The UCLA Passing Game Under Norm Chow
by jtthirtyfour on Oct 28, 2009 4:33 AM PDT
Email
PrintBumped. GO BRUINS. -N
I don't buy the argument that the scheme is too complicated for our players to understand, or that our players lack the talent to run them. I took a look at the three tapes I have, the losses to Stanford, Oregon, and Cal, and put together some cutups of the most common passing concepts that I saw.
A few observations:
- The offense vs. Stanford looked a bit different than what we used against the other two teams - Kevin Craft was running the show at the farm
- If you boil things down there are only a handful of concepts, and these are things that are common all over football
- It seems that we have had a lot more blockers in on passing plays lately - a lot of "max protection", a few times there were only 2-man routes, with 2 TEs and a back in to block (8 man protection). I think that goes to show you that even though the offensive line has improved, we are still paying the price in terms of protection to keep our QBs off their backs - on that handful of 2-man routes no one was really open.
All-Curl
All-curl is pretty universal - here is a clip of the New Orleans Saints running it - if you've played Madden you're probably familiar with it. You basically have three curl routes over the middle and two routes towards the sideline to spread the defense - the premise is that the outside flat routes cause the defense to widen, opening up space in the middle. So far we've run it out of 5-wides, with 2 WRs just sitting in the flat and the three curl routes over the middle. Watch this video of Rick Neuheisel speaking at a high school coaches clinic in Arizona when he was the head coach of U-Dub. The link to the video should begin at the 4:30 mark, if it doesn't, then fast forward as that is where the QB reads begin.
If the defense only has 4 defenders underneath then there will be someone open - its just a matter of the QB starting on one side, and panning across until he finds an open "window" or a man that the defense doesn't pick up. I don't think that this is a particularly complex read to make, and Neuheisel does a great job explaining it - I have a hard time believing that UCLA student-athletes are struggling to pick up these reads from two great teachers. Again, if you play Madden/NCAA you can probably pick up this read in a game or two.
Double Slants
Double slants is also pretty common from high school to the pros. On one side you have two slant routes, on the other you have another concept, generally curl-flat (curl by outside WR and flat route by inside WR). The read is fairly simple as well - not a progression, but just reading one defender and figuring out where to throw (if A happens, throw to player 1, if B happens throw to player 2 - that simple). Generally pre-snap the QB looks at the defense and decides which side he will throw to and which flat defender he will read. Against this look it looks like they just read the "W" backer - if he jumps the outside slant then the inside guy should be open for a few yards. Otherwise they throw the outside slant. If they drop a safety down, and there is an extra defender underneath, they might instead throw to the right, read the "S" backer, and throw curl-flat to the other side of the field.
Screwed up with the video, there are some repeats towards the end. But notice that most of the time, opposite of the double slants are the TE going to the flat and probably a curl route/vertical route - one clip, Prince throws to Austin on a streak, he turned the curl vertical. Some of them you will see sort of a "smash" look opposite (see below).
Smash
Another common concept, just a 2-man route with a high-low combo against a flat defender. In it's most basic form you have a curl route underneath a corner route. If the defender sinks deep to defend the corner then the curl will be open, if he jumps the curl then the corner should be open above his head. One wrinkle that comes with Chow is that he uses what he calls "oblique stretches" to create these triangles in the defense - rather than stretching a defender vertically (the traditional smash) or horizontally (the all-curls and the double slant) he introduces a 3rd receiver that stretches the defense another way. UCLA has run this variant of the smash concept a few times, you'll notice that they use it opposite double slants a bit as well - probably against a certain look they will throw double slants, and against another they will use the oblique smash.
This is a play I've seen a couple times, where they motion a receiver in as a wing, and run smash with the back on a flat route. The motion man runs a little curl, the TE runs a corner above him (a smash combo, only inside the numbers), and the back is in the flat as the oblique stretch towards the sideline to create this triangle. The flat route widens the defenders, opening up space for the smash to work. In this video you'll see a 2-play series against Stanford where we ran what looked to be a "switch smash" - same thing, except that the slot WR runs outside and takes the curl, and the outside WR runs the corner. On the first play it looks like Morrell Presley, the "switcher", turns his curl upfield by mistake, judging from Terrence Austin's reaction. However UCLA comes right back with the same concept the next play and gets a big gainer to Austin.
