The OLB's - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: The OLB's (/thread-12789.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: The OLB's (/thread-12789.html)
The OLB's - Phogge - 09-30-2016
Forget the corners the most glaring thing was that the starters, 32 and 34 made no plays. Time and again they got turned in and blocked out. Speed kills. This looked like a Don James team.
The OLB's - Phogge - 09-30-2016
Forget the corners the most glaring thing was that the starters, 32 and 34 made no plays. Time and again they got turned in and blocked out. Speed kills. This looked like a Don James team.
Re: The OLB's - OutsiderFan - 10-01-2016
It looked to my eye that Mike Tyler was the best at outside contain on his side. One of the adjustments they should have made on defense was lining the OLBs up a bit wider. They were lined up right over the OT or TE all night, and routinely got turned inside. This also prevented them from ever being able to use their supposed speed advantage by going wide.
Re: The OLB's - OutsiderFan - 10-01-2016
It looked to my eye that Mike Tyler was the best at outside contain on his side. One of the adjustments they should have made on defense was lining the OLBs up a bit wider. They were lined up right over the OT or TE all night, and routinely got turned inside. This also prevented them from ever being able to use their supposed speed advantage by going wide.
Re: The OLB's - washingtonismoney - 10-01-2016
The pass rush has been not so great this season. Big surprise for me.
Re: The OLB's - washingtonismoney - 10-01-2016
The pass rush has been not so great this season. Big surprise for me.
Re: The OLB's - stupac2 - 10-01-2016
(10-01-2016, 07:06 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:The pass rush has been not so great this season. Big surprise for me.
It was great against KSU!
Re: The OLB's - stupac2 - 10-01-2016
(10-01-2016, 07:06 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:The pass rush has been not so great this season. Big surprise for me.
It was great against KSU!
Re: The OLB's - washingtonismoney - 10-01-2016
(10-01-2016, 07:32 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=15833.msg174417#msg174417 date=1475330783]
The pass rush has been not so great this season. Big surprise for me.
It was great against KSU!
[/quote]
Yeah, I think those were mostly coverage sacks.
Re: The OLB's - washingtonismoney - 10-01-2016
(10-01-2016, 07:32 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=15833.msg174417#msg174417 date=1475330783]
The pass rush has been not so great this season. Big surprise for me.
It was great against KSU!
[/quote]
Yeah, I think those were mostly coverage sacks.
Re: The OLB's - winflop - 10-01-2016
UW's sacks were NOT coverage sacks. Almost all of them happened within 3-3.5 secs of the snap. They were the result of horrible blocking, especially by A.T. Hall at LT. Shawgren's experiment should be over now - it never should have been done in the first place. Put Tucker back at LT and Hall back at RT ASAP.
Re: The OLB's - winflop - 10-01-2016
UW's sacks were NOT coverage sacks. Almost all of them happened within 3-3.5 secs of the snap. They were the result of horrible blocking, especially by A.T. Hall at LT. Shawgren's experiment should be over now - it never should have been done in the first place. Put Tucker back at LT and Hall back at RT ASAP.
Re: The OLB's - ChicagoCard - 10-01-2016
(10-01-2016, 08:37 AM)winflop link Wrote:UW's sacks were NOT coverage sacks. Almost all of them happened within 3-3.5 secs of the snap. They were the result of horrible blocking, especially by A.T. Hall at LT. Shawgren's experiment should be over now - it never should have been done in the first place. Put Tucker back at LT and Hall back at RT ASAP.
Well, that might have to wait a while. I'll bet what happens is Bright goes to a tackle and Fanaika to left guard, that's if Tucker is out for a while, or until next year even.
Re: The OLB's - ChicagoCard - 10-01-2016
(10-01-2016, 08:37 AM)winflop link Wrote:UW's sacks were NOT coverage sacks. Almost all of them happened within 3-3.5 secs of the snap. They were the result of horrible blocking, especially by A.T. Hall at LT. Shawgren's experiment should be over now - it never should have been done in the first place. Put Tucker back at LT and Hall back at RT ASAP.
Well, that might have to wait a while. I'll bet what happens is Bright goes to a tackle and Fanaika to left guard, that's if Tucker is out for a while, or until next year even.
Re: The OLB's - OutsiderFan - 10-01-2016
(10-01-2016, 08:37 AM)winflop link Wrote:UW's sacks were NOT coverage sacks. Almost all of them happened within 3-3.5 secs of the snap. They were the result of horrible blocking, especially by A.T. Hall at LT. Shawgren's experiment should be over now - it never should have been done in the first place. Put Tucker back at LT and Hall back at RT ASAP.
Tucker would have been worse at LT.
Re: The OLB's - OutsiderFan - 10-01-2016
(10-01-2016, 08:37 AM)winflop link Wrote:UW's sacks were NOT coverage sacks. Almost all of them happened within 3-3.5 secs of the snap. They were the result of horrible blocking, especially by A.T. Hall at LT. Shawgren's experiment should be over now - it never should have been done in the first place. Put Tucker back at LT and Hall back at RT ASAP.
Tucker would have been worse at LT.
Re: The OLB's - washingtonismoney - 10-01-2016
(10-01-2016, 08:37 AM)winflop link Wrote:UW's sacks were NOT coverage sacks. Almost all of them happened within 3-3.5 secs of the snap. They were the result of horrible blocking, especially by A.T. Hall at LT. Shawgren's experiment should be over now - it never should have been done in the first place. Put Tucker back at LT and Hall back at RT ASAP.
winflop, we were talking about K-State.
Re: The OLB's - washingtonismoney - 10-01-2016
(10-01-2016, 08:37 AM)winflop link Wrote:UW's sacks were NOT coverage sacks. Almost all of them happened within 3-3.5 secs of the snap. They were the result of horrible blocking, especially by A.T. Hall at LT. Shawgren's experiment should be over now - it never should have been done in the first place. Put Tucker back at LT and Hall back at RT ASAP.
winflop, we were talking about K-State.