It's absolutely a case of "not ready."
I'll ask you a simple question. You gameplanned all week to see OSU's normal pass defense. Early in the first quarter they show you Single High Safety.
What do you do?
Good story on OSUs D vs us... Flood should read this
- Thread starter GoodOl'Rutgers
- Start date
It's absolutely a case of "not ready."
I'll ask you a simple question. You gameplanned all week to see OSU's normal pass defense. Early in the first quarter they show you Single High Safety.
What do you do?
come on, Mike. What else is he going to say? that he doesn't respect Laviano? He's blowing smoke, just like the PSU fans saying they respect and admire Kyle Flood, or the coaches that voted Terry Shea Big East Coach of the Year.
Al: He could have said nothing regarding Laviano. Or he could have said "Laviano has some really nice statistics" or "...has put up some good numbers."
Anything but to say he has great respect for him and not actually mean it.
When you have great respect for a passing attack, you keep 2 safeties back. It's fairly common knowledge.
Anything but to say he has great respect for him and not actually mean it.
When you have great respect for a passing attack, you keep 2 safeties back. It's fairly common knowledge.
I had great respect for Greg Robinson and Syracuse and Randy Edsall and Maryland. I wish they still coached there.
Similarly I'm sure the rest off the big ten has great "respect" for Kyle Flood and hope he sticks around at RU for a long time. Franklin, Meyer and Harbaugh especially.
Similarly I'm sure the rest off the big ten has great "respect" for Kyle Flood and hope he sticks around at RU for a long time. Franklin, Meyer and Harbaugh especially.
Anyone who follows Urabn knows that's what he does.
He thought that Laviano's talent matched up with the statistics some graduate assistant gave him as talking points, he didn't watch a single second of our game films....which is entirely possible, I guess. lol
He thought that Laviano's talent matched up with the statistics some graduate assistant gave him as talking points, he didn't watch a single second of our game films....which is entirely possible, I guess. lol
So our offensive coordinator didn't make the adjustment or he didn't have the horses to execute a different plan.
Horses.
Check out the last animated gif on the link. That's a play-action pass off the draw. You can tell it's a draw fake because the OL set up in pass protection. Spurrier used to kill it with that play because it messed up the LB and Safety keys who are reading draw. The advantage to the offense is that the pass protection is set up.
Except we can't stop Bosa, even when we gave our tackle help.
Check out the last animated gif on the link. That's a play-action pass off the draw. You can tell it's a draw fake because the OL set up in pass protection. Spurrier used to kill it with that play because it messed up the LB and Safety keys who are reading draw. The advantage to the offense is that the pass protection is set up.
Except we can't stop Bosa, even when we gave our tackle help.
My experience, which certainly is a long time ago and not in the B10, is as Laviano comes off the field after the 1st drive, McDaniels is asking him "what are you seeing?" This is to primarily make sure his QB id recognizing the defense properly. Presuming Lav says, "single high" or "safety over the top," they are then making a decision to either 1) stick with their down and distance script or 2) adjust to formations and play calls that they like against that defense.
I haven't seen a lot of OSU this year, so this article was news to me that they went away from their normal scheme. I was also watching the game a bit distracted in the first half. It certainly appeared to me that we were running our normal stuff.
You can draw any conclusions you'd like with that information.
It's about the jimmys and joes not the Xs and Os. Most off what OSU did Saturday was on pure talent not coaching. Even when we had beat them fundamentally yesterday they out-atheleted us to get out off it. There were a lot off times where we had JT Barrett or Ezekiel Elliott for a sack/loss in the backfield and they just juked the defender and went for a first down. For the most part OSU didn't have better football player than us, they had better athletes.
coaching is not going to help that.
coaching is not going to help that.
I saw plenty of runs and play action off of runs to counter the OSU defense with 8,9, and sometimes 10 in the box. Our runs were actually effective especially the counter play. We just couldn't protect Laviano long enough. I also think we could and should have tried to attack vertically more often with 4 wide. OSU did show a little vulnerability in pass coverage but then again we couldn't protect.
That's just what I saw. Sure you have guys like Bosa whom are better FB players but there were a lot of players that just used their athleticism instead of technique/FB fundamentals to beat us. JT Barrett is one of them. He made quite a few mistakes vs us but his athleticism made it a non-issue. it allows them much more room for error.
Just to play devil's advocate, I think OSU salivates if we go 4 wide. We had problems with 7 man pass protection with an attached TE. I doubt 6 man pass pro holds up long enough for deeper routes to develop.
The solution is really exactly what we tried to do: hit a big play off play action in a heavy formation (better blockers). Even wih all the protection, Bosa went Tyson on our plan and punched us in the face.
The solution is really exactly what we tried to do: hit a big play off play action in a heavy formation (better blockers). Even wih all the protection, Bosa went Tyson on our plan and punched us in the face.
You have to make them fear the run for play action to work just like they have to fear the pass to help stop them run-blitzing very down. And we couldn't make them fear the run when they were in a run D most of the game.
When you go up against a better team you need a plan that takes that into account. We had no such plan. Self evident truth. If we had seen a series with Rettig in the first half.. Some rehearsed script of plays.. That might have shown some effort to solve the puzzle of playing the number one team. Given they changed up their D for us,some dep sideline routes in such a script might have shocked them a bit.. Might have made it easier to run what flood wanted to run. It just seems like we are never the smarter team... Not that you can outsmart urban Meyer that often.. But at least make him sweat a little.