Towards the end of the video you see a play that I noticed a few times against Cal and Arizona, what looks like a double smash, with the WRs in tight. One is the dropped TD to Nelson Rosario against Cal, where the corner might have been adjusted to a post route.
3- and 4-Verticals
This is an Airraid staple - when Texas Tech beat Texas in 2008 they used it to get down the field on the final drive, including the game-winner to Micahel Crabtree. It's also very simple, you release three or four guys in vertical routes, the concept being that teams that play one, two, or three safeties deep often cannot cover everyone, and with route adjustments you can make the defense wrong every time. For example, if there is a safety deep middle, you can bend the route to hit the seams rather than the middle. If there are two deep safeties, you run your middle vertical route down the middle. If the corners bail deep, then some teams have their WRs break down into a post-corner-curl-ish route near the sideline. If it is man coverage down the sideline and you cannot beat the defender, some teams will run fade-stop, and the QB drills the ball into the back of the WR, as he turns around right before he gets there. This is what Crabtree did on that final play against Texas.
This is probably the most complex of the bunch, if you incorporate all the different adjustments vs. different coverages. However I didn't see it nearly as much as the others. They are all against Cal; hard to see the deep coverage but on the first one down the middle, you can see the safety #29 slide off to the right/top of the screen, leaving the middle open. On the next to Rosario, it looks like a fade-stop adjustment as he us unable to get behind the cornerback. On the next play they run the same play and it is the interception that sealed the loss - sure you've seen that one before. Cal runs 2-deep, the receivers beat their defenders this time and continue down the field.
Final Thoughts
I don't think scheme or playcalling has been a problem. I don't think that any of this stuff is complex - aside from teaching the adjustments to the 3-verticals stuff, I wouldn't see a problem teaching it to high school quarterbacks and skill players, it is basic stuff. Most of it is just reading one concept, often just keying one defender to figure out where to go with the ball. That's the simplistic view, I know that there are places to go to when they blitz certain guys, and "peeks" at certain backside routes, but the main point is that guys are not looking all over the field at five different receivers running all over the place at the same time and trying to decide where to go.
I don't see Norm Chow as a brilliant offensive mastermind in the sense that he has come up with crazy pass concepts, the stuff in use today has all been around for awhile and you will see it all across the nation. I don't think that his offense is super-complex. I think the genius of Chow, or any other coach, is the way that they implement it - Mike Leach and the Airraid guys incorporating their unique style of throwing "balance" out the window and committing 100% to the pass, and practicing like an option team with the core of a few concepts, for example. I've never been to one of his talks, but from what I have heard he is great at understanding defense and how to attack it - most press box coaches are, that's why they want to be up there. I think he is great at figuring out what a defense is trying to do, and making the micro-adjustments like tagging a route (like that post in the end zone vs Cal off the double smash look) and packaging concepts together (ie, double slants married to smash).
However understanding how to get guys in the right places to attack a defense can only go so far, I think that the problems continue to be the basic stuff - blocking, tackling, penalties, catching, throwing accurately, etc. I think that this is less a talent issue, or scheme issue, or playcalling (I don't really buy the complaints about lack of blitzing and stunting by defense at Arizona, either, but that's another day), and just one of teaching and preaching fundamentals everyday. Most of the greatest coaches - Wooden, Lombardi, Bear Bryant - were not scheme guys, they just focused on the basics, and that is something that does not take 3, 4, 5 years to implement, or something that is dependent on the talent left over from the previous coach - it's something you can start to work on today at practice.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of BruinsNation's (BN) editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of BN's editors.
44 comments
|
5 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Excellent Post
And I couldn’t agree more with your assessment…this year it seems like we can’t get the simple stuff down. On the defensive side of the ball we tend to over pursue and can’t get off blocks…also basic stuff.
(Yet Another) Excellent Post
I feel like I’m enrolled in an upper-division course on football tactics – but loving every minute of it! Keep ’em coming JT!
Two questions:
If you don’t mind, could you please elaborate on how our schemes have progressed (or regressed?) from the start of the season through our last game and also on how are schemes have differed, as you alluded, when Craft was in vs. when Prince was in?
Also, reading and re-reading the section on 3 and 4 verticals, it doesn’t sound all that simple to me. From your description, it sounds like the QB and Receivers not only have to read the defense and base their reaction during the progression of the play, but that the QB needs to act before he is certain the receiver has made the same read. And I assume, when they are not on the same page, disaster ensues. Am I over-complicating the concept?
