The thing that scares me more than anything...

hammb · Post by **hammb** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 8:02 pm

IMO yesterday's playcalling was putrid. It was unimaginative & repetitive. A brick wall of an OL and a terrible UB team allowed us to roll to 500 yards despite these things.

That being said, I have a lot of respect for our offensive coaches in terms of gameplanning and executing an offense. I've never been sold on this staff, and I'm still not, but offense is clearly their strong suit. Say what we will, but these are the guys that designed (and/or called plays for) the offense for Harris, and then adapted it into a more passing attack for Omar. In each of those years we were among the best offenses in the country.

Now, with this current group of players, we are calling the game like we're afraid. It is painfully obvious that the coaching staff is not comfortable with allowing either of our QBs to throw the ball downfield. This is not a good sign, IMO. While I'm no fan of our staff, I do respect their offensive abilities, and it is clear that they are seeing things from these players that they don't like. Honestly, think back, we did not have the game plan this throttled back when we went into the defending NC's house in Norman, OK for Omar's first career start. Turner has started 4 or 5 games now and they are still afraid to let him throw the ball...If the coaching staff is this scared, how can we have any confidence in the players? The kids have to know that the coaching staff is lacking faith in them as well, not sure if that will have any effects on their play, we shall see.

I should also note that another one of the scary things about this 2 QB monster right now is that the players themselves are really confused. They don't know who is going to be in and when. There were a number of times last night that Barnes would come running in and Turner would start trotting off, only to have the coaching staff yell at him to get back out there as he gets to the sidelines. If they are going to continue with the 2 headed QB monster they must do a better job communitcating who is in what packages.

BGSUFootballFan · Post by **BGSUFootballFan** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 8:13 pm

I agree with most of that hammb. I think one key part that you are leaving out that really bothers me is the play calling within the running game. I don't know if GB scripts the 1st posession of every game or not but it sure seems like it. Think back to our opening drives in our last 3 games. UB, UW, and UT. All 3 we got the ball to start the game, took a nice amount of time off of the clock, ran a GREAT VARIETY of different plays, and scored a touchdown. These arent the only 3 games in which we have done this, it just happens to be our last 3 in a row and maybe even more, I cant remember and refuse to look it up. My point is we NEVER back that up with anything on offense the rest of the game. Our scoring drives against UT were mostly created by our WR's 1 on 1 instead of our consistent smooth drive down the field like our opening possesion. Against UW, the same thing happend. Our only other scoring drive of the game got kick started by a fake punt, otherwise IMO, we don't score again. And that is not due to the OL or players. That is by coaching. Either no faith in the players or their brains stuck on the same 5 plays. Against UB the exact same thing happens. We come out of the gate fired up. Run a nice mix of different running sets and go right down the field for an EASY TD. So how do we back that up? We see to it that Winovich doesnt touch the ball the rest of the game (the most successful part of our opening drive). Instead we call a QB keeper more than 52% of our plays for the rest of the game (the least successful play on that drive). I do agree that the coaches dont have much faith in the players and that is why were arent seeing a great variety in play calling. On the other hand we have seen a good 10 plays or so that were VERY successful and have only been run once or twice in these 1st 2 games! Why? I just dont understand it, and it is definitely not acceptable when your team is struggling!

Jacobs4Heisman · Post by **Jacobs4Heisman** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 8:45 pm

The thing that scares me the most is that the coaches actually think a 2 QB system can work.

Pick a guy and roll with it.

Globetrotter · Post by **Globetrotter** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 8:57 pm

I disagree. We threw the ball 26 times. In comparison to the first game, well, it is not even a comparison. We threw it at the end when we had to and made big plays. If I remember Correctly Omar was throwing to a much more veteran group of WRs.

