How much are we paying coach Petrino? It appears we are paying way to much!
- Thread starter wilkie01
- Start date
I agree! What happend to "FTS"-feed the studs? I did not see any creativity at all- no screens, no bubble screens, no roll outs of QB, very little use of TE or Slot receiver.
Which "studs" are not getting the ball?
I also don't recall too many screens in the Petrino offense. Wasn't our leading receiver last year--Quick--in the slot?
Where am I wrong here?...
For starters - LJ didn't get the ball enough on the read option - which was way more effective than the passing plays that were called. Secondly - Williams. Reasonable people may disagree whether he is a stud or not but the facts remain that his yards per carry this year have been really good and were again vs clemson.
I think the slot comment was made with the quick slant in mind which had been a staple of Petrino's offense previously but for some reason not now. And yes, quick was in the slot but we all know that the majority of his yards came 15–20 yards down the field.
I don't recall whether the screen was a big part of Petrino's offense before but, given the fact that defenses have caught up on what his offense is now, he might want to think about changing some things up.
My opinion is Lamar can't read defenses. Against bad defenses his first option is there. He may manipulate the defense by initially looking away but he knows exactly where is he going with the ball on presnap read. Against Clemson he was totally confused. He was set up on the pick six and he was trying to fit balls in when the coverage was there. When any QB throws into double coverage with no pressure that QB isn't reading defense or making the necessary check downs. He is not the kind of QB to run a Bobby P offense. He is a best football player in the college game but he is not a elite passer and doesn't appear to have QB mental skills. There is a huge difference between him and Teddy Bridgewater in terms of pure QB skills.
The biggest mistake, in my opinion, is instead of using the running game more they are relying on the passing game. Lamar talent is in running the ball. They need to look how WVU did it with Pat White. They used the running back a ton, he was really good, to free up White and their passing game. Louisville uses Lamar more which really hurts the play action game. Everyone is keying Lamar, the game plan is pretty simple take away his running or limit it then then take away his first option in the passing game. Good defenses are doing that. Petrino is being really stubborn in making him a passer and it hurting his offense.
The biggest mistake, in my opinion, is instead of using the running game more they are relying on the passing game. Lamar talent is in running the ball. They need to look how WVU did it with Pat White. They used the running back a ton, he was really good, to free up White and their passing game. Louisville uses Lamar more which really hurts the play action game. Everyone is keying Lamar, the game plan is pretty simple take away his running or limit it then then take away his first option in the passing game. Good defenses are doing that. Petrino is being really stubborn in making him a passer and it hurting his offense.
Honestly, this isn't very helpful. Do you think that Clemson can be outcoached so easily when Clemson runs the same basic offense as Louisville does? You are going to trick them with the same plays that Clemson's defense sees every day in practice?
The main difference between Clemson and Louisville is that Clemson has better players up front on both sides of the ball. Check the 2017 and 2018 NFL drafts if you don't believe me. See which team has more LBs, DTs and OLs taken in terms of both quality - high draft picks/ future NFL starters - and quantity (overall draft picks/guys who make NFL rosters). Clemson will have more of both.
I could see your point if Clemson were a poorly coached, underachieving football program. The converse is true. Clemson has won 10 games a season every year since 2011, and beaten LSU, Ohio State (twice), Oklahoma (twice) and Alabama in bowl games during that time, with their only losses being against West Virginia (epic historic blowout) and Alabama. What is more, they've actually outperformed their recruiting in that time, with recruiting classes that average #11: https://n.rivals.com/news/rivals-top-50-recruiting-teams-of-the-past-five-years. Contrast them with Florida, Texas A&M, Georgia, Auburn, USC, LSU and Notre Dame, who have a combined 1 major bowl victory and conference title - both by USC last year - and several losing seasons in that span. I wouldn't say that Clemson has great coaching. Swinney, Venables, Elliot and Scott are merely good to very good. But their coaching is more than good enough to easily and quickly shut down what is being proposed. Especially since they have superior talent at their disposal.
Louisville has to close the gap on signing day before they can close the gap on the field. And no, don't use the most previous signing day as an indication, as Clemson had a ton of returning players and only signed a small class to fill specific needs.
