[phoenix]

This is a good week for a D2 team -- I'm in Lexington all until about 4 Saturday, then hurry home for my son's birthday party. I probably won't find out the score until late Saturday night when I am finally able to hit the Interwebs :-/

[BJWilliams]

I think that can be said of everybody on here postie...

As to PH's comment (which I did not care for but I will keep my thoughts beyond that to myself), I was more speaking to the quality of the opponent. For instance, in 2004, we beat West Virginia Tech 55-14, the very next week we played FBS Kent State. In 2007, we beat VMI 73-34 and played a below average Gardner-Webb. In 2009 we beat Coastal 58-13 during that crazy run where we were putting up a ton of points, and then the next week we played CSU, who we had beaten 42-0 the previous year at home.

Point being, there are a lot of different variables that go into the results that we have had when we blew teams out over the years. If I had gone into sports psychology, I would have loved to do research for a year or so and look at the football team and really determine if we did trend progressively worse (as jlread is concerned about should we drop a huge number on Brevard on Saturday) or if those were, as I called them, statistical anomalies

[bluejacket]

I think that you are making this more difficult than it needs to be.

[BJWilliams]

Probably...but one thing I love to do is analyze sports statistics. I don't do it as much as Id like but I think it would be fun to look beyond the boxscores on things

[Purple Haize]

I think that can be said of everybody on here postie...

As to PH's comment (which I did not care for but I will keep my thoughts beyond that to myself), I was more speaking to the quality of the opponent. For instance, in 2004, we beat West Virginia Tech 55-14, the very next week we played FBS Kent State. In 2007, we beat VMI 73-34 and played a below average Gardner-Webb. In 2009 we beat Coastal 58-13 during that crazy run where we were putting up a ton of points, and then the next week we played CSU, who we had beaten 42-0 the previous year at home.

Point being, there are a lot of different variables that go into the results that we have had when we blew teams out over the years. If I had gone into sports psychology, I would have loved to do research for a year or so and look at the football team and really determine if we did trend progressively worse (as jlread is concerned about should we drop a huge number on Brevard on Saturday) or if those were, as I called them, statistical anomalies

Point being the stats you posted mean absolutely nothing and its impossible to extrapolate anything from them.
Hopefully, your thought about my comments are more coherent then whatever point you're trying to make about scoring points

[BJWilliams]

You probably could extrapolate something from them, but it would take a lot of extra research...looking at the rosters over the years for Liberty and the teams we played, analyzing the results beyond the various two game swings, looking at relative context of the results within each season (early, middle or late, were we coming off a win/loss, etc.) factoring in the different coaches, both head and assistant at the time, any number of things. But as bluejacket noted, Im probably makingg a lot more of this than is necessary. I just thought it would be a fun thing to research if I could.

[Purple Haize]

You probably could extrapolate something from them, but it would take a lot of extra research...looking at the rosters over the years for Liberty and the teams we played, analyzing the results beyond the various two game swings, looking at relative context of the results within each season (early, middle or late, were we coming off a win/loss, etc.) factoring in the different coaches, both head and assistant at the time, any number of things. But as bluejacket noted, Im probably makingg a lot more of this than is necessary. I just thought it would be a fun thing to research if I could.

That's the reason what you posted was worthless to extrapolate ANYTHING.

[BJWilliams]

Getting back to the topic at hand, we really need to assert our dominance and hopefully get some extra rest for the starters in this game because we essentially have 3 straight "playoff elimination" games before going down to App ahead of the bye week

[jimflamesfan]

As far as our offensive problems, I've heard that the strategy is to get 4 yards on a first down run.

That's fine. Has anyone noticed, however, that we don't seem to have many 4-5 yard pass plays in our offense? It's almost like we have to run in that situation...if we do throw, we may make the first down, but it's a throw 10+ yards downfield. Most of our throws seem to be mid-range or long range...with an occasional pass to the TE thrown in. I wish that we would use this game to work on short passes. For example, in a 3rd and 4 situation...a pass that just gets us past the sticks.

Our current short pass plays...the little bubble screen, etc...HAVE NOT BEEN WORKING...at least as they have been drawn up. I support Turner Gill and his staff!! However, the one thing I miss about Beecher's offense is LU seemed to have had a bunch of these little pass pass plays where we would line up with three receivers on one side...and two of the receivers would run routes...but they were basically just setting some picks for the third receiver (I know that's technically offensive intereference...but they did a good job of just basically making space), and then we would throw these 4-5 yard passes underneath.

Our short passes now seem to be have the QB run backwards 10 yards then flip a screen to a RB 5 yards behind the line, counting on him to make people miss...OR...throw a quick out to the sideline for a 1 yard gain.

