Was the Blocking Scheme the main problem?

#26
#26
I think it is a preseason mind set. Our first game Crompton threw 40 plus passes if I remember correct. That is a sign of a loss of toughness and attitude. I don't think it started with Clawson, but he magnified it. Anybody remember the Bama/Clemson game?That set the tone for Bama for the rest of the year. It is called an identity, we never had one.
 
#27
#27
Seems that I saw a lot of standing but very little blocking was apparent on my TV Screen. All year long, it looked like the entire offensive line just stood up when the ball was snapped.
Our running backs had to worry about our offensive line stopping them about as much as they did the opponents defense.
I honestly believe that our Offensive Line Play was the worst I have ever seen at any level of the sport.
 
#29
#29
iceman9 said:
I have never like the RB by committee. Pick one, and give him the ball to get some rhythm with the O-line. Even the 2-back systems in the NFL, they have the one primary back, and then the speed guy, change of pace guy. But, the one guy gets 65% of the touches.
Click to expand...


Amen to that. Good point.
 
#30
#30
kptvol said:
We definitely ran the ball better than we did in 2008. Foster didn't get 1200 yards by accident. The pass blocking was insanely overrated because of Ainge, though.
Click to expand...

Wonder why Ainge didn't make the offensive line look better in 2005?
 
#31
#31
allvol said:
Wonder why Ainge didn't make the offensive line look better in 2005?
Click to expand...

Ainge didn't make it look better by himself. Ainge/Cutcliffe made the line look better. Without Cutcliffe's scheme, the line still looks like they did this year even with Ainge (well maybe not as bad as this year cuz Ainge was head and shoulders above the QB play we saw, but still bad)
 
#32
#32
iceman9 said:
When OhioVol speaks(or writes) I listen, and his point about attempts is a good one. But to take that a little further, I have never like the RB by committee. Pick one, and give him the ball to get some rhythm with the O-line. Even the 2-back systems in the NFL, they have the one primary back, and then the speed guy, change of pace guy. But, the one guy gets 65% of the touches.
Click to expand...

I'm not entirely sold on this. Chemistry is most vital among the linemen with each other; they need to get to a point where they know exactly how to best attack the defense. The playbook says one thing but isn't an absolute, which is why there are week-to-week adjustments, but even those aren't absolutes. A good line with good chemistry will be able to pick up on something that can't be seen from the sidelines or the press box, while one that lacks that chemistry will usually find a way to screw up in an obvious situation.

One of the funniest things I've seen involved one of my guys I-blocking on a basic power play where it would never be considered. I asked him about it, and he said, "We (him and the tackle) were mashing this guy every play, so he kept getting lower and lower and madder. So finally he looked like he was falling forward in his stance, so the ball snapped and I took a step back and he fell flat on his face." It would have been great but the backside guard was an idiot and tripped over the sprawled-out DT.
 
#33
#33
BeecherVol said:
I think it is a preseason mind set. Our first game Crompton threw 40 plus passes if I remember correct. That is a sign of a loss of toughness and attitude. I don't think it started with Clawson, but he magnified it. Anybody remember the Bama/Clemson game?That set the tone for Bama for the rest of the year. It is called an identity, we never had one.
Click to expand...

There are few things that demonstrate more attitude than a wide receiver hammering an outside backer or a DB play after play after the ball has been caught.

I'm someone that believes in about an 8:1 run:pass ratio, but I'd never make the argument that passing the ball demonstrates a lack of toughness.
 
#34
#34
If I was an oline man last year I wouldn't be able to look my qb or rb in the eyes. Just aplogize and buy him a beer. Ainge wasn't the best but after cutt the scheme was simple and he stuck to his reads. He also knew when to throw the ball away.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#35
#35
Ohio Vol said:
There are few things that demonstrate more attitude than a wide receiver hammering an outside backer or a DB play after play after the ball has been caught.

I'm someone that believes in about an 8:1 run:pass ratio, but I'd never make the argument that passing the ball demonstrates a lack of toughness.
Click to expand...

