RU vs. Ohio State - The Jellyman Post Game View and Perspective

[JPhoboken]

Jelly,

Pro-style offense equals the ability to line-up, run the ball when the other team knows you're going to run and then hit deep shots down field off play action.

If you think we have the talent to do that in the B10, i don't know what to tell you. We may have had the talent to do that ONCE in 15 years--2006.

We've never shown any consistent ability to recruit offensive talent that can average 150+ yard per game on the ground against B10 defenses and simultaneously protect a QB on a 7 step drop off of play action.

You are arguing with yourself. No where does Jelly say we are talented enough, he said he thinks the pro-style offense is suited to the talent WE HAVE and the the Elite 11 QB we have committed for next year.

As far as talent, he said the staff has a "chance" to get better and recruit better, but is not certain they will do so.

Jelly knows, as we all know, getting better talent in here is paramount to competing with the big boys.

Hudson, what is your point?

 

[ruhudsonfan]

Jelly,


You are arguing with yourself. No where does Jelly say we are talented enough, he said he thinks the pro-style offense is suited to the talent WE HAVE and the the Elite 11 QB we have committed for next year.

As far as talent, he said the staff has a "chance" to get better and recruit better, but is not certain they will do so.

Jelly knows, as we all know, getting better talent in here is paramount to competing with the big boys.

Hudson, what is your point?

Lemme see if I follow.

It is common knowledge that the pro set requires the most talent to run effectively. You need to line-up people who can win their battle, at every single position, on every single snap. You are going to be fairly predictable on offense and depend on putting a hat on hat when the defense has 6/7 in the box. You have to have a quarterback that can hit long shots down the field off of play action. You need an OL that can consistently protect 5 and 7 step drops. You need fairly dynamic playmakers at TE. You need stud RBs that can move the pile (And stay healthy doing it).

Which of these things do we currently have in the program in anything close to a level that will allow us to compete with the upper echelons of our new conference?

Here is my point. We have never shown that we can consistently recruit the talent needed to run the pro-set offense. Being committed to the pro set is pure lunacy. It sets us back schematically in 2/3rds of our conference games.

 

[fg7321]

14) Rettig: I was glad to see him in the game for the 4th quarter. I thought he threw 2 really good passes: To Agoudosi for the 58-yard play, and to Patton for the TD. But his other passes were not great. He had TIME to find Agoudosi on that play - to his credit Rettig made a really good pass. AND ... I strongly believe that TWO of RU's time outs on that drive were due to confusion in the huddle that cost RU time and required a time out ... especially the time out on 2nd down and goal from the 4 yard line. And though I cannot prove it, nor will I try, I strongly believe this is an ongoing issue for Rettig, and very likely one of the primary reasons Laviano is the QB - and will remain so. One more thing: Rettig had the benefit of playing with RU's starting OL , running backs and WR's (other than Carroo), and also the benefit of playing against OSU's 2nd and 3rd team defenders. Still, no doubt the 2 good passes by Rettig will fuel many fans' belief he should be the starting QB, though his performance actually proves nothing.

Maybe the reason why Rettig is not as prepared is that the last time he got a chance to play was against Norfolk State. Same thing last year with Nova and Laviano. Nova had to go down before Laviano saw any time.

When the other team goes up by 5 TDs its time to take a shot with your other guy. It was readily apparent we were not going to win when the score got to 42-0 in the third Qtr at that point Rettig should have gone in and let him throw the rock and take every possible shot he could downfield. Nothing to lose a that point.

 

[JPhoboken]

Lemme see if I follow.

It is common knowledge that the pro set requires the most talent to run effectively. You need to line-up people who can win their battle, at every single position, on every single snap. You are going to be fairly predictable on offense and depend on putting a hat on hat when the defense has 6/7 in the box. You have to have a quarterback that can hit long shots down the field off of play action. You need an OL that can consistently protect 5 and 7 step drops. You need fairly dynamic playmakers at TE. You need stud RBs that can move the pile (And stay healthy doing it).

