Clemson Running back

[corchjay 5,311]

Against bama showing you exactly why you don’t play running backs that don’t know how to pass protect

[aujeff11 6,243]

34 minutes ago, corchjay said:

Against bama showing you exactly why you don’t play running backs that don’t know how to pass protect 

 

Exactly 

[AU64 10,122]

Saw a little of that in the Oklahoma game too.....RBs whiffing on block attempts and Mayfield being nailed.

Smaller, fast backs are a mixed blessing.   On the other hand, AU almost never blitzed against UCF as best I can remember and their OL did an adequate job of keeping our DL off their QB so their small RBs never had to help with protection. 

[PowerOfDixieland 3,226]

On the other hand, Mayfield and Milton showed what it looks like for pass protection to break down, move out of the pocket and make a defense pay for not putting the QB on the ground.  Pretty sure we've never even considered a scramble drill.  The plays are so well designed you won't need to check down from the primary receiver, but if you do, just duck and heave the s*** out of it....

[BJCrawford 1,568]

I don’t think mayfield scrambled near as well as the UCF QB.  Milton was quick and never took his eyes from the field. I found him impressive.

[lionheartkc 6,150]

17 minutes ago, BJCrawford said:

I don’t think mayfield scrambled near as well as the UCF QB.  Milton was quick and never took his eyes from the field. I found him impressive.

He must have lost a step since last year, then, because he was impossible to take down last year.

[Barnacle 9,064]

1 hour ago, PowerOfDixieland said:

On the other hand, Mayfield and Milton showed what it looks like for pass protection to break down, move out of the pocket and make a defense pay for not putting the QB on the ground.  Pretty sure we've never even considered a scramble drill.  The plays are so well designed you won't need to check down from the primary receiver, but if you do, just duck and heave the s*** out of it....

You suggesting that Stidham should/could have scrambled here?

[PowerOfDixieland 3,226]

1 hour ago, Barnacle said:

You suggesting that Stidham should/could have scrambled here?

I'm suggesting better coaching, better schemes, better play calling, and better understanding of what the defense is showing.  Slayton breaks the route off and, as previously mentioned, Stidham slings the s*** out of it.  Anything but that.

[Barnacle 9,064]

8 minutes ago, PowerOfDixieland said:

I'm suggesting better coaching, better schemes, better play calling, and better understanding of what the defense is showing.  Slayton breaks the route off and, as previously mentioned, Stidham slings the s*** out of it.  Anything but that.

Or he takes a loss of 15 with no timeouts and 25 seconds on the clock. Obviously, int was the worse result, but you don't risk a sack there. Rather give your receiver an opportunity and I think that's what Stidham was trying to do. 

[keesler 5,924]

Our Oline did a piss poor job and could not handle UCF's speed for most of the dang game.  Stidham was running for his life.

[AU64 10,122]

22 hours ago, keesler said:

Our Oline did a piss poor job and could not handle UCF's speed for most of the dang game.  Stidham was running for his life.

True...but I'm watching other games and when the QB gets into trouble there is usually a WR coming back to help him or makes a second move like that first TD against Clemson.....or with the little dump pass to a RB that Ga turned from a loss into a big gain.   

Our WRs run their routes and then watch to see what happens. .nobody helping the QB and apparently none of them even noticing that a blitz or bull rush is gonna happen and adjust accordingly. Lots of this is coaching of course but it is also player awareness isn't it?  

[triangletiger 1,599]

54 minutes ago, AU64 said:

True...but I'm watching other games and when the QB gets into trouble there is usually a WR coming back to help him or makes a second move like that first TD against Clemson.....or with the little dump pass to a RB that Ga turned from a loss into a big gain.   

Our WRs run their routes and then watch to see what happens. .nobody helping the QB and apparently none of them even noticing that a blitz or bull rush is gonna happen and adjust accordingly. Lots of this is coaching of course but it is also player awareness isn't it?  