I hate to keep comparing us to Bama, but in the past our offense was similar to theirs this year. I think we would air it out a little more then they did, but having the o line set the tone early that if you don't put 8 or 9 in the box we will run on you til' you do makes a statement. Difference is we have had the ability in the past to be more balanced than Bama's team this year. But those teams set the tone early that we are gonna run on you, and we are gonna make you adjust to that. Bama willed their running game on people. JPW was the beneficiary.
 
#36
#36
So, in response to the posts about Foster being able to run the ball last year, he averaged barely 85 yards a game on 245 carries. Not exactly world beater there. That's pretty average.
 
#37
#37
BeecherVol said:
I hate to keep comparing us to Bama, but in the past our offense was similar to theirs this year. I think we would air it out a little more then they did, but having the o line set the tone early that if you don't put 8 or 9 in the box we will run on you til' you do makes a statement. Difference is we have had the ability in the past to be more balanced than Bama's team this year. But those teams set the tone early that we are gonna run on you, and we are gonna make you adjust to that. Bama willed their running game on people. JPW was the beneficiary.
Click to expand...

Right, but Florida under Spurrier ran the opposite. The idea there was "we're going to pass until you make the personnel and scheme adjustments, and then we're going to run it on you". Nebraska under Osborne ran the "we're going to option you to death, then when you're expecting it we'll run it again".

Mind you, there's no real right or wrong way to develop an offensive philosophy. Most "balanced" offenses don't have any real continuity, yet they seem to operate smoothly. Texas over the last 10 years hasn't exactly set a tone by going with one or the other; neither has USC. It all comes down to what matchups you're able to find and exploit.
 
#38
#38
Ohio Vol said:
Right, but Florida under Spurrier ran the opposite. The idea there was "we're going to pass until you make the personnel and scheme adjustments, and then we're going to run it on you". Nebraska under Osborne ran the "we're going to option you to death, then when you're expecting it we'll run it again".

Mind you, there's no real right or wrong way to develop an offensive philosophy. Most "balanced" offenses don't have any real continuity, yet they seem to operate smoothly. Texas over the last 10 years hasn't exactly set a tone by going with one or the other; neither has USC. It all comes down to what matchups you're able to find and exploit.
Click to expand...

Well Put, Don't disagree with that.
Right now however, we should be able to run the ball well enough to make the passing game easier. Our offensive style is not going to change(prostyle). Running game has to be solidified first in my opinion for the prostyle offense to work. In most cases, if a team can't run and can't stop the run they lose.
What you said above is correct.:good!:
 
#39
#39
Agreed, but if you can't even fake a decent passing threat than you'll see 8 or even 9 in the box as we started seeing after everyone realized that our QB's couldn't make the read, missed the pass when they did make the read, not so great seperation by the receivers.

Nebraska wasn't much of a threat to throw it either, but they had ways to create match-up problems on the edge and were great at doing it.

We just never came up with an effective response to the defense stacking the box.
 
#41
#41
Someone teaching different technique might do wonders for the guys already here. Running back by committee didn't work either. They need too establish a starter and find someone to compliment him as a backup. The play calling hurt as bad as anything. To many times this year we would get away from the run, when it should have been our main focus. For whatever reason dave clawson just looked lost in this offense.
 
Last edited:
#44
#44
KYVolFan said:
Surely, the system could not have been too complicated. Afterall, his Division 1-AA Richmond team ran it very successfully. Do you think it too complicated for our boys mentally or physically. If you are right, and it was too complicated, then either our boys are physically or mentally incapable of running an Offensive Scheme with which the Division 1-AA Richmond players seemend to have no trouble. Your premise then would have to be that our boys are either not sharp enough or are not good enough athletes to run the system. SAD INDEED!

I had rather think the level of competition faced in the big leagues (Division 1 and the SEC) is just that much better than the competition that permitted Clawson's system to work so well at Richmond.

Clawson has now moved up to Bowling Green, a Division 1 School, albeit a seond or third tier program. We'll see how successful his system run at that level. Frankly, I wish him well.
Click to expand...

