Many of us on here (me included) have stated that the football team's success or failure will be determined by whether or not our O-Line can play at the MAC level. Let's grade them each game.
Here is what CC believes:
“I think our O-line is a microcosm of our team,” Creighton said. “Our line has a lot of confidence and feels as though they are sick and tired of hearing about the question mark on the offensive line. We are really coming along. There is going to be some new names, but we are not talking about rolling freshmen in there. There are guys we have been bringing along. They have to go do it on Saturday, but we feel like they are developing.”
(08-31-2017 01:57 PM)Luckeyone Wrote: [ -> ]Many of us on here (me included) have stated that the football team's success or failure will be determined by whether or not our O-Line can play at the MAC level. Let's grade them each game.
Here is what CC believes:
“I think our O-line is a microcosm of our team,” Creighton said. “Our line has a lot of confidence and feels as though they are sick and tired of hearing about the question mark on the offensive line. We are really coming along. There is going to be some new names, but we are not talking about rolling freshmen in there. There are guys we have been bringing along. They have to go do it on Saturday, but we feel like they are developing.”
Fingers crossed. According to the Charlotte visitor yesterday, a primary weakness of their team is the DLine. Combine this, with overall Conference USA talent in general, and we should be alright for this first game.
The big test will come against Rutgers, game 2.
(08-31-2017 01:57 PM)Luckeyone Wrote: [ -> ]Many of us on here (me included) have stated that the football team's success or failure will be determined by whether or not our O-Line can play at the MAC level. Let's grade them each game.
Here is what CC believes:
“I think our O-line is a microcosm of our team,” Creighton said. “Our line has a lot of confidence and feels as though they are sick and tired of hearing about the question mark on the offensive line. We are really coming along. There is going to be some new names, but we are not talking about rolling freshmen in there. There are guys we have been bringing along. They have to go do it on Saturday, but we feel like they are developing.”
Is 'developing' (like potential) mean you ain't where you'd want to be???
(08-31-2017 04:58 PM)emu steve Wrote: [ -> ] (08-31-2017 01:57 PM)Luckeyone Wrote: [ -> ]Many of us on here (me included) have stated that the football team's success or failure will be determined by whether or not our O-Line can play at the MAC level. Let's grade them each game.
Here is what CC believes:
“I think our O-line is a microcosm of our team,” Creighton said. “Our line has a lot of confidence and feels as though they are sick and tired of hearing about the question mark on the offensive line. We are really coming along. There is going to be some new names, but we are not talking about rolling freshmen in there. There are guys we have been bringing along. They have to go do it on Saturday, but we feel like they are developing.”
Is 'developing' (like potential) mean you ain't where you'd want to be???
Correct they weren't as bad as I thought I might see against Charlotte but not impressive either.
ETOUGH could you grade the line from your perspective?
I watched our RT Nielsen a few times and his footwork while pass blocking looked pretty good. Your thoughts by position?
Not going to grade position by position, but Creighton was obviously exaggerating comparing this line to last year's. It looks like Keen has also changed the scheme, going to more zone blocking. last year they did a lot of pulling and this game was mostly just the entire line flowing one way in a zone scheme.
Hopefully we were holding back the playbook for Rutgers. I definitely believe we were in the second half because we knew we had the game in hand and became very conservative. Roback could complete the short 10 yarders at will when allowed to.
Vann had like 90 yards on 26 carries I believe, but 20 of that was on the first run of the game. Take that away and he didn't even average 3 per carry.......not good! Against a weak DLine, we got no push up front and everything would just flow one way and collapse into a big pile after 2-3 yards. No push and no running lanes.
The other huge disappointment was that Turner didn't even touch the field, and he's our 2nd most talented back. He was not injured either. If I'm him and that continues, I'm transferring.
Pass blocking seemed decent, only gave up 1 sack, which was probably on Brogan for holding the ball and scrambling around too long. Tough to make any real judgements because Charlotte has a weak DLine and no real pass rushers.
As I said before this game. Rutgers will be the real test. Don't see a lot changing in the run game, and I'd be shocked if we get 100 yards rushing, so the only shot I think we have for an upset is cutting Roback loose to take advantage of our primary strengths at QB & WR. If we stubbornly try to 'establish' the run it's going to be a long day. Realistically we're a 2 TD dog in this game, and anybody who thinks we're just as talented, or 'should' beat these guys is delusional. It's possible of course, but we'd have to play perfect, and win the turnover battle by 2+.
The coaches now have a lot of OL film, so hopefully they see areas to improve and make adjustments.
Bottom line, got the WIN, and NO injuries! One game at a time.
