Ay-Ziggy-Zoomba.com

We’ve already been sacked 20 times this year, including 10 times in the last two games alone (6 at Miami and 4 against BC). Our 20 sacks already equals what we had in all of last season. Now I know we ran the ball much more last year, but in comparison to our other recent passing years, here's what we did for an ENTIRE season: in 2005 we allowed 22 sacks, in 2004 we only allowed 13 and in 2003 we allowed 21. I’m not putting the blame solely on the OL or on our QB for that matter because we have had both breakdowns in protection and have held onto the ball too long. I see it as a problem in both areas. But the fact of the matter is, we’re getting sacked way too many times.

We miss Stud. Not so much his play calling, but the OL has fallen apart without him.

Sheehan holding the ball and us having 0 run game is what I contribute the sacks to. Defensive lines can pin their noses back and pass rush every play against us. To be honest I'm suprised that number isn't higher.

Jacobs4Heisman wrote:We miss Stud. Not so much his play calling, but the OL has fallen apart without him.

Thank you for adding that last part. I just about had an aneurysm.

Our OL has been a big time disappointment this year. I agree that it is quite likely that losing Stud has hurt in this regard.

Its sad but our OL used to be dominant year in and year out. They always seemed to have control over the LOS most of the time. But this year we are missing 3 OL that transfered that would likely be factors, losing Stud didn't help and we just can't physically control the LOS anymore , probably lack of great size/strength that we've had in the past.

Many of you have said that TS holds on to the ball way too long and maybe thats why its contributing to OL breakdowns. If thats true , then TS has done almost a complete 180 in his play from the first 3-4 games, cuz he wasn't doing those things before the BC game. He looked plenty poised and threw the ball away when needed and got the ball out quickly just fine vs Minny and MSU. Buts plenty obvious that the more games we've played and the more film our upcoming opposition studies they've figured out exactly what we're doing. The BC game seems to have ruined Sheehan for some reason. BC was the first game that our offense was done fooling anyone with serious talent and it showed with the all the INT's and whatnot.

Of course the complete and utter lack of being able to run the ball has made this possible. After that horrid BC game , TS now is mentally tense and uptight about his performance now where he wasn't before. He holds the ball way too long now cuz he's freaked out of throwing INT's. Solution? Run the damn football and calm your qb down for a few games. Give him some rest and another offensive facet to ease off the pressure to perform at such a high level that is unfortunately required for us to even look competent right now.

There are frankly only 2 reasons why we are seeing no running game right now. Either GB has just the biggest hard on for the pass only offense or 2, GB doesn't believe our O-line can physically run block well enough for it to work. Both reasons are sad.

If you run the same sets and blocking schemes all day, you make it pretty easy for the other team to design blitz packages that you won't be able to block. When you've got two guys running at the QB untouched as he's dropping back, that's not a lineman getting beaten, that's a scheme getting blown up.

The QB also needs to remember that 3rd and 10 is infinitely better than 3rd and 18. Get rid of the damn ball if nobody is open or make your reads a bit quicker. Don't just stand there like a crash test dummy waiting to get popped

Flipper wrote:If you run the same sets and blocking schemes all day, you make it pretty easy for the other team to design blitz packages that you won't be able to block. When you've got two guys running at the QB untouched as he's dropping back, that's not a lineman getting beaten, that's a scheme getting blown up.

The QB also needs to remember that 3rd and 10 is infinitely better than 3rd and 18. Get rid of the damn ball if nobody is open or make your reads a bit quicker. Don't just stand there like a crash test dummy waiting to get popped

I think it's fair to say that the entire offense has broken down completely the last 2 weeks.

The OL is not blocking well.

The WRs are not getting open.

The QB is not getting rid of the ball, is not protecting the ball, is holding the ball too long, is not finding open WRs.


The task now is to determine whether this is a flaw in our scheme and correct it, or if it's execution related. I believe it's the former, but something tells me our coach will pass it off as the latter.

hammb wrote:

The task now is to determine whether this is a flaw in our scheme and correct it, or if it's execution related. I believe it's the former, but something tells me our coach will pass it off as the latter.

I think you're right.

It seemed like Miami had a good game plan

"I thought Miami did a nice job. I don't think they did anything defensively that we had not seen, there was a lack of execution on our part. That stuff is going to happen and you have to be able to fight through that. We have six days to get that fixed."

Well technically he's right...we saw several BC defenders sprint past the line unmolested en route to the QB during the prior week's game. When Miami did it it hardly seemed new....

Falcon137 wrote:Sheehan holding the ball and us having 0 run game is what I contribute the sacks to. Defensive lines can pin their noses back and pass rush every play against us. To be honest I'm suprised that number isn't higher.

I believe the phrase you're looking for is "pin their ears back". While neither really make much sense, If one of my football coaches would have told me to pin my nose back I probably would have stoppped playing so that I could laugh.

Flipper wrote:If you run the same sets and blocking schemes all day, you make it pretty easy for the other team to design blitz packages that you won't be able to block. When you've got two guys running at the QB untouched as he's dropping back, that's not a lineman getting beaten, that's a scheme getting blown up.

Yup, and that is what you will get when you have no RB in the backfield to pick up a blitzing LBer.

Falconboy wrote:TS now is mentally tense and uptight about his performance now where he wasn't before. He holds the ball way too long now cuz he's freaked out of throwing INT's.

I do think there is some of this -- that Sheehan was overcompensating for the brutality inflicted on him in Boston. It's possible he wasn't making throws that he was able to complete earlier in the season because of what happened in Boston.

I'm not quite sure he's holding the ball too long in the classic sense. He's done that in past games too -- and at that point, he he would run out of the pocket and dump the ball. A few times Saturday, it seemed like he tried to do this and couldn't escape quite as easily.

I also wonder, after a couple of dropped passes (Parks comes to mind), if Sheehan was locked into Partridge and Barnes and not looking for his other receivers very often.

Warthog wrote:

Flipper wrote:If you run the same sets and blocking schemes all day, you make it pretty easy for the other team to design blitz packages that you won't be able to block. When you've got two guys running at the QB untouched as he's dropping back, that's not a lineman getting beaten, that's a scheme getting blown up.

Yup, and that is what you will get when you have no RB in the backfield to pick up a blitzing LBer.

Gotta agree with this. Pope and Lane used to pick up the blitz very well. Bullock can do that, too. With the empty backfield, it forces the QB to make a quicker decision.

Falconfreak90 wrote:

Warthog wrote:

Flipper wrote:If you run the same sets and blocking schemes all day, you make it pretty easy for the other team to design blitz packages that you won't be able to block. When you've got two guys running at the QB untouched as he's dropping back, that's not a lineman getting beaten, that's a scheme getting blown up.

Yup, and that is what you will get when you have no RB in the backfield to pick up a blitzing LBer.

Gotta agree with this. Pope and Lane used to pick up the blitz very well. Bullock can do that, too. With the empty backfield, it forces the QB to make a quicker decision.

But we use Winovich to do this. And Winovich is not a threat to run the ball. So the defense still knows it is going to be a pass, but now we have one less WR and one more blocker. So they back out of the blitz and just play coverage with 7 guys against 4.