Offensive Line

[Patulski]

There was lots of talk about Rees's ceiling this season, but I think a more apt question is: What is the ceiling of our offensive line?

If our offensive line can only create a solid running game and protect the passer versus weaker teams, than I think the only way we can win against teams like USC and Oklahoma is with a two-dimensional QB. The upside is that we'll have a more diversified running attack. The downside is that a QB that gets hit a lot can (a) more easily get injured and (b) have issues passing the ball. Not many QB's are really proficient in both.

Nevertheless, to me this is the main question going into next season. If we've already seen the offensive line's ceiling, then the QB should be Hendrix or Golson next year. Even if they aren't as accurate as Rees, we must be able to run the ball against better teams. If the offensive line has a higher ceiling, and can improve to create a running game and pass protect better inside the offense we ran this year, then Rees's experience reading defenses and calling protections becomes a factor. If Hendrix and Golson are as accurate- and read coverages and manage protections as well as Rees by next fall- then Rees will be a non factor.

It's going to be interesting to see what Kelly does in both scheme and personnel. Personally, I hope he settles on one QB and one system.

 

[Old Man Mike]

........another disguised QB thread? I thought that this might be interesting to dedicate a thread talking about how our O-Line did [with actual statistical facts] vs other teams --- our running production vs their typical performances against other teams, same with sacks, etc. [thus establishing an actual defensible argument for our O-Line quality, not based upon eye-balling a couple of games; especially one wherein our anchor was injured and couldn't play]. Also, our reasonable expectations for players like Lombard, Hegarty, Prestwood, NMartin et al, but nope ---Tommy vs Andrew and Everett again.

 

[Patulski]

[QUOTE9Old Man Mike;600968]........another disguised QB thread? I thought that this might be interesting to dedicate a thread talking about how our O-Line did [with actual statistical facts] vs other teams --- our running production vs their typical performances against other teams, same with sacks, etc. [thus establishing an actual defensible argument for our O-Line quality, not based upon eye-balling a couple of games; especially one wherein our anchor was injured and couldn't play]. Also, our reasonable expectations for players like Lombard, Hegarty, Prestwood, NMartin et al, but nope ---Tommy vs Andrew and Everett again.[/QUOTE]

Well, I thought it was obvious who the better teams on the schedule were. But since you asked:

The Associated Press Top 25 Poll
1, Stanford (#4) -57 yards rushing (90 yds/avg.)
2. USC (#9)- 41 yards rushing (111 yds/avg.)
3. Michigan State (#11)- 114 yards rushing (103 yds/avg)
4. Michigan (#17)- 198 yards rushing (129 yds/avg)

A gradual decline in rushing production as you get closer to the top.

 

[4irishnation]

A gradual decline in rushing production as you get closer to the top.

Isn't that why they are closer to the top?

another disguised QB thread

Of course it is thats every new thread in the last 2 days. SMH

 

[Patulski]

Isn't that why they are closer to the top?Of course it is thats every new thread in the last 2 days. SMH

My post was about the offensive line, and if it had reached a ceiling that would necessitate a different running scheme, or not, and how this relates to the QB situation.

If that has been the topic of every new thread in the past two days, I fail to see it. And of course that's one of the reasons why they're at the top, which is why I brought up the subject in the first place, since we want to beat them.

 

[Old Man Mike]

To address the O-Line situation: our O-Line has been praised by literally every coach and commentator who has watched them this year. Often that has been the stimulation for further remarks about Brian Kelly bringing a new toughness to the trenches. We only had real trouble against two units. The last was Stanford, where we were missing our anchor vs the toughest run-stoppers in the country [essentially, no quibbles necessary when it comes to a few yards]. Almost everyone also thinks that the USC game was the game where they finally decided to play ball with some emotion and their whole "thing" gelled. That was not just our doing as they continued afterwards.

So, point one: our O-Line was VERY good and one of the last things to criticize about this year's team.

