No Slant Route - WHY?

[Wrecking Ball]

Well, now it just sounds like you're making stuff up. Of course, it is the internet, soooooo.......

I did say I was going out on a limb.

 

[B Lifsey]

If we could execute shotgun and more diverse routes, they would definitely be a benefit. But when we are not executing what we've practised for weeks, months, and for some of the team, years, I just don't see trying those going well.

Then again, if we were executing our offense like we would like, would there even be the shotgun discussion?

 

[JorgeJonas]

This is a sentiment most can agree with. No one is happy with the results. Some changes do likely need to be made. Most who support the current staff won't argue either. But those that spew cliches will likely continue to be argued with. I've tired of doing so. People will believe what they want despite seeing proof of otherwise, short passes etc.

This is exactly correct. People are griping at the margins. Slants, short passes, press coverage, etc. It's as predictable as the day is long. I can't explain the line. I don't believe a single person on this board can explain what's wrong, because if they could they'd be making a helluva lot more money doing that than whatever they're doing. I just know we can't block and that I don't have the answer. Beyond that, all the other stuff is nonsense.

 

[JorgeJonas]

The fumble wasn't the issue. The issue is there are tendencies by defenses, blatant tendencies, that our paid staff aren't seeing and that bothers me.

But Yello nailed it, this board is becoming less and less able to discuss X's and O's cause the same ones keep getting so sensitive about any ideology related to football that second guesses the coaching staff.

Good God, grow up.

The board isn't less able to discuss X's and O's, because it was never able to do so in the first place.

 

[GTJake]

I posted this in another thread.
I watched two D1 TO teams play the last two weeks, New Mexico and Air Force, and they both have viable passing attacks.
When we pass .... Keystone Kops come to mind here.

 

[AE 87]

The board isn't less able to discuss X's and O's, because it was never able to do so in the first place.

I think that this board is capable of discussing, and has discussed, X' and O's. However, the OP in this thread begins with "the concept does not exist with Paul." So, the conversation being introduced is not one about scheme but an ignorant attack on the coach. Furthermore, it was introduced after the a game in which we had more yards/carry than any game after the first two except Pittsburgh, more yards/play since the first two except Pitt and UVA. We did that with a RS Fr QB playing his first snaps since last two plays of CU and a couple of series vs Tulane.

The problem that I have with much of the chatter is that it suggests the problem is with the scheme, or otherwise coaching. From 2011 to 2014 (after all of the players from under Chan had left), we averaged the third best scoring offense in points/drive versus power 5 opposition: #9, #9, #23, and #1. We were #43 in 2008, #2 in 2009, and #37 in 2010. Our average ppd v pwr5 (or BCS AQ) for the 7 years of 2007 to 2014 was #4.

The basic scheme and coaching today is basically unchanged from a very successful offense. So, yes, we are currently #38 and are having our worst offensive performance under CPJ. However, when you look at how well we've performed over the last 7 years, it seems to me that the suggestion that the problem is scheme or coaching is crazy. To make that case, one would have to bring more data.

Furthermore, all offenses--as far as I can tell--operate within a philosophy. They aren't just random plays you like you might find in a video game menu. We have slant routes, for example, within our Choice and Switch concepts, iiuc, but we're not going to run the slant which is one of the base plays for the West Coast offense. We're also less likely to run any quick slant when our starting QB is 5'10" and when our OL is struggling to get any kind of protection, let alone open short targeted passing lanes.

So, as I've said before, this site has had and will have X's and O's discussions, but if you want a forum for shouting chowder without being challenged, then you may like gtsportstalk more.

 

[Milwaukee]

I think that this board is capable of discussing, and has discussed, X' and O's. However, the OP in this thread begins with "the concept does not exist with Paul." So, the conversation being introduced is not one about scheme but an ignorant attack on the coach. Furthermore, it was introduced after the a game in which we had more yards/carry than any game after the first two except Pittsburgh, more yards/play since the first two except Pitt and UVA. We did that with a RS Fr QB playing his first snaps since last two plays of CU and a couple of series vs Tulane.

The problem that I have with much of the chatter is that it suggests the problem is with the scheme, or otherwise coaching. From 2011 to 2014 (after all of the players from under Chan had left), we averaged the third best scoring offense in points/drive versus power 5 opposition: #9, #9, #23, and #1. We were #43 in 2008, #2 in 2009, and #37 in 2010. Our average ppd v pwr5 (or BCS AQ) for the 7 years of 2007 to 2014 was #4.

The basic scheme and coaching today is basically unchanged from a very successful offense. So, yes, we are currently #38 and are having our worst offensive performance under CPJ. However, when you look at how well we've performed over the last 7 years, it seems to me that the suggestion that the problem is scheme or coaching is crazy. To make that case, one would have to bring more data.

