We should have run the ball BETTER

#1
armchair

armchair

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
10,948
Likes
7,608
#1
Why did our running game sux after the first series or two? That question needs to be asked and answered by Jones and the offensive coaches. It needs to be fixed. I'll guarantee to you that if you gave our offense to Saban and his coaches, they would have run it a lot better than we did (and I hate bama). We pushed Oregon around a bit for a series or two--and then the run game disappeared. We had 178 yards rushing--and 65 of those came from Hill and Smith after the game was long over.

I think our offense was too predictable and repetitive, and the run plays are slow developing, but whatever the issue we have a team that is capable of some old-style, SEC power football--and instead of seeing that we got this pretty wimpish, ineffective read-option.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2
#2
armchair said:
Why did our running game sux after the first series or two? That question needs to be asked and answered by Jones and the offensive coaches. It needs to be fixed. I'll guarantee to you that if you gave our offense to Saban and his coaches, they would have run it a lot better than we did (and I hate bama). We pushed Oregon around a bit for a series or two--and then the run game disappeared. We had 178 yards rushing--and 65 of those came from Hill and Smith after the game was long over.

I think our offense was too predictable and repetitive, and the run plays are slow developing, but whatever the issue we have a team that is capable of some old-style, SEC power football--and instead of seeing that we got this pretty wimpish, ineffective read-option.
Click to expand...

Seconded.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#3
#3
Slow developing run plays. I didn't understand it. Their biggest strength is their speed so why give them time to get off the initial blocks? Played right into their hands. The staff coached timid. Players just did what they've done for the past 5-6 years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#4
#4
I think the zone read would be okay if you ran it with a QB that was somewhat a threat to run. Of course, it would be nice if he could throw too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#5
#5
We didn't look like we were running with confidence.I think that once Oregon knew our passing game wasn't going to beat them they were able to attack the run.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#6
#6
Lousy play calling, mediocre talent at RB, and Oregon stacking the box as soon as it got a first hand look at Worley led to the ineffective running game.

And you may as well forget Jones having them line up in a power I with a full back. That isn't his style.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#7
#7
We always ran side to side that helped ou speed. You have to run down hill. Also our running backs are average.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#11
#11
We run a fricking read option where there is only one option . Hand it off to the running back. All anyone has to do is key on the running back because he is getting the ball . Oh and has anyone mentioned we can't throw either ....This is a horrible offense to run with our current qb
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#12
#12
OP + Thread = Success!

Finally a thread that addresses the real issue of the game. Being undermanned going in, they had only one real chance and that was to pound the rock between the tackles successfully since the QB cannot run zone read and spread option. The highly prized O-line stunk it up. They routinely got stood up by the 3 D-linemen of Oregon who were playing a 2 gap contain, which freed their LB's and safeties to rush the passer and fill the running lanes. Those slow developing plays worked to help Oregon's scheme. I have no idea what was in Butch's head with that. So much for using the NFL quality O-line.

The only way UT is going to have a shot against better programs is to put Peterman in and take our lumps, while hoping his mobility makes up for the lack of experience. If they went full bore USCe style with him and the zone read, they could control the clock more and score against better teams. Then find at least one RB that will hit the hole and not dance. My vote on that is Hill. One cut and go with some power.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#17
#17
Watching the Butch Jones Show.

He was heaping praise onto Tom Smith's ability to get north/south and run aggressive. Said we will be seeing more of him as the season unfolds.

Also said Lane played tough through out game and gave props to Alden Hill.

Not a word about Neal except the fumble thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#18
#18
armchair said:
Why did our running game sux after the first series or two? That question needs to be asked and answered by Jones and the offensive coaches. It needs to be fixed. I'll guarantee to you that if you gave our offense to Saban and his coaches, they would have run it a lot better than we did (and I hate bama). We pushed Oregon around a bit for a series or two--and then the run game disappeared. We had 178 yards rushing--and 65 of those came from Hill and Smith after the game was long over.

I think our offense was too predictable and repetitive, and the run plays are slow developing, but whatever the issue we have a team that is capable of some old-style, SEC power football--and instead of seeing that we got this pretty wimpish, ineffective read-option.
Click to expand...

Honestly they realized we didn't have any deep threat and Worley isn't very good. Oregon had several game changers. At this point we don't have one.
 
#19
#19
mtowntim said:
Watching the Butch Jones Show.

He was heaping praise onto Tom Smith's ability to get north/south and run aggressive. Said we will be seeing more of him as the season unfolds.

Also said Lane played tough through out game and gave props to Alden Hill.

Not a word about Neal except the fumble thing.
Click to expand...

Good. Tom smith would have worked better against them. Straight north- south no bs just hit it up btw the tackles.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#20
#20
If we ran an effective read-option/spread, I'd be happy. But I DO miss the days when we had hard-nosed fullbacks like Mario Brunson who would seek out linebackers in the hole and knock them on their a$$.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#21
#21
RiseToTheTop said:
Good. Tom smith would have worked better against them. Straight north- south no bs just hit it up btw the tackles.
Click to expand...

Damn straight!

I see enough dancing around and racing to the sideline watching middle school ball.

Have some vision, put your head down and move the chains.
 
#22
#22
armchair said:
If we ran an effective read-option/spread, I'd be happy. But I DO miss the days when we had hard-nosed fullbacks like Mario Brunson who would seek out linebackers in the hole and knock them on their a$$.
Click to expand...

We don't have a fullback on the roster, so it's easy to see why we are doing what we are doing, even if it didn't work yesterday.
 
#23
#23
mtowntim said:
Damn straight!

I see enough dancing around and racing to the sideline watching middle school ball.

Have some vision, put your head down and move the chains.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Atleast Tom welcomes contact and will tough out 4 or 5 a pop and maybe more. I like Marlin. He played well. But Neal just kills me man lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#24
#24
We will not able to run against good defenses. You can not run the read option every running play if the QB never keeps its. After watching three games and seeing that their run game is the read option, i'm shocked Butch hasn't been recruiting a dual threat qb.
 
#25
#25
armchair said:
Why did our running game sux after the first series or two? That question needs to be asked and answered by Jones and the offensive coaches. It needs to be fixed. I'll guarantee to you that if you gave our offense to Saban and his coaches, they would have run it a lot better than we did (and I hate bama). We pushed Oregon around a bit for a series or two--and then the run game disappeared. We had 178 yards rushing--and 65 of those came from Hill and Smith after the game was long over.

I think our offense was too predictable and repetitive, and the run plays are slow developing, but whatever the issue we have a team that is capable of some old-style, SEC power football--and instead of seeing that we got this pretty wimpish, ineffective read-option.
Click to expand...

You're not going to run it on anyone if your qb can't throw accurately. They put 8 in the box, and made Worley beat them. Worley couldnt throw an accurate pass, so it makes the play calling look bad. It was timid after we had no chance.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top