Interesting film analysis - Kurt Warner on Hendon Hooker

[HiltonHeadVol]

That's not what is happening at all. Some plays just have a live side and a dead side. Instead of expending energy for the sake of window dressing, sometimes the dead receiver(s) take the play off just to conserve energy.

Yes, I understand live and dead sides. All Im saying is that at first glance, and from outsiders like K Warner, it gives a crappy look. I certainly am not saying anyone in orange is lazy, sloppy, or apathetic. Just the look it gives makes my skin crawl.

 

[Tman44]

I understand Kurt Warner is an expert at filling shelves with food at the Cedar Falls Hy-Vee grocery store.

 

[njvols]

Mel Kiper said Hooker 5th best QB on the board and he has done this a lot longer than Warner. Warner played in a damn gimmick offense with the St Louis Rams so he shouldn't throw stones

I agree. And, it's not as much system as it is the individual ability. For example, Heath and Ryan Leaf were "no brainer" picks in the draft, but no one went deeper to discover what sort of football acumen they had. From what I can tell listening to HH break down film, to me, he seems like the most articulate QB in breaking down film since Peyton (from a UT perspective). Folks are enamored with Richardson from FL b/c of his intangibles, but seems like a more skilled version of JG in my opinion...has the skill but deer in headlights in a game. HH will be just fine in NFL...then the narrative will change about how impactful JH QBs can be in NFL.

 

[turbovol]

I think the beauty of our offense, is that before the snap, half the field has been eliminated if it's a pass play. To me, that would make reading the correct receiver to throw to easier and more efficient. I don't remember too many times that HH threw to a receiver that was covered by more than one db. Hell, many times there was no db in the picture. Pre snap read is an important part of our offense, IMO.

Why would any offense want to eliminate half the field? That makes no sense. Nor does the idea of designing plays specifically for one receiver--because if that receiver is well covered then you have /nobody/ to whom to throw the ball. I don't know if this is our philosophy--I rather doubt it, really, because it doesn't make sense. The idea that your scheme is going to be so brilliant and so confusing to the defense that your target receiver is going to be open every time doesn't make sense, because you're not going to confuse a defense or defensive backs on every pass play--not even close--even though we did apparently confuse Alabama and others.

I suppose it's good that Warner watched the Georgia game because pro defenses are going to be tough. Unfortunately, our offense was terrible in that game. Our receivers could not get open, Hooker wasn't good and we struggled to move the ball the entire game.

Certainly, reading a defense and making your progressions--if your first choice receiver is not open--is crucial for an NFL QB, and you've got to make reads and decisions quickly. I think Hooker will be able to read defenses, pre-snap. What I see him perhaps struggling with is getting rid of the ball quickly. He often stood in the pocket a long time--and if you have the time to do so and it results in completion--hey, it's all good. Indeed, what better example of standing in the pocket and waiting for a receiver to come open then that last clutch throw against bama, which set up the game-winning FG. To me that was Hooker's best play of the year. But you're not going to have the time to throw in the NFL that you have in college, that's for sure. Making a decision and getting the throw off are key. Getting rid of the ball, by the way, was Steve Spurrier's mantra as a coach--no doubt because he was a college and pro QB himself. He would go ballistic at Florida practices, back in the day, if his QBs held the ball too long.

Hooker certainly looks more ready for the NFL, to me, than Richardson or Levis. I don't care how athletic Richardson is, playing QB is mostly about decision-making and accuracy. And Levis didn't impress me in our game against Kentucky this year--and he threw a LOT of interceptions the last two years. We'll see how it all shakes out.

 

[LowKey]

Kurt Warner can sac some groceries.