Thanks in advance.
Yeah, I think the 3/4 verts is the most complex thing out of the 4 I picked up on, but as I said, I only saw it a handful of times. It’s an Airraid staple just like the triple option is a big one for the flexbone, it’s practice-intensive as you have several different scenarios that can play out. I feel like it’s one of those things that you have to be all-in to really see the benefits, so maybe it’s something that Chow wants to eventually use more, or maybe I just am completely off and that’s not even what they are running.
I’m not sure how complex our version is (shoot, or if it even is a true verticals package where they are reading vs one that is predetermined). I’m pretty sure it isn’t as nearly as complex as what Texas Tech does with it, but I feel like there has to be some kind of adjustment vs. coverage built-in – may be just as simple as running the fade-stop if the receiver cannot beat his man, you basically throw where the corner is not.
I don’t have any tape on the first three games anymore but that was just my gut feeling, from what I remember, I’ll see if I can back up that comment with hard evidence next time.
by jtthirtyfour on Oct 27, 2009 6:15 PM PDT up reply actions
Loving it (in a I hate it sort of way)
What I mean by the subject line is that you’re right on with your analysis (as per usual), but I just wish it weren’t so damn true.
You mention precisely what is wrong with this team (and something that Tracy Pierson from BRO alluded to in his post-game analysis) and it is not offensive complexity. That was the primary difference that holdovers from the Dorrell regime noticed as well when this staff took over last Spring. The simple fact is that our players are just not that good and our coaching staff has a difficult time managing the (young) talent that is there.
I believe that Chow’s offense depends on his adjustments to the defense as well as running it with elite talent relative to the competition. This may be unfounded, but Chow’s offense was not particularly good in the NFL where talent is relatively equal among teams. In other words, he doesn’t necessarily do more with less; he does more with more. The reason this may be total useless speculation is due to his days at BYU where they were pretty good, winning a National Championship in 1984.
But they could have had better talent than the rest of their conference, bringing in quarterbacks like Ty Detmer, Steve Young, and Jim McMahon during his tenure. It’s hard to determine without the standard recruiting services we use now to record such things. But if you can assume they did, the revised Norm Chow Theory of Offensive Genius kind of fits.
If you were arguing my point
I guess you read it wrong, because I don’t mean that the offense is extremely complex, but that the Airraid offense requires more practice, and with a bunch of receivers who can’t catch and a Freshman QB, you’re asking for trouble no matter how good your coordinator is, so he dumbed it down (most likely, still all speculation and guesses) to have a better chance.
If the most complicated play is 4 verts too, then there is something wrong right there. The Airraid, which you do know, is an offense that uses multi level options on every play, which is extremely complicated, so in turn, I do think it is for our inexperience
There's no one in the world that wants to beat UCLA more than _______.
The only point I would argue is that Chow does not run the Airraid
I don’t think Chow’s offense fits under the Airraid umbrella…I think that the Airraid borrows some of his concepts, but the similarities end there. The Airraid is a style, not so much a scheme. You’ll see those concepts all around the nation every weekend. The thing about the Airraid is that it is practice-intensive, as I’ve said like option teams. An option play is not complex, but it takes a lot of repetition to master to the point where it can be your base play – taking proper steps and footwork, reading defenders, and making a decision based on that. It’s not so much thinking as reacting, so you have to rep it until it becomes like 2nd nature. Option teams practice and play differently than non-option teams, you spend a hell of a lot more time repping those basic concepts and reads over and over. I don’t think that Chow has ever been like that – the 4-vert play is a TTU staple but other than that the rest of the stuff is fairly common. We have run some option at times but that doesn’t make us an option team. Double slants, smash, all-curl are about as universal as you can get – every team runs that stuff, the Chow touch is the way he dresses up those concepts to disguise them from the defense, for example using the “switch” with the smash, and the flat route to “oblique” stretch the defense.
If you asked Norm Chow what offense he runs, he would probably tell you, the “Norm Chow offense”, and that’s whatever works with the players you have – good coaches are going to change up their scheme over time, no one stays the same. This is just what Chow has been running for the past month, in those three games. To me it looks like he is basing out of those (especially double slants over the past month), and throwing in the occasional curveball with something more unique, but it’s not like we are running 4-verts up and down the field like Texas Tech. My point is that it isn’t anything that is totally out there and obscure – no different than what a lot of these guys, especially those from high-profile programs, have been running since high school.