Having said that: we weren't perfect either. Leaving the Golic-for-Cave thing aside, most observers that I've heard comment seem to evaluate Taylor Dever as a touch below the quality of the other four guys, and last year both starting guards would have been in that category too --- Robinson has stepped up his conditioning and toughness, and Watt has outstandingly replaced Stewart. And, the visual results of "line-play" aren't entirely on the line. Welch and Koyack both block significantly better than Eifert, and Wood picks up blitzes more consistently than Gray. To my eye, major breakdowns were more on Tyler, Jonas, and the right edge than on the other guys in the line.

Running also succeeds better when the runner picks the correct hole. And then BOOMS it regardless. Jonas was better at this than Cierre. And sometimes the opposing DC just has called a D-stunt that your play can't block.

So, point two: our blocking, though generally pretty darn good both run and pass, can get better. Some of that improvement is at positions other than the inner five.

What's the prognosis? We keep three terrific linemen, arguably our three best. If Braxton makes a full recovery, that should pose huge problems for the opponents. We lose one very good lineman and one OK lineman. How good will their replacements be? Pure speculation until they hit the field.

Notre Dame used to worry me when we'd lose great O-Linemen back in the old days, but it was always misplaced. We always just reloaded. [Michigan, by the way, was the other team which simply reloaded]. Are we at the point of re-finding our ability to do that?

There is a lot of reason to suspect that. Lombard, Hegarty, and Prestwood are very highly regarded. NMartin has become viewed as Zach Mark Two. Regardless of how good Hanratty and Nichols actually are, that's a lot of studs to count on being next-man-in. I believe that the line next year is going to be formidable, if Braxton is available.

Does this have anything to do with QB play? I can't imagine Kelly spending much time reasoning: "I've got a mediocre line, therefore I have to play Everett to survive."... or "I've got a great line which can make up for any deficiencies that any of them have". Coach is going to pick his QB on the basis of how well he plays QB [in all dimensions] AS IF the O-Line is doing it's job.

If Coach has any real weakness, it is that he assumes that the players are going to properly run their part of the play correctly. We sit back, taking into account all our prejudices [rightly or wrongly formed by evidence] and disagree with him for not taking certain things into account. Generally, he is correct however. You cannot play to win by running scared, or doubting that your people can do their jobs.

 

[Patulski]

To address the O-Line situation: our O-Line has been praised by literally every coach and commentator who has watched them this year. Often that has been the stimulation for further remarks about Brian Kelly bringing a new toughness to the trenches. We only had real trouble against two units. The last was Stanford, where we were missing our anchor vs the toughest run-stoppers in the country [essentially, no quibbles necessary when it comes to a few yards]. Almost everyone also thinks that the USC game was the game where they finally decided to play ball with some emotion and their whole "thing" gelled. That was not just our doing as they continued afterwards.

So, point one: our O-Line was VERY good and one of the last things to criticize about this year's team.

Having said that: we weren't perfect either. Leaving the Golic-for-Cave thing aside, most observers that I've heard comment seem to evaluate Taylor Dever as a touch below the quality of the other four guys, and last year both starting guards would have been in that category too --- Robinson has stepped up his conditioning and toughness, and Watt has outstandingly replaced Stewart. And, the visual results of "line-play" aren't entirely on the line. Welch and Koyack both block significantly better than Eifert, and Wood picks up blitzes more consistently than Gray. To my eye, major breakdowns were more on Tyler, Jonas, and the right edge than on the other guys in the line.

Running also succeeds better when the runner picks the correct hole. And then BOOMS it regardless. Jonas was better at this than Cierre. And sometimes the opposing DC just has called a D-stunt that your play can't block.

So, point two: our blocking, though generally pretty darn good both run and pass, can get better. Some of that improvement is at positions other than the inner five.

What's the prognosis? We keep three terrific linemen, arguably our three best. If Braxton makes a full recovery, that should pose huge problems for the opponents. We lose one very good lineman and one OK lineman. How good will their replacements be? Pure speculation until they hit the field.

Notre Dame used to worry me when we'd lose great O-Linemen back in the old days, but it was always misplaced. We always just reloaded. [Michigan, by the way, was the other team which simply reloaded]. Are we at the point of re-finding our ability to do that?

There is a lot of reason to suspect that. Lombard, Hegarty, and Prestwood are very highly regarded. NMartin has become viewed as Zach Mark Two. Regardless of how good Hanratty and Nichols actually are, that's a lot of studs to count on being next-man-in. I believe that the line next year is going to be formidable, if Braxton is available.

