screen from the I would be deadly with AJ/Rico/Ty'Son
Posted on 9/21/17 at 6:37 am to Mr.Sinister
quote:
Because of the run pas option of the play...
Well you could have specified that
Seriously though, if we wanted to be a power run offense that would be productive, Tanner would have needed to hire a different coach. Muschamp is not the guy you go to for pro/power run offense.
This post was edited on 9/21/17 at 6:46 am
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News