Football
Sponsored by

96 yards. 3 points.

11,075 Views | 146 Replies | Last: 4 yr ago by historian
ColomboLQ
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If you take out the last play where Tech is playing prevent defense, we had 96 total yards of offense, 3 points and by my count, 4 total first downs that weren't given by penalties. This is against a Texas Tech defense that comes into the game ranked:

#73 in opponents yards per play
#63 in opponents points per play
#72 in opponents yards per rush
#125 in opponents yards per completion

Tech is not a good defense. This was just an awful display of offense for the entire half and absolutely zero excuses for it either.
Baylor3216
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Clearly something is wrong with Brewer. Maybe it's bohanon time todayfor the 2nd half
ColomboLQ
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Baylor3216 said:

Clearly something is wrong with Brewer. Maybe it's bohanon time todayfor the 2nd half
To me, the problem goes beyond Charlie. And I just realized that if Duffey doesn't throw the ball right to Jordan Williams for that pick, we actually get shut out in the first half.
CoachHBU2008
How long do you want to ignore this user?
You can put Griffin back there and the result would still be the same. Again as much as I like Nixon it's the play calling. It's always been the play calling. And i am very specific about play calling not the offensive scheme. There is no true scheme. Just a bunch of plays put together. There is too much inconsistency and randomness to the play calling. No quick game. No screens to take advantage of an over zealous pass rush. Our receivers are running deep elongated routes which doesn't play to the strengths of our OLine, although I will say that the two picks Charlie had the line gave him a very clean pocket. Brewer and crew are out there fighting hard.

Nix needs to speed up the tempo. He seems more in his element when he does that. And because we are supposedly running the NFL version of Chip Kelly's offense, it's only effective when there is tempo.

We don't have an offense. We have playmakers. We just need to focus on getting the ball quickly to the playmakers and let Charlie do what he does best and make plays and get out of their way.
whitetrash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Finished the game with 525 yards of offense. Assuming 25 yards in each OT, that means we had 379 yards in the 2nd half.
Big_Pumpin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Interesting, Rhule mentioned after the game that the first half offensive issues were on him because he planned a game that went against their identity. I wonder if the play calling issues have more to do with the differing philosophies between coaches.
Stefano DiMera
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Love the internet..lots of putrid hot takes here..its almost like you guys dont realize a football game consists of 2 halves..
historian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Maybe it's just some people trying to figure out the near scoreless first half. We've had underachievement several times this year in the first half. I was even telling a friend that Charlie usually plays better in the 2nd half for some reason. I've thought for 2 years that we had some crazy play calling. I just don't have enough football smarts to nail it down.

Also, I think part of our problem is that Briles spoiled us: we are so used to strike fast & often with a TD in the first 2 minutes of the game and often a 2-3 score lead by halftime. CMR is a defensive guru and has a different mindset. I don't know.

I do know that it's hard to argue with results: 6-0 baby!

Sic 'em Bears!
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
CoachHBU2008
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big_Pumpin said:

Interesting, Rhule mentioned after the game that the first half offensive issues were on him because he planned a game that went against their identity. I wonder if the play calling issues have more to do with the differing philosophies between coaches.


If that's the case then it has been the case for the past 3 seasons. The offense has always been sporadic. We are running a multitude of plays and dubbing it a multiple offense. That's the issue. Since it's inception the offense has been this ameba. We started off by trying to do our spin of the Chip Kelly NFL version of the blur offense. This was evident with our higher of Nixon who was Kelly's tight end coach in San Francisco and Lubrick who was from Oregon.

He left and we continued with the experiment when we got Glen Thomas. The offense since it's creation has taken on a Frankenstein approach trying to mesh the pro game with the college spread. But it never took. And in order to mask our deficiencies we have placed a lot of plays that don't originally go with the root offense. So now we have an offense with many plays but with no connection to each other. This is why it is herky jerky. There is no cohesiveness to it.

The Kelly offense isn't even a the root offense anymore. Kelly offense is heavy on inside and outside zone running plays. Everything is based on those concepts. Nothing we do are based on those concepts. We're just running plays.

The odd thing to me is if they were looking to mesh the pro style game with the college game, there are a handful of NFL teams that are doing that. Why not just take their playbook. The Chiefs run a hybrid offense. Houston does it. The Ravens do it. Hue Jackson's Bengals offense were very prolific with the concepts and the off balance formations. Instead of creating one we could copy successful versions of one.

Or if it was an absolute must to create our own, why not choose offenses that mesh well. Why not a run and shoot offense meshed with the erhardt perkins (New England)? Both offenses are heavy based on option routes so the mesh point is more natural than the Kelly approach. The plays are simple in vocab.