Which of these things do we currently have in the program in anything close to a level that will allow us to compete with the upper echelons of our new conference?

Here is my point. We have never shown that we can consistently recruit the talent needed to run the pro-set offense. Being committed to the pro set is pure lunacy. It sets us back schematically in 2/3rds of our conference games.

I am not defending Flood, but please tell me what offense you would like to run for Laviano, Rettig, Dare, and Russo. What coach you would like to run that offense, and please tell me how long it will take transitioning to your new offense with players who have never run it?

It quite possible, the switch could set us back as well.

I am not saying we shouldn't consider another offense. God knows I would love to see our QB's throwing for 500 yards per game in an air raid offense. Its just this idea that some people have that starting again with a new offense would be painless, it would not.

 

[Scarlet Jerry]

Thank you, Jellybean. I appreciate your post game analysis. I agree that the Ohio State game is a useless measuring stick for this team (like the Norfolk State game). You can't use extremes to make measurements of progress. I'm more interested in seeing how this team does against Nebraska, Army, and Maryland - our three most winnable games. The performance against those teams will tell us volumes about our team.

-Scarlet Jerry

 

[zappaa]

Thank you, Jellybean. I appreciate your post game analysis. I agree that the Ohio State game is a useless measuring stick for this team (like the Norfolk State game). You can't use extremes to make measurements of progress. I'm more interested in seeing how this team does against Nebraska, Army, and Maryland - our three most winnable games. The performance against those teams will tell us volumes about our team.

-Scarlet Jerry

It will tell us we can play with crappy teams.

 

[brgossRU90]

As much as I hate our pro style offense that always leaves us waiting for next year when maybe all the pieces will fit together by far a bigger concern for us at this point is defense. If we had an offense capable of putting 50 to 70 points on almost anyone it wouldn't be so much of an issue but we don't and we're not even trying to. Given that, a defense with many rankings around 100 is utterly unacceptable. It destroys the entire schiano model the team was built on. If flood is looking for a different style of play I'd like to know what it is.

 

[ruhudsonfan]

I am not defending Flood, but please tell me what offense you would like to run for Laviano, Rettig, Dare, and Russo. What coach you would like to run that offense, and please tell me how long it will take transitioning to your new offense with players who have never run it?

It quite possible, the switch could set us back as well.

I am not saying we shouldn't consider another offense. God knows I would love to see our QB's throwing for 500 yards per game in an air raid offense. Its just this idea that some people have that starting again with a new offense would be painless, it would not.

So we should stay pro set. I mean, it's been yielding tremendous results thus far.

At some point, a reasonable person surveys the landscape, looks at our history of recruiting certain types of players, looks at what types of players are generally available to us on a go forward basis and makes an executable decision. Flood's decisions are generally executable, but probably not in the generally accepted usage of that phrase.

You can rip the band aid off or you can play this cat and mouse game with killing the program one season at a time. Obviously, transitioning to a new offense wouldn't be painless. I'm not arguing it would be. And frankly, before this week, i've never advocated for doing it. But it's become painfully obvious that the suicide pact Flood has with this offense is not the long term answer.

 

[rutgersguy1]

I've said this here before but I've advocated switching to some sort of spread (air raid/read option) for some time now. Even if it failed on the first try, I still would try again with hopefully a better coach who could do it better.

I've said it's the best avenue for over achieving your perceived status on the college landscape. Just take a look at what's been happening over the years. How far down the college totem pole can you go for teams that use a pro style with some success? Wisconsin/MSU/Stanford. How far down the college totem pole can you go for teams that use the spread? Ole Miss/Miss. St./TCU/Baylor/Oregon/Arizona/ASU/currently Memphis/Houston in past years Fresno State and NIU etc.. You'll never find one of those "unexpecteds" from the mid majors doing well and becoming ranked on the back of pro style. It's going to be on the back of their offense and it's always going to be some form of a spread.

Point being you can go way farther down the college totem pole to find teams that use the spread and have had some success, sometimes just fleeting sometime a little more sustained. You can't go too far down for teams using the pro style. A spread helps close the talent gap as much as possible. It doesn't mean you'll always be successful and it's not some cure all but it's the best avenue to take IMO and gives you the best chance.

