forums

Misleading rushing totals

Advertisement
ageezy said:
we ran for 338 ....

and king handed off on the mesh 95% of the time ...

if he kept and made the right read we would have rushed for 400+ ... in our first game ... with no spring ball ... against a defense that was top 25 against the run

we ran for 51 yards against central michigan

not a debbie downer or a pumper, but i think we can all agree on these facts
Click to expand...
In Gus's O (Rhett's also) they determine a majority of the keeps. they add a lock call to take the decision out of the Q's hand.
 
DTP said:
I hate when people make these types of statements. “If you take away all the good plays, the offense wasn’t that good”. Yeah, no **** Sherlock.
Click to expand...
Yeah but the point is we played a G5 team with serious athletic deficiencies. Our ACC foes are more athletic. If we’re projecting into the future, which is what we fans do, I don’t think we bust out that many long *** runs against more athletic defenses. Those 40 yard runs are 10 or 15 yards, and that could change the game. The stat just confirms what we all saw: we can’t lineup and run the ball consistently. Period.

On the other hand, we literally ran the ball over and over and over again. We were predictable and that hurt our numbers. Hopefully we are more creative with our run calls and open up the pass game, which could lead to better play-over-play results.

But I do think the overall rush numbers are misleading: they make us look far more dominant than we actually were.
 
ThomasM said:
We won't have to worry about rushing for 300 a game once teams realize we can't take the top off their D.
Click to expand...
we showed it a few times to keep them honest...King was just off a couple of times. King will start hitting some of those. His throws were a bit off, especially the one in the end zone to a wide open receiver. That is uncharacteristic of King.
 
JohnZarrilli said:
Yeah but the point is we played a G5 team with serious athletic deficiencies. Our ACC foes are more athletic. If we’re projecting into the future, which is what we fans do, I don’t think we bust out that many long *** runs against more athletic defenses. Those 40 yard runs are 10 or 15 yards, and that could change the game. The stat just confirms what we all saw: we can’t lineup and run the ball consistently. Period.

On the other hand, we literally ran the ball over and over and over again. Hopefully we are more creative with our run calls and open up the pass game, which could lead to better play-over-play results.

But I do think the overall rush numbers are misleading: they make us look far more dominant than we actually were.
Click to expand...
Louisville next week will be a worse defense than UAB. But I do agree with a lot of your post. The rushing game was strong but could be more consistent. Also, the play calling was incredibly vanilla which led to a lot of those 1 yard runs into a stacked box. They probably ran basic inside zone with no QB read 40 times. I fully expect to see more variety in coming weeks. We got a glimpse of what to expect in the 3rd quarter and then they shut it down.
 
Advertisement
caneholic88 said:
Our most talented players on O sans brevin are the rb’s and king’s legs and Lashlee went to them, uab wanted no mas near the end of the 3rd..I’ll roll with 300+ game rushing and low passing numbers all day.
Click to expand...
That worked fine against UAB. How is it going to work against teams that go after our run game first and make us beat them through the air? We simply need to be able to pass the ball. This isn't 1975.

There is time to work on things, but I saw a LOT of work needed to be competitive in ACC play. Our passing game needs to work in order for this O to run smoothly long term, so here's hoping they get it fixed. King has a nice arm, but something seemed really off in the passing game. More than just a couple missed passes, it was the inability to even get a guy open. That needs fixing.
 
AllAboutTheU said:
We had fans saying if you take away D’Eriq King, then the game is close. Like what hypothetical calls for taking away our Heisman watchlist QB? Just stupid.
Click to expand...
Most teams would suck if you take away their best players. Like, yeah the offense would not have looked good with Perry instead of King. That’s why King is a starter and all American caliber and Perry is a mediocre backup.
 
Salt said:
we showed it a few times to keep them honest...King was just off a couple of times. King will start hitting some of those. His throws were a bit off, especially the one in the end zone to a wide open receiver. That is uncharacteristic of King.
Click to expand...
It wasn't just the two misses. All game long there was just no one to throw the ball to. That wasn't all on King. The plays just were not there at all in the passing game, and they should have been with the rushing game doing so well.

Here's hoping it was just first game jitters and it all gets worked out. We will need better than what I saw last night in the passing game to compete in the ACC.
 
The Franchise said:
Coaches might be telling King to err on the side of handing off. They might want to limit his exposure to too many hits, especially against a team we should beat. You'll notice Clemson didn't run Lawrence hardly all year and then in the playoffs he was running like crazy.
Click to expand...
Alot of coaches do that.. Clemson has been doing it for years since Tajh Boyd at QB. In big games they basically tell their qbs they are LIVE.

https://www.bannersociety.com/2020/...nse-trevor-lawrence-deshaun-watson-qb-running


https://rubbingtherock.com/2017/07/12/clemson-football-film-room-designed-quarterback-runs/

The bind is created for the defense when you cant single up Sammy Watkins, Deandre hopkins, Martavis Bryant, Mike Williams, Tee Higgins, Justyn Ross, etc.. You get a light box and numbers.. Make it tough on DC to pick your poison
 
Last edited:
Trav said:
I mean.. big runs count. That's why you keep running the ball.
Click to expand...
I agree with both. I didn't think the offensive line blocked that great. It was better than last year for sure and it's only game 1. However, there were a bunch of dive plays that went nowhere. I didn't see a lot of push from the O-Line. They held their blocks on good runs, but didn't reset the line of scrimmage. The fast paced scheme helped wear down the UAB defense in the 2nd half where chunk runs began to pop.

Also, King saved 2-3 "would be" sacks with his athleticism. For most QBs, I think it would have been a 4-5 sack night.

The O-Line wasn't bad. I think we all were hoping for a bigger leap forward. Let's see if they improve and by how much against Louisville.
 
Advertisement
ThomasM said:
It wasn't just the two misses. All game long there was just no one to throw the ball to. That wasn't all on King. The plays just were not there at all in the passing game, and they should have been with the rushing game doing so well.

Here's hoping it was just first game jitters and it all gets worked out. We will need better than what I saw last night in the passing game to compete in the ACC.
Click to expand...
If you take away King's scrambles the rbs had 38 attempts while there were 26 passing attempts between King and Perry. This seemed to me a concerted effort to get the ground game going while picking spots to throw. I don't think it was because guys weren't open. It just seemed that was the emphasis in the game plan.

Want to see how the offense will open up against Louisville. I agree though that we will need more balance against ACC opponents.
 
Last edited:
Salt said:
If you take away King's scrambles the rbs had 38 attempts while their were 26 passing attempts between King and Perry. This seemed to me a concerted effort to get the ground game going while picking spots to throw. I don't think it was because guys weren't open. It just seemed that was the emphasis in the game plan.

Want to see how the offense will open up against Louisville. I agree though that we will need more balance against ACC opponents.
Click to expand...
I hope that was the plan for UAB and UAB alone. I just don't know if I believe we would be that vanilla in our one warmup game, you know?
 
Back
Top