Can someone explain to me (legitimately, I'm not being sarcastic) the advantage to continuing to run the ball up the middle when it repeatedly does not work? Other teams have done their homework, and these plays don't work with Schor...why haven't we adapted? Am I missing something?

To loosely quote two fans who sat next to me at the game on Saturday: "This game is the most boring offensive showing I've seen since Mickey"... While i think it was harsh, I can see why it would be hard for a casual fan to be interested in a game that has 90% run game.

RBs averaged 5.3 YPC which is good.

The issue is now that Bryan is not the dynamic runner that Vad was. Our run game is predicated on a lot of zone read type plays, even when Bryan makes the correct read and pulls the ball he still may be tackled for a mere 2 yard gain. With the bye week it may be a good time for the staff to look at ways to manufacture a more efficient run gam with different gap scheme runs.

(11-23-2015 02:26 PM)JMU13 Wrote:  Can someone explain to me (legitimately, I'm not being sarcastic) the advantage to continuing to run the ball up the middle when it repeatedly does not work? Other teams have done their homework, and these plays don't work with Schor...why haven't we adapted? Am I missing something?

To loosely quote two fans who sat next to me at the game on Saturday: "This game is the most boring offensive showing I've seen since Mickey"... While i think it was harsh, I can see why it would be hard for a casual fan to be interested in a game that has 90% run game.

Were you sitting beside me?

the problem to me is simple.

with Lee, teams were afraid to go after him. because of his escapability. so he had more room in the pocket to throw which made the passing game effective, and in turn the running game.

with schor, he doesn't handle heat well. so teams are sending people at him and watching him panic and be unable to escape and make a good decision with what to do.

because of that, we have gone conservative in our play calling. too much zone read being called. not enough variety. we have become Mickey Matthews predictable

Before his first season Withers said he was going to bring "an exciting product of football"...I hope that doesn't go away. Saturday sure was boring.

I also don't think our RB's are that quick laterally as we saw on a couple of plays. They have downhill speed which is great if you give them just a little daylight.

The funny thing to me is Schor has had many of his best moments in the hurry-up, which with Vad was basically our offense all the time. The desperate 4th Qtr against the Ticks, seemingly the whole game against W&M, the exquisite final drive vs. UD, and then the great last drive of the 1st half that was huge for the Dukes this week against VU. It's almost like when we run the pace-based offense (that Schor was taking 50% of the practice reps with according to EW even before Vad's injury) that everyone's used to, Schor looks perfectly capable. Yet it seems to my uneducated eyes like the coaches are over-managing. At this point in the playoffs we're down to all good teams so I'm hoping they take the training wheels off and take their chances.

On a side note, I was glad to see the surprise onside kick. With Vad, I really think Withers didn't want to mess around with gambling too much because he figured the Dukes would wear teams down and outscore them eventually, but this seemed like a healthy acknowledgment that the coaches need to do whatever they can to tip the scales a bit as things are at the moment. Bodes well for the postseason imo.

(11-23-2015 03:00 PM)JMU13 Wrote:  Before his first season Withers said he was going to bring "an exciting product of football"...I hope that doesn't go away. Saturday sure was boring.

The most important thing to do is win, coaches can't play to the fans too much or they will probably end up losing on Saturdays.

Also they are not just "running the ball up the middle" , they are attacking different gaps of the defensive front. Essentially they are hoping for one to break and Khalid hit a pretty good one Sat. Then that leads to play action. VL is not that good of a option runner , which is one reason why he left GT. Short is actually a tougher runner than VL and but he doesn't have the speed of VL so DE/LB's can recover on him faster.

(11-23-2015 02:49 PM)Duke Dawg Wrote:  the problem to me is simple.

with Lee, teams were afraid to go after him. because of his escapability. so he had more room in the pocket to throw which made the passing game effective, and in turn the running game.

with schor, he doesn't handle heat well. so teams are sending people at him and watching him panic and be unable to escape and make a good decision with what to do.

because of that, we have gone conservative in our play calling. too much zone read being called. not enough variety. we have become Mickey Matthews predictable

Schor is definitely not Vad but I don't know if it's fair to say he doesn't handle heat well, panics, and can't make good decisions.

