Are we running the right type of offense?

[Jmonty71]

If I am duplicating a post, please excuse me. I didn't see anything. My question / topic is this.

Are we running the right type of offense, for the players that we have? The reason why I ask. I re-watched the Clemson game and a couple of games, late last year. I noticed that our offense requires mobile O linemen. I am talking about guards, tackles and centers that simply cannot get where they need to be, to make those blocks down the field. Many times, you see runs fail. It seems that there should be a block set, to free the WR/RB or even QB. What we are seeing are blocks not being made.

I am concerned that we are trying to pound square pegs through a round hole. Instead of finding the right peg, we just keep trying to force the wrong peg through the hole. If we don't have the right players, in place; why keep running a system in which they will fail?

With that said, I don't have a copy of the playbook. I am merely going off, what I learned, from days when I played. I see a scheme that is based off O linemen getting off initial blocks and setting secondary blocks. This is a great scheme and can warrant some huge gains on the ground. However; it requires O linemen, that can move.

 

[ricejacket]

This offense is different than last year and Sims is different/better than Yates. I'd wait a couple of week before doing any year over year comparisons.

 

[BainbridgeJacket]

Chip had some exasperation etched on his face several times during the game that read along the lines of "these guys are ööööups, this worked in practice" particularly when we failed to complete a bubble screen. This was his first time seeing this team in live game action and you have to expect that he'll adjust his game plan around what we do well. I'm still of the thought that somehow we aren't effectively simulating things in practice judging by body language. It's like a band full of individually great musicians who can't get on the same page playing together. The other analogy I used in Geoff's first season: it's like watching a Paul Hewitt team try to inbound the ball.

 

[madRazor]

Why, do you use, so many, commas? It is, just fascinating, to me.

 

[PM Gold]

Chip had some exasperation etched on his face several times during the game that read along the lines of "these guys are ööööups, this worked in practice" particularly when we failed to complete a bubble screen. This was his first time seeing this team in live game action and you have to expect that he'll adjust his game plan around what we do well. I'm still of the thought that somehow we aren't effectively simulating things in practice judging by body language. It's like a band full of individually great musicians who can't get on the same page playing together. The other analogy I used in Geoff's first season: it's like watching a Paul Hewitt team try to inbound the ball.

Collins treated all the games in the '19 season like it was a scrimmage. I think / hope CCL will make adjustments.
You may be on to something about the practice. The old adage of "you play like you practice" seems applicable. The Collins culture is soft.
You brought up bad memories about PH and the inbounds play. Thanks for that.

 

[cincyjacket]

No

 

[smokey_wasp]

I think Chip has a solid plan. This was not the game we needed to have first on the schedule.

 

[CornerBlitz]

At first view, I thought CCL called a pretty good game and our OL deficiencies were not a schematic issue but rather a talent issue. Plus Clemson’s d line is the best we’ll see until the Ugag game.

I’m letting it play out a little longer before making any judgements.

 

[ElCidBUZZingFAN]

I think Chip has a solid plan. This was not the game we needed to have first on the schedule.

First time in a while we adjusted to their adjustment and it was clear we were playing the 'give and take game within a game' and that we were attacking those where we could.

Even after game 1, it's clear that Long is a keeper.