forums

Offensive Gameplan.. .

Torocane said:
Its not about formations...we didnt do anything to try to get a favorable match up. Instead we kept going over and over again to the match uos that we weren't winning...inside run and wr vertical route outside the hash. We didnt try a single RB screen...something you usually do against preasure....tried two WR screens....didn't move the pocket at all. Just sat there static waiting for the preazure to get to King. Didnt try throwing to our RB's...a match up we could win...nothing. We just played right into what they were doing.
Click to expand...
All of this! Nailed it
 
Advertisement
I really think no one could get separation, no one. Not Mallory or Jordan or any WR. Their CBs completely dominated our guys which left the O one dimensional and predictable.
 
I thought we were in trouble when we ran a trick pass from Brevin to Mallory on our opening drive, after King had already been sacked. On his first pass attempt.
 
Clemson did what we should have down. Quick pass and screen us to death. Then throw the bombs once we get everyone creeping up.
I have no clue what Lashlee was trying to do but it was awful. It should be a good learning experience for him and the team. Let’s go take care of business and see if we can get the rematch in the ship.
 
Offensive game plan was trash but I fully expect them to bounce back. The defense on the other hand has real issues. Outside of FSU they have looked bad all season long. Outside of Stroud all of the other coaches should be fired after the season!
 
Advertisement
Yall talkinh abt getting creative?? They can barely line up on the 5 plays we run now. Yall must have forgot enos started with all that motion last year and we couldnt get the snap off. This 3 diff OCs and one common denominator. Only thing real different is King. That boy nice! You saw when kosi got in what happened??? He threw a pic to a future hedge fund manager.
 
dukebeeasy305 said:
No King was late with the ball and I stated Wiggins should have fought for the ball to bail King out
Click to expand...
King doesn’t throw a good deep ball. He’s often late with throws on all levels. Even screens he’s been late. My qualm with King is he doesn’t get air underneath the ball on the deep throws. He waits too long
(as you mentioned) AND he throws bullets. It reminds me a ton of Robert Marve.

I still think Wiggins was at fault for the INT. That particular throw was actually one of King’s better deep balls. Even if it was a hair late. Wiggins fell down with minimal contact instead of adjusting. An average P5 WR at least knocks that down. A good P5 WR adjusts and catches that ball for a TD.
 
hoover437 said:
This is what my eyes saw!!! Clemson was very creative in their play calling, even Fowler commented on it!! I would have thought with 2 weeks off we would have had a few more serious wrinkles
Click to expand...
You can have all the wrinkles you want but when your oline is getting blown up, there isn’t threat of a run game. Add receivers that can’t get open or battle for the ball, the only “wrinkle” in your ****nal is prayer
 
Advertisement
atlcane72 said:
Cam would have got that first. The backer was being blocked and Rooster put his head down as soon as he got the ball. Ran right into it. Needed patience there.
Click to expand...

That was my issue - Rooster is the least physical runner of the 3 guys right now. Burns would have been a better call with his size and physical nature....but Cam or Chaney should have gotten the call.
 
Our receivers can't shake * * * *.

And if there's a ball there for the taking - they don't take it - or drop it. And stay on the field.

They're not hungry.

Put the young players in. They're hungry.
 
ChoadCane said:
The Wiggins play in the endzone to start the 2nd half was one the most pussified and egregious plays I've ever witnessed in my Cane fandom. I mean he literally flopped and HOPED to get bailed out by the refs
Click to expand...
Awful. He tripped over himself and fell on his face. If you are the wr and you aren't going to make the catch then you must breakup the interception.
 
Advertisement
caneinorlando said:
There's certain positions at UM (WRs and LBers) that for the life of me would I have ever thought would regress like it has...
Click to expand...
I agree. But you gotta look at the reasons for it. We've allowed ourselves to be dragged down by poison. We have a staff that has some very competent pieces. We also have dudes in pivotal roles that have no business being where they are. Several of them the case could be made that they don't belong in this profession period. Kids that actually play the game and have solid coaching in younger years realize the holes we have and that in large part their position isn't schematically designed to showcase their strengths. Wr we are and will get substantially better at once likens has the time with these kids to grasp who's who in game situations. Likens you should have confidence in. I would've liked to see him working with nephew. What we see out of that unit or don't in most cases is defined by the lack of time king has due to the constant ****ers of the online. Its been our problem for far longer than I care to comment on. Offensive side of the ball isn't the weakness long-term. Just gotta fix that oline. Defense I'm not gonna chime in on.
 
HurikaneMarc said:
He had no choice. Venables is aware of our weakness. He stacked the box and dared our receivers to beat their corners while pressuring a bad OL with a much more talented DL. Clemson didn't have weaknesses to scheme around. To truly compete with the Clemsons of the world we have to have players that can win 1 on 1's and right now on offense almost none of our starters can beat a Clemson starter 1 on 1.