Does this have anything to do with QB play? I can't imagine Kelly spending much time reasoning: "I've got a mediocre line, therefore I have to play Everett to survive."... or "I've got a great line which can make up for any deficiencies that any of them have". Coach is going to pick his QB on the basis of how well he plays QB [in all dimensions] AS IF the O-Line is doing it's job.

If Coach has any real weakness, it is that he assumes that the players are going to properly run their part of the play correctly. We sit back, taking into account all our prejudices [rightly or wrongly formed by evidence] and disagree with him for not taking certain things into account. Generally, he is correct however. You cannot play to win by running scared, or doubting that your people can do their jobs.

I think you should go watch the Stanford game. The offensive line's problem was on the edge, not the middle where Cave would have been. Stanford's Defensive End (#44) totally dominated Martin, Eifert and Koyack-both in the running and passing game- and was all over the field when ND played its base offense with Rees in the game.

In a spread running attack, you are optioning #44, not blocking him. So, you're wrong. The QB and the scheme do have an impact on a coaches decision. Less so in the passing game than the running.

 

[Old Man Mike]

Thank you for pointing out the severe deficiencies in my lengthy post. It is always a learning experience to have just them singled out.

 

[anarin]

So they dont look stellar against Stanford and all of a sudden our O-Line is a problem?

I've seen it all now.

 

[Patulski]

Thank you for pointing out the severe deficiencies in my lengthy post. It is always a learning experience to have just them singled out.

This isn't personal. All I'm interested in is an objective look at our offensive line. We both want to beat better teams. We can't do that if we can't run the ball, or pass protect.

The topic of my original post is whether we have hit a ceiling with this offensive line, and if so whether we should implement a spread option attack based on problems running against better (faster, more athletic) defensive teams. Your conclusion was, putting Cave aside, "To my eye, major breakdowns were more on Tyler, Jonas, and the right edge than on the other guys in the line. " I countered that after watching the Stanford game again that our problem against Stanford was on the edge, specifically Martin's side, which included Eifert and Koyack at times. I don't know why your sensitive about that? It goes to the heart of the dilemma imo: Should we go to a spread run attack, which is designed to option (and neutralize) fast defensive ends? If Martin, who I presume you believe is one of our best linemen, cannot handle more athletic defensive ends (i.e. has reached his ceiling) then I think we should go to that attack. On the other hand, he may be able to improve his quickness. I don't know.

 

[koonja]

So they dont look stellar against Stanford and all of a sudden our O-Line is a problem?

I've seen it all now.

They weren't that good against USC. We literally couldn't even call running plays.

 

[rtrn2glory]

they weren't very good against BC either...interesting with the correlation of the o line play and the success of the team.

 

[anarin]

They weren't that good against USC. We literally couldn't even call running plays.

Ok so two seperate games were brought up where they didn't play up to par.

Without going full blown into details, we were tied for 19th (with other teams still left to play their 12th game) in sacks allowed. And above it was shown that we had two games under average against "top tier" teams.

I don't think we have a problem with our O-Line.

 

[Patulski]

So they dont look stellar against Stanford and all of a sudden our O-Line is a problem?

I've seen it all now.

Where did I say that?

I don't think they played well against USC either. Did you?

Nevertheless, if you read my original post, my point wasn't to criticize without context. I think I made this clear when I wrote, "If we've already seen the offensive line's ceiling, then the QB should be Hendrix or Golson next year. Even if they aren't as accurate as Rees, we must be able to run the ball against better teams. If the offensive line has a higher ceiling, and can improve to create a running game and pass protect better inside the offense we ran this year, then Rees's experience reading defenses and calling protections becomes a factor."

Football is a team game, and that includes using the right personnel to run the best scheme to help us win a National Championship. I don't think we can win a National Championship if we can't run against Top 10 teams. If you care to consider the entirety of my original post, please chime in.

 

[anarin]

they weren't very good against BC either...interesting with the correlation of the o line play and the success of the team.

Personally, I wouldn't pin that on the O-Line. I think BC had a perfect defensive gameplan and executed it perfectly. It didn't help that the playcalling got a little predictable.