I'm saying a lot. The main point is that we are 6-0. We have a team that is gritty. We have a team that is beginning to be comfortable with being physical. We have a team that plays hard and we have a team with playmakers, including the quarterback whether he is having a good night or off night. I think at this point we should just double down on what we do well. Running the ball on the edges. Running counter running plays effectively. Charlie making plays with his feet. And we should add plays that quickly get the ball out of Charlie's hands and into the hands of our playmakers in space. Passing plays take too long. Routes are to slow developing. The line can't block that long. Too much drop back passing and not enough play action. We don't have screens or any quick game to slow down pass rushes and burn them with our speed. And we need to pick up the tempo. We are at our best with a minute to go trailing by 3. So let's play with that type of tempo at the start of the game and not force a grinded out game. I'm not necessarily saying HUNH. I am saying let's not be so deliberate with slowing the game down to the point that we lose momentum.
JXL
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Brewer got beat up against Kansas State and I thought he might be suffering some lingering aftereffects.
MilliVanilli
How long do you want to ignore this user?
JXL said:

Brewer got beat up against Kansas State and I thought he might be suffering some lingering aftereffects.
He looked like a gunslinger at times today, not characteristic of the disciplined play he usually exhibits.

But he made the plays to win and make up for a rough day.
wacomav
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I agree with this
MilliVanilli
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Florenceforheisman said:

I agree all around with this. We play better with tempo and our defense isn't getting much rest on these 3 and outs that we are frequently getting in the first half, the slow it down/ time-of-possession focused offense should not take place until we are leading by a reasonable amount. Obviously I'd love for our offense to find a consistent rhythm, and that the offense be slightly simplified/ be more efficient (every fan wants that). But I really do not care too much as long as we are still winning games.
We moved the ball decently well, if not for our three turnovers we would've won by at least 11.
Porteroso
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The main thing that irks me with the playcalling is the predictable trip screens, where 2 WRs block for the third. It rarely gets us anywhere, it basically relies upon either them having 7 players on the field, or their guy missing the fact that our guy is standing at the line of scrimmage, waiting for the ball. I never want to see that again on 3rd and 8, we lose yards as much as we gain them, and it's just so bad. So bad...

If we want to be running screens, and we're running 2 TE/fullback sets, then run a real screen. College defenses don't have a clue how to respond to that.

Outside of 2-3 dynamic WRs, and a few great running backs, we don't have an offense, that much is true. Which is horrendous. The offensive scheme is supposed to make it easy for a great player to do their job. Instead, we just snap the ball, try to get it to a great player, and hope they can make something out of nothing themselves.
ColomboLQ
How long do you want to ignore this user?
CoachHBU2008 said:

You can put Griffin back there and the result would still be the same. Again as much as I like Nixon it's the play calling. It's always been the play calling. And i am very specific about play calling not the offensive scheme. There is no true scheme. Just a bunch of plays put together. There is too much inconsistency and randomness to the play calling. No quick game. No screens to take advantage of an over zealous pass rush. Our receivers are running deep elongated routes which doesn't play to the strengths of our OLine, although I will say that the two picks Charlie had the line gave him a very clean pocket. Brewer and crew are out there fighting hard.

Nix needs to speed up the tempo. He seems more in his element when he does that. And because we are supposedly running the NFL version of Chip Kelly's offense, it's only effective when there is tempo.

We don't have an offense. We have playmakers. We just need to focus on getting the ball quickly to the playmakers and let Charlie do what he does best and make plays and get out of their way.
That clearly and succinctly sums up the offensive side of the ball.
ColomboLQ
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Stefano DiMera said:

Love the internet..lots of putrid hot takes here..its almost like you guys dont realize a football game consists of 2 halves..
And what does the 2nd half have to do with the first half?
ColomboLQ
How long do you want to ignore this user?
CoachHBU2008 said:

Big_Pumpin said:

Interesting, Rhule mentioned after the game that the first half offensive issues were on him because he planned a game that went against their identity. I wonder if the play calling issues have more to do with the differing philosophies between coaches.


If that's the case then it has been the case for the past 3 seasons. The offense has always been sporadic. We are running a multitude of plays and dubbing it a multiple offense. That's the issue. Since it's inception the offense has been this ameba. We started off by trying to do our spin of the Chip Kelly NFL version of the blur offense. This was evident with our higher of Nixon who was Kelly's tight end coach in San Francisco and Lubrick who was from Oregon.