 

[turbovol]

Mel Kiper said Hooker 5th best QB on the board and he has done this a lot longer than Warner. Warner played in a damn gimmick offense with the St Louis Rams so he shouldn't throw stones

Seriously? Kurt Warner was a longtime pro QB who's in the Hall of Fame. Kiper was never a college or pro QB--he's just a draft nerd. I don't know if Warner has ranked this year's crop of QBs or not; all I know is what he reported said about Hooker after watching the Georgia game. He knows a helluva lot more about the QB position than Kiper or almost anybody else. I'm pretty sure if Manning made the same comments about Hooker, you wouldn't have made such a silly comment. He didn't say Hooker can't or won't be a pro QB, or even a good one; he simply made a point about what he saw on the tape. Every player in the draft has strengths and weaknesses--duh.

 

[GAVol]

Why would any offense want to eliminate half the field?

Happens all the time; especially when an OC is trying to help a QB out and just give him a high/low read. Kiffin did it for the whole second half of the year he was here trying to get production out of Crompton.

 

[titansvolsfaninga]

The WR Hendon always latched onto was Tillman. Tillman came back against UGA. We don't always have 2 Wrs not running routes but it's to mainly keep them fresh and maybe they aren't needed on that play. Don't 100% understand every detail of the system.

If it is a pass play, they are needed.

 

[OffTackleVol]

Why would any offense want to eliminate half the field? That makes no sense. Nor does the idea of designing plays specifically for one receiver--because if that receiver is well covered then you have /nobody/ to whom to throw the ball. I don't know if this is our philosophy--I rather doubt it, really, because it doesn't make sense. The idea that your scheme is going to be so brilliant and so confusing to the defense that your target receiver is going to be open every time doesn't make sense, because you're not going to confuse a defense or defensive backs on every pass play--not even close--even though we did apparently confuse Alabama and others.

I suppose it's good that Warner watched the Georgia game because pro defenses are going to be tough. Unfortunately, our offense was terrible in that game. Our receivers could not get open, Hooker wasn't good and we struggled to move the ball the entire game.

Certainly, reading a defense and making your progressions--if your first choice receiver is not open--is crucial for an NFL QB, and you've got to make reads and decisions quickly. I think Hooker will be able to read defenses, pre-snap. What I see him perhaps struggling with is getting rid of the ball quickly. He often stood in the pocket a long time--and if you have the time to do so and it results in completion--hey, it's all good. Indeed, what better example of standing in the pocket and waiting for a receiver to come open then that last clutch throw against bama, which set up the game-winning FG. To me that was Hooker's best play of the year. But you're not going to have the time to throw in the NFL that you have in college, that's for sure. Making a decision and getting the throw off are key. Getting rid of the ball, by the way, was Steve Spurrier's mantra as a coach--no doubt because he was a college and pro QB himself. He would go ballistic at Florida practices, back in the day, if his QBs held the ball too long.

Hooker certainly looks more ready for the NFL, to me, than Richardson or Levis. I don't care how athletic Richardson is, playing QB is mostly about decision-making and accuracy. And Levis didn't impress me in our game against Kentucky this year--and he threw a LOT of interceptions the last two years. We'll see how it all shakes out.

How else do you explain that the receivers to one side of the field "run 5 yards and stop?" If the defense aligns a certain way versus your offensive alignment, I can certainly see how you would "eliminate half the field."

 

[knoxvol52]

Seriously? Kurt Warner was a longtime pro QB who's in the Hall of Fame. Kiper was never a college or pro QB--he's just a draft nerd. I don't know if Warner has ranked this year's crop of QBs or not; all I know is what he reported said about Hooker after watching the Georgia game. He knows a helluva lot more about the QB position than Kiper or almost anybody else. I'm pretty sure if Manning made the same comments about Hooker, you wouldn't have made such a silly comment. He didn't say Hooker can't or won't be a pro QB, or even a good one; he simply made a point about what he saw on the tape. Every player in the draft has strengths and weaknesses--duh.

You can have you opinion I can have mine silly or not but I assume your the expert here not me

 

[GAVol]

If it is a pass play, they are needed.

Once they've lined up and taken away 2-3 defenders, they've pretty much served their purpose. There are just some plays where we don't go through with the charade of running dummy routes.

