Patenaude's Offense

I just each and everyone of you realize that collins Inherited a roster full of junk QBs. They know what the deal is. These coaches are going to be positive but they know we suck at that position. I'm not going to start with O line.
 
MACHETE said:
Really? We gave up over 600 yards. D line doesn’t exist and neither do the LB’s.
Click to expand...

Defense was spotty but had flashes. Linebackers and d line will take a couple years to improve. We also had 4 turnovers tonight, most of them on the short side of the field. Defense got booty blasted but appears to be further along than the offense at the moment.
 
gtfan088 said:
I get that you're a CPJ guy, but you don't seriously think the plan is to recruit more QBs like Tobias Oliver, do you? We have a pro-style QB in Gleason coming in next year. I don't think the staff wanted to ask these kids to do things they knew they couldn't do, especially in a season opener against the #1 team.
Click to expand...
I would assume it's to recruit more QBs like JG but we put him in with the 3rd team O
 
G776T said:
I would assume it's to recruit more QBs like JG but we put him in with the 3rd team O
Click to expand...

James Graham who chose us over VT because he didn't want to move to CB, WR, or whatever they were planning to do with him?

These are all guys recruited to play the TO. The other major schools after them eyed them as athletes, not quarterbacks.
 
WracerX said:
TO and LJ offensive packages look like shotgun double options. Pretty much no passing. Routes were not good.

TO had a ton of trick plays. None worked. Wasted practice time.

JG offensive package had some rpo and more vertical routes. A few drag routes, but not many. Receivers trying not to jam up running lanes in the middle of the field.

JG probably the real qb. TO looks like Clemson specific QB.

All QB overthrowing and high school technique. They should improve when not faced with Clemson caliber D.

Wait until game 4 to make judgement on O. D looks vastly improved over last year. ST still looks bad. We need a kicker.
Click to expand...
Thx. Saved me from having to watch the replay.
 
beej67 said:
It is rote shotgun spread BS, same stuff everybody else runs. The people who hated CPJ will love it when it works, and complain about recruiting when it doesn't. Which is basically what everyone did with the last offense.

The only creative bit I've heard is that he sometimes rolls his slot receiver into the backfield as a RB. Which isn't particularly unusual either honestly.

The death of the death march will make me a bit sad, quite honestly. Loved that death march.
Click to expand...
When was the last time we actually had a death march?

2014? Even then the death march had become a major fumble risk.

Frankly, the death march died when the downfield blocking rules were changed that made the long run for a TD impossible. The way teams started defending it was to let us get our 3-4 yards per play, and then hope, usually to good effect, that within the 20-25 plays needed to score a TD we would either fumble, or pull a false start/negative play on a toss sweep, that would kill the drive.

Without the threat of the long TD run that could come at any time, thanks to the rule changes, the death march had become obsolete.
 
rghoae said:
When was the last time we actually had a death march?

2014? Even then the death march had become a major fumble risk.

Frankly, the death march died when the downfield blocking rules were changed that made the long run for a TD impossible. The way teams started defending it was to let us get our 3-4 yards per play, and then hope, usually to good effect, that within the 20-25 plays needed to score a TD we would either fumble, or pull a false start/negative play on a toss sweep, that would kill the drive.

Without the threat of the long TD run that could come at any time, thanks to the rule changes, the death march had become obsolete.
Click to expand...
Well, we did kill off the Miami game and over 6 minutes of clock, last year, to great effect. That was a proud march.
 
The D had some great flashes, until the DL was just overmatched against Clemson's OL. I feel like more TFLs happened on screen passes Clemson tried to do at first.

The offense went about as expected. Who would have been the non-triple-option playcaller genius enough to get offensive production against Clemson? The pieces aren't there or aren't ready yet, at least against Clemson's level of talent.

I did find it funny though how Venables basically went with the same "I'm going to make you pass bitch" defense when Oliver was in the game.
 
rghoae said:
When was the last time we actually had a death march?

2014? Even then the death march had become a major fumble risk.

