Illinois Hokie's Recent Comments
"[T]he offensive system is still a hodgepodge of different formations and fundamental elements..."
Is it?
From what I saw we're basically using the same personnel across three formations, which the exception being we sub in a FB for the third WR in I Form and sub in a TE for the FB in Ace. This seems way more cohesive than what we saw circa 2006-2009, where we were throwing six and seven looks at opposing Ds every game.
You break down Xs and Os way, way better than I do (or anyone else I've ever read anywhere on a Hokie blog does), so you understand the nuances between Gun, Pistol, and I Form (well, we all should understand the difference between Gun and I, but y'know...) better than most. But it seems like we're basing this year's offense around the same nucleus of players with very little substitution (besides the normal rotation through the depth chart throughout the game to keep everyone fresh for the 4th quarter), and the offense builds on itself as the game goes on.
And really, just a freaking amazing breakdown.
So what happens in years that 1.) the Orange Bowl hosts a semi, and 2.) the ACC champs make the playoffs? Is it ACC champs to the Orange Bowl automatically, except this time it's part of the MNC proceedings, or could the ACC champs still wind up in the other semi in this scenario? There's just so little hard info available right now.
To risk exposing my ignorance, is there any reason why we couldn't tweak the mid-line read option dive to make LT the dive man on a QB keep hand have the tailback be the one to turn it outside on a hand off? Yes I get that this would fundamentally alter the play, but I don't see a prima facie reason why that tweak wouldn't be possible. I can't really imagine why you'd have to really even change the way it was blocked (though I'm admittedly not a blocking guru). Seems like you'd just have to modify the keep/give mechanics between LT and Holmes, and you'd keep playing to LT's strengths like we do with the shotgun zone read. Like you, I do NOT see LT as a corner threat.
Okay, yes, you and I are actually in complete agreement, though as I read the OP I was starting to honestly think you wanted us running the same formation every down. It's a blocking issue. It has been for years. The question is why. I know everyone has their theories, but after six season I'm sold that Newsome is all potatoes, no meat. I just think he's in over his head in 1A football. Like you pointed out, he's got his lines trying to block a different way for each formation we trot onto the field.
Then again, is that Newsome or Stinespring? Stiney is the one who loves him some buffet style offense: a little of this, a little of that, and you just kind of mix it all together on one plate.
I actually like the idea of us using the pistol. I think the formation has a LOT to offer our current offensive roster and their particular skill sets. And if nothing else, it will eliminate that goddam twelve yard deep handoff to the tailback five seconds after the snap. But how the hell are Newsome and Stinespring going to draw up the blocking schemes for it? If they've got our line trying to block a fifth different way for our fifth different offensive package, we might as well cork the pistol now.
But seriously, WHY do we not dedicate ourselves to one blocking scheme and build our packages around that?
This sound like an argument that teams should never use a multiple offense.
I was driving back home from the store when I heard it on XM radio. I had to pull over and look it up on my phone. I thought for sure I heard them wrong.
Make that an inconsistent punting game. Journell has been rock solid in October and November and just hit a career long against Clemson.
Acree is a 4 star defensive end. We have no idea how he would have projected as an offensive line recruit.
I also like Oglesby's power game against a 3-4. JO should get more than his average number of touches this game, especially if our offense is going to be run heavy against GT (which I expect).
I'd like to see LT truck an inside linebacker out of his cleats.
Would that be different than our nickel defense? Other than what you call the position K Fuller is playing?
Gotta vote nickel then. Tweedy might still be hobbled and I don't trust Nick Dew enough for his first serious playing time to be against GT.
When Bud plays nickel against GT what is the nickel back's assignment?
Tweedy and K. Fuller could play big roles against the flexbone. Put Tweedy on Washington all game. The way this guy flies to the ball is crazy. His game is fundamentally unsound on several levels, so I don't really want him playing assignment football, having to sit on a player in hopes the ball comes his way. I think he'd shed his assignment in hopes of making a tackle too often. Instead let him pin his ears back and go after Washington on every snap. Make Tweedy's assignment to force Washington to pitch the ball.
A similarly unorthodox move, make K. Fuller the pitch man. He's the surest open field tackler we have and that's what we need in the option man. The problem there, of course, is taking a cornerback out of pass protection when it's obvious that this year more than any other we have to respect GT's passing game.
K Fuller as the option man would work if we play nickel all game, but then you have to figure out who takes Tweedy's place covering Washington.
There's a reason Foster starts scheming for these guys in January. One week of it is enough to make my head hurt.
You design your offensive scheme and its base formation around your talent. Or, at least, well coached teams do. If you don't have the personnel to run a power I, you don't run a power I. Likewise if you don't recruit for a power run game, you don't bother trying to develop one.
There's being old school, and then there's being a curmudgeon. Your respect for classic option football is the former. Saying a team "doesn't deserve to win" if they can't play smashmouth football for three yards falls firmly in the latter.