He left and we continued with the experiment when we got Glen Thomas. The offense since it's creation has taken on a Frankenstein approach trying to mesh the pro game with the college spread. But it never took. And in order to mask our deficiencies we have placed a lot of plays that don't originally go with the root offense. So now we have an offense with many plays but with no connection to each other. This is why it is herky jerky. There is no cohesiveness to it.

The Kelly offense isn't even a the root offense anymore. Kelly offense is heavy on inside and outside zone running plays. Everything is based on those concepts. Nothing we do are based on those concepts. We're just running plays.

The odd thing to me is if they were looking to mesh the pro style game with the college game, there are a handful of NFL teams that are doing that. Why not just take their playbook. The Chiefs run a hybrid offense. Houston does it. The Ravens do it. Hue Jackson's Bengals offense were very prolific with the concepts and the off balance formations. Instead of creating one we could copy successful versions of one.

Or if it was an absolute must to create our own, why not choose offenses that mesh well. Why not a run and shoot offense meshed with the erhardt perkins (New England)? Both offenses are heavy based on option routes so the mesh point is more natural than the Kelly approach. The plays are simple in vocab.

I'm saying a lot. The main point is that we are 6-0. We have a team that is gritty. We have a team that is beginning to be comfortable with being physical. We have a team that plays hard and we have a team with playmakers, including the quarterback whether he is having a good night or off night. I think at this point we should just double down on what we do well. Running the ball on the edges. Running counter running plays effectively. Charlie making plays with his feet. And we should add plays that quickly get the ball out of Charlie's hands and into the hands of our playmakers in space. Passing plays take too long. Routes are to slow developing. The line can't block that long. Too much drop back passing and not enough play action. We don't have screens or any quick game to slow down pass rushes and burn them with our speed. And we need to pick up the tempo. We are at our best with a minute to go trailing by 3. So let's play with that type of tempo at the start of the game and not force a grinded out game. I'm not necessarily saying HUNH. I am saying let's not be so deliberate with slowing the game down to the point that we lose momentum.
That last paragraph brings up some points for me. At times it feels like the offensive side of the ball isn't always sure what it is that we actually do well. We don't play to our strengths enough. We also don't consistently put our players in positions to succeed. Since day 1, we have gotten blitzed a lot on offense and Charlie has gotten hit a lot and yet I can't remember the last time we ran an actual screen to a RB (have we ever?), a draw or a tunnel screen to a WR, plays that uses a defenses aggression against them. And if we're not gonna do those things, then we need "hot" throws or patterns to get rid of the ball quickly, but we don't do that either. And since we are going to call slow developing patterns in the face of pressure anyway, we should have max protect or keep extra blockers in, and we might keep the RB in, but half the time, they go out for passes as well. Which then leaves the OL in a really difficult spot. And anyone that saw the KSU game could clearly tell that Casey Phillips is not ready to be a starting LT. He struggled mightily against KSU and then was asked to block 1v1 in this past game against Tech without much help, which is way more than he should be asked to do. He gave up the sack on the last drive that was almost a safety and had Baylor on the 1 yard line, but I don't blame him for that because with Tech sending a 3 man rush, he was being asked to block one of those guys on his own and, again, he shouldn't be asked to do that. And Blake Bedier has been terrible at RT since day 1 but that is what it is. And why in the world do we still have Chris Platt running crossing patterns when the guy has shown over and over again that he can't make catches in traffic?

Part of why I think tempo works for this team better is that it doesn't give the other defense time to diagnose plays pre snap. It just feels like so many plays are predictable in where they are going, especially run plays. We use very little motion/deception in the running game (and the passing game too). If you contrast our offense, vs OU's offense, several of their running plays (particularly some power and all their counter plays) look similar in what they are trying to do. A big part of what makes theirs so effective is that they use formation and motion to create hesitation for the defense which gives the OL a better chance to succeed. The announcer in their game yesterday against UT even said once that sometimes you don't even know who has the ball. That's rarely the case with the Baylor offense. We don't try to create mismatches on offense, and we don't exploit them when we happen to have any. Too much of our offense tends to come when Charlie just improvises either through running or extending plays for someone to get open. And we hope we get plays like RJ Snead's creating a big play on an improvised cutback too often. I shudder to think what the offense would look like if Charlier wasn't mobile.
hodedofome
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This all just goes back to Nixon isn't very experienced, or at least doesn't have the right experience. Someone who has the right amount (and type) of experience knows you need to have a cohesive strategy and it needs to be simple enough for a part time athlete to grasp and understand. Throwing every play you've ever seen into the playbook and trying to increase the complexity too much and you'll increase inconsistency across the board.

