Film breakdown: someone help me understand

[KnoxRealtorVOL]

Ok, so we have a bad offensive line. Groundbreaking news, I know. It seemed to have improved dramatically under Dobbs against Bama/SC/KY, then regressed dramatically against Mizzou and Vandy. It seems to me this can be credited to two things, MIzzou and Vandy have better D-lines than SC and KY, and the fact that for some reason against Mizzou we decided to experiment with using Dobbs like a pocket passer, and we stuck with that against Vandy as well. For both the Mizzou and Vandy game he was dropping back, and he was a sitting duck in a pocket that's as tough to break through as a wet paper towel.

Basically Bajakian for some reason decided to make Dobbs much more Worley-ish for our last two games, and I really don't understand why.

So this is my question to any football experts here on the board. One thing this offensive line does well is move. They are not strong, but they move extremely well. Now here is a clip of Dobbs' 2-point conversion against Mizzou. (It says "highlights" but it's just the 2-point conversion)

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuloD0Fw9GE[/youtube]

You notice that instead of just sitting him in the pocket, or running a predictable designed QB run, Dobbs does exactly what this offense is designed for, he makes a choice during the play, hence the read option. As you can see by the video, had we sat him in the pocket, he would have been sacked.... again.

He is able to make choice during the play because the play is designed to get the QB in motion right after the snap, so we load up on the right side, after the snap the offense shifts right, the RB's and tight ends who are being used as blockers shift right, and our EXTREMELY mobile QB goes out to the right. The play is successful.

So my question is multi-part.

1) Isn't this EXACTLY what you should be doing with a bad offensive line?

2) When you have a bad O-line and a very good mobile QB, why would you ever sit him in the pocket to throw? Why not just create blockers that move with him, and have the O-line shift with him, to buy him more time as he rolls out to make a decision?

3) Basically, bad O-line/ great mobile QB, why don't we see this or several variations of this 70-80% of the time?

 

[malinoisvol]

MiZzus defensive end made Dobbs stay in the pocket or run up the gut. They were that good. Imo

 

[K-town Vol Fan]

Dobbs had

24 carries against USC
10 carries against UK
17 carries vs Mizzou
21 carries against Vandy

Pocket passers don't usually rush 17 times per game. If anything he is running too much. I have serious doubts about him staying healthy the entire season running the ball 15-20 times per game.

 

[jkleno]

If you want to have your QB killed, then I would repeatedly run that type of play. It worked for this play, but we will be on QB3 in short order if we put our QB in that situation very often.

 

[TNVOLFN]

1&2) When you have a bad O-line and a very good mobile QB, why would you ever sit him in the pocket to throw? Why not just create blockers for him and have the O-line shift with him to buy him more time as he rolls out to make a decision?

If every pass was a rollout, then the defense would only have to defend 1/2 of the field. It would be extremely easy to rotate coverage and put someone in his face. Also, philosophically speaking, this offense (and the spread offense in general) is designed to make a defense defend the entire field (11 on 11) and make a defense pick their poison as to whether or not they want to add a defender to the box (close to the line of scrimmage), to the perimeter - both instances provide extra run support- or play with two deep safeties, which emphasizes pass defense and protects the seams... The clip you used above was certainly situational. Near the goaline, most teams are going to play some form of cover 0 (man coverage with no deep safety help). In this particular instance, the rollout was a great call, but notice he still had to make an extremely acrobatic play just to gain two yards.

3) Basically, bad O-line/ great mobile QB, why don't we see this or several variations of this 70-80% of the time?[/QUOTE]
Our best passing attack starts with a good run game. When we can affect the eye control of the defense, it opens up our passing attack tremendously. Any modern offense, whether zone read or traditional, must be able to implement a passing game from a set pocket. When we are able to run the ball successfully, it slows down the pass rush tremendously, which makes our offensive line look like a completely different unit. Add play action on top of that and you will see us rip off big chunks of yardage

 

[KnoxRealtorVOL]

If you want to have your QB killed, then I would repeatedly run that type of play. It worked for this play, but we will be on QB3 in short order if we put our QB in that situation very often.

