Playcalling or Playmakers? | The Boneyard

Playcalling or Playmakers?

What's the main reason for our woes on offense?

  • Poor Playcalling

    Votes: 3 15.0%
  • Lack of Playmakers

    Votes: 17 85.0%

  • Total voters
    20
Status
Not open for further replies.

CTMike

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
11,415
Reaction Score
40,749
Curious what people are thinking regarding our offense. Is it more poor playcalling, or a lack of playmakers? Yes, it could be both, but that option felt cop-out-ish to me. :)

I'm falling on the playmakers side of the fence. I think back to last year, and everyone was in an uproar about the predictable play calling, run run run, etc. And we are seeing comments like that again, even with a significantly different coaching staff. To me... it's tacit confirmation that Edsall and Pasqualoni were/are trying to run the offense that best fits the players on hand. They both seem to have concluded that a more run-focused attack gives us the best chance to win given what we have. I think Coach P has shown more flexibility in terms of mixing it up, but we just don't have the ingredients at this point to bake an air-raid cake. And, given that, I think Coach P needs to be given the time to recruit his players and work on implementing his style.

I now turn it over to you, fellow Boneyarders...
 
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
8,700
Reaction Score
15,467
playcalling in the redzone is bad... my opinion... I still can't believe NOT one of our bigger backs is good enough to plow behind our OL on 1st and goal at the one yard line to gain one yard to break the plain of the goal line to score... If we're that weak at RB (where only a 5'8 170 lb back gets the brunt of the carries ) there's a serious problem with our depth...
 

Chin Diesel

Power of Love
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
32,695
Reaction Score
99,602
playcalling in the redzone is bad... my opinion... I still can't believe NOT one of our bigger backs is good enough to plow behind our OL on 1st and goal at the one yard line to gain one yard to break the plain of the goal line to score... If we're that weak at RB (where only a 5'8 170 lb back gets the brunt of the carries ) there's a serious problem with our depth...

I would agree with that. Let me pimp the thread about the animated drive chart. It clearly shows Uconn moved the ball between the 20's. First game of the year we got in the red zone and we threw a fade to Geremy Davis. He got the defender called for pass interference. I don't think we've tried that since. With a big TE like Griffin and (finally) a couple of big sized WR's, there isn't any reason for us not to get the ball in the end zone more often. Also, we had some early success with McCummings and the wildcat. I think it's more play calling than play makers. We have players good enough to create mismatches. I don't think the coordinator is getting them the ball in the right spot.
 
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
8,700
Reaction Score
15,467
I would agree with that. Let me pimp the thread about the animated drive chart. It clearly shows Uconn moved the ball between the 20's. First game of the year we got in the red zone and we threw a fade to Geremy Davis. He got the defender called for pass interference. I don't think we've tried that since. With a big TE like Griffin and (finally) a couple of big sized WR's, there isn't any reason for us not to get the ball in the end zone more often. Also, we had some early success with McCummings and the wildcat. I think it's more play calling than play makers. We have players good enough to create mismatches. I don't think the coordinator is getting them the ball in the right spot.
Right on bro... Deleone is doing a crappy job putting our guys in the right spots to be successful in the red zone... It's like we are so worried about the defenses down there that we end up tricking ourselves into NOT scoring...
 

Waquoit

Mr. Positive
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
32,597
Reaction Score
84,061
This "poll" is a simple IQ test. The playcalling produces open receivers and decent running lanes. The players are having trouble hitting holes and open receivers.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
4,905
Reaction Score
18,475
Playcalling. Forget the pass in the flat at Vandy. Saturday on the one yard line. We were debating the call in the stands. I called for a quick hit to the fullback. With our O lIne not getting the push we expected, to start our play handing to our smallish tail back gave the D too much time for leverage and stuffing the holes. A play action pass to a tight end would have been a good call also. What we called was amateur hour.
 
Joined
Sep 1, 2011
Messages
4,916
Reaction Score
5,364
Curious what people are thinking regarding our offense. Is it more poor playcalling, or a lack of playmakers? Yes, it could be both, but that option felt cop-out-ish to me. :)

I'm falling on the playmakers side of the fence. I think back to last year, and everyone was in an uproar about the predictable play calling, run run run, etc. And we are seeing comments like that again, even with a significantly different coaching staff. To me... it's tacit confirmation that Edsall and Pasqualoni were/are trying to run the offense that best fits the players on hand. They both seem to have concluded that a more run-focused attack gives us the best chance to win given what we have. I think Coach P has shown more flexibility in terms of mixing it up, but we just don't have the ingredients at this point to bake an air-raid cake. And, given that, I think Coach P needs to be given the time to recruit his players and work on implementing his style.

I now turn it over to you, fellow Boneyarders...
I think it's both. Yes the playcalling has been bad IMO, but lack of a playmaker has hurt us more. Mac, IMO just doesn't have the instincts to make plays when he hears feet and when he does try something it's ill timed and results in disaster. Read my post in "rewatched the game" concerning this.
 
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
3,708
Reaction Score
3,238
Curious what people are thinking regarding our offense. Is it more poor playcalling, or a lack of playmakers? Yes, it could be both, but that option felt cop-out-ish to me. :)

"To me... it's tacit confirmation that Edsall and Pasqualoni were/are trying to run the offense that best fits the players on hand. They both seem to have concluded that a more run-focused attack gives us the best chance to win given what we have."

Accurate for sure. . . but it's the "given what we have" part that is bothersome. Thought that the entry into a BCS conference or the bowl appearances or the BE Championships or the new football complex or the guys playing on NFL rosters or the appearance of Notre Dame on the schedule (not to mention beating them) or the trip to a BCS New Year's Day Bowl game would have yielded more playmakers and better playmakers. Take away the Fordham game and how bad is the offensive production been this season.
 

Chin Diesel

Power of Love
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
32,695
Reaction Score
99,602
As a follow on, for me this is almost a two-part question.

Between the 20's the play calling has been fine in my opinion. Perfect?- no, but BCS respectable. It's the play calling in the red zone that has baffled me. Scoring TD's a high percentage in the red zone requires the offense to have perfected an identity that can overcome a defense that knows what you are gonna call. The past few years we would run it behind Moe or Zach and impose our will. If we're gonna use Scott McCummings in the red zone, it's got to be for the whole series. If we are going pro set, do it the whole series.
 

CTMike

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
11,415
Reaction Score
40,749
Of course, I knew there wasn't one "answer" to the question, but I've enjoyed reading the discussion... definitely a strange phenomenon that we are so inefficient in the red zone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Online statistics

Members online
140
Guests online
1,328
Total visitors
1,468

Forum statistics

Threads
157,339
Messages
4,095,007
Members
9,985
Latest member
stanfordnyc


Top Bottom