Yes we've been spoiled by Briles. We've been spoiled by screen passes that were designed to replace a running play because our OL wasn't good enough to just line up and beat someone yet. But those screen passes were used by a master who knew what it took to make those effective. He needed a QB with a very strong arm who could turn and make a quick, fast throw to the far side of the field in a split second so that the WR had a maximum amount of time to make a play before the DB got to him. And they practiced that over and over again until they couldn't get it wrong. Briles recruited only QB's who could make this throw which was essential to his offense.

We've been spoiled by timing routes that were practiced so much, the QB and WR could do it with their eyes closed. It made completing a 40 yard pass look easy.

It's pretty dang tough on a defense when they know they have to cover sideline to sideline the instant the ball is snapped, as well as cover 30+ yards downfield within seconds on every play. This opens up the middle which gave us a much easier inside running game since the defense had to be spread out so far.

And once again, this simple strategy (so simple we didn't even need a playbook) which opened up the defense was also practiced so much and so consistently that we saw execution on offense we'll probably never see again in our lifetimes.

Unfortunately our previous offense was run by someone who had more of the right experience than any other college coach today. That's why we saw it work so well and executed consistently. He knew what he wanted, knew the ins and outs of it and how to call it. Our current OC is very inexperienced and it shows. It's why nothing seems to work half the time.

At least we got a defense that can keep us in the game against most teams, and some mental toughness along with a QB that isn't phased by anything.
Shakesbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
How many times did we throw it to the tight end today
Retreat Hell! We just got here! The 2/5
ColomboLQ
How long do you want to ignore this user?
hodedofome said:

This all just goes back to Nixon isn't very experienced, or at least doesn't have the right experience. Someone who has the right amount (and type) of experience knows you need to have a cohesive strategy and it needs to be simple enough for a part time athlete to grasp and understand. Throwing every play you've ever seen into the playbook and trying to increase the complexity too much and you'll increase inconsistency across the board.

Yes we've been spoiled by Briles. We've been spoiled by screen passes that were designed to replace a running play because our OL wasn't good enough to just line up and beat someone yet. But those screen passes were used by a master who knew what it took to make those effective. He needed a QB with a very strong arm who could turn and make a quick, fast throw to the far side of the field in a split second so that the WR had a maximum amount of time to make a play before the DB got to him. And they practiced that over and over again until they couldn't get it wrong. Briles recruited only QB's who could make this throw which was essential to his offense.

We've been spoiled by timing routes that were practiced so much, the QB and WR could do it with their eyes closed. It made completing a 40 yard pass look easy.

It's pretty dang tough on a defense when they know they have to cover sideline to sideline the instant the ball is snapped, as well as cover 30+ yards downfield within seconds on every play. This opens up the middle which gave us a much easier inside running game since the defense had to be spread out so far.

And once again, this simple strategy (so simple we didn't even need a playbook) which opened up the defense was also practiced so much and so consistently that we saw execution on offense we'll probably never see again in our lifetimes.

Unfortunately our previous offense was run by someone who had more of the right experience than any other college coach today. That's why we saw it work so well and executed consistently. He knew what he wanted, knew the ins and outs of it and how to call it. Our current OC is very inexperienced and it shows. It's why nothing seems to work half the time.

At least we got a defense that can keep us in the game against most teams, and some mental toughness along with a QB that isn't phased by anything.
I honestly don't think the criticisms directed at Nixon, at least from my end, are not from being spoiled by Briles. It comes from some of the stuff I've mentioned earlier. We struggle on offense far too often for far too long against teams we have no business struggling against given the talent we have. I don't think anyone is asking for 600 yards of offense and 60+ points a game, at least I know I'm not. I just want more competency displayed in putting the players in position to succeed more often.
SATXBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
What a tortured negative lot y'all are to have such a terrible perception of a great game. I actually feel sorry for y'all that you cannot have more joy. Thank goodness we have Rhule who has the team maximizing their talent and playing with grit.
Heisman25g
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Maybe some of you should go watch techs first half vs ok st......... were not the only ones that they have shut down. But I am looking forward to some of y'all applying for the OC job next year
SATXBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I actually see Baylor losing next week. We are pretty beat up currently. Does not mean we have not had a great run up to this point. We are definitely overachieving. What a charmed season because the team is playing for each other and reflect the attitude of their coach. Kids and coaches are gonna make mistakes, but it is fun to watch.
Timbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Have to agree with Saxt. Not looking for a win against Okla St. Injuries and terrible O in the first half. W Va, TCU and Kansas are our opportunities. 9-3 with a bowl win can get a 10 win season. awesome.
RebelT
How long do you want to ignore this user?
CoachHBU2008 said:

