jw8
Sophomore Member
Posts: 154
|
Post by jw8 on Jan 1, 2008 22:43:53 GMT -6
What this looks like tonight is what most of us High School coaches have seen. Bigger, Faster, Strong usually equals winning. I enjoy watching Hawaii play and tonight it is like a JV team playing a Varsity team. Not scheme problems but more out manned. Has nothing to do with Spread vs. Power football. Hawaii would be getting spanked like this if they were and I team. After the pain of tonight heals this will improve their program. Most of us have taken butt kickings like this in game we should not have been in. Their kids got to go to a BCS game and experience big time football. They are also playing one of the best teams in the country. The USC vs. Georgia would have been a great game (maybe Illinois vs. Hawaii would have been better).
|
|
|
Post by coachorr on Jan 1, 2008 22:47:33 GMT -6
JW, great point. It seems to me some dlines really mopped up today. I was impressed with Georgia, Tennessee, Michigan, and USC in the trenches.
|
|
|
Post by spos21ram on Jan 1, 2008 22:48:53 GMT -6
The mismatch is Hawaii's O-Line against Georgia's D-Line. You can't run any offense without production from your oline.
|
|
|
Post by coachorr on Jan 1, 2008 22:59:28 GMT -6
Spos, not to mention, the linebackers just wreaking havoc on everyone they come into contact with. And, how about the rerouting by the DB's? Very physical play out of Georgia. I like it.
|
|
|
Post by k on Jan 1, 2008 23:55:36 GMT -6
With all the talk of running up the score from the Patriots this year have they gone for it on 4th and 5 up by 30+ points?
UGA doesn't look like good winners tonight IMO.
|
|
|
Post by coachorr on Jan 2, 2008 0:01:17 GMT -6
They took a knee with two minutes left. What about them trying to look good for next season's pre-season. Maybe just the nature of the BCS beast.
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Jan 2, 2008 0:07:41 GMT -6
know what i hate worse than someone still trying to run an offense with their backups when up? is a team getting it handed to 'em and continuing to do all those things to "win" the game when it ain't happening.
just take your a$$ whipping and move on
hahahaha.a
really, do we have to go here with the running up the score bs?
|
|
|
Post by coachorr on Jan 2, 2008 0:12:48 GMT -6
Do the announcers understand the difference between the "run and shoot" and "the spread"?
Can you be a run and shoot spread team? (that was a rhetorical question).
|
|
|
Post by spos21ram on Jan 2, 2008 1:22:11 GMT -6
Do the announcers understand the difference between the "run and shoot" and "the spread"? Can you be a run and shoot spread team? (that was a rhetorical question). The Run n Shoot is a form of the spread if thats what your getting at
|
|
|
Post by theprez98 on Jan 2, 2008 1:33:25 GMT -6
Do the announcers understand the difference between the "run and shoot" and "the spread"?. The more I learn about football, the more I realize how bad announcers are. USC took a delay of game penalty near midfield to give the punter more room. Illinois (smartly) declined the penalty. USC punted, ball downed at the 10. Brent Musberger then mused about how smart USC was to take the delay of game penalty to give them more room for the punter. It's as if he had absolutely no clue the penalty was declined.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Jan 2, 2008 6:49:50 GMT -6
As one poster noted, this had nothing to do with scheme. UG's defensive line was just too fast for UH. You can't hide that or scheme it for too long.
JJ will not leave UH. He is a rare breed. He made a conscious choice to take the UH job nine years ago. He understands that the budget will probably not change that much, nor will the facilities. They just don't have the resources. What people need to understand, though, is this has nothing to do with scheme. The R&S has the ability to handle schematically what UG did. If they had the talent that Texas Tech has (and I am not conflating the two programs from a schematic point of departure) they would have been in much better shape.
Regarding the types of kids that UH recruits, this is what they have to do. I've been there twice and they do a wonderful job of creating a family type of atmosphere. Most of the mainland kids they have are ones that other programs have passed over for personal reasons; however, they really do not have that many; the island kids are remarkable people with outstanding character. They seem to use this as a means to create a type of atmosphere that cultivates a family dynamic that provides the "problem" kids with an atmosphere that they never had before.