 

[koonja]

Ok so two seperate games were brought up where they didn't play up to par.

Without going full blown into details, we were tied for 19th (with other teams still left to play their 12th game) in sacks allowed. And above it was shown that we had two games under average against "top tier" teams.

I don't think we have a problem with our O-Line.

Ironically, those were against the two best teams we faced.

 

[irishog77]

Qualifying and quantifying OL play is sometimes tough to do. Using a team's rushing total versus their opponent's average allowed tells only part of the story. Did a team have a big lead, causing them to run the ball more rather than pass? Did a team face a deficit, causing them to run much less and pass more? Was there an 85 yard run thrown into the mix of a 160 yard total rushing performance? What was the average per carry? Did the team face a lot of 3rd and 1 or 3rd and goal from the 1 scenarios? What was the yards per carry in traditional running downs and plays? How well do WR's block or are able to get separation from DB's in passing downs. There are also many more questions that can be asked to help determine the success of the OL (including all the pass statistics as well). It's one reason not as many OL are in the pro football hall of fame as there should be. With QB's, RB's, and WR's, there are some simple statistics to look at and determine how an individual player measured up against his contemporary competition and also his historical competition. There really isn't a way to do that with OL. Plus, trends and offensive styles change.

Sometimes with the OL, the "eyeball" test does matter. Sometimes when determining the ability of an OL, you can look at overall offensive production and the ensuing NFL draft status and playing of of former OL. Take OU for example-- they are now almost always up there in total yards and lowest sacks (especially considering the amount of times they pass the ball) allowed. They have OL drafted high and throughout the draft. A good amount of those guys then go on to have successful NFL careers. So, without studying and deciphering a mountain of "stats," i.e. how many yards OU rushed or passed for versus the average of the opponents allowed, the +/- they had in yardage against a team, the amount of sacks they allowed versus the amount of the opponents normal sacks, ETC., ETC., ETC., I'm just gonna go out on a GIANT limb and say OU has gotten very good line play in the Stoops era.

The OP posed a fair and genuine question. The OL showed much improvement this year. Whether I use stats, eyeballs, or both, the conclusion is the same. Will the OL continue to get better next year? I really don't know. But I am optimistic based on the results Kelly had this year and from some of the OL waiting in the wings. For Kelly not to consider the play of his OL and what they are capable of when designing an offense and calling plays in game would be completely idiotic. It would be like Kelly deciding to throw the ball downfield a lot and having a QB run and scramble a lot who can't throw the ball down the field or run or scramble. So yes, I believe Kelly will take all things into consideration when deciding on a QB...but also on WR's, RB,s, OL, and scheme and play calling. That would be the smart thing to do. Head coaches and OC's do this all the time.

 

[GDomer09]

Here's the main question?

Here's the main question?

Was it the Offensive line, Tommy, or the Play calling that made us look so ugly offensively in at least 5 of our games?

I know people on here are attacking people for simply stating, “There was lots of talk about Rees's ceiling this season, but I think a more apt question is: What the ceiling of our offensive line?" This is a very fair question. Does the Offensive line & QB's production not go hand in hand? People are saying the offensive line was stellar. Doesn't that point the finger at another reason why at times our offense has looked **** poor?

Time & time again I've seen us get little production on the run then quickly abandon it just to see failure in passing. The point is if we get little production in the run game our current QB is not good enough to win the game. Now this is because our O-Line is not pass blocking well enough, the coach is calling bad plays/not mixing it up enough, or the QB is not doing his job. This is a very legitimate question & concern. IMO it's all (3) but more so Coaching (Turnovers) & QB position.

 

[Patulski]

Was it the Offensive line, Tommy, or the Play calling that made us look so ugly offensively in at least 5 of our games?

I know people on here are attacking people for simply stating, “There was lots of talk about Rees's ceiling this season, but I think a more apt question is: What the ceiling of our offensive line?" This is a very fair question. Does the Offensive line & QB's production not go hand in hand? People are saying the offensive line was stellar. Doesn't that point the finger at another reason why at times our offense has looked **** poor?