Actually
He learned it from Lavell Edwards and used the pass first philosophy as his trademark throughout his years, and Reggie Bush was the only exception to that. Airraid is definitely a scheme, although its very liberal about its formations and reads, but its structure is always the same.
Mike Leach’s Red Raiders actually avoid running all verts.. in any situation. They run the Smash (like you said), flood, sail, and screens. But they have 1000 different variations of those plays. They run the same play Over.. and over… and over in practice (like you said).
But if you go to smartfootball.com and check out Chris’s articles about the airraid you’ll find that it has those “base” plays, but its the variation, and Norm Chow is the best in the world at that varitation, that makes it so different.
We just need more time IMO which is what you are saying so we are in agreement.
There's no one in the world that wants to beat UCLA more than _______.
TTU definitely runs 3- and 4-verts – here’s video clip I was experimenting with on a site that allows you to put overlays on youtube videos that shows their adjustements vs. coverage.
Their offense is organized into passing concepts, they have their adjustments vs. coverage and their “tags” that they will change a route or two. While the concepts may be similar, the approach to the game is different, though. Like I said earlier, the Airraid is like option football for the passing game, you have your basic concepts (midline, triple, counter option, toss sweep) and then several ways to dress it up vs how the defense plays you. All you do in practice is try to get enough reps that your players are instinctual – ie, if you see man step down, then pull the ball and run.
Airraid is similar in that they basically eschew the running game in favor of this approach for the passing game, getting enough reps so that when you run verts, you know where to go if the corner bails vs if he sits. You can only be good at so many things, you only have so many hours in the day (this becomes more important on the NCAA level with all their regs).
You can be “pass first” without falling under that Airraid umbrella, but what they do in practice definitely shows on gameday – TTU rarely drops a pass, their QBs are on target, as the offense is heavy on the basics and fundamentals – the simple stuff. They may run the same stuff as Chow but the approach is different. We may run some option plays, a few per season, but that doesn’t make us an option team – it’s just one part of what we do, and I doubt we spend much time on it in practice. I noticed what looked to be the verts play a few times against Cal, but I wouldn’t say that we spend nearly as much time as TTU on it. And as far as the rest of the passing game goes, I just noticed double slants, all-curl, and smash, all of which are common in any passing offense.
I think that there is a misconception that Chow was and is an Airraid guy; if you ask Chris he will tell you the same thing – Chow might be the main tree trunk, but guys like Leach and Mumme split off into a separate branch a while ago and have gone their own separate direction.
by jtthirtyfour on Oct 28, 2009 7:01 AM PDT up reply actions
norm chow's time has come and certainly gone now...
our offense is not having fun and is not winning…enough said!!!!
by bruincheerleader on Oct 28, 2009 8:00 AM PDT reply actions
Well I'm certainly convinced
Forget all the great analysis by jtt and 13-9, clearly your opinion is all that matters.
Stop it haha
You’ have yet to cease my laughter
There's no one in the world that wants to beat UCLA more than _______.
by ucla13_usc9 on Oct 28, 2009 9:45 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Chow is a genius - not a magician
As one of the first who broached the question “Has Chow lost it?” let me atone for my sin. I was wrong to even bring it up because it wasn’t fair to judge. Given the state of the program and the bad luck with injuries – he’s doing well to keep us from getting blown out every game (like last season). Chow is a genius but not a magician. The difference is even the greatest genius in the world is still limited by physical reality – whereas a magician can wave a wand and utter nonsensical words (happius endicus) and violate laws of physics. Also, geniuses have their limits: just because you’re really, really smart doesn’t mean you can do anything that’s possible.
Consider Einstein – who had mathematicians help him develop general relativity (because they had to develop new math to do so) – he had his limitations. For example, he spent the second half of his life trying to unite the four fundamental forces of nature (so called GUTs) but failed. Did Einstein ‘lose it’ just because he failed? Was he less of a genius because he failed? Well, since no one else has succeeded in the ensuing decades (despite trying new approaches like string theory) we can safely say: “What he was trying to do was very difficult and maybe impossible, his failure to succeed at that in no way diminished his genius.”
I was wrong for blaming Chow for not being a magician, merely a genius. A genius can get a player to play to his full potential but a magician can make him bigger, faster, and stronger (without steroids ;). Magicians can do the impossible, and are superior to mere geniuses in every way but one: they don’t exist. Let’s cut Chow some slack for not being a mythical being with magical powers trying to do something very difficult: he can’t deliver toys to every child on Earth in one night but he can deliver a winning offense in time.