Considering Schor has had to come in and face three defenses in the top half of the league, he is averaging almost 4 yards/carry, has a 61% completion percentage, and has only one interception in almost 100 passes.

We have to remember that Vad Lee was not just your average QB and that Schor would probably be the starter on a lot of teams in the CAA.

(11-23-2015 03:42 PM)DolleyMadison Wrote:  Schor is definitely not Vad but I don't know if it's fair to say he doesn't handle heat well, panics, and can't make good decisions.

Considering Schor has had to come in and face three defenses in the top half of the league, he is averaging almost 4 yards/carry, has a 61% completion percentage, and has only one interception in almost 100 passes.

We have to remember that Vad Lee was not just your average QB and that Schor would probably be the starter on a lot of teams in the CAA.

To piggy back off of this - let's not forget - this was his third career start. A) he's been pretty darn impressive in light of that B) EW may be hesitant to open up the playbook for someone in his third career start. Zone reads can be boring but

I mean I guess. It's just hard to get into the game when the same play repeatedly fails and we go 3 and out.

(11-23-2015 03:23 PM)PurpleStreamers Wrote:  The funny thing to me is Schor has had many of his best moments in the hurry-up, which with Vad was basically our offense all the time. The desperate 4th Qtr against the Ticks, seemingly the whole game against W&M, the exquisite final drive vs. UD, and then the great last drive of the 1st half that was huge for the Dukes this week against VU. It's almost like when we run the pace-based offense (that Schor was taking 50% of the practice reps with according to EW even before Vad's injury) that everyone's used to, Schor looks perfectly capable. Yet it seems to my uneducated eyes like the coaches are over-managing. At this point in the playoffs we're down to all good teams so I'm hoping they take the training wheels off and take their chances.

On a side note, I was glad to see the surprise onside kick. With Vad, I really think Withers didn't want to mess around with gambling too much because he figured the Dukes would wear teams down and outscore them eventually, but this seemed like a healthy acknowledgment that the coaches need to do whatever they can to tip the scales a bit as things are at the moment. Bodes well for the postseason imo.

There was at least a couple occasions during the game on Saturday where the players wanted to go faster. There was one time when a RB (I think it was Johnson) had a solid run for a first down and the team got back to the line quickly and Schor stood there and waited, the RB was losing his mind and motioning for Schor to hurry up and snap the ball. Now, I don't know if that is all on Schor or if the coaches are involved in that somehow, but it seemed very clear to me the team wants to go faster and something (Schor, coaches, something else) is holding them up.

(11-24-2015 12:54 AM)JMUDukes20 Wrote:  There was at least a couple occasions during the game on Saturday where the players wanted to go faster. There was one time when a RB (I think it was Johnson) had a solid run for a first down and the team got back to the line quickly and Schor stood there and waited, the RB was losing his mind and motioning for Schor to hurry up and snap the ball. Now, I don't know if that is all on Schor or if the coaches are involved in that somehow, but it seemed very clear to me the team wants to go faster and something (Schor, coaches, something else) is holding them up.

First - I totally agree with hotrod's post earlier in the thread. They are not "just running it up the middle" so to speak.

Second, this point is something I noticed. They are slowing the game down a bit, and I personally think it is the coaches more than Schor. I am okay with that. One of the reasons I think we lost the game vs. W&M was rushing the offense too much. Sure we got 41 points, but when 41 points doesn't win you the game, you have to look deeper. Time management actually seems much better now, but even so we lost TOP 36-24. When needed, the team can turn it up and in a hurry. We saw that against Villanova.

What bothered me most was the apparent designed QB-draws and TE in the wildcat, especially on the goal line situation. I didn't know if a RB was hurt or what was going on, but I felt like in general there was too much Schor running the ball (19 times) and not enough hand offs to perfectly capable RBs (Abdullah 10 carries for 71 yards - feed him the rock!). Note that we ran it fewer times (43) than Villanova (52), who averaged over 6 yards per carry. Ouch! Contain, contain, contain!!!!

At the end of the day, JMU won due to turnovers. Every other aspect of the stat sheet would suggest Villanova should have won. Keeping the offense conservative just might be a smart idea if our defensive mojo is turnovers.