Furthermore, all offenses--as far as I can tell--operate within a philosophy. They aren't just random plays you like you might find in a video game menu. We have slant routes, for example, within our Choice and Switch concepts, iiuc, but we're not going to run the slant which is one of the base plays for the West Coast offense. We're also less likely to run any quick slant when our starting QB is 5'10" and when our OL is struggling to get any kind of protection, let alone open short targeted passing lanes.

So, as I've said before, this site has had and will have X's and O's discussions, but if you want a forum for shouting chowder without being challenged, then you may like gtsportstalk more.

I at least like the fact that you put thought into this post. But googling offensive statistics and rankings and throwing them out there is just not gonna cut it if you wanna discuss X's and O's. If you tell me we have the quick slants concept in our offense then man o man, I'd love to see it some more, or any. 5'10 quarterbacks with no pass protection shouldn't be looking at quick slants?? I'm confused.

If anyone thinks we shouldn't be popping smoke routes and slants on 3rd and short with corners playing 8 yds off, then I got nothin lol. The "We're an option team and by God that's what we've done in the past, heck just look at the statistics" crowd is tiring.

I think PJ will make some adjustments in the very thing being discussed in this thread. Hell, he may pop a slant on first down Saturday just to please Milwaukee.

 

[bke1984]

I don't care what kind of route it is, but we absolutely need to get better at taking advantage of corners that play 10 yards off the line of scrimmage when we are unable to run the ball. The 8 step drops while turned the wrong way under ridiculous pressure are not exactly effective. Seems like there has to be a better option here.

I get that "we need to pass protect better," but I think there are other options at times when we are unable to do so.

 

[Milwaukee]

I don't care what kind of route it is, but we absolutely need to get better at taking advantage of corners that play 10 yards off the line of scrimmage when we are unable to run the ball. The 8 step drops while turned the wrong way under ridiculous pressure are not exactly effective. Seems like there has to be a better option here.

I get that "we need to pass protect better," but I think there are other options at times when we are unable to do so.

Stop that nonsense. We run the football around here. We're 18th nationally in yards after contact on 3rd downs that originated from the left hash in road non conference games when trailing at the half, since 2008. Where have you been?

 

[yellojello]

I think that this board is capable of discussing, and has discussed, X' and O's. However, the OP in this thread begins with "the concept does not exist with Paul." So, the conversation being introduced is not one about scheme but an ignorant attack on the coach. Furthermore, it was introduced after the a game in which we had more yards/carry than any game after the first two except Pittsburgh, more yards/play since the first two except Pitt and UVA. We did that with a RS Fr QB playing his first snaps since last two plays of CU and a couple of series vs Tulane.

The problem that I have with much of the chatter is that it suggests the problem is with the scheme, or otherwise coaching. From 2011 to 2014 (after all of the players from under Chan had left), we averaged the third best scoring offense in points/drive versus power 5 opposition: #9, #9, #23, and #1. We were #43 in 2008, #2 in 2009, and #37 in 2010. Our average ppd v pwr5 (or BCS AQ) for the 7 years of 2007 to 2014 was #4.

The basic scheme and coaching today is basically unchanged from a very successful offense. So, yes, we are currently #38 and are having our worst offensive performance under CPJ. However, when you look at how well we've performed over the last 7 years, it seems to me that the suggestion that the problem is scheme or coaching is crazy. To make that case, one would have to bring more data.

Furthermore, all offenses--as far as I can tell--operate within a philosophy. They aren't just random plays you like you might find in a video game menu. We have slant routes, for example, within our Choice and Switch concepts, iiuc, but we're not going to run the slant which is one of the base plays for the West Coast offense. We're also less likely to run any quick slant when our starting QB is 5'10" and when our OL is struggling to get any kind of protection, let alone open short targeted passing lanes.

So, as I've said before, this site has had and will have X's and O's discussions, but if you want a forum for shouting chowder without being challenged, then you may like gtsportstalk more.

Ok (and I'm in agreement with you here) that our offensive scheme and coaching are not a big problem. Can we apply the same line of logic to D and ST and conclude that 3 DCs and two ST coordinators later, that CPJ is a poor head coach? I'm sure you are more than capable of posting our defensive and ST stats.

 

[JorgeJonas]

I think that this board is capable of discussing, and has discussed, X' and O's. However, the OP in this thread begins with "the concept does not exist with Paul." So, the conversation being introduced is not one about scheme but an ignorant attack on the coach. Furthermore, it was introduced after the a game in which we had more yards/carry than any game after the first two except Pittsburgh, more yards/play since the first two except Pitt and UVA. We did that with a RS Fr QB playing his first snaps since last two plays of CU and a couple of series vs Tulane.

