Diaco: Pulling back on the O-Line (J. Silver) | The Boneyard

Diaco: Pulling back on the O-Line (J. Silver)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
88,947
Reaction Score
332,962
http://snyuconn.com/uconn/football/diaco-pulling-back-on-the-o-line/

>>Speaking on his Sunday Boise State wrap-up teleconference, Diaco indicated that he is going to have to step back what he is asking the line to do. “We need to inspect how much we have given them,” Diaco said. “We have moved a little faster along than is prudent in the developmental process. We need to pick some things they do well and hang our hat on those. And wait on some of the other things until we do those things well.”

Diaco wants to get rid of the jack of all trades, master of none talent on the line. It’s been a struggle for the Huskies in the run game and on the line with inexperienced tackles in Richard Levy and Dalton Gifford and even junior guard Tyler Samra with little playing time. When Diaco shuffles in freshmen Trey Rutherford and Ryan Crozier, the line gets even more green

“Installation is expansive, we want to keep it that way, we need to do things better,” Diaco said. “When our core things don’t look appropriate. No reason for it. “As a program, a foundation, on each side of the ball you got the same thing. They have their own building blocks. When it doesn’t look the appropriate way, go back and inspect whether we are moving too fast.”<<
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2011
Messages
5,575
Reaction Score
13,545
Without a running game,it's open season on QB's.
You have to give the defense multiple things to worry about.
Both are QB's can pass. What a surprise.
One is inexperienced the other lacks mobility.
Both negatives can be hidden by a semblance of a running game.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
2,901
Reaction Score
8,235
These next two games have been circled on the schedule for me for a while now. Obviously the "pre season" mindset will be gone, and the gameplan will be tailored to the opponent moreso than at any time this season. The scaling back of the OL play book is a HUGE step for us.

I assume that HCBD hoped they would get it by now...but they haven't. Very big step here. It happened last year between buffalo and usf, and lyle ran for about 130 yds in that game.

Last game was a net positive despite the loss. We learned a lot about this team. I have a good feeling going forward.
 
Joined
Aug 30, 2011
Messages
7,408
Reaction Score
24,522
Those bye weeks can't get here fast enough, we have two before we play East Carolina. If we can win the next three and capitalize on those bye weeks we'll be in great shape with a lot of momentum going into East Carolina for a huge game. There is still plenty of time for this season to turn, the way it did in 2010.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
7,405
Reaction Score
18,906
Those bye weeks can't get here fast enough, we have two before we play East Carolina. If we can win the next three and capitalize on those bye weeks we'll be in great shape with a lot of momentum going into East Carolina for a huge game.

After the USF game, we will be 1/3 of the way through the season. I am in no rush for the bye weeks. :D
 
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
5,796
Reaction Score
10,095
Wait, people are looking at this as a positive? Coach Diaco is saying the offensive line is horrid in the nicest way possible. He is also saying that they are going to have to change their offense due to this horrible play. How is that a positive????

I think it is also important to point out the atrocious blocking by the running backs and tight ends. This makes it very difficult to help out chip blocking on pass protection or helping out the tackles in the run game.

I saw many positives from the Boise State game, specifically on defense. But we are in big trouble if the line cant block.
 

UCFBfan

Semi Kings of New England!
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
5,872
Reaction Score
11,743
Wait, people are looking at this as a positive? Coach Diaco is saying the offensive line is horrid in the nicest way possible. He is also saying that they are going to have to change their offense due to this horrible play. How is that a positive????

I think it is also important to point out the atrocious blocking by the running backs and tight ends. This makes it very difficult to help out chip blocking on pass protection or helping out the tackles in the run game.

I saw many positives from the Boise State game, specifically on defense. But we are in big trouble if the line cant block.
Would you rather have them trot out the same offense every week and have the O-Line get mauled, along with whoever is our QB, because the game plan isn't working? The line can't magically get better in a few months. This is going to take time. Like recruiting, strength and conditioning, and more coaching type time. So I do see this as a positive on Diaco. He sees that he overestimated this line and he needs to deal with the hand he was dealt. If that means revamping the offense after 3 games in, I like it. Would rather see him realize this and do this now, then after the season and we have injured players and a crap record and he comes out and says, "Maybe we should have changed the offense after seeing the O-Line blow".

