- Messages
- 3,262
I will not be posting and offensive nor defensive study this week, as I was unable to record the game and unwilling to attempt anything similar from the espn3 format. I did, however, watch the game replay this morning. I may have watched 6 or 7 plays a second time to just watch an individual who I haven't seen in game action yet. Having done so, I feel about the same as I did leaving the game after watching it live from the North EZ (love those seats btw). I feel generally encouraged overall, but a bit sobered as well, given that some limitations appear to be coming more into focus for this team.
I'll start with the good. They didn't stop our offense. If there was a stop, we basically did it to ourselves. Three separate drives were stopped by fumbles. Two being ripped out as we fought for extra yards after a long successful drive and one on a toss sweep where we put it on the ground for a huge loss which basically eneded the drive even though we recovered it this time. Clearly, Qua has given the AB position a lift. He made 3 or 4 plays into much bigger gains than would have resulted last year with the guys we had playing. A couple he extended with better speed and a couple with better cuts and slippery running, taking a leg away from the tackler and spins etc. He can hurt you in both offensive phases and is a weapon. We need another AB to emerge in much the same way. Will one? I dunno. JJ Green maybe? Lynn Griffin? Nathan Cottrell? Overall, for the most part, we executed well and exerted our will. I'll give Matthew Jordan credit for this much: he plays agressively and gets the play heading upfield better than anybody. That is the way the offense needs to be run IMHO. The only problem is he is averse to the pitch. He forces the D to commit very well but then just hangs on to the ball. I would say as many as half of his keeps would have better plays had he cut the ball loose just as the committed defenders were arriving to him. MJ is not far off. Keeping is the safer play and he was gaining positive yards, but we need to hit the bigger plays when we can safely.
The so so? I am not nearly as worried about the play of the defense as some of us are. Nor am I pleasantly surprised. In my mind, we got what we expected to get yesterday, considering the plan we had going in. If you line up the way we do and play vanilla, you have to expect to give up plays in the flats and short along the boundary. We did and it was by design. I give them credit for executing their plan well and having enough skill athletes to be somewhat effective. We stopped the run and we forced them to dink and dunk all the way down the field if they wanted to score. It limited our offensive possessions, but they were unable to score with it. Their first drive was capped off with a pretty improbable throw deep down the field and across his body. Kudos to them for making that play. What was missing, in order for me to feel more encouraged was a greater number of negative plays to stop drives, a TO or two, and a couple more stops on 3rd down. We created a lot of third downs, we just needed to stop a couple more. We played to contain, not to dominate.
The bad? The fumbles. Without those, this game would have felt a lot more like the whitewash many of you were expecting. The punt, again.
New Faces: I am guilty. I rewound a couple of plays when I noticed somebody new was on the field. Curry played a lot and was very aggressive and decisive with good tackling. I think he is sure to help us. His role should be interesting. Probably not big enough to be an every down guy at LB, but you have to love him against spread roaming the underneath stuff and occasionally bringing the rush. I like what I saw from Braun at RG. He is not a shy kid. He is quick in there and fairly physical for a Frosh. He has a chance to be good IMHO. Give him some time and reps. I was surprised to see Adams in there to be frank, but I guess we feel the pressure to bring him on this year because we may need a little something. There was good and bad for him. His body just looks different and very hard to block. They were unable to move him at all, even with the double team. That was noticeably different from our other players. He stood guys up and gave up zero ground. Runs in his direction went nowhere. If that were all he is responsible for, he would already be an upgrade. There was other stuff with him that didn't look so good. He got cut to the ground on a play and just took forever to get up. You can't have that on defense. He also got out in space a couple times chasing a play and looked like a fish out of water. He didn't break down and didn't take a tackling angle etc. For this reason, I am not saying he is ready, but rather, I like what I see for later down the road. He is the most physical DT with a great body for the position that I have seen us bring in for a while.
I'll start with the good. They didn't stop our offense. If there was a stop, we basically did it to ourselves. Three separate drives were stopped by fumbles. Two being ripped out as we fought for extra yards after a long successful drive and one on a toss sweep where we put it on the ground for a huge loss which basically eneded the drive even though we recovered it this time. Clearly, Qua has given the AB position a lift. He made 3 or 4 plays into much bigger gains than would have resulted last year with the guys we had playing. A couple he extended with better speed and a couple with better cuts and slippery running, taking a leg away from the tackler and spins etc. He can hurt you in both offensive phases and is a weapon. We need another AB to emerge in much the same way. Will one? I dunno. JJ Green maybe? Lynn Griffin? Nathan Cottrell? Overall, for the most part, we executed well and exerted our will. I'll give Matthew Jordan credit for this much: he plays agressively and gets the play heading upfield better than anybody. That is the way the offense needs to be run IMHO. The only problem is he is averse to the pitch. He forces the D to commit very well but then just hangs on to the ball. I would say as many as half of his keeps would have better plays had he cut the ball loose just as the committed defenders were arriving to him. MJ is not far off. Keeping is the safer play and he was gaining positive yards, but we need to hit the bigger plays when we can safely.
The so so? I am not nearly as worried about the play of the defense as some of us are. Nor am I pleasantly surprised. In my mind, we got what we expected to get yesterday, considering the plan we had going in. If you line up the way we do and play vanilla, you have to expect to give up plays in the flats and short along the boundary. We did and it was by design. I give them credit for executing their plan well and having enough skill athletes to be somewhat effective. We stopped the run and we forced them to dink and dunk all the way down the field if they wanted to score. It limited our offensive possessions, but they were unable to score with it. Their first drive was capped off with a pretty improbable throw deep down the field and across his body. Kudos to them for making that play. What was missing, in order for me to feel more encouraged was a greater number of negative plays to stop drives, a TO or two, and a couple more stops on 3rd down. We created a lot of third downs, we just needed to stop a couple more. We played to contain, not to dominate.
The bad? The fumbles. Without those, this game would have felt a lot more like the whitewash many of you were expecting. The punt, again.
New Faces: I am guilty. I rewound a couple of plays when I noticed somebody new was on the field. Curry played a lot and was very aggressive and decisive with good tackling. I think he is sure to help us. His role should be interesting. Probably not big enough to be an every down guy at LB, but you have to love him against spread roaming the underneath stuff and occasionally bringing the rush. I like what I saw from Braun at RG. He is not a shy kid. He is quick in there and fairly physical for a Frosh. He has a chance to be good IMHO. Give him some time and reps. I was surprised to see Adams in there to be frank, but I guess we feel the pressure to bring him on this year because we may need a little something. There was good and bad for him. His body just looks different and very hard to block. They were unable to move him at all, even with the double team. That was noticeably different from our other players. He stood guys up and gave up zero ground. Runs in his direction went nowhere. If that were all he is responsible for, he would already be an upgrade. There was other stuff with him that didn't look so good. He got cut to the ground on a play and just took forever to get up. You can't have that on defense. He also got out in space a couple times chasing a play and looked like a fish out of water. He didn't break down and didn't take a tackling angle etc. For this reason, I am not saying he is ready, but rather, I like what I see for later down the road. He is the most physical DT with a great body for the position that I have seen us bring in for a while.
Last edited:
