Started By
Message
re: Young talent
Posted on 2/3/17 at 9:56 am to meansonny
Posted on 2/3/17 at 9:56 am to meansonny
quote:
I have concerns about 2017 because of the OL. We need 5 players to step up bigtime.
A great OL? We won't have it this year. A big improvement at the OL this year compared to last? Definitely.
I can understand us struggling against Tennessee, Auburn and MAYBE Florida in running the ball. We should be able to run or pass against just about everybody else on our regular season schedule.
1
Posted on 2/3/17 at 9:59 am to meansonny
quote:
Agree to disagree.
No one was capable in 2016. At least none were consistent. All of them looked awful at times.
So, nobody improves? Why did we hire Pittman? Players should be playing in their natural positions. A JC transfer that has size and experience. If the OL is not improved over last year we need to look at the coaching staff. We should be much better than last year across the OL.
Posted on 2/3/17 at 10:04 am to DawgsLife
We'll have better size at the very least. Except for Wynn.
Posted on 2/3/17 at 10:42 am to Crowknowsbest
quote:
We'll have better size at the very least. Except for Wynn.
If we expect Eason to improve (And I do, although I think he had a very good year this past year) then I would expect our OL to improve as well. They should be bigger, stronger and playing in their natural positions.
They will have a year under their belts with Pittman and his blocking scheme....if they are not improved, then something is wrong.
But yes. You are correct. If everything goes wrong, then they will at least be bigger and have more depth.
This post was edited on 2/3/17 at 10:43 am
Posted on 2/3/17 at 1:39 pm to DawgsLife
quote:
I can understand us struggling against Tennessee, Auburn and MAYBE Florida in running the ball. We should be able to run or pass against just about everybody else on our regular season schedule
We will be @Vandy (they play defense) at Tennessee, @GT, @Auburn, and @ND.
We struggled to run home against Vandy, home against Tennessee, and home against Nichols St (with a conservative playbook ).
Once we get into the redzone... defenses are going to be in the box. We have to be successful running when the opponent wants to take away the run.
Posted on 2/3/17 at 1:49 pm to DawgsLife
quote:
So, nobody improves
Did Pyke improve? Did Kubs improve? Did Wynn improve or regress last season?
Chemistry is a big part of it. And expecting chemistry in the first half of the season with starters at 4 new positions is asking a lot. Juco transfer at 1 position and true freshman at another is asking a lot (at least the other 3 guys have seen the scheme before).
If 2018 is the year, then we should be very good by seasons end. But up until Lafayette, we weren't very good on the back half of last season.
Our fans like to ignore potential issues and gloss over them as if they will magically disappear. We were not a good redzone offense last season because of our weaknesses running the football. Catalina and Pyke were not bad run blockers when they remembered who to block. The interior line was the biggest issue in run blocking
Posted on 2/3/17 at 3:33 pm to meansonny
quote:
Did Pyke improve? Did Kubs improve? Did Wynn improve or regress last season?
Did you even watch the last 3rd of the season?Did you not see marked improvement vs UK,AU,GT and TCU?
The line as a whole improved because our coaches FINALLY got their head out of their asses and changed/simplified the blocking schemes.
Just look at the freakin rushing totals in those games and before you bring up AU we actually had 165 LOS rushing yards.
Posted on 2/3/17 at 3:55 pm to meansonny
quote:
We will be @Vandy (they play defense) at Tennessee, @GT, @Auburn, and @ND.
Notre Dame simply was very bad last season, and we bring back more players.
We out man Vandy every year, barring a bunch of injuries.
Tennessee loses a bunch, but should have a good front 4, at least. (I had them on my list of possible struggles)
GT? No excuse for losing to them. We have MUCH better talent than they do. When we struggle with them, it should be because they run their trick offense, not because they are better up front defensively.
quote:
Once we get into the redzone... defenses are going to be in the box. We have to be successful running when the opponent wants to take away the run.
You are right. But with an improved OL and an improved Eason our offense should be much better than last season. I'm not saying we will average 40 points a game, but there is not reason why we should not average 27-35 points.
Posted on 2/3/17 at 4:01 pm to meansonny
quote:
Did Pyke improve? Did Kubs improve? Did Wynn improve or regress last season?
Immaterial. Players will be playing in their natural positions and have a full year with Pittman. What is the use of having Pittman, if year after year our OLine does not improve?
quote:
Chemistry is a big part of it. And expecting chemistry in the first half of the season with starters at 4 new positions is asking a lot.
