Started By
Message
re: Should There Be Concern About The OL?
Posted on 8/28/18 at 2:49 pm to OG Supreme
Posted on 8/28/18 at 2:49 pm to OG Supreme
To answer the OP. No, not really.
Solid experience across the OL
Solid experience across the OL
1
Posted on 8/28/18 at 3:10 pm to JesusQuintana
quote:
To answer the OP. No, not really.
Solid experience across the OL
I believe we will be dominant and shock all of CFB this year.
I believe the OL will preform well enough for it all to work.
But, there is zero doubt, and zero way to argue against the fact that an otherwise adequate OL has certainly been boosted by factors such as elite talent at the skill positions and a insanely fast paced offense.
Posted on 8/28/18 at 4:42 pm to OG Supreme
Quick throws certainly benefit the OL, but we also had a lot of go routes where the OL would need to hang on for a long time. I also think we'll see some more two TE sets and possibly have a back in to chip block a bit more.
Overall, I'm pretty confident with the OL. Think they'll perform well
Overall, I'm pretty confident with the OL. Think they'll perform well
Posted on 8/28/18 at 5:30 pm to OG Supreme
quote:
Whether or not Drew Lock released the ball on average at 1.5 or 3 seconds is relatively unimportant to this.
Bless your heart.
Carry on.
Posted on 8/28/18 at 6:04 pm to navynuke
You were embarrassed in this thread.
You have maintained the position that a hurry up offense has no impact on disorientating opposing defenses, resulting in an artificial boost for an OL.
The consensus on wikipedia says I'm right. The SEC analyst says I'm right. The current thread on tiger board says I'm right. Basic logic and common sense says I'm right. Literally everyone knows a fast offense is going to tire an opposing defense when it's clicking.
The OL is likely adequate, but not as elite as the numbers show the unit to be over the past two seasons.
It is very much a valid storyline to see how this unit will adjust to a change of pace.
I'm sure Brad Davis is a great coach. I'm sure we have pretty good players on the OL. But I'm not buying the numbers from the past two years. They're inflated with the fools-gold effect. I do believe the TE's will be a huge help. I think we'll miss the selflessness and intelligence of Ish Witter in the blocking game. But overall I think they'll do the job.
You have maintained the position that a hurry up offense has no impact on disorientating opposing defenses, resulting in an artificial boost for an OL.
The consensus on wikipedia says I'm right. The SEC analyst says I'm right. The current thread on tiger board says I'm right. Basic logic and common sense says I'm right. Literally everyone knows a fast offense is going to tire an opposing defense when it's clicking.
The OL is likely adequate, but not as elite as the numbers show the unit to be over the past two seasons.
It is very much a valid storyline to see how this unit will adjust to a change of pace.
I'm sure Brad Davis is a great coach. I'm sure we have pretty good players on the OL. But I'm not buying the numbers from the past two years. They're inflated with the fools-gold effect. I do believe the TE's will be a huge help. I think we'll miss the selflessness and intelligence of Ish Witter in the blocking game. But overall I think they'll do the job.
Posted on 8/28/18 at 6:27 pm to OG Supreme
Then discuss the technical deficiencies you observed that the pace of play is masking....without using Wikipedia.
This post was edited on 8/28/18 at 6:41 pm
Posted on 8/28/18 at 6:45 pm to navynuke
It would have been better for you to just walk away and take this one on the chin.
The wiki link, along with the multiple other links, represent the fact that my position is what is collectively understood as the truth.
An ultra-fast offense, running an extreme amount of plays is going to breakdown, wear down, and disorientate opposing defenses.
An OL benefits from a tired, disoriented, and spiritually degraded defense for obvious reasons that don't need any further expansion.
You are not arguing against me. You're arguing against the collective. Against common sense. Against basic logic.
Now do the right thing as a man here, ganuke, and take accountability for being incorrect - or move on in shame.
The wiki link, along with the multiple other links, represent the fact that my position is what is collectively understood as the truth.
An ultra-fast offense, running an extreme amount of plays is going to breakdown, wear down, and disorientate opposing defenses.
An OL benefits from a tired, disoriented, and spiritually degraded defense for obvious reasons that don't need any further expansion.
You are not arguing against me. You're arguing against the collective. Against common sense. Against basic logic.
Now do the right thing as a man here, ganuke, and take accountability for being incorrect - or move on in shame.
This post was edited on 8/28/18 at 6:48 pm
Posted on 8/28/18 at 6:56 pm to OG Supreme
Is 70 plays a game an extreme amount? Earlier you said 90 plays was. Will you have to consult Wikipedia for this one as well?
