forums

Closer look at our OL play

Lu, they could be still searching or they could have seen the FAU game as another practice. I realize an Oline has to gel, but trying out a few combinations against an inferior team to get the bench guys experience makes a lot of sense in case someone goes down.

I will be interested to see if the rotation is reduced against UF. I suspect it will be.
 
Advertisement
I wonder if 1 single OL criticizer actually knows how to grade OL play, rewatched each play and graded them, or if they just notice the bad plays from memory and random youtube videos?
 
It has nothing to do with grading them. It has everything to do with the fact they they did not dominate an inferior line...once again.
 
Ok so it has nothign to do with results and nothing to do with grading them, which is universally how you tell if a player did well.

Ok

sounds like a joke to me
 
The results were that two runs accounted for 115 yards of the total and they got stuffed on two 4th down plays by FAU!!!
I'm not trying to bash them, but I'm really sick of a line with their size and experience not being able to take over a game.
 
Advertisement
52CANES said:
I wonder if 1 single OL criticizer actually knows how to grade OL play, rewatched each play and graded them, or if they just notice the bad plays from memory and random youtube videos?
Click to expand...

It's impossible to legitimately grade an OLineman's play without knowing the specific play called. That's obviously kept in mind when giving observations.

If you're suggesting we don't offer observations and reduce the discussion on this or any football subject, then I have to wonder if this is the right board for you.
 
Well considering that golden DOES know the play, and DOES know that and said they didnt pretty well would leave me to question your point.

Now you got this clown that wants to take out all the big runs when figuring out if an OL did well.... like do you seriously read this board? Maybe I AM on the wrong board.

Lets see when determining if OL played well or not:

Throw out the results, they don't matter
Throw out the big runs, because... because I'm not sure why.. i guess we only look at the bad plays

So what are we grading them on the 5 plays you remember they did bad or are we talking about theiir success as a whole for the game? The argument against the OL is just grasping at straws this week.

Are we grading them on the time the ref can't see a TD and the times the whole backup line was in there?
 
52CANES said:
Well considering that golden DOES know the play, and DOES know that and said they didnt pretty well would leave me to question your point.

Now you got this clown that wants to take out all the big runs when figuring out if an OL did well.... like do you seriously read this board? Maybe I AM on the wrong board.

Lets see when determining if OL played well or not:

Throw out the results, they don't matter
Throw out the big runs, because... because I'm not sure why.. i guess we only look at the bad plays

So what are we grading them on the 5 plays you remember they did bad or are we talking about theiir success as a whole for the game? The argument against the OL is just grasping at straws this week.

Are we grading them on the time the ref can't see a TD and the times the whole backup line was in there?
Click to expand...

First of all, Golden himself noted some issues with OL play.

More importantly...

This is a football message board. People are here to discuss football. You have a problem with someone saying "throw out the big runs?" Address it. Tell the poster why you don't think it makes sense. There are also observations in this thread that are positive. Don't suggest less discussion.
 
I'm not suggesting less discussion I was suggesting someone evaluate the play based on the entirety of the game... if its about free discussion why don't you let me discuss what I want to discuss and the other people can discuss what they want to discuss and you can get off my back instead of telling me about how internet message boards work. I'm quite aware, i have been using them for 20 years. Longer than most of the reporters on this site have been alive.
 
Advertisement
52CANES said:
I'm not suggesting less discussion I was suggesting someone evaluate the play based on the entirety of the game... if its about free discussion why don't you let me discuss what I want to discuss and the other people can discuss what they want to discuss and you can get off my back instead of telling me about how internet message boards work. I'm quite aware, i have been using them for 20 years. Longer than most of the reporters on this site have been alive.
Click to expand...

I wasn't on your back until I politely asked you to let people give their observations. You seem like a special case since you've been using internet message boards since 1993, so by all means please ruin the board discussion as much as you'd like. It's your show.
 
Didn't watch the whole video but he looked pretty good to me.

Honestly, we need to be more worried about Flowers and Bunche cause they were beat several times in that game. Bunche is just flat-out mediocre in my opinion. I don't see the attraction, other than his size.
 
I guess you didn't know there was internet before Windows XP. Nothing special about it other than being old'ish.

I was only giving my observation, your issue you must have is that it doesn't agree with yours. In fact, in my post, I was ASKING for people's observations based on whole game. You had it right when you said "IF you're suggesting we don't offer observations and reduce the discussion on this or any football subject..."

Well the answer is that is not what i said did you see that anywhere in my post? NO. I simply asked a question, which by definition is designed to get an answer.. which is kind of the beginning of a c o n v e r s a t i o n.

Here's 5 posts where you ruined the board discussion with a stupid back and forth by making assumptions... we all know what happens when we assume.
 
WildcatDefense said:
Didn't watch the whole video but he looked pretty good to me.

Honestly, we need to be more worried about Flowers and Bunche cause they were beat several times in that game. Bunche is just flat-out mediocre in my opinion. I don't see the attraction, other than his size.
Click to expand...

Bunche would be my first guy off the bench.
 
Advertisement
52CANES said:
I guess you didn't know there was internet before Windows XP. Nothing special about it other than being old'ish.

I was only giving my observation, your issue you must have is that it doesn't agree with yours. In fact, in my post, I was ASKING for people's observations based on whole game. You had it right when you said "IF you're suggesting we don't offer observations and reduce the discussion on this or any football subject..."