They have four full games to find that chemistry. There is no reason for us to lose any of those games. (Probably by 14 or more points)
quote:
Juco transfer at 1 position
What is the point of signing a JUCO if he is going to be a liability? the reason you sign a JUCO is so you have an experienced body out there. If he is a liability, then we should not have signed him.
quote:
Our fans like to ignore potential issues and gloss over them as if they will magically disappear.
I've noticed that, too, but all we are saying is that we should be improved. We aren't looking for an All-SEC Oline....just improved. If our OLine is not at least average, then something is wrong with the coaching.
Posted on 2/3/17 at 6:29 pm to DawgsLife
quote:
Notre Dame simply was very bad last season, and we bring back more players. We out man Vandy every year, barring a bunch of injuries. Tennessee loses a bunch, but should have a good front 4, at least. (I had them on my list of possible struggles) GT? No excuse for losing to them. We have MUCH better talent than they do. When we struggle with them, it should be because they run their trick offense, not because they are better up front defensively.
You're not picking up what I'm laying down.
If we can't be elite running the football, we will lose games that we shouldn't.
We will lose to bad Ole Miss teams. We will lose to bad Vandy teams. We will lose to GT. We will be scratching and clawing in games that we have no business scratching and clawing.
It all circles around running the football and stopping the run.
It is what it is in this league.
Posted on 2/3/17 at 6:59 pm to RD Dawg
quote:
Did you even watch the last 3rd of the season?Did you not see marked improvement vs UK,AU,GT and TCU? The line as a whole improved because our coaches FINALLY got their head out of their asses and changed/simplified the blocking schemes.
Bad running teams can put up yards on 1st down.
Bad running teams can put up yards in between the 20s.
But bad running teams don't punch it in from the redzone. And bad running teams don't convert 3rd downs.
This is the 2nd half of the season up until LaLafayette.
UGA v Vandy... 1-3 in the redzone TDs. 0 rushing TDs. 35% on 3rd down.
UGA v Florida... 1-2 in the redzone TDs. 0 rushing TDs. 28% on 3rd down.
UGA v UK... 0-2 in the redzone TDs (yes... we only had 2 attempts from the redzone). only 1 rushing TD. 13 points (including the last second winner) off the foot of Blankenship.
UGA v AU... 0-3 in the redzone TDs. 0 rushing Tds.
We finally got 2 rushing TDs in each of the last 3 games. But they weren't exactly a rush defense gauntlet (TCU #74 in the country. GT #64).
Posted on 2/3/17 at 7:58 pm to meansonny
quote:
UGA v Vandy... 1-3 in the redzone TDs. 0 rushing TDs. 35% on 3rd down.
UGA v Florida... 1-2 in the redzone TDs. 0 rushing TDs. 28% on 3rd down.
UGA v UK... 0-2 in the redzone TDs (yes... we only had 2 attempts from the redzone). only 1 rushing TD. 13 points (including the last second winner) off the foot of Blankenship.
Wtf are you talking about? I SPECIFICALLY stated the last 1/3 of the season STARTING with the UK game.
Vandy finsished 77th in rushing offense yet tied Bama
with 24 RZ rushing TD's
Gee,how'd that happen?They were FAR from a great rushing team.
Point is there is a number of factors involved in Red Zone offensive success INCLUDING play calling,alignments
and QB play.
quote:
Bad running teams can put up yards on 1st down.
Bad running teams can put up yards in between the 20s
Bad running teams can get yards on 1st down????Where
exactly did you come up this????Love to see the evidence.
Hilarious,we could do neither of these things the first 2/3 of the season and yet you still refuse to ackowledge the improvement.
Once again you either didn't even watch the last 1/3 of the season STARTING WITH UK or you have little ability to grasp the obvious.
This post was edited on 2/3/17 at 9:24 pm
Posted on 2/3/17 at 9:38 pm to RD Dawg
I said that we struggled in the second half (there was a reference to improving ).
And we did struggle in the second half (vandy game on). We did decent in the last 3 games of the season running the football (against ULL and 2 bad rushing defenses).
And we did struggle in the second half (vandy game on). We did decent in the last 3 games of the season running the football (against ULL and 2 bad rushing defenses).
Posted on 2/3/17 at 9:41 pm to RD Dawg
here is your list of good running teams
If you want to get more granular...
list of good running teams against the conference.
I'm not sure where you got your stats (Vandy with the same rushing TDs as Bama?)
If you want to get more granular...
list of good running teams against the conference.
I'm not sure where you got your stats (Vandy with the same rushing TDs as Bama?)
Posted on 2/4/17 at 5:34 am to meansonny
quote:
You're not picking up what I'm laying down.
