forums

Dawson is fed up with the inside run talk

Advertisement
Cribby said:
Work harder not smarter
Click to expand...
Nah beating Stanford 42-7 and running for almost 200 yards against a glorified g5 squad shows we solved our issues.

Just like last year….different issues of course, but same mentality

IMG_0519.png
 
SIBCanes said:
Really?? 4 interceptions seemed to be a bigger reason.. But go hate!!
Click to expand...
Why did we have to throw the ball that much? Are you really buying that we don’t just focus on the inside run? Teams know how to stop our running attack and anyone with even average DL play is gonna hold us under 100 yards until we actually mix up our play calling.
 
PennsylvaniaCane said:
1 because it’s against Stanford
2 because it’s entirely predictable and will happen more and more
3 because doing something different would have led to a first down
Click to expand...
Last year we converted 16/19 runs on 3rd/4th & 2 or less yards to go. The three we missed on 3rd we converted on 4th 100% of the time.

This year we missed 2 out of our first three against ND (Bauman blowing the wham block on the first drive & Brown cutting when he didn't need to on the second drive of the 3rd quarter).

Since then we went 14/16 on such runs until the play in question against Stanford. (yes I just checked, am a sicko) One of those misses was against FSU on 3rd and short, which we got on 4th. The other was Fletcher's 3rd down run just before this play.

So 16 times last year we had 3rd/4th & 2 or less yards to go and we converted every time. This year we had converted 14 times in a row in those situations. There is nothing wrong with our run game on late downs and 2 or less yards to go.
 
PennsylvaniaCane said:
No we lost to LVille because of predictable play calling causing the inability to run the ball.
Click to expand...

never thought I'd say this to a blind man, but you're lucky

apparently you missed all 4 backbreaking interceptions, including the one that was thrown while we were in field goal range to tie the game with time outs in our pocket
 
Advertisement
PennsylvaniaCane said:
Nah beating Stanford 42-7 and running for almost 200 yards against a glorified g5 squad shows we solved our issues.

Just like last year….different issues of course, but same mentality

View attachment 341039
Click to expand...
what were our issues last year?

we were 2nd in the nation in rushing yards per attempt

did our rush game give up a 21-0 lead vs Syracuse? or was it the fact that our defense was Swiss cheese?

every post just gets dumber and dumber
 
I thoroughly enjoyed hearing Dawson take apart people who know less about football than him, who don’t have any actual solutions, and don’t even truly understand the “problems” they are asking him about.

I do appreciate reporters asking tough questions, but they need to understand the game better.
 
Coach Macho said:
Didn't read the whole thread but he's right.
Outside zone seldom hits OUTSIDE.

Honestly there aren't that many options for outside run. Most OC's use jet sweeps or the perimeter passing game to get the ball outside. (i.e. bubbles)
Click to expand...
Uh oh, you are about to make some heads blow up by offering actual information.
 
407cane said:
what were our issues last year?

we were 2nd in the nation in rushing yards per attempt

did our rush game give up a 21-0 lead vs Syracuse? or was it the fact that our defense was Swiss cheese?

every post just gets dumber and dumber
Click to expand...
We had similar issues in the early season with the run game if you take away one long run by a backup and cams rushing last year. It opened up in ACC play. I distinctly remember complaining that Martinez need a wide zone scheme to excel. They unit improved as the season progressed.

Our run game was fine first 4-5 games this year.

Moral of the story....if it's working.....it's fun to watch the team demoralize the defense. If it's not, it's aggravating as **** to watch.
 
Last edited:
It’s a bit concerning how the playcallers don’t see that we have almost zero variety in the run game. The whole point of what all the fans are saying, is if you do a toss sweep, or misdirection ect and get the ball outside on purpose, it can help spread the defense and open up the middle even more, why is this so hard for Miami coaches to understand?
 
Advertisement
AtlAtty said:
I thoroughly enjoyed hearing Dawson take apart people who know less about football than him, who don’t have any actual solutions, and don’t even truly understand the “problems” they are asking him about.

I do appreciate reporters asking tough questions, but they need to understand the game better.
Click to expand...
The reporters understand the outcome they are seeing but struggled to identify the root cause. It's condensed sets and small splits.

Teams with wide zone still hit their B gaps on cut backs in outside zone...it just so happens that their B gap is where our c/d gap starts.

Dawson knew what the reporters meant....he just preferred to **** on them instead of addressing why we doesnt prefer wide splits or wide zone. An easy answer he could've said was....our linemans strength is when we are in tight double team alignment and tight splits are why our pass blocking is so good and we don't want to tip off the D.
 
ristwasdown said:
The reporters understand what they are seeing but struggled to identify the root cause. It's condensed sets and small splits.

Teams with wide zone still hit their B gaps on cut backs...it just so happens that their B gap is where our c/d gap starts.

Dawson knew what the reporters meant....he just preferred to **** on them instead of addressing why we doesnt prefer wide splits or wide zone. An easy answer he could've said was....our linemans strength is when we are in tight double team alignment and tight splits are why our pass blocking is so good and we don't want to tip off the D.
Click to expand...
Yeah he was upset and wanted to make them seem unintelligent. It worked, but I agree with your point that Dawson took advantage of the reporters
 
I think it's possible that what magnifies the problem that many are seeing on our screen…Is that Mark Fletcher (who also has many strengths) can make ANY running play ugly…Even his best runs or when he has space are never pretty. There is just no patience at all, and barely little vision, so if there is a chance that the play is blocked back into him, he won't avoid that first contact and it's a -1 to +2 yarder.

His strengths are size good burst for a big guy, running thru arm tackles, downhill running in the open field, and nice hands outta the back field. He also picks pass protects well.

Weaknesses are: Contact balance (gets tripped up or feet tangled way too easy), no patience at all, and so/so vision. JMO. So if a play is blocked or stuffed, he just doesn't find the whole well and if a defender or blocker is anywhere near his feet it ends up a wasted play.

Now Marty Brown isn't as fast as Fletcher (and nowhere near as fast for lyle)…But is better at making a no gain into a 3 yarder than Fletcher. In fact Brown is actually excellent and one of the best I've seen at this. Better balance, feeet and vision than Fletcher…Just not as big or explosive, he's one of the best backs I've seen that basically doesn't have any top end speed lol.

Brown and Fletcher are close for me, overall I give a slight edge to Brown, but CMC is in love with Fletcher again….I just hope he doesn't cost us a key 4th and 1 down the stretch with his lack of vision. Those situations have to be Brown imo.

Lyle imo has upside to be better than both, because he is the fastest and also has shake…I actually think all 3 are good backs, but Lyle has the tools to be the best, just can he stay healthy and prove to be an inside runner at all, bc basically all his work at UM so far has been done when he gets outside.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top