|
Replies: 17
| visibility 1,001
|
All-TigerNet [13530]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8944
Joined: 8/30/18
|
Is it possible our OL is not as bad as we thought?
3
Nov 6, 2023, 12:01 PM
|
|
Mafah clearly showed something unique on Saturday that I think makes a big difference. He has that slight hesitation to allow a sliver of a gap to open up and then the speed and strength to bust through the hole before it closes. Ship just seems to barrel right through the gap whether it is open or not. He doesn't show a patience or a burst to get through a hole when it opens. He also goes down a lot easier and does not seem to have the same strength as Mafah to break through the arm tackles.
Maybe I'm way off on this but Mafah brought something different that we have not seen all season and it seemed to really help the OL because of it. I'd like to see more of that against GT.
Message was edited by: slwcu79®
|
|
|
|
 |
Asst Coach [719]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 625
Joined: 12/1/21
|
Re: Is it possible our OL is not as bad as we thought?
2
Nov 6, 2023, 12:05 PM
|
|
Too early to tell. We have 8 games of evidence saying they are mediocre at best. Maybe a light switched? Maybe we just schemed well? I do believe it’s reasonable to conclude that Mafah is every bit as good as Shipley, but I’ll reserve my judgement on the OL until I see them do it again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26024]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 20652
Joined: 7/31/07
|
Re: Is it possible our OL is not as bad as we thought?
1
Nov 6, 2023, 12:08 PM
|
|
We don't need to change anything position wise. Those units clicked Saturday. But, but, I'm guessing there will be changes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [27374]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31825
Joined: 8/19/03
|
Re: Is it possible our OL is not as bad as we thought?
Nov 6, 2023, 12:07 PM
|
|
Personally I like seeing them both in the lineup. Gives the opponent something different to prepare for.. the old T formation worked for years.. it still will!
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1045]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 2083
Joined: 4/7/22
|
Re: Is it possible our OL is not as bad as we thought?
3
Nov 6, 2023, 12:09 PM
|
|
I don't agree with this thing about Mafah being more patient, or Shipley not being patient. Before this week, the criticism was that Shipley danced around too much. Now, the criticism is that Shipley just barrels into the hole.
It's kind like how last year the problem was Uiagalelei. Then it was Streeter. Then it was Grisham. Then it was Austin. Then it was the playcalling. Then it was Dabo. Now it's Shipley.
People are just making assumptions, based on limited results. Mostly, it's because people want to believe there is one easy fix.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13530]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8944
Joined: 8/30/18
|
Re: Is it possible our OL is not as bad as we thought?
1
Nov 6, 2023, 12:17 PM
|
|
I agree one data point is not a trend. I just hope we get to see more of it on Saturday. I also think it makes a difference when we have one featured back, rather than rotation. Mafah got into a great rhythm early and seemed to get stronger as the game wore on. That is hard to do when you keep rotating in and out, other than to give someone an occasional break. I understand why we do it but I think Mafah was more effective being in the backfield most of the game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1045]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 2083
Joined: 4/7/22
|
Re: Is it possible our OL is not as bad as we thought?
1
Nov 6, 2023, 12:44 PM
|
|
We need a lot of data points, because look at the North Carolina game with Klubnik, and the results since.
I don't think it's really got anything to do with the rotation or anything. I'm glad we won, and seemed to do some good things, but the offense ended up with 285 yards of total offense. Had we not gotten a lead, with the fumbled punt and the interception return, that lack of production might have been fatal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18290]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7025
Joined: 10/15/21
|
Re: Is it possible our OL is not as bad as we thought?
2
Nov 6, 2023, 12:12 PM
|
|
I think changing the blocking schemes helped more then anything, kinda like with DJ we’ve got to stop trying to shove square pegs into round holes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
MVP [508]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 893
Joined: 3/26/13
|
Re: Is it possible our OL is not as bad as we thought?
Nov 6, 2023, 12:15 PM
|
|
I believe our OL coach Austin finally woke up to the need to make adjustments to our blocking schemes which will work best with each successive opponent. By adjusting our blocking schemes and adding some counter running plays really caught ND by surprise - and added another more successful factor to our game. Kudos this week to Austin and all of the players who had a hand in this week's play!!!!
I still wonder just why we stuck to the same blocking schemes and plays during the first eight games of the season to permit our opponents in their respective planning to stifle our line play! You gotta make adjustments each and every week guys!!! Let's keep this up!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93674]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95423
Joined: 12/25/09
|
I never thought our linemen were the reason we're 5-4.