 

[Vol8188]

Why would any offense want to eliminate half the field? That makes no sense. Nor does the idea of designing plays specifically for one receiver--because if that receiver is well covered then you have /nobody/ to whom to throw the ball. I don't know if this is our philosophy--I rather doubt it, really, because it doesn't make sense. The idea that your scheme is going to be so brilliant and so confusing to the defense that your target receiver is going to be open every time doesn't make sense, because you're not going to confuse a defense or defensive backs on every pass play--not even close--even though we did apparently confuse Alabama and others.

I suppose it's good that Warner watched the Georgia game because pro defenses are going to be tough. Unfortunately, our offense was terrible in that game. Our receivers could not get open, Hooker wasn't good and we struggled to move the ball the entire game.

Certainly, reading a defense and making your progressions--if your first choice receiver is not open--is crucial for an NFL QB, and you've got to make reads and decisions quickly. I think Hooker will be able to read defenses, pre-snap. What I see him perhaps struggling with is getting rid of the ball quickly. He often stood in the pocket a long time--and if you have the time to do so and it results in completion--hey, it's all good. Indeed, what better example of standing in the pocket and waiting for a receiver to come open then that last clutch throw against bama, which set up the game-winning FG. To me that was Hooker's best play of the year. But you're not going to have the time to throw in the NFL that you have in college, that's for sure. Making a decision and getting the throw off are key. Getting rid of the ball, by the way, was Steve Spurrier's mantra as a coach--no doubt because he was a college and pro QB himself. He would go ballistic at Florida practices, back in the day, if his QBs held the ball too long.

Hooker certainly looks more ready for the NFL, to me, than Richardson or Levis. I don't care how athletic Richardson is, playing QB is mostly about decision-making and accuracy. And Levis didn't impress me in our game against Kentucky this year--and he threw a LOT of interceptions the last two years. We'll see how it all shakes out.

If you understand football QB play it makes perfect sense. The play below is a simple slant/shoot concept with a TB checkdown. Given that the routes on both sides of the field break almost immediately and at the same time, the only way to read this is to pick a side. Typically you'll do it based on the space available for the slant. For example if the guy over Y has outside leverage and the guy over H has a heavy inside leverage you'd read the Y side of the field because your goal is to throw the slant.

 

[Vol865]

If it is a pass play, they are needed.

I think Heupel knows what he is doing

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

Seems to me this was a wasted effort on Kurt Warner's part.

Comments like "latch onto a receiver" and "one sided game" reveal a surprising lack of comprehension of the system Hendon was driving.

If Warner wants to evaluate a college QB, he ought to first learn and understand the offense in which the QB is operating.

I'm not saying Warner needs to be an expert on every type of offense being played in the college game. Only those played by the QBs he chooses to evaluate.

Do better, Kurt. Or don't do at all. Either way is fine.

Warner makes a reasonable point based on Hooker's transformation from a lackluster VT performance in a "more traditional" offense vs his great performance in the Heupel's offense.

Like it or not, Hooker didn't light it up at VT so the question is: can he light it up in the NFL game which is very different from Heupel's offense.

It's also true for Bennett, Levis, and others. Stroud at Ohio State ran a very NFL-lite offense, for example.

I'm not a fan of how Warner presents this but the obvious fact if I'm a GM drafting Hooker is: can this guy excel in something other than this very "college friendly" offense? He didn't at VT.

 

[Vol8188]

Why would any offense want to eliminate half the field? That makes no sense. Nor does the idea of designing plays specifically for one receiver--because if that receiver is well covered then you have /nobody/ to whom to throw the ball. I don't know if this is our philosophy--I rather doubt it, really, because it doesn't make sense. The idea that your scheme is going to be so brilliant and so confusing to the defense that your target receiver is going to be open every time doesn't make sense, because you're not going to confuse a defense or defensive backs on every pass play--not even close--even though we did apparently confuse Alabama and others.

