The View From Section 241

[gars44]

No. Pulling lineman was the bread and butter. Inside traps, sweeps, you name it. Lots of reach blocking and double teams inside. Foley every year put together solid offensive lines.

Wonderful. Glad we changed up.

 

[huskysupporter]

Wonderful. Glad we changed up.

Dumbest move of the offseason. Insulting a coach who year after year produced great offensive linemen. I don't blame Coach Foley at all if he decides to leave after this season. Whatever team gets him will be lucky.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

Pulling linemen and inside traps are a form of zone blocking. There are many forms of zone blocking (for the record, Vince Lombardi installed a zone blocking scheme at Army ~ 1950) which focus on different principles and objectives.

DeLeone's schemes appear to be somewhat similar to what the Broncos employed during the ;ate 1990's (which was a bit innovative at that time) where no lineman would cross another lineman's path (no individual pulling, no trapping), but the line would instead slide in unison in whatever direction it was fanning out to (the NFL's network showed a couple of perfect examples of this today when showing details to the Colts-Packer game).

One thing I can say that is universal to any blocking scheme, if everyone isn't on the same page and maintaining his assignment, the entire line usually ends up looking like garbage.

 

[uconndogs]

It's why I preferred the old style UConn guard-pull blocking (I'm going to show off my lack of football x's and o's, here!). The running back knows exactly where he's running, and he has a lead fullback in front of him, along with the other side guard (i.e., he runs right, then the left guard pulls right). Man, we were so friggin' good at it for almost a decade, that even when the other team knew it was coming, we still ran for 5 yards a carry!! Granted, we had fullbacks like Deon Anderson and "The Shermanator", but there's no reason at all that we can't go back to it.

Sincerely,
Coach Foley

.....and there you have it in a nutshell.

There were any number of posters on this board (and you know who you are) who were convinced that our offense had to be better, positively and without a doubt better with the departure of Edsall. That run stuff and an OL that beat the snot out of folks was old school and would keep us from getting to the "next level".

We now have an offense where I have seen a 166 LB RB line up as a FB, a QB line up as a WR and a WR go under center. We run two very different offenses intermittently throughout a game. We are devouted to zone blocking schemes and as LBs and DBs run by our guys to take our QBs head off nobody has a ducking clue what to do. We are 100 and something in running offense after just graduating Donald Brown and Jordan Todman. And here's the real scarry part.....we may have the best overall QB we've had in the program since Dan O. and Davis is a hell of a receiver.

My very strong sense is that GDL has lost the confidence of the folks on that side of the ball. Whitmer and Bennett were clearly showing their frustration on the sideline at Rutgers and showing it directly to their HC. This thing could go really bad.

You play football with inspiration, passion, to have fun. When it becomes all a task, too technical, you lose those important elements...........and your team quits. I fear we are dangerously close to that. It's on P, he put GDL where he is and now he needs to address the issues.

 

[huskysupporter]

Pulling linemen and inside traps are a form of zone blocking. There are many forms of zone blocking (for the record, Vince Lombardi installed a zone blocking scheme at Army ~ 1950) which focus on different principles and objectives.

DeLeone's schemes appear to be somewhat similar to what the Broncos employed during the ;ate 1990's (which was a bit innovative at that time) where no lineman would cross another lineman's path (no individual pulling, no trapping), but the line would instead slide in unison in whatever direction it was fanning out to (the NFL's network showed a couple of perfect examples of this today when showing details to the Colts-Packer game).

One thing I can say that is universal to any blocking scheme, if everyone isn't on the same page and maintaining his assignment, the entire line usually ends up looking like garbage.

As someone who has had to block both schemes (at the high school level), I found zone blocking way more difficult to execute. Defensive lineman are rarely staying head up on a lineman. They are lined up inside or outside, and they slant hard at the snap. Try skating over at the snap when a lineman is doing a hard inside slant. The play is blown up. But. . . if that D Lineman is slanting hard inside and you call a trap, that is perfect, he does my job for me as the pulling guard. You want to go hard into the backfield? Sure, I will just wash you down.

I used to love watching the expression on a D End's face when we called a counter tre. Comes up the field thinking someone forgot to block him, until he looks quickly and notices a guard and a tackle coming his way. By that time, it's too late, and the back is cutting inside off the kick out block. You saw it all the time in years past too, when Zach Hurd would pull outside and kick out the end. I can't count how many yards Todman gained on that play.

 

[UConnDan97]

if that D Lineman is slanting hard inside and you call a trap, that is perfect, he does my job for me as the pulling guard. You want to go hard into the backfield? Sure, I will just wash you down.

This!! 1,000,000 x this!!!

 

[UC990411]

So we were whopped by RU. The last team they beat us that badly -- not won but beat us up -- was when? The '06 game was more competitive then that, even though they were much better than us. We ran for over 200 yards and but for two TOs they returned for TDs might very well have won. I don't think they have beaten us that easily since we joined the Big East. Yuch.