Nov 6, 2023, 12:20 PM
|
|
We fumbled and PIed our way to 4 losses this year. Our defense suffered from too much playing time as our offense gave the ball back again and again because our QB could hit a crossing route.
If you'll review the tape you'll see that MR Hartman couldn't either. Both did fairly well at hitting receivers moving in a straight, or nearly straight, line away from them. Saturday, Cade found his groove and hit a few of those crossing routes and the receivers didn't have to change speed or direction to make the catch.
That put the ball in their hands while moving pretty quickly which got ND's entire secondary's attention. That was also a contributor to our running game.
ND's corners always had their man. The LBs and safeties had to pay more attention to our guys crossing the field. All it takes to beat a man one on one is for him to take one wrong step. Game of inches, you know.
Mafah tore through a wheel barrow of tackles but our passing game kept many of ND's secondary players distracted by TE and other receivers.
I'm not saying Cade has arrived but imo, he turned the corner last week.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [64591]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 88998
Joined: 3/27/01
|
A lot of blame to go around for that...
1
Nov 6, 2023, 12:31 PM
|
|
but it's largely turnover related. I count failed 4th down conversions and missed FGs as turnovers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1655]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1824
Joined: 12/9/15
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4014]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4308
Joined: 10/6/03
|
I guess anything is possible
Nov 6, 2023, 12:28 PM
|
|
What I know is the combo of Sewell and Howard at guard with Leigh and Miller at tackle and Ennis at TE was unstoppable on Saturday until they brought 9-10 guys in the box at the end of the game.
We were getting a nice push at guard and Ennis was money most of the day pulling across and putting a hat on the weak side DE. Also he made a great one on one block for Mafah’s second TD of the game.
Also, I think Mafah’s patience, sharp cuts, and effort after first contact were amazing.
Marcus Freeman said that he believed that Mafah’s consistent pickup of yards after first contact were the difference in the game, and I tend to agree. Those 1-2 extra yards at the end of 1st and 2nd down gave us manageable 3 down opportunities most of the day.
I know there is conventional wisdom that says: don’t bench a guy due to injury. But the way that combo played against a really good defensive unit - i wouldn’t mess with that until someone proves they can stop it
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3569]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2975
Joined: 6/24/11
|
Re: Is it possible our OL is not as bad as we thought?
Nov 6, 2023, 12:37 PM
|
|
Different blocking scheme different results. They blocked like they did most of last year. Dabo even said as much, more zone and Duo, requires less athletic ability by the guard/tackle and simplifies responsibilities.
You won't like my opinion but I do believe that Shipley would have also ran wild with this blocking scheme.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Head Coach [752]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 698
Joined: 3/3/19
|
Re: Is it possible our OL is not as bad as we thought?
Nov 6, 2023, 1:58 PM
|
|
i think you also had less RPO which ends up resulting in more run plays, and more rushing yards. Nobody is perfect but if you look at previous games there were always plays that could have resulted in positive rushing yards that didn't happen because the ball got pulled for a pass.
You put that together with Mafah beging the one getting the ball and (for the most part) not running our normal screen pass for 0 to negative yardage repeatedly and the OL and offense can get the run established and look a lot better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Walk-On [129]
TigerPulse: 60%
Posts: 178
Joined: 11/11/04
|
Re: Is it possible our OL is not as bad as we thought?
Nov 6, 2023, 3:28 PM
|
|
But the screen pass is Clemson’s offense. No gain or loss. We will run it. Always fools the opponent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1458]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 452
Joined: 4/11/21
|
Re: Is it possible our OL is not as bad as we thought?
Nov 6, 2023, 2:02 PM
|
|
Ship just seems to barrel right through the gap whether it is open or not. He doesn't show a patience or a burst to get through a hole when it opens. He also goes down a lot easier and does not seem to have the same strength as Mafah to break through the arm tackles.
I have been trying to get my head around the difference between them, and you nailed it. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [937]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 185
Joined: 11/27/22
|
Re: Is it possible our OL is not as bad as we thought?
Nov 6, 2023, 3:10 PM
|
|
I heard there was something about running power and not requiring them to pull out and maneuver as lead blockers as much. The unit has seemed mediocre and sluggish in the last few years so maybe that change just simplified the game for them. I haven’t gone back to watch the tape so idk how accurate this is. In any case, I’d argue Phil’s patience and explosiveness made them look a lot better than they really are
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 17
| visibility 1,001
|
|
|
50
