"the tried and true thing in football, you build everything around the run game, and then it’s our job to be explosive, to have our passing game look like our run formations, look like our different run plays."
Every coach that has come to UConn has said this. What they are implying is the run game will empower the passing game. I wonder why it never occurs to them that the opposite is true?
Or O.C Smith. Little Green Apples
That’s my reading. Every coach in America say we want to run even if he doesn’t want to run.
Bc the opposite isn’t true. If you run successfully it causes the defense to stack the box more to stop the run, creating more one on one coverages and better chances at plays through the air. If you go pass first a defense will just drop into zone coverage and still have their front who’s stopping the run and/or rushing the passer.
Because we don't have a passing game that will enable the run
And dropping into the zone doesn't help the run? I think you just answered the question.
The success of the run dictates the passing game, not the other way around. It’s literally the most basic principle of the game of football. If you think you’ve cracked some code and are saying something no one else has said before, let me fill you in, you’re not. The defense is in zone coverage when you are trying to establish the run game, but yet you’re thinking that’s the answer. It’s opposite in the point that once you’ve established the run the guys who are holding the holes in the short field now have to come up aggressively to stop the run which now makes the secondary have to play essentially man defense and it allows you to expose those weaknesses. All the coaches have said it in the past bc it’s quite literally how the game is played.
I disagree regarding Mora's approach. The D was better in 22, but Turner was so limited we couldn't do much on offense. Last yr, we couldn't run as effectively AND the defense was worse, Roberson was just getting the rust off, so it was a cocktail of bad.
If special teams continues to fair catch the ball inside the 20, Sammis better have some answers, otherwise gonna be a looong day for the defense.
Not if you keep the other guy from scoring. You need to score 1 more than they do. If they score 50 you need to score 51. If you hold them to 6 you only need 7. I just want to win.
Was the announcer Jim Mora?
I think using any game if that ilk in the Disco Era is a bad option to your point... but I get what you mean.
I think teams last year used more 4-5 wide sets. Left Mitchell covering a lot of area in the middle of the field. He got bigger and as his pro day numbers looked, he was on the slow side of his position peers. Losing Randle and Swenson was huge. Swenson was a very versatile player. Don't know what happened to Shearin. Probably the lack of quality LB depth led Mora to seek out a different defensive style.
Much of Hurleys offense is based on athletes executing skills that "anybody" should be able to do: setting screens, constant motion, knowing your assignments, analyzing options. These produce scoring opportunities that are not talent intensive. Scoring on a back door layup rather than a 1:1 dribble drive. I'm not a FB offensive savant, but isn't Giddyup describing/prescribing the same philosophy for Sammis/Mora? Rather than expecting a slow player to outrun anyone, design an offense that is the FB equivalent of backdoor cuts, read and react, deception and all those other things that make Hoops Offense go?
Yet
I would suggest retaking Logic 101 which should also give you a better grounding in discerning between cause and effect.