I honestly would downplay the out coached narrative.
Every team has cover 1/3 beaters. Heck, Rutgers WANTS to see 8 in the box so we can hit a big play.
It's exactly why we are a run first team: to force the other team to bring down a safety and make them pay for it.
Every team has cover 1/3 beaters. Heck, Rutgers WANTS to see 8 in the box so we can hit a big play.
It's exactly why we are a run first team: to force the other team to bring down a safety and make them pay for it.
I see it a little differently.
It is true, I grant you, that OSU played a different defense in this game - a different scheme.
But it is also true that RU played different schemes, and ran different plays - schemes and plays they had not run previously. For example, RU's primary offensive set this game was totally different than in any other game. On the first drive of the game, and sporadically throughout, that set allowed RU to get some running game going, in my opinion. But I admit only sporadically. I counted at least 6-8 runs where there was a hole, but OSU closed the hole so fast RU got minimal gains. Is that because of the scheme, or because OSU's players just beat RU players ... probably a combination.
And on the video loop you cite, on the interception, I do not think RU EVER ran that play previously this season - that was a new play. It was designed to flood 4 receivers - 3 short (but each a different depth) and 1 longer ... and if you look at the loop, each receiver was one on one with their defender. What blew up the play was that on the bootleg, OSU did not bite AT ALL ... OSU had TWO pass rushers read the play immediately - a play they had never seen on film before because RU had never run it - and were able to close so fast (speed kills on ofense and defense) on Laviano that he was unable to step up while throwing on the run, or even run himself. At one level I think Laviano probably needed to throw the ball away. But upon seeing the loop I do understand why he threw the ball - Patton (I think it was he) had a small window of being open. But because of the underneath coverage and the OSU pursuit, it had to be a perfect throw. Laviano could not make the perfect throw - possibly because he is not good enough, possibly because OSU's pressure was too good, probably a combination of those 2 things.
I think you are mistaking random success with plan and execution success. Consider the reverse.. In the early game we contained ezekiel Elliot.. But if you watched closely you could tell it was temporary success.
It's not just Barrett's athletic skills. ESPN did a really nice video feature demonstrating how much better Barrett was at executing the read option vs. Jones. Barrett is far better at leaving the ball in the belly of the runner and "riding" forward with him, leaving more time for Barrett to read the defense, which allows him to make a better decision on whether to complete the handoff or keep the ball. Jones typically is in contact with the runner (usually Elliot) for a much shorter period, giving the defense more time to react to who gets the ball.
That has very little to do with athleticism and everything to do with practice and execution. And then on top of the better disguising of the play, Barrett's simply a better, faster, more elusive runner than Jones, as well as being as good of a passer (except on the very longest throws), which is why it made no sense to start Jones.
My kid's 13U travel team does it when the catcher goes out to the mound to chat with the pitcher
Jelly-outside of the time Gilkinson wanted to find you (think it was him) for your repeat posts about him, haven't seen you so strident about anything as your current defense of Laviano.
To go so far as say that the final series TD was meaningless (when the entire OSU bench and coaches were jacked for a shutout and the players on field were going full tilt) removed the veneer of objectivity. Go back and watch the last 1st down and on---The pass was under pressure and showed a whole lot more than you assess. Not sure why the full throated defense, but it's belied by the facts. And to say fans don't deserve to say a backup when the team is under 500--when would it be allowed to advocate for such a a change or to see if even a different look or chemistry could change the results?
Would you not agree that when the team loses more than it wins all positions can be evaluated? This Flood era theory of an untouchable qb who's confidence can shatter like sugar bottles is such an aberration from many things including common sense. Even if Laviano is the better, couldn't shaking things up for a series or two and giving the D a different look or getting them out of a groove be a reasonable thing to call for? I really don't think that at least that point (as opposed to who is better) is arguable without bias.
To go so far as say that the final series TD was meaningless (when the entire OSU bench and coaches were jacked for a shutout and the players on field were going full tilt) removed the veneer of objectivity. Go back and watch the last 1st down and on---The pass was under pressure and showed a whole lot more than you assess. Not sure why the full throated defense, but it's belied by the facts. And to say fans don't deserve to say a backup when the team is under 500--when would it be allowed to advocate for such a a change or to see if even a different look or chemistry could change the results?
Would you not agree that when the team loses more than it wins all positions can be evaluated? This Flood era theory of an untouchable qb who's confidence can shatter like sugar bottles is such an aberration from many things including common sense. Even if Laviano is the better, couldn't shaking things up for a series or two and giving the D a different look or getting them out of a groove be a reasonable thing to call for? I really don't think that at least that point (as opposed to who is better) is arguable without bias.
Flood has the offensive philosophy that he will line up his 11 against your 11 and dare you to stop them. There is very little mis-direction or deception involved in the play calling or play design. That rarely works unless you are the bigger, stronger , more talented team. Against OSU they frequently ran a weird formation with 2 wides, a traditional tight end, a running back, a fullback, and a 2nd tight end who motioned into the the backfield. Basically OSU had to worry about covering the 2 wides only! 2 tight ends and a fullback are not going to scare OSU and force them to remove players from the box and RU never uses the running back slipping out like the NE Patriots, to take advantage of blitzing linebackers. The offense was very compact which made it easier to defend and easier to blitz. Spreading them out would have made RU vulnerable to the rush (they were vulnerable anyway) while opening up the possibility of some big run and passing plays. As usual Flood and his staff choose the safe option.
