Interesting film analysis - Kurt Warner on Hendon Hooker

#51
#51
If you go back to what Heupel said when he first got here he said the QB has to be able to make the right decision quickly and get the ball out of his hands. I would say overall Hendon did a very good job of that.
 
#52
#52
Kurt Warner did a film study on Hendon about a day ago and he made a few points I want to mention:
(KW chose the Ga game from this past season since it was our most challenging defense, and he prefers to watch an entire game rather than simply break down highlights only)
1). To him it was difficult to analyze HH because of our offense, but he strongly implied that HH tended to "latch on" to a receiver either immediately after the snap or even before. Tended to, not always of course. He also pointedly criticized our "one sided game" where the two off-side receivers simply "jog 5 yards" and quit running any route. Now this didn't happen the entire game, but it happened quite often. And this prevents the QB from reading the "big picture" to find openings that are there almost every play......even against an historically great defense. Mostly it limits Warner from assessing HH's read-ability of the developing play and so KW cannot assess Hendon's ability in that area easily.
I have said this before - I cannot stand this habit in our receivers. We have depth in the WR room.....why not everyone run your route? What happens when the QB's pre-determined choice is covered, and he needs a back up option? In fact KW showed exactly this result where the R side was covered and H had to scramble back to his Left and the receivers on that side acted lost.
2). KW suggested H had a tendency (in this game at least) to panic a bit early and by-pass the opportunity to read the defense at snap and opt for the easier check-down throw. In fairness, Hendon completed many of these balls to his pre-ordained choice, but Warner was simply discussing how a college qb can elevate himself on these opportunities.
3). KW implied that H does not read the defense in general and has a tendency to commit to a WR before giving the play a chance to develop. In other words, Warner asks the question...."can HH develop the ability to do this more often at the next level? It may be a fair question.

It must be said that this was H's poorest game probably, and that he WAS IN FACT playing a really gifted defense. I would think one needs to be more complete in film analysis over a broader context to fairly judge. However, the sloppy "jog 5 yards" irritates me to no end. Its against the #1 team in the country in their house.....can we not fully run the routes please, at least for this opponent?

Another point I noticed.....remarkable how on nearly EVERY play, Georgia DB's were grabbing our receivers with one and sometime two hands when they made their cut in the route. Disgusting and allowed to happen all day long by refs.

A bigger question is this......I'm a bit concerned that Heupel's offense will continue to get labelled as gimmicky or nutty and the perception begins to grow that this offense will penalize a promising qb from developing to his maximum. I'm not saying that is true, but am concerned that someone such as Kurt Warner who comes across as fair begins to modestly suggest the above then it can harm us in the long run of recruiting. Listen, Coach JH almost has NEVER had a mediocre qb run his system, and so credit has to go to him for developing a platform where even average qb's can thrive.....but to climb to the top consistently, do we need to prove a qb can develop to an elite level while he is here? Obviously, Georgia won with a "game manager" talent in Stetson, so it can be done.....but to do so means you surround that game manager with elite talent 2 and 3 deep. Just a question I'm asking.
KW's breakdown on YTube: "Hooker | Part 2 of 2 | College QB Pre-Draft Preview – Kurt Warner Game Tape Breakdown"
When you have a hot horse ride him until another hot horse appears. The one sided offense can be very effective when you have the horses. It can also open up the other side when you use both side because the second defense tends to get caught looking to the other side and the RB and/ TE can sneak in behind them and be wide open for a TD. It also openness up the middle of the field for the TE. This happened a few times last year.
 
