OLine Work in Progress

BigRedBuster said:
We we have had some lines where the talent was there but our S&C program stunk.  

  

Luckly now, we have a scheme that helps the o line and a good S&C program. 
Click to expand...


That's a good point. Looking back at the shape some of those Pelini era guys were in, and hearing what type of S&C we were doing under RIley...

giphy.gif


 
BlitzFirst said:
Frost's offense is supposed to be much easier to master via blocking schemes. 
Click to expand...


One of the things he loves doing is running trips to the wide side and setting it up as screen action, but running something like a trap play inside this detached box. This does a few things: forces split safeties, puts LBs in conflict, (maybe) generates a numbers advantage, but perhaps most importantly makes clean reads for the linemen. It’s easy to identify the front and the play acts as a constraint. Nobody can really come from unexpected areas because they’ve been bound to their assignments. 

The base run play itself isn’t necessarily easier to block than in other offenses, but the defenses responses are more limited. He loves to force defenders away from the box and run against the flow of the play. 

 
I've been beating the offensive line drum (and saying that exact sentence  :lol: ) for a long time now, even in parts of the Pelini era. Generally speaking, I'd say our lines in the last ~15 years have swung like a pendulum from being below average to above average and/or good. Sometimes, that'd be a week to week swing. It hasn't been very consistent. We've had some good lines but none that I would consider great or among the nation's best.

I felt last year's line got a lot better as the season went along which makes me optimistic for 2019. They weren't great, but, we shot up the rushing rankings massively compared to 2017, one of our backs averaged 7.0 YPC and we had a 1,000 yard rusher for the first time since 2014. You definitely don't get there with a bad scheme and o-line play.

 
Just look at the rushing yards we rolled up last year. How many times did we out rush our opponent and even approach 300 yards rushing? Alot more than we have over the past 3 years I can tell you that much. This O line unit is going to be looking stellar sooner rather than later imo. I really like Greg Austin and trust his ability to develop these guys.

 
Mavric said:
Sean Callahan expecting Gaylord to move to RT and start out as the #1 guy with Benhart behind him.  Farniok slides inside to RG with Wilson at LG.  Hunter Miller and Cam Jurgens working at center along with Bland (if he gets here).  That would leave Hixon and Sichterman to be backups as they are guys the staff supposedly likes.

A starting lineup of Jaimes-Wilson-Hixon-Farniok-Gaylord would be solid - and it won't surprise me if Benhart works his way onto the front line at some point.  But also having Sichterman-Hixon-Jurgens-Benhart on the second line should get closer to having the depth we could use.  Plus Bland (maybe?).
Click to expand...
Maybe I'm just reading this wrong but you say Hixon is going to be a backup and then right after that you put him in the starting lineup?  Do you think he would start over Miller and Jurgens?

 
RedSavage said:
Maybe I'm just reading this wrong but you say Hixon is going to be a backup and then right after that you put him in the starting lineup?  Do you think he would start over Miller and Jurgens?
Click to expand...


My bad.  Should have been Miller in the starting lineup with Hixon as a backup.  Thanks.

 
Clifford Franklin said:
Does it bother anyone else that our OL has been a consistent problem probably ever since Solich left?

Sure, we've had a handful of really exceptional players in that time. But as a unit the OL has been consistently mediocre for going on 15 years now.

It boggles the mind that we can't figure out success starts up front while watching Wisconsin and Iowa right next door churn out fantastic lines year after year.
Click to expand...


I pretty much agree with @BigRedBuster - I don't think the lines have been as bad as people like to make them out to be, at least parts of the time.  They are an easy target for anytime anything goes wrong.  And they get blamed for more than is actually their fault - people still blame the offensive line even if it's a tight end that misses a block or the defense brings more rushers than we have blockers.

During the Taylor Martinez-Helu-Burkhead-Ameer years we put up some pretty impressive numbers on offense.  We were basically always a Top 20 rushing offense in the country and regularly in the Top 10.  We had many of the best season and career rushing and total yard marks in school history.  You don't do that without pretty good offensive line play.  And the offense was far from our biggest issue during that stretch.  But people didn't like the overall results so they just complained about what was easy to complain about.

During the Riley era, I think the biggest problem was scheme.  People were so excited to get rid of Beck's offense and get back to using the fullback.  But when you line up in a bunch of heavy sets - fullback and tight ends - all that does is bring more defenders into the box.  If there are 8 or 9 guys in the box, how are five offensive linemen supposed to block them all?  And that's before you take into account how predicable our play-calling was and how basic our running schemes were.

So I think our line can definitely get better.  But I don't think they've been nearly as bad as most people seem to want to believe.  We have several OL in the NFL right now - Lewis, Sirles, Slauson, Sterup, Gates, Long and Qvale.  Each of those guys was a mulit-year starter here.  They were on the field a lot during what was supposedly a bad time for our OLine.  I don't think those two things make much sense when you put them together.

 
Mavric said:
I pretty much agree with @BigRedBuster - I don't think the lines have been as bad as people like to make them out to be, at least parts of the time.  They are an easy target for anytime anything goes wrong.  And they get blamed for more than is actually their fault - people still blame the offensive line even if it's a tight end that misses a block or the defense brings more rushers than we have blockers.

