Replies: 11
| visibility 1
|
All-In [27374]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31825
Joined: 8/19/03
|
Answer this for me .....
Nov 16, 2020, 9:05 PM
|
|
I’ve neither played nor coached football but I have followed the game very closely for at least sixty years but I am puzzled as to why you would not put an extra blocker in the offensive backfield against a team like Norte Dame who was prepared to stop the running game from the opening whistle. It appears to me that the Tiger offensive line can’t handle the defensive fronts of some opponents. Back in the old days, teams relied heavily on fullbacks to provide blocks for half backs. Is that totally out of the question in today’s game? I remember the jumbo package working in goal line situations. Surely the team works on that and with the talent available, it should be something the Tigers could do successfully.
When ETN is averaging ONE yard per carry its time to make some corrections. Right or wrong???
|
|
|
|
Legend [19924]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 16719
Joined: 11/28/00
|
Re: Answer this for me .....
Nov 16, 2020, 9:14 PM
|
|
I'd like to see a cattle guard attached to the front of TE's uni.
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1019]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1341
Joined: 9/17/01
|
Re: Answer this for me .....
Nov 16, 2020, 9:15 PM
|
|
Makes sense to me except we have elite talent at QB and WR. Need to get RUN ETN going!
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [27374]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31825
Joined: 8/19/03
|
Re: Answer this for me .....
Nov 16, 2020, 9:24 PM
|
|
The Tigers five offensive linemen are being asked to block four down linemen and two or three linebackers.
That leaves four or five defensive players to handle the receivers one on one ..... even when the QB has time to look the field over.
|
|
|
|
|
Varsity [206]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 77
Joined: 8/2/15
|
Re: Answer this for me .....
Nov 16, 2020, 9:54 PM
|
|
Why is this different than any other ofensive line or for that matter last year Tigers OL ?
|
|
|
|
|
Scout Team [180]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 189
Joined: 11/25/18
|
Re: Answer this for me .....
Nov 16, 2020, 10:28 PM
|
|
I was thinking a few days ago, that I'd like to see someone run an I-formation again. The problem with running it today is, everybody wants to throw it and, the player you put in the backfield has to come from somewhere. So you're losing a possible "target". I think the Tigers' biggest problem with it would be that ETN is our biggest back. So either he'd be the fullback and one of the other guys would be the tailback or, ETN would be the tailback and we'd move a TE to fullback. OR use XT as a fullback!!
ST
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16032]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6054
Joined: 12/11/12
|
Hate to say it, but the Coots did that with much success...
Nov 16, 2020, 10:10 PM
|
|
...against Old Sis. 300+ yards rushing. They had a great offensive game plan until they realized they couldn't keep up due to their porous defense. Would have been interesting if we had lined up with a fullback and pounded with ETN early on against Notre Dame. But those two defenses are very different talent wise.
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5072]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5618
Joined: 8/17/03
|
Re: Hate to say it, but the Coots did that with much success...
Nov 16, 2020, 10:22 PM
|
|
It helps that Ole Miss is giving up 250 rushing yards per game and 536 yards per game overall.
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1259]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1981
Joined: 7/13/99
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7191]
TigerPulse: 70%
Posts: 20374
Joined: 8/18/06
|
Re: Answer this for me .....
Nov 17, 2020, 7:03 AM
|
|
I can't. I never played nor coached football.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4095]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2475
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Answer this for me .....
Nov 17, 2020, 11:36 AM
|
|
We've had mixed success with the jumbo package. There have been false starts, fumbles, and other issues.
It's hard to run an offense you don't practice very often and it's mistake prone.
Why would you put in an offense for one team when you're the favorite?
Remember that if we'd had Trevor and any one of the defenders that were out (Davis or Skalski) we win by double digits in regulation.
Even without them, one different/more correct ref call on the questionable calls and we win. One different bounce of the ball and we win.
Message was edited by: castaway®
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11478]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9412
Joined: 10/3/12
|
Re: Answer this for me .....
Nov 17, 2020, 11:46 AM
|
|
I understand what you are saying but there is a fault in it.
With 5 linemen and 1 TE we cant block the number of players defenses are putting in the "box".
If we add a fullback to the backfield, it takes away a receiving threat outside and allows the defense to bring another player into the box which makes things even tighter.
Our philosophy is to limit the traffic inside by spreading the field with WRs. If we can give our RB a small hole then there are fewer bodies to get in his way in that hole.
The reason we abandon this in short yardage plays or at the goal line is because the defense is packed in tight no matter what your formation is in those situations, so spreading everybody out is not as helpful.
The fix is to block better with our interior line, not to add more people in to block.
The space is more helpful than an extra blocker would be.
Either way, we need to get things turned around in that area!
|
|
|
|
Replies: 11
| visibility 1
|
|
|