Questions from someone who listened on the radio

[mdk01]

1. It sounded to me that the OL was as much or more of a problem than Laviano. Is that accurate?

2. I believe that two of the long passes for TDs involved coverage by a LB and a S. To me that sounds like a problematic defensive scheme. Also, how did the CBs do in the game?

 

[RUtrumpet92]

OL struggled in pass protection, particularly early on. Laviano did not have much time on the first few possessions. It is definitely cause for concern if it happens against New Mexico. Washington is supposed to be a top defense so that could have something to do with it.

One of the long TDs was well schemed by Washington with lots of shifting presnap to clear out the right side (we were in man) and sending someone in motion that had a LB or S on him. The defender was playing it like it would be a 10 to 15 yard pass and was not in position to turn and go long with his man. When the receiver ran by him to catch the deep ball, it was pitch and catch.

Secondary got burned over the top on the three long passes but made a few good plays on the ball too. No quick throws to WR with the CB playing 10 yards off the line anymore, which I like as a scheme change. But that comes with a trade off of a better chance of being beat deep.

 

[Plum Street]

1. It sounded to me that the OL was as much or more of a problem than Laviano. Is that accurate?

2. I believe that two of the long passes for TDs involved coverage by a LB and a S. To me that sounds like a problematic defensive scheme. Also, how did the CBs do in the game?

Pretty much everything stunk in the first half. Not sure if it was scheme , but it was definitely talent. One td our corner got toasted by 5 yards on a fly pattern . I am hoping it was more of a case of things snowballing on a shell shocked team .

 

[CERU00]

I kept thinking back to when Chas Dodd was in similar circumstances. It always seemed to me that Chas was able to make something happen when faced with adversity. Yes he took lots of sacks...but he did something. Laviano didn't do anything. He either dumped a screen pass or he was sacked. It was a long sad game. I would have thrown another QB out there just to see how someone else would handle it.

 

[iReC89]

Keep in mind that 21 points on 3 torches were due largely to a guy what runs a 4.25 40. John Ross was a little under the radar following 116 months of injury recovery, but he will get NFL attention now. We were still going to lose this game with out him, but the defense might not be as bad as it seems. Cioffi redeemed himself with a really nice INT, and broke up a touchdown pass play.

 

[RUBand]

On one TD we had a LB covering a speed merchant....zoom zoom
Our OL didn't do Laviano any favors, however, as tough as he is, his lack of speed really hurts. When he starts to run it isn't long before defenders are on him

 

[wheezer]

After Temple killed Hackenberg about 10 times in a game, Penn state went to a lot of quick hitting passing plays..... Plays that the Qb got rid of it real quick..... I would think that we should have done more along those lines if our pass protection is lacking..... Unless we don't have the receivers for that.

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

After Temple killed Hackenberg about 10 times in a game, Penn state went to a lot of quick hitting passing plays..... Plays that the Qb got rid of it real quick..... I would think that we should have done more along those lines if our pass protection is lacking..... Unless we don't have the receivers for that.

It is impossible to say without analyzing real game film (whole field view) and knowing what the play calls were and the reads/responsibilities....

...but it was my impression that our offense is predicated on quick decisions based on quick reads. It looks to me alike the QB was frozen in indecision. And I know we saw him hand off the ball on some read-handoffs where he should have kept it.

It is very likely there is a combination of "D: All of the above".. bad reads occasionally, indecisiveness, bad protection.. etc.

 

[ashokan]

...but it was my impression that our offense is predicated on quick decisions based on quick reads. It looks to me alike the QB was frozen in indecision.

Maybe because nobody was open. I keep reading how Washington's secondary had RU WRs under a blanket. Nova probably would have had 4 INTs.

From Wash. media:

"Defensively, the Dawgs had few issues stopping Rutgers. The secondary picked up right where it left off last season,except better. The Rutgers receivers were unable to separate and Chris Laviano was unable to find the few who were able to shake somewhat free.

Laviano's job wasn't made much easier when he was being put on his back almost every time he dropped back against UW's first-stringers. The statsheet only shows sacks for Elijah Qualls and Vita Vea, but the Dawgs consistently had pressure in his face, whether it was blitzing or just the line.

http://www.uwdawgpound.com/2016/9/3...-dismantle-rutgers-48-13-to-open-2016-instant

 

[RUBOB72]

We don't have the WR's as we did in the past...Washington's team speed was legit...all around team speed like that is hard to beat...Peterson even at Boise State
always had players on D who even though not 4-5 ***** kids more than held their own against top teams...the man has a 800+ winning % 3rd active coach in D 1...his 4th year I believe...let's see what coach Ash can do in season 2-3-4 with his recruits...

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

Maybe because nobody was open. I keep reading how Washington's secondary had RU WRs under a blanket. Nova probably would have had 4 INTs.

From Wash. media:

"Defensively, the Dawgs had few issues stopping Rutgers. The secondary picked up right where it left off last season,except better. The Rutgers receivers were unable to separate and Chris Laviano was unable to find the few who were able to shake somewhat free.

Laviano's job wasn't made much easier when he was being put on his back almost every time he dropped back against UW's first-stringers. The statsheet only shows sacks for Elijah Qualls and Vita Vea, but the Dawgs consistently had pressure in his face, whether it was blitzing or just the line.

http://www.uwdawgpound.com/2016/9/3...-dismantle-rutgers-48-13-to-open-2016-instant

I wouldn't put much faith in sports reporters or TV "analysts".. they often resort to the trivial summary points. Sacks mean no one was open, etc. If the passes are supposed to happen immediately, no doubt DBs will be in the area... even if the pass was going to be successful.

We also saw well covered Washington receivers making catches on 3rd down.. thrown perfectly to spots. Those receivers did not look open.. no QB should seek to throw it to them.. unless thrown to that spot was well practiced and was going to happen no matter what. The fast guy was another story.. he was open as soon as the safety was no back-peddling on the snap.

Only careful analysis and knowing what plays were called and what the reads should have been will tell us if the WRs were "open" and should have been thrown to. Certainly I head the TV guy state that Grant was wide open 20 yards downfield with no one near him on one pass where CL dumped it short for no reason. There had to be more occasions of missing the open guy.. or being pressured before the open guy came open.

 

[MozRU]

I listened to the entire game on my WCTC app. Chris and Ray made it sound as though the online blew then entire game.