If we can't be elite running the football, we will lose games that we shouldn't.
We will lose to bad Ole Miss teams. We will lose to bad Vandy teams. We will lose to GT. We will be scratching and clawing in games that we have no business scratching and clawing.
I understand what you are implying, but disagree. Yes, in order to win you must be able to run the football. However, Vandy, Kentucky and other "weak" teams beat superior teams without running the ball well. Shoot, Notre dame got beat by Duke and NC State, neither of which ran the ball particularly well....so you can beat superior teams and not be able to run the ball every game. We won some games in spite of not running the ball particularly well in those games. Can you win consistently? No. maybe that is your point. But you can certainly beat a superior team and not run the ball well in that game.
NC State beat ND and avged. 3.0 YAC.
Iowa upset Michigan in spite of a 3.0 YPC.
So, yes, you can win even when your running game is shut down.
On the other hand, we ran for 263 yards against GT and lost.
We ran for a 4.0 avg against Tennessee and lost.
We ran for a 5.2 yard average against Ole Miss. (230 yards)
Why did we lose those games? Defense and special teams breakdowns at crucial times.
Posted on 2/4/17 at 8:32 am to DawgsLife
quote:
Why did we lose those games? Defense and special teams breakdowns at crucial times.
I think we are on the same page. But to answer your question... running the footall cuts both ways (run defense). If you can't run the football well, you are more likely to screw up in a key moment and keep the game close. If you can dominate the opponents running game, you can keep the game close late.
In these situations, key mistakes cost the game (special teams, turnovers, a trick play etc..) but it comes down to those moments because of how rushing/rush defense keeps the score through 4 quarters.
See UF's success (run defense) and failures (run offense) as another example.
I look back to Isaiah Crowell. Or even to the tandem of JJ Green/Brendan Douglas as freshmen. We ran the ball very well between the 20s. But drive after drive got stalled in the redzone. Consequently, we were not a good offense with a freshman Crowell or with the Green/Douglas tandem. Bad teams can have skewed YPA or total rushing yards because what happens between the 20s doesn't make you a good offense.
Posted on 2/4/17 at 9:11 am to meansonny
quote:
I think we are on the same page. But to answer your question... running the footall cuts both ways (run defense). If you can't run the football well, you are more likely to screw up in a key moment and keep the game close. If you can dominate the opponents running game, you can keep the game close late.
I think we are on the same page, too. Or at least very close. I LOVE a power running game. I love to enforce my will (football wise) on other teams. Wear them down. And, I actually agree, that to be a consistent winner you have to be able to run the football. However, you can't become too one dimensional, either.
Posted on 2/4/17 at 11:00 am to DawgsLife
quote:
However, you can't become too one dimensional, either
Grantham was a DC who could shut down a running game. He did it to GT. Did it to Auburn. Did it to Kentucky. He did it to a lot of good running teams. But as you say... the teams with a deep threat were able to dismantle his defenses (run defense sucked because ILB and Safeties were stretched vertically).
Still...there is no vertical threat in the redzone. And in key moments, we have to be able to run the football when the opponent knows that we want to run the football. It is tough. But that is where championships are earned. We were very bad offensively and defensively against the run in the redzone in 2016. Fixing that on offense starts on the OL. On defense, our OLB and safeties have to do better.
Posted on 2/4/17 at 3:07 pm to meansonny
quote:
Still...there is no vertical threat in the redzone. And in key moments, we have to be able to run the football when the opponent knows that we want to run the football. It is tough. But that is where championships are earned. We were very bad offensively and defensively against the run in the redzone in 2016. Fixing that on offense starts on the OL. On defense, our OLB and safeties have to do better.
Absolutely correct. Once you get into the red zone the ability to stretch a field lessens. Your playbook becomes much smaller. However, there are ways you can have successful pass plays down in the red zone. The play action becomes deadly. As you near the opponents goal line they lose the ability to sit back and read a play. (Mainly the linebackers) Now, they have to be more twitch oriented and react.....fast. You fake the run and rise up and hit a RB or TE dragging across the middle. If the LBs sit back you run the ball and score. if they crash the LOS, you pop up and hit a pass. A read option is particularly nice in the RZ.
That's why I give Chaney a pass last season. First, his playbook was limited because he had an inexperienced QB. We should see huge improvement this coming season. If not, then I might join those criticizing Chaney. But you do not have to become one dimensional inn the red zone. There are pass plays that can be run down in the RZ, and even from the 1 yd line.
Page 2 of 2
Latest Georgia News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News