Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Swamp Gas' started by Diesel350z, Jul 14, 2014.
And against Toledo?
You forgot one obvious possibility:
Louisville was an outstanding team and they were better.
Nah. They aren't an SEC team, so it CAN'T be that...
The other guys had control of the offense. Do you really believe he was telling Charlie what to do with the offense? The man has multiple Super Bowl rings and Muschamp was trying to install a complicated defense.
He has never been running the offense. Do you think Pease wanted to throw the ball 50 times a game with the OL UF had in 2012? If UF throws the ball more than it runs the ball in 2012 how many games does the team win? Pease was not about to have Jeff throwing the ball around with an OL a TE and a RB that could not pass protect.
Roper also wants to run the ball and throw the ball horizontally.
If we can just be 3rd and 3 rather than 3rd and 7 we'll win at least 4 more games.
We were ALL sold a bill of goods with Weis & Pease. WM thought "Cooler Coach" with all those rings would bring in recruits. And we all thought Pease was more like Boise but he turn out to be more Kentucky.
I don't think Will handled the O with Charlie here. The offense did look different, but again, injuries hurt us and starting true freshmen at QB and being successful is extremely difficult in this league.
What about them? We had 415 yards total offense won by 3 TD's, never was threatened by them, Jeff went 17-22 (77%) 153 yards 1td. 7.0 yds. Per passing attempt. We rushed for 256 yards 2 TD's 5.5 yards per attempt.
That's about as good as you need to do when you only give up 6 points. I don't know why people bring up Toledo when that game was super efficient, but because we didn't hang half a hundred some people ain't happy. I thought any time you can win by 3 TD's that's really good.
We also left about 14 points and 80 yards on the field with execution errors. JD missed Dunbar open in the end zone (settled for a FG), Patton dropped a wide open pass that would have gone for ~50 yards and a possible TD (or set one up), and then we got the holding penalty at their 10 and started moving backwards with that ugly screen pass, and not scoring at all.
If we score 38 with close to 500 yds of offense, I don't think anyone is complaining. Execution errors on plays we had and really should have made were a big part of that Toledo game. We did run the ball a lot though, if that was what cistern was trying to point out.
Bingo. I think we were some 263 rushing to our 150 passing. Driskel only made 21 or 22 attempts the whole game, an average of 5 per quarter. Was only pointing out that we were still a run first, or run heavy, if you please, offense.
But it's effective than its effective. Some forget that wad the first action driskel had seen for a while since he had just had the appendectomy surgery. For being a little rusty and throwing it 22 times completing 77% isn't all that bad. 30 attempts is about where you would like to be. Most professionals will tell you if you have to throw it more than 30 time's your not very balanced and you leave room for turnovers. With being said, we were only 8 attempts shy of that or like you broke it down 2 pass attempts less per quarter. And I will agree with you, we could have taken the burton wildcat and thrown it instead, but really? 8 pass attempt shy of 30 and that's some kind of bad thing?
If I was you l, I would just stick with the "gsu" example, you've become good at it so don't give it up.
The answer lies in the recruits, IMO. When the last two OCs were here and the "Muschamp Shadow" hung over them, we were recruiting bigger receivers, pocket passers, and big backs. As soon as Roper was hired we saw the receivers and backs move to speed/agile type, not the power backs. If a 5'7" 220 lb back wants to come here, there is no way in helll Will passes on him, but that is not what he is targeting. If Muschamp trusts him to make personnel changes, he is going to trust him to run the offense.
2013 had speedy/agile playmakers in it as well.
You're correct about Driskel. He threw more in the second game. Muschamp still wants to be balanced, which you need, so I expect to see it more closer to 55/45 run pass which will be nice.
Patton was an Urban kid and I believe Showers came in as a DB. If you are referring to the 2013 class, then yes they took Thompson and Bailey. Thompson I think was more of a depth guy as they needed bodies at WR, and why not take a hometown kid? Bailey is built for the slot and returning kicks, and they had stated they wanted a change of pace WR. Hawkins, Robinson, and Fulwood were their bigger targets. I am not saying you are wrong, I am merely stating that in general they are making a clear effort to bring in players more designed for Roper's system.
Agreed and I think the 13 class, at least to an extent, shows Muschamp knew he may be changing his style some. Robinson and Taylor (obvious reasons) for that mold as well.
The HBC should only have decisions on going for it on fourth down, onside kicks, called punt blocks, and other such critical and unusual situations. Not which play to call on the side of the ball that he is not an expert in. Now if he sees something communication is always good as long as it is a suggestion with explanation, not orders. Now perhaps if you are way ahead you can play to punt and pin the other team back, but you should never do that when you need to score more.
What are you even arguing? He stated he's not sure why people thought we were still running (no pun intended) a run heavy offense in 2013 and listed only one of the two games that Driskel finished. His choice, of course, supported his claim with Driskel's attempts/yard and that we had moved forward from the "ground-and-pound" offense of old (the Miami game). Just asked for his thoughts about it: "And the Toledo game?" Neither comment of mine deemed running the ball an ineffective or less effective strategy than passing and certainly it's not, as demonstrated by Auburn.
If I was you I would find out what people are talking about before you fly off the handle defending some imaginary slight. Why are you even bringing this up? Are you upset?
If we look at both games we ran the ball almost the same, actually. The difference being that we were much less effective against Miami (44 attempts for 122 yards) compared to Toledo (48 for 262 yards). Miami forced us to throw the ball to score points and Driskel was able to do so with relative success between the 20's. Unfortunately sloppy play, missed routes, etc. ruined scoring opportunities.
Lol! Upset? No of course not. I was simply saying when you use the "gsu" comeback it usually quiets the crowd, not much argument to be made with that one, so keep using it.
Now on toledo, how can you say our offensive game plan for the season was to be a run heavy team based on 1 game? Why would you risk an interception when you won't lose the game unless you turn it over.
We had 8 different guys run the ball with 4 of them touching it 2 times or less, and driskel accounted for 8 rushes. But why also would we go away from the run when we were averaging crazy per rush yards. Our lowest was mack brown @ 4.5 per rush but he had 2 tds and 114 yards. Other then that we had taylor with 8.6 per, Herndon w/ 8.0 per, showers had a 15.5 yards per att, Patton had 17.0 per rush, and even joyer our fullback reeled off 7 yards per carry. When your running up yards easily like that why throw it? To prove a point to fans?
In the Miami game we weren't as effective running it, hence the career highs in yards and attempts for driskel. They were just taking what the defense gives them, is that not what you are supposed to do?
Only if the crowd is naive