(11-23-2015 03:27 PM)Hotrod829 Wrote:  

(11-23-2015 03:00 PM)JMU13 Wrote:  Before his first season Withers said he was going to bring "an exciting product of football"...I hope that doesn't go away. Saturday sure was boring.

The most important thing to do is win, coaches can't play to the fans too much or they will probably end up losing on Saturdays.

Also they are not just "running the ball up the middle" , they are attacking different gaps of the defensive front. Essentially they are hoping for one to break and Khalid hit a pretty good one Sat. Then that leads to play action. VL is not that good of a option runner , which is one reason why he left GT. Short is actually a tougher runner than VL and but he doesn't have the speed of VL so DE/LB's can recover on him faster.

BINGO- bottom line is to win. It matter if running a single wing as long as you win..doesn't mattter if some fans think its boring. Better to win 13-10 than lose 43-40.

True. Vad is quicker & faster than Schor. True Schor being a tougher runner. Lee never was a big yard after contact guy. Great edge and open field runner. Yet, despite being listed 6'2"/225, went down too many times with arm tackles, sliding & running out of bounds. Not often would you see him truck someone. Comparing to Landers, Lee I think a step or 2 faster & quicker & a better edge and open field runner. But Landers, as I recall 6'1"/220, was a much better inside runner. Almost never would be brought down with an arm tackle. Would often truck people. Don't think I ever saw him slide. Didn't run out of bounds as often. Schor more like the plodding Birdsong- tougher inside runner but not a threat on the edge. Bottom line overall not the running threat of Lee.

I think one of the biggest differences in Vad and Schor is that Vad stayed in the pocket a little longer and kept his eyes downfield when scrambling more often rather than just tucking and running. I also think Vad gave it to the back more often on the read option whereas Schor tends to try and do too much. By giving it to the backs more frequently, it opened the running lanes up for Vad more when he decided to keep it.

Lastly, as others have said, the playcalling and pace has also been a lot different the past two games. While it's great to get the W, we were lucky to come away with a W in both of those games, as they had our backs against the wall but made mistakes that cost them. I will take a W any day, but you can't keep living on the edge like that and expect not to fall at some point. It's one and done now, so there is no room for error the rest of the way.

I think coaches have purposely held back on the gas pedal.

Yet, you did see us go fast at times, like the end of the game vs UD, or before half versus Nova. They will use it if we need it.

Nova and UD both have huge front 7s. Hard to move them off the ball. I expect to run the ball with more success against UNH.

(11-24-2015 08:50 AM)jmusuperfan Wrote:  I think coaches have purposely held back on the gas pedal.

Yet, you did see us go fast at times, like the end of the game vs UD, or before half versus Nova. They will use it if we need it.

For those not feeling too great about our Win over NOVA, I think you may be underestimating what a good team that was. Their QB had matured into a legit. CAA starter, and by far one of the best defenses in the league. Here are some ( unverified ) stats one of their guys posted before our game that indicate where Villanova stacked up in the CAA before week 12:


#1 Scoring Defense (NOVA)
#1 Pass Efficiency Defense (NOVA)
#1 Red Zone Defense (NOVA)
Fewest Passing TD's Allowed - 2 (NOVA)
CAA's Fewest TD's Allowed - 11 (NOVA)

If those statistics are correct on NOVA, i'd say that's the best defense we've played all year including UD/UR/ WM and managed to find a way to put up 2 passing TD's and another couple TD's via Tough D. I have not verified these stats i'm sure someone with more time than I will.

That's how you win playoff games and i'll take it.

(11-24-2015 08:50 AM)jmusuperfan Wrote:  I think coaches have purposely held back on the gas pedal.

Yet, you did see us go fast at times, like the end of the game vs UD, or before half versus Nova. They will use it if we need it.

Agree. To add my two cents; maybe the coaches have held back a little too much. It seams to me that Schor looks better when we're playing a little faster, maybe not Lee fast but not as slow as last weekend. The Nova game was a little strange from the start so I somewhat agree with protecting a lead but that could have easily come back to bit us, esp with a team as good as Nova.