Not to mention it's used by 95% of college and NFL teams
My Oakland Raiders used it for a brief period and they were brutal at it.
Not to mention it's used by 95% of college and NFL teams
My Oakland Raiders used it for a brief period and they were brutal at it.
They're brutal at a lot of things like football
At some point, Diaco has to take responsibility for the team's constant mistakes. He's the coach.
If the team can't kick off without making a mistake, isn't that the coaches fault?
If the starting QB gives the opponents 20+ points. Should the coaches decision to keep playing him enter into the discussion?
If the team keeps committing pre-snap penalties -at home- shouldn't the coach fix it?
If the offensive line can't pick up a blitz, do they have to figure it out on their own or does the coach have to take the blame?
If the offense doesn't have plays to neutralize the blitz, is it the coaches fault for not calling those plays?
If play makers are on the bench instead of in the game, who controls the personnel decisions?
If you believe these questions are unfair, then none of it is on the coach. Otherwise the coach has to pick up HIS game.
Last year we scrapped it and became immediately better.
This. ^^^
This is the reason why I'm not on board with the quote that Medic put up. While everyone is going to have a different opinion, the bottom line is that the exact same players last year all of the sudden became "capable" instead of "incapable" when the system was switched. The same exact line that was hapless last year somehow managed to put up 28 on Temple, 28 on Rutgers, and 45 on Memphis. The idea that this is primarily a talent-driven issue rather than a schematic or play-calling issue in my opinion is false. And I think we have enough data to prove it. So let's get back to simplifying the offense again, and get back to short passes, standard or bubble screens, etc., and put these kids in a position to succeed. Otherwise, we are going to need separate medical staffs for Whitmer and Boyle respectively...
But we don't have the "exact same players" as last year - this year. And the scheme is not 100% zone blocking, it's a split. I don't have the time, but look at which plays get blown up - are they zone blocking or man blocking calls. My eyeballs me it's both, which makes it not a scheme issue. Not looking to get people "on board" - my only point/opinion is that our problems are not just zone blocking issues.
At some point, Diaco has to take responsibility for the team's constant mistakes. He's the coach.
If the team can't kick off without making a mistake, isn't that the coaches fault?
If the starting QB gives the opponents 20+ points. Should the coaches decision to keep playing him enter into the discussion?
If the team keeps committing pre-snap penalties -at home- shouldn't the coach fix it?
If the offensive line can't pick up a blitz, do they have to figure it out on their own or does the coach have to take the blame?
If the offense doesn't have plays to neutralize the blitz, is it the coaches fault for not calling those plays?
If play makers are on the bench instead of in the game, who controls the personnel decisions?
If you believe these questions are unfair, then none of it is on the coach. Otherwise the coach has to pick up HIS game.
I have to disagree with you, I honestly feel like this regime has made far more half time changes than edsall or PP ever made. I mean the score at half time did not dictate much change, take away the stupid mistakes and we were in good shape coming into the second half.Oops, left out, a coach has responsibility for halftime adjustments. If the team is worse in the second half, who shoulders the blame?
I still believe part play calling. Stop calling 7 step drop passing plays and run wr screens/slants. The one big play was the RB screen pass. Quick throws instead of routes taking time.
I'm just guessing here but my guess on the reason for so few quick slants is that with the heights of who the staff initially expected to be our QB's this season and questions on the OL's ability to hold their ground this was taken out of the playbook.
Screens can be a bit complicated in terms of blocking assignments and from what I have seen from our line, this may be well outside of their knowledge base.
huskymedic said:I asked someone who watches and analyzes offensive schemes much more than I ever could for his opinion on the "zone blocking narrative" because I don't buy it. Here is his response:
"The culprit behind UConn's O-line struggles is simple, and the same that felled last year's group: blatant inability. Last season, the narrative that a zone-blocking scheme was at fault for the team's running woes was purported by a few more prominent members of UConn football media and consequently frustrated fans. But it was never, ever true. In fact, some of the Huskies' biggest running gains in 2013 came off of zone blocking. If you watched the tape, you saw this. If you didn't, you most likely accepted the narrative because it provided a simplistic explanation for UConn's troubles that didn't directly fault the team and left you feeling frustrated but not hopeless towards the program.
Furthermore, the zone blocking scheme is responsible for some of the greatest rushing teams in NCAA and NFL history. The key here is not one of the 2013 O-line starters, save for Steve Greene, was fit to block against top-100 competition in college football. This is the same case in 2014. And when you have a group that overall is incapable or lacking, utilizing a zone scheme is actually not a poor idea. In the scheme, linemen are responsible for clearing out a gap (generally to their right or left) and not a particular defender. In this case, it's rare that a blocking linemen will be matched up head-on with an defensive linemen, who could potentially overpower him in such a situation."
Take it for what it's worth...
Sounds like a horrible scheme for linemen with poor footwork, which we have. But they are big and reportedly strong. Why not change the scheme to fit that?
I have to disagree with you, I honestly feel like this regime has made far more half time changes than edsall or PP ever made. I mean the score at half time did not dictate much change, take away the stupid mistakes and we were in good shape coming into the second half.
True but if a freshman is off sides on the kick off, isn't that a product of coaching?And but for a few toes over an imaginary line...they'd be ahead from the opening kickoff.
True but if a freshman is off sides on the kick off, isn't that a product of coaching?