Well the answer is that is not what i said did you see that anywhere in my post? NO. I simply asked a question, which by definition is designed to get an answer.. which is kind of the beginning of a c o n v e r s a t i o n.

Here's 5 posts where you ruined the board discussion with a stupid back and forth by making assumptions... we all know what happens when we assume.
Click to expand...

Good luck. PM me if you'd like to discuss further.
 
So this question is for anyone, whether you thought the OL did well, poor, or undetermined: What percentage of plays would the OL player need to do well on for you to consider them to have done a good job? Do they have to be perfect? I'm curious because that won't happen.

If you can't say if they did good because you don't know the play call then how can you say the did bad except for obvious plays?

Why would anyone take out the great, big plays and not take out the brain fart plays?
 
umhurricano said:
Lu, they could be still searching or they could have seen the FAU game as another practice. I realize an Oline has to gel, but trying out a few combinations against an inferior team to get the bench guys experience makes a lot of sense in case someone goes down.

I will be interested to see if the rotation is reduced against UF. I suspect it will be.
Click to expand...

i think, alright i hope, this is the case, with this unit and every other unit. i too expect less rotation other than to deal with being winded, hurt or situational substitutions.
 
Advertisement
52CANES said:
So this question is for anyone, whether you thought the OL did well, poor, or undetermined: What percentage of plays would the OL player need to do well on for you to consider them to have done a good job? Do they have to be perfect? I'm curious because that won't happen.

If you can't say if they did good because you don't know the play call then how can you say the did bad except for obvious plays?

Why would anyone take out the great, big plays and not take out the brain fart plays?
Click to expand...

Your questions come across a bit belligerent, but I'll play in the hopes this thread gets back on track.

Firstly, I agree that no one should take out great/big plays out of any assessment. Frankly, the end result of the runner's yardage isn't a primary concern. Whether Duke breaks down a guy in the open field and it leads to 40 or 50 or if he's tackled for 8, when people on here are discussing OL, they're not really discussing the difference in those yards. Like I mentioned earlier, because we don't know the play call, and therefore can't grade the assignment, all that can be offered are observations.

In pass blocking, a message board poster can see if an OLineman is reaching, on balance, has a good punch, or any of the other things any of the OL guys here will tell you.

In run blocking, depending on the play, you'll see observations about whether a guy completely whiffed in space, whether a lineman is firing out or slow as heck out of his stance, whether he's on balance, etc. In some of the more obvious play calls, like zone schemes, you can see whether a lineman gets to his spot, engages a defender, holds his block and generally how he's working with the OL next to him. On power plays or other pull plays, you can at the very least note what an OL does in finding a defender and how clumsy/coordinated he is in getting to his spot. Those are some examples.

My hope is you'll give a substantive answer and this becomes a discussion.
 
Last edited:
So then, in pass blocking, how many plays did you see the OL reach, on/off balance, good/bad punch, or any of those other things? Based on how many bad observed plays vs how many good observed plays, would you say the OL did good or bad considering your observations?

In run blocking, how many plays would you say the OL whiffed in space, were slow off the ball, unbalanced, etc? Based on your observations of the OL play, to the extend we as viewers/fans can observe, how many were good plays and how many were bad plays? Overall would you consider that they did a good job or a bad job based, limited of course by the possible information available to a fan watching without the playbook and call sheet in front of them?

Based on limited available information fans have the ability to gather, which OLinemen had overall "good" game and which had overall "bad" game?

Is it a "bad" play for the OL if the D is stacked to the right and SM runs into the stacked side?

And I'll ask again, in your opinion, as a fan, and observer and of course unable to see the playbook and play call sheet, what percent of these plays would you have to say the line did "good" on vs "bad" to consider a "good" overall effort? How many OLmen would have to come out on the "good" side to consider the line play overall "good" for the game? Of course limited by what viewers/fans are limited to based on available information....
 
52CANES said:
So then, in pass blocking, how many plays did you see the OL reach, on/off balance, good/bad punch, or any of those other things? Based on how many bad observed plays vs how many good observed plays, would you say the OL did good or bad considering your observations?

In run blocking, how many plays would you say the OL whiffed in space, were slow off the ball, unbalanced, etc? Based on your observations of the OL play, to the extend we as viewers/fans can observe, how many were good plays and how many were bad plays? Overall would you consider that they did a good job or a bad job based, limited of course by the possible information available to a fan watching without the playbook and call sheet in front of them?

Based on limited available information fans have the ability to gather, which OLinemen had overall "good" game and which had overall "bad" game?

Is it a "bad" play for the OL if the D is stacked to the right and SM runs into the stacked side?

And I'll ask again, in your opinion, as a fan, and observer and of course unable to see the playbook and play call sheet, what percent of these plays would you have to say the line did "good" on vs "bad" to consider a "good" overall effort? How many OLmen would have to come out on the "good" side to consider the line play overall "good" for the game? Of course limited by what viewers/fans are limited to based on available information....
Click to expand...

I'd like for you to offer your observations. Maybe we can all learn a lot from you. Looking forward to it.
 
The offense had 300 yards of rushing in their first game with a new OC. That doesn't happen if your O-line sucks. **** the offense had 500 yards of offense in their first game back with a new OC. Could the performance have been better? Sure!

Let's also keep in mind that the offense put up those numbers in 3 quarters of play with a very watered down playbook. I expect UF to get the full playbook and the team will be ready to go. It's hard to put it all together against an inferior team in the opening game knowing you got a big game the following week.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top