How encouraging was the running game?

How encouraging was the running game? - 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: How encouraging was the running game? (/thread-23423.html)

Pages: 1 2

How encouraging was the running game? - MV72018 - 09-04-2022

How good was the O line's blocking yesterday?

E.J. Smith ran 11 times for 118 yards. Here are the yardages for his 11 runs, in the order in which they occurred:

87
8
-2
-1
6
6
1
1
16
-1
-3

On the 87 yard TD run, Smith showed good speed and I think he gets
kudos for finding a hole that looked unplanned.

The TD run aside, E. J. had 10 carries for 31 yards.

Of those 10 carries, 4 lost yardage (a total of 7 yards). Quite disturbing that he lost yardage on 4 plays out of 11 carries.

On the other 6, he gained 38, one of them accounting for 16 yards (toward the sideline).

Considering that we were playing Colgate, 10 for 31 doesn't impress me as a good or great day for the O line.

We shall see how the running game shakes out against USC on Saturday.

RE: How encouraging was the running game? - 82lsju - 09-04-2022

and all other runners had 51 yards on 17 carries....

RE: How encouraging was the running game? - old spanish trail - 09-04-2022

It's concerning and puzzling. Same as last year.

RE: How encouraging was the running game? - qwerty49 - 09-04-2022

(09-04-2022, 05:45 PM)MV72018 Wrote: How good was the O line's blocking yesterday?

E.J. Smith ran 11 times for 118 yards. Here are the yardages for his 11 runs, in the order in which they occurred:

87
8
-2
-1
6
6
1
1
16
-1
-3

On the 87 yard TD run, Smith showed good speed and I think he gets
kudos for finding a hole that looked unplanned.

The TD run aside, E. J. had 10 carries for 31 yards.

Of those 10 carries, 4 lost yardage (a total of 7 yards). Quite disturbing that he lost yardage on 4 plays out of 11 carries.

On the other 6, he gained 38, one of them accounting for 16 yards (toward the sideline).

Considering that we were playing Colgate, 10 for 31 doesn't impress me as a good or great day for the O line.

We shall see how the running game shakes out against USC on Saturday.

I've watched the replay of Smith's first run several times. The LOS looked more like a basketball court as most of our guys (and their guys) looked to be either standing, screening, or tangle-blocking. Smith just kind of got lost for a while behind the tall guys and then Colgate's safeties sucked themselves in big-time, probably sensing an opportunity for a gang tackle. At that precise moment Smith popped outside and was in daylight. If the Colgate DBs hadn't unnecessarily taken themselves out of the play, it could have been a gain of 3-4 yards.

I was more concerned by Smith's KOR right before that. Seemed to go down on an ankle tackle.

RE: How encouraging was the running game? - MV72018 - 09-04-2022

(09-04-2022, 08:00 PM)qwerty49 Wrote:
(09-04-2022, 05:45 PM)MV72018 Wrote: How good was the O line's blocking yesterday?

E.J. Smith ran 11 times for 118 yards. Here are the yardages for his 11 runs, in the order in which they occurred:

87
8
-2
-1
6
6
1
1
16
-1
-3

On the 87 yard TD run, Smith showed good speed and I think he gets
kudos for finding a hole that looked unplanned.

The TD run aside, E. J. had 10 carries for 31 yards.

Of those 10 carries, 4 lost yardage (a total of 7 yards). Quite disturbing that he lost yardage on 4 plays out of 11 carries.

On the other 6, he gained 38, one of them accounting for 16 yards (toward the sideline).

Considering that we were playing Colgate, 10 for 31 doesn't impress me as a good or great day for the O line.

We shall see how the running game shakes out against USC on Saturday.

I've watched the replay of Smith's first run several times. The LOS looked more like a basketball court as most of our guys (and their guys) looked to be either standing, screening, or tangle-blocking. Smith just kind of got lost for a while behind the tall guys and then Colgate's safeties sucked themselves in big-time, probably sensing an opportunity for a gang tackle. At that precise moment Smith popped outside and was in daylight. If the Colgate DBs hadn't unnecessarily taken themselves out of the play, it could have been a gain of 3-4 yards.

I was more concerned by Smith's KOR right before that. Seemed to go down on an ankle tackle.