Isn't "that type of play" the read option though? I mean I'm no expert, but I can't help but feel the video shows a pretty textbook example of the read option.

Not being argumentative, I really don't know the answer to that question. Why is this more of a QB injury risk than sitting him in the weakest pocket in the history of pockets?

 

[Dragon18]

Ok, so we have a bad offensive line. Groundbreaking news, I know. It seemed to have improved dramatically under Dobbs against Bama/SC/KY, then regressed dramatically against Mizzou and Vandy. It seems to me this can be credited to two things, MIzzou and Vandy have better D-lines than SC and KY, and the fact that for some reason against Mizzou we decided to experiment with using Dobbs like a pocket passer, and we stuck with that against Vandy as well. For both the Mizzou and Vandy game he was dropping back, and he was a sitting duck in a pocket that's as tough to break through as a wet paper towel.

Basically Bajakian for some reason decided to make Dobbs much more Worley-ish for our last two games, and I really don't understand why.

So this is my question to any football experts here on the board. One thing this offensive line does well is move. They are not strong, but they move extremely well. Now here is a clip of Dobbs' 2-point conversion against Mizzou. (It says "highlights" but it's just the 2-point conversion)

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuloD0Fw9GE[/youtube]

You notice that instead of just sitting him in the pocket, or running a predictable designed QB run, Dobbs does exactly what this offense is designed for, he makes a choice during the play, hence the read option. As you can see by the video, had we sat him in the pocket, he would have been sacked.... again.

He is able to make choice during the play because the play is designed to get the QB in motion right after the snap, so we load up on the right side, after the snap the offense shifts right, the RB's and tight ends who are being used as blockers shift right, and our EXTREMELY mobile QB goes out to the right. The play is successful.

So my question is multi-part.

1) Isn't this EXACTLY what you should be doing with a bad offensive line?

2) When you have a bad O-line and a very good mobile QB, why would you ever sit him in the pocket to throw? Why not just create blockers that move with him, and have the O-line shift with him, to buy him more time as he rolls out to make a decision?

3) Basically, bad O-line/ great mobile QB, why don't we see this or several variations of this 70-80% of the time?

There is so much more going on than what you are trying to boil it down to. I will simplify greatly though. Mizzou had defensive ends that effectively sealed Dobbs in the pocket and the entire d-line got push against our guys all night. He had nowhere to "escape" to. In the play you are looking at he was able to get a deep outside drop and there was a rare gap he could exploit. Keep in mind that even this play was only a 3 yard gain.

With Vandy he was without Hurd... 'Nuff said. You can't take a weapon like that away along with our injuries in our receiver corp and not expect anything other than a complete sellout to stop Dobbs and dare us to beat them with a depleted receiver team and Marlin Lane.

You can't scheme your way out of everything (even if some on VN think so) and at some point the players have to win the game by winning their match-ups. They did against Vandy but not against Mizzou.

My $.02.

 

[jkleno]

Isn't "that type of play" the read option though? I mean I'm no expert, but I can't help but feel the video shows a pretty textbook example of the read option.

Not being argumentative, I really don't know the answer to that question. Why is this more of a QB injury risk than sitting him in the weakest pocket in the history of pockets?

I agree with you about the injury risk with our line. Rolling Dobbs allows him to more time to make the proper throw, but it does limit his progressions to probably 2 receivers since 1/2 the field is no longer in play. Unfortunately, we had to rely on that type of play way too much this year- QB's unique athletic ability vs poor line blocking. You can "get away" with more read option in college because the skill level isn't in place versus NFL. Russell Wilson could easily run a read option, but the Seahawks only sparingly run that offense because of the injury risk and defenses now designed to stop it (see Kap & Cam). I like to watch Mariotta run Oregon's offense. He will run a read option, but he is awesome in the pocket as well. I think CBJ's ideal QB would be someone like that who has the skill set to run and also the ability to stay in the pocket and be accurate. Just my thoughts. I am no where close to an expert, but those are just my observations.