What I don't understand is why a kid would not want to play at UH if he is a 5 star prospect. From a climate perspective, the islands are MUCH better than the urban hole where USC is located; moreover, you are going to get outstanding coaching. Their staff is excellent. JJ is arguably one of the finest QB/offensive gurus in the country who is a fabulous teacher of the game, as is Greg McMackin on the defensive side of the ball. One would think that responsible high school coaches would be telling their kids this. For that matter, I've never understood why a H.S. quarterback, for example, would not choose UH or Texas Tech over Georgia, Florida, etc. You are learning the skills needed to excell at the next level. Especially if you are a QB, offensive lineman, or receiver.
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Jan 2, 2008 8:40:11 GMT -6
Big time travel $$ to get home and moms and dads wony be able to see many of their games. They arent on TV much and when they are the games are late, low exposure, Thats a factor for many
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jan 2, 2008 8:56:08 GMT -6
I agree with everyone here. It was a total Jimmys and Joes mismatch on the lines. With the terrible Fox camera angles I never got a great handle on what UGA was doing (and I was distracted for some of the game) but it seemed like the secondary largely sat back and kept things in front of them.
And make no mistake, if you saw UGA play the last couple of weeks they were THRASHING people in the SEC. I saw them hold a Kentucky team that averaged about 40 a game in the SEC and held them to 14, and they beat tough competition in the other games too, including FLA (though Tebow played solid). But I also agree an Illinois UH game might have been fairer.
On the bowl money, what is the WAC/UH policy? I know the SEC at least used to have a revenue sharing program where all the teams get bowl money even if they didn't even get to go, which is one reason Notre Dame had such a good gig is they keep 100% of their BCS money if they go.
Anyway, my only scheme question is what would you guys have done to UGA when their 3 man rush was whooping your 5-man protection. Like I said earlier, they would line their DEs up very wide to make sure they were 1 on 1 and then looked like they would speed rush about 2/3 of the time and the other 1/3 begin outside and swim or rip inside. The big hit on Brennan was exactly this.
I love the shoot but I like H-backs too - I can't help but think it would be wise to put an H-back outside that tackle and let him chip on the way out or at least prevent the absolute wide speed rush while the tackle can slow play him a bit to the inside. For a point of reference the Patriots do this all the time from their spread shotgun sets (3 wide 1-HBack 1 back and 4-wide 1-Hback, usually Ben Watson their TE).
But that is their system. Some years back I heard someone ask the other R&S JJ (John Jenkins) how the R&S deals with teams that rush 3 and drop 8 and he said "Geez, with the RB in protection you've got 3 double teams up front to keep our QB protected, while our receivers run around reading the coverage. We love that approach. It's like shooting fish in a barrel." Then he said something about breaking some scoreboards against teams that did that. I know his Gamblers QB manual specifically breaks down the R&S packages against against various 3 man rush 8 man drop schemes.
But all that is about protecting your QB from that 3 man rush. Sure the UH tackles were no match for the guys across from them. But my coaching question is, beyond the draws/screens/traps/shovels, was there any way to help those guys? UH is a dropback pass team, but those DEs single-handed took that away. All those screens/draws/shovels and things are like their run game but, let's be honest, the purpose of those plays is that they check how disciplined and sound the defense is playing so that it cleans everything up for UH's dropback pass game. As we saw, the DEs could still rush because the LBs and other guys snuffed everything out so well.
In many ways it reminded me of much of the TTech-game, where one DE for UVA was so dominant as to nearly take away the dropback game. Anyway, that's my Q - how do you help your tackles so that a couple great defenders don't turn you into some kind of screens/shovel/3-yard pass/trap/screen/shovel/3-yard pass/trap when you are, at core, a dropback sling-it team.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Jan 2, 2008 9:04:21 GMT -6
I agree with everything that Dave says; however, deciding where to go must be a rational decision. If I was still coaching HS, I would really push my kids, especially if they were O-lineman, QBs, or receivers to go to UH, Texas Tech, Purdue, etc. The coaching at these places is great. The coaches are real teachers, not hollerers who approach the game with professional/cerebral level of sophistication. A friend of mine in the League told me that some of the best coached and prepared lineman that he has worked in terms of technique, footwork, and recognition have come from Purdue and Tech. As a coach, I just would tell my kids that if you go to place like this, regardless of whether it is an outpost or not you are going to get outstanding coaching.
Also, if you talk to pro-guys, most of them believe that the WAC is amongst the best Coached conferences in college football. As a young player wishing to hone his craft this would be one of the critical factors that I would take into consideration.
