An analysis of OC Tim Beck.

[Bball1091]

 

 

 

 

There is absolutely no reason our offense shouldn't revolve around ameer...he should be involved in 70% of our plays whether is be an inside/outside run or a screen/check down....how do you fail to utilize this kind of talent? I know many are calling for Bo's head, but I think Beck needs replaced. I like Bo and think he's a good coach, but If is unwilling to let go of Beck, then he must go too. There is absolutely no reason that Ameer doesn't get more than 10 carries in that second half (i.e. assuming its not a blow out already). Furthermore, if Ameer won a heisman because we gave him the ball 70% of the time, then think about the advantages that publicity would give our program. It would give us a recruiting advantage, improve team morale, etc.

70% is a little over the top, but when you need a score badly, he should obviously be featured...basic sh#t that escapes Beck blows me away!

Honestly, I'm not upset with the number of carries AA is getting. Rather, I agree that he needs to spend more time in the screen/check down situations. That would net him some nice all purpose yards without sacrificing his on the ground running totals. But, on the other hand, centering 70% of your offense around a single player is bad for the team. Just look at tOSU. Miller went down, and their season with him. If anything, I'd like to give AA ~25 carries per game, and hopefully another 8-10 passes/screens, and split another 10-15 carries between Armstrong (on the read option) and the backup RB's. This is assuming about 75 plays per game. That's a pretty balanced offense, and keeps Abdullah adding to his yards. Then again, if we keep pounding Ameer up the middle and they aren't stopping him... well, maybe just rotate Cross in every once in a while to give Ameer a breather, but otherwise keep at it.

I meant to qualify my position to being involved in the play 70% of the time whether it be as the primary option or secondary option. Thus, the offense isn't totally focused 70% of the time on one player. I think this can be done by running a variety of read option plays and keeping Armstrong's passing reads to a minimum where he has 1-2 reads then a checkdown (or qb keep given the checkdown is covered)

[Igetbored216]

I don't really like how Beck calls plays. He tends to focus on exploiting the other team, rather than sticking to what HIS team does well. You're not going to be able to complete bombs downfield with any kind of consistency. Sure you might get two or three in a row, but then again, you might miss two or three in a row. Zone read out of multiple formations probably should be this team's bread and butter, mixing in some counters (although you could argue that technically the zone read is very similar), screens, and play action passes. And how about some passes to the RB out of the backfield? Abudullah and Newby would be great candidates.

 

Hopefully this next game goes a lot smoother! The funny thing is, the only portion of the team that did well last week was the one we have had trouble with the last two years: special teams. Let's put it all together this week....please!

[EmeraldIngot]

This is the part where I say "I told you so". In our passing game, we used some short routes and actually threw to the TEs. Two touchdowns and at least three 3rd down conversions. The running game broke out for big plays because Fresno State was dropping guys out towards the sidelines to cover our WRs. I'd like to see some better run blocking for the regular running game, and some more counter and trap runs. But yeah. It almost feels like Tim Beck read this and thought it was a good gameplan.

[Micheal]

This is the part where I say "I told you so". In our passing game, we used some short routes and actually threw to the TEs. Two touchdowns and at least three 3rd down conversions. The running game broke out for big plays because Fresno State was dropping guys out towards the sidelines to cover our WRs. I'd like to see some better run blocking for the regular running game, and some more counter and trap runs. But yeah. It almost feels like Tim Beck read this and thought it was a good gameplan.

+1321321231321243234.2131

[TJ Alum Husker]

 

This is the part where I say "I told you so". In our passing game, we used some short routes and actually threw to the TEs. Two touchdowns and at least three 3rd down conversions. The running game broke out for big plays because Fresno State was dropping guys out towards the sidelines to cover our WRs. I'd like to see some better run blocking for the regular running game, and some more counter and trap runs. But yeah. It almost feels like Tim Beck read this and thought it was a good gameplan.

 

+1321321231321243234.2131

I don't think it is any coincidence that Bo and Beck went over the tape from LW in detail, and the improvement of the offense. I bet Beck got his head handed to him in that meeting. Hopefully he is seeing the light that you can't be "cute" with plays all the time.

[Count 'Bility]

Guys. Lets look at this with some proper perspective and not get too carried away. Outside the big plays and garbage time scores from our 2s and 3s, our offense was vastly underwhelming. The lack of consistency will be an issue if it doesnt get fixed.

[Thanks_Tom RR]

Guys. Lets look at this with some proper perspective and not get too carried away. Outside the big plays and garbage time scores from our 2s and 3s, our offense was vastly underwhelming. The lack of consistency will be an issue if it doesnt get fixed.

Out of 18 possessions, we had 9 plays for 20+ yds (4 of 9 were 50+ yds) leading to 9 drives with scores (7 TD, 2 FG). The other drives resulted in 5 punts, a safety, a missed FG, a fumble, and end of the game.

 

I don't know if you can go outside of the big plays because half of our drives included a big play.

