Offense Showed Signs in Conference Opener

[UConn07]

Comments from Shirreffs:

Offense Showed Signs in Conference Opener – This is UConn Country

 

[JMick]

>>"We showed some juice in our four and five open and open formations," Diaco said. "We've got receivers that can play and catch and run..."

Hopefully this means Diaco has realized we are a better offense in the gun and it starts to be our base formation.

 

[TouchdownHusky]

The offense may be good as long as UConn, HCBD and it's fans abandon once and for all the outdated concept of a "smash mouth" running game as a staple when the Huskies have the ball.

 

[ZOOCONN]

The offense may be good as long as UConn, HCBD and it's fans abandon once and for all the outdated concept of a "smash mouth" running game as a staple when the Huskies have the ball.

I don't necessarily 100% agree, I don't think we should totally abandon this facet of our offense but it cannot be the crux of our offensive scheme, we have to many skill positions/ players not being utilized to their full potential because of this mindset.

 

[Exit 4]

I did not have a chance to watch the game until last night. When it as live I had to watch it on gamecast.

• The offense definitely improved when it abandon the power run formations. Maybe we don't abandon the run, but we have to scrap running plays with two in the back field and an extra tight end. We don't have the blocking skills to stop the blitz under this formation and we haven't shown the ability to run successful pass plays from this formation.
• Sherriffs did have a great game. He ducked to run too early say 5 times in this game vs 10+ in Maine. He also improved the ball distribution which is great. Need to spread it a bit more vs UVA - take one more step forward.
• On the touchdown throw to Thomas, Sherriffs threw a perfect pass that had to zip rather close to an LB in coverage. It was the kind of throw he has been lacking confidence in thus far this season. Hopefully he can throw a few more next game. Hitting the WR in stride made for the explosive play we have been waiting for.
• Would like to see us get more TE involvement next week. I wouldn't force it too hard, but it would be nice. Bloom & Myers touches along with Davis.
• Reluctantly I have to acknowledge the staff was looking to use WR screens to defeat the blitz. I recall only one truly successful WR screen and several that didn't work or marginally worked. They need another approach as the WR is rather predictable for our opponents.
• Overall, we have to use the air game to set up our run game. Coaching needs to accept that starting in Q1 rather than waiting to the second half. Hopefully the success of moving the ball once the power running game was largely abandon will be a lesson that carries over to next week and thereafter.

 

[TouchdownHusky]

UConn needs to become a passing team that utilizes the run to keep the defense honest. They will not be effective (wins and losses wise) if they insist on being a running team that utilizes the forward pass in lengthy down and distance situations or when they are behind late in the game.

 

[RSTuthill]

Need both bevause they each feed off the success of the other.

What we don't need are statements like "First we need to establish the run." Wrong. First they need to establish both pass and run. Can't have one withouy the other. That much is clear. Hell, if you could establish the run without ever passing, why would you ever pass the whole game?

 

[Stinger92860]

I thought I had moved on, but after reading the quotes about the end of the game, I am back to depression. Hopefully, Diaco keeps going with what is working. For the x and o guys on the board. If we abandon the power formation, how do we respond to blitz? Why will it make a difference? Thanks

 

[Exit 4]

I thought I had moved on, but after reading the quotes about the end of the game, I am back to depression. Hopefully, Diaco keeps going with what is working. For the x and o guys on the board. If we abandon the power formation, how do we respond to blitz? Why will it make a difference? Thanks

By putting more true receivers on the field and spreading out the offense we force defenses to spread their LBs and secondary to match thereby making the possible CB or LB blitzer run a little further and giving our QB a clearer look at what should be open receivers. The Oline and RBs may have an easier time of it too with a simpler set up.

When we line up bunch formations the opposition just blitzes the ends and stuffs the middle shutting our plays down immediately. The reason is because our O Line, TE and RBs are not winning the initial point of contact for picking up blocks. Plus, defenses are not afraid that we'll throw or manage to get a throw off. Our TEs haven't been able to find space for receptions in these plays.