During the Taylor Martinez-Helu-Burkhead-Ameer years we put up some pretty impressive numbers on offense.  We were basically always a Top 20 rushing offense in the country and regularly in the Top 10.  We had many of the best season and career rushing and total yard marks in school history.  You don't do that without pretty good offensive line play.  And the offense was far from our biggest issue during that stretch.  But people didn't like the overall results so they just complained about what was easy to complain about.

During the Riley era, I think the biggest problem was scheme.  People were so excited to get rid of Beck's offense and get back to using the fullback.  But when you line up in a bunch of heavy sets - fullback and tight ends - all that does is bring more defenders into the box.  If there are 8 or 9 guys in the box, how are five offensive linemen supposed to block them all?  And that's before you take into account how predicable our play-calling was and how basic our running schemes were.

So I think our line can definitely get better.  But I don't think they've been nearly as bad as most people seem to want to believe.  We have several OL in the NFL right now - Lewis, Sirles, Slauson, Sterup, Gates, Long and Qvale.  Each of those guys was a mulit-year starter here.  They were on the field a lot during what was supposedly a bad time for our OLine.  I don't think those two things make much sense when you put them together.
Click to expand...


There's definitely some degree of revisionist history there. I think I've let my memories of how those teams never won a conference championship and how crappy some of those defenses were in the late Pelini/Riley era cloud my memory of the offensive lines.

Really good point about Riley's scheme. We had SOME horses, but running a lot of pro sets schematically puts you at a disadvantage unless you've got a whole stable chock full of them. HIs offensive game plans didn't really lend themselves to OL success because you need outstanding talent for them to work and we didn't have that.

I would pick a bone with your point about guys we've sent to the league. I still feel like most of those guys didn't really reach their full potential while here. I think in this instance the whole may have actually be less than the sum of the parts. Those guys all had NFL talent but a lot of the time our OL play didn't reflect that.

 
Nebfanatic said:
Just look at the rushing yards we rolled up last year. How many times did we out rush our opponent and even approach 300 yards rushing? Alot more than we have over the past 3 years I can tell you that much. This O line unit is going to be looking stellar sooner rather than later imo. I really like Greg Austin and trust his ability to develop these guys.
Click to expand...


One heck of a lot of that has to do with scheme.  Now, the scheme helped the O line be better and look better.  

 
Mavric said:
I pretty much agree with @BigRedBuster - I don't think the lines have been as bad as people like to make them out to be, at least parts of the time.  They are an easy target for anytime anything goes wrong.  And they get blamed for more than is actually their fault - people still blame the offensive line even if it's a tight end that misses a block or the defense brings more rushers than we have blockers.

During the Taylor Martinez-Helu-Burkhead-Ameer years we put up some pretty impressive numbers on offense.  We were basically always a Top 20 rushing offense in the country and regularly in the Top 10.  We had many of the best season and career rushing and total yard marks in school history.  You don't do that without pretty good offensive line play.  And the offense was far from our biggest issue during that stretch.  But people didn't like the overall results so they just complained about what was easy to complain about.

During the Riley era, I think the biggest problem was scheme.  People were so excited to get rid of Beck's offense and get back to using the fullback.  But when you line up in a bunch of heavy sets - fullback and tight ends - all that does is bring more defenders into the box.  If there are 8 or 9 guys in the box, how are five offensive linemen supposed to block them all?  And that's before you take into account how predicable our play-calling was and how basic our running schemes were.

So I think our line can definitely get better.  But I don't think they've been nearly as bad as most people seem to want to believe.  We have several OL in the NFL right now - Lewis, Sirles, Slauson, Sterup, Gates, Long and Qvale.  Each of those guys was a mulit-year starter here.  They were on the field a lot during what was supposedly a bad time for our OLine.  I don't think those two things make much sense when you put them together.
Click to expand...
Yep.  ^^^

I remember watching games during the Riley era where my wife even knew who was going to get the ball and where it was going.....and my wife doesn't know anything about football.  How in the hell can an offensive line efficiently block a defense when THEY know exactly what is coming?

I'll tell you when I become comfortable with our offensive scheme.  When I'm watching a game on TV and every once in a while there is a run play and I'll realize I'm watching the wrong player....or, even the camera man gets tricked.  That's a good sign and that happened this year.

I think it was Ameer's last year, he was leading the country in yards before contact.  Well, he was one hell of a running back and I'm not taking anything away from him on that.  But, you also don't get that statistic without at least a decent O line.

 
BigRedBuster said:
One heck of a lot of that has to do with scheme.  Now, the scheme helped the O line be better and look better.  
Click to expand...
Agreed, but I think that is whats so great about this staff. They allow the kids to just get after it out there  and look good. Sometimes it seemed like our Oline had too much to think about to just be a nasty bad boy out there. I think this scheme frees players up to give full effort without thinking.

 
Nebfanatic said:
Agreed, but I think that is whats so great about this staff. They allow the kids to just get after it out there  and look good. Sometimes it seemed like our Oline had too much to think about to just be a nasty bad boy out there. I think this scheme frees players up to give full effort without thinking.
Click to expand...
I don't necessarily agree with this.  In this scheme, the O linemen need to know exactly what they are doing and be proficient at doing it.  And...quite honestly, some of the things (like pulling) is something that physically is tough to get done.  BUT....the scheme makes it easier for them to accomplish because it makes the DEFENSE think so much an so fast.

 
  • Plus1
Reactions: Toe
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top