Yesterday didn't make me speechless, but it certainly gave me less to say, and my analysis is truncated because there isn't much to say other than the D played great. A few statements. I tried to cut the staff some slack for clock mismanagement in their first year, but the display at the end of the first half was embarassing. The fact that P doesn't seem to believe it is mismanaged may be worse. The game could have been closer if not for needless turnovers in the first Q. Notr because of the coaches by the way. As much as your offense sucks (and talent, execution and schemes all suck on O), you can still win games like yesterday if you win the turnover wars. But we don't seem able to force turnovers, or protect the ball. Who knows if it things might not have been better if we weren't playing from behind all day. Finally, I am not going to be one of the guys saying the sky is falling -- I love this team and program too much to give up on even this year, much less the program -- but I will tell you that while I was sitting in front of the set with it on, I paid very little attention in the 4th Q. I just found the game unwatchable. Not just because of lack of offense -- we've played many games over the years with no offense where I was on the edge of my seat the whole time because I was watching a competitive football game (USF '05 and '10, RU in '08, WVU '10 just as a few examples) but even down just 10 I just saw zero chance that we were going to win. Winning can, for me, overcome the lack of offensive excitement. Even where we have a good chance to win but fall short, which is part of sports. But if we don't start winning games, like the next two weeks, I think this season will be totally unwatchable, even for me.

I don't know what to say about the offense. The OL has to be better than that or we're not going to beat anyone. Geremy Davis played well. Delorenzo showed some ability (but also missed the hole on one play that had a chance to be a big one). And that's about it. Personnel didn't look good. Execution didn't look good. Playcalling and overall offensive organization looks pathetic. All I can hang my hat on is that you're never as bad as you look when you lose or as good as you look when you win, and maybe against Temple it will be different.

Special teams had the huge kick block (not schematic by the way -- just a superhuman effort by Shamar), but didn't make other plays that needed to be made. Not the long FG attempt. Not missed chances to stick a punt inside the 10. Not the total lack of a return game. Not giving up the long kickoff return (which didn't kill us only because the returner didn't protect the ball). RU had some miscues, and we might have won the special teams battle overall, but we clearly will need to dominate on specials to win games. And we need Nick Williams to make plays -- not turn the ball over.

The Defense was really, really good. Contained two dumb TOs in our end of the field to FGs. Held RU to under 300 of total offense. Held them, really, to one scoring drive all day long. But, with our offense and not a single defensive turnover, we didn't have a chance.

It was very frustrating to me watching RU beat us the way we used to beat others. No explosiveness, but run the ball, control the clock, win the turnover battles, convert your scoring chances and win with D. But, as the week goes on, as poorly as we're playing, this season isn't done yet. The next four games are all winnable (all also losable but winnable), and after Temple at home and at Syracuse we finally get a week off. We need a good effort at home about Temple, and then try to get one done at the Dome (also doable). And then go from there.

And I have no more to say about the coaching than what I've said. The players need and deserve positive energy from their fans as long as they are fighting for this season. December, and time to decide the future of this staff, will be here soon enough without it being rushed.

Are you Mr Burton?

 

[TouchdownHusky]

When we didn't score on the 1st and goal possession at the 3rd yard line, i knew the game was lost.

Almost all of our 1st down plays resulted in 3 yards or less, constanly putting the offense is 2nd and 3rd and long situations.

As good as our defense is, I'd rather have a good offense, look at all of the games being
played, all of the top programs have the ability to outscore teams.

This 3 and out crap has to stop

Early leader for post of the week. Offense is the name of the game in college football - he who has the most offense wins the most games. Maybe not in every single case, but most. The fans love, TV loves it, high school recruits (the great ones I mean) want to be part of it. The run, run, run - block 'em harder" offense is out of date.

 

[uconndogs]

TDH - The SEC might beg to differ.........

 

[Palatine]

Our defense --as well as it played-- never got close to the QB except on one very long coverage sack. Our DL produced no pass rush. This leads me to believe part of our defensive success was because Rutgers offense isn't very good.

On offense the the offensive coordinator coaches SCARED. It looks like there are seven plays in the game plan. And if GDL has enough plays to paper the walls, why can't he find just one that opens a running lane?

 

[TouchdownHusky]

TDH - The SEC might beg to differ.........

So you think that UConn has the athletes to match up with Alabama? Florida? South Carolina? LSU? How do you think UConn's vaunted running game would fare against those SEC defenses?

 

[huskysupporter]

Early leader for post of the week. Offense is the name of the game in college football - he who has the most offense wins the most games. Maybe not in every single case, but most. The fans love, TV loves it, high school recruits (the great ones I mean) want to be part of it. The run, run, run - block 'em harder" offense is out of date.