Thoughts?

[BJWilliams]

Short passes are essentially an extension (or should be) of the running game. When the QB makes that pass, especially into a trips alignment to one side, its the job of the other receivers in that bunch to make those initial blocks so that the receiver can operate. If the block isn't made, the force player puts the receiver in a position where he HAS to make them miss. The problem is that the receivers to the play side don't make those blocks which leads to either a negative play or short gain.

Also, the receivers need to run their routes with the sticks in mind, especially on a plus 2nd or 3rd down (<5 yards), and then the QB needs to put the ball in a place where the receiver can run for YAC. There was a pass that Woodrum made last week, he threw to I believe it was Fualaau, and he threw it so wide that Nicky made the catch, but his momentum carried him out of bounds for a loss. If he puts that ball within his framework, or a reasonable reach thereof, he probably turns upfield for another 5 yards, and if I'm reading the play by play right...I think he could have scored.

[bluejacket]

As far as our offensive problems, I've heard that the strategy is to get 4 yards on a first down run.

That's fine. Has anyone noticed, however, that we don't seem to have many 4-5 yard pass plays in our offense? It's almost like we have to run in that situation...if we do throw, we may make the first down, but it's a throw 10+ yards downfield. Most of our throws seem to be mid-range or long range...with an occasional pass to the TE thrown in. I wish that we would use this game to work on short passes. For example, in a 3rd and 4 situation...a pass that just gets us past the sticks.

Our current short pass plays...the little bubble screen, etc...HAVE NOT BEEN WORKING...at least as they have been drawn up. I support Turner Gill and his staff!! However, the one thing I miss about Beecher's offense is LU seemed to have had a bunch of these little pass pass plays where we would line up with three receivers on one side...and two of the receivers would run routes...but they were basically just setting some picks for the third receiver (I know that's technically offensive intereference...but they did a good job of just basically making space), and then we would throw these 4-5 yard passes underneath.

Our short passes now seem to be have the QB run backwards 10 yards then flip a screen to a RB 5 yards behind the line, counting on him to make people miss...OR...throw a quick out to the sideline for a 1 yard gain.

Thoughts?

I completely agree with what you are saying. It makes no sense to me why we haven't integrated more short and intermediate passes into the gameplans. We haven't done it the past two seasons and haven't shown any signs of changing this season.

We know that the running game isn't as strong as in years past; there are reasons to be optimistic, but we cannot and should not fully rely on that aspect of the offense. Especially when we have weapons that can get it done if they are properly utilized. Last season, Henderson against ODU: 8/120/1 TD; against Coastal: 9/135/1 TD. But there were also long stretches of drop offs last season, just like there have been this season. Hopefully he steps his game up and the coaching staff begins utilizing him more. The same thing could be said about the TEs; they have been essentially extra blockers that generally get three or four targets combined per game.

[ballcoach15]

I have not been totally happy with the "run game" since Jennings left. Sure there have been good games by RBs here and there, but run game has been stalled for the most part.

[BJWilliams]

AA had potential to be a very good back...his problem was he couldnt get his off the field crap straight and then he got hurt.

[PAmedic]

White red white this weekend.

We're wasting our best uniform on Brevard. Boo that.

[jbock13]

But the athletics department is trying to get really hyped for this game!!!!!

[Purple Haize]

Another worthless stat
This is the first time LU has played the same opponent in back to back home games.

[SuperJon]

That may be the cheesiest football promo I've ever seen.

[BJWilliams]

As far as our offensive problems, I've heard that the strategy is to get 4 yards on a first down run.

That's fine. Has anyone noticed, however, that we don't seem to have many 4-5 yard pass plays in our offense? It's almost like we have to run in that situation...if we do throw, we may make the first down, but it's a throw 10+ yards downfield. Most of our throws seem to be mid-range or long range...with an occasional pass to the TE thrown in. I wish that we would use this game to work on short passes. For example, in a 3rd and 4 situation...a pass that just gets us past the sticks.

Our current short pass plays...the little bubble screen, etc...HAVE NOT BEEN WORKING...at least as they have been drawn up. I support Turner Gill and his staff!! However, the one thing I miss about Beecher's offense is LU seemed to have had a bunch of these little pass pass plays where we would line up with three receivers on one side...and two of the receivers would run routes...but they were basically just setting some picks for the third receiver (I know that's technically offensive intereference...but they did a good job of just basically making space), and then we would throw these 4-5 yard passes underneath.

Our short passes now seem to be have the QB run backwards 10 yards then flip a screen to a RB 5 yards behind the line, counting on him to make people miss...OR...throw a quick out to the sideline for a 1 yard gain.

