Finally a coaching staff that has stayed together

[JTrue]

12 minutes ago, The Great 8 said:

If you think the dive being the bread and butter was an “urban legend” I seriously question your ability to watch football.

For what it’s worth, I’m pretty sure The Daily Stampede already did an analysis on play calling and did indeed find the obvious: the dive play (i.e. between the tackles) was called inordinately more than other runs.

Consider refraining from calling something an urban legend just because it’s not obvious to you, when you put in zero research.

Can you link to that article? I never saw it and want to see what they said.

[BrassBulls12]

2 minutes ago, JTrue said:

For what it’s worth, I’m pretty sure The Daily Stampede already did an analysis on play calling and did indeed find the obvious: the dive play (i.e. between the tackles)

I don't like labeling every run play between the tackles as a HB dive. Just because the HB ran the ball between the tackles, does not mean the play was dive. there are numerous ways to block it, I.E. Veer, iso, zone, sprint, off-tackle, ect. that completely changes the play. So to say the play calling was weak because of the number of times we ran between the tackles is a weak argument unless you can break down the blocking scheme that goes with the play. Just ask a DT if an iso play looks like a veer play. if says yes, he probably isn't seeing the field much. 

[Ned A Starr RIP]

Perhaps the reason they stayed together is because no other team wants them!😃

[JTrue]

14 minutes ago, BrassBulls12 said:

I don't like labeling every run play between the tackles as a HB dive. Just because the HB ran the ball between the tackles, does not mean the play was dive. there are numerous ways to block it, I.E. Veer, iso, zone, sprint, off-tackle, ect. that completely changes the play. So to say the play calling was weak because of the number of times we ran between the tackles is a weak argument unless you can break down the blocking scheme that goes with the play. Just ask a DT if an iso play looks like a veer play. if says yes, he probably isn't seeing the field much. 

Agreed, though you quoted me with something I didn't actually say.

[BrassBulls12]

2 minutes ago, JTrue said:

Agreed, though you quoted me with something I didn't actually say.

my apologies

I meant to go back and correct that, but after I typed the message I got in a rush and never went back and did it. 

[Bull Dozer]

54 minutes ago, The Great 8 said:

If you think the dive being the bread and butter was an “urban legend” I seriously question your ability to watch football.

For what it’s worth, I’m pretty sure The Daily Stampede already did an analysis on play calling and did indeed find the obvious: the dive play (i.e. between the tackles) was called inordinately more than other runs.

Consider refraining from calling something an urban legend just because it’s not obvious to you, when you put in zero research.

To go along with this some will say "Some of those were read options that Q made the wrong read". Well, that doesn't help Gilbert's case as he would have had to continually called a play that a player couldn't execute properly consistently enough times to significantly effect how the offense looked.    

[Bull Dozer]

56 minutes ago, BrassBulls12 said:

I don't like labeling every run play between the tackles as a HB dive. Just because the HB ran the ball between the tackles, does not mean the play was dive. there are numerous ways to block it, I.E. Veer, iso, zone, sprint, off-tackle, ect. that completely changes the play. So to say the play calling was weak because of the number of times we ran between the tackles is a weak argument unless you can break down the blocking scheme that goes with the play. Just ask a DT if an iso play looks like a veer play. if says yes, he probably isn't seeing the field much. 

Yes, the reads and keys are different for the defense for those inside run plays but they are still inside runs (except for the plays above that are not inside runs at all which are irrelevant to this argument).  The issue many have had with the play calling was not attacking the field laterally enough to keep the defense honest.   This allowed defensive coordinators to zero in on the the inside run game and because defenders didn't have any consistent threat of outside runs being out of those sets it allowed them to get down hill fast.  Now against teams that were over matched by our talent that wasn't a big deal because we were talented enough that it didn't matter in the end but it allowed some teams that had no business being in games against us to come back in the second half after they adjusted.  Against Houston this allowed them to come back and give our offense fits and beat us and it cost us at key moments against UCF....    All of this will be magnified next year with a Green QB, replacing our two best interior linemen, and losing the explosive and hidden plays that Flowers athleticism that bailed us out multiple times per game.  Gilbert's lack of flexibility in his play calling should be a concern for us considering we saw how great our offense was the last time we tried to bully people with a power run game without a guy like Flowers to cover up the warts and bail us out......

Edited February 27, 2018 by Bull Dozer

[BrassBulls12]

5 minutes ago, Bull Dozer said:

(except for the plays above that are not inside runs at all which are irrelevant to this argument). 

So tell me which plays did I mention are not inside runs? Also can we count how many times Flowers missed MVS on go routs? Maybe we wouldn't have ran the ball between the tackles so much if we would have been able to at least complete half of those. I'm sorry you didn't like how the offense was called but that doesn't make it wrong. There's a lot that goes into play calling, so to sit here and say they didn't know what they were doing because we ran the ball between the tackles so much is just flat out flawed. You don't know all the factors, you have no way of knowing.  there are plenty of very successful offense that do a lot of running between the tackles. We went 10-2, there's nothing wrong with that.