I do agree with you on the TE and RB analysis. Same with the FB. If we're going to have him in there he needs to improve.
 

Fishy

Elite Premium Poster
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
18,201
Reaction Score
132,598
Wait, people are looking at this as a positive? Coach Diaco is saying the offensive line is horrid in the nicest way possible. He is also saying that they are going to have to change their offense due to this horrible play. How is that a positive????

I think it is also important to point out the atrocious blocking by the running backs and tight ends. This makes it very difficult to help out chip blocking on pass protection or helping out the tackles in the run game.

Not sure how you fell out of the boat on this one.

It's called recognizing a problem and making changes - that's what people are receiving as a positive, not the line's play.
 
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
8,269
Reaction Score
22,666
Why would this be a negative? Diaco is recognizing that they have asked the I-line to do too much. So they are going to take a look at what works, do more of that and take a look at what doesn't, and do less of that.

They are making adjustments, something the last staff didn't do in 2.5 years.
 
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
5,796
Reaction Score
10,095
WingU-Conn said:
Why would this be a negative? Diaco is recognizing that they have asked the I-line to do too much. So they are going to take a look at what works, do more of that and take a look at what doesn't, and do less of that.

They are making adjustments, something the last staff didn't do in 2.5 years.

It's a negative because the line is playing horribly. How do you adjust to horrid run blocking? The obvious adjustment to poor pass blocking is more 3 step drops. But run blocking? How do you adjust?
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
13,378
Reaction Score
33,674
It's a negative because the line is playing horribly. How do you adjust to horrid run blocking? The obvious adjustment to poor pass blocking is more 3 step drops. But run blocking? How do you adjust?

I don't get your angle on this? Were you hoping that Diaco said the OL was playing great? Did you watch any games this year?
 
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
27,204
Reaction Score
67,149
“We need to pick some things they do well and hang our hat on those. And wait on some of the other things until we do those things well.”

DUH
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
7,405
Reaction Score
18,906
It's a negative because the line is playing horribly. How do you adjust to horrid run blocking? The obvious adjustment to poor pass blocking is more 3 step drops. But run blocking? How do you adjust?

More 3 step drops and it's fixed? LOL.... Run blocking and how do you adjust? You simplify the NEW offensive scheme so that the relatively NEW OL can be successful.

Sometimes your negativity just overflows and you can't stop it.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
1,516
Reaction Score
3,713
It's a negative because the line is playing horribly. How do you adjust to horrid run blocking? The obvious adjustment to poor pass blocking is more 3 step drops. But run blocking? How do you adjust?

Here is how I see it: The O-line knows how to block. What they are not picking up on fast enough is the blocking calls and assignments. Re-watch the Newsome fumble ... it s a blown assignment that allowed the BSU player to reach the ball carrier so fast ... not poor technique or leverage

Blocking assignments and adjustments are called at the line on just about every single play. Simplifying the play calls and blocking assignments will lead to a more vanilla game plan ... but it will improve the failure rate.
 
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
5,796
Reaction Score
10,095
More 3 step drops and it's fixed? LOL.... Run blocking and how do you adjust? You simplify the NEW offensive scheme so that the relatively NEW OL can be successful.

Sometimes your negativity just overflows and you can't stop it.

??? Not sure what you are talking about. I never said 3 steps drops will solve pass blocking woes, I was commenting about a possible adjustment. You are familiar with blocking schemes for O Lineman, correct? Tell me how you simplify blocking schemes for the run game. Please. I am going on the assumption that you are familiar with O Line blocking from an x's and o's standpoint.
 