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Jan 2, 2008 9:44:00 GMT -6
Something that no one has mentioned; look at how well Georgia tackled last night. Hawaii's recievers didn't pick up much yardage after the catch.
coachorr- to answer your question, the RnS uses a lot of choice concepts with their passing attack. The WRs run their routes according to the DBs initial alignment and coverage.
This is different than a West Coast Progression where the WRs run set route packages where the routes work together to attack coverage.
|
|
|
Post by Yash on Jan 2, 2008 10:12:20 GMT -6
Big time travel $$ to get home and moms and dads wony be able to see many of their games. They arent on TV much and when they are the games are late, low exposure, Thats a factor for many Going along with that, most 5 star prospects want exposure, what better place to get it than in southern california with Hollywood not far away and all those stars always around. There aren't too many schools where you see the head coach talking to former players DURING the game like you did yesterday with Leinart talking to carroll during a commercial break.
|
|
|
Post by airraider on Jan 2, 2008 11:27:45 GMT -6
I agree with everyone here. It was a total Jimmys and Joes mismatch on the lines. With the terrible Fox camera angles I never got a great handle on what UGA was doing (and I was distracted for some of the game) but it seemed like the secondary largely sat back and kept things in front of them. And make no mistake, if you saw UGA play the last couple of weeks they were THRASHING people in the SEC. I saw them hold a Kentucky team that averaged about 40 a game in the SEC and held them to 14, and they beat tough competition in the other games too, including FLA (though Tebow played solid). But I also agree an Illinois UH game might have been fairer. On the bowl money, what is the WAC/UH policy? I know the SEC at least used to have a revenue sharing program where all the teams get bowl money even if they didn't even get to go, which is one reason Notre Dame had such a good gig is they keep 100% of their BCS money if they go. Anyway, my only scheme question is what would you guys have done to UGA when their 3 man rush was whooping your 5-man protection. Like I said earlier, they would line their DEs up very wide to make sure they were 1 on 1 and then looked like they would speed rush about 2/3 of the time and the other 1/3 begin outside and swim or rip inside. The big hit on Brennan was exactly this. I love the shoot but I like H-backs too - I can't help but think it would be wise to put an H-back outside that tackle and let him chip on the way out or at least prevent the absolute wide speed rush while the tackle can slow play him a bit to the inside. For a point of reference the Patriots do this all the time from their spread shotgun sets (3 wide 1-HBack 1 back and 4-wide 1-Hback, usually Ben Watson their TE). But that is their system. Some years back I heard someone ask the other R&S JJ (John Jenkins) how the R&S deals with teams that rush 3 and drop 8 and he said "Geez, with the RB in protection you've got 3 double teams up front to keep our QB protected, while our receivers run around reading the coverage. We love that approach. It's like shooting fish in a barrel." Then he said something about breaking some scoreboards against teams that did that. I know his Gamblers QB manual specifically breaks down the R&S packages against against various 3 man rush 8 man drop schemes. But all that is about protecting your QB from that 3 man rush. Sure the UH tackles were no match for the guys across from them. But my coaching question is, beyond the draws/screens/traps/shovels, was there any way to help those guys? UH is a dropback pass team, but those DEs single-handed took that away. All those screens/draws/shovels and things are like their run game but, let's be honest, the purpose of those plays is that they check how disciplined and sound the defense is playing so that it cleans everything up for UH's dropback pass game. As we saw, the DEs could still rush because the LBs and other guys snuffed everything out so well. In many ways it reminded me of much of the TTech-game, where one DE for UVA was so dominant as to nearly take away the dropback game. Anyway, that's my Q - how do you help your tackles so that a couple great defenders don't turn you into some kind of screens/shovel/3-yard pass/trap/screen/shovel/3-yard pass/trap when you are, at core, a dropback sling-it team. Having dealt this year with being the far out matched team.. I kept hoping for some chips on the end and maybe some sprint outs.. double one end.. and run away from the other.. Never happened though..
|
|
|
Post by chadp56 on Jan 2, 2008 12:27:30 GMT -6
A couple of thoughts on this one:
The obvious problem to me was that the Hawaii offensive tackles were not in the same league with Georgia's DE's. I was disappointed because that one thing doomed Hawaii's offense. I agree that maybe doubling the DE and rolling out might have worked, or having more of a running game like they had last year when they had some better RB's could have kept them honest too. I think if they played it again, Hawaii could make a better game of it. That being said, Georgia came to play and Moreno is something else!
|
|
|
Post by groundchuck on Jan 2, 2008 12:34:07 GMT -6
After watching UGA score thier 1st two TDs I could pretty much tell UH was out of thier league.
|
|
|
Post by cc on Jan 2, 2008 13:22:48 GMT -6
I have to say I was really shocked how ineffective X and O offenses that are suppossed to help overmatched teams are after watching the Nevada and Hawaii games.