What effect to does an incomplete pass have on the pace of play when your QB attempts 34 a game and roughly half hit the ground resulting in a respot? How about when the pass attempt is over 15 yd? Wikipedia probably doesn't cover that one either.
Lay that game knowledge on us.
What effect to does an incomplete pass have on the pace of play when your QB attempts 34 a game and roughly half hit the ground resulting in a respot? How about when the pass attempt is over 15 yd? Wikipedia probably doesn't cover that one either.
Lay that game knowledge on us.
This post was edited on 8/28/18 at 7:18 pm
Posted on 8/29/18 at 8:10 am to navynuke
You’re not debating me.
You’re debating what everyone who follows and plays and knows the game says about this style of offense and how it can benefit an OL.
You’re also debating against basic logic and common sense.
Clearly an OL will benefit from playing against a disoriented and fatigued defense.
There isn’t anything else that can be said. Nothing more that can be proven.
You should be ashamed both as a football-guy for being incorrect and as a man for how you’ve handled being incorrect. Both are shameful.
You’re debating what everyone who follows and plays and knows the game says about this style of offense and how it can benefit an OL.
You’re also debating against basic logic and common sense.
Clearly an OL will benefit from playing against a disoriented and fatigued defense.
There isn’t anything else that can be said. Nothing more that can be proven.
You should be ashamed both as a football-guy for being incorrect and as a man for how you’ve handled being incorrect. Both are shameful.
Posted on 8/29/18 at 8:59 am to OG Supreme
MU averaged 70 plays per game last year, not 90.
They averaged 2 plays per minute of possession during the 6 games to close out the season because "turbo fast" got them to 1-5. On a 40 second clock, a play every 30 isn't slow but it's plenty of time to adjust a defensive call and swap personnel. It also allows the offense to check out of looks and get into the right call, which Lock did several times.
You didn't notice any of these adjustments because you know jack shite about the game. Your assertion that it was exhaustion over execution is devoid of any knowledge about what determines the on field product.
So endeth the lesson.
They averaged 2 plays per minute of possession during the 6 games to close out the season because "turbo fast" got them to 1-5. On a 40 second clock, a play every 30 isn't slow but it's plenty of time to adjust a defensive call and swap personnel. It also allows the offense to check out of looks and get into the right call, which Lock did several times.
You didn't notice any of these adjustments because you know jack shite about the game. Your assertion that it was exhaustion over execution is devoid of any knowledge about what determines the on field product.
So endeth the lesson.
This post was edited on 8/29/18 at 10:03 am
Posted on 8/29/18 at 10:23 am to navynuke
Your inability to process that both execution and exhaustion/disorientation helped the OL continues to show your limited processing abilities.
Repeatedly I've expressed the adequacy of the OL and emphasized that the offensive scheme bolstered and improved their effectiveness. You continue to process in black and white terms because you're limited - you believe I'm arguing that the unit would've been bad and didn't execute properly, and the scheme is the only reason they performed well.
Your last response is the epitome of a straw-man and negligent to broader truths that a man of your proclaimed knowledge should be aware of.
Average plays per game is relatively useless stat in this conversation when you consider the drastic turnaround - and no, that turnaround isn't because the offense slowed down.
This was one of, if not the fastest, offenses in the country last year when it was rolling. The OL benefited from this and that is literally not debatable.
You're also failing to understand that while we're talking about the boost the Mizzou OL got from the scheme, this is also a generic focus. Fast-tempo offenses give an advantage to the OL, this fact is repeated all throughout the internet and real life as well as aligning with basic logic.
Repeatedly I've expressed the adequacy of the OL and emphasized that the offensive scheme bolstered and improved their effectiveness. You continue to process in black and white terms because you're limited - you believe I'm arguing that the unit would've been bad and didn't execute properly, and the scheme is the only reason they performed well.
Your last response is the epitome of a straw-man and negligent to broader truths that a man of your proclaimed knowledge should be aware of.
Average plays per game is relatively useless stat in this conversation when you consider the drastic turnaround - and no, that turnaround isn't because the offense slowed down.
This was one of, if not the fastest, offenses in the country last year when it was rolling. The OL benefited from this and that is literally not debatable.
You're also failing to understand that while we're talking about the boost the Mizzou OL got from the scheme, this is also a generic focus. Fast-tempo offenses give an advantage to the OL, this fact is repeated all throughout the internet and real life as well as aligning with basic logic.