#53
#53
Why would any offense want to eliminate half the field? That makes no sense. Nor does the idea of designing plays specifically for one receiver--because if that receiver is well covered then you have /nobody/ to whom to throw the ball. I don't know if this is our philosophy--I rather doubt it, really, because it doesn't make sense. The idea that your scheme is going to be so brilliant and so confusing to the defense that your target receiver is going to be open every time doesn't make sense, because you're not going to confuse a defense or defensive backs on every pass play--not even close--even though we did apparently confuse Alabama and others.
I suppose it's good that Warner watched the Georgia game because pro defenses are going to be tough. Unfortunately, our offense was terrible in that game. Our receivers could not get open, Hooker wasn't good and we struggled to move the ball the entire game.
Certainly, reading a defense and making your progressions--if your first choice receiver is not open--is crucial for an NFL QB, and you've got to make reads and decisions quickly. I think Hooker will be able to read defenses, pre-snap. What I see him perhaps struggling with is getting rid of the ball quickly. He often stood in the pocket a long time--and if you have the time to do so and it results in completion--hey, it's all good. Indeed, what better example of standing in the pocket and waiting for a receiver to come open then that last clutch throw against bama, which set up the game-winning FG. To me that was Hooker's best play of the year. But you're not going to have the time to throw in the NFL that you have in college, that's for sure. Making a decision and getting the throw off are key. Getting rid of the ball, by the way, was Steve Spurrier's mantra as a coach--no doubt because he was a college and pro QB himself. He would go ballistic at Florida practices, back in the day, if his QBs held the ball too long.
Hooker certainly looks more ready for the NFL, to me, than Richardson or Levis. I don't care how athletic Richardson is, playing QB is mostly about decision-making and accuracy. And Levis didn't impress me in our game against Kentucky this year--and he threw a LOT of interceptions the last two years. We'll see how it all shakes out.

You: I don't care how athletic Richardson is, playing QB is mostly about decision-making and accuracy. I don't care how athletic Richardson is, playing QB is mostly about decision-making and accuracy.
Not to disagree with you, but there are a few Richardsonic players that would like to speak to you:
Michael Vick - Roger Staubach - Greg Landry - Donovan McNabb - Sammy Baugh - Randall Cunningham - Bobby Douglas -Steve McNair - Fran Tarkenton - Randall Cunningham

Just to name a few who were ridiculous athletic QBs who got away with being better or as good scramblers than they were passers. This doesn't nullify what you said, it does indicate that loose cannon type QBs can, and do mean the difference between winning and losing for their team.
 
#54
#54
Kurt Warner did a film study on Hendon about a day ago and he made a few points I want to mention:
(KW chose the Ga game from this past season since it was our most challenging defense, and he prefers to watch an entire game rather than simply break down highlights only)
1). To him it was difficult to analyze HH because of our offense, but he strongly implied that HH tended to "latch on" to a receiver either immediately after the snap or even before. Tended to, not always of course. He also pointedly criticized our "one sided game" where the two off-side receivers simply "jog 5 yards" and quit running any route. Now this didn't happen the entire game, but it happened quite often. And this prevents the QB from reading the "big picture" to find openings that are there almost every play......even against an historically great defense. Mostly it limits Warner from assessing HH's read-ability of the developing play and so KW cannot assess Hendon's ability in that area easily.
I have said this before - I cannot stand this habit in our receivers. We have depth in the WR room.....why not everyone run your route? What happens when the QB's pre-determined choice is covered, and he needs a back up option? In fact KW showed exactly this result where the R side was covered and H had to scramble back to his Left and the receivers on that side acted lost.
2). KW suggested H had a tendency (in this game at least) to panic a bit early and by-pass the opportunity to read the defense at snap and opt for the easier check-down throw. In fairness, Hendon completed many of these balls to his pre-ordained choice, but Warner was simply discussing how a college qb can elevate himself on these opportunities.
3). KW implied that H does not read the defense in general and has a tendency to commit to a WR before giving the play a chance to develop. In other words, Warner asks the question...."can HH develop the ability to do this more often at the next level? It may be a fair question.

It must be said that this was H's poorest game probably, and that he WAS IN FACT playing a really gifted defense. I would think one needs to be more complete in film analysis over a broader context to fairly judge. However, the sloppy "jog 5 yards" irritates me to no end. Its against the #1 team in the country in their house.....can we not fully run the routes please, at least for this opponent?

Another point I noticed.....remarkable how on nearly EVERY play, Georgia DB's were grabbing our receivers with one and sometime two hands when they made their cut in the route. Disgusting and allowed to happen all day long by refs.