Arrrgh
Cheerleader…football…too many stereotypes…flooding into head…brain…hurts…l-l-l-osing…consciousnesssssssssssss
Oh UCLA you sweet bitch, you've BRUINed me for anything else.
Don't forget physical development
One factor we must consider is physical growth and athletic development during the college years (from 18-21). The body’s size and capacity for strength and speed increase during these years. So, when 18 yo’s play 22 yo’s they have to be much better in technique and raw talent to beat them. Right now some of our Frosh are holding their own against more mature players but others are getting beat. Next season – after a year of training and narrowing the physical maturity gap – our guys will be more competitive. As monstrous as XSF & Hasiak are today, they’ll be bigger and stronger and more experienced in 2010.
BTW: Some have attributed BYU’s dominance of the WAC to this effect – their 19 yo’s go on missions and come back 21 yo’s with 3-4 years of eligibility. Even though they don’t spend their missions bulking up – their bodies mature so when they come back strength training is more effective. After a year or two on the scout team, most BYU players are almost as old as NFL rookies.
chow's play calling is OLD FASHIONED...
it is what it is…the rest of college football has moved on to innovation with play calling…we run pass pass run run pass pass run…boring!!!!
by bruincheerleader on Oct 28, 2009 10:18 AM PDT reply actions
Perhaps you are looking for a message board?
where you can get away with posting baseless, shallow one liners with nothing original to offer?
are you saying i have no right to be posting my opinions here?
shallow?…baseless?…aren’t all opinions based on one’s own thought process?…mine are…i have followed UCLA football since the mid-60’s and have seen it all…i like ANYONE here is entitled to post an opinion…if not ban me …i will always be a BRUIN…who here actually led cheers for two seasons of UCLA football and basketball ???…anyone?…i thought so…so i believe my opinions are as valued as the next guy…i voice with my emotions…so sue me…
by bruincheerleader on Oct 28, 2009 11:05 AM PDT up reply actions
Maybe you're the one whose time has come and gone
It’s an insult to people like 13-9 and jtthirtyfour, who go through painstaking efforts to break down the minutia of the schemes we use so that all of us can better understand what is going on, for you to just come on with some one liner comment and effectively dismiss all of that. Don’t try to lord your “experience” as some sort of substitute for wisdom. I respect the takes of the two people I mentioned earlier because they provided more than ample FACTUAL justification for their opinions. You, on the other hand, come in here with jack squat and think that watching football since the 60’s confers upon you some sort of elite status. Allow me to disabuse you of that notion right now. In this marketplace of ideas, no one is buying what you’re selling, because you aren’t giving anyone any reason to.
by Tydides on Oct 28, 2009 11:17 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I Was a Cheerleader For One Season
But, I don’t think that, in itself, makes my posts immune from challenge and criticism.
For, even though I was a cheerleader for one year, I was student for more and received a Bruin education that taught me critical thinking.
No one is challenging your right to be here. Your posts are being challenged for being conclusory and shallow. This place thrives on rigorous debate. Substantiate your opinions and you’ll receive a very different response.
sjh
by Class of 66 on Oct 28, 2009 11:23 AM PDT up reply actions
so it's not enough to just have an opinion...
i guess to be a valuable poster here more is required…from what you are saying…wow this makes me rethink even signing up here for the rest of this ugly season…now you other posters make it ugly for me as well…we are ALL BRUINS…I LOVE UCLA FOOTBALL AND UCLA…and i believe my opinions, shallow or not are valued…I CARE JUST AS MUCH AS YOU ALL DO FOR UCLA AND ITS FUTURE IN ALL SPORTS…i think maybe some of you think to highly of your own opinions…i am just trying to add to the dialogue…jeez …i cheer UCLA on just like you do…i cannot wait for this season to be done…maybe winning will make all of you more open to all views and all BRUINS…
by bruincheerleader on Oct 28, 2009 11:42 AM PDT up reply actions
Holy ellipsis Batman!
Could we drop the persecution complex for a second and look at this rationally? No one here is doubting your passion for the Bruins. Maybe it’s true that for other places in the Bruin sphere, saying things like, and I paraphrase, “Norm Chow sucks”, passes as adding to the dialogue. I think the detail that this post went into should tip you off that this is not one of those places. Yes, more is expected here. It’s not about being a “valuable” poster or not. There are people that show up mostly in the game threads just to comment on the games. Those posters are valuable too.
