RRPP

[RSTuthill]

If UConn is going with the Run Run Pass Punt (RRPP) approach, is it not time to get a blocking back into the backfield? The OL can open holes all night; but if the other team stacks the box, very few yards will be gained. In that case it seems they gotta get a blocking back in there who can really lay the wood to the other team's LB's. Would certainly help in pass protection too.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

The OL can open holes all night

Are you sure about that?

 

[JMick]

Are you sure about that?

You're right, but think I get what he was saying. Lining up 3 TE's is going to put 8 in the box every time. If we had one in the backfield and then spread them out with with twins or double splits, it should take another guy out of the box.

 

[RSTuthill]

Are you sure about that?

I was, of course, speaking hypothetically. But that scenario did happen on multiple occasions Thursday night. Having a banger in the backfield increases the number of personnel at the point of attack by one and greatly increases the pass protection. Newsome, for all the great things he does, pass protection blocking is not one of them. He is next to useless in that department with rare exceptions.

 

[kris1]

I was, of course, speaking hypothetically. But that scenario did happen on multiple occasions Thursday night. Having a banger in the backfield increases the number of personnel at the point of attack by one and greatly increases the pass protection. Newsome, for all the great things he does, pass protection blocking is not one of them. He is next to useless in that department with rare exceptions.

You're new to the board....welcome. But, you're somewhat late to the party. In this offense, the backs are asked to do very little in pass protection. That was clearly stated last season by the offensive staff. Its very rare that the backs will be required to fit a rush defender on pass plays. They are asked to chip and release as a pass outlet.

 

[RSTuthill]

In this offense, the backs are asked to do very little in pass protection. That was clearly stated last season by the offensive staff. Its very rare that the backs will be required to fit a rush defender on pass plays. They are asked to chip and release as a pass outlet.

Yup, and that is part of the problem isn't it? Why do you think BS has happy feet? And if you call that chipping in, my goodness. My grandmother could chip in better than that.

Thanks for the instruction. Happy to wear the newbie label for awhile. I've posted/blogged on UConn hockey for more than twenty years, currently on USCHO, btw. Over there it is considered bad form to play the newbie card on someone who just joined. Just sayin' ....

 

[kris1]

Yup, and that is part of the problem isn't it? Why do you think BS has happy feet? And if you call that chipping in, my goodness. My grandmother could chip in better than that.

Thanks for the instruction. Happy to wear the newbie label for awhile. I've posted/blogged on UConn hockey for more than twenty years, currently on USCHO, btw. Over there it is considered bad form to play the newbie card on someone who just joined. Just sayin' ....

Then stay over there.....

 

[JMick]

Yup, and that is part of the problem isn't it? Why do you think BS has happy feet? And if you call that chipping in, my goodness. My grandmother could chip in better than that.

Thanks for the instruction. Happy to wear the newbie label for awhile. I've posted/blogged on UConn hockey for more than twenty years, currently on USCHO, btw. Over there it is considered bad form to play the newbie card on someone who just joined. Just sayin' ....

You need a thicker skin to post around here. Especially when you post about things you don't know anything about re: backs and pass blocking. People will correct you, often harshly, and sometimes deservedly so.

 

[RSTuthill]

Just saying that the OL will not stop anybody's pass rush and they need two back sets to keep BS running all over creation. Just look at the video. If that is not plain, then what is? Sorry that you are so ideological about the system, but it ain't working.

But that is not the principal reason I advocated for a fullback, as you know.

 

[Dogged]

Just saying that the OL will not stop anybody's pass rush and they need two back sets to keep BS running all over creation. Just look at the video. If that is not plain, then what is? Sorry that you are so ideological about the system, but it ain't working.

But that is not the principal reason I advocated for a fullback, as you know.

You do need to have thicker skin to post here. And stop lying about your grandmother!

 

[freescooter]

Running with a fullback seems to be out of fashion right now but I agree with Dick on this. Having a lead blocker for Newsome and Johnson as well as a true blocking back in passing situations would help a lot. F/H/choose your letter tight ends aren't in the same position to play that role. In a sense they are hybrids but with our offense a true blocking back would be a better solution.

 

[Excalibur]

Running with a fullback seems to be out of fashion right now but I agree with Dick on this. Having a lead blocker for Newsome and Johnson as well as a true blocking back in passing situations would help a lot. F/H/choose your letter tight ends aren't in the same position to play that role. In a sense they are hybrids but with our offense a true blocking back would be a better solution.

There is something to this. The overwhelming majority of the tackles on Thursday were not made by Maine's D Linemen, but by linebackers coming up to plug holes (not even moving up, really, since they were lined up less than 2 yards behind the defensive line). Part of that was our OL not recognizing assignments, and part of it was just sheer numbers in a stacked box. We don't have a true FB on the roster, but having a blocker leading the runner gives you a better chance of success against a stacked box.

 

[RSTuthill]

Back after the weekend.

This will take about a minute.

Click here http://the-boneyard.com/threads/9-1-2016-uconn-vs-maine-replay.96437/ and launch the vid.

Use the cursor to advance to 1:15:45 on the bottom bar. When the ball is snapped, click the stop bars on the lower left. Then step through the play in half second intervals. On - off quickly. You will see a large hole open up on the left side, Thomas desperately running over to take out the strong side LB from a bad angle and gets there half a step late, and Newsome stopped for no gain. With a FB that play would have gone for a big gain.

The added pass protection in certain situations a FB gives you is an added benefit, not the primary reason you would use two backs.

