Illinois Hokie's Recent Comments
We trust our source, and it is someone close to (but not inside) the program. I'm personally skeptical myself, but our source is adamant that this is really happening. We decided to run with it because we don't pretend to be journalists over at our place. We're not naming our source per request, but it passes our own personal threshold of credibility.
Having said that, I too will fully believe it when I see it.
Gregory cannot be a feature or dedicated number two back. He's already proven this season that his knee isn't up to the challenge.
The coaches obviously don't trust Scales for some reason, else he would have already been given a shot to be da man.
That leaves Coleman and Holmes. Coleman looked all world against Duke and then screwed the pooch against Clemson. Makes me wonder if the starter role is too "big" for him, if you catch my drift.
Holmes... I got nothing. I just think he's an alright kind of back. Probably the least complete starter we've had around this joint for a decade. Solid effort, low ceiling.
So I think if the coaches are serious (and who the eff knows anymore by this point) then we'll see Holmes and JCC given more shots to prove one of them is the starter - which both will continue to struggle to do - and Scales and The Man With Two First Names will slide into obscurity to finish out their VT careers.
But let's be honest, we aren't going to find a ground game this season.
So you're saying George Whitfield isn't getting a Christmas card this year?
Four of the five were on O linemen. Painter, Arkema, Becton, and Benedict. The whole line seemed jumpy to me, but maybe jumpy in a good way. Lots of aggressiveness on display against BG.
Any concern about the uncharacteristic lack of discipline with five false start penalties? Or do you think that was just having Arkema and Benedict with their first start jitters?
And it looks like you're going to get your wish, French. The Collegiate Times is saying RVD will start at whip against Cincy.
I have this sinking feeling that this is the week that we decide to commit to running between the tackles, and right into the heart of the strongest part of Bowling Green's defense.
Here's hoping Benedict has enough anger management issues to bust open some holes.
Pitt was technically week two for us. Just saying.
Full disclosure, I don't want it either. I'm just trying to be practical about what this collection of players on offense can realistically be expected to do this season, and so far I've seen nothing that says we can be reliably successful running up the middle 25 times a game.
If we resist abandoning the power run game simply because we've always been a power running team, even when we don't have the horses to run it, then we're guilty of exactly what we criticize Beamer and Stinespring for doing.
We pass protect so, so much better than we run block. And so far as I can tell, our best athletes are at wideout, not tailback. If we have to rely on the Stinescreen and the quick slant instead of the tailback iso to get five yards then so be it. I'm in favor of doing whatever we have to do to be effective on offense, even if it's something we've never done before.
I'd rather be Oregon than Alabama if our roster is better suited to be Oregon.
Regarding the pistol, there was one play against Pitt where we shifted before the snap from Pistol to Shotgun. How did we do this? The tailback moved from behind LT to beside him. LT did not move at all. We keep him lined up the same distance behind the line in both formations, and that's just wrong. Having LT six yards behind scrimmage in the pistol is eliminating all of the formation's quick play potential.
Then again, are we really shocked that we're mishandling how we utilize this latest wrinkle added to the offense?
To do that we have to compete with the SEC in recruiting, because that's where ALL the bullies are going to school. We can do it, but we have to up our recruiting budget and enlarge our recruiting footprint. And I don't see Frank or Jim Weaver pushing to do either of those things.
Trickster is cheaper. And at the end of the day this whole thing is still a financial endeavor.
With all the criticism heaped on Newsome (and I myself have been vocal in criticizing him) we have never tried basing our offensive scheme/philosophy on one Blocking scheme (whichever he feels he can best teach his current talent and building on what that blocking scheme allows.
The highest complement I can pay you, French, is that through reading your work you have made me realize that for all the attention the skill position players get, offensive success in any scheme or system is predicated on efficiency and effectiveness of the offensive line.