The problem is that in comparison to the post you’re responding to, you offer relatively little in the way of evidence to counter it but assert your conclusion as being just as valid. We can only continue to be a reality based community that, as sjh puts it, thrives on rigorous debate, if we give more weight to the opinions that have the backing of evidence and fact.
Substantiated Posts v. Drive By Attacks
No, I guess it’s not enough to just give an opinion — particularly when that opinion is an attack on part of our athletic program or a member of BN. That does not mean you cannot be critical — we all are. It means that we have to support our attacks with facts.
I can’t speak for Nestor or the guys who really run this place, but they have worked very hard to distinguish it from the forums where nasty one line posts are the norm and depth and substance are absent.
It’s not that you are unwelcome here. Far from it. It’s that there is a different norm here than one might find elsewhere.
And, no one is challenging your level of commitment to UCLA or UCLA sports.
BTW — I am not cheering for this season to be done. Quite to the contrary. I actually see development and growth and believe that we can win every remaining game on our schedule and will not yield in that belief.
Winning will not change my opinion of CRN or CNN, both of whom I hold in high esteem, any more than losing will diminish it.
And, winning has nothing to do with the scope of the dialogue encouraged here. Drive By Posts following a winning effort are still drive by posts. Those shots are better taken on other boards.
(These views are my own and do not represent any of the people who actually work hard to bring us BN.)
sjh
by Class of 66 on Oct 28, 2009 12:06 PM PDT up reply actions
Actually you are needed around here
One last thought.
As a long time Bruin, you can bring historical/factual perspective to the many young around here who have never known UCLA to be a “football” school. Us older Bruins know better.
And, every so often we get off on a history rooted, long thread where we tell stories about Bruin greatness in all sports.
I know you have a lot to share — passion included — and hope that you stick around and share that substance with us.
sjh
BruinCheer, I think if you had said you led a D1 Football team for two years . . .
Your posts would have more validity.
I’ve been watching football since I was in diapers, and played in High school. But then I read fanposts like this and I realize how little I know about football.
I’ve also played basketball but it wasn’t until I tried coaching a team of 12-13 years olds that you realize how difficult it can be to A) explain basic fundamentals, B) get them to understand them and finally, C) implement them in a game.
My guys and girls did not win a game that season, but they were easily the most improved. A success in my book and I hope in their lives. I think what many people are saying here is don’t judge someone till you’ve walked a mile in their shoes.
A coach is someone who can give correction without causing resentment. John Wooden
Based on talent.
What does it matter, everything he calls as a low chance of working when poorly executed. If we continue to struggle this year and next then most people will begin to agree with you.
Didn’t we struggle with tons of talent with even Cade at the helm during his freshman year?
What else do you want?
Running and passing are the only two plays right? Have you seen something different
There's no one in the world that wants to beat UCLA more than _______.
by ucla13_usc9 on Oct 28, 2009 12:01 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
As much as I love Kai
there is the kicking game. And, I’ve seen enough of that in the red zone.
sjh
by Class of 66 on Oct 28, 2009 12:08 PM PDT up reply actions
On offense
Like what is the alternative to running or passing? Is there a newfangled headbutt offense or something?
There's no one in the world that wants to beat UCLA more than _______.
by ucla13_usc9 on Oct 28, 2009 3:00 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Looking at these videos and with the great analysis you provide
I get a sense of what a QB needs to look for in these seemingly uncomplicated plays. Factor in timing, defensive pressure and the anticipation of bodily harm, whew, my hats off to these young QBs. I’m not a Xs and Os fan but I enjoy your posts.
Thanks again, jtthirtyfour, for an interesting read.
Our situation reminds me of this old, old joke: Do you know how to get to Carnegie Hall?
Sure — practice, practice, practice.
Even TTU Needs Players to Play
I have great respect for Mike Leach and I’ve become a TTU fan.
He does more with less than any other coach in America.
He has been able to take some “less recruited” players and create a scheme that does not demand higher talent levels.
But, when successful, he’s had an offensive scheme that has protected his QB’s, QB’s who can put the ball on the money, and receivers who run the right routes and can catch the ball.
None of that is magic. It is solid, fundamental, football.