I suppose it's good that Warner watched the Georgia game because pro defenses are going to be tough. Unfortunately, our offense was terrible in that game. Our receivers could not get open, Hooker wasn't good and we struggled to move the ball the entire game.

Certainly, reading a defense and making your progressions--if your first choice receiver is not open--is crucial for an NFL QB, and you've got to make reads and decisions quickly. I think Hooker will be able to read defenses, pre-snap. What I see him perhaps struggling with is getting rid of the ball quickly. He often stood in the pocket a long time--and if you have the time to do so and it results in completion--hey, it's all good. Indeed, what better example of standing in the pocket and waiting for a receiver to come open then that last clutch throw against bama, which set up the game-winning FG. To me that was Hooker's best play of the year. But you're not going to have the time to throw in the NFL that you have in college, that's for sure. Making a decision and getting the throw off are key. Getting rid of the ball, by the way, was Steve Spurrier's mantra as a coach--no doubt because he was a college and pro QB himself. He would go ballistic at Florida practices, back in the day, if his QBs held the ball too long.

Hooker certainly looks more ready for the NFL, to me, than Richardson or Levis. I don't care how athletic Richardson is, playing QB is mostly about decision-making and accuracy. And Levis didn't impress me in our game against Kentucky this year--and he threw a LOT of interceptions the last two years. We'll see how it all shakes out.

Two other things that are worth addressing here:

We aren’t confusing anyone. Nor is it really our goal. Our offense is does few things but does them incredibly well. When confusion does occur it’s based more on tempo than route design. Our route tree is simple and more limited than most teams.

The reason we can rely on one guy being open most plays is the defense simply can’t take away everything. If the DB is taking away the go route, they’re by nature giving up the hitch. If they’re taking away the hitch by nature they’re giving up the go route. So the WR is going to simply see how the DB is playing him as he runs and adjust from there. If he’s inside, I do x, outside I do y, deep I do z, and so on

 

[TheVolsFrog]

Seriously? Kurt Warner was a longtime pro QB who's in the Hall of Fame. Kiper was never a college or pro QB--he's just a draft nerd. I don't know if Warner has ranked this year's crop of QBs or not; all I know is what he reported said about Hooker after watching the Georgia game. He knows a helluva lot more about the QB position than Kiper or almost anybody else. I'm pretty sure if Manning made the same comments about Hooker, you wouldn't have made such a silly comment. He didn't say Hooker can't or won't be a pro QB, or even a good one; he simply made a point about what he saw on the tape. Every player in the draft has strengths and weaknesses--duh.

I've watched some of Kurts game breakdown videos...He explains them very well and shed new light into what the QB was looking at and seeing on the field. I'll defer to his judgement on this.
I'm still pulling for Hooker to get some NFL shine.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

Two other things that are worth addressing here:

We aren’t confusing anyone. Nor is it really our goal. Our offense is does few things but does them incredibly well. When confusion does occur it’s based more on tempo than route design. Our route tree is simple and more limited than most teams.

The reason we can rely on one guy being open most plays is the defense simply can’t take away everything. If the DB is taking away the go route, they’re by nature giving up the hitch. If they’re taking away the hitch by nature they’re giving up the go route. So the WR is going to simply see how the DB is playing him as he runs and adjust from there. If he’s inside, I do x, outside I do y, deep I do z, and so on

The reason the "D can't cover everything" in college is the big talent difference between the NFL and college. In the NFL, there's an elite athlete at every position and depending on someone "not being able to cover the hole" is far more risky.

It's valid to ask if Hooker can do more than use the system to exploit talent issues. There are far, far, far fewer talent issues in the NFL and the NFL D asks for more and gets more from each individual.

 

[Vol8188]

The reason the "D can't cover everything" in college is the big talent difference between the NFL and college. In the NFL, there's an elite athlete at every position and depending on someone "not being able to cover the hole" is far more risky.