We have asked Curt Newsome to do the impossible and criticize him when he can't. He might well be a horrible offensive line coach, but I can't be certain because we've never once put him in a position to succeed. He learned OL coaching at JMU. JMU runs a spread option. So what do we do? We ask him to produce lines that can block a power I rushing game. But we're also going to throw some shotgun spread in there. And some Ace. Oh, and a jumbo Ace package too. And here comes the Pistol. Block for it all, would you?
The reason the line has sucked under Stinespring isn't because of the line coach, it's because no line coach in the country could block for this Frankenstein's monster of an offensive system. The lines Grimes produced for Rickey Bustle were not great lines. But they knew how to block in the power I and they knew how to do a decent job at pass pro when we had a quarterback we trusted to win a game with his arm. We kept it simple and the line produced.
Now as for real world application, I know you are a power rushing enthusiast, French, but this line is undeniably strongest at pass pro. Despite the early struggles of Logan Thomas, he's the biggest play maker we have on offense and it's dreadfully apparent that we have no feature back to lean on unless Frank is willing to burn Edmunds' redshirt and endure the two fumbles a game that will come during his adjustment to the college game. In light of this, the only adjustment I can see working is abandoning the power run game and basing the run on jet sweeps, counters, and draws and using WR screens and quick slants to augment the run game. I know the thought of it makes you cringe, but do you think based on the performance of the line and the tailbacks through three games there's a better adjustment to be made?
Actually, Tyrone Ezell was the only starter suspended. All five others were reserves.
I think I dated Ima B. Playin briefly in high school.
Listed as probable on the injury report.
That...is...epic.
And was also true even before Bonner came up gimpy.
Healthy dose of zone blitz, perhaps? Assuming we trust JGW in pass coverage.
And if we do go to war, having ND gives us a little more leverage than we might have otherwise had to do some cherry picking.
Conspicuously absent from the announcement is what the process is for determining the venue for ND vs ACC football games. Having to cycle through 14 teams every 3 years means we aren't getting the home and home series we get with our cross-divisional games, and you can bet ND will try to get as many of those five ACC games in South Bend as it possibly can.
Cincy rolled against Pitt when they went hurry up, and stalled when they slowed down the tempo. This week is the perfect opportunity to take the handcuffs off the no-huddle we've been promised since spring. I have my fingers, toes, and various other body parts crossed that we come out in our two-minute drill. Get them down early and we take the game out of the hands of Ray Graham and Rushel Shell and put in on the shoulders of Tino Sunseri. I'll take that all day long.
Joe, I owe you a beer sometime too.
The nice thing about this hybrid spread that O'Cainspring has come up with is that it incorporates the I form as one of the three fundamental formations. Even if CFB decides to go back to a little bit more power running, we can incorporate that into what we've done offensively without throwing the baby out with the bath water. So far it's been about 50% shotgun, 25% pistol, 25 % I form. We could just tweak the percentages to more around 1/3 each to get a little more 'tween the tackles action.
That's provided we can find a back who can gash defenses up the middle. I think Michael Holmes might be that back, but then again he might not. Holmes' game seems to hinge on his vision, scanning the line for the hole to hit right up until the moment he hits it. That's often costs him a step and removes some of the power from his runs.
JC Coleman's a smurf. I do not see him running a power game inside.
Martin Scales has pop, but we don't know if he has 20 carries a game type stamina. We also don't want to elevate the third string back to first string in power running situations unless we like seeing nine men in the box across the line from us every time he comes into the game.
Trey Edmunds needs a redshirt. And I mean NEEDS it.
If we don't want to bang up our meal ticket QB, who's left?
And I think Frank realizes all that. Expect Mike and Bryan to keep tinkering with the hybrid spread unencumbered until it costs us a game.
You're ignoring the 11 carries against AP that were split between Scales and Gregory. We had 38 rushing attempts (27 by running backs, 7 by quarterback, 4 by wide receivers) in 64 total plays. That is commitment to the run.