Time & time again I've seen us get little production on the run then quickly abandon it just to see failure in passing. The point is if we get little production in the run game our current QB is not good enough to win the game. Now this is because our O-Line is not pass blocking well enough, the coach is calling bad plays/not mixing it up enough, or the QB is not doing his job. This is a very legitimate question & concern. IMO it's all (3) but more so Coaching (Turnovers) & QB position.

I think any time a defense can make an offense one dimensional, it makes it very hard for a QB. There are some rare exceptions of QB's that can overcome this, but not many.

I don't think Kelly did anything different with his run scheme against USC. where we averaged 1.8 per carry. Against Stanford, when Rees ran our base rush offense our yards per rush was 2.8 yards. With Hendrix adding the spread option during the entire second half, we averaged 5.2 yards per carry.

 

[irishtrain]

To address the O-Line situation: our O-Line has been praised by literally every coach and commentator who has watched them this year. Often that has been the stimulation for further remarks about Brian Kelly bringing a new toughness to the trenches. We only had real trouble against two units. The last was Stanford, where we were missing our anchor vs the toughest run-stoppers in the country [essentially, no quibbles necessary when it comes to a few yards]. Almost everyone also thinks that the USC game was the game where they finally decided to play ball with some emotion and their whole "thing" gelled. That was not just our doing as they continued afterwards.

So, point one: our O-Line was VERY good and one of the last things to criticize about this year's team.

Having said that: we weren't perfect either. Leaving the Golic-for-Cave thing aside, most observers that I've heard comment seem to evaluate Taylor Dever as a touch below the quality of the other four guys, and last year both starting guards would have been in that category too --- Robinson has stepped up his conditioning and toughness, and Watt has outstandingly replaced Stewart. And, the visual results of "line-play" aren't entirely on the line. Welch and Koyack both block significantly better than Eifert, and Wood picks up blitzes more consistently than Gray. To my eye, major breakdowns were more on Tyler, Jonas, and the right edge than on the other guys in the line.

Running also succeeds better when the runner picks the correct hole. And then BOOMS it regardless. Jonas was better at this than Cierre. And sometimes the opposing DC just has called a D-stunt that your play can't block.

So, point two: our blocking, though generally pretty darn good both run and pass, can get better. Some of that improvement is at positions other than the inner five.

What's the prognosis? We keep three terrific linemen, arguably our three best. If Braxton makes a full recovery, that should pose huge problems for the opponents. We lose one very good lineman and one OK lineman. How good will their replacements be? Pure speculation until they hit the field.

Notre Dame used to worry me when we'd lose great O-Linemen back in the old days, but it was always misplaced. We always just reloaded. [Michigan, by the way, was the other team which simply reloaded]. Are we at the point of re-finding our ability to do that?

There is a lot of reason to suspect that. Lombard, Hegarty, and Prestwood are very highly regarded. NMartin has become viewed as Zach Mark Two. Regardless of how good Hanratty and Nichols actually are, that's a lot of studs to count on being next-man-in. I believe that the line next year is going to be formidable, if Braxton is available.

Does this have anything to do with QB play? I can't imagine Kelly spending much time reasoning: "I've got a mediocre line, therefore I have to play Everett to survive."... or "I've got a great line which can make up for any deficiencies that any of them have". Coach is going to pick his QB on the basis of how well he plays QB [in all dimensions] AS IF the O-Line is doing it's job.

If Coach has any real weakness, it is that he assumes that the players are going to properly run their part of the play correctly. We sit back, taking into account all our prejudices [rightly or wrongly formed by evidence] and disagree with him for not taking certain things into account. Generally, he is correct however. You cannot play to win by running scared, or doubting that your people can do their jobs.

Mike all this is great stuff and I agree, the field condition and not having a potential All American center hurts a lot against Stanford. You are right everyone has praised this o line and I for one thinks its top 5-10 in the country. If this young kid can comprehend the game and understand what Kelly wants him to do his upside is way higher than anybody we've seen so far. Good to very good o line and I'm all in with Hendrix.

 

[Patulski]

Mike all this is great stuff and I agree, the field condition and not having a potential All American center hurts a lot against Stanford. You are right everyone has praised this o line and I for one thinks its top 5-10 in the country. If this young kid can comprehend the game and understand what Kelly wants him to do his upside is way higher than anybody we've seen so far. Good to very good o line and I'm all in with Hendrix.