[Count 'Bility]

Second half we seemed more sharp. Dont know if it was execution or frasno just starting to pack it in. But in the first half, if you took away the two long touchdowns we only had 130 yards. Thats not to impresive.

[Thanks_Tom RR]

Second half we seemed more sharp. Dont know if it was execution or frasno just starting to pack it in. But in the first half, if you took away the two long touchdowns we only had 130 yards. Thats not to impresive.

We only punted twice in 9 possessions during the first half. Of course, both times we had to punt were due to two 3-n-outs. The other drives were 5 scores, a missed FG, and a safety. When it comes down to it, it's about points, not yards. From that perspective, seems like solid productivity.

 

Anyway, I know it is tempting to throw out big plays to evaluate productivity because it can skew the data, sometimes. However, the point of my previous post is that the big plays against Fresno seems frequent enough that they are not outliners and should not be overlooked.

[BigRedBuster]

When we look back at the scoring explosion, are we going to throw out all big plays?

 

Big plays are part of an offense.

[Count 'Bility]

 

Second half we seemed more sharp. Dont know if it was execution or frasno just starting to pack it in. But in the first half, if you took away the two long touchdowns we only had 130 yards. Thats not to impresive.

We only punted twice in 9 possessions during the first half. Of course, both times we had to punt were due to two 3-n-outs. The other drives were 5 scores, a missed FG, and a safety. When it comes down to it, it's about points, not yards. From that perspective, seems like solid productivity.

Anyway, I know it is tempting to throw out big plays to evaluate productivity because it can screw the data, sometimes. However, the point of my previous post is that the big plays against Fresno seems frequent enough that they are not outliners and should not be overlooked.

Technically the safety was not on the offense. We only scored three times on the first half. 2 tds and a fg. Two LONG tds. The third was the punt return. Yes we did miss a field goal. So if we scored on only 3 possesions and missed a fg on the fourth, what happened on the other 5? two plays produced 130 of our 260 yards. That means we gained 130 yards pn 7 other possesions.

 

Now if we make it about points thats fine. But the offense was still only responsible for 17 points-20 if we make a field goal- in 9 possesions. To me that is pretty poor production esp against a defense that we all know is bad. What will happen against mich st wiscy and so on when we wont have receivers runnin free down the seam or safeties so out of place that even our thumper back can get to the next level and be gone from 50+?

 

To me the consistency issue is still a problem and it needs to be fixed. We need to be able to sustain drives when the big play isnt there. Right now this offense feels so all-or-nothin like 2010. And we remember well what happened that year in games where the big play didnt show up.

[TheSker]

 

Now if we make it about points thats fine.

 

Isn't it?

[EmeraldIngot]

 

 

Second half we seemed more sharp. Dont know if it was execution or frasno just starting to pack it in. But in the first half, if you took away the two long touchdowns we only had 130 yards. Thats not to impresive.

We only punted twice in 9 possessions during the first half. Of course, both times we had to punt were due to two 3-n-outs. The other drives were 5 scores, a missed FG, and a safety. When it comes down to it, it's about points, not yards. From that perspective, seems like solid productivity.

Anyway, I know it is tempting to throw out big plays to evaluate productivity because it can screw the data, sometimes. However, the point of my previous post is that the big plays against Fresno seems frequent enough that they are not outliners and should not be overlooked.

Technically the safety was not on the offense. We only scored three times on the first half. 2 tds and a fg. Two LONG tds. The third was the punt return. Yes we did miss a field goal. So if we scored on only 3 possesions and missed a fg on the fourth, what happened on the other 5? two plays produced 130 of our 260 yards. That means we gained 130 yards pn 7 other possesions.

 

Now if we make it about points thats fine. But the offense was still only responsible for 17 points-20 if we make a field goal- in 9 possesions. To me that is pretty poor production esp against a defense that we all know is bad. What will happen against mich st wiscy and so on when we wont have receivers runnin free down the seam or safeties so out of place that even our thumper back can get to the next level and be gone from 50+?

 

To me the consistency issue is still a problem and it needs to be fixed. We need to be able to sustain drives when the big play isnt there. Right now this offense feels so all-or-nothin like 2010. And we remember well what happened that year in games where the big play didnt show up.

Yew, there are some consistency issues, but against fresno, they were a result of fresno selling out to stop AA. Which they did pretty well save for a few big runs. But run blitzing your LBs open up middle slants and other short passes, which can keep the chains moving. I believe that Beck is starting to realize this. I have no problems with a pass on 3rd and 3 if it's to Hovey on a slant over those blitzing LBs.

[kyle sibert]

Second half we seemed more sharp. Dont know if it was execution or frasno just starting to pack it in. But in the first half, if you took away the two long touchdowns we only had 130 yards. Thats not to impresive.

"If you take away the good things, there bad things."

[Stumpy1]

If you don't count big plays in a game then Oregon is the worst productive team in college ball.