The main difference between Clemson and Louisville is that Clemson has better players up front on both sides of the ball. Check the 2017 and 2018 NFL drafts if you don't believe me. See which team has more LBs, DTs and OLs taken in terms of both quality - high draft picks/ future NFL starters - and quantity (overall draft picks/guys who make NFL rosters). Clemson will have more of both.
I could see your point if Clemson were a poorly coached, underachieving football program. The converse is true. Clemson has won 10 games a season every year since 2011, and beaten LSU, Ohio State (twice), Oklahoma (twice) and Alabama in bowl games during that time, with their only losses being against West Virginia (epic historic blowout) and Alabama. What is more, they've actually outperformed their recruiting in that time, with recruiting classes that average #11: https://n.rivals.com/news/rivals-top-50-recruiting-teams-of-the-past-five-years. Contrast them with Florida, Texas A&M, Georgia, Auburn, USC, LSU and Notre Dame, who have a combined 1 major bowl victory and conference title - both by USC last year - and several losing seasons in that span. I wouldn't say that Clemson has great coaching. Swinney, Venables, Elliot and Scott are merely good to very good. But their coaching is more than good enough to easily and quickly shut down what is being proposed. Especially since they have superior talent at their disposal.
Louisville has to close the gap on signing day before they can close the gap on the field. And no, don't use the most previous signing day as an indication, as Clemson had a ton of returning players and only signed a small class to fill specific needs.
Ding ding ding this is the answer he is 100% correct. We got beat in the trenches. I think LJ did make some bad throws however most of the time he was rushing the throws. Clemson was moved through are line with ease at times. His previous two games when he had time he made decent decisions. As far as running not sure why Malik didn't run more but Clemson dominated the O line their experience came into play. Not sure he would have done much but it have been. I've to try. Was anyone surprised that their D was that good? I wasn't all summer we heard how great it was. Their weakness if there was one was suppose to be the QB. Guess what he's good. So their experience vs our lack of experience hurt. We do have defensive issues but they were flat worn out too. I suspect this season will be opposite of last year we will start out rough gain experience and momentum. Not happy with the way we lost but I see us improving. It was an eye opener for the coaches, players, and fans. Time to get back to work and move on.
Due to our lack of recruiting base we are, and always will be, at a talent disadvantage against CU, FSU, and arguably against many possible Bowl Opps.($EC)
We will have to execute FLAWLESSLY in these games.
MW's mistake in the first drive MAY have had a bigger impact than we know. Had we scored on that first drive, it MAY have changed the way things played out.
Odds are, we would have lost because we could not stop them. But if they couldn't stop us...we'd have had a punchers chance.
Hopefully sitting him will reap rewards for him (and others who saw what happened) later.
We will have to execute FLAWLESSLY in these games.
MW's mistake in the first drive MAY have had a bigger impact than we know. Had we scored on that first drive, it MAY have changed the way things played out.
Odds are, we would have lost because we could not stop them. But if they couldn't stop us...we'd have had a punchers chance.
Hopefully sitting him will reap rewards for him (and others who saw what happened) later.
Darn, offense wins some games, but defense wins championships in football. Our problem against Clemson was neither units cane to play!
This is the typical toxicity after a loss. Get over it. Teams lose all the frigging time - that is why they call it competition. No one is ever going to find a reason why we sucked - never.
Marshall Dillon was bang on. And so were others - we need well-developed talent and we need to play a complete and near-flawless game to beat someone like Clemson. We actually get another chance later this season with FSU, who will be gunning for us big time.
It was Dabo who said neither UofL nor Clemson was going to win championships with this one game, nor would the rest of the season be considered a failure.
Marshall Dillon was bang on. And so were others - we need well-developed talent and we need to play a complete and near-flawless game to beat someone like Clemson. We actually get another chance later this season with FSU, who will be gunning for us big time.
It was Dabo who said neither UofL nor Clemson was going to win championships with this one game, nor would the rest of the season be considered a failure.
Latest posts
-
-
-
BB RECRUITING: Chucky Hepburn Commits To Cards
- Latest: billybeer44
-
-