(09-03-2017 09:55 AM)EagleTough Wrote: [ -> ]Not going to grade position by position, but Creighton was obviously exaggerating comparing this line to last year's. It looks like Keen has also changed the scheme, going to more zone blocking. last year they did a lot of pulling and this game was mostly just the entire line flowing one way in a zone scheme.
Hopefully we were holding back the playbook for Rutgers. I definitely believe we were in the second half because we knew we had the game in hand and became very conservative. Roback could complete the short 10 yarders at will when allowed to.
Vann had like 90 yards on 26 carries I believe, but 20 of that was on the first run of the game. Take that away and he didn't even average 3 per carry.......not good! Against a weak DLine, we got no push up front and everything would just flow one way and collapse into a big pile after 2-3 yards. No push and no running lanes.
The other huge disappointment was that Turner didn't even touch the field, and he's our 2nd most talented back. He was not injured either. If I'm him and that continues, I'm transferring.
Pass blocking seemed decent, only gave up 1 sack, which was probably on Brogan for holding the ball and scrambling around too long. Tough to make any real judgements because Charlotte has a weak DLine and no real pass rushers.
As I said before this game. Rutgers will be the real test. Don't see a lot changing in the run game, and I'd be shocked if we get 100 yards rushing, so the only shot I think we have for an upset is cutting Roback loose to take advantage of our primary strengths at QB & WR. If we stubbornly try to 'establish' the run it's going to be a long day. Realistically we're a 2 TD dog in this game, and anybody who thinks we're just as talented, or 'should' beat these guys is delusional. It's possible of course, but we'd have to play perfect, and win the turnover battle by 2+.
The coaches now have a lot of OL film, so hopefully they see areas to improve and make adjustments.
Bottom line, got the WIN, and NO injuries! One game at a time.
This should be interesting. BEFORE the season began, Rutgers would have been say a 4 point favorite, home field, according to the Sagarins.
Rutgers will get a bump from their game vs. Washington, Friday.
I'll guess: Rutgers by 7 or 8.
(09-03-2017 09:55 AM)EagleTough Wrote: [ -> ]Not going to grade position by position, but Creighton was obviously exaggerating comparing this line to last year's. It looks like Keen has also changed the scheme, going to more zone blocking. last year they did a lot of pulling and this game was mostly just the entire line flowing one way in a zone scheme.
Hopefully we were holding back the playbook for Rutgers. I definitely believe we were in the second half because we knew we had the game in hand and became very conservative. Roback could complete the short 10 yarders at will when allowed to.
Vann had like 90 yards on 26 carries I believe, but 20 of that was on the first run of the game. Take that away and he didn't even average 3 per carry.......not good! Against a weak DLine, we got no push up front and everything would just flow one way and collapse into a big pile after 2-3 yards. No push and no running lanes.
The other huge disappointment was that Turner didn't even touch the field, and he's our 2nd most talented back. He was not injured either. If I'm him and that continues, I'm transferring.
Pass blocking seemed decent, only gave up 1 sack, which was probably on Brogan for holding the ball and scrambling around too long. Tough to make any real judgements because Charlotte has a weak DLine and no real pass rushers.
As I said before this game. Rutgers will be the real test. Don't see a lot changing in the run game, and I'd be shocked if we get 100 yards rushing, so the only shot I think we have for an upset is cutting Roback loose to take advantage of our primary strengths at QB & WR. If we stubbornly try to 'establish' the run it's going to be a long day. Realistically we're a 2 TD dog in this game, and anybody who thinks we're just as talented, or 'should' beat these guys is delusional. It's possible of course, but we'd have to play perfect, and win the turnover battle by 2+.
The coaches now have a lot of OL film, so hopefully they see areas to improve and make adjustments.
Bottom line, got the WIN, and NO injuries! One game at a time.
ETough,
Agree our run blocking needs much improvement! Excluding Erickson's short yardage TD run where the O-Line pushed the pile into the end zone, the O-Line could not open up gaping holes for the RBs.
We need Breck Turner in there and I'm surprised he didn't play.
Bottom line in all levels of football: If you want to win on a consistent basis, you have to be able to run the ball on offense and stop the run on defense!!!
Hopefully our O-Line improves game to game quickly!!
The MAC champion will probably average 200 yards per game rushing.