The problem that I have with much of the chatter is that it suggests the problem is with the scheme, or otherwise coaching. From 2011 to 2014 (after all of the players from under Chan had left), we averaged the third best scoring offense in points/drive versus power 5 opposition: #9, #9, #23, and #1. We were #43 in 2008, #2 in 2009, and #37 in 2010. Our average ppd v pwr5 (or BCS AQ) for the 7 years of 2007 to 2014 was #4.

The basic scheme and coaching today is basically unchanged from a very successful offense. So, yes, we are currently #38 and are having our worst offensive performance under CPJ. However, when you look at how well we've performed over the last 7 years, it seems to me that the suggestion that the problem is scheme or coaching is crazy. To make that case, one would have to bring more data.

Furthermore, all offenses--as far as I can tell--operate within a philosophy. They aren't just random plays you like you might find in a video game menu. We have slant routes, for example, within our Choice and Switch concepts, iiuc, but we're not going to run the slant which is one of the base plays for the West Coast offense. We're also less likely to run any quick slant when our starting QB is 5'10" and when our OL is struggling to get any kind of protection, let alone open short targeted passing lanes.

So, as I've said before, this site has had and will have X's and O's discussions, but if you want a forum for shouting chowder without being challenged, then you may like gtsportstalk more.

Let me see if I can try this again. I don't think a single person on this board - certainly not one that I've read - is capable of looking at a defensive alignment and pointing out the proper block, technique, timing, and appropriate adjustments for all 11 offensive players. I certainly get that we can see a route (though I hate when Mel Kiper wannabes start talking about route trees) and ask why we didn't do something different. But the truth is there is usually a reason, and I don't think anyone here can identify that reason. I know I sure as hell can't. I get that we can generally - and I emphasize generally - understand what we are trying to do and maybe do some of the cost/benefit analysis associated with that, but we can't talk intelligently about the means by which that strategy is implemented. Lastly, none of us has the time in our respective day to know in depth what the individual strengths and weaknesses are of 85 different players. Coaches work 100 hours a week to acquire that knowledge. We simply don't have it.

This wasn't meant as an attack, but rather to point out our limitations in this field.

 

[yellojello]

;

Let me see if I can try this again. I don't think a single person on this board - certainly not one that I've read - is capable of looking at a defensive alignment and pointing out the proper block, technique, timing, and appropriate adjustments for all 11 offensive players. I certainly get that we can see a route (though I hate when Mel Kiper wannabes start talking about route trees) and ask why we didn't do something different. But the truth is there is usually a reason, and I don't think anyone here can identify that reason. I know I sure as hell can't. I get that we can generally - and I emphasize generally - understand what we are trying to do and maybe do some of the cost/benefit analysis associated with that, but we can't talk intelligently about the means by which that strategy is implemented. Lastly, none of us has the time in our respective day to know in depth what the individual strengths and weaknesses are of 85 different players. Coaches work 100 hours a week to acquire that knowledge. We simply don't have it.

This wasn't meant as an attack, but rather to point out our limitations in this field.

You don't need to know defensive strategy or alignment to know we have been horrid on D pretty much all through CPJ's tenure. Same with ST. Just like I don't need to know everything about our offensive scheme to know that it's been very successful (for the most part), I don't need to know everything about defensive strategy to know that we have generally been terrible on that side of the ball.

Also, if we took your argument to its logical conclusion, nobody should be able to say out offense has been good either. After all, nobody knows enough scheme to make such a comment. Why aren't you up in arms when people make such a statement?

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Wasn't this thread about there being no slant routes? Yet it as always devolves into the...our coaches suck at D, ST, Oline, etc....at least try and keep it on target.

 

[JorgeJonas]

;


You don't need to know defensive strategy or alignment to know we have been horrid on D pretty much all through CPJ's tenure. Same with ST. Just like I don't need to know everything about our offensive scheme to know that it's been very successful (for the most part), I don't need to know everything about defensive strategy to know that we have generally been terrible on that side of the ball.

Also, if we took your argument to its logical conclusion, nobody should be able to say out offense has been good either. After all, nobody knows enough scheme to make such a comment. Why aren't you up in arms when people make such a statement?

Couple things. First, to your question - the answer is simple, no one is saying the offense is good or bad. This didn't start as a generalized thread. Instead, it was a specific idea. Secondly, and this is equally important, the defense and special teams aren't horrid this year. The defense is mediocre and could stand to be improved, for sure, but the special teams are rated right around the top quartile in FBS according to FEI. Even if that's not a GPS, it probably is a compass. And that's important, because unless you're watching every single game, it's awfully difficult to make comparative statements.

 

[yellojello]

Couple things. First, to your question - the answer is simple, no one is saying the offense is good or bad. This didn't start as a generalized thread. Instead, it was a specific idea. Secondly, and this is equally important, the defense and special teams aren't horrid this year. The defense is mediocre and could stand to be improved, for sure, but the special teams are rated right around the top quartile in FBS according to FEI. Even if that's not a GPS, it probably is a compass. And that's important, because unless you're watching every single game, it's awfully difficult to make comparative statements.