Can the players be aware if they're not coached to be aware?

[AU64 10,122]

1 hour ago, triangletiger said:

Can the players be aware if they're not coached to be aware?

maybe but good coaching would be nice.

[triangletiger 1,599]

59 minutes ago, AU64 said:

maybe but good coaching would be nice.

That's my point.  The players would be more likely to come back and help their QB out if they're coached to do so.  I'm not saying they're not being coached to do so, but it doesn't appear that they are. 

[AU64 10,122]

1 hour ago, triangletiger said:

That's my point.  The players would be more likely to come back and help their QB out if they're coached to do so.  I'm not saying they're not being coached to do so, but it doesn't appear that they are. 

I'm thinking it should be instinctive to know when a play is "dead" and do something to help....and certainly the coaches should be teaching that...but either way, our WRs have not been doing much to help JS when trouble starts. 

[milehighfan 1,240]

5 hours ago, AU64 said:

True...but I'm watching other games and when the QB gets into trouble there is usually a WR coming back to help him or makes a second move like that first TD against Clemson.....or with the little dump pass to a RB that Ga turned from a loss into a big gain.   

Our WRs run their routes and then watch to see what happens. .nobody helping the QB and apparently none of them even noticing that a blitz or bull rush is gonna happen and adjust accordingly. Lots of this is coaching of course but it is also player awareness isn't it?  

It seemed all our receivers run deep routes so trying to come back and help the QB doesn't seem to be part of the plan

[AU64 10,122]

14 minutes ago, milehighfan said:

It seemed all our receivers run deep routes so trying to come back and help the QB doesn't seem to be part of the plan

That's not what I see....we usually have one or two deep and then others that cross or turn out about ten or 15 yards out toward the sidelines.   They are the ones who in my opinion should be looking to help the QB ...instead they just make their cut.....and stop and watch the action..

[lionheartkc 6,150]

On 1/2/2018 at 5:55 PM, Barnacle said:

 

You suggesting that Stidham should/could have scrambled here?

My only question about that play is who got the wrong play call? Was Stidham supposed to be targeting Hastings? Was Slayton supposed to be running a corner route instead of cutting? Any way you look at it, it was a perfect example of the communication issues that the players talked about.

[LKEEL75 2,566]

36 minutes ago, lionheartkc said:

My only question about that play is who got the wrong play call? Was Stidham supposed to be targeting Hastings? Was Slayton supposed to be running a corner route instead of cutting? Any way you look at it, it was a perfect example of the communication issues that the players talked about.

It is my understanding from those I have talked to about this play that this was on Stidham.  When the safeties blitz from one side (or both) the WR are supposed to see that and alter their route to be a slant (or in route depending on original route plan).  In this case UCF blitzed from the left and the WR saw this and cut his route in as he was supposed to.  However, JS got panicked and instead of setting his feet and throwing to the in route he fell backwards and flung it to where the original WR route was supposed to be going.  If JS had thrown where he was supposed to due to the blitz, the WR would have walked in untouched.  There was NOBODY in the middle of the field.

[Barnacle 9,064]

2 hours ago, lionheartkc said:

My only question about that play is who got the wrong play call? Was Stidham supposed to be targeting Hastings? Was Slayton supposed to be running a corner route instead of cutting? Any way you look at it, it was a perfect example of the communication issues that the players talked about.

Agreed about the communication. More than anything, this play failed because both of our tackles got beat badly off the ball. We had enough blockers in to handle the blitz, and it was actually a good play design considering the coverage. If the offensive line does their job, Slayton is catching the ball inside the 10 with a chance to walk in the end zone. But, the play never had a chance to develop. I think there's a decent chance that Stidham was trying to throw the ball out of bounds, or out of the back of the end zone. Either way, it was a poor throw. That being said, you can't take a sack there. Just need to throw the ball out of bounds in the direction of Slayton. That would have been the proper decision. 