That was my impression too. I thought it was a freak/lucky big gain rather than good execution of a specific play call.

RE: How encouraging was the running game? - JohnR34231 - 09-05-2022

Speaking for myself, I didn't come into the season with particularly high expectations for the running game.
So the fact that it wasn't very impressive doesn't bother me.
The passing game was impressive and that's what we are going to live or die by.

RE: How encouraging was the running game? - BostonCard - 09-05-2022

Thanks for the analysis MV (and others). I didn’t watch the game, seeing as it was on at 1 am my time, but looking at the box score, that is what I had feared. A competent running game should have been able to consistently rip runs of 5 to 10 yards against an overmatched Colgate on virtually every down. That we could not, and that half our running total came on the first play, is a red flashing red “danger” light.

BC

Watched first half of Rice-$C - SemperCard - 09-05-2022

Mike Bloomgren’s Rice OL was getting lots of push against $C, and Owls were moving the ball well on the ground. On a 3 yard TD run they lined up 3 tight ends, leading the announcers to invoke “Intellectual Brutality”. I hope Stanford can bring back the same.

Rice was actually about the get the game to within 1 score and then gave up a brutal 90 yard oick6 (during which the QB got injured trying make a tackle), and then it was over.

RE: How encouraging was the running game? - lex24 - 09-05-2022

(09-05-2022, 04:48 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote: Speaking for myself, I didn't come into the season with particularly high expectations for the running game.
So the fact that it wasn't very impressive doesn't bother me.
The passing game was impressive and that's what we are going to live or die by.

Bothers me. If they can’t run, it’s going to be a very long season. It’s not going to be ground and pound. Those days, unfortunately, are over. But they need to be able to run well enough to keep defenses honest and to sustain drives.

RE: How encouraging was the running game? - gailtate - 09-06-2022

(09-05-2022, 04:48 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote: Speaking for myself, I didn't come into the season with particularly high expectations for the running game.
So the fact that it wasn't very impressive doesn't bother me.
The passing game was impressive and that's what we are going to live or die by.

Pray for McKee. Trojan DC knows Shaw's O better than Shawvita does. Look out. I just hope TM stays healthy enough to be a show horse next April.

RE: How encouraging was the running game? - French Rage - 09-06-2022

As others have pointed out, the 87yd run, while a cool way to open the season, was largely a broken play that broke well for us. Props to Smith for being resourceful, finding the hole, and turning on the speed, but you have to wonder how much of that was him and how much of that was the Colgate defense. Would the same thing occur against an FBS P5 level defense?

And ignoring that, 10 for 31yd is sub-mediocre. That said, it's Shaw, it's not like he's going to show us (or future defenses, especially USC) anything he doesn't have to ahead of time. Was this game more about busting open the entire playbook, or about getting everyone warmed up before the first game that really matters?

RE: How encouraging was the running game? - BostonCard - 09-06-2022

Against a team like Colgate, no offense, we should be able to run a plain vanilla run between the tackles and have the offensive linemen push their defenders back five yards. That we couldn’t should be a flashing red warning sign.

I don’t think this has anything to do with saving anything in the playbook. The offensive line couldn’t impose its will on Colgate, and that doesn’t make me optimistic about how it will do with even average PAC-12 defenses.

BC

RE: How encouraging was the running game? - old spanish trail - 09-06-2022

(09-06-2022, 01:03 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Against a team like Colgate, no offense, we should be able to run a plain vanilla run between the tackles and have the offensive linemen push their defenders back five yards. That we couldn’t should be a flashing red warning sign.

I don’t think this has anything to do with saving anything in the playbook. The offensive line couldn’t impose its will on Colgate, and that doesn’t make me optimistic about how it will do with even average PAC-12 defenses.

BC

Yep. Big flashing red warning sign.

RE: How encouraging was the running game? - cardcrimson - 09-06-2022

[Image: 99f03305d74af883df31554ed8bd82ea.jpg]

(09-06-2022, 03:13 PM)old spanish trail Wrote:
(09-06-2022, 01:03 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Against a team like Colgate, no offense, we should be able to run a plain vanilla run between the tackles and have the offensive linemen push their defenders back five yards. That we couldn’t should be a flashing red warning sign.

