(04-03-2018 01:15 PM)ucbandguy Wrote: Perhaps some one can check my memory...
However, my memory of last year was less of UC getting gashed on runs, and more of the passing defense being bad. And yes, lack of a good pass rush was a big part of that.
My memory was of a lot of 3rd and long pass completions (which kept the other team on the field and made our total rush defense #s look worse also.) So often, we could not get off the field. Does anyone have comparison #s on average yards per rush and how that stacks up with others? % of opposition first downs by rush and pass? I would be interested.
As someone alluded to, my memory was of more successful rushes against us to the edge than between the tackles. I don't have a good way to check that.
So my dream is for Vann to help both parts of that. DE helping set the edge on sweeps and pressuring the QB. I will try to keep my expectations short of "miracle worker" levels.
Also... The earlier mention of the Navy game made me very glad I had some out of town family obligations that week. I would have been miserable trying to sit still and watch.
Just reading someone mention the Navy game above got my blood boiling again. One of the most frustrating things I can recall watching. Navy running the same plays over and over and over with the exact same result.
(04-03-2018 01:15 PM)ucbandguy Wrote: Perhaps some one can check my memory...
However, my memory of last year was less of UC getting gashed on runs, and more of the passing defense being bad. And yes, lack of a good pass rush was a big part of that.
My memory was of a lot of 3rd and long pass completions (which kept the other team on the field and made our total rush defense #s look worse also.) So often, we could not get off the field. Does anyone have comparison #s on average yards per rush and how that stacks up with others? % of opposition first downs by rush and pass? I would be interested.
As someone alluded to, my memory was of more successful rushes against us to the edge than between the tackles. I don't have a good way to check that.
So my dream is for Vann to help both parts of that. DE helping set the edge on sweeps and pressuring the QB. I will try to keep my expectations short of "miracle worker" levels.
Also... The earlier mention of the Navy game made me very glad I had some out of town family obligations that week. I would have been miserable trying to sit still and watch.
Just reading someone mention the Navy game above got my blood boiling again. One of the most frustrating things I can recall watching. Navy running the same plays over and over and over with the exact same result.
...and it wasn't even like we were close. They were running through holes a mile wide.
(04-03-2018 01:15 PM)ucbandguy Wrote: Perhaps some one can check my memory...
However, my memory of last year was less of UC getting gashed on runs, and more of the passing defense being bad. And yes, lack of a good pass rush was a big part of that.
My memory was of a lot of 3rd and long pass completions (which kept the other team on the field and made our total rush defense #s look worse also.) So often, we could not get off the field. Does anyone have comparison #s on average yards per rush and how that stacks up with others? % of opposition first downs by rush and pass? I would be interested.
As someone alluded to, my memory was of more successful rushes against us to the edge than between the tackles. I don't have a good way to check that.
So my dream is for Vann to help both parts of that. DE helping set the edge on sweeps and pressuring the QB. I will try to keep my expectations short of "miracle worker" levels.
Also... The earlier mention of the Navy game made me very glad I had some out of town family obligations that week. I would have been miserable trying to sit still and watch.
Just reading someone mention the Navy game above got my blood boiling again. One of the most frustrating things I can recall watching. Navy running the same plays over and over and over with the exact same result.
...and it wasn't even like we were close. They were running through holes a mile wide.
No, they were running around the outside, not through holes. Their guys were blocking our linebackers, safeties, etc. to the point the Navy backs were 10-15 yards down field before they were touched. Watch the video:
(This post was last modified: 04-03-2018 01:38 PM by CliftonAve.)
(04-03-2018 01:15 PM)ucbandguy Wrote: Perhaps some one can check my memory...
However, my memory of last year was less of UC getting gashed on runs, and more of the passing defense being bad. And yes, lack of a good pass rush was a big part of that.
My memory was of a lot of 3rd and long pass completions (which kept the other team on the field and made our total rush defense #s look worse also.) So often, we could not get off the field. Does anyone have comparison #s on average yards per rush and how that stacks up with others? % of opposition first downs by rush and pass? I would be interested.
As someone alluded to, my memory was of more successful rushes against us to the edge than between the tackles. I don't have a good way to check that.
So my dream is for Vann to help both parts of that. DE helping set the edge on sweeps and pressuring the QB. I will try to keep my expectations short of "miracle worker" levels.
Also... The earlier mention of the Navy game made me very glad I had some out of town family obligations that week. I would have been miserable trying to sit still and watch.
Just reading someone mention the Navy game above got my blood boiling again. One of the most frustrating things I can recall watching. Navy running the same plays over and over and over with the exact same result.
...and it wasn't even like we were close. They were running through holes a mile wide.
No, they were running around the outside, not through holes. Their guys were blocking our linebackers, safeties, etc. to the point the Navy backs were 10-15 yards down field before they were touched. Watch the video:
A thousand pardons, sir. I must have left my book of football definitions at home today.
My casual reference to a "hole" just referred to an area that you could drive a Mack truck through, be it in the line or around the end.
(04-03-2018 02:36 PM)crex043 Wrote: Amazing we only lost by 10. Seemed like a lot more watching the game.
Yeah...our DB's looked like they'd never seen a Triple O in scout, the seniors on the edges had no clue how to attack a cue man and force a decision. Just sat back and waited until their read was 10 yards past them.
(04-03-2018 02:36 PM)crex043 Wrote: Amazing we only lost by 10. Seemed like a lot more watching the game.
Yeah...our DB's looked like they'd never seen a Triple O in scout, the seniors on the edges had no clue how to attack a cue man and force a decision. Just sat back and waited until their read was 10 yards past them.
Part of that was their blockers were just a ton better at blocking than our dbs at getting off blocks. We handled the option muck better Against Tulane but i think that was a personnel thing.
(04-03-2018 02:36 PM)crex043 Wrote: Amazing we only lost by 10. Seemed like a lot more watching the game.
In addition to being one of our worst defensive performances (I'd argue UCF was worse), this was also our best offensive performance of the season. We scored on all but three possessions. The score was 28-24 in the second half, our next possession was stymied and we then fumbled deep in Navy territory on the ensuing drive. Crazy to think those two drives were difference makers in us actually winning this game as bad as we were defensively.
04-04-2018 08:18 AM
BearcatMan
Kicking Connoisseur/Occasional Man Crush
Posts: 24,211
Joined: Jan 2009
Reputation: 590
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location:
(04-03-2018 02:36 PM)crex043 Wrote: Amazing we only lost by 10. Seemed like a lot more watching the game.
Yeah...our DB's looked like they'd never seen a Triple O in scout, the seniors on the edges had no clue how to attack a cue man and force a decision. Just sat back and waited until their read was 10 yards past them.
Part of that was their blockers were just a ton better at blocking than our dbs at getting off blocks. We handled the option muck better Against Tulane but i think that was a personnel thing.
For sure, still, we had players who looked like they just got off of Hooked on Phonics and were asked to read War and Peace the way they were reading plays against Navy.
(04-03-2018 02:36 PM)crex043 Wrote: Amazing we only lost by 10. Seemed like a lot more watching the game.
Yeah...our DB's looked like they'd never seen a Triple O in scout, the seniors on the edges had no clue how to attack a cue man and force a decision. Just sat back and waited until their read was 10 yards past them.
Part of that was their blockers were just a ton better at blocking than our dbs at getting off blocks. We handled the option muck better Against Tulane but i think that was a personnel thing.
I said it following that game, but I would have put back-up linebackers or DEs at CB before I let Navy ring up 600 yards on the ground the exact same way over and over.
/
Vann Driving For Immediate Playing Time
