I play NCAA12 by EA sports. Now, aside from the game being horribly glitchy and an overall awful representation of what a finished product should be, it does a few things right. Namely, it does a great job of imitating Alabama's running scheme. The Alabama OL on that game is enormous, and they basically drive straight forward and pancake the defensive line. It's "video game football" at its best. My question - if we're gonna line up in Video Game unis, why not play video game football? Why would we not just pound the other team senseless?
Going into the game, I had a feeling we would pound the ball between the tackles, then, when the defense was tired, start firing it downfield to our speedy receivers. Doesn't that make sense? Would it be perfectly reasonable to expect our team to work to its strength and size, and then, only after we've tired the other guys out, start to beat them up in space? I think it makes sense. Apparently not. Apparently, the smart thing to do is come out in shotgun and try to run counters and traps, because the defense is "expecting" the pounding. This will catch them off guard and create success.
I believe I said in a blog last year that I believe in grabbing hold of a style of play, getting good at it, and then riding it until someone else can stop it. That's what the best teams do. You're not gonna see Oregon come out in a Power-I in the national title game because they've been running the spread all year, and Auburn would be ready for that. It's just plain dumb.
When you're bigger, stronger, and faster, be the bully. That's what I wanted to see - bully football. I didn't need pulling guards coming around and assisting on a block, only to completely avoid an untouched man in the middle of the hole. I didn't need to see a handoff six yards deep in the backfield instead of a dive where we rock guys off the line of scrimmage.
But, I don't make gameplans. No, I just complain about them.
To be fair to Mike Bobo, I don't think there's any way he could have imagined Aaron Murray would play so poorly. Let's be honest - the majority of Murray's mistakes were not due to a heavy pass rush. The majority of his mistakes weren't due to receivers letting him down. The majority of Murray's mistakes came as a result of his inability to produce under pressure. This game had a lot of hype on it. All eyes were on Murray. The gameplan was apparently geared toward letting him distribute the ball and make things happen...to take pressure off the tailbacks. But, the QB - supposedly the one absolute "sure thing" on the offense - did not hold up his end of the bargain. As an OC, you don't plan for that. You don't plan for your Freshman-All SEC and Pre-Season All-SEC QB to lay a fat steamer on the field at the dome.
That's the only explanation I have. Bobo must have built his gameplan around the wrong assumption - that when all else fails, Murray will deliver. He didn't. We lost.
Always enjoy your point of view on all things Dawgs. Was really disappointed Saturday as we all were. One thing that really bugs me is how we are so married to a failed game plan that we cannot scrap it and adjust. Am I wrong to expect the coaching staff to have, not only a Plan A, but Plans B,C,D. And when Plan A goes bad, have a plan that it might happen and do something else?
And another thing... How many years have we had freshman tail backs that we can't get into the game because they are incomplete blockers. Don't you think over the years that we could maybe have a "package" that maybe the fullback stays and blocks rather than the TB? How many years has this problem been around?
I'm with you back9k9, if my TB is inferiour in blocking, but great in space, let the FB stay in and block and slip the TB out (a la what we did more times than not with Knowshon--he'd chip a guy and go out into the flats).
Where is our heavy package? Double TE sets with Orson/White on one side, Lynch on the other, Figgins at FB and Samuels at TB...let's just see if they can stop us from 4 yards and a cloud of dust over and over and over and over. Maybe, just maybe, we fans think some players are better than they are (like Lynch) and have made up with video game-esque play calling that works brilliantly....but the coaches, who see them everyday in practice, know they are not as good or believe they are not as good--either way, the product on the field is not equalling what we, fans, expect to see.
Where is the disconnect?
Could you imagine how devastating it would have been for BSU if we shoved it down their throat for the first 7 minutes of the game running left and right?
First drive of the second half for us, we got almost exclusively I-formation and drive down the field with running the ball and hitting the tight ends. We quickly move it down to the Boise State 28. If we score there it is a 7 point game and we have serious hope to win. Bobo goes back to the shotgun formation. 1st down -2 yard run. Second down, dropped pass that even if caught would have only gained a few yards unless King made a heck of a move on a DB that King had his back to, third down sack for a loss of 7 yards and we settle for a 54 yard field goal try. Now I know there is a lot more to play calling than just simply saying go I all day and they can't stop us but we had them on their heals that drive and let them off the hook. It was by far the best "drive" of the game by Georgia until we went back to the shotgun.
Boise state won the game by making adjustments. We took away the explosive factor of their offense, so they dinked and ducked for 8 yards a pass during the 2nd half.
Where were our adjustments? Like Dawgsfan17 said, we finally had a drive going because we actually used the I formation but then we switched back to shotgun. Why change something that is working? And I've heard we're gonna still use our "spread" and "no huddle" some this week too
Bobo also did an incredibly poor job utilizing our weapons on offense. Allowing smith and crowell to wear the same number is crazy. Imagine Crowell, mitchell, and Charles, on the field and rotating in smith or Boykin. Endless posibilities
Post a Comment