I don’t think this has anything to do with saving anything in the playbook. The offensive line couldn’t impose its will on Colgate, and that doesn’t make me optimistic about how it will do with even average PAC-12 defenses.

BC

Yep. Big flashing red warning sign.

RE: How encouraging was the running game? - Goose - 09-06-2022

(09-06-2022, 01:03 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Against a team like Colgate, no offense, we should be able to run a plain vanilla run between the tackles and have the offensive linemen push their defenders back five yards. That we couldn’t should be a flashing red warning sign.

I don’t think this has anything to do with saving anything in the playbook. The offensive line couldn’t impose its will on Colgate, and that doesn’t make me optimistic about how it will do with even average PAC-12 defenses.

BC

I agree with one caveat. If you look at our goal line offense, we pretty much did push Colgate into the end zone. I am not sure we had any "plain vanilla" runs. We seem to always be trying to "do something" and don't. Colgate got guys into our backfield that weren't blocked. They didn't win the battle at the LOS, they avoided it.

RE: How encouraging was the running game? - qwerty49 - 09-06-2022

(09-06-2022, 11:36 AM)French Rage Wrote: As others have pointed out, the 87yd run, while a cool way to open the season, was largely a broken play that broke well for us. Props to Smith for being resourceful, finding the hole, and turning on the speed, but you have to wonder how much of that was him and how much of that was the Colgate defense. Would the same thing occur against an FBS P5 level defense?

And ignoring that, 10 for 31yd is sub-mediocre. That said, it's Shaw, it's not like he's going to show us (or future defenses, especially USC) anything he doesn't have to ahead of time. Was this game more about busting open the entire playbook, or about getting everyone warmed up before the first game that really matters?

I share your concerns but maybe the silver lining is remembering Bryce Love had a few games like that. Nada, nada, nada, TD, nada etc

RE: How encouraging was the running game? - old spanish trail - 09-06-2022

(09-06-2022, 08:30 PM)qwerty49 Wrote:
(09-06-2022, 11:36 AM)French Rage Wrote: As others have pointed out, the 87yd run, while a cool way to open the season, was largely a broken play that broke well for us. Props to Smith for being resourceful, finding the hole, and turning on the speed, but you have to wonder how much of that was him and how much of that was the Colgate defense. Would the same thing occur against an FBS P5 level defense?

And ignoring that, 10 for 31yd is sub-mediocre. That said, it's Shaw, it's not like he's going to show us (or future defenses, especially USC) anything he doesn't have to ahead of time. Was this game more about busting open the entire playbook, or about getting everyone warmed up before the first game that really matters?

I share your concerns but maybe the silver lining is remembering Bryce Love had a few games like that. Nada, nada, nada, TD, nada etc

Smith has good speed, Bryce had track speed.

RE: How encouraging was the running game? - Goose - 09-06-2022

(09-06-2022, 08:30 PM)qwerty49 Wrote: I share your concerns but maybe the silver lining is remembering Bryce Love had a few games like that. Nada, nada, nada, TD, nada etc

I don't consider that a "silver lining". Those nadas were very damaging. It wasn't Love's fault, but it was then that we started to see way too much penetration into the backfield stopping a running play before it starts. Two OL coaches and many different OL players later and we appear to still have that problem. Not good.

RE: How encouraging was the running game? - Treebound - 09-07-2022

We clearly miss Holmgren's recruiting ability. I'm not surprised that his O-Line did a reasonable job against $c. The sooner/trojans will engage heavily in the box and will sweep in from the edge with their speed. The Stanford O-line needs to bring it on Saturday on both pass and run blocking or it's going to be a challenging outing.

We have a very, very good QB and talented receivers, but they will need some time to pick apart the fast sooner backfield. Yes, Shawvita held back the bulk of their "new" scheme, but I fear Shaw will spend too much time with his nose in the play card versus getting his team up and focused for the battle on the field. Motivate them Coach....EUTM! In Tanner we Trust!

RE: How encouraging was the running game? - CowboyIndian - 09-07-2022

(09-07-2022, 08:29 AM)Treebound Wrote: We clearly miss Holmgren's recruiting ability.

He missed it as well.