As whiskey has pointed out, I'm hijacking this thread, so this will be my last response.

That the offense is good is being implied (correctly) because the reasoning for the lack of need for offensive changes is based on our current scheme's effectiveness. This is stated indirectly when people point to historical offensive trends. It's also expressly stated in many posts on this thread including the one I responded to.

If you've been watching our games, you would know that our ST'a are terrible in the following categories:

1) KO return
2) Punt return
3) Punt coverage

While I've not investigated sufficiently to make this claim, I feel confident in stating that the only reason our ST ranking is that high is because of touchbacks (eliminating KO coverage) and fumbles (eliminating punting and punt return). However, since I have not completely established this theory, I will concede your point that it is possible, but not probable that we are as good as you say we are.

 

[iceeater1969]

I think that this board is capable of discussing, and has discussed, X' and O's. However, the OP in this thread begins with "the concept does not exist with Paul." So, the conversation being introduced is not one about scheme but an ignorant attack on the coach. Furthermore, it was introduced after the a game in which we had more yards/carry than any game after the first two except Pittsburgh, more yards/play since the first two except Pitt and UVA. We did that with a RS Fr QB playing his first snaps since last two plays of CU and a couple of series vs Tulane.

The problem that I have with much of the chatter is that it suggests the problem is with the scheme, or otherwise coaching. From 2011 to 2014 (after all of the players from under Chan had left), we averaged the third best scoring offense in points/drive versus power 5 opposition: #9, #9, #23, and #1. We were #43 in 2008, #2 in 2009, and #37 in 2010. Our average ppd v pwr5 (or BCS AQ) for the 7 years of 2007 to 2014 was #4.

The basic scheme and coaching today is basically unchanged from a very successful offense. So, yes, we are currently #38 and are having our worst offensive performance under CPJ. However, when you look at how well we've performed over the last 7 years, it seems to me that the suggestion that the problem is scheme or coaching is crazy. To make that case, one would have to bring more data.

Furthermore, all offenses--as far as I can tell--operate within a philosophy. They aren't just random plays you like you might find in a video game menu. We have slant routes, for example, within our Choice and Switch concepts, iiuc, but we're not going to run the slant which is one of the base plays for the West Coast offense. We're also less likely to run any quick slant when our starting QB is 5'10" and when our OL is struggling to get any kind of protection, let alone open short targeted passing lanes.

So, as I've said before, this site has had and will have X's and O's discussions, but if you want a forum for shouting chowder without being challenged, then you may like gtsportstalk more.

People talking about slant passes are interesting to me as are your statts. Lets not run people off.

Your stat of us currently being #38 in points per drive against power 5 and the fact that we are ALL L and only 1 miricale on techwood W, makes me wonder if ppd correlates well to winning.

Seems like the other half = defense points allowed per drive is just as important??

I have always advocate d a very aggressive defense to get more drives for the offense. Get the damn ball somehow back un the hands of our offense. How aggressive do u think the d should be. ??

 

[stylee]

I haven't posted much X's and O's this season. Wife had a baby in July and we have very little free time.
I'm as mystified as anyone as to O-line performance.

 

[Ibeeballin]

To answer a couple a couple of questions:
Why do we not throw?

1) We can effectively do a straight drop protection. As bad as the OLine has played this season 3 step drop is not even quick enough. Hence why we are moving the pocket

2) Why slant is the go to route? Defenses are have the box crowded. Why do we want JT to throw the ball in the teeth of the D? If the QB is 10yds off give me a quick hitch with a one step drop, speed out or, smoke route

3) DCs aren't stupid either (well most aren't) I'm willing to bet if the CB is 10yds off that there will be a Backer buzzing underneath that route

 

[bke1984]

1) Agreed. Our O line has been awful, and JT has no time. What if we tried max protect with A backs when we need to pass instead of using 5 OL and 1 BB...honestly, I'm just curious as to why we don't do this, rather than saying we should

2) Like I said in an earlier post. I don't care what the route is, but we have to do something. We can't continue to do long drop backs and try to go way down field when DB's are 10 yards off. The smoke route has been non-existent this year...not sure why

3) Yeah, but they haven't been doing that. Maybe they would start, but then that would open something else up, right? I think it's a continuous adjustment. What bothers me right now is how we've done nothing to account for the 10 yard cushion situations

 

[65Jacket]

I came to this board because I was sick and tired of the negative crap on the other sites. This thread is really disappointing. CPJ knows more about the whys and wherefores of this offense than all of you combined. The offense is screwed up this year by horrendous injuries. It will be fixed by the start of the 2016 season. You can mark my word. It has worked in the past and it will work in the future. I hope CPJ is our Coach for another 10 years, and I will leave the operation and scheming of our program to him.