Even with Hendrix's added mobility and spread run option threat, which made Stanford defend much more of the field, there were numerous breakdowns by the offensive line in pass protection during the second half, after a first half when they hurried and sacked Rees. Stanford's Luck had nowhere near the pressure, or had to deal with breakdowns that Rees and Hendrix did. They came from all across the line, and through all the line gaps. When Luck did have some pressure, it only came from Lynch.

 

[Long Time Irish]

To address the O-Line situation: our O-Line has been praised by literally every coach and commentator who has watched them this year. Often that has been the stimulation for further remarks about Brian Kelly bringing a new toughness to the trenches. We only had real trouble against two units. The last was Stanford, where we were missing our anchor vs the toughest run-stoppers in the country [essentially, no quibbles necessary when it comes to a few yards]. Almost everyone also thinks that the USC game was the game where they finally decided to play ball with some emotion and their whole "thing" gelled. That was not just our doing as they continued afterwards.

So, point one: our O-Line was VERY good and one of the last things to criticize about this year's team.

Having said that: we weren't perfect either. Leaving the Golic-for-Cave thing aside, most observers that I've heard comment seem to evaluate Taylor Dever as a touch below the quality of the other four guys, and last year both starting guards would have been in that category too --- Robinson has stepped up his conditioning and toughness, and Watt has outstandingly replaced Stewart. And, the visual results of "line-play" aren't entirely on the line. Welch and Koyack both block significantly better than Eifert, and Wood picks up blitzes more consistently than Gray. To my eye, major breakdowns were more on Tyler, Jonas, and the right edge than on the other guys in the line.

Running also succeeds better when the runner picks the correct hole. And then BOOMS it regardless. Jonas was better at this than Cierre. And sometimes the opposing DC just has called a D-stunt that your play can't block.

So, point two: our blocking, though generally pretty darn good both run and pass, can get better. Some of that improvement is at positions other than the inner five.

What's the prognosis? We keep three terrific linemen, arguably our three best. If Braxton makes a full recovery, that should pose huge problems for the opponents. We lose one very good lineman and one OK lineman. How good will their replacements be? Pure speculation until they hit the field.

Notre Dame used to worry me when we'd lose great O-Linemen back in the old days, but it was always misplaced. We always just reloaded. [Michigan, by the way, was the other team which simply reloaded]. Are we at the point of re-finding our ability to do that?

There is a lot of reason to suspect that. Lombard, Hegarty, and Prestwood are very highly regarded. NMartin has become viewed as Zach Mark Two. Regardless of how good Hanratty and Nichols actually are, that's a lot of studs to count on being next-man-in. I believe that the line next year is going to be formidable, if Braxton is available.

Does this have anything to do with QB play? I can't imagine Kelly spending much time reasoning: "I've got a mediocre line, therefore I have to play Everett to survive."... or "I've got a great line which can make up for any deficiencies that any of them have". Coach is going to pick his QB on the basis of how well he plays QB [in all dimensions] AS IF the O-Line is doing it's job.

If Coach has any real weakness, it is that he assumes that the players are going to properly run their part of the play correctly. We sit back, taking into account all our prejudices [rightly or wrongly formed by evidence] and disagree with him for not taking certain things into account. Generally, he is correct however. You cannot play to win by running scared, or doubting that your people can do their jobs.

Mike, Great Post and well said. I agree that overall our O line was very good. I also agree with what you said about the running backs getting into the the hole and then "booming it". Gray did much better than Wood did this year, but Wood did improve on that from last year, imo. It is also encouraging that it appears that much like it used to be, years ago, we can "reload" rather than rebuild. I have noted that this year the lineman for the most part are much better at blocking down field. There are still some missed assignments but they are getting much better. I also feel that you can easily see the improvements made in strength and conditioning. The job Longo is doing seems to be really good.
I still long for Joe Moore....but I am happy with the job that Ed Warinner is doing.

 

[Patulski]

I don't know how an offensive line that produces 98 total yards in rushing against the two best teams on its schedule could be categorized as being "reloaded".