This post was edited on 8/29/18 at 10:24 am
Posted on 8/29/18 at 10:31 am to navynuke
Question, babba-ganuke
Why do opposing defenses fake injuries when up-tempo offenses begin to roll?
Why is that?
Is it because the tempo has worn them down, and the pass-rushers have no hope of getting to the QB?
That's what I thought, B.
Why do opposing defenses fake injuries when up-tempo offenses begin to roll?
Why is that?
Is it because the tempo has worn them down, and the pass-rushers have no hope of getting to the QB?
That's what I thought, B.
Posted on 8/29/18 at 10:36 am to OG Supreme
You think faking injuries came about just because of uptempo offenses? Lol. You are a clown. That has been in every coach's back pocket for decades.
First 90 plays a game was the reason MU's line was successful, now it's not. And plays per minute of possession doesn't matter either. Lol at your game knowledge.
Come back when you can discuss what Missouri was actually doing on the field last year and don't need Wikipedia for help.
First 90 plays a game was the reason MU's line was successful, now it's not. And plays per minute of possession doesn't matter either. Lol at your game knowledge.
Come back when you can discuss what Missouri was actually doing on the field last year and don't need Wikipedia for help.
This post was edited on 8/29/18 at 10:43 am
Posted on 8/29/18 at 10:45 am to navynuke
quote:
You think faking injuries came about just because of uptempo offenses? Lol. You are a clown.
Laughing.
So defenses don't fake injuries to slow down up-tempo offenses?
This example hits hard on your limited processing ability.
The question you asked in response to my question isn't appropriate because I'm not saying injuries were never faked before up-tempo offense or that a fake injury's only purpose is to slow down an offense.
I asked if defenses fake injuries to slow down up-tempo offenses.
Yes, or no?
Posted on 8/29/18 at 10:49 am to OG Supreme
Does Missouri's line have execution deficiencies?
Yes or no
Yes or no
Posted on 8/29/18 at 10:53 am to navynuke
quote:
L?
Does Missouri's line have execution deficiencies?
Yes or no
Answer my question. Answer it.
What you just asked is incredible considering what I wrote just a few posts up and what I've written in this entire thread. You may know about A and B gaps, but you certainly are limited in your ability to process dialogue.
Guy, I think the Missouri OL is adequate and probably executed well. But it's a fact that they benefited from a variety of things, one of which was the fast pace.
Posted on 8/29/18 at 10:58 am to OG Supreme
You can't discuss anything about Missouri's play without Wikipedia. Your lack of knowledge is easily exposed and then you spend the rest of he discussion chasing your tail in diatribes.
Lol.
Carry on.
Lol.
Carry on.
This post was edited on 8/29/18 at 10:59 am
Posted on 8/29/18 at 12:40 pm to navynuke
I'll take two failures to answer my question as a 'no'.
No, you do not believe opposing defenses fake injuries to slow down high-tempo offenses.
You really should have just stopped pages ago - this got real embarrassing for you, ganuke.
No, you do not believe opposing defenses fake injuries to slow down high-tempo offenses.
You really should have just stopped pages ago - this got real embarrassing for you, ganuke.
Posted on 8/29/18 at 3:23 pm to OG Supreme
Suck on that, ganuke
"The top benefit of running this offense is wearing the opposing defense down. Fatigue is something any defender can complain about when having to defend this speedy offensive approach. Due to the offense getting to the line and snapping as quickly as possible, it limits substitutions, which means a defender will be on the field for a long time and is expected to keep up. Good luck.
This is absolute hell for the big boys in the trenches, who are supposed to generate a pass-rush and get to the quarterback. With almost no time for defenders to catch their breath, it is only a matter of time before the quarterback has all day in the pocket. Once the drive has passed five or six plays, guys are ready for a nap and don't want any part of the offensive line"
"The top benefit of running this offense is wearing the opposing defense down. Fatigue is something any defender can complain about when having to defend this speedy offensive approach. Due to the offense getting to the line and snapping as quickly as possible, it limits substitutions, which means a defender will be on the field for a long time and is expected to keep up. Good luck.
This is absolute hell for the big boys in the trenches, who are supposed to generate a pass-rush and get to the quarterback. With almost no time for defenders to catch their breath, it is only a matter of time before the quarterback has all day in the pocket. Once the drive has passed five or six plays, guys are ready for a nap and don't want any part of the offensive line"
Posted on 8/29/18 at 3:34 pm to OG Supreme
quote:
It's not debatable that running a fast offense can mask an OL.
as long as you keep it "can" and not "did" then you are good.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News