A bigger question is this......I'm a bit concerned that Heupel's offense will continue to get labelled as gimmicky or nutty and the perception begins to grow that this offense will penalize a promising qb from developing to his maximum. I'm not saying that is true, but am concerned that someone such as Kurt Warner who comes across as fair begins to modestly suggest the above then it can harm us in the long run of recruiting. Listen, Coach JH almost has NEVER had a mediocre qb run his system, and so credit has to go to him for developing a platform where even average qb's can thrive.....but to climb to the top consistently, do we need to prove a qb can develop to an elite level while he is here? Obviously, Georgia won with a "game manager" talent in Stetson, so it can be done.....but to do so means you surround that game manager with elite talent 2 and 3 deep. Just a question I'm asking.
KW's breakdown on YTube: "Hooker | Part 2 of 2 | College QB Pre-Draft Preview – Kurt Warner Game Tape Breakdown"
Likely a good reason why they shut us down. The reason they aren’t running every play is tempo. If you know you aren’t getting the ball then you don’t want to exhaust yourself. Heupel will have to adjust because his offense is primarily due to tempo. Most the read is pre snap because the QB has to see where the alignment issues happen. In UGAs case, they were scheming for us through the year. They were very physical with our receivers off the line, and had us behind the sticks all game. I’d say Saban will attempt this as well.

Solution? Have a dominant running game, so coverage can’t cheat.
 
#55
#55
Hendon did exactly what he was supposed to do within our offense. I’d argue that he made our team look much better at times than the talent that we actually possessed on the team. He didn’t play in a pro style offense so I think it’s unfair to judge him based on a pro style offense. I suspect between his talent level and smarts he can be coached into a pro system, even if it takes a few seasons. Coming off of the injury he will have ample time to do that. I’m no scout, but based on his character and talent alone, I suspect someone will be willing to take that chance on him. Good luck to the VFL.
 
#56
#56
Likely a good reason why they shut us down. The reason they aren’t running every play is tempo. If you know you aren’t getting the ball then you don’t want to exhaust yourself. Heupel will have to adjust because his offense is primarily due to tempo. Most the read is pre snap because the QB has to see where the alignment issues happen. In UGAs case, they were scheming for us through the year. They were very physical with our receivers off the line, and had us behind the sticks all game. I’d say Saban will attempt this as well.

Solution? Have a dominant running game, so coverage can’t cheat.

The UGA holds helped also taking away one side of the field.
 
#58
#58
We aren’t confusing anyone. Nor is it really our goal. Our offense is does few things but does them incredibly well. When confusion does occur it’s based more on tempo than route design. Our route tree is simple and more limited than most teams.

The reason we can rely on one guy being open most plays is the defense simply can’t take away everything. If the DB is taking away the go route, they’re by nature giving up the hitch. If they’re taking away the hitch by nature they’re giving up the go route. So the WR is going to simply see how the DB is playing him as he runs and adjust from there. If he’s inside, I do x, outside I do y, deep I do z, and so on
Quoted for truth. A few folks in this thread seem hesitant to believe it's this simple.

It's this simple.

The defenders have to choose what (where) they'll defend. Our offense is simply designed to let our WR (and QB, by watching the WR) choose where we'll attack after the defense has made their choice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol8188
#59
#59
Quoted for truth. A few folks in this thread seem hesitant to believe it's this simple.

It's this simple.
The defenders have to choose what (where) they'll defend. Our offense is simply designed to let our WR (and QB, by watching the WR) choose where we'll attack after the defense has made their choice.

Fortunately, we had an OL good enough to give the QB the time needed to do this.
 
#60
#60
The UGA holds helped also taking away one side of the field.
UT kicking the living hell out of us at levels didn’t help either. We were completely overmatched in that game. A less motivated UGA team like the one Missou got, who knows.
 
#61
#61
Thank you for that. It would be educational to see it and understand it better......because lets face it, it give a terrible look to our system on first glance. It speaks of laziness, sloppiness, and apathy to be honest. In short, it implies so many things opposite of what the team is doing every day and working so hard to accomplish. Thus it seems so odd from the outside.

 
#63
#63
I don't buy the "substitution" excuse. Let a group of WR run one series and another run the next. These guys are 18-21 years old. They can manage running every other series. I look forward to the vid explaining our system.

Also, it is absolutely true that by not pulling the DB or Safety down the field, the qb has a smaller window to scramble within.....AND no 3rd/4th option to go to if needed.

you realize this was the number 1 offense in the country last year? Yeah, let’s change it. FMR. I love the coaching expertise here
 
#64
#64
The WR Hendon always latched onto was Tillman. Tillman came back against UGA. We don't always have 2 Wrs not running routes but it's to mainly keep them fresh and maybe they aren't needed on that play. Don't 100% understand every detail of the system.

You can go back to the 1st two games that Milton started in 21 and it’s very obvious that all the receivers were goin out on every play. When Hooker became the starter is when you started to see two guys just staying at the line of scrimmage. I’ve wondered if that was because hooker lacked the arm strength to throw deep on the wide side of the field or if it was to make it to where he only had to read half the field. Either way Hooker was very good, which makes the future so exciting.
 
