That Elam is a monster to run around. Run blocking is po

if we had a qb that could be trusted, the OL would be just fine....

the play calling with KH didn't have one dayum thing to do with our OL....

I only saw a few missed assignments.....other than that, they did their job.....

its essentially a brand new line and the first game. i was surprised and happy with the way they played. from what i saw today, the OL wont be a problem this year. i didn't see a problem with any position on the field except QB in the first half. we should beat the hell out of a lot of teams this year - unless Keon plays QB.

We had Grainer at LEFT tackle for most of the game. Against their most disruptive pass rusher to. As a true freshman I think he did a hellofa job.

There were zero running lanes and the QBs had little time to throw on many pass plays. That said, we lost our starting LT early in the 2nd qtr and played a true freshman there the rest of the game. I think the OL is still one of the bigger question marks, but I also expect it to get better each week barring more injuries.

(09-02-2017 10:35 PM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  We had Grainer at LEFT tackle for most of the game. Against their most disruptive pass rusher to. As a true freshman I think he did a hellofa job.

We will probably be seeing him a lot since Dorbeck went out with an injury.

(09-02-2017 09:36 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  if we had a qb that could be trusted, the OL would be just fine....

the play calling with KH didn't have one dayum thing to do with our OL....

I only saw a few missed assignments.....other than that, they did their job.....

I must have misread our running game statistics.

(09-03-2017 07:08 AM)Lumber Eagle Wrote:  

(09-02-2017 09:36 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  if we had a qb that could be trusted, the OL would be just fine....

the play calling with KH didn't have one dayum thing to do with our OL....

I only saw a few missed assignments.....other than that, they did their job.....

I must have misread our running game statistics.

nobody can run against the box when the qb can't deliver the goods via the air....

they straight up started with it and spied Ito the entire game.....

somebody I know well stated they would do that weeks ago....

You're wrong. They gave us light boxes with 4 and a half or 5 men the whole game. Kept 2 safeties back daring us to run it. And we couldn't. They had no need to add people to stop the run, so they didn't. They stayed back and defended against the deep ball, depending on 5 to stop the run. And they did. That's why we struggled on offense.

(09-03-2017 11:19 AM)Eagle9 Wrote:  You're wrong. They gave us light boxes with 4 and a half or 5 men the whole game. Kept 2 safeties back daring us to run it. And we couldn't. They had no need to add people to stop the run, so they didn't. They stayed back and defended against the deep ball, depending on 5 to stop the run. And they did. That's why we struggled on offense.

We struggled on offense because of the lack of effective QB play in the first half. Some QB play in the second half had us in a position to win. The fumble six and some very timely penalties killed that chance but we had it at least. Both teams were very strong against the run. We won't face a dline or linebackers like that again until Tennessee.

We kinda knew just challenging Kentucky straight up and running at them was going to be harder this year. Whether the perceived improvement in the running game (I can't find 1st half vs 2nd half stats right now to verify, but eyeballs) was due to the QB change, adjustments on our part, or UK wearing down is anybody's guess.

The OL could definitely stand to get better, but they played well enough to win against what was supposed to be better talent.

(09-03-2017 11:19 AM)Eagle9 Wrote:  You're wrong. They gave us light boxes with 4 and a half or 5 men the whole game. Kept 2 safeties back daring us to run it. And we couldn't. They had no need to add people to stop the run, so they didn't. They stayed back and defended against the deep ball, depending on 5 to stop the run. And they did. That's why we struggled on offense.

ummmmmkay....





check out their run D starting at the 6:12....sure they shifted out when necessary in subsequent plays....

show me where they didn't when we showed run....

we didn't fool them with any subsequent chicanery....

(09-03-2017 01:14 PM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(09-03-2017 11:19 AM)Eagle9 Wrote:  You're wrong. They gave us light boxes with 4 and a half or 5 men the whole game. Kept 2 safeties back daring us to run it. And we couldn't. They had no need to add people to stop the run, so they didn't. They stayed back and defended against the deep ball, depending on 5 to stop the run. And they did. That's why we struggled on offense.

We struggled on offense because of the lack of effective QB play in the first half. Some QB play in the second half had us in a position to win. The fumble six and some very timely penalties killed that chance but we had it at least. Both teams were very strong against the run. We won't face a dline or linebackers like that again until Tennessee.

XACLY!

the zebras did just fine until it mattered.....that being the case, there were 58 other mins. where we could've made a difference....