forums

Barry Jackson notes on Canes

ghost2 said:
See, and I hope it's not. The biggest issue I have with being "multiple" is telegraphing plays based on personnel. While it's all well and good to say "we're going to run it, see if you can stop it", I feel it'd be much better to come out in just a couple formations and make the defense GUESS what you're going to run. If we trot out I-formation only on 3rd and 2 and just hand it to Homer or George every time, that's a waste of a formation, IMO.

If we're going to be a pro-style team a la Bama or UGA let's do that. If we're going to be a spread team a la Clemson or USF let's do that. Just like QBs, I believe if you have a "multiple" identity on offense, you have NO identity on offense. Personally, I think Richt would like to run what he ran his first few years at UGA - pro-style, but with QBs that can extend a play when things get wonky.
Click to expand...

Bama plays the spread more than pro and UGA started to go more spread towards the end of the year and basically played the whole championship game, i feel like that formation is dead we gotta stay with the spread and just add new things to our systme like motions and quick slants and more tempo IMO
 
Advertisement
The Franchise said:
So you judge QBs based on the totality of circumstances, yet you want to take away our close wins because the defense got some turnovers in those games? LOL. You guys are hilarious.

Rosier QB’d the team to 10 wins, not 7 or 8 no matter how badly you want to advance dopey agendas.

Rosier is not very good. I’d love to see someone beat him out, but he was our QB last year. And we had our best year in over a decade. Give the man some credit. You don’t have to make **** up to disparage him. His play spoke for itself.
Click to expand...
No agenda here. Without the defensive turnovers, the offense would have had less possessions with the ball. Some of the turnover were in Miami territory preventing scores. A la UNC, and VT for that matter. Virginia Tech had 2 turnovers in Miami + territory while Rosier threw 3 ints. Those are facts. I didn't even include VT in my analysis towards a possible loss.

The fact is he' does NOT deserve all the credit for the 10 wins NOR all the blame for the 3 losses. If you want to crown his *** a champion go ahead. He is who we thought he was.
 
The Franchise said:
You hyped up Shirreffs last preseason. You saw what he looked like the few times he got in last year. You should be happy we didn’t see more of the backup because the backup was putrefaction.
Click to expand...
You got hyped up and not trashed confused. I said he was doing well in practices, and that he was a smart guy that could compete for the job. I never said he should start, would start, or would set the world on fire if he did start. What I did was stand up for him when the Perry nut swingers were bashing him because he was in Perry's way. There was no need to bash Shirreffs the way people were. You want to talk about hype, look at the Perry supporters. Defending a guy is different than hyping him. You should know the difference.
 
For being such a horrible QB he sure did break that UM TD record with style and lead us to our first 10 win season in an eternity.

Malik is obviously not great but let’s also consider just how much he improved in just one year.

Even guys like D$ who actually watched the team practice admitted how shocking his improvements were.

Is he maxed out? Who can really say? Good news is he has real talent (and work ethic it appears) hot on his heels.

If anything the worst thing about Malik was his lack of focus. He does that this year and he’s out of a job. Not a terrible situation to be in IMO.
 
ghost2 said:
See, and I hope it's not. The biggest issue I have with being "multiple" is telegraphing plays based on personnel. While it's all well and good to say "we're going to run it, see if you can stop it", I feel it'd be much better to come out in just a couple formations and make the defense GUESS what you're going to run. If we trot out I-formation only on 3rd and 2 and just hand it to Homer or George every time, that's a waste of a formation, IMO.

If we're going to be a pro-style team a la Bama or UGA let's do that. If we're going to be a spread team a la Clemson or USF let's do that. Just like QBs, I believe if you have a "multiple" identity on offense, you have NO identity on offense. Personally, I think Richt would like to run what he ran his first few years at UGA - pro-style, but with QBs that can extend a play when things get wonky.
Click to expand...
You must not have watched Bama the past three years
 
Our Depth at RB is finally starting to get to a Championship level. I can see why he wants a I package for this team. Not sure why folks think it has to be one or the other. We can still keep RPO concepts, mixed with a Read option, and with a power running game. We have a lot of pieces on the board, and IMO, we became one dimensional on O, especially after teams realized Rosier (which didn't take that much thinking) was inaccurate as ****. The Identity is winning and putting points on the board. The identity is not being 127th on 3rd downs. When you have an ****nal, you don't rely on one gun to win the war. Might win a battle or two, but you know.

Now the million dollar question is whether the Freshman FB is ready to go against D1 players. I think it may take year to build up that strength and endurance to give us a true weapon at FB.
 