2 hours ago, LKEEL75 said:

It is my understanding from those I have talked to about this play that this was on Stidham.  When the safeties blitz from one side (or both) the WR are supposed to see that and alter their route to be a slant (or in route depending on original route plan).  In this case UCF blitzed from the left and the WR saw this and cut his route in as he was supposed to.  However, JS got panicked and instead of setting his feet and throwing to the in route he fell backwards and flung it to where the original WR route was supposed to be going.  If JS had thrown where he was supposed to due to the blitz, the WR would have walked in untouched.  There was NOBODY in the middle of the field.

Neither safety blitzed here. Both linebackers blitzed as mentioned above, and we had enough blockers in to handle it. Actually, the blitz was being picked up well by Kerryon and Golson/Smith. But, both tackles got whooped, especially the LT Tega? Obviously, the first play Golson was absent from that position.

As for the routes, it was a good design if the line does their job. Hastings was going to hold the safety in the back of the endzone, clearing space for Slayton to run underneath. Slayton wasn't cutting his route off. You don't run a 12-yard dig as a "hot route". It's too long of a route, and neither receiver should have been cutting off their routes here. As we saw, Stidham was literally on the ground by the time Slayton was getting into his break, so its obvious this was the called play. Last, there's no way he has time to plant his feet and make that throw. Again, he was on his back by the time Slayton was even getting into his break, let alone out of it. 

This was a failure in the line first and foremost, and second on Stidham for throwing the ball where he did. Again, that ball needed to be thrown out of bounds in the direction of Slayton.

[lionheartkc 6,150]

19 minutes ago, Barnacle said:

Agreed about the communication. More than anything, this play failed because both of our tackles got beat badly off the ball. We had enough blockers in to handle the blitz, and it was actually a good play design considering the coverage. If the offensive line does their job, Slayton is catching the ball inside the 10 with a chance to walk in the end zone. But, the play never had a chance to develop. I think there's a decent chance that Stidham was trying to throw the ball out of bounds, or out of the back of the end zone. Either way, it was a poor throw. That being said, you can't take a sack there. Just need to throw the ball out of bounds in the direction of Slayton. That would have been the proper decision. 

I just can't help wondering, if Slaton had run a corner route, if it wouldn't have either been a TD or pass-interference with 2 defenders trying to fight him for it. 

Oh... and I totally agree that the line could have made it an easy first down or more if they would have done their job.

[Barnacle 9,064]

5 minutes ago, lionheartkc said:

I just can't help wondering, if Slaton had run a corner route, if it wouldn't have either been a TD or pass-interference with 2 defenders trying to fight him for it. 

Oh... and I totally agree that the line could have made it an easy first down or more if they would have done their job.

If Slayton runs a corner, or a fade it would have been because they called it that way, but it also would have put the safety in a position to make a play on either Hastings or Slayton's route. If the line blocks for Stidham it's a likely touchdown on the route he was running. It wasn't a bad play call. Just need your players to do their jobs. 

[Randman5000 4,226]

"Their linebackers are big"

[alexava 6,973]

I think JS was trying to throw it away. He could have stepped up and bought enough time to get it out of the end zone but could not get sacked. 18 got their not long after the ball did. Got to improve pass protection next year which is what I wanted most going into this year. He passed for over 3000 so we have to acknowledge improvement. I only remember one game over 300. So the passing game was steady. Just need more receivers involved next season. 

[BigSammyK 171]

On 1/4/2018 at 7:30 PM, lionheartkc said:

I just can't help wondering, if Slaton had run a corner route, if it wouldn't have either been a TD or pass-interference with 2 defenders trying to fight him for it. 

Oh... and I totally agree that the line could have made it an easy first down or more if they would have done their job.

Didn't JS say after the game that there was a miscommunication between he and DS? I swear I either read or heard him say that pre-snap he motioned for DS to run a fly and that it was on him to make sure DS heard/recognized the signal.