You can put Griffin back there and the result would still be the same. Again as much as I like Nixon it's the play calling. It's always been the play calling. And i am very specific about play calling not the offensive scheme. There is no true scheme. Just a bunch of plays put together. There is too much inconsistency and randomness to the play calling. No quick game. No screens to take advantage of an over zealous pass rush. Our receivers are running deep elongated routes which doesn't play to the strengths of our OLine, although I will say that the two picks Charlie had the line gave him a very clean pocket. Brewer and crew are out there fighting hard.

Nix needs to speed up the tempo. He seems more in his element when he does that. And because we are supposedly running the NFL version of Chip Kelly's offense, it's only effective when there is tempo.

We don't have an offense. We have playmakers. We just need to focus on getting the ball quickly to the playmakers and let Charlie do what he does best and make plays and get out of their way.


This might be one of the dumbest posts in the history of this board.
RebelT
How long do you want to ignore this user?
CoachHBU2008 said:

Big_Pumpin said:

Interesting, Rhule mentioned after the game that the first half offensive issues were on him because he planned a game that went against their identity. I wonder if the play calling issues have more to do with the differing philosophies between coaches.


If that's the case then it has been the case for the past 3 seasons. The offense has always been sporadic. We are running a multitude of plays and dubbing it a multiple offense. That's the issue. Since it's inception the offense has been this ameba. We started off by trying to do our spin of the Chip Kelly NFL version of the blur offense. This was evident with our higher of Nixon who was Kelly's tight end coach in San Francisco and Lubrick who was from Oregon.

He left and we continued with the experiment when we got Glen Thomas. The offense since it's creation has taken on a Frankenstein approach trying to mesh the pro game with the college spread. But it never took. And in order to mask our deficiencies we have placed a lot of plays that don't originally go with the root offense. So now we have an offense with many plays but with no connection to each other. This is why it is herky jerky. There is no cohesiveness to it.

The Kelly offense isn't even a the root offense anymore. Kelly offense is heavy on inside and outside zone running plays. Everything is based on those concepts. Nothing we do are based on those concepts. We're just running plays.

The odd thing to me is if they were looking to mesh the pro style game with the college game, there are a handful of NFL teams that are doing that. Why not just take their playbook. The Chiefs run a hybrid offense. Houston does it. The Ravens do it. Hue Jackson's Bengals offense were very prolific with the concepts and the off balance formations. Instead of creating one we could copy successful versions of one.

Or if it was an absolute must to create our own, why not choose offenses that mesh well. Why not a run and shoot offense meshed with the erhardt perkins (New England)? Both offenses are heavy based on option routes so the mesh point is more natural than the Kelly approach. The plays are simple in vocab.

I'm saying a lot. The main point is that we are 6-0. We have a team that is gritty. We have a team that is beginning to be comfortable with being physical. We have a team that plays hard and we have a team with playmakers, including the quarterback whether he is having a good night or off night. I think at this point we should just double down on what we do well. Running the ball on the edges. Running counter running plays effectively. Charlie making plays with his feet. And we should add plays that quickly get the ball out of Charlie's hands and into the hands of our playmakers in space. Passing plays take too long. Routes are to slow developing. The line can't block that long. Too much drop back passing and not enough play action. We don't have screens or any quick game to slow down pass rushes and burn them with our speed. And we need to pick up the tempo. We are at our best with a minute to go trailing by 3. So let's play with that type of tempo at the start of the game and not force a grinded out game. I'm not necessarily saying HUNH. I am saying let's not be so deliberate with slowing the game down to the point that we lose momentum.




So.

Incredibly.

Stupid.

By every reputable metric used in college football, we have a top 25 offense. It looked horrible in the first half because Charlie threw 3 inexcusable picks, and then it was phenomenal in the second half.

You are a pathetic troll.
historian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Charlie's 3rd pick was at the beginning of the 4th quarter.

I don't know why, but since conference play began Charlie has not at his best in the first half. Yesterday was not the first time. It may not all be on Charlie. As noted repeatedly, the O line is definitely a work in progress and the receivers have had too many drops.
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
ColomboLQ
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SATXBear said:

I actually see Baylor losing next week. We are pretty beat up currently. Does not mean we have not had a great run up to this point. We are definitely overachieving. What a charmed season because the team is playing for each other and reflect the attitude of their coach. Kids and coaches are gonna make mistakes, but it is fun to watch.
In what way?
Dia del DougO
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The offense is really inconsistent in ways that can't be totally excused by a thin OL.