Thoughts?

I completely agree with what you are saying. It makes no sense to me why we haven't integrated more short and intermediate passes into the gameplans. We haven't done it the past two seasons and haven't shown any signs of changing this season.

We know that the running game isn't as strong as in years past; there are reasons to be optimistic, but we cannot and should not fully rely on that aspect of the offense. Especially when we have weapons that can get it done if they are properly utilized. Last season, Henderson against ODU: 8/120/1 TD; against Coastal: 9/135/1 TD. But there were also long stretches of drop offs last season, just like there have been this season. Hopefully he steps his game up and the coaching staff begins utilizing him more. The same thing could be said about the TEs; they have been essentially extra blockers that generally get three or four targets combined per game.

While I agree with your thought that we cannot rely fully on the run game, I said above that the short passing game can be used as an extension of the run game because, when done properly, a bubble screen or other short pass is basically an extended handoff. At that point, it's the job of the receivers to the side of the pass to make those initial blocks to allow for the runner to exploit the space that he has been given.If those blocks are not there, the force player is able to make a play minimizing the potential gain. If anything needs to be worked on, its the blocking on those screen plays.

Example:

If it's a trips bunch formation to the wide side with Gabe the top of the triangle, and the playcall is a bubble screen to him, it will be the job of the other two receivers (let's say Petey and Dante) to get those initial blocks on the outside (this is of course assuming the line, TE and the RB all do their jobs as well) and allow for Gabe to then get upfield once the ball is in his hands in space.

[bluejacket]

While I agree with your thought that we cannot rely fully on the run game, I said above that the short passing game can be used as an extension of the run game because, when done properly, a bubble screen or other short pass is basically an extended handoff. At that point, it's the job of the receivers to the side of the pass to make those initial blocks to allow for the runner to exploit the space that he has been given.If those blocks are not there, the force player is able to make a play minimizing the potential gain. If anything needs to be worked on, its the blocking on those screen plays.

Example:

If it's a trips bunch formation to the wide side with Gabe the top of the triangle, and the playcall is a bubble screen to him, it will be the job of the other two receivers (let's say Petey and Dante) to get those initial blocks on the outside (this is of course assuming the line, TE and the RB all do their jobs as well) and allow for Gabe to then get upfield once the ball is in his hands in space.

See what I bolded. You're missing the point. I understand what they are trying to do with the play that we are discussing. But the play is not being executed properly and it hasn't been executed properly for 2+ seasons. Virtually every time we run that play, its a jailbreak on the receiver/running back (usually RB) and we get hammered for a loss or very short gain.

Schematically, it is not a bad play. But we have to integrate more short and intermediate plays in the passing attack in order to keep the opposing defense off balance. That is the only hope that we have for that play to work at all in its current state since we have shown that we are determined to keep running it.

[BJWilliams]

Like I said later, everybody has to do their job. If the screen is to the trail wide receiver in the bunch set (or any other trips alignment), then the other two receivers have to make those initial blocks creating additional space for the third receiver to operate. I do agree that we need to use more short and intermediate plays, but should we do that, its important that everybody understands their blocking assignments, not just the linemen

[bluejacket]

Like I said later, everybody has to do their job. If the screen is to the trail wide receiver in the bunch set (or any other trips alignment), then the other two receivers have to make those initial blocks creating additional space for the third receiver to operate. I do agree that we need to use more short and intermediate plays, but should we do that, its important that everybody understands their blocking assignments, not just the linemen

Good Lord. Not every short or intermediate pass play comes out of trips or bunch or requires that the WRs block down field.

I don't really care what specific plays they come up with. All I know is that this particular play does not work in its current state.

[BJWilliams]

True...I think I should have more focused on the screen game but that was my mistake

[JK37]

For what it's worth, BJ, while true to form you have continue down this rabbit hole way further than anyone needs, I think your initial analysis of the wide receiver stuff is some of your best work. And I'm being totally serious. It's easier reading this stuff from you than some of the other stuff. Keep up the good work.

I know I give you a hard time about some of your other stuff, so I figure it's only fair to point out when I think you're on the right track.

[BJWilliams]

Thanks JK...after being around HS football for a few years and taking two semesters of coaching football with Dr Cohu, I really became more a student of football than just a fan.

[bluejacket]

True...I think I should have more focused on the screen game but that was my mistake

Yeah, I don't mean to bash you or call you out in that aspect of the offense. You are spot on in recognizing that the WRs need to block better in these type of plays. They are a major factor in why those plays function so poorly.

My point is that the entire offense needs to develop better in the overall passing attack.