40, I'm really not sure where in all that you are taking such exception to what I wrote.

If TMcH was not healthy for the 2H against UCLA (which you seem to be inferring here), then DJ clearly should have taken that half. Same for La Tech. KU might have been a harder call, inasmuch as we barely won with TMcH, so he was apparently healthy enough to play. But DJ could have been a useful change of pace, particularly after he got a couple of halves on film and coaches could make necessary adjustments. If that happens earlier, does the DJ we see against UH look more like the DJ against AFA? Probably. Of course, if DJ had taken the 2nd halves aginst UCLA and La Tech, and no more, that would obviously have saved a bunch of wear and tear on TMcH. Would he have been healthier against Marshall and Memphis? Almost certainly. Would he have been healthy enough to have played against UH? Let's assume not, but nobody can ever really know.

I guess my point is a rehash of one I've made before. I don't really have a problem with playing at least some non-conference games like pre-season games, but that's not what we are doing. Playing them like pre-season games to me means you try to win all the way, but you also play a lot of people. What we do is keep the starters out there until they drop, and then in the post-game press conference, use the excuse that it was "only a pre-season game." If depth is going to be an issue, and it clearly has been, then getting as many people as you can into the early games is the best way to develop a solution to that.

So my approach to the second half aginst UCLA or La Tech would have been that DJ is going to take the half, and we are going to try to win with DJ. We almost certainly could not have been worse offensively in the second half aginst UCLA with DJ, and it probably didn't really matter at La Tech. That approach means you lose UCLA and La Tech, but last time I checked, we lost them anyway. And it certainly gives rise to at least a reasonable expectation that we could have gotten a different result against Marshall, UH, and Memphis. Win all three (not outside the realm of possibility) and we're at 9-3, 10-3 with the bowl. And we don't have to play much better to win at Tulsa too, which gets us to 10-2 and in the conference championship game. That's about what I thought this team should have accomplished last year, and that's about the minimum I think it should accomplish this year.

As for the utiliation issues with Sam, I've been saying since his soph year that he was a unique talent who should have been used differently from the way we did. I don't know why it took so long to adjust our scheme to fit our talent, but that has been a recurring theme. And we don't have enough talent to go that route.

Did we have injuries? Yes. Did they hurt us? Yes. Did the same thing happen to every other football team in the country? Yes. That's part of the game. Being prepared to deal with them is part of game preparation.

Defense was certainly a problem. But was the statistical improvement from 1H to 2H due to real improvement in the defense or to substantial difference in the quality of opposition? Is a defense that ranked #60 against the people we played in the 2H of last year really any good?

I think I've addressed your depth, defense, health, and schedule points. I'd just say that the things that happened in those regards are things that were known or should have been expected well in advance. And yes, I expect coaching to come up with solutions to those problems. Maybe my expectations of the coaching staff are too high. But I've been around staffs that I think could and did meet those expectations, so I'm willing to accept nothing less here.

Aside from what I've already said, I don't think it's appropriate--for several reasons--for me to be talking about the quarterback controversy.

I don't see our schemes being that much different from anyone else. I do think we meerkat more than most, which may or may not be a good thing. But I don't imagine that our offense causes many DC's to lay awake at night figuring out how to counter us. And I think that's where we need to be.

I'm not really being clear Talon. Sorry

What I'm saying is, whatever we are doing... CLEARLY these are the best QBs we have at doing it... and you seem to think that they are really bad at it.

I have no comment on that.

What I have a comment on is two-fold.
1) You believe they could see they were open based on your perspective... which unless you were on the field, wasn't their perspective... so while I don't dismiss what you think you saw, I also don't accept it as fact. I have a hard time believing that a player looked to his primary read, saw him open and didn't deliver him the ball. Clearly he had a reason he didn't deliver the ball to an open 1st option read. I know that on the 4th down play at the end, DJ threw the deep corner when he had a man for the first down right in front of him... but I suspect he was told to throw the corner... or to look at the corner first... so the guy ten yards downfield (who ALSO would have iced the game with a catch) wasn't his primary read.

2) Using that play as an example... and combining it with RU's "smash" example with the cornerback being the read (so not the drag, but the corner route) they showed him the same attacking corner he had seen earlier which caused him to expect the corner route to be open... but the safety knew this was the progression and rather than stepping up to the drag in front of him, stepped back to the corner route, with the cornerback waiting in the weeds for the drag route to come across the field to him. This is a perfect example of a defense adjusting to the offensive adjustment... hoping to convince him to throw the apparently open drag and have the corner pull a pick 6. In RU's scheme, and I'm sure I will get it wrong... the 1st read is that the attacking corner is covering the flat, so that means he is covering the drag/out by the TE or the curl by the wr... whichever you have called... so if you're trying to get 10 yards, you don't run the TE all the way to him... similarly you know the safety has the deep quarter... so they BOTH push vertical and now you have the corner covering nobody and the safety covering two people. If you're only trying to attack the flat, then you have the WR run an out, again putting 2 people on the corner and leaving the safety all by himself covering nobody... The bottom line being that because the defense feels they have to cover the flat, the way to beat them deep is to not put anyone IN the flat.... leaving a man covering nobody which increases your chances everywhere else. Sure, the corner will sink as nobody shows, but he won't sink as fast as the TE can run deep and certainly not as fast as the WR can sprint.

