I’m overreacting over week 1 game just like half of the fanbase but I believe we need to take a page out of Michigan playbook last year and run the ball and throw it 22 times a game. We need to rely on our veteran defense and our RBs.
Michigan offense
- Thread starter Maccmaine12
- Start date
I'm sorry but we are unable to "rely" on our RBs because WE HAVE NO FRIGGIN' OFFENSIVE LINE!!
The only thing people see is if someone gets hit in the backfield. They don't notice when 5 OL and a TE are tracked to block 7 defenders, 6 defenders get engaged with blockers and the one guy there is no blocked for gets in the backfield. There was a 4th and 1 we had 12 personnel, against a 9 man box, the slot receiver whiffed, so it was 10 defenders against 7 blockers, and Sanders still broke through for something like 6 yards, but ask these morons would see is a single white jersey got in the backfield with a numbers advantage and no fear of getting hit with a quick throw.
Also, on rewatching, 2 sacks came from more rushers than blockers, and a 3rd was on Sellers stepping up when he needed to step left, because the defender crashed the end but got caught. I haven't reached the 4th sack, yet. Been pausing and counting helmets, definitely not in the OL.
Of course...he's "excited" about the OL. So was ODU. Let's see what Kentucky's feelings are...
Dude, you have to stop pointing this out. What if other coaches are reading this forum???
You can't go around telling people about that amazing secret that no one has ever tried where you send more people than the offense can block.
If word of that gets out, our whole season could be sunk.
Just because you're pretending this isn't obvious, doesn't make it not. Any coach should know that if a team can't hit a quick pass against a blitz, that winning football is crowding the OL and outnumberring the Offense upfront. I'm serious, find a coach who will say something other than the fact that it is impressive to rush for over 3 yards against boxes that outnumber the blockers.
We couldn't hit a pass. That made it easy for the defense, and we still averaged more than 3 ypc, while including sakc yards and kneels. We rushed for over 150 while completing fewer than half of our passes, and you think the OL is the problem? I think you decided your opinion last season.
Have you even done what I just said I did and watched the game and just counted the box v blockers? You sure haven't told me how to beat numbers, when I listed every way you can beat it.
Get lost! You know nothing! You twist my words to hamfist some moron condescension, like I've given any reason to doubt i know DL can drop in coverage. Guess what? ODU didn't do that. They sent heat and we couldn't beat it. If the OL was the problem, they wouldn't have had to send heat to disrupt us. You don't want to actually discuss anything but your preconceived notions. Have you considered you might be wrong, because the only thing you've given to support that you're right is "is obvious, we all saw it." Maybe Beamer isn't BSing, maybe the tape shows the OL really did their part. It's what I saw in the game and what I've seen rewatching so far.
These are the same defenders UK had last season that didn’t beat us with a worse OL
Actually, I'm saying it's completely obvious. You are apparently as good at picking up sarcasm as you are evaluating an OL.
And I'm not hamfisting any condescension. I'm quite plainly laying it out there. Telling me you play Madden was definitely a mic drop moment, but not the way you thought it was.
I look forward to more excuses after Saturday. But probably not after the LSU game, as you'll probably go back to solely posting on the pay board.
So you clearly don't know what ham fisted means. It's not subtle,it's clumsy. You invented a strawman about stunts to create an opportunity to condescend to me when you're the one who hasn't said how you expect the OL to beat the defense against the defenses number advantage.
Yes, I know what it means, and I'm saying I'm not being clumsy. I'm being straight up condescending to you and your "logic."
I think you should look up what straw man means though, as you are misusing the term.
If Madden is what you rely on for your football "knowledge", what video game has been teaching you grammar?
Okay, only 2 OL had less than 61 PFF scores. That's not AA numbers, but they're pulling their weight. LT was the only position that had bad scores, both Thompson and Tree. OL wasn't the problem.
Wait, I just got done playing a game of Tiger Woods golf, it said the OL was the problem.
The end credits also said you're mistaking the definition of "straw man".
I look forward to more excuses before you disappear.
Excuses seem to be all you offer, instead of just admitting the OL was deficient.
Listen, earlier today, while this little spirited defense of the OL was being discussed, an idea was thrown out. Would you cool down the temper tantrum if we said the OL was "better" than last year, but still said it's not playing well?