 

[KnoxRealtorVOL]

1&2) When you have a bad O-line and a very good mobile QB, why would you ever sit him in the pocket to throw? Why not just create blockers for him and have the O-line shift with him to buy him more time as he rolls out to make a decision?

If every pass was a rollout, then the defense would only have to defend 1/2 of the field. It would be extremely easy to rotate coverage and put someone in his face. Also, philosophically speaking, this offense (and the spread offense in general) is designed to make a defense defend the entire field (11 on 11) and make a defense pick their poison as to whether or not they want to add a defender to the box (close to the line of scrimmage), to the perimeter - both instances provide extra run support- or play with two deep safeties, which emphasizes pass defense and protects the seams... The clip you used above was certainly situational. Near the goaline, most teams are going to play some form of cover 0 (man coverage with no deep safety help). In this particular instance, the rollout was a great call, but notice he still had to make an extremely acrobatic play just to gain two yards.

3) Basically, bad O-line/ great mobile QB, why don't we see this or several variations of this 70-80% of the time?Our best passing attack starts with a good run game. When we can affect the eye control of the defense, it opens up our passing attack tremendously. Any modern offense, whether zone read or traditional, must be able to implement a passing game from a set pocket. When we are able to run the ball successfully, it slows down the pass rush tremendously, which makes our offensive line look like a completely different unit. Add play action on top of that and you will see us rip off big chunks of yardage

Ok let's talk about the bolded for a second. Yes it was a red zone, near the goal line defense. Hence he had to make an acrobatic play for a short gain. However, had it not been a goal line defense, the option for Dobbs to throw downfield would have been on the table as well and the deep safety would have to go downfield. The defense would have had to focus a bit more on pass coverage to keep from getting burned and that would have likely resulted in less pressure on Dobbs.

The point is, Dobbs had time to make a decision, so he made the right one. He never has time to make a decision when we sit him in the pocket. Isn't a QB's discretion the basic concept of a read option? Wouldn't we want to run whatever scheme gives him the most time to make a decision? Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[jkleno]

Ok let's talk about the bolded for a second. Yes it was a red zone, near the goal line defense. Hence he had to make an acrobatic play for a short gain. However, had it not been a goal line defense, the option for Dobbs to throw downfield would have been on the table as well and the deep safety would have to go downfield. The defense would have had to focus a bit more on pass coverage to keep from getting burned and that would have likely resulted in less pressure on Dobbs.

The point is, Dobbs had time to make a decision, so he made the right one. He never has time to make a decision when we sit him in the pocket. Isn't a QB's discretion the basic concept of a read option? Wouldn't we want to run whatever scheme gives him the most time to make a decision? Correct me if I'm wrong.

The roll out would allow him more time, BUT at the same time it restricts the throw to only 1 side of the field. True though- if you don't have time to throw, then it truly doesn't matter. Bottom line- it's never a good scenario when you have to adjust an entire game plan to compensate for a glaring weakness.

 

[Tennman]

Pig completely by himself in the endzone from 28 second mark on.

 

[lonelawyer]

Missouri's defensive line was very impressive. Stunts, loops and speed made the O line's job tougher and gave Dobbs less time to read, react and improvise and on called drop back passes, many times the D ends played contain and their D tackles were able to get through and make the sack.

Against Vandy, Hurd was hurt. BEEEEEG problem for us.

 

[Boca Vol]

Dobbs had

24 carries against USC
10 carries against UK
17 carries vs Mizzou
21 carries against Vandy

Pocket passers don't usually rush 17 times per game. If anything he is running too much. I have serious doubts about him staying healthy the entire season running the ball 15-20 times per game.

This!

UT's OL didn't improve then regress. It's just that Dobbs was able to use his athletic ability which made it seem like the OL was playing significantly better.

Dobbs will not survive running 15-20 times per game.