The OLine will improve marginally, that's it. This isn't an experience issue, it's a talent issue. Again, that doesn't mean we can't have a very successful offense, it just means that Keen has to adjust and play to our strengths. As everyone saw, we have no TE. We rotated Andrews in as strictly a blocker (he is not a TE, never will be) and Fields as a pretend normal TE (4th stringer who Roback will never throw to). We also tried that jumbo set with Andrews and a FB at the same time, and that didn't work either. We can't line up 8 vs 8, or 9 vs 9 and win those blocking battles. Buschman done, Kemp hurt & didn't even dress, Oakes nowhere near ready and redshirting.............it is what it is.
We have no TE, we'll be average at best on OL, and we have a good QB, RB's, and WR's. It's up to the staff to figure it out.
We should see a lot more RPO vs. Rutgers. Instead of Roback just handing it off to single back on zone run to get washed out in 2-3 yards, he'll probably pull it a lot more and roll out to throw...........only pulling it to run if he's got a wide open lane for 10 yards.
They absolutely limited the playbook, so it will be interesting to see how they open it up against Rutgers.
This is what the OLine will be up against this week:
http://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/index...._go_t.html
If the some of the starters return as 5th year seniors there may be marginal improvement next year. I'm thinking we'll be hitting the JUCOs hard to fill some holes or improve next year. If Turner is faster to hit the blocking holes his time will come this year, but eventually I see Turner as the featured back. Man we better be hitting the high school and juco ranks for some TEs. I think this line is more suited as a pass protection line which is why they be doing zone blocking. They're not road graders.
On a different topic, what is Glass's status and if we fall behind at Rutgers do we see Stiebeling or Glass get a few reps?
Doubt it. If we fall behind Roback will just throw it 60 times.
Could have put backup QB's in the Charlotte game to hand the ball off when it became apparent that was the game plan early in the 4th qtr.
Need to get these guys reps anywhere we can, instead of padding Roback's stat lines.
Unlikely though.
(09-03-2017 12:15 PM)EagleTough Wrote: [ -> ]Doubt it. If we fall behind Roback will just throw it 60 times.
Could have put backup QB's in the Charlotte game to hand the ball off when it became apparent that was the game plan early in the 4th qtr.
Need to get these guys reps anywhere we can, instead of padding Roback's stat lines.
Unlikely though.
Agree we need to get the backup QBs reps since he's one snap away.
Rutgers is not the same team they were from last season. It will take a monumental effort to win this game.
(09-03-2017 01:22 PM)Luckeyone Wrote: [ -> ] (09-03-2017 12:15 PM)EagleTough Wrote: [ -> ]Doubt it. If we fall behind Roback will just throw it 60 times.
Could have put backup QB's in the Charlotte game to hand the ball off when it became apparent that was the game plan early in the 4th qtr.
Need to get these guys reps anywhere we can, instead of padding Roback's stat lines.
Unlikely though.
Agree we need to get the backup QBs reps since he's one snap away.
Rutgers is not the same team they were from last season. It will take a monumental effort to win this game.
I kind of think had emu scored one more touchdown in the Charlotte game that a second QB would have played the fourth quarter. They've got to find a way to give one of those guys some reps.
What's wrong with Kemp? Why was he not playing? Tight end it's obviously a recruiting priority. They will need at least one Juco and one freshman in the next class. They should be able to recruit a high-level player in this position considering immediate playing time is available. I also think that Kilby really screwed the pooch on this one.
(09-03-2017 01:30 PM)TheWoodenNickle Wrote: [ -> ] (09-03-2017 01:22 PM)Luckeyone Wrote: [ -> ] (09-03-2017 12:15 PM)EagleTough Wrote: [ -> ]Doubt it. If we fall behind Roback will just throw it 60 times.
Could have put backup QB's in the Charlotte game to hand the ball off when it became apparent that was the game plan early in the 4th qtr.
Need to get these guys reps anywhere we can, instead of padding Roback's stat lines.
Unlikely though.
Agree we need to get the backup QBs reps since he's one snap away.
Rutgers is not the same team they were from last season. It will take a monumental effort to win this game.
I kind of think had emu scored one more touchdown in the Charlotte game that a second QB would have played the fourth quarter. They've got to find a way to give one of those guys some reps.
What's wrong with Kemp? Why was he not playing? Tight end it's obviously a recruiting priority. They will need at least one Juco and one freshman in the next class. They should be able to recruit a high-level player in this position considering immediate playing time is available. I also think that Kilby really screwed the pooch on this one.
Kemp hurt. Kilby going to come out smelling like roses at a P5 school. Already caught a TD in his first Juco game. Considered a Top 5 Juco TE. Screwed EMU for sure. Zero chance he comes back. If they can't land 1 or 2 Juco TE's with the promise of immediate playing time, with our lack of TE depth, there's no hope.