Screen Game Missing?

#1
ChaoticUT

ChaoticUT

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2011
Messages
411
Likes
54
#1
Is it me or have we not thrown a screen pass yet this season?

None to the RB out of the backfield, no tunnel screens to the outside WR, no bubble screens to the slot.

With the running game struggling and defenses pinning their ears back to pass rush it seems like football 101 to throw some screens to slow down that heavy rush.

Is there a reason schematically we don't do it? Has anyone seen them being practiced or are they just not in the arsenal? Is Chaney just not a fan of the screen game?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#6
#6
I just started a thread about the play calling before I saw this. Overall the offensive game plan was surprisingly simple.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#8
#8
It just seems like such an obvious play call.

It would help Bray, help the WRs, and most importantly help the offensive line.
 
#9
#9
I've long been of the opinion that the screen game is actually substantially more risky than many would like to believe. I'll break it down thusly.

With an outside screen, which involves one side of the line getting out into space, it's extremely easy for a defender to read and destroy. If a DL is locked onto an OL, and the OL suddenly drops his block and bails out to one side, not only is the play obvious, but the DL has now succeeded in getting underneath the blocking. If he possesses the quickness or the reach to get in the path of the ball, it can be an easy six the other way.

The other thing is that it's way too reliant on a wide receiver getting a block, which is pretty much on par with asking a lineman to pirouette. Actually, that's not true...the lineman would at least attempt to pirouette, but 90% of receivers can't be bothered to even try to block a defender. Unless a defender completely puts himself out of position, a receiver usually will execute the old "ole" block, meaning that what could have been a big play goes for naught.

The third thing is that it's also reliant on a running back or receiver who makes moves at high speed. Most do not, and those that do usually don't have the need to be targets in the screen game.

Middle screens more your thing? Two words: zone blitz. The timing of a middle screen is extremely intricate, and the best way to combat them is by either springing a blitzing LB on the QB, or by dropping someone into the attack point to occupy space and force the receiver to look for holes. A zone blitz, particularly in the middle of the field, does both.

You may get the idea that I hate screens. In reality, I love them. I'm a believer in running basic plays continuously until I see the defensive matchup that I want, then going for the home run. If that means going for it three times in a game, great. If it means going five games between home run shots, so be it. But it will happen, and it will be devastating to the opponent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#10
#10
Ohio Vol said:
I've long been of the opinion that the screen game is actually substantially more risky than many would like to believe. I'll break it down thusly.

With an outside screen, which involves one side of the line getting out into space, it's extremely easy for a defender to read and destroy. If a DL is locked onto an OL, and the OL suddenly drops his block and bails out to one side, not only is the play obvious, but the DL has now succeeded in getting underneath the blocking. If he possesses the quickness or the reach to get in the path of the ball, it can be an easy six the other way.

The other thing is that it's way too reliant on a wide receiver getting a block, which is pretty much on par with asking a lineman to pirouette. Actually, that's not true...the lineman would at least attempt to pirouette, but 90% of receivers can't be bothered to even try to block a defender. Unless a defender completely puts himself out of position, a receiver usually will execute the old "ole" block, meaning that what could have been a big play goes for naught.

The third thing is that it's also reliant on a running back or receiver who makes moves at high speed. Most do not, and those that do usually don't have the need to be targets in the screen game.

Middle screens more your thing? Two words: zone blitz. The timing of a middle screen is extremely intricate, and the best way to combat them is by either springing a blitzing LB on the QB, or by dropping someone into the attack point to occupy space and force the receiver to look for holes. A zone blitz, particularly in the middle of the field, does both.

You may get the idea that I hate screens. In reality, I love them. I'm a believer in running basic plays continuously until I see the defensive matchup that I want, then going for the home run. If that means going for it three times in a game, great. If it means going five games between home run shots, so be it. But it will happen, and it will be devastating to the opponent.
Click to expand...

Nice breakdown
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#12
#12
If our OL gave UF's D anymore of a head start on the qb, we would be short a qb along with our WR.
 
#13
#13
Good breakdown, but any good offense should at least occasionally check into a screen when facing a blitz.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#14
#14
milohimself said:
Good breakdown, but any good offense should at least occasionally check into a screen when facing a blitz.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Depends on where it's coming from. If it's from the outside, I'm partial to the quick slant that way; the LB will be too far upfield to make a play on it, and any other damaging components (the DE dropping back to cover) is usually tipped off pre-snap anyway, so there shouldn't be any surprises.

If it's from the middle, check off to something with a sealing protection (everyone to the inside) and a three-step drop. Even a shovel pass, of all things, can quickly sting a defense with a blitzing MLB.

The other option is to get your receivers far enough out to where a blitz from the outside would be ineffective by alignment anyway. If someone wants to start cheating up to the inside, goose the center and dump a quick pass to the uncovered man. It puts him on an island out there, but he's usually able to get at least three to five yards out of it.
 
#15
#15
Ohio Vol said:
I've long been of the opinion that the screen game is actually substantially more risky than many would like to believe. I'll break it down thusly.

With an outside screen, which involves one side of the line getting out into space, it's extremely easy for a defender to read and destroy. If a DL is locked onto an OL, and the OL suddenly drops his block and bails out to one side, not only is the play obvious, but the DL has now succeeded in getting underneath the blocking. If he possesses the quickness or the reach to get in the path of the ball, it can be an easy six the other way.