It's valid to ask if Hooker can do more than use the system to exploit talent issues. There are far, far, far fewer talent issues in the NFL and the NFL D asks for more and gets more from each individual.

There’s no difference in that category. NFL defense also cannot cover everything. If they could the game would lose its appeal. The inability to cover everything forces trade offs which is why we all enjoy the live chess match that is football

 

[GAVol]

There are far, far, far fewer talent issues in the NFL and the NFL D asks for more and gets more from each individual.

You obviously aren't a Falcons fan.

 

[Ashevillevol]

Disclaimer: I freely admit, I'm basically a know nothing about the offense, or reading the defense. So this is just the opinion of a Lasko’s Wind Curve.

My focus is on Vol 865's suggestion that the WRs not running routes is to keep them fresh. Could be, what do I know? Actually I've already told you that. However, I think this might underscore an idea I proffered in an earlier post on VN. We have an embarrassing wealth of really good WRs. I think the Heup should take KW's comments to heart. And every so often, have three WRs ready to sprint off the field, while another three sprint on the field, assume their positions, already knowing what pass play will be called, and GO! Don't even bother to get into the huddle, just line up ready. Maybe call it the hair trigger maneuver. Practice it until you got it down perfectly. And, of course, have all the WRs run routes. Constant fresh legs would run a defense ragged, resulting in half a hundred point games or maybe even a full hundred point games. Now, on the other hand, I also freely admit, the adage of, if it ain't broke don't fix it is something not to be ignored. Heup 'em, Josh, baby!

If we sub in, then the defense is then allowed to sun before you can run the play.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

There’s no difference in that category. NFL defense also cannot cover everything. If they could the game would lose its appeal. The inability to cover everything forces trade offs which is why we all enjoy the live chess match that is football

Obviously, the defense can't cover everything nor can the offense draw up successful plays every time.

What UT exploits often is players "just a little out of position or confused" because of tempo and sub issues. That's less of an area to exploit in the NFL game because of the elite talent and because the NFL D's are relentless in making those holes disguised and as small as possible.

Yes, it's chess but the level of chess is much higher in the NFL and the strength (talent) of the chess pieces is a big part of that. There's less mistakes, confusion, failure to make a play because of the nature of the competition to play NFL football.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

You obviously aren't a Falcons fan.

Even the Falcons would DESTROY Heupel's team, of course, because of the talent differences in all positions.

That's why Warner makes a good point about Hooker. Okay, Hooker really did excel in the system and executed it at a very, very high level but that system doesn't translate to the pro game. Hooker didn't excel at VT. If he's a "niche" QB (Bennett comes to mind) can he be elite in the NFL?

 

[sjt18]

1- As you acknowledge, it isn't every play when UT runs one sided. Doing that has two benefits. One it rests WRs without really letting the D rest. Two it keeps DBs close to the LOS who might otherwise help cover a receiver downfield or make a tackle.
2- Heupel's O to a large extent is predicated on pre-snap reads. HH often threw to the guy he assessed had the best match up. That's a skill the NFL values. To use the UGA game to evaluate that particular thing leads to a badly skewed conclusion.
3- Again, to base that on the UGA game alone leads to a pretty imbalanced and inaccurate assessment. HH and UT played other very talented and well coached Ds. A "good" assessment would have involved viewing more than one "full game".

 

[deezvols]

I would assume he “latches on to a WR” cause he’s done a great job of reading the D before the snap. If he can do that well and place the ball accurately, post-snap reads for check-downs aren’t going to be necessary most of the time.

 

[WoodsmanVol]

Even the Falcons would DESTROY Heupel's team, of course, because of the talent differences in all positions.
That's why Warner makes a good point about Hooker. Okay, Hooker really did excel in the system and executed it at a very, very high level but that system doesn't translate to the pro game. Hooker didn't excel at VT. If he's a "niche" QB (Bennett comes to mind) can he be elite in the NFL?

Hooker didn't excel at VT because he had a Denisovan HC. Even VT fans admitted this was a major problem for the team.