3. LT's first pick was because MD7 gave up on his route. Had Davis finished the route he would have been between the ball and the safety. Incompletion at worst, probably a touchdown. LT was threading the ball into tight spaces all day, including on his first INT. That ball was exactly where it was supposed to be the receiver wasn't. On the Dunn touchdown it's just not a great throw. That one's on LT, but Dunn also gets called upon to play defender there.
5. And we now know why our string of 1-and-done senior kickers has come to an end. Get well soon, Cody,
7. See 3 above.
38. A true freshman. Repeat that over and over again. A TRUE freshman. He should have never seen the field this season. True freshmen don't punt for Frank Beamer. The kid needs a year to get his two-step mechanics down, but he has the leg to boot it 50 yards. If Demler could have consistently given us 40 yards with decent hang time then next year we'd be talking about how Branthover was the next Vinnie Burns.
81. Oh my GOD how was that deep slant in the 4th not called PI????!!!??? The defender locked arms with him for three steps then grabbed his FACEMASK so he couldn't dive to make the catch. If what Jaryon did was PI, that should have been assault and battery.
If Marcus Davis finishes his route the safety cannot intercept that pass because in finishing the route MD7 would be standing between the safety and the ball. LT threw that ball where only his receiver could catch it. The only problem was when the ball arrived his receiver wasn't where he was supposed to be.
Nice.
We came out in the shotgun for the first play and then went immediately to LT under center, before the first INT was thrown. And as I was watching the game I was thinking we were seeing a lot more I and Ace than we have seen the last few weeks. I assumed it was because we went to that after the two early picks from LT, sort of Beamer circling the wagons as he is wont to do, but after a second viewing it's pretty apparently MOC was trying to throw a lot more under-center formations at Duke. Was this something he saw in Duke's D that he thought he could exploit, or was it trying to give Georgia Tech a little wrinkle in their film study this week? Who knows.
The second series of the second half, though, was our second longest yardage drive of the half (34 yards) and ate just short of five minutes of clock. I don't know if you can really say we failed to execute on that drive, DW just got stuffed on a makeable 3rd and 2.
And we did run the zone read three times in the first half. David Wilson nearly scored our first touchdown of the game on that play, and the first two plays of our fifth possession were zone reads, both for nice gains.
I'm with you. I CANNOT review a game after watching it live. I have to see it on film first. When I watch a game live, and even the first time I watch it on TV, my eyes are following the ball exclusively.
...didn't we switch into LT under center after his first INT as a knee jerk conservative reaction as tend to do? Shotgun three wide has kind of become our base package, and I assumed that's because it's what LT ran in high school.
Something there just doesn't seem to compute. I'd imagine that's like looking in a fun house mirror.
Did you just say use a fattier ground beef for LESS shrinking on the grill? This goes against everything I've ever heard about grilling burgers.
His two outliers on the season are Appy State (162 yards) and Arky State (85 yards). Eliminate those and he has ranged between 123 yards and 137 yards in every game. That's a window of 14 yards he's working in. Barring injury (and there is nothing to indicate he's wearing down as the season progresses) I don't think his average is changing much down the stretch. If it does anything, I see it going up because of a monster game or two. So I guess it's a question of what the other nine guys around him in that chart do.
It will probably come down to whether or not we make the ACCCG to give Mr. Wilson an extra game to work with.
Boykin had a handful of terrible plays against BC.
On the first play of the game I'm 99% certain that Boykin was supposed to be on the line of scrimmage (22) but instead lined up on the 20, perhaps thinking the opening kickoff was a touchback. This drew an illegal procedure flag that BC ultimately declined. He then on the same play failed to snag the pass from Thomas, which deflected off his hands. This let BC decline the penalty and made us lose the down. If Boykin catches that pass BC is forced to accept the 5 yard penalty. Yes, we'd be forced with 1st and 15, but we would have still had three downs to work with. We wound up getting 9.5 yards on the next two plays before the Branthover shank, so 15 in three downs was probably doable.
On the third drive Boykin completely lost track of his position in regards to the sideline and left four points on the field when he forgot to drag the toe on what was a stone cold lock of a touchdown pass. Any senior receiver with aspirations of getting drafted needs to know where he is and what he needs to do to come down in bounds.
Other than that, Boykin settled in and had a fine day. I don't mean this to come across as down with Boykin. He's legitimately our best receiver when he's on. But he made some mistakes that killed a couple of drives for us in the first quarter.
All six defenses we've faced so far have based their entire scheme on reading the run. They might not always have eight in the box on the snap, but as soon as LT extends for a handoff to DW even the water boy on the sideline makes a beeline toward the tailback. Miami was just the first example (hopefully of many) of LT making them pay for it in the passing game.
The idea so far this year among our opponents has been stuff the run and make the Hokies beat you with the pass. It will be interesting to see how opposing D's scheme against us now that VT has proven they can.
I think that's why I like your analysis so much better than others'. You base your analysis from the ground up on what the O line is doing, while everyone else (myself included) focuses on what the skill positions are doing.
Really A+ work, French.