 

[AndyMizunogolfer]

1&2) When you have a bad O-line and a very good mobile QB, why would you ever sit him in the pocket to throw? Why not just create blockers for him and have the O-line shift with him to buy him more time as he rolls out to make a decision?

If every pass was a rollout, then the defense would only have to defend 1/2 of the field. It would be extremely easy to rotate coverage and put someone in his face. Also, philosophically speaking, this offense (and the spread offense in general) is designed to make a defense defend the entire field (11 on 11) and make a defense pick their poison as to whether or not they want to add a defender to the box (close to the line of scrimmage), to the perimeter - both instances provide extra run support- or play with two deep safeties, which emphasizes pass defense and protects the seams... The clip you used above was certainly situational. Near the goaline, most teams are going to play some form of cover 0 (man coverage with no deep safety help). In this particular instance, the rollout was a great call, but notice he still had to make an extremely acrobatic play just to gain two yards.

3) Basically, bad O-line/ great mobile QB, why don't we see this or several variations of this 70-80% of the time?

Our best passing attack starts with a good run game. When we can affect the eye control of the defense, it opens up our passing attack tremendously. Any modern offense, whether zone read or traditional, must be able to implement a passing game from a set pocket. When we are able to run the ball successfully, it slows down the pass rush tremendously, which makes our offensive line look like a completely different unit. Add play action on top of that and you will see us rip off big chunks of yardage [/QUOTE]


Kiffin made Crompton look pretty good only using half the field rolling him out. Not to mention it made the patchwork of a line we had that year look pretty good as well. I would say the reason that it wouldn't work for us this year as it did for Kiffin was our TE play. It was downright terrible for the most part. They couldn't run a route or hold a block. Instead of our RB being able to leak out of the backfield to help be an outlet pass he was stuck blocking to save the QB's life. So the OP has a point. Rolling out can help a bad line if you have decent TE's who know their job.

 

[roddo518]

We had also reshuffled the line to account for the center being hurt before those last two games. The center makes line calls usually, so we regressed in line call adjustments more than likely. It seemed everytime we would get one issue ironed out another would pop up. Hurd being gone didn't help, he is one of the best pass blocking backs in the nation.

 

[TNVOLFN]

Ok let's talk about the bolded for a second. Yes it was a red zone, near the goal line defense. Hence he had to make an acrobatic play for a short gain. However, had it not been a goal line defense, the option for Dobbs to throw downfield would have been on the table as well and the deep safety would have to go downfield. The defense would have had to focus a bit more on pass coverage to keep from getting burned and that would have likely resulted in less pressure on Dobbs.

The point is, Dobbs had time to make a decision, so he made the right one. He never has time to make a decision when we sit him in the pocket. Isn't a QB's discretion the basic concept of a read option? Wouldn't we want to run whatever scheme gives him the most time to make a decision? Correct me if I'm wrong.

The rollout definitely has a place in our offense on any part of the field, with the exception of being on our own goaline... The point I was trying to make is that if the rollout was our only passing attack, any college staff in America and 90% of high school staffs would sniff that out in a heart beat.

Again, it all starts with success in our running game and I'm not talking about ripping off runs of 3 and 4 yds. It is when we gash opponents, just a few times, that really elevates our success in the passing game. That was the common denominator in our success against Bama, USCe, and KY.

 

[lexkyvol]

MiZzus defensive end made Dobbs stay in the pocket or run up the gut. They were that good. Imo

Use the rb to "seal block" the end outside-in and this is not a problem. afterwards, he can even leak-out for a dump pass

 

[olbemw7]

Missouri's defensive line was very impressive. Stunts, loops and speed made the O line's job tougher and gave Dobbs less time to read, react and improvise and on called drop back passes, many times the D ends played contain and their D tackles were able to get through and make the sack.

Against Vandy, Hurd was hurt. BEEEEEG problem for us.

Yes - literally everytime a DE would stunt, our OL would get confused or be slow to their assignment, always resulting in a missed block. Every time.