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
5,796
Reaction Score
10,095
Here is how I see it: The O-line knows how to block. What they are not picking up on fast enough is the blocking calls and assignments. Re-watch the Newsome fumble ... it s a blown assignment that allowed the BSU player to reach the ball carrier so fast ... not poor technique or leverage

Blocking assignments and adjustments are called at the line on just about every single play. Simplifying the play calls and blocking assignments will lead to a more vanilla game plan ... but it will improve the failure rate.

Again, not understanding here. Of course there are calls at the line every play. Can you give me an example of a simplified blocking scheme? Because it is not as simple as big on big blocking.
 
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
5,796
Reaction Score
10,095
I don't get your angle on this? Were you hoping that Diaco said the OL was playing great? Did you watch any games this year?

No angle. I just found it bizarre that people on the board somehow found Diaco's comments as a positive.

The line has been extremely poor. As was my fear going into the season.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
13,378
Reaction Score
33,674
No angle. I just found it bizarre that people on the board somehow found Diaco's comments as a positive.

The line has been extremely poor. As was my fear going into the season.

I take it you were alive and breathing during the PGDL era of UConn football? You know, the guy who wore out his hammer trying to get the square peg in the round hole? I think this is what people are referring to as the positive. You'd have to be deaf, dumb, blind, and dead to not see the OL has not performed this year.
 
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
5,796
Reaction Score
10,095
I take it you were alive and breathing during the PGDL era of UConn football? You know, the guy who wore out his hammer trying to get the square peg in the round hole? I think this is what people are referring to as the positive. You'd have to be deaf, dumb, blind, and dead to not see the OL has not performed this year.

I suffered just like everyone on this board, believe me. I am a firm believer in Coach Foley and his schemes.

The GDL comparison is lost on me. He brought in a completely different SCHEME of blocking (zone) with him. We did not have the athletic agile lineman needed to succeed with that type of Alex Gibbs scheme (think Houston Texans, and Terrel Davis Broncos). But the problem we have right now is it appears we don't have lineman that fit into any scheme. Its not like with a qb where you can say you are going to dumb down the reads. You can't dumb down a blocking scheme. You are going to see varied fronts, and linebackers moving all over the place. This necessitates calls at the line.

Now Coach Diaco might mean, he is not going to lave a Tackle on an island on pass protection, but right now our interior os pretty darn bad as well.

More to the point here, my main point is that I cannot fathom how people see this as a positive. Even though we are 1 and 2, there are plenty of positives, especially on defense. This is not a positive no matter how anyone wants to spin it.
 
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
8,269
Reaction Score
22,666
It's a negative because the line is playing horribly. How do you adjust to horrid run blocking? The obvious adjustment to poor pass blocking is more 3 step drops. But run blocking? How do you adjust?

Pull more, pull less, change who is pulling, substitute less, pull, or don't pull from different formations, more or less pre-snap movements, run what works from different formations, run what hasn't from different formations to see if that's more effective. And of course, continue to work on technique.

People aren't trying to spin the offensive line play, that's a strawman. The positive news is the coach is willing to address the problem, and working to fix it. We used to get crap like this from DeLeone...

""Last year we had the leading rusher in the Big East and a wildcat package I thought was tremendously effective. I felt like we could build on both. We lost two mainstays [Mike Ryan and Moe Petrus]. I didn't anticipate it would affect our offensive line, but it obviously has. Adam Masters [out for the season with an ankle injury at Syracuse] is a huge loss. Not only are we losing a starting right guard, he was our backup at both tackles and left guard. We're losing four players.""


When was the wildcat effective? He didn't think losing Ryan and Petrus would affect us? Adam Masters could play four positions at once?

Diaco isn't breaking new ground. He's not saying or doing anything innovative. But it's refreshing to hear the coach acknowledge a problem with a common sense solution, rather than make excuses.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Online statistics

Members online
42
Guests online
1,365
Total visitors
1,407

Forum statistics

Threads
157,644
Messages
4,116,918
Members
10,008
Latest member
macklin


Top Bottom