Yds per attempt:
2021 3.21
2020 4.15
2019 5.21
2018 5.28
2017 5.12

good point to make (and good supporting data) is #1 issue facing this team right now

(09-20-2021 11:10 AM)PaulJ Wrote:  good point to make (and good supporting data) is #1 issue facing this team right now

Agree 100% - if we can rush AT ALL against CSU, we come away with a W. 21 yards on 28 is absurd and embarrassing. It gets worse when you realize it was 6 yards on 27 carries without Finn's run.

Have we stopped recruiting backs? We used to run two three out there every game. Now it seems like Koback is the only one getting carries. Different skilll sets seemed to work with different teams

Re-watched the 1st half offensive snaps this morning (that's all I could take) and have some amateur observations, from someone who does not coach FB, so this may all be bunk, I don't know. Venting helps ease the pain tho.

- Dumont did not look 100%. He got beat. A lot. They clearly miss Nick Rosi. A lot.
- The rest of the line wasn't much better. I don't think I saw a single run play where I would say any of the OL won their blocks convincingly. At best the held to draws. In pass protection, there were a small number of well blocked snaps, but mostly the CSU players were in Bradley's face before the WRs were into their routes. CSU did blitz a lot, and it seemed the blocking schemes were not prepared to handle those at all.
- They tried Doerger at C for one series, and Sciury at G for another and they didn't fair any better.
- Biggest run game problem though I thought was the TEs. Missed a number of blocks and/or got just overpowered at the line which blew up the play. UT's running game in recent years has relied heavily on TEs (Gilliam was an outstanding blocker, but before that UT had players like Fisher and Zmolik who were also outstanding blockers.)
- CSU LBs were reading the plays and in the holes almost before the play started. If you can't block them, there are other ways to redirect them away from point of the play, like WR screens (UT ran that twice to Maddox and both worked for good gains, but that was it, just twice. What is the old adage, if a play works, keep running it til they stop you? Another option is the Woodside-special RPO, which they ran once. Unfortunately Bradley read it wrong and threw to a covered WR. The edge was sealed on that, and a hand-off to Kobak likely could have been a big gain. Jet sweeps might have helped, but we don't appear to have that in the offense. The pitch play to Koback they ran against ND for a big play would have been another way to get Koback in open space, but they didn't run that at all. They ran one swing pass to Stuart for a decent gain, but just the one. No RB screens either. Play calling just seemed way too predictable IMO.

OK that's all. Don't know if I will have the courage to watch the 2nd half.

(09-20-2021 12:41 PM)northcoastRocket Wrote:  Re-watched the 1st half offensive snaps this morning (that's all I could take) and have some amateur observations, from someone who does not coach FB, so this may all be bunk, I don't know. Venting helps ease the pain tho.

- Dumont did not look 100%. He got beat. A lot. They clearly miss Nick Rosi. A lot.
- The rest of the line wasn't much better. I don't think I saw a single run play where I would say any of the OL won their blocks convincingly. At best the held to draws. In pass protection, there were a small number of well blocked snaps, but mostly the CSU players were in Bradley's face before the WRs were into their routes. CSU did blitz a lot, and it seemed the blocking schemes were not prepared to handle those at all.
- They tried Doerger at C for one series, and Sciury at G for another and they didn't fair any better.
- Biggest run game problem though I thought was the TEs. Missed a number of blocks and/or got just overpowered at the line which blew up the play. UT's running game in recent years has relied heavily on TEs (Gilliam was an outstanding blocker, but before that UT had players like Fisher and Zmolik who were also outstanding blockers.)
- CSU LBs were reading the plays and in the holes almost before the play started. If you can't block them, there are other ways to redirect them away from point of the play, like WR screens (UT ran that twice to Maddox and both worked for good gains, but that was it, just twice. What is the old adage, if a play works, keep running it til they stop you? Another option is the Woodside-special RPO, which they ran once. Unfortunately Bradley read it wrong and threw to a covered WR. The edge was sealed on that, and a hand-off to Kobak likely could have been a big gain. Jet sweeps might have helped, but we don't appear to have that in the offense. The pitch play to Koback they ran against ND for a big play would have been another way to get Koback in open space, but they didn't run that at all. They ran one swing pass to Stuart for a decent gain, but just the one. No RB screens either. Play calling just seemed way too predictable IMO.

