The unofficial online home for fans of the Old Dominion University Monarchs. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(10-02-2018 05:50 PM)Old Blue Wrote:  Doesn't matter a bit about Quarterbacks until we improve our offensive line situation. Big mobile offensive lineman should be our #1 priority moving forward. Give a guy time to operate and you can turn a lot of Qb's into outstanding ones.

Truth.
Running backs as well

The proper way to build an offense is always on the OL first.

(10-02-2018 05:50 PM)Old Blue Wrote:  Doesn't matter a bit about Quarterbacks until we improve our offensive line situation. Big mobile offensive lineman should be our #1 priority moving forward. Give a guy time to operate and you can turn a lot of Qb's into outstanding ones.

Yessir it all begins in the trenches.

I think the whole o line question is a chicken or egg question. Bad quarterbacks and running backs can make an o line look a lot worse than it is. So can bad play calling. The reason the o line was able to hold up against Tech and not ECU, in my opinion, has more to do with play calling. If we run for 1 yard on first down every time, then pass on 2nd & long, the defense can pin their ears back on those obvious passing plays. I think 1st down play calling was much more balanced against VT than in all the other games this season, otherwise, I think it has been terrible.

(10-03-2018 08:30 AM)Monarchblue Wrote:  I think the whole o line question is a chicken or egg question. Bad quarterbacks and running backs can make an o line look a lot worse than it is. So can bad play calling. The reason the o line was able to hold up against Tech and not ECU, in my opinion, has more to do with play calling. If we run for 1 yard on first down every time, then pass on 2nd & long, the defense can pin their ears back on those obvious passing plays. I think 1st down play calling was much more balanced against VT than in all the other games this season, otherwise, I think it has been terrible.

I stated my viewpoint after the VT game. I think VT made it very easy on us. Once ECU got torched the first drive, they decided to mostly sit back in zone and their their DE's get after the QB. Our gameplan of just throwing up the fade to Duhart had to be changed. I don't think we did a terrible job of moving the ball on ECU, but our tackles were abused by their DEs moreso than vs. VT because we held on to the ball longer having to read the defense.

Certainly QB/RB play makes the OL look good or bad. We still need to run the ball better to open up things through the air. We have to be able to run when teams play cover 2 or cover 3 with only 6 in the box.

(10-03-2018 10:22 AM)Gilesfan Wrote:  I stated my viewpoint after the VT game. I think VT made it very easy on us. Once ECU got torched the first drive, they decided to mostly sit back in zone and their their DE's get after the QB. Our gameplan of just throwing up the fade to Duhart had to be changed. I don't think we did a terrible job of moving the ball on ECU, but our tackles were abused by their DEs moreso than vs. VT because we held on to the ball longer having to read the defense.

Certainly QB/RB play makes the OL look good or bad. We still need to run the ball better to open up things through the air. We have to be able to run when teams play cover 2 or cover 3 with only 6 in the box.

Agree with this.

Additionally it wasn't just the zone. Their DBs were markedly taller than those of the Hokies. Against VT all we had to do was "alley oop". That was glaringly obvious with the pass to Duhart that was intercepted in the end zone.

I still think our OL looks particularly slow.
I am not sure if that is due to play design or the players themselves.

Don't think the ECU corners were a factor. They were beat like a drum anytime it was 1v1. The interception was simply Duhart miss timing his jump or that would have probably been a TD.

(10-03-2018 10:54 AM)ODUalum78 Wrote:  

(10-03-2018 10:22 AM)Gilesfan Wrote:  I stated my viewpoint after the VT game. I think VT made it very easy on us. Once ECU got torched the first drive, they decided to mostly sit back in zone and their their DE's get after the QB. Our gameplan of just throwing up the fade to Duhart had to be changed. I don't think we did a terrible job of moving the ball on ECU, but our tackles were abused by their DEs moreso than vs. VT because we held on to the ball longer having to read the defense.

Certainly QB/RB play makes the OL look good or bad. We still need to run the ball better to open up things through the air. We have to be able to run when teams play cover 2 or cover 3 with only 6 in the box.

Agree with this.

Additionally it wasn't just the zone. Their DBs were markedly taller than those of the Hokies. Against VT all we had to do was "alley oop". That was glaringly obvious with the pass to Duhart that was intercepted in the end zone.

I still think our OL looks particularly slow.
I am not sure if that is due to play design or the players themselves.

I have often wondered if it's possible to get objective data about players times in the 40 and other metrics. Is there any way to actually know if our guys are slow or just look that way.

One thing that stuck out for me a few games ago was seeing one of our O linemen lose contact with a defensive player and look like he was really making a half hearted effort to sustain the block. Very disappointing.

(10-03-2018 10:58 AM)Gilesfan Wrote:  Don't think the ECU corners were a factor. They were beat like a drum anytime it was 1v1. The interception was simply Duhart miss timing his jump or that would have probably been a TD.

I went back an watched that again. The corner was playing slightly soft to the outside but certainly was not "beat like a drum".
Duhart was open to the inside but the corner was close enough to have possibly gotten a hand on it had it been on target. Not an int, but possibly an incompletion. We'll never know.

In any event, The ball was overthrown. It wasn't on Duhart
and the corner was properly playing the ball.

https://youtu.be/yBB6Rxfme1k?t=93