Winning is the name of the game, not who has the flashiest offense. Check out the passing rank of the two teams in the BCS championship last year. Then check their defensive ranks.

The foundation has to start with defense. Then you need to have an offense that can lead sustained drives. And I think special teams is underrated by almost every fan.

Frank Beamer built a program on defense and special teams, and a strong running game. Nick Saban is winning national championships based on defense, special teams and a strong running game.

 

[sdhusky]

So you think that UConn has the athletes to match up with Alabama? Florida? South Carolina? LSU? How do you think UConn's vaunted running game would fare against those SEC defenses?

Well, when South Carolina got a steady diet of punches in the mouth, they kinda stopped trying.

So it was pretty good.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

Winning is the name of the game, not who has the flashiest offense. Check out the passing rank of the two teams in the BCS championship last year. Then check their defensive ranks.

The foundation has to start with defense. Then you need to have an offense that can lead sustained drives. And I think special teams is underrated by almost every fan.

Frank Beamer built a program on defense and special teams, and a strong running game. Nick Saban is winning national championships based on defense, special teams and a strong running game.

Nick Saban is winning national titles because he has by far the best group of athletes across the board.

 

[jdb50]

Watching the pass rush Sat. it's obvious how much of a loss Joseph is. Priutt is a good player, maybe move him back to DT especially on 3rd and long and bring in Vann at DE. Speed is the name of the game. Get your best rushers on the field.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

Well, when South Carolina got a steady diet of punches in the mouth, they kinda stopped trying.

So it was pretty good.

Yeah, South Carolina would name the score against us right now. 2009 was a long, long time ago.

 

[huskysupporter]

Nick Saban is winning national titles because he has by far the best group of athletes across the board.

Nick Saban is winning NAtional Championships because he has great defenses, special teams, and he runs an effective offense that works. It's not flashy, but it works. 2 tight ends (no, not all american, NFL tight ends), power running, with pulling lineman. Safe, high percentage passes, and a qb who plays within the system.

They have great athletes, no question, but so do many other collegiate teams.

 

[TouchdownHusky]

Arrhhhh! Fixing the PP era obviously is gonna take a long time. Folks recognize the offense sucks, but still looking for a running game that sustains drives. How bout scoring TDs and lots of 'em?

 

[huskysupporter]

Yeah, South Carolina would name the score against us right now. 2009 was a long, long time ago.

Many thought they could name the score against us then as well (and yes, I agree, this South Carolina team would likely beat us, but not because of their O, but because they have two beasts of defensive ends and a defense that is getting better every week. And it would be alot closer than many think. Our D is that good).

 

[huskysupporter]

Arrhhhh! Fixing the PP era obviously is gonna take a long time. Folks recognize the offense sucks, but still looking for a running game that sustains drives. How bout scoring TDs and lots of 'em?

Who said an Alabama type offense wouldn't score td's?

You care about offense, not about winning. It is well established. Others here care about wins.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

Arrhhhh! Fixing the PP era obviously is gonna take a long time. Folks recognize the offense sucks, but still looking for a running game that sustains drives. How bout scoring TDs and lots of 'em?

You are absolutekly correct TDH. All we need to do to fix our offense is to score lots of touchdowns.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

I believe that the main reason South Carolina could name the score against us today would be Lattimore.

 

[huskysupporter]

Watching the pass rush Sat. it's obvious how much of a loss Joseph is. Priutt is a good player, maybe move him back to DT especially on 3rd and long and bring in Vann at DE. Speed is the name of the game. Get your best rushers on the field.

I was thinking the same thing. I really like Pruitt, he is a solid 3-4 DE. But we can't have him out there in obvious passing downs. How about Donohue lining up at stand up end? Or Smallwood? You throw one of those 2 on one side and Trevardo on the other, the pocket will collapse, and the qb will have to step right into Wirth and another DT.

I am not concerned with sacks, we need hurries. Letting a qb scan the field like last week is not good. Force him into making a quick decision.

 

[businesslawyer]

Our defense --as well as it played-- never got close to the QB except on one very long coverage sack. Our DL produced no pass rush. This leads me to believe part of our defensive success was because Rutgers offense isn't very good.

I don't understand your logic at all there. Because they were able to keep our pass rush from being effective, that means their offense wasn't very good? Why weren't they very good precisely because they kept our pass rush from bothering them?

 

[TouchdownHusky]

Who said an Alabama type offense wouldn't score td's?

You care about offense, not about winning. It is well established. Others here care about wins.

Take out Buffalo, UMass, and Fordham and how's that working out for you and PP. Better offense (schemes, emphasis and players) would be a nice complement to the defense. Might even have produced a record better than 8-11 in the past two seasons. So I see offense - or improved offense as the way to get more wins. So your statement is ridiculous.