The other thing is that it's way too reliant on a wide receiver getting a block, which is pretty much on par with asking a lineman to pirouette. Actually, that's not true...the lineman would at least attempt to pirouette, but 90% of receivers can't be bothered to even try to block a defender. Unless a defender completely puts himself out of position, a receiver usually will execute the old "ole" block, meaning that what could have been a big play goes for naught.

The third thing is that it's also reliant on a running back or receiver who makes moves at high speed. Most do not, and those that do usually don't have the need to be targets in the screen game.

Middle screens more your thing? Two words: zone blitz. The timing of a middle screen is extremely intricate, and the best way to combat them is by either springing a blitzing LB on the QB, or by dropping someone into the attack point to occupy space and force the receiver to look for holes. A zone blitz, particularly in the middle of the field, does both.

You may get the idea that I hate screens. In reality, I love them. I'm a believer in running basic plays continuously until I see the defensive matchup that I want, then going for the home run. If that means going for it three times in a game, great. If it means going five games between home run shots, so be it. But it will happen, and it will be devastating to the opponent.
Click to expand...

What book is that from?
 
#16
#16
Ohio Vol said:
I've long been of the opinion that the screen game is actually substantially more risky than many would like to believe. I'll break it down thusly.

With an outside screen, which involves one side of the line getting out into space, it's extremely easy for a defender to read and destroy. If a DL is locked onto an OL, and the OL suddenly drops his block and bails out to one side, not only is the play obvious, but the DL has now succeeded in getting underneath the blocking. If he possesses the quickness or the reach to get in the path of the ball, it can be an easy six the other way.

The other thing is that it's way too reliant on a wide receiver getting a block, which is pretty much on par with asking a lineman to pirouette. Actually, that's not true...the lineman would at least attempt to pirouette, but 90% of receivers can't be bothered to even try to block a defender. Unless a defender completely puts himself out of position, a receiver usually will execute the old "ole" block, meaning that what could have been a big play goes for naught.

The third thing is that it's also reliant on a running back or receiver who makes moves at high speed. Most do not, and those that do usually don't have the need to be targets in the screen game.

Middle screens more your thing? Two words: zone blitz. The timing of a middle screen is extremely intricate, and the best way to combat them is by either springing a blitzing LB on the QB, or by dropping someone into the attack point to occupy space and force the receiver to look for holes. A zone blitz, particularly in the middle of the field, does both.

You may get the idea that I hate screens. In reality, I love them. I'm a believer in running basic plays continuously until I see the defensive matchup that I want, then going for the home run. If that means going for it three times in a game, great. If it means going five games between home run shots, so be it. But it will happen, and it will be devastating to the opponent.
Click to expand...

Good stuff. I've just been trying to think of ways to get the ball in space, and if possible with blockers. I'm really not a fan of screens, but I think getting Poole or Lane the ball in space gives them a better chance than they have running right now.
 
#18
#18
How can you think about screens when we can not consitently snap the ball to the qb much less run block from our oline...
 
#23
#23
I would like to see more short passes to a RB . Mainly getting Lane and Neal into open space and seeing what they can do.
 
#24
#24
Its all about speed of the o-line players to get off the snap, disengage from the DL, sprint out to the flat, and block downfield from the rb. Our o-line are all big lumbering 300+ lb guys who just dont have the speed to get outside and set up blocks before the defense identifies the play. This weight advantage plays into our strong suit of pass blocking rather than run blocking because the o-linemen can use thier size to get in front of opposing DL players and disrupt their pass rush easier than line up and drive people straight off the ball because it takes alot more than sheer size to run block it takes alot more strength and fight. The issue in our run game is the o-line players lack of speed on pull plays. In both the FL and Cincy game the guards were not pulling fast enough and the RB is hitting the hole before his blockers can get over to clear that hole and the center and tackle are not pinching to fill the vacated gap left by the pulling guard and there is usually a defender shooting that gap waiting in the backfield for the RB to get the handoff. I think this problem I saw with the run game with our lack of o-line speed is the reason we cant utilize the screen pass with success as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#25
#25
Ohio Vol said:
I've long been of the opinion that the screen game is actually substantially more risky than many would like to believe. I'll break it down thusly.

With an outside screen, which involves one side of the line getting out into space, it's extremely easy for a defender to read and destroy. If a DL is locked onto an OL, and the OL suddenly drops his block and bails out to one side, not only is the play obvious, but the DL has now succeeded in getting underneath the blocking. If he possesses the quickness or the reach to get in the path of the ball, it can be an easy six the other way.

The other thing is that it's way too reliant on a wide receiver getting a block, which is pretty much on par with asking a lineman to pirouette. Actually, that's not true...the lineman would at least attempt to pirouette, but 90% of receivers can't be bothered to even try to block a defender. Unless a defender completely puts himself out of position, a receiver usually will execute the old "ole" block, meaning that what could have been a big play goes for naught.

The third thing is that it's also reliant on a running back or receiver who makes moves at high speed. Most do not, and those that do usually don't have the need to be targets in the screen game.

Middle screens more your thing? Two words: zone blitz. The timing of a middle screen is extremely intricate, and the best way to combat them is by either springing a blitzing LB on the QB, or by dropping someone into the attack point to occupy space and force the receiver to look for holes. A zone blitz, particularly in the middle of the field, does both.

You may get the idea that I hate screens. In reality, I love them. I'm a believer in running basic plays continuously until I see the defensive matchup that I want, then going for the home run. If that means going for it three times in a game, great. If it means going five games between home run shots, so be it. But it will happen, and it will be devastating to the opponent.
Click to expand...

Maybe Wilcox will print this and hang it on his wall! UF didn't have ANY problems running screens on Sat.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top