Advertisement
brock said:
Nope that’s not a good excuse, what about the games were teams just drove down the field and got whatever they wanted. Tired doesn’t matter with how much we rotate players in too... we was up 14-3 vs Wisconsin. They was tired then too? Pittsburgh, unc, clemson , uva from the start of the game drove the ball right down our throats, had nothing to do with tiredness
Click to expand...

Correct. If the issue was us just giving it up late in the 4th, he'd have a point, but that wasn't the case at all. We sucked at getting off the field on 3rd down the whole **** game.
 
As far as the sp teams go. I just don't see how Hartley could sit there and see the lack of production from our return game and do absolutely nothing about it all year. It was a total liability. Thomas did next to nothing yet he was allowed to keep the position all season.
That needs to be Dallas' job from the start this season. Thomas looks scared and tentative, and that's not what you need in a kr guy.
 
He didn’t improve at all. He actually regressed badly as the season went on.

JHallCanes said:
For being such a horrible QB he sure did break that UM TD record with style and lead us to our first 10 win season in an eternity.

Malik is obviously not great but let’s also consider just how much he improved in just one year.

Even guys like D$ who actually watched the team practice admitted how shocking his improvements were.

Is he maxed out? Who can really say? Good news is he has real talent (and work ethic it appears) hot on his heels.

If anything the worst thing about Malik was his lack of focus. He does that this year and he’s out of a job. Not a terrible situation to be in IMO.
Click to expand...
 
More I formation and two back is not a cure for the offense. However, there are scenarios where you need en extra tight end and a blocking fullback and not having them last year did hurt the team. On third and inches, the offense should be able to line up in a heavy set and get the first down. Especially against most of the run of the mill ACC defenses we see a majority of the season.

It's not one change that's going to improve the offense, it's got to be a number of things. Having the bodies to run short yardage is one piece. Having a healthy Ahmon Richards and an improved and more experienced receiving corps helps. Talented depth at running back to spell Homer. An improving line with a good mix of veteran experience and youthful talent. Hopefully one of the younger quarterbacks have made the jump and can surpass Rosier as the starter as I personally feel he's hit his ceiling and that's just not good enough to win the ACC.
 
It's hard because we're coming into year 3 and I'm still wondering what Richt's goals are for offensive identity. It seems like he wants to go spread, maybe read-option + RPO based on the types of QBs he's recruited. He's been vocal about wanting a more "mobile" QB (per Jack Allison's dad, if you believe him.) We've seen it with Rosier, more out of necessity than intent. Now he's quoted as saying "we're going back to the I-formation" so I'm just wondering what it is he actually wants to run as our base offense...
 
ScharfCane said:
The biggest problem I had with our offense was time of possession. When we struggled to stay on the field, it affects our defense’s stamina big time. We had way too many 3 n out because of rosier’s inaccurate passing (which also led to opponent to box our run).
Click to expand...
THIS, THIS, & THIS
 
ghost2 said:
It's hard because we're coming into year 3 and I'm still wondering what Richt's goals are for offensive identity. It seems like he wants to go spread, maybe read-option + RPO based on the types of QBs he's recruited. He's been vocal about wanting a more "mobile" QB (per Jack Allison's dad, if you believe him.) We've seen it with Rosier, more out of necessity than intent. Now he's quoted as saying "we're going back to the I-formation" so I'm just wondering what it is he actually wants to run as our base offense...
Click to expand...

From the looks of it, I'm not sure he's sure.
 
Advertisement
Milkcane said:
From the looks of it, I'm not sure he's sure.
Click to expand...
That's my concern. It's one thing to scheme to "players then plays" and I'll grant that Richt has yet to play his guy at QB, but at some point I'd like to see us adopt a system and stick with it.
 
ghost2 said:
It's hard because we're coming into year 3 and I'm still wondering what Richt's goals are for offensive identity. It seems like he wants to go spread, maybe read-option + RPO based on the types of QBs he's recruited. He's been vocal about wanting a more "mobile" QB (per Jack Allison's dad, if you believe him.) We've seen it with Rosier, more out of necessity than intent. Now he's quoted as saying "we're going back to the I-formation" so I'm just wondering what it is he actually wants to run as our base offense...
Click to expand...
I’m thinking we are putting too much stock in his “we’re going back to the I-formation” comment. It was probably a stray comment borne of the frustration with our inability to run the ball when we need to. I don’t think playing football in a phone booth will answer our run woes.

The best run teams in football do it out of spread formations. I always point to Briles’ mastery of the run game, but that’s the model that teams with the access to incredible athletes that UM has should use.
 
Back
Top