I sometimes wonder if high school accolades stand in the way of college adjustments. Some times I think that Leach’s players play like they have something to prove, and they do.
All that said, with the loss of some big stars from last year, TTU is going through much of what we are going through.
sjh
And yet
Their offense is still top-5. And Leach has never, never had a lousy offense, and there’s no way he inherited much talent at TT. His system has worked from the word go — not as powerfully in some years as others, obviously, but always enough for at least 7 wins (granted including some crappy OOCs). It did not take any time at all to implement.
I don’t see these comparisons holding up in favor of the pro-style, at least not as they concern rebuilding.
I do not disagree, at all
In fact, Leach was my first choice for our job (although I now admit we made the right choice).
One of the arguments against Leach was that one had to run a pro style offense in order to attract top ranked players. And, that if he came to UCLA, we’d get killed in the recruiting battle for the kids who ultimately wanted to go pro, and therefore, wanted to play under a pro style system.
My response was that I wanted to win college games and that if we won them with players who would become teachers, doctors, and lawyers instead of pro football players, that was OK with me.
By opting for a pro style offense, we put ourselves in a position where we needed better players. I’m sure when we get them in place, the offense will work.
sjh
Great breakdown of the offense
I really appreciate the writeup in detail of some of our plays on offense. It’s great to also have the video backup to illustrate your points. Watching several games on TV and one live this year, I can say without hesitation that Coach Chow is calling the right plays and has an offensive system that can move the ball and win games. The problem, as many have alluded to, is in the execution of those plays. A coach can’t get on the field and run the plays himself.
There have been many instances this season where the right play was called, but the QB was sacked, pressured, rushed the pass, overthrew the ball, or the receiver ran the wrong route or missed the catch. In our case, the devil IS in the details. The playcalling, in many ways, has been hampered by the personnel we have on the field. Just not enough size, speed, experience…YET.
We are a good 1-2 seasons away from seeing what the Chow offense can produce. If we’re still anemic in 2010-2011, then we should definitely consider another offensive system. Until then, I take a deep breath and continue to support our team.
I still think it's the line
Last night I watched Eastern Carolina against Memphis. I’m confident that neither quarterback was highly recruited by any of theBCS conference schools. Both quarterbacks looked like Peyton Manning. Guys were open (by a wide margin) and the quarterbacks were hitting them. I wondered why it was that our quarterbacks couldn’t look like that, and then I noticed how clean their uniforms looked. The didn’t get sacked or bumped or hurried or any of that. The O-line play was good, and the D-Line play was uninspired.
Our guys are always in a hurry because of the lack of protection, and on those occasions where the O-line really takes charge, our quarterbacks assume they are going to get sacked and hurry things. I’m confident that if your guys had time to survey the field as they’re taught to do, and to learn to look at things as if everything is in slow motion, then we wouldn’t be having this sort of critique. We have players who are good. We just need to give them time to develop.
All this is easy to say on a Wednesday night. At game time, I’m not quite that patient.
Let’s leave things in the hands of our coaches, and just try to keep things as positive as we can. This will come together, I’m sure, and when it does, the monopoly will be over, as someone once said.
Ripple Effect
Because the O line is in a development stage, we use more receivers and backs to block. That has costs, too.
Fewer targets easier to cover.
And, we lost what I think was our best running back candidate, Dean, not because he couldn’t run or catch — he’s great at both — but because he was perceived as being a weaker blocker.
And aside: I do see QB’s with lots of time to throw during our games. Unfortunately, they are not wearing our uniforms. We are making a lot of average QB’s look very good. Luck is a very good QB. The others who beat us were not.
sjh
2 ways to switch it up
If we want to give our QB more time and our O-line an opportunity to be more aggressive, we could: 1) run more plays out of the shotgun, 2) go no huddle more often. Prince, Craft and Brehaut under center is almost a guaranteed sack, hurry, QB scramble, or rushed pass. That’s because at the end of the 7-step drop, they already have a DE at their backs, or DT in their face.
I’ve mentioned in another post that I was surprised we didn’t run no huddle more. I mean even our first possession could be scripted just to let our O-line set the tone by putting the defense on its heels early.
I watched that same ECU-Memphis game and funny enough thought the same thing. Those QBs were zinging the ball downfield. It made me wonder why our QBs don’t look that sharp. Is it the offense or the personnel? Maybe a little bit of both.
by Kerckhoff405 on Oct 29, 2009 10:13 AM PDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
