USC one of most improved OL in 2024
- Thread starter 18IsTheMan
- Start date
We brought in one vocal new poster, but he is probably going to stay on the pay board for a while.
With Sellers being a deer in the headlights (disappointing, none of us expected that) and we rushed for almost 200 years and now if not for sack and kneeling at the end? Yeah, not perfect, but that was better.
We ran for almost 200 yards in a game last year too. (Vandy)
But our oline powered our offense to being outgained by a Sunbelt offense.
"Not perfect" is an understatement. I suppose we'll have to settle for "better" while still being a bad OL.
Maybe that's why you were so noncommittal on season predictions after all your arguing about being "better".
You've been very hard to get along with for over a week. Now your opinions are very hard to take seriously. I hope you understand that.
I don't care. The gamecockcentral guys said after film review the OL did way better than they thought. I didn't have to look up the PFF scores to know Lee was a baller, I saw it each game. I see people frequently hating players the advanced stats prove did well. It was receiver and QB who limited us and they could zero on the run and we still rushed for 200 against a heavy box. Sellers improved as the game went on and Bennett made a case for playing time. The passing game will cost us, it was the part I was most concerned of and it was worse than I expected, but no, the OL wasn't the problem. That's what happens when a team knows you have to run. I am constantly convinced on this site most of yall can't tell what went into a result.
Your lack of self awareness is breathtaking. Are you Shane?
Cute. I said I'm fine with you not liking me because you're wrong. What does my opinion on the OL playing better and our issue being related to execution in the passing game have to do with self awareness? Do you think the pass and run don't impact each other? Does thinking the defenses play calling and being one dimensional on offense impact numbers and matchups make me somehow delusional in my own self perception?
Yes.
Seriously, it doesn't matter. You're going to pretend to be "right" no matter what happens.
Perhaps you feel justified in thinking our OL went from truly horrible to just horrible. I can't imagine still making this argument after last weeks performance. But you do you.
I said I hoped you understood. Clearly you don't. You bristled when your confidence in your opinion was questioned. Turns out we were kind of right to be apprehensive of the OL and you were kind of wrong. But you obviously can't accept being wrong. That’s a serious character flaw. That's what I mean about self awareness. I let up on you when you said you were young. But thirty isn't really that young. I now lean to the side that you're messed up. Messed up people don't care.
How often does a team break 150 yards on the ground when completing less than 50% of passes? It's not common.
Well there you go. Breaking 150 yards against a heavily outmanned Sunbelt team should really make you feel confident about facing SEC defenses.
I don't think either were really good. But then I'm not desperately trying to argue I was right about a losing cause.
Do you get how math works? I just re- watched the highlights to see if it reflected what I recalled. They were constantly bringing extra men. I saw 3 of the 4 sacks we gave up, there were more rushers than blockers for two and Sellers moved into the pressure on the third. In that situation you need to get the ball to some kind of hot read and we never did. We constantly ran into stacked boxes, with 1 deep safety, and even with bad WR blocks, to where the DBs were frequently getting into it, we were still gaining. You can't block 7 with 6, so whenever Sellers handed it off instead of having the option, we were fighting against numbers.
Failure to make them pay for the heavy blitzing and loaded boxes are either on Sellers and the receivers, which with Sellers being young, just is what it is, or it was on Loggains. Loggains needed to either call short passes, max protects with rollouts, screens, or plays designed to hit the RB at the edge. Or alternatively, he needed to drive at hitting the hot routes when talking to Sellers. He did do a lot of reads and power runs outside with the backside unblocked to eliminate the numbers advantage in running.
Now, since you're clearly the expert, can you tell me what you would do, other than what I've listed, to block 7 rushers with 6 blockers, or 8 with 7? Is that not a simple numbers problem that dictates you need to punish them with a quick pass to exploit the green left by blitzers and DBs in off- man,
He'll, I'll give you another clue. You know how people talk about a chess game against the coaches? You realize that means they are strategizing against what the other is doing, right? That's because some plays will play into the advantage of the other team based on what they have on. One of those is that you always want to exploit your numbers advantage. So if 2- safeties are deep, numbers favor the run, if both safeties are in the box, and you run, someone is gonna come free and you either need a QB power, or option to neutralize the unblocked defender, or you need to break a tackle. The other alternative is hitting a short pass for a huge gain. We did run options and crash tackles, we didn't got the short pass for big gains.
If running worked regardless what a defense does, no one would ever throw. Running doesn't with regardless what a defense does, which is why Saban and Smart both went pass first.
We couldn't pass, so every yard we got running was against unblocked defenders, even with every blocker engaged, and we still averaged just shy of 4 yards
Interesting. So your strategy, rather than just admitting what everyone saw with their own eyes, is to start throwing the qb, wr's and the coaching staff under the bus?
I will freely admit the lackluster play of both the wr and qb. I even admit the OC is not looking real bright right now.
I'm curious though why you are choosing the OL as the hill you are willing to die on. They did not play well, and it was against massively outmanned competition.
But you said it was "math", so you must be on to something.