Anyways, with Hawaii. Their tackles were on an Island. When Hawaii brought in the big back I thought they were going to use him to help out, but instead they flared it to him and he got hurt when he tried to run over a DB who said, "screw this, I'm chopping you big boy." I was shocked at how well Georgia tackled and snuffed out screens. I was also shocked at how Hawaii just did not seem to have an answer. Really though, Brennan was rattled. He was not stepping into his throws as he knew he was gonna get it in the chops. He was the most inaccurate I have seen him over the last 2 years.
On the other side Georgia just manhandles UH D. Their oline and backs were too physical. I thought UH should have put everyone in the box and blitzed more to stop the run to force UGA to throw more, as it did not seem they could throw that well...
|
|
|
Post by fbdoc on Jan 2, 2008 14:47:48 GMT -6
This thread reminds me of the What do run if you Stink thread. Now I'm NOT saying the UH stinks - they are an excellant team - however they were completely overmatched vs Georgia. In this case spreading out the defense and trying to get one of one match ups didn't work. Even when a pass was completed the Georgia defenders made the tackle right away. Would it have been any different if Hawaii had tried to run at them? I don't think so. The point I'm trying to make is UH has a system that the coaches know and believe in, they recruit kids that will work in that system, and they stick with it. Sometimes the other guy is just going to have too much talent for ANY scheme to over come. What are you going to do? You stick with what you know and try to get the most out of your players.
|
|
|
Post by kkennedy on Jan 2, 2008 14:51:13 GMT -6
From an x's and o's standpoint maybe Hawaii could have borrowed a page from Mike Leaches book and widened the splits. Other than that move the pocket and maybe cut those D tackles and throw some short stuff underneath the coverage.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jan 2, 2008 14:55:31 GMT -6
the one disheartening thing that I found from the Hawaii game to the 'miracle' of Texas Tech's squeaker, was the innordinate amount of missed opportunities (moreso with Hawaii) as evidenced by DROPS.
Texas Tech was down by 21 at the half and had to contend with the one-man wrecking crew of Chris Long.....and came back doing what they do to win.
There were many times in both of those games where the ball was placed beautifully for the receiver to gain possession, but just choked/failed. Many of the Hawaii screens and deep routes WERE open and thrown, but the receivers, for whatever reason, couldn't come up with the grab....which for them, is a routine task.
It is difficult to run the ball when you fumble snaps and handoffs.
It is difficult to be successful in any scheme when players do not execute.
|
|
|
Post by theprez98 on Jan 2, 2008 20:28:19 GMT -6
On the bowl money, what is the WAC/UH policy? I know the SEC at least used to have a revenue sharing program where all the teams get bowl money even if they didn't even get to go, which is one reason Notre Dame had such a good gig is they keep 100% of their BCS money if they go. Big Ten shares the money among all 11 teams. Not sure what the WAC does. So the big money comes in when 2 teams make the BCS. I believe the Notre Dame situation is now changed; they only get about the same amount of money as a team in a conference as opposed to the whole amount (which was clearly unfair).
|
|
|
Post by theprez98 on Jan 2, 2008 20:30:20 GMT -6
I found this article on revenue sharing of BCS money (from last year):
BCS guaranteed revenue
The five conferences that do not have automatic bids to the BCS — the WAC, Mountain West, Conference USA, Mid-American and Sun Belt — are guaranteed a total of 9 percent of the BCS net revenue each year.
That equaled $9,216,000 for the 2006-07 bowl season.
Half of that money was distributed to the five conferences equally, at $921,600 each. The WAC distributed its share to its nine members at $102,400 each.
The other half of the BCS guaranteed money was distributed among the five conferences based on performance. The WAC finished a narrow second in the computer-based standings, behind the Mountain West.
The WAC received about $1,228,000 from the performance half. That was split nine ways, also, so BSU received about $136,000.
Combined, BSU received about $238,400 from the guaranteed revenue.
BCS revenue
The five non-BCS conferences get another 9 percent of BCS net revenues when one of their teams qualifies for a BCS game. They agreed to share the money, somewhat like a lottery pool.
The deal gave the WAC $6 million of the qualification money up front. The other $3,216,000 was split among the five conferences based on performance.