Take a look at the mighty Alabama with all their talent and a great coach like Nick Saban. Pretty much all the teams they've lost to over the last handful of years were using a spread. Utah/Texas A&M/Ole Miss twice in a row/OSU (obviously very talented and with Meyer but still a spread) Auburn/Oklahoma. It doesn't mean if you run a spread you'll beat them, they're still Alabama with their great coach and talent, but the ones that seem to have the best chance do. Would you ever think Ole Miss could beat them twice in a row?

I'd probably only have faith in 2 coaches that could realistically be available in the next few years that might and I stress might have a chance to have some success with a pro style and that would be Mark Richt and Bret Bielema. Anyone else who would realistically be available I wouldn't have any faith in. The best avenue to close any talent gaps is with a spread and college football is littered with examples of them.

 

[ruhudsonfan]

I've said this here before but I've advocated switching to some sort of spread (air raid/read option) for some time now. Even if it failed on the first try, I still would try again with hopefully a better coach who could do it better.

I've said it's the best avenue for over achieving your perceived status on the college landscape. Just take a look at what's been happening over the years. How far down the college totem pole can you go for teams that use a pro style with some success? Wisconsin/MSU/Stanford. How far down the college totem pole can you go for teams that use the spread? Ole Miss/Miss. St./TCU/Baylor/Oregon/Arizona/ASU/currently Memphis/Houston in past years Fresno State and NIU etc.. You'll never find one of those "unexpecteds" from the mid majors doing well and becoming ranked on the back of pro style. It's going to be on the back of their offense and it's always going to be some form of a spread.

Point being you can go way farther down the college totem pole to find teams that use the spread and have had some success, sometimes just fleeting sometime a little more sustained. You can't go too far down for teams using the pro style. A spread helps close the talent gap as much as possible. It doesn't mean you'll always be successful and it's not some cure all but it's the best avenue to take IMO and gives you the best chance.

Take a look at the mighty Alabama with all their talent and a great coach like Nick Saban. Pretty much all the teams they've lost to over the last handful of years were using a spread. Utah/Texas A&M/Ole Miss twice in a row/OSU (obviously very talented and with Meyer but still a spread) Auburn/Oklahoma. It doesn't mean if you run a spread you'll beat them, they're still Alabama with their great coach and talent, but the ones that seem to have the best chance do. Would you ever think Ole Miss could beat them twice in a row?

I'd probably only have faith in 2 coaches that could realistically be available in the next few years that might and I stress might have a chance to have some success with a pro style and that would be Mark Richt and Bret Bielema. Anyone else who would realistically be available I wouldn't have any faith in. The best avenue to close any talent gaps is with a spread and college football is littered with examples of them.

Preach it...

And btw, I HATE spread football with a passion. But reality is staring us in the face at this point. We can't realistically bring in the depth of talent needed to run this offense at the level we want.

 

[rutgersguy1]

Preach it...

And btw, I HATE spread football with a passion. But reality is staring us in the face at this point. We can't realistically bring in the depth of talent needed to run this offense at the level we want.

LOL, I don't have that dislike but I understand some don't like the "pin ball machine" nature of it. For me personally, anything, any avenue, any method that brings us a better chance for more success is fine with me.

One thing though that I've mentioned in other coaching threads. If you do go to a spread you have to have a coach that takes defense at least semi seriously. It can't be one of those guys so caught up in the machinations of his offense that he neglects the defense.

I understand and accept that a byproduct of a spread is usually, not always, a weaker defense and that's fine with me. I don't need a top defense just give me mediocre say top 50-65 defense paired with say around a top 15 offense and I think more times than not we'll wind up somewhere we like. If you just have something in the 80+ area on defense then eventually it catches up with you or you'll end up like an Indiana. Some offenses are so good that they can even mask that extremely lousy defense but I think more times than not you'll be hurt by it so just give mediocre defense and top 15 or so offense and I'll be satisfied.