"In the Sugar Bowl, the flaws of Nussmeier's scheme were put under a heavy spotlight: the protection broke down, McCarron faltered and three turnovers ultimately doomed the Tide. Alabama's most potent weapons -- guys such as O.J. Howard and Derrick Henry -- were underutilized, and a back-and-forth commitment to the running game turned the offense from dangerously dynamic to utterly predictable."
That doesn't seem like a fair assessment of Nussmeier; it sounds more like after-the-fact rationalization.
Alabama lost to Oklahoma because (a) OU came out swinging, and (b) 3 picks leading to 21 points is hard to overcome. If anything, the blame should be on Kirby Smart for letting OU score 45, rather than on Nussmeier for scoring "only" 31 points.
I didn't watch the Sugar Bowl, so I can't really comment on the flow of that game. However, almost anytime a team loses, there are going to be questions about the offensive playcalling. Just look at Michigan scoring 41 against Ohio State - the most-talked-about play call was the failed 2-point conversion, not any of the plays that allowed the Wolverines to score 41 when they were so overmatched on paper.
So assuming we adopt this scheme and try to emulate what Bama's been doing...how much improvement should we expect in your opinion? Is this scheme easier for young OL's to get hang of?
I do think Nussmeier will make it easier for the young offensive linemen, because I think the inside zone play will be the staple running play. Not only have we been running it this past year and had some success, but the most important blockers on inside zone are the three interior guys. If Michigan has the same G-C-G combination as this past season, or at least guys who got reps in there (Bryant, for example), then we should improve. I don't really know how to quantify "how much improvement" because we don't know about his choices for personnel, etc. But I would expect the running backs' numbers to improve across the board.
Alabama's play calling early caused me to think of Terry Malone/Mike Debord's use of Steve Breaston. The first two passes were real quick shots to stepped back outside receivers facing soft coverage. The idea of course being to give Cooper or whoever it was out there a chance to make somebody miss and then run. It went like a charm both times.
Can naked bootleg passes to dragging tight ends be far behind?
And then there's the ESPN article at this link:
ReplyDeletehttp://espn.go.com/blog/sec/post/_/id/77986/tide-can-start-fresh-without-nussmeier
"In the Sugar Bowl, the flaws of Nussmeier's scheme were put under a heavy spotlight: the protection broke down, McCarron faltered and three turnovers ultimately doomed the Tide. Alabama's most potent weapons -- guys such as O.J. Howard and Derrick Henry -- were underutilized, and a back-and-forth commitment to the running game turned the offense from dangerously dynamic to utterly predictable."
That doesn't seem like a fair assessment of Nussmeier; it sounds more like after-the-fact rationalization.
Alabama lost to Oklahoma because (a) OU came out swinging, and (b) 3 picks leading to 21 points is hard to overcome. If anything, the blame should be on Kirby Smart for letting OU score 45, rather than on Nussmeier for scoring "only" 31 points.
I didn't watch the Sugar Bowl, so I can't really comment on the flow of that game. However, almost anytime a team loses, there are going to be questions about the offensive playcalling. Just look at Michigan scoring 41 against Ohio State - the most-talked-about play call was the failed 2-point conversion, not any of the plays that allowed the Wolverines to score 41 when they were so overmatched on paper.
DeleteSo assuming we adopt this scheme and try to emulate what Bama's been doing...how much improvement should we expect in your opinion? Is this scheme easier for young OL's to get hang of?
ReplyDeleteI do think Nussmeier will make it easier for the young offensive linemen, because I think the inside zone play will be the staple running play. Not only have we been running it this past year and had some success, but the most important blockers on inside zone are the three interior guys. If Michigan has the same G-C-G combination as this past season, or at least guys who got reps in there (Bryant, for example), then we should improve. I don't really know how to quantify "how much improvement" because we don't know about his choices for personnel, etc. But I would expect the running backs' numbers to improve across the board.
DeleteAlabama's play calling early caused me to think of Terry Malone/Mike Debord's use of Steve Breaston. The first two passes were real quick shots to stepped back outside receivers facing soft coverage. The idea of course being to give Cooper or whoever it was out there a chance to make somebody miss and then run. It went like a charm both times.
ReplyDeleteCan naked bootleg passes to dragging tight ends be far behind?
Don't say the word "naked" around here. You'll get everyone riled up.
DeleteUnprotected?
DeleteI think you're going in the wrong direction.
DeleteAre you saying that naked bootlegs could be delivered to dragging Butt?
DeleteReminds me of Mila Kunis. Much gusto!
ReplyDelete