The thing that troubles me most is the early sluggishness, even against the lesser teams. Good teams start fast and get some momentum going with a specific game plan for getting off to a good start. Baylor either makes a big play, or they sputter and go three and out early in games. Then after they've gotten rolling a bit they seem to bog down later in the game and end up getting themselves in trouble, perhaps due to some degree of the opponents adjustments.

I don't really know what the problem is, but it seems like it has been fairly consistent..

"The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool."
ColomboLQ
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RebelT said:

CoachHBU2008 said:

Big_Pumpin said:

Interesting, Rhule mentioned after the game that the first half offensive issues were on him because he planned a game that went against their identity. I wonder if the play calling issues have more to do with the differing philosophies between coaches.


If that's the case then it has been the case for the past 3 seasons. The offense has always been sporadic. We are running a multitude of plays and dubbing it a multiple offense. That's the issue. Since it's inception the offense has been this ameba. We started off by trying to do our spin of the Chip Kelly NFL version of the blur offense. This was evident with our higher of Nixon who was Kelly's tight end coach in San Francisco and Lubrick who was from Oregon.

He left and we continued with the experiment when we got Glen Thomas. The offense since it's creation has taken on a Frankenstein approach trying to mesh the pro game with the college spread. But it never took. And in order to mask our deficiencies we have placed a lot of plays that don't originally go with the root offense. So now we have an offense with many plays but with no connection to each other. This is why it is herky jerky. There is no cohesiveness to it.

The Kelly offense isn't even a the root offense anymore. Kelly offense is heavy on inside and outside zone running plays. Everything is based on those concepts. Nothing we do are based on those concepts. We're just running plays.

The odd thing to me is if they were looking to mesh the pro style game with the college game, there are a handful of NFL teams that are doing that. Why not just take their playbook. The Chiefs run a hybrid offense. Houston does it. The Ravens do it. Hue Jackson's Bengals offense were very prolific with the concepts and the off balance formations. Instead of creating one we could copy successful versions of one.

Or if it was an absolute must to create our own, why not choose offenses that mesh well. Why not a run and shoot offense meshed with the erhardt perkins (New England)? Both offenses are heavy based on option routes so the mesh point is more natural than the Kelly approach. The plays are simple in vocab.

I'm saying a lot. The main point is that we are 6-0. We have a team that is gritty. We have a team that is beginning to be comfortable with being physical. We have a team that plays hard and we have a team with playmakers, including the quarterback whether he is having a good night or off night. I think at this point we should just double down on what we do well. Running the ball on the edges. Running counter running plays effectively. Charlie making plays with his feet. And we should add plays that quickly get the ball out of Charlie's hands and into the hands of our playmakers in space. Passing plays take too long. Routes are to slow developing. The line can't block that long. Too much drop back passing and not enough play action. We don't have screens or any quick game to slow down pass rushes and burn them with our speed. And we need to pick up the tempo. We are at our best with a minute to go trailing by 3. So let's play with that type of tempo at the start of the game and not force a grinded out game. I'm not necessarily saying HUNH. I am saying let's not be so deliberate with slowing the game down to the point that we lose momentum.




So.

Incredibly.

Stupid.

By every reputable metric used in college football, we have a top 25 offense. It looked horrible in the first half because Charlie threw 3 inexcusable picks, and then it was phenomenal in the second half.

You are a pathetic troll.
If you take out the early cupcakes and just look at what they've done against teams with similar talent (so the 3 Big 12 games they've played so far), this is what they are doing (and what they would rank nationally in each):

Points per play: .397 (60th)
Yards per play: 6.2 (26th)
Yards per rush: 4.2 (67th)
Yards per completion: 15.3 (15th)

We are terrible at 3rd down conversions, we punt the ball A LOT and we are one of the worst teams in T.O.P (in terms of % possession during a game). And before anyone says that it's because we can't run the ball, I'll submit to you these teams:

Florida
South Carolina
Colorado
Arizona St.
Connecticut
Tulsa
Rice
Rutgers
and there are more examples

All these teams average less yards per carry than we do yet possess the ball for longer stretches of games. Not exactly a ringing endorsement.
xiledinok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ColomboLQ said:

If you take out the last play where Tech is playing prevent defense, we had 96 total yards of offense, 3 points and by my count, 4 total first downs that weren't given by penalties. This is against a Texas Tech defense that comes into the game ranked:

#73 in opponents yards per play
#63 in opponents points per play
#72 in opponents yards per rush
#125 in opponents yards per completion

Tech is not a good defense. This was just an awful display of offense for the entire half and absolutely zero excuses for it either.