I never had a problem calling the issue I see. I also have no problem saying the real issue isn't usually where the peanut gallery thinks it is. I asked you a problem. I stopped the video over and over again and counted the box. How do you beat 7 defenders with 6 blockers without throwing the ball very quickly?
I have no doubt that you don't see an issue with the OL. You will refuse to see it when it's blatantly in front of your face.
And as they continue to struggle, you will apparently flail about and throw any other unit under the bus to try and continue to argue.
Again, how do you block 7 with 6? Or do you think a white jersey in the backfield is always on the OL?
I get the feeling you just discovered what a "blitz" is, and think it's a magic bullet with which to exonerate the OL. Sending an extra man or men has been done for decades. They even have this cool thing where DL drop into coverage and LB's or safeties rush the passer.
Neither one exonerated poor OL play. At least not to anyone not desperate to protect the OL.
I am curious why you chose this unit to defend at the expense of others? Do you have a personal connection to one of the players?
I think there was a healthy amount of skepticism over how good our OL would actually be. Though, I think most of us thought it would be somewhat better with all the injured players back. It appears to be about the same, maybe ever so slightly better.
Everything starts with the OL and DL in football, imho. I don't care how good your skill players are behind them. If you underperform at those 2 units, your team is in trouble. PERIOD.
Just to sidetrack the discussion a little: If I was Shane, I'd bring in his Dad Frank as a consultant. That would not be unusual. I believe Monte Kiffin was a consultant for his son Lane before Monte's recent death. As a fan, I'd feel more comfortable about the direction of the program if Frank was involved. But, that's me.
Just to sidetrack the discussion a little: If I was Shane, I'd bring in his Dad Frank as a consultant. That would not be unusual. I believe Monte Kiffin was a consultant for his son Lane before Monte's recent death. As a fan, I'd feel more comfortable about the direction of the program if Frank was involved. But, that's me.
I think it'll help reduce the tangent we seem stuck on to simply concede the OL is "better" than last year, and ignore that we mean marginally better, but still bad.
Yes, better does not mean good. We were simply atrocious last year. This year we may only be really bad, which, sadly, is improvement.
Bringing in Frank would look like Shane was in over his head (which appears to be the case), so Shane may not want to do that.
Yeah, I agree. I mean, I think if he had done it at the outset, it would look a little different. To do it now, though, would smack of desperation. Besides, I'm positive Shane seeks and gets plenty of input from Frank on the side.
You make a good point. But, as a fan, I could care less about Shane's feelings. He is getting paid $6 million+ a year. THAT should soothe his feelings. This may be a situation where Tanner has to tell Shane to bring in his Dad. And, yes, I agree that Shane is over his head. Shane is getting "on-the-job" training to be a Head Coach in the toughest football conference in the nation. This is "all hands on deck" time. We made a big mistake bringing in a rookie. I don't think he learned much as an assistant. And no, I don't consider clapping hands and hugging players being an integral part of the job. Shane needs a guiding figure, a "north star" next to him, until he really learns what being a Head Coach is all about.
It makes you wonder about Sanders' decision to transfer here. Even with his injuries last year, with his breakout 2022 year, I'm sure he could have transferred to a lot of programs better than us. Given that he needs this year to reignite his career, it makes you wonder what he was told by our coaches about OL. Surely he saw how bad our OL and run game were last year.
I don't know. I found a poster who's VERY convincing that OL is awesome, and might be top half of the SEC. Maybe he talked to Sanders?
In reality, the injury may have driven Sanders' price down, and made a few teams gunshy on him.
There's a lot of FCS teams he could have played for. What makes it worse is he knows Loggains personally. And still came here. Wonder what we're paying him.
I'm sure it affected it somewhat. He was still highly rated in the portal, though.
No one should make $6MM+ a year to learn a job. He should either have his pay cut WAY back until he produces some consistent positive results, resign or be fired. Tanner and whoever else made the decision to hire him and then give him a huge raise based on two fluke wins should be fired as well. The South Carolina job is never going to be easy, Carolina simply doesn't have the tradition or the prestige to beat out the football powers that surround us. NIL money isn't the problem, Carolina may not be at the top in NIL money but there is plenty to pay players with. It pains me to say ti but, I don't care how much Shane "wants to be here", he isn't the man for this particular job.
Honestly, I don't think Frank would be much help. He is 77 years old and hasn't coached in 9 years. The players and the game today are completely different than what he knew as a coach.
We will never stay up with teams in recruiting. We NEVER have and never will. We can maybe occasionally bring in a Top 10 class. But that would be a rarity. Our Head Coach must have great coaching skills to make us respectable. He has to be able to organize, motivate, put together good strategies and the tactics to implement the strategies. When I say respectable, I mean being a Top 20 program. Does Shane Beamer have that ability. I have my doubts. And by the way, the silliest reason people gave for hiring Shane was because he "wants to be here". That's nuts. Who does NOT want to become a millionaire?
You need to have a coach that maybe does things a little differently.Like a Jamie Chadwell who’s offense is unique.
Doing the same things everybody is doing with inferior talent is a tough way to go.
Doing the same things everybody is doing with inferior talent is a tough way to go.
Latest posts
Get unlimited access today.