OK that's all. Don't know if I will have the courage to watch the 2nd half.

good analysis, I think it is a combination of blocking, scheme, play calling, plus lack of RB depth, and breakaway speed. I don't think all of that can be fixed in next few months of season but some improvements are possible and needed if team is going to be succesful.

Kobak didn't have problem running away from ND's secondary on the play he broke. I agree, his take-off seems a bit shunted. Like any RB, he might occasionally go left when my view from on high shows the hole is right. In general, I'm not seeing holes in the line. Bout all he can do is push and hope.

Clearly some scheme and oline coaching issues. I rewinded one pass play where 3 olinemen blocked a single DT and no one noticed the LB blitzing right by them for the sack. Gotta have awareness and be active. I mean I only played a couple years of youth fb at tackle (after an early growth spurt) but I learned if you got no one to block in front of you, go find someone.

Defense looks great and well coached. That's my frustration. We finally got an elite defense and now the offense is junk.

Since I'm PittRocket, I'll give you some insight from a Pittsburgh viewpoint.

This year, the Steelers drafted RB Najee Harris in the 1st round of the draft. He is an amazing talent. For the most part, he has done nothing in the run game because there is nowhere for him to run. The run blocking by the Steelers O-line is not good. Even good backs need some help getting past the initial LOS, then the good backs will shine when into the 2nd level. Even the really good backs struggle if there is no hole. This is not a mysterious situation.

While Koback does look a bit slow to me, he has been serviceable/good in the past. I think the largest issue is the lack of an effective O-Line. Now...have we just forgotten how to recruit good lineman or is coaching of the O-line subpar? Or is play-calling poor? A combination of all of these? I found it hard to believe we don't have some talented lineman.

Here in Pittsburgh after WMU beat Pitt, the sport reporters were talking about how WMU's O-line manhandled Pitt's D-Line. How can Toledo not have some capable lineman?? (Although WMU got manhandled by Michigan a couple weeks ago)

(09-20-2021 12:41 PM)northcoastRocket Wrote:  Re-watched the 1st half offensive snaps this morning (that's all I could take) and have some amateur observations,

Possibly too obscur for you to remember, in the first half, after a 3rd down the CSU QB was sent off for losing a helmut. Then there was some review or something and CSU went for it on 4th with the same QB behind center. Does that ring a bell?

(09-20-2021 04:50 PM)PittRocket Wrote:  Since I'm PittRocket, I'll give you some insight from a Pittsburgh viewpoint.

This year, the Steelers drafted RB Najee Harris in the 1st round of the draft. He is an amazing talent. For the most part, he has done nothing in the run game because there is nowhere for him to run. The run blocking by the Steelers O-line is not good. Even good backs need some help getting past the initial LOS, then the good backs will shine when into the 2nd level. Even the really good backs struggle if there is no hole. This is not a mysterious situation.

While Koback does look a bit slow to me, he has been serviceable/good in the past. I think the largest issue is the lack of an effective O-Line. Now...have we just forgotten how to recruit good lineman or is coaching of the O-line subpar? Or is play-calling poor? A combination of all of these? I found it hard to believe we don't have some talented lineman.

Here in Pittsburgh after WMU beat Pitt, the sport reporters were talking about how WMU's O-line manhandled Pitt's D-Line. How can Toledo not have some capable lineman?? (Although WMU got manhandled by Michigan a couple weeks ago)

Our right tackle was owned.

(09-20-2021 05:19 PM)DetroitRocket Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 04:50 PM)PittRocket Wrote:  Since I'm PittRocket, I'll give you some insight from a Pittsburgh viewpoint.

This year, the Steelers drafted RB Najee Harris in the 1st round of the draft. He is an amazing talent. For the most part, he has done nothing in the run game because there is nowhere for him to run. The run blocking by the Steelers O-line is not good. Even good backs need some help getting past the initial LOS, then the good backs will shine when into the 2nd level. Even the really good backs struggle if there is no hole. This is not a mysterious situation.