One thing we have to keep in mind is Stiney and O'Cain are still figuring out a) how to properly utilize the two freshmen backs who top the depth chart, and b) how to best incorporate the rush into this new hybrid spread scheme they've installed. This won't be a ground and pound, between the tackles rushing offense this year. At least not in its base look. Expect a lot of misdirection and a lot of counters and a lot of plays to the outside to get our backs in space. That's a rather fundamental shift from how we used to run the ball just last year, and really for the last decade.
Thanks, French.
Hey, I just got done watching the film of the first half against AP, and I really noticed for the first time just how deep we're lining up LT in the pistol. He's basically taking one step forward from where he is in the shotgun. For comparison I pulled up some youtube video of Nevada's pistol offense and it seems like LT is lining up a good yard to yard and a half behind where Chris Ault lines his QB up. Seems like this might give LT a better view of the field for passes but negates a lot of the quick hit nature of the pistol.
Thoughts?
If we are ever in the same bar, the first round is on me.
I'm very encouraged by the lack of procedural penalties against this offense thus far. With all the new starters on O, especially along the line, some false starts would be expected. The coaches have this offense ready to play.
Also,I think there should be a compete media blackout for games like this. All they do is get the fan base angst ridden when we aren't up by 50 in the first half. This was a throwaway game, but we refuse to throw it away.
I actually never thought the play calling felt inept in this one I thought it was as well called as any game could be when we were purposefully limiting the times LT carried the ball.
Since O'Cain took over the calls I have very few complaints about the play calling. The calls I have then issue with, my composing had been of such a technical nature that it's more like the exception that proves the rule that play calling has improved dramatically under MOC.
The problem is we had to endure such horrible in game strategy for so many years, seeing our offense struggle brings that angst raging to the forefront, even when the struggles are actually based on personnel chemistry and execution issues.
I'm a little worried we've become a jaded fan base, conditioned by the dark ages of 2006-2008 to believe that our offense will always look like a pack of dogs trying to hump a watermelon, that the problem is fundamental, and that our issues on offense cannot be fixed. Any time a drive stalls our reflex is to throw our hands up in disgust and write off the offense and the staff as incompetent. Not because we're assholes, but because we've been programmed to believe it. Frank let it happen for too long before he addressed it, and the offensive overhaul is still in progress.
But if we need reminding that this offense is indeed in a fundamentally better place than it used to be, dig up film of our 2008 game against Furman for comparison.
I'm not panicking about the lack of pop along the O line. Our five starters had played every snap against GT earlier that same week (a decision a questioned at the time) and there was heavy rotation of the 2s against Austin Peay. Tired starters plus backups seeing their first snaps of the season makes for less than optimal explosion off the ball.
I also got a general sense of "take it easy" from the offense. I think you are dead on that the coaches limited LT's carries and I sort the decision. I remember all too well the shoulder stinger he got against Marshall last year, and how it affected his game against Clemson the next week. You have to protect your assets. And I said going into this game, LT's skill set as a runner is a known commodity. We needed multiple looks at all four tailbacks and we got them.
I noticed Stinespring tinkered with the formations this game. Still mostly shotgun, pistol, and I form, but I noticed some offset I, some two RB shotgun, just little tweaks after seeing all three formations remain in their base set against GT. Either way, I'm still digging this three formation offense a lot more than the Frank 'n Stine offense of not too long ago. Just seems a little more streamlined. And I'm really liking the misdirection and counters we're seeing out of all three formations.
Just for some perspective, though, GT pantsed Presbyterian 59-3 on short rest, and they were the team that had to travel.
In regards to the notion that this loss devalues the OSU win, I respectfully disagree. Walk with me through this, if you would...
Imagine (please, just hear me out) that VT regroups and rips it up in conference this year. Come November, if ECU is the only loss on our record, couldn't you see the pundits and talking heads saying something like, "They did lose to ECU at home, but remember, that was after that big Ohio State win. They've really gotten it together since then."
Full disclosure, I don't think this will happen. I see two more losses, maybe three this season. But this one loss does not devalue the win in Columbus. If anything devalues that, it's if we wind up 6-6 or so.