UCF Snowflakes: The Offense

Submitted by LSAClassOf2000 on

This thread will be the repository for any thoughts and hot takes on the offense and the offensive playcalling. 

MGoBoard
Football

Reader71

September 10th, 2016 at 3:37 PM ^

74 had 4-5 plays at the end of the game in which he pulled totally aimlessly and didn't block anyone. I actually laughed out loud after 2 in a row. I don't know what it means, but it was something.

Joined: 08/30/2009

MGoPoints: 22968

Football Heaven

September 10th, 2016 at 3:37 PM ^

I don't think I saw 7 or fewer players in the box on any of our runs, there were always 8 or 9.  I learned today the Speight has the ability to find the mid-range and deep receivers, and if teams continue to stack the box, our passing game will be lethal.  I wish we could run regardless of what the defense throws at us, but that isn't going to happen.  

Joined: 12/30/2014

MGoPoints: 5040

Wood_Chuckson

September 10th, 2016 at 3:38 PM ^

Was not at all impressed with our run blocking. We had 119 rushing yards TOTAL. Against UCF. That's only 34 yds better than S. Car St.

 

Hopefully this is cleaned up before Wiscy comes to town.

Joined: 01/18/2015

MGoPoints: 1528

stephenrjking

September 10th, 2016 at 3:39 PM ^

I suspect there will be a lot of RPS minuses that account for some of the run blocking issues. On several plays I saw the OL blocking adequately but Michigan getting swarmed by numbers. Given Speight's passing success, it seems reasonable to think that UCF sold out to stop the run and that affected the numbers.

...But against a small DL like that Michigan should have blown them off the ball, and even in basic man-on-man battles there just wasn't a lot of push. 

This is not promising for the higher-end hopes for this team. Can scheme overcome this most of the time? Yes, most of the time. But we have some big time DLs to play later.

Joined: 03/15/2012

MGoPoints: 20143524

restive neb

September 11th, 2016 at 3:53 PM ^

because i was on an airplane.  I was worried about the lack of running success when I looked at the stats, and wondered if UCF had been stacking the box.  After watching today, my general observation was that they weren't consistently stacking the box, but that the safeties were racing forward at first sign of run.  As a result, Michigan went to repeated play action passes, and Speight had a good game.  UCF consistently called rock, so Michigan's coaches alternated between rock and paper.

Joined: 04/06/2009

MGoPoints: 1123

LSAClassOf2000

September 10th, 2016 at 3:40 PM ^

Trying to look on the bright side and believe that this was simply a game where the OL was, for whatever reason, kind of unfocused. Granted, that's not an excuse - there was a lot about run blocking in particular that was...not good. HOpefully they can get it where it needs to be for Colorado and beyond though. 

Joined: 01/07/2011

MGoPoints: 130561

restive neb

September 11th, 2016 at 3:58 PM ^

When the safeties are racing forward at the snap, it's hard to block everyone.  The solution is to run play-action, and make them pay.  You still have to hand it off sometimes to make them think run and keep them racing forward.  As a result, running numbers will look bad, but passing numbers look good.  The 51 points indicates that play-calling was effective, so no need to blame play-calling.  It doesn't mean everyone executed perfectly, but it does mean there doesn't have to be much blame passed around.

Joined: 04/06/2009

MGoPoints: 1123

LKLIII

September 10th, 2016 at 3:56 PM ^

Yes but that cuts both ways. If they did sell out to stop the run and in an alternate reality they didn't and Speights passing numbers aren't as impressive,the corollary is that the OLine run game would also likely have been much better. The good news is that UCF dared Speight to beat them through the air, and he did. I'd have big concerns if they did this AND he couldn't find his receivers or made terrible decisions and was a TO factory.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 11/06/2013

MGoPoints: 8924