Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Swamp Gas' started by themistocles, Sep 2, 2013.
Nailed it. Themis is a good poster, but should probably stick to basketball.
might be interesting to track these metrics weekly. see what sort of vector (of improvement?) we are on, week to week.
We have so many new young players on offense and only the second year with Coach Pease, Driskel, and Coach Muschamp working together. Look at the running backs who performed in the 4th quarter against Toledo....pretty good stuff there.
I don't think anyone would complain if our offense became more explosive - but if it's at the expense of our development as a whole into a championship team then no way do i want it.
I trust our coaching staff - they brought us a 11-2 season last year including a brief conversation about National Championship. That's not too shabby IMHO.
We will grow - we just need to remain patient and trust our coaching staff - not easy to do after some sketchy previous years.
Let's pick this discussion back up after the Miami game and see where we are at that time....
We recruit well because we have the lucky monkey.
No comment on the offense. Ask me after three more games.
UF has played mostly mistake free offense for the last year. With a good defense you can win a lot of games that way, even titles. It's ugly. I'm not sure I'd call it good offense. It seems to of UF in a vulnerable situation against teams with great offense. A good QB with protection can beat any defense. Driskil played an efficient game Saturday. If that holds up against non Mac teams, UF could win a lot of games.
I only skimmed it but I have to ask - are all of those stats based only on the one game we've played this season? If so they're meaningless. If not they're irrelevant.
Exactly. We dominate the game, leave with minimal injuries, get a bunch of key players back next week. Let's try to be happy folks.
All these stats are irrelevant. Muschamp coaches to the teams strengths. Developing an offense in the SEC is a long term process. The defenses tend to be very unforgiving. Give the guy a chance to bring along his skilled players and I am confident out offense will once again be near the top of the conference. Based on what I saw out of our Oline I believe our offense will develop into a strength as the season wears on.
Sent from my iPhone using GatorCountry
I really thought it was a fairly well played and called game. The running game sets up big plays. And playing against an up tempo offense, keeping possession of the ball is a great defense in itself. What I did notice is that Jeff gave up on downfield plays a little too quickly once he avoided the pass rush. IMO he just needs to develop a little more patience and the confidence to go downfield instead of giving in to his natural instinct to run. The defense played very composed and even when Toledo got a drive going they were able to keep it to field goals. The one area that could be a problem is special teams where we don't seem to have that threat to take it all the way on punt or kickoff returns -we'll miss Debose.
i really enjoyed that little in/out route off play-action roll-out: wide open!
the crossing route that was dropped was w-i-d-e open. just have to finish!
the rub route that freed the FB out of the backfield for the TD: another nicely schemed play. easy TD on the rollout for Driskel. w/ the threat of the qb running, that puts the D in a bind.
the shallow drag by fulwood was nice too: a staple of the boise offense that i thought we'd see alot.
there were some really nice plays in game 1.
It wouldn't be unreasonable if we had played maybe 3-4 games and our offense didn't look any better than last year. But we've only played one game and I don't see how anyone can form opinions about our offense based only on that one game.
FWIW I thought our offense looked significantly better than last year or at least showed the potential to be better. The OL protected JD better, JD looked much more poised and confident, I don't remember him running out of bounds once, he threw some nice passes especially the one that was right in Patton's hands, he didn't throw any INTs, and our running game is out of sight with 4-5 strong RBs as opposed to 1 last year. Still not sure about the WRs but otherwise everything looked better to me on offense than last year.
And I would add that we already are better. Driskel was more efficient, the line more consistent in pass protection, our entire stable of backs were effective running the ball, our receivers ran nice routes and (for the most part) were dependable catching the ball, and we saw some things that were missing last year, like flares to backs, that resulted in nice games.
Several people asked me in the last few weeks what I expected out of this offense and my response was a better version of last year's. For a ball control attack, we were fairly inconsistent a year ago. We started slowly, we took too many negative plays on sacks and penalties, we didn't control the clock as much as we would like, and we weren't good enough in the redzone at times. What I saw, especially in the first half, was a much better unit on all counts. We scored seven on our first possession, we had one penalty and one sack (albeit a costly sack), doubled Toledo's time of possession, and scored four times in the redzone, including three touchdowns (the only real failure resulted from a fairly nominal to illegitimate holding call on a touchdown). We did all the positive things from last season well again--power run game, high completion percentage, low turnovers--but we looked much better in areas that are essential to be effective in the kind of offense we plan to run.
In the coming years, the offense will look much different, just as Meyer's offense looked different when he got spread triple option players into the lineup. We have some big, physical, athletic receiver prospects on campus or coming shortly, and we have a young, deep stable of backs that will only get better with Cook's arrival. You won't see Spurrier's multiple verticals or Meyer's spread triple option, but you will see an offense that makes more plays because it has better playmakers and they are working in a unique system that creates mismatches with alignment and personnel groupings. For now, however, we don't have the playmakers at the skill positions to be very explosive, so we will have to rely on a more efficient version of what worked last year: power running game that takes care of the ball, but with improved game management, ball control, pass protection, and redzone productivity. It isn't necessarily sexier, but it is already better in my opinion, and will get even more so when we get Jones and Halapio back, when we find some opportunities for Robinson and Fulwood, and when our offensive line--which without Halapio had four new starters the other day--gels after the loss of Green.
Sheesh, I knew this was an exceedingly biased site, but I figured you might pay a bit of attention to the points I was trying to make.
Boring offenses make for lots of empty seats when not playing top teams or rivals (like Saturday).
Ineffective offenses, when teamed with strong defenses, frequently have close games that should be blowouts, which is typical of the Gators.
Big plays are almost always, not always, but almost always, long plays, like Percy Harvin's 2 50 yard plays against Oklahoma that essentially turned the game around.
A predictable offense kicks field goals in the red zone, which has been really true of the Gators since Muschamp became coach.
I am not saying he is a bad coach, merely that he doesn't much like "flashy" offense.
The Gators are probably one of two or three SEC teams where the defense will almost always have only 4 DBs as opposed to 5 as the Gators ran 70% of the time last year.
That is certainly true, but it doesn't explain why an offensive is ineffective or what constitutes an ineffective offense.
Again, no one would disagree with that, but the majority of Harvin's big plays came on runs or short passes, not on deep passes, because he was an unbelievable playmaker. That is what we lack, not even the quality of Harvin (because that is unrealistic), but the type of player.
This is a non sequitur. An offense that is bad scoring in the red zone kicks field goals, but it would be nearly impossible to substantiate that predictability equates with red zone problems since in fact the entire offensive (and defensive) scheme changes in that spot of the field. The rules of the previous 80 yards don't apply in the final 20.