Did you even get a UIL bi district playoff championship patch on your letter jacket or are you just a Tapps guy who was afraid to play for Jesuit?
RebelT
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ColomboLQ said:

RebelT said:

CoachHBU2008 said:

Big_Pumpin said:

Interesting, Rhule mentioned after the game that the first half offensive issues were on him because he planned a game that went against their identity. I wonder if the play calling issues have more to do with the differing philosophies between coaches.


If that's the case then it has been the case for the past 3 seasons. The offense has always been sporadic. We are running a multitude of plays and dubbing it a multiple offense. That's the issue. Since it's inception the offense has been this ameba. We started off by trying to do our spin of the Chip Kelly NFL version of the blur offense. This was evident with our higher of Nixon who was Kelly's tight end coach in San Francisco and Lubrick who was from Oregon.

He left and we continued with the experiment when we got Glen Thomas. The offense since it's creation has taken on a Frankenstein approach trying to mesh the pro game with the college spread. But it never took. And in order to mask our deficiencies we have placed a lot of plays that don't originally go with the root offense. So now we have an offense with many plays but with no connection to each other. This is why it is herky jerky. There is no cohesiveness to it.

The Kelly offense isn't even a the root offense anymore. Kelly offense is heavy on inside and outside zone running plays. Everything is based on those concepts. Nothing we do are based on those concepts. We're just running plays.

The odd thing to me is if they were looking to mesh the pro style game with the college game, there are a handful of NFL teams that are doing that. Why not just take their playbook. The Chiefs run a hybrid offense. Houston does it. The Ravens do it. Hue Jackson's Bengals offense were very prolific with the concepts and the off balance formations. Instead of creating one we could copy successful versions of one.

Or if it was an absolute must to create our own, why not choose offenses that mesh well. Why not a run and shoot offense meshed with the erhardt perkins (New England)? Both offenses are heavy based on option routes so the mesh point is more natural than the Kelly approach. The plays are simple in vocab.

I'm saying a lot. The main point is that we are 6-0. We have a team that is gritty. We have a team that is beginning to be comfortable with being physical. We have a team that plays hard and we have a team with playmakers, including the quarterback whether he is having a good night or off night. I think at this point we should just double down on what we do well. Running the ball on the edges. Running counter running plays effectively. Charlie making plays with his feet. And we should add plays that quickly get the ball out of Charlie's hands and into the hands of our playmakers in space. Passing plays take too long. Routes are to slow developing. The line can't block that long. Too much drop back passing and not enough play action. We don't have screens or any quick game to slow down pass rushes and burn them with our speed. And we need to pick up the tempo. We are at our best with a minute to go trailing by 3. So let's play with that type of tempo at the start of the game and not force a grinded out game. I'm not necessarily saying HUNH. I am saying let's not be so deliberate with slowing the game down to the point that we lose momentum.




So.

Incredibly.

Stupid.

By every reputable metric used in college football, we have a top 25 offense. It looked horrible in the first half because Charlie threw 3 inexcusable picks, and then it was phenomenal in the second half.

You are a pathetic troll.
If you take out the early cupcakes and just look at what they've done against teams with similar talent (so the 3 Big 12 games they've played so far), this is what they are doing (and what they would rank nationally in each):

Points per play: .397 (60th)
Yards per play: 6.2 (26th)
Yards per rush: 4.2 (67th)
Yards per completion: 15.3 (15th)

We are terrible at 3rd down conversions, we punt the ball A LOT and we are one of the worst teams in T.O.P (in terms of % possession during a game). And before anyone says that it's because we can't run the ball, I'll submit to you these teams:

Florida
South Carolina
Colorado
Arizona St.
Connecticut
Tulsa
Rice
Rutgers
and there are more examples

All these teams average less yards per carry than we do yet possess the ball for longer stretches of games. Not exactly a ringing endorsement.



I stopped reading at "if you take out the early cupcakes."

Why?

BECAUSE EVERY REPUTABLE METRIC DIRECTLY ACCOUNTS FOR STRENGTH OF SCHEDULE.

FOAD.
GoldenBear007
How long do you want to ignore this user?
xiledinok said:

ColomboLQ said:

If you take out the last play where Tech is playing prevent defense, we had 96 total yards of offense, 3 points and by my count, 4 total first downs that weren't given by penalties. This is against a Texas Tech defense that comes into the game ranked:

#73 in opponents yards per play
#63 in opponents points per play
#72 in opponents yards per rush
#125 in opponents yards per completion

Tech is not a good defense. This was just an awful display of offense for the entire half and absolutely zero excuses for it either.