With their motivation to stomp our skulls in every single time along with a serious talent advantage, we should thank our defense for keeping the game manageable most of the way. There's not one guy on our offense who would start at Clemson.
Click to expand...
While yes I'll agree he had no choice. Its not because we can't win one on ones. Its two things. #1 lashlee system is based on power run. Only way to get power run going is the oline winning snaps and getting down field. Crazy part to that is 8 out of 10 the line is zone blocking. Lmfao
#2 the oline is a turnstile they can't hold the edge which allows the pocket to collapse. King ALWAYS has to get mobile.
Hindsight lashlee system is a huge problem against well coached teams. So yeah venables exploited the weaknesses in his scheme. Same as their oc did against our d by beating us with EXACTLY WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO RUN IDEALLY. I wonder how many realized that. They realized our defensive strength is our ends. So they initially chipped jaelan on a regular with the tight end helping on roche meanwhile they ran short underneath routes designed to get the ball out quick under pressure. Its all day exactly what we wanted to do. Difference is they are coached well enough to pull it off because their line is good enough and their backs are competent in pass protection. This game wasn't about our kids in large part. It was about putting the kids you do have schematically in a position to succeed. Y'all constantly wanna blame the kids than pick and choose coaches to snap on. Its not a coincidence **** near all of our skill position kids were recruited by most in the country. If you really believe they're all missed evals than youre not holding coaches responsible when they should be.
 
Advertisement
dsddcane said:
While yes I'll agree he had no choice. Its not because we can't win one on ones. Its two things. #1 lashlee system is based on power run. Only way to get power run going is the oline winning snaps and getting down field. Crazy part to that is 8 out of 10 the line is zone blocking. Lmfao
#2 the oline is a turnstile they can't hold the edge which allows the pocket to collapse. King ALWAYS has to get mobile.
Hindsight lashlee system is a huge problem against well coached teams. So yeah venables exploited the weaknesses in his scheme. Same as their oc did against our d by beating us with EXACTLY WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO RUN IDEALLY. I wonder how many realized that. They realized our defensive strength is our ends. So they initially chipped jaelan on a regular with the tight end helping on roche meanwhile they ran short underneath routes designed to get the ball out quick under pressure. Its all day exactly what we wanted to do. Difference is they are coached well enough to pull it off because their line is good enough and their backs are competent in pass protection. This game wasn't about our kids in large part. It was about putting the kids you do have schematically in a position to succeed. Y'all constantly wanna blame the kids than pick and choose coaches to snap on. Its not a coincidence **** near all of our skill position kids were recruited by most in the country. If you really believe they're all missed evals than youre not holding coaches responsible when they should be.
Click to expand...
I agree with most of that. The coaching was awful. The coaching has been awful for a long time. Clemson’s scheme was even more thought out than that though. They knew we’d shoot gaps and their OL froze to let guys pass. We’ve never even attempted that. There’s never been a bigger display of being out coached than this game.
How many easy balls would King have had if we played two TE sets on the LOS all game. We could’ve mixed it up having them block, run routes, and switching it up. Venerial’s would’ve stopped blitzing immediately and it would’ve opened the run game.
 
dsddcane said:
While yes I'll agree he had no choice. Its not because we can't win one on ones. Its two things. #1 lashlee system is based on power run. Only way to get power run going is the oline winning snaps and getting down field. Crazy part to that is 8 out of 10 the line is zone blocking. Lmfao
#2 the oline is a turnstile they can't hold the edge which allows the pocket to collapse. King ALWAYS has to get mobile.
Hindsight lashlee system is a huge problem against well coached teams. So yeah venables exploited the weaknesses in his scheme. Same as their oc did against our d by beating us with EXACTLY WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO RUN IDEALLY. I wonder how many realized that. They realized our defensive strength is our ends. So they initially chipped jaelan on a regular with the tight end helping on roche meanwhile they ran short underneath routes designed to get the ball out quick under pressure. Its all day exactly what we wanted to do. Difference is they are coached well enough to pull it off because their line is good enough and their backs are competent in pass protection. This game wasn't about our kids in large part. It was about putting the kids you do have schematically in a position to succeed. Y'all constantly wanna blame the kids than pick and choose coaches to snap on. Its not a coincidence **** near all of our skill position kids were recruited by most in the country. If you really believe they're all missed evals than youre not holding coaches responsible when they should be.
Click to expand...
I believe that if Lashlee had a Jerry Jeudy(and King could hit a deep ball) he could have found a hole in the Clemson defense. I'm not absolving Lashlee but Clemson clearly has 2 or 3 day 1 draft guys on offense alone. It helps
 
datcaneguy said:
If the wideouts caught at least three of those deep balls Venerables would of eased up on the zero coverage and spreaded out his defense more. The wideouts didn’t so he just lined 8 in the box and blitzed more than we could block. Lashlee say all week, make the congested catches, and the wideouts didn’t. The gameplan started and ended with the wideouts.
Click to expand...

THIS
 
ramumcane said:
Our best match against them was the TEs (Brevin/Mallory) against their LBs and not taken advantage
Click to expand...

They would be "best matches" if it was only against their LBs. They bracketed Jordan and instead dared us to throw against 1x1 coverage against Pope, harley etc.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top