You could still pretend to "right" about the OL being "better". And the rest of reality could go on discussing the OL's poor play.
Sound good?
You know what? I was right about LSU and Clemson, both have been branded pretenders in the first week. Kelly is on the hotseat. Still left is OU, and admittedly I'm least confident about Ole Miss, but I think they aren't the dark horse their labeled.
I was right about how much better we'd be at EDGE, LB, and DB. The two groups I expressed caution about were QB and receiver and no one thinks they did well enough. This is one thing there is even room for argument on of the predictions I made, so maybe you can lay off and stop talking to me like I'm an idiot.
Who didn't think LSU and Clemson were pretenders?
You can claim to be "right" about OU and Ole Miss no matter what really happens. All you said was Ole Miss's offense "won't work" against our defense. And you can simply say they changed their approach after they drill us. OU? What did you actually say about them anyway? They'll do worse in the SEC than in the B12? Here's your cookie, captain obvious.
See, that's the problem with your "predictions". They are so vague that you can claim to be "right" about them regardless of what actually happens. Remember your oh so specific season prediction of maybe 6, maybe 7, maybe 8 or maybe 9 wins?
You don't come across as impressive by trying to brag about vague predictions that weren't really specific to begin with.
Congrats, the defense looked good against a Sunbelt team at times. I can't think of a single person who didn't see that coming.
You're freaking Nostrodomus.
You are probably doing deeper film analysis than our coaches!!
Coaches said similar things. Did you look at the actually film study dude made in YouTube?
I don't think this is a ledge he's going to back away from.
For some reason, he's willing to sacrifice any other unit as long as he can pretend the OL is great.
Joe,
Do you have confidence in Teasley? [I don't]
FOR WHATEVER REASON, do you think the offensive line will look better this weekend? [I don't]
I'm asking so as to know your expectations going into the Kentucky game. TIA
The OL wasn't the problem. Simon missed a few blocks, receiver blocking was bad. We continually had a numbers disadvantage in the box, with no passing threat to back then off. I posted a film study where a guy who said he initially thought the OL did terribly until he reviewed the film and broke it down, and then only found a handful of plays that were on them.
But no, I don't think Teasley has proven anything beyond his talent as a recruiter. However, I didn't think we'd have a great OL last year, and my confidence immediately went down when Nichols got hurt, went down further when I saw how bad Fugar was, went down further when Henry got hurt. Frankly, it was impressive that we improved at all over last year, and we definitely did, but had no bodies left after Lee got hurt, so I don't know how much of that had a damn thing to do with Teasley or any other coach. But, with an those circumstances, I'm not convinced we can't succeed with him.
I think I was the last guy to give up on XL, but shame on me, I did too. I'm not at any sort of fault for not being very eager to write off players or coaches when I can see mitigating factors. And beyond that, Teasley's talent is irrelevant to the fact that our woes came predominantly from elsewhere.
Everyone wants to just say the coaches are liars for blaming someone other than the OL. But as long as the coaches are excepting that they aren't doing well enough as coaches, what the hell do they even gain from supposedly lying? Maybe the Beamer is a better foot all mind than screw offs on a free forum whining behind anonymous accounts. Hell, even if he's the worst D1 coach, he almost certainly knows more than anyone who even visits this damn site. So maybe, just maybe, his evaluation, which happens to line up with the evaluation I formed during the game, isn't wrong.
Now I really don't want to stay on this thread, it's been too much of a pain already, so I'm out to hang out on the paid site because it's less toxic.
Edit: On my expectations, I don't know. They can be better and still not hold up without the passing game coming along. Since all yall are at totals, I'm not even his try to defend it unless the passing game pulls its weight so the defense can't crowd the line and blitz all night.
Well, you've said you were running away to hide on the paid site before. Right about now is the time to do so, so you don't have to actually defend your ideas as they melt away as the season progresses.
"They can be better and still not hold up".
That tells us all we need to know. You are, once again, leaving your thoughts vague enough that you can claim to be "right" regardless of what actually happens.
Let me tell you how big of a surprise that is. Your total lack of conviction behind your opinions speaks volumes.
Get unlimited access today.