Tiger Board Logo

Donor's Den General Leaderboards TNET coins™ POTD Hall of Fame Map FAQ
GIVE AN AWARD
Use your TNET coins™ to grant this post a special award!

W
50
Big Brain
90
Love it!
100
Cheers
100
Helpful
100
Made Me Smile
100
Great Idea!
150
Mind Blown
150
Caring
200
Flammable
200
Hear ye, hear ye
200
Bravo
250
Nom Nom Nom
250
Take My Coins
500
Ooo, Shiny!
700
Treasured Post!
1000

YOUR BALANCE
Answer this for me .....
storage This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.
Archives - Tiger Boards Archive
add New Topic
Replies: 11
| visibility 1

Answer this for me .....


Nov 16, 2020, 9:05 PM

I’ve neither played nor coached football but I have followed the game very closely for at least sixty years but I am puzzled as to why you would not put an extra blocker in the offensive backfield against a team like Norte Dame who was prepared to stop the running game from the opening whistle. It appears to me that the Tiger offensive line can’t handle the defensive fronts of some opponents. Back in the old days, teams relied heavily on fullbacks to provide blocks for half backs. Is that totally out of the question in today’s game? I remember the jumbo package working in goal line situations. Surely the team works on that and with the talent available, it should be something the Tigers could do successfully.

When ETN is averaging ONE yard per carry its time to make some corrections. Right or wrong???

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Answer this for me .....


Nov 16, 2020, 9:14 PM

I'd like to see a cattle guard attached to the front of TE's uni.

2024 orange level member flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Answer this for me .....


Nov 16, 2020, 9:15 PM

Makes sense to me except we have elite talent at QB and WR. Need to get RUN ETN going!

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Answer this for me .....


Nov 16, 2020, 9:24 PM

The Tigers five offensive linemen are being asked to block four down linemen and two or three linebackers.

That leaves four or five defensive players to handle the receivers one on one ..... even when the QB has time to look the field over.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Answer this for me .....


Nov 16, 2020, 9:54 PM

Why is this different than any other ofensive line or for that matter last year Tigers OL ?

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Answer this for me .....


Nov 16, 2020, 10:28 PM

I was thinking a few days ago, that I'd like to see someone run an I-formation again. The problem with running it today is, everybody wants to throw it and, the player you put in the backfield has to come from somewhere. So you're losing a possible "target". I think the Tigers' biggest problem with it would be that ETN is our biggest back. So either he'd be the fullback and one of the other guys would be the tailback or, ETN would be the tailback and we'd move a TE to fullback. OR use XT as a fullback!!:)

ST

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Hate to say it, but the Coots did that with much success...


Nov 16, 2020, 10:10 PM

...against Old Sis. 300+ yards rushing. They had a great offensive game plan until they realized they couldn't keep up due to their porous defense. Would have been interesting if we had lined up with a fullback and pounded with ETN early on against Notre Dame. But those two defenses are very different talent wise.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

"When I was 6 my Mother let me have a kitten. It died. Don't send prayers, a TU is better." - tugalooriver circa 2022


Re: Hate to say it, but the Coots did that with much success...


Nov 16, 2020, 10:22 PM

It helps that Ole Miss is giving up 250 rushing yards per game and 536 yards per game overall.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Do we have a FB?***


Nov 16, 2020, 10:34 PM [ in reply to Hate to say it, but the Coots did that with much success... ]



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Answer this for me .....


Nov 17, 2020, 7:03 AM

I can't. I never played nor coached football.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Answer this for me .....


Nov 17, 2020, 11:36 AM

We've had mixed success with the jumbo package. There have been false starts, fumbles, and other issues.

It's hard to run an offense you don't practice very often and it's mistake prone.

Why would you put in an offense for one team when you're the favorite?

Remember that if we'd had Trevor and any one of the defenders that were out (Davis or Skalski) we win by double digits in regulation.

Even without them, one different/more correct ref call on the questionable calls and we win. One different bounce of the ball and we win.

Message was edited by: castaway®


2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Answer this for me .....


Nov 17, 2020, 11:46 AM

I understand what you are saying but there is a fault in it.

With 5 linemen and 1 TE we cant block the number of players defenses are putting in the "box".

If we add a fullback to the backfield, it takes away a receiving threat outside and allows the defense to bring another player into the box which makes things even tighter.

Our philosophy is to limit the traffic inside by spreading the field with WRs. If we can give our RB a small hole then there are fewer bodies to get in his way in that hole.

The reason we abandon this in short yardage plays or at the goal line is because the defense is packed in tight no matter what your formation is in those situations, so spreading everybody out is not as helpful.

The fix is to block better with our interior line, not to add more people in to block.

The space is more helpful than an extra blocker would be.

Either way, we need to get things turned around in that area!

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Replies: 11
| visibility 1
Archives - Tiger Boards Archive
add New Topic