The WAC received $850,000 from the performance pool and split it among the nine schools — giving each about $94,000.
Of the other $6 million, 70 percent went to BSU — a $4.2 million windfall. The other $1.8 million was split among the other eight WAC schools, at $225,000 each.
Combined, BSU received about $4,294,000 from the qualification money — a little less than half.
The other eight WAC schools received about $319,000 each for a total of more than $2.5 million. The remaining $2.37 million was distributed to the 41 schools in the other four non-BCS conferences. Put those numbers together and a total of 49 schools earned an average of about $100,000 each that they would not have received if BSU had not reached the Fiesta Bowl.
The WAC payout could have been even higher. The conference lost about $550,000 in performance money by finishing second to the Mountain West in the conference standings. The WAC was 7-5 against the Mountain West head to head, but the bottom of the league was weak in the computer rankings.
Year-end distribution
The WAC distributed a record $14,312,398 to its nine members last week, commissioner Karl Benson said. That amount included $9 million in BCS revenue and $5.3 million in other revenue. The non-BCS money included revenue from the NCAA men's basketball tournament (about $3 million), TV contracts and the WAC basketball tournaments.
"Those were fun checks to sign," Benson said.
Six members, including BSU, received about $690,000. The WAC revenue-sharing money is part of BSU's annual budget, which will approach $20 million in 2007-08.
The three newest WAC members — Idaho, Utah State and New Mexico State — received about $390,000. The three newcomers' payouts were reduced by $200,000 as part of their expansion fee, then the money was distributed to the other six schools.
The three newcomers were assessed a $600,000 expansion fee when they joined the WAC in 2005-06. Their year-end checks were reduced last year, too, and will be docked for the final time next year as part of a three-year payment plan.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 2, 2008 20:35:36 GMT -6
On the bowl money, what is the WAC/UH policy? I know the SEC at least used to have a revenue sharing program where all the teams get bowl money even if they didn't even get to go, which is one reason Notre Dame had such a good gig is they keep 100% of their BCS money if they go. Big Ten shares the money among all 11 teams. Not sure what the WAC does. So the big money comes in when 2 teams make the BCS. I believe the Notre Dame situation is now changed; they only get about the same amount of money as a team in a conference as opposed to the whole amount (which was clearly unfair). Why would this be unfair, because in seasons such as this, they get NO BCS money (correct?) where as a team like Ole Miss gets $$$ from The sugar bowl every year and the BCS championship game this year. Could be wrong of course, but this seems like the natural order of things.
|
|
|
Post by theprez98 on Jan 2, 2008 20:40:05 GMT -6
Big Ten shares the money among all 11 teams. Not sure what the WAC does. So the big money comes in when 2 teams make the BCS. I believe the Notre Dame situation is now changed; they only get about the same amount of money as a team in a conference as opposed to the whole amount (which was clearly unfair). Why would this be unfair, because in seasons such as this, they get NO BCS money (correct?) where as a team like Ole Miss gets $$$ from The sugar bowl and the BCS championship game. Actually: From the BCS Media Guide: "Notre Dame is guaranteed 1/66th of the net revenues after expenses, or approximately $1.3 million. Notre Dame will receive $4.5 million when its team is a participant." "Even Notre Dame, which plays as an independent, pockets more than the non-BCS schools. Despite going 3-9 this season, the Fighting Irish will receive approximately $1.3 million this year as part of a renegotiated agreement." And that's the NEW rules!
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 2, 2008 20:43:36 GMT -6
thanks for setting me straight. I actually thought it was better if ND gets it all when they make it..and nothing when they don't...BUT ONLY if they dont have the special ND clause....
|
|
|
Post by theprez98 on Jan 2, 2008 20:47:58 GMT -6
thanks for setting me straight. I actually thought it was better if ND gets it all when they make it..and nothing when they don't...BUT ONLY if they dont have the special ND clause.... I just have a big problem with a single school that has special clauses in the rules. If the rules applied to all the independents, it would seem a little better, but Navy, et al, would never qualify under those rules, so that really doesn't make it any better, really. I guess the rules as they are now are probably as "fair" as they could be. Maybe they should say that you actually have to win the bowl game to get the money.
|
|
|
Post by wingman on Jan 2, 2008 21:57:20 GMT -6
If Hawaii spent less time on the Haka and strutting and congradulating themselves after every tackle ( even when they were down by 30 ) they might have done better.
|
|