There are other plays we could look at if we wanted to spend the time.

 

[kris1]

Back after the weekend.

This will take about a minute.

Click here http://the-boneyard.com/threads/9-1-2016-uconn-vs-maine-replay.96437/ and launch the vid.

Use the cursor to advance to 1:15:45 on the bottom bar. When the ball is snapped, click the stop bars on the lower left. Then step through the play in half second intervals. On - off quickly. You will see a large hole open up on the left side, Thomas desperately running over to take out the strong side LB from a bad angle and gets there half a step late, and Newsome stopped for no gain. With a FB that play would have gone for a big gain.

The added pass protection in certain situations a FB gives you is an added benefit, not the primary reason you would use two backs.

There are other plays we could look at if we wanted to spend the time.

Ok, I'll bite. I'm not sure how a running play has anything to do with pass pro but....

Maine has 4-3 personnel converted to a 5-2 under front (and man-free in the secondary) on this play with the "Sam" LB (#52) lined up at the 9-technique (outside the TE, Bloom) to the formation.

Meyers, playing the "F", is essentially a fullback lined up in the C-gap between Peart (LT) and Bloom (TE). Prior to the snap the defensive tackle jumped from a 4-technique (head up on Peart) to a 5-technique (Peart's outside shoulder, or in the C-gap). This shift changes the blocking assignments up front. Bloom now has to block down on the 5-technique. Peart will work with Bloom chipping the 5-technique then release to the next level to seal the "Mike" LB (#6) inside. Meyers will kick out the 9-technique. Thomas has to work back inside to crack on the SS (#21), who is in run support based on his alignment.

 

[RSTuthill]

Ok, I'll bite. I'm not sure how a running play has anything to do with pass pro but....

It's not a pass protection discussion. It's a discussion of the run which which was getting stuffed very regularly.

I merely suggested that a 2 back set would also, incidentally, help with pass protection and I was immediately told I knew nothing about pass protection.

 

[kris1]

This look shows everyone doing what they're suppose to do. Bloom blocks down on the DT, Peart is working toward the "Mike", Hopkins works toward the "Will", Meyers kicks out and Thomas is working toward the SS. The field CB is the only player, when everything is blocked correctly, that Newsome needs to beat outside of the FS, who's on the opposite hash.

The field CB steps up, but doesn't commit for fear of Newsome bouncing outside. Newsome reads that and hits the hole. Peart whiffs on the "Mike" and falls down. Thomas takes a bad angle in the SS, who meets Newsome on the hole.

 

[kris1]

It's not a pass protection discussion. It's a discussion of the run which which was getting stuffed very regularly.

I merely suggested that a 2 back set would also help with pass protection and I was immediately told I knew nothing about pass protection.

Whether you have a true FB, an F or an H the keys are the same for the LBs and safeties. Personnel is not the issue, it's assignment football. Two guys, on this particular play, whiffed. If they do their job, it's a potential big gainer. If this play is run from an "I" formation, the blocking assignments would change, but it doesn't mean the result would. Guys are still whiffing on blocks. That is the problem.

 

[RSTuthill]

Thomas takes a bad angle in the SS, who meets Newsome on the hole.

Good discussion. Thanks for the analysis. Now my question to you is, would Thomas ever get there in time from that position at the snap and would he ever get a good angle on the SS? Because if he can't ever get there to take out the SS the play fails. Do we agree on that?

 

[kris1]

Good discussion. Thanks for the analysis. Now my question to you is, would Thomas ever get there in time from that position at the snap and would he ever get a good angle on the SS? Because if he can't ever get there to take out the SS the play fails. Do we agree on that?

Yes, he can get there and in most cases the SS has no idea he's cracking back into the box. He actually was there but the SS steps inside him. Thomas could have pushed him past the hole, if he got his hands on him. But, Thomas took a bad angle and was off balance. Even if Thomas made the block. The "Mike" would have filled the hole, because Peart barely touched him. You can see in the picture that he's free. The only thing that could possibly happen is Bloom sees him and slides off his block.

 

[huskymedic]

Thomas is by far our best receiver - Thomas is not our best WR blocker. It's a trade-off w/ hopes Coach Campbell can make him a bit better through the year. He will need that skill @ next level.

 

[Alum86]

RRPP. Nice acronym. Fits Diaco.
Yes. A 2 back set the FB blocks for the RB. Good post.
many BY folk here seem to have better FB acumen than Verducci et al.

 

[wethyhusky]

I have been ignoring this thread because I thought it was referring to a previous coach of ill repute. In regards to our team, throw the ball down the field to Thomas or perhaps a tight end.

 

[Jimdish255]

Two things are obvious. We're missing assignments and teams are playing the run very aggressively against us. I see 10 bodies within 5 yards of the ball and at least 6 need to be engaged pretty quickly in order for anything good to happen. It just seems our lack of balance and predictability is making a difficult situation worse.

 

[Alum86]

I have been ignoring this thread because I thought it was referring to a previous coach of ill repute. In regards to our team, throw the ball down the field to Thomas or perhaps a tight end.

LOL. Really Repulsive Paulie P.

 

[freescooter]

One interesting thing I noted on another thread that gives at least some credence to the argument for a fullback is that our best runs, Johnsons td and Newsomes longest both came with the 3rd TE lined up as a true fullback and leading the back into the hole. In each case he took out the strong safety who had come up to close the play. Without a fullback both plays are likely stuffed. We used to see this stuff all the time under Edsall. A good fullback was key to springing the Caulleys Browns Todmans and others.