Agree, the level of competition had to play a part in the failure of the offense. I don't think our players are idiots, at least not all, but the line flipping and the reads the QB and recievers had to make were just to difficult for our guys. Foster played a lot because he was one of the few that could pick up the Offense (I know there were other reasons why he played). He is a philosophy major and most of the Richmond players GPA's are probably higher then 3.0 (communication and PE majors don't count). This is going to sound bad but explaining things to higher IQ's is different and that is what Clawson was used too. I think his offense could have worked but he lacked one key element, a QB with a high IQ. His offense requires a general on the field not a soldier for a QB, if that makes sense. Look at the Pros, the best QB's are intelligent guys. On almost every play they have to tell someone what to do, even the best athletes. I would bet money that towards the end of the season Clawson was talking a lot slower and more direct to the players. If you manage people, in any line of work, you have to know that everyone learns at different levels and you can't communicate to one as you would another. I think Clawson learned a big lesson. Hopefully he will be successful at BG. The offensive scheme was to complicated because of Clawson and his lack of communication skills and his inability to adjust to different types of athletes. This team could have been 9-3 or 8-4 under Cut because he knows how to adapt his offense to the IQ's of the players. I could go on but who cares it's in the past, and yes, I feel the scheme was to complicated because of the players (some players) IQ's. Most of the players at UT are smart guys but some road the short bus to games.

WOW, I hope I'm right because my bird finger hurts. :)
 
Last edited:
#45
#45
VolinDawgland said:
Agreed, but if you can't even fake a decent passing threat than you'll see 8 or even 9 in the box as we started seeing after everyone realized that our QB's couldn't make the read, missed the pass when they did make the read, not so great seperation by the receivers.

Nebraska wasn't much of a threat to throw it either, but they had ways to create match-up problems on the edge and were great at doing it.

We just never came up with an effective response to the defense stacking the box.
Click to expand...

When a defense is walking an additional one or two defenders into the box, it creates a one-on-one matchup somewhere on the field. A defense will do this to:
1) Disguise blitz packages; usually they'll still only rush four or five and drop everyone else back, but they can create more offensive confusion.
2) Make the statement that "you can't even pass when you have the clear advantage".

UT's problem this year was that none of the QBs could even get set on a five-step drop in order to be able to take advantage of the one-on-ones. The line play was putrid enough to undo something that should always be an advantage. It would be like the defense putting all 11 men 15 yards off the line of scrimmage and the offense still not being able to run the ball at all.
 
#46
#46
Ohio Vol said:
When a defense is walking an additional one or two defenders into the box, it creates a one-on-one matchup somewhere on the field. A defense will do this to:
1) Disguise blitz packages; usually they'll still only rush four or five and drop everyone else back, but they can create more offensive confusion.
2) Make the statement that "you can't even pass when you have the clear advantage".

UT's problem this year was that none of the QBs could even get set on a five-step drop in order to be able to take advantage of the one-on-ones. The line play was putrid enough to undo something that should always be an advantage. It would be like the defense putting all 11 men 15 yards off the line of scrimmage and the offense still not being able to run the ball at all.
Click to expand...

That was a BIG problem but you can't believe it was the main problem. The QB wasn't on his butt everytime he threw it. Cromptons head never moved when he dropped back and how many times did he overthrow or throw into no mans land. The QB's, receiver, line and backs were hardly ever on the same page. If your a QB and you see the box stacked you check one or two recievers into a hot route and take a one or three step drop. During your drop if the LB or SS drops out:

1. Still hit the Hot
2. Take the drop to five and look for windows. Hot reciever will know this b/c ball isn't there when they turn their heads and they will look for open space. Also, you may have one or two receivers running 5 step drop routes. Look for them. High IQ QB's can do this and never miss a beat. Fans can't see this.

This is being on the same page. Just because the QB is chewing on grass doesn't mean it was the lines fault. The QB knows his protection and has to make the right calls and throws according to the D. The line didn't play well this year, no dout, but the QB and backs play a big part in the reason for a sack. It was a community effort by the offensive scheme that made us so bad.

If you want to break down the reason for the scheme being so bad I would put Fulmer-Clawson at 1, QB at 2, Line, receivers and backs at 3. Just my opinion though.

I think it's tough to pin point one area of the offense and say, "O-line your the reason we suck this year." When the O-lines thinking, "Ya, but when we do block JC throws into our feet." So on and so on........
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top