While Koback does look a bit slow to me, he has been serviceable/good in the past. I think the largest issue is the lack of an effective O-Line. Now...have we just forgotten how to recruit good lineman or is coaching of the O-line subpar? Or is play-calling poor? A combination of all of these? I found it hard to believe we don't have some talented lineman.

Here in Pittsburgh after WMU beat Pitt, the sport reporters were talking about how WMU's O-line manhandled Pitt's D-Line. How can Toledo not have some capable lineman?? (Although WMU got manhandled by Michigan a couple weeks ago)

Our right tackle was owned.

Completely lost.

(09-20-2021 10:49 AM)Boca Rocket Wrote:  Yds per attempt:
2021 3.21
2020 4.15
2019 5.21
2018 5.28
2017 5.12

Telltale signs of inadequate offensive line play. I've noticed over the last few years, that Toledo seems to be landing O-linemen, who are being recruited by more FCS schools than bowl eligible schools. I'm seeing more "William&Mary and Youngstown, than a majority of MAC schools and lower/middle tier Power 5 schools.

(09-20-2021 07:36 PM)falconplucker Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 10:49 AM)Boca Rocket Wrote:  Yds per attempt:
2021 3.21
2020 4.15
2019 5.21
2018 5.28
2017 5.12

Telltale signs of inadequate offensive line play. I've noticed over the last few years, that Toledo seems to be landing O-linemen, who are being recruited by more FCS schools than bowl eligible schools. I'm seeing more "William&Mary and Youngstown, than a majority of MAC schools and lower/middle tier Power 5 schools.

To me, the bigger issue is the body-type of most of the OLmen. We've been pulling in guys who have basically 2-3 years in a college food and weight program to get to playing weight, whether because they are TEs who are being converted or just incredibly wiry guys who move people in D6 in Ohio.

(09-21-2021 09:04 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 07:36 PM)falconplucker Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 10:49 AM)Boca Rocket Wrote:  Yds per attempt:
2021 3.21
2020 4.15
2019 5.21
2018 5.28
2017 5.12

Telltale signs of inadequate offensive line play. I've noticed over the last few years, that Toledo seems to be landing O-linemen, who are being recruited by more FCS schools than bowl eligible schools. I'm seeing more "William&Mary and Youngstown, than a majority of MAC schools and lower/middle tier Power 5 schools.

To me, the bigger issue is the body-type of most of the OLmen. We've been pulling in guys who have basically 2-3 years in a college food and weight program to get to playing weight, whether because they are TEs who are being converted or just incredibly wiry guys who move people in D6 in Ohio.

This right here. I remember the GMAC bowl down in mobile back during the year hunt ran for about 10 tds — was standing by where the team came out of the locker room and when the o linemen walked past us, I was wowed. They were a unit. Big, strong looking dudes. What we have now is the polar opposite.

(09-21-2021 09:19 AM)adunifon Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 09:04 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 07:36 PM)falconplucker Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 10:49 AM)Boca Rocket Wrote:  Yds per attempt:
2021 3.21
2020 4.15
2019 5.21
2018 5.28
2017 5.12

Telltale signs of inadequate offensive line play. I've noticed over the last few years, that Toledo seems to be landing O-linemen, who are being recruited by more FCS schools than bowl eligible schools. I'm seeing more "William&Mary and Youngstown, than a majority of MAC schools and lower/middle tier Power 5 schools.

To me, the bigger issue is the body-type of most of the OLmen. We've been pulling in guys who have basically 2-3 years in a college food and weight program to get to playing weight, whether because they are TEs who are being converted or just incredibly wiry guys who move people in D6 in Ohio.

This right here. I remember the GMAC bowl down in mobile back during the year hunt ran for about 10 tds — was standing by where the team came out of the locker room and when the o linemen walked past us, I was wowed. They were a unit. Big, strong looking dudes. What we have now is the polar opposite.