Frankly, the death march died when the downfield blocking rules were changed that made the long run for a TD impossible. The way teams started defending it was to let us get our 3-4 yards per play, and then hope, usually to good effect, that within the 20-25 plays needed to score a TD we would either fumble, or pull a false start/negative play on a toss sweep, that would kill the drive.

Without the threat of the long TD run that could come at any time, thanks to the rule changes, the death march had become obsolete.
Click to expand...

That is a hard stat to look up; but Marshall (45), Oliver (65), Mason (46), Howard (52), Cottrell (34), and Searcy (56) all had at least one run for over 30 yards last season.
 
G776T said:
I would assume it's to recruit more QBs like JG but we put him in with the 3rd team O
Click to expand...

None of our QBs had P5 offers as QBs, not even Yates (he probably should have, though). Tuck Gleason is the type we want. Pocket passer with good mobility and a pretty tough runner. But pocket passer is the key requirement.

We tried for several grad transfer QBs, but none wanted to spend their last year of eligibility in a transitional offense. We are trying to make the best of what we have. Yates is the closest we have to what we want on the roster, but he isn't ready.
 
floridajacket said:
The offense went about as expected. Who would have been the non-triple-option playcaller genius enough to get offensive production against Clemson? The pieces aren't there or aren't ready yet, at least against Clemson's level of talent.
Click to expand...

Petrino would have had some under center plays, so he would have at least 1 more td from this group.

RichRod would have been better too.

Meyer/mullen style guys would have been better.

All air raid and west coast coaches would have done worse.

Canada and Fedora would have probably done about the same in game 1.
 
smokey_wasp said:
None of our QBs had P5 offers as QBs, not even Yates (he probably should have, though). Tuck Gleason is the type we want. Pocket passer with good mobility and a pretty tough runner. But pocket passer is the key requirement.

We tried for several grad transfer QBs, but none wanted to spend their last year of eligibility in a transitional offense. We are trying to make the best of what we have. Yates is the closest we have to what we want on the roster, but he isn't ready.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I suspect the staff really hoped to get a grad transfer, but asking an established QB to spend his final year on a team in flux was probably a hard sell. As it stands, I think we will try to stretch the limits of what our current QB corps can do, with Gleason very much in the mix to play as a true freshman next year.
 
WracerX said:
Petrino would have had some under center plays, so he would have at least 1 more td from this group.

RichRod would have been better too.

Meyer/mullen style guys would have been better.

All air raid and west coast coaches would have done worse.

Canada and Fedora would have probably done about the same in game 1.
Click to expand...
Your basing this on Petrino, Meyer, Rich Rod, and Mullen taking over triple option offenses with their first game in their new offense full of suqare pegs for round holes, that also happens to be going up against the no. 1 (proven) team in the country?
 
samsgt02 said:
Your basing this on Petrino, Meyer, Rich Rod, and Mullen taking over triple option offenses with their first game in their new offense full of suqare pegs for round holes, that also happens to be going up against the no. 1 (proven) team in the country?
Click to expand...

Yes.

Three of those guys systems are better fits for what we have. The fourth, Petrino, would have had an under center short down set.

I’ll add, Paul Johnson using a playcard calling plays from the pistol diamond formation would have done better. Also Cutcliff would have done better.

No one would have won. I’ll give the OC a few games before I judge. But nothing in that game was special on O.
 
i think we will be fine.. It was Clemson, in Clemson. It had to be pretty intimidating for the guys
 
ncjacket said:
No it's to recruit more QBs like Gleason our commit from FL. Check his measureables vs who we have now.
Click to expand...
Do we think it makes sense to add another QB in the upcoming class? I’m high on Gleason, but we need more of a passing threat and I wonder if we are putting too many eggs in that basket.
 
FLTech said:
i think we will be fine.. It was Clemson, in Clemson. It had to be pretty intimidating for the guys
Click to expand...

I didn't feel like we were intimidated, save for possibly (and possibly not) the muffed punt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top