#65
#65
You: I don't care how athletic Richardson is, playing QB is mostly about decision-making and accuracy. I don't care how athletic Richardson is, playing QB is mostly about decision-making and accuracy.
Not to disagree with you, but there are a few Richardsonic players that would like to speak to you:
Michael Vick - Roger Staubach - Greg Landry - Donovan McNabb - Sammy Baugh - Randall Cunningham - Bobby Douglas -Steve McNair - Fran Tarkenton - Randall Cunningham

Just to name a few who were ridiculous athletic QBs who got away with being better or as good scramblers than they were passers. This doesn't nullify what you said, it does indicate that loose cannon type QBs can, and do mean the difference between winning and losing for their team.

You are right--Richardson has the potential to be very good--but he's not really a good QB now, even Florida fans are quick to say that (heard two of them on the radio yesterday). It's a question of whether he can develop when it comes to decision-making, making reads, etc. etc. I don't recall McNair or McNabb running that much. They were both good QBs, however. We'll see. I would say my main point is that NFL teams reach every year when it comes to QBs. Look at the Niners--gave up a ton to move up in the draft to get Trey Lance--who, though he got hurt and missed most of last season, hasn't really shown much yet. You know who did show a lot last year---Brock Purdy, last player taken in the draft. (It's going to be interesting who wins that job next season in SF.) The NBA drafts a ton of guys on potential, which I find bizarre, because you give first-round money to guys who are not ready and who are going to spend a lot of time on the bench for at least two years and who often don't make it at all. The league is full of one-and-done's sitting on the bench and getting limited minutes.
 
#66
#66
I think a factor that works in Hooker's favor is he is coachable. The guy wants to learn, and has shown his ability to develop from VT to this past season. He may not "read" the defense well as Kurt suggests, but I have no doubts Hooker could learn if a NFL coach gives him a chance. I think that and football IQ can account for a lot. The game is more mental than some people want to give credit for.

I definitely think Heupel is great at coaching up players, but it's a two way street; you also need players who want to learn, which is something I think our current coaching staff looks for in recruits.
 
#67
#67
I understand Kurt Warner is an expert at filling shelves with food at the Cedar Falls Hy-Vee grocery store.

Come on man. Warner was an elite NFL QB and a hall of famer. You can disagree with his analysis of Hooker, I do, yet still recognize his abilities as a QB.
 
#68
#68
You: I don't care how athletic Richardson is, playing QB is mostly about decision-making and accuracy. I don't care how athletic Richardson is, playing QB is mostly about decision-making and accuracy.
Not to disagree with you, but there are a few Richardsonic players that would like to speak to you:
Michael Vick - Roger Staubach - Greg Landry - Donovan McNabb - Sammy Baugh - Randall Cunningham - Bobby Douglas -Steve McNair - Fran Tarkenton - Randall Cunningham

Just to name a few who were ridiculous athletic QBs who got away with being better or as good scramblers than they were passers. This doesn't nullify what you said, it does indicate that loose cannon type QBs can, and do mean the difference between winning and losing for their team.

An NFL QB cannot rely on their athletic abilities to be successful in the NFL. It’s not a recipe for success or long term health. Those guys you mentioned? Most of them are known primarily for their passing. A QB in the NFL has to be a pocket passer first and a runner second.
 
#69
#69
Hooker, or Milton, or whomever we have at QB must get the ball out quick. That's why half the field is eliminated pre snap. Our QB's make the read with the RB and then they are a statue... watch Milton specifically. They don't drop back the 6 or 7 yds. So the rush is coming. Georgia pressured HH last year with 3 or 4 rushers. Consequently, the had more players back in coverage.
 
#70
#70
Yes, I understand live and dead sides. All Im saying is that at first glance, and from outsiders like K Warner, it gives a crappy look. I certainly am not saying anyone in orange is lazy, sloppy, or apathetic. Just the look it gives makes my skin crawl.