You're not reading coverages as much as you are reading who is covering what area... and then avoiding the "bad" areas and flooding the "good" ones.

Sure, they can still make the play... the QB can make a bad throw... etc etc etc... but the numbers are much more in your favor.

Using Doc's analogies to the OL... If you're the RT and the DE rushes inside, chances are he's trying to get you to chase so the DT or LB can loop around the outside. Secondary works the same way. If the CB comes up, chances are he's trying to get you to throw the deep ball because the safety is guessing/rolling over to cover it.

(09-17-2013 04:44 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  What I'm saying is, whatever we are doing... CLEARLY these are the best QBs we have at doing it... and you seem to think that they are really bad at it.

I never said that. I rejected the conclusion that our current scheme doesn't supply open receivers/easy throws to the QB.

Quote:I know that on the 4th down play at the end, DJ threw the deep corner when he had a man for the first down right in front of him... but I suspect he was told to throw the corner... or to look at the corner first... so the guy ten yards downfield (who ALSO would have iced the game with a catch) wasn't his primary read.

On the final iteration of smash that you reference, with DJ throwing, he had an extended discussion with Edmondson on the sidelines following. I doubt (and really really hope) we are past the elementary stage of indicating throws for our QBs regardless of reads/coverage. And the read isn't one receiver or the other (or route or the other), it's the cornerback.

I still don't know why we didn't just kick the FG there, but it wasn't a big deal.

(09-17-2013 04:53 PM)talon owl Wrote:  

(09-17-2013 04:44 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  What I'm saying is, whatever we are doing... CLEARLY these are the best QBs we have at doing it... and you seem to think that they are really bad at it.

I never said that. I rejected the conclusion that our current scheme doesn't supply open receivers/easy throws to the QB.

Okay... but I still answered your question... because the open drag route apparently WASN'T the first read, as you initially implied. The smash route on the cornerback was.

Quote:On the final iteration of smash that you reference, with DJ throwing, he had an extended discussion with Edmondson on the sidelines following.

You still don't know that he saw the open receiver. It seems to me that he made the first read... and it said go to the corner and so he did. He thought it was open so he threw it. Edmonson may have been telling him that it wasn't open so he should have gone to the third read... the open drag you (and I) saw... and that is specifically the rudimentary design I am referring to. LOTS of QBs can't get to the 3rd read and defenses make their living by knowing this. They leave the likely 3rd read open, force the first read, jump the second and count on either the QB forcing the ball or running or a sack.

What you want a QB to do is go through his progression, decide a play is open or not and deliver it if so... not to say, well it's open, but let's go to player 3 and see if it is MORE open. Apparently DJ thought he could complete the corner (or less likely in that case that he didn't have time to go to the 3rd read)

In the proposed scheme, he reads the corner... and both the QB and receivers go to the "preferred" spot and the QB picks one. It is the same basic concept of progressions, but it requires a read less likely to be disguised and features an adjustment by the WR to put 2 people in the same basic zone/passing lane covered by one defender.

Quote:I still don't know why we didn't just kick the FG there, but it wasn't a big deal.

Because a block for a TD takes virtually no time off the clock and leaves a minute to go with the ball around mid field in an open scrum (onsides) and a 2 point game. A first down and the game is over. Even turning it over on downs, it's a minute to go and a 2 score game. Kick the FG and it's STILL a 2 score game with a minute to go. 2 TDs, but still. You can make an argument for either as the difference isn't great, but I believe the way we went is the least risky of the three.

Phil Steele compares Chuckie Keeton favorably to Johnny Manziel


http://espn.go.com/espnradio/play?id=9684586

(09-17-2013 08:08 PM)MemOwl Wrote:  Phil Steele compares Chuckie Keeton favorably to Johnny Manziel

So? Two weeks ago, plenty of folks were comparing McHargue favorably to Manziel. Last year, I heard a lot of comparisons of Manziel to Antwaan Randle El who never had a winning record.

(09-18-2013 08:17 AM)That Guy 2012 Wrote:  Two weeks ago, plenty of folks were comparing McHargue favorably to Manziel.

Before or after the game?

We should try the wishbone with Ross :)


Looked like Boswell's 56 yd FG was really 57. somebody check the tapes.

student turnout and other attendance will improve if we keep winning. students don't come out to see the visiting team.

I want to see some passes to Eddington. He has the ability to be a mini-Thor. Let's not waste his last season.
[/quote]

Agree with Eddington getting more looks. It's a good problem to have, but we seem to have a massive overload at the RB spot (obviously manifesting itself in Eddington moving to a hybrid TE/RB position). Also, I thought Turner Petersen was going to be available last night? Don't get me wrong, Ross has been amazing thus far, but you think Petersen and not Dillard would be the guy to spell Ross.
[/quote]

the talent the last four years at running back has been wonderful. we now have two great running qbs. this screams for a veer, wishbone, or other triple option approach.
[/quote]

I'm not sure we have a true fullback, but I was thinking I'd like to see some plays where they work in a Robbie Beck type fullback dive into the option. I'm not sure if you can do that with a two back set, but we have some big, fast running backs that could probably hit the middle pretty well in that type of situation.
[/quote]

(09-18-2013 09:56 AM)MemOwl Wrote:  

(09-18-2013 08:17 AM)That Guy 2012 Wrote:  Two weeks ago, plenty of folks were comparing McHargue favorably to Manziel.

Before or after the game?

Mostly during, but before and after as well.