Here's another thought, maybe this staff changed the course of the offense because Flowers was a four month player for them and there is no one like him to return this season. maybe they though best to take a 2 year outlook over a four month outlook. sorry but this team coming back cannot run the Gulf Coast offense. Which would have forced them to make that switch this season, meaning our brand new QB would also be working with a brand new offense, that really doesn't end well. Doing it this way meant that we had a senior with a ton of experience to make the switch and the young kids get a year to learn. To top it all off, this team was a 4th and 24 stop and kick return stop from going undefeated. I can't gripe about that.

Speaking of, I don't want to listen to any argument about the Houston game unless it pertains to not stopping a 4 and 24, if can't do that, you don't deserve to win. End of story. 

[Bull Dozer]

24 minutes ago, BrassBulls12 said:

So tell me which plays did I mention are not inside runs?

Sure, Veer and Zone are blocking schemes that can be run inside or outside.  Also off tackle runs are often ran to where the RB's intended running lane is off the takcle's outside hip, which is more of an outside run than inside.  Pretty basic stuff......

Also can we count how many times Flowers missed MVS on go routs? Maybe we wouldn't have ran the ball between the tackles so much if we would have been able to at least complete half of those.

Do we also get to count how many times Flowers put the ball on him and he dropped catchable balls down field?  Same for Dillon, Salomon, Barr, etc

I'm sorry you didn't like how the offense was called but that doesn't make it wrong. There's a lot that goes into play calling, so to sit here and say they didn't know what they were doing because we ran the ball between the tackles so much is just flat out flawed. You don't know all the factors, you have no way of knowing.  there are plenty of very successful offense that do a lot of running between the tackles. We went 10-2, there's nothing wrong with that.

Yes we did very well with the offense last season because we were absolutely LOADED and had the most Dynamic offensive player in the conference that teams had to game plan for (even if we didn't fully utilize him fully).  We just purely out talented the majority of the teams on the schedule, and even then some of them hung around because of our predictability.  Yes, there are a lot of teams that win and do it consistently with power offenses, but honestly those are dying breed and they have a better quality offensive line (IE Wisconsin, Iowa, etc).  At USF historically we do not have consistent access to the linemen required to run that kind of system, please see CWT's first two Seasons.    

 

Here's another thought, maybe this staff changed the course of the offense because Flowers was a four month player for them and there is no one like him to return this season. maybe they though best to take a 2 year outlook over a four month outlook. sorry but this team coming back cannot run the Gulf Coast offense. Which would have forced them to make that switch this season, meaning our brand new QB would also be working with a brand new offense, that really doesn't end well. Doing it this way meant that we had a senior with a ton of experience to make the switch and the young kids get a year to learn. To top it all off, this team was a 4th and 24 stop and kick return stop from going undefeated. I can't gripe about that.

Pretty sure I've never advocated for running the GCO but rather some varied play calling that makes defenses honor the outside run.  Again this is not a schematic shift or change in offense but rather some more imaginative play calling.  Hell there were times where we did actually do this and were very successful (Illinois, most of the UCF Game, Second half of SJSU).  We know the plays were in the playbook so this is not a matter of some kind of hypothetical hybrid GCO/Veer n Shoot offense.  All a portion of the people here are saying is break into those perimeter plays more often.   We we're **** near unstoppable when we did because those plays actually COMPLIMENT the veer N shoot system that Gilbert runs by further stressing the defense.   This does not require changing the system but rather using plays that we saw sporadically through out the season more often.   

Speaking of, I don't want to listen to any argument about the Houston game unless it pertains to not stopping a 4 and 24, if can't do that, you don't deserve to win. End of story. 

Without the awful game plan it never comes down to that.   This is like complaining about the straw that broke the camels back without acknowledging the 10 bales of hay you had piled up on that camel before that final straw.  You can take your ball and go home but this basically means that running the ball 50 plus times, most of them at the best defensive player in the conference and averaging under 3ypc is a great way to set your team up for success.  Especially on a day where Flowers was pretty **** efficient throwing the the ball.  

 

Edited February 27, 2018 by Bull Dozer

[Triple B]

On 2/22/2018 at 3:53 PM, Triple B said:

Definition of urban legend

: an often lurid story or anecdote that is based on hearsay and widely circulated as true

 

You know, like the hb dive being the bread and butter of our offense last year ...

2 hours ago, The Great 8 said:

If you think the dive being the bread and butter was an “urban legend” I seriously question your ability to watch football.

For what it’s worth, I’m pretty sure The Daily Stampede already did an analysis on play calling and did indeed find the obvious: the dive play (i.e. between the tackles) was called inordinately more than other runs.

Consider refraining from calling something an urban legend just because it’s not obvious to you, when you put in zero research.

I did do research. Found that we averaged more yards per game on offense than last year, which included over 20 more yards passing per game. I really don't give a **** what TDS came up with. Saying the hb dive was the bread and butter of our offense last year is a ******* joke ..... or maybe I'm fuzzy on what "bread and butter" means.

Edited February 27, 2018 by Triple B