Tbh, I don't think it matters how it "looks" as far as it looking lazy/apathetic or whatever. The fact is, anyone that is in a position to evaluate players at an NFL level should know how this offense works and the way this offense works is that WRs on one side of the field don't always run full routes because of the tempo of the offense and lack of subbing. Whether that adequately prepares a player (in this case HH) for the NFL is another discussion but there is no question that 1. It is clearly effective and 2. There is no laziness going on, that is just a function of the offense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol8188
#71
#71
You are right--Richardson has the potential to be very good--but he's not really a good QB now, even Florida fans are quick to say that (heard two of them on the radio yesterday). It's a question of whether he can develop when it comes to decision-making, making reads, etc. etc. I don't recall McNair or McNabb running that much. They were both good QBs, however. We'll see. I would say my main point is that NFL teams reach every year when it comes to QBs. Look at the Niners--gave up a ton to move up in the draft to get Trey Lance--who, though he got hurt and missed most of last season, hasn't really shown much yet. You know who did show a lot last year---Brock Purdy, last player taken in the draft. (It's going to be interesting who wins that job next season in SF.) The NBA drafts a ton of guys on potential, which I find bizarre, because you give first-round money to guys who are not ready and who are going to spend a lot of time on the bench for at least two years and who often don't make it at all. The league is full of one-and-done's sitting on the bench and getting limited minutes.

Understood. My point is there is a history from way back to now of QBs who were not that great as passers, but their legs made them successful. As for McNabb, I too don't recall him running much, but then I didn't watch him a lot, being a Packers and Commandeers (Redskins) fan. However, the few times I did watch, he had a knack for escaping sacks, career-wise he only rushed for a bit over 600 yards, but that doesn't factor in his scrambling to buy time to throw. I think he was similar to Roger The Dodger, and Frantic Fran in that aspect. So i included him as Richardsonic.

Got no idea how well the Galloping Gator will do, but it won't surprise me if he ends up doing very well. Much as it gags me to say so, he makes me think he's a Will-o-the-Wisp, and with the maneuverability of Herbie, the Love Bug. Providing he doesn't get RGIII'd by some LB or blitzing safety.
 
#72
#72
An NFL QB cannot rely on their athletic abilities to be successful in the NFL. It’s not a recipe for success or long term health. Those guys you mentioned? Most of them are known primarily for their passing. A QB in the NFL has to be a pocket passer first and a runner second.

And their crazy legs, Plus some of those guys weren't that good as passers. But to each his own.
 
#73
#73
Likely a good reason why they shut us down. The reason they aren’t running every play is tempo. If you know you aren’t getting the ball then you don’t want to exhaust yourself. Heupel will have to adjust because his offense is primarily due to tempo. Most the read is pre snap because the QB has to see where the alignment issues happen. In UGAs case, they were scheming for us through the year. They were very physical with our receivers off the line, and had us behind the sticks all game. I’d say Saban will attempt this as well.

Solution? Have a dominant running game, so coverage can’t cheat.

The difference between UGA's defense vs Bama was that UGA had 4 DBs on the field that can run with anybody and only one safety that wasn't a legit 4.5 guy. So, you had 6'2 inch 4.36 Ringo matched up on Tillman and Malaki Starks that will run in the 4.4s matched up on Hyatt. Against Bama, Heupel had a lay up match up any time he wanted by getting Hyatt matched up on a 4.6 safety. GA was able to tighten the window because they did not have to worry about a receiver simply jetting them off the line of scrimmage.
 
#74
#74
You can go back to the 1st two games that Milton started in 21 and it’s very obvious that all the receivers were goin out on every play. When Hooker became the starter is when you started to see two guys just staying at the line of scrimmage. I’ve wondered if that was because hooker lacked the arm strength to throw deep on the wide side of the field or if it was to make it to where he only had to read half the field. Either way Hooker was very good, which makes the future so exciting.
We also used tighter splits and more TEs in certain situations. Just self-evaluation by the coaches. They are half-field reads but we also have plays that are full field reads. He did the same thing at UCF and Mizzou. It's just part of the offense.
 
#75
#75
The difference between UGA's defense vs Bama was that UGA had 4 DBs on the field that can run with anybody and only one safety that wasn't a legit 4.5 guy. So, you had 6'2 inch 4.36 Ringo matched up on Tillman and Malaki Starks that will run in the 4.4s matched up on Hyatt. Against Bama, Heupel had a lay up match up any time he wanted by getting Hyatt matched up on a 4.6 safety. GA was able to tighten the window because they did not have to worry about a receiver simply jetting them off the line of scrimmage.
They were also mauling our WRs 10 yds downfield and getting no calls. Jalen Carter was the biggest problem for our offense.
 

VN Store



Back
Top