My question (since I don't know the ins and outs of OL play) is how hard is it to learn how to block against those types of schemes? I feel like it boils down to communication and should be something even freshman pick up on rather easily... and as such, I think our incompetence against stunts reflects poorly on the coaching.

 

[lexkyvol]

Yes - literally everytime a DE would stunt, our OL would get confused or be slow to their assignment, always resulting in a missed block. Every time.

My question (since I don't know the ins and outs of OL play) is how hard is it to learn how to block against those types of schemes? I feel like it boils down to communication and should be something even freshman pick up on rather easily... and as such, I think our incompetence against stunts reflects poorly on the coaching.

its like u just know its coming too

 

[TNVOLFN]

Our best passing attack starts with a good run game. When we can affect the eye control of the defense, it opens up our passing attack tremendously. Any modern offense, whether zone read or traditional, must be able to implement a passing game from a set pocket. When we are able to run the ball successfully, it slows down the pass rush tremendously, which makes our offensive line look like a completely different unit. Add play action on top of that and you will see us rip off big chunks of yardage

Kiffin made Crompton look pretty good only using half the field rolling him out. Not to mention it made the patchwork of a line we had that year look pretty good as well. I would say the reason that it wouldn't work for us this year as it did for Kiffin was our TE play. It was downright terrible for the most part. They couldn't run a route or hold a block. Instead of our RB being able to leak out of the backfield to help be an outlet pass he was stuck blocking to save the QB's life. So the OP has a point. Rolling out can help a bad line if you have decent TE's who know their job.[/QUOTE]

You are absolutely correct that UT had a lot of success using the rollout with Crompton, and, more specifically, the naked bootleg. However, I would say that Crompton still made many more pass attempts from the pocket. I would also venture to say that this offense utilizes the rollout even more than that coach did with Crompton.

With that being said, it still goes back to a successful running game. When the 2009 edition of the Vols started rolling, Montario Hardesty started rolling as well.

 

[AndyMizunogolfer]

Use the rb to "seal block" the end outside-in and this is not a problem. afterwards, he can even leak-out for a dump pass

Our RB couldn't seal block he was having to take on a DE or a DT instead of a DB/OLB. The TE play was terrible this year. Our RB was having to take up the slack.

 

[Catbone]

We lost Crowder against Missouri and Vandy too didn't we?

 

[AndyMizunogolfer]

[you are absolutely correct that UT had a lot of success using the rollout with Crompton, and, more specifically, the naked bootleg. However, I would say that Crompton still made many more pass attempts from the pocket. I would also venture to say that this offense utilizes the rollout even more than that coach did with Crompton.

With that being said, it still goes back to a successful running game. When the 2009 edition of the Vols started rolling, Montario Hardesty started rolling as well.[/QUOTE]

Biggest difference was the TE play that year.

 

[sjt18]

Mizzou beats you with scheme... so really for them it isn't about the "Jimmie's and Joes". Good news is their long time DC is taking the HC job at Mo State.

They play very good assignment football. They played a Tampa-2 against UT most of that game. They practically dared UT to throw it deep. They crowded all of the underneath stuff. They worked down and distance... then cut their DE's loose. They do it well but it isn't a mystery what they're going to do... I think we even discussed it before the game.

To answer you, UT WAS predictable also.

Mizzou's DL whipped UT's OL. Not really newsworthy but they didn't give Dobbs room to take off and were still able to collapse the pocket.

Dobbs made some mistakes in the pocket as well. He stepped into pressure a few times.

One reason beyond Bajakian's immediate control was the missing WR's. They needed someone who could get open deep.

 

[TNVOLFN]

[you are absolutely correct that UT had a lot of success using the rollout with Crompton, and, more specifically, the naked bootleg. However, I would say that Crompton still made many more pass attempts from the pocket. I would also venture to say that this offense utilizes the rollout even more than that coach did with Crompton.

With that being said, it still goes back to a successful running game. When the 2009 edition of the Vols started rolling, Montario Hardesty started rolling as well.

Biggest difference was the TE play that year.[/QUOTE]

The biggest difference was a completely different scheme.