I am hopeful that Kelly's o-line recruits are much quicker than Weis's. It was obvious that against the better teams, with better defensive line athletes to penetrate gaps, this offensive line was not up to the task in either rush or pass blocking.

Still, I think Warriner did a nice job with what he had to run this offense, and when we played teams who couldn't blow through gaps to disrupt plays, we showed good coordination in our blocking schemes. We are back again to where we can dominate the line of scrimmage against Navy-Air Force and Purdue type teams, generate enough offense to beat the Pitt's and BC's and at least score against Top 10 teams. That being said. We have a long way to go to becoming elite again.

 

[ChiefSecond]

I don't know how an offensive line that produces 98 total yards in rushing against the two best teams on its schedule could be categorized as being "reloaded".

Exactly.
It doesnt matter how bad we tear up the **** teams of the schedule. Everyone's got a hard-on because we're running all over Navy and air force! You test yourself against the best teams on the schedule. USC and stanford lit up out O-line and in the second half we ran nowhere on scUM.

 

[Long Time Irish]

Exactly.
It doesnt matter how bad we tear up the **** teams of the schedule. Everyone's got a hard-on because we're running all over Navy and air force! You test yourself against the best teams on the schedule. USC and stanford lit up out O-line and in the second half we ran nowhere on scUM.

Well it sure was not that long ago that we could not run on Navy and Air Force...And we ran for 198 yards in the UM game. We have a lot of room for more improvement, but I am happy with the improvement that we made. My point as far as "reloading" is simple, there was a time, not long ago, when there were not other promising lineman to fill the holes of the ones that were graduating. We still have needs, but not as many as in the past.

 

[irish1958]

I don't know what to think. Our skill players were slipping and sliding all over the field, and Stanford's weren't. I have to think that our o-line and d-line players faced the same problems with traction as our skill players did.
If this is so, perhaps the ****poor field conditions, (which wouldn't even be acceptable in high school in Indiana) were more of a factor than we realize.
Why weren't our players getting the traction Sanford's were?

 

[Old Man Mike]

Another thing that no one's thought about [verbally here anyway] is that the flu was romping through our whole team just previously, so much so that the whole Gug had to get a wash-down. Makes you weaker, especially in stamina.

 

[nd1989]

I think any issues with the O line can be tied to when Cave was injured. I don't think it's totally on Golic however. The line clearly didn't play as well against BC or against Stanford. BK stated that the offensive line calls were handled by Nuss, not Golic. So I think that had something to do with it. Also against Stanford, Stanford would overload one side of the line, and stunt. Golic missed this almost every time. So I think Stanford knew we had a new starter as well as a new line caller in and ran complex rushing schemes that made it difficult for us to handle.

So I think the OL was fine up until that point, and then degraded significantly due to Nuss calling sets, and Golic pass blocking on stunts.

 

[Patulski]

I think any issues with the O line can be tied to when Cave was injured. I don't think it's totally on Golic however. The line clearly didn't play as well against BC or against Stanford. BK stated that the offensive line calls were handled by Nuss, not Golic. So I think that had something to do with it. Also against Stanford, Stanford would overload one side of the line, and stunt. Golic missed this almost every time. So I think Stanford knew we had a new starter as well as a new line caller in and ran complex rushing schemes that made it difficult for us to handle.

So I think the OL was fine up until that point, and then degraded significantly due to Nuss calling sets, and Golic pass blocking on stunts.

As I wrote early in this thread, go watch the 1st half of the Stanford game. Their defensive end (#44) was the guy causing all the havoc. He did it off the edge, not from the middle, and he did it because he was quicker than Martin in our basic lineup, not because of line calls. He beat Martin to the inside gap, and that hurt us both in passing and running, because his penetration stymied our guys pulling. Kelly neutralized him in the second half by only running to his side with Eifert blocking him. Eifert was quick enough to contain him, which allowed our pulling guards to get around him and up the field. He also rolled Hendrix away from him in the 2nd half, and optioned him. Still, he had a sack on Hendrix.

And to be fair to Martin, #44 (Chase Thomas) is no slouch. He has 17.5 tackles for losses and 8.5 sacks. So, he's #11 in the country in tackles for losses and # 17 in sacks.