Did you even get a UIL bi district playoff championship patch on your letter jacket or are you just a Tapps guy who was afraid to play for Jesuit?
What is with you and TAPPS schools?
SATXBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big_Pumpin said:

Interesting, Rhule mentioned after the game that the first half offensive issues were on him because he planned a game that went against their identity. I wonder if the play calling issues have more to do with the differing philosophies between coaches.


Absolutely not. He reiterated in his press conference that he guaranteed some sort of team success at the pep rally that he regretted later because it put too much pressure on the team. Rhule's enthusiasm got the best of him at the pep rally. He said that was a mistake because it caused the team to play tight. At half time he told them to play loose and be themselves and things got better. In addition, Rhule blamed himself because they were surprised Tech came out with a four man front when they had practiced against a three man front all week.

Most of the offensive problems occur because the offensive line has yet to able to get a consistent run game going and we have to live and die on the passing game IMO.
CoachHBU2008
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ColomboLQ said:

CoachHBU2008 said:

You can put Griffin back there and the result would still be the same. Again as much as I like Nixon it's the play calling. It's always been the play calling. And i am very specific about play calling not the offensive scheme. There is no true scheme. Just a bunch of plays put together. There is too much inconsistency and randomness to the play calling. No quick game. No screens to take advantage of an over zealous pass rush. Our receivers are running deep elongated routes which doesn't play to the strengths of our OLine, although I will say that the two picks Charlie had the line gave him a very clean pocket. Brewer and crew are out there fighting hard.

Nix needs to speed up the tempo. He seems more in his element when he does that. And because we are supposedly running the NFL version of Chip Kelly's offense, it's only effective when there is tempo.

We don't have an offense. We have playmakers. We just need to focus on getting the ball quickly to the playmakers and let Charlie do what he does best and make plays and get out of their way.
That clearly and succinctly sums up the offensive side of the ball.


You're in your right to disagree. But at some point you have to be real with the offensive play calling. I don't know how to say it. It's sporadic. I'm not sure what you are seeing that everyone is not. Even Rhule has said it. This not dissing Rhule, or Nixon or the team. I mentioned that it is the toughness and grit that has helped us accomplish this great success despite the offense ineptitude in many occasions.

Even when playing the soft parts of our schedule, a lot of our success was based on individual playmaking. The metrics can say one thing, but when you watch the game and see Brewer running for his life to make a play or Ebner reversing fields and housing it, it gives these metrics context.

Whether you like it or not, our offense is not consistent and at the level our defense deserves. It is not taking advantage of the speed we have in the skill positions. And a lot of times it goes away from the strengths of our o-line which is running the ball to the edges on wide side of the field. That's fact not opinion. And it doesn't mean that we should fire Rhule or that we are terrible. No one here is saying that.

But what I am saying is that with the talent we have on both sides we can beat OSU in Stillwater. I don't see why we can't beat TCU in Fort Worth nor do I see why we can't win a close one against a Texas team that is vulnerable at defensive back. I'm merely suggesting that we perhaps condense what we do and focus on plays that get our guys the ball quicker and in space. I'm just asking that we focus on what we do well and eliminate play calls that goes against our strengths. It's not overly critical to suggest we get more screen game going to our backs. Or running tunnel screens with our receivers instead of the stagnant screen we run from trips set. I'm suggesting we move the pocket to help Charlie avoid hits. Run more slants and hitch routes against soft coverage instead of having our receivers on long developing routes and asking our growing o-line to block for more than a couple of seconds. I'm even suggesting that we run a little more than quarterback sneak out of under center I formation that way we can actually have a play action game out of that formation.

All these things are fixable without changing the offensive scheme dramatically. If Snow can adjust his defense to cater to his talent, I don't think it's harsh to ask Nixon and Thomas (if Thomas is actually involved in play calling) to make some adjustments and simplify the playbook to double down on our strengths. They've done it before. Made some adjustments after half time of both games. Why not just decide now wholesale that we are going to condense the playbook and let our guys make plays? Let's make that decision now going into these games instead of going into our games running a multitude of plays that have no rhyme or reason to it and forces us to continuously have to claw back into games and pull them out in the end.

I think our players are now figuring it out. At this time of the season identities get solidified. We are a tough and grind it out group that is becoming more and more physical as the season as well as Rhule's tenure progresses. Let's help them out with our play calling and just let them go out there and play.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.