I haven't looked at the depth chart since ND, but we have only one player taller than 6-4 on our 2 deep. We also have a backup at 255#. Agree about bringing in OL who need to put on 25-30 pounds.

(09-21-2021 09:28 AM)DetroitRocket Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 09:19 AM)adunifon Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 09:04 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 07:36 PM)falconplucker Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 10:49 AM)Boca Rocket Wrote:  Yds per attempt:
2021 3.21
2020 4.15
2019 5.21
2018 5.28
2017 5.12

Telltale signs of inadequate offensive line play. I've noticed over the last few years, that Toledo seems to be landing O-linemen, who are being recruited by more FCS schools than bowl eligible schools. I'm seeing more "William&Mary and Youngstown, than a majority of MAC schools and lower/middle tier Power 5 schools.

To me, the bigger issue is the body-type of most of the OLmen. We've been pulling in guys who have basically 2-3 years in a college food and weight program to get to playing weight, whether because they are TEs who are being converted or just incredibly wiry guys who move people in D6 in Ohio.

This right here. I remember the GMAC bowl down in mobile back during the year hunt ran for about 10 tds — was standing by where the team came out of the locker room and when the o linemen walked past us, I was wowed. They were a unit. Big, strong looking dudes. What we have now is the polar opposite.

I haven't looked at the depth chart since ND, but we have only one player taller than 6-4 on our 2 deep. We also have a backup at 255#. Agree about bringing in OL who need to put on 25-30 pounds.

Perhaps Candle has been going for a leaner more athletic O-Line, to help open the playbook on the shorter pass and screen plays. The 300lb guys of today do look a lot different than the 300lb guys of the 80s and 90s. Lots of teams have gone with more athletic build. It doesn't seem to be working here. I also agree that I'm not seeing a lot of the 6'6 guys.

(09-20-2021 12:06 PM)indianasniff Wrote:  Have we stopped recruiting backs? We used to run two three out there every game. Now it seems like Koback is the only one getting carries. Different skilll sets seemed to work with different teams

Nope.. O Line is not run blocking at all this year. Kareem could not run behind this group.

(09-21-2021 08:48 PM)AquaRocket Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 12:06 PM)indianasniff Wrote:  Have we stopped recruiting backs? We used to run two three out there every game. Now it seems like Koback is the only one getting carries. Different skilll sets seemed to work with different teams

Nope.. O Line is not run blocking at all this year. Kareem could not run behind this group.

Kareem still was capable of running over defenders.
.Logan's quick release and Mitch's running ability helped
to cover up for some of the OL's shortcomings.

(09-20-2021 04:50 PM)PittRocket Wrote:  Here in Pittsburgh after WMU beat Pitt, the sport reporters were talking about how WMU's O-line manhandled Pitt's D-Line. How can Toledo not have some capable lineman?? (Although WMU got manhandled by Michigan a couple weeks ago)

As a Bronco fan that was at the Pitt/WMU game, I would add this tidbit...

After any highly emotional contest...Pitt's win over Tennessee and Toledo's battle with ND...it is a challenge to see your next opponent with a value that is solely related to them. I think there was a degree of underestimation on both Pitt and UT's part relative to their opponent. Pitt's "We just handled Tennessee, WMU is just a MAC team...just show up and win" approach cost them. If you don't believe me, just watch the Panther-lair podcast...they were preaching the "just a MAC team" even after getting handled by them. UT had just played ND to the wire and were facing a winless CSU team at their place. This is actually my fear in WMU playing SJSU this weekend. We KNOW that SJSU is a good team...not just "sport speak" but legitimately good. The challenge is are we going to face them with the same intensity that we approached Pitt. I think one weird blessing in disguise is Lester testing positive for COVID. It creates a "rally the troops" moment and supersedes the other issue. The problem is that once you are in the sinking boat, it is hard to keep it afloat and head it in the right direction at the same time (sorry for the PJ Fleckism).

From a talent standpoint, I think that CSU, UT, Pitt, and WMU are pretty similar. Some would argue otherwise, but I think that is more a matter of depth than front line talent.

This drama is why we all watch the game.