I do agree that they are doing things much more conservatively but I think it has to do with one of two things or both....(keep in mind I saw the entire first game and then listened to the second on the radio, any information dervied fromt he radio may be slanted)

1. In both games it has seemed like we are playing to get that next first down and not to mess up. I don't think that it is a lack of confidence so much as it is a lack of momentum. What they are trying to do is get control of a game, then open things up. That does have a correllation to what you are saying, but I think it is looking at it in a different way. i expect that the coaches will be opening up the offense, but that they are most concerned with getting control of a game. The ST's play has not put us into a position where we can open things up and be more risk more reward. We have so many errors in STs that we have to minimize the chance for error on offense to its lowest possible level....AKA one man touching the football.

2.Freddie Barnes is an unexpected surprise. No coach could have thought he could run for 150+. They are trying to take advantage of that and it is a work in progress.

Question form my end. people have talked about how it is a very bad idea to have a 2 QB system. I agree with that, but in hearing the game that did not seem to be what they did at all. A 2 QB system is much more equally distributed in my mind. In this system it seems to be a situation where Barnes plays about 1/10 of the QB snaps but is in the game for a much greater number of plays with Turner. I think it is just a scenario where Turner is the clear number one QB and Barnes is a QB a few plays just so the Defense has to say, wait a second, Barnes is in and he can throw.

I have no problem with this....But is this how things were run this weekend?

BGSUFootballFan · Post by **BGSUFootballFan** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:16 pm

If the coaches were "waiting to get control, before opening things up" and couldnt do it against Buffalo, then who are they going to do it against? Your point is well taken, but I have to disagree in your reasoning that the coaches are "playing not to mess up" against Buffalo at home. Against UW on the road, it was more applicable. But after seeing it again at home vs. Buffalo, no way.

Globetrotter · Post by **Globetrotter** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:23 pm

BGSUFootballFan wrote:If the coaches were "waiting to get control, before opening things up" and couldnt do it against Buffalo, then who are they going to do it against? Your point is well taken, but I have to disagree in your reasoning that the coaches are "playing not to mess up" against Buffalo at home. Against UW on the road, it was more applicable. But after seeing it again at home vs. Buffalo, no way.

Give me a game where they do the 60% of the offense as QB keepers and there are not a multitide of STs gafffs and I will agree with you. Hopefully this week.

Anyone have any insight into the 2 QB Question I had in the other post on this thread? We dont seem to be running a 2 QB Stanley Jackson/Joe Germaine thing, more like the way that Kordell was used initially. Sometimes lines up at QB sometimes at RB sometimes at WR but Neil O'dOnnell was the starter (Is that right Neil O'dOnnell)

Jacobs4Heisman · Post by **Jacobs4Heisman** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 10:24 pm

To me, it felt like a QB by committee, especially in the first half. I remember one stretch when AT and Freddie alternated on 4 or 5 series in a row. I could be mistaken because it was hard to tell on the video feed who was who sometimes, but I think that was the case.

In actuality, my biggest fear is that winning yesterday hurts the program more long-term than losing would have. Brandon has shown time and time again that he thinks he 'dun good just because the team won, only to have it cost us dearly down the road.

factman · Post by **factman** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 12:32 am

I find it interesting to note that some of the same posters that were complaining about us running the ball or QB too much this year, were the same ones complaing that we threw the ball too much last year. I think everyone, including the coaches, believes in a nice balance, but you also have to consider the talents of the players available, and use those. As for the play calling, I am SURE they had good reason ( they have a much better view from upstairs) for calling certian plays, but sometimes, as they say, $hit happens, and it doesn't work. The other team gets coached too!
I also think you will see some more variation(s) as the season progresses, both in the paly calling, and what is available from the "playbook". I'll take the win, be glad I'm not Toledo, losing my first league game, and judge the rest of the season as it unfolds. I would prefer we spend additional time working on special teams, vs making vast changes in our offensive philosophy.

Flipper · Post by **Flipper** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 7:48 am

To add to what factman posted...perhaps the running game isn't as much a reflection of the confidence in the QB as the defense. It's a very young group and they may not want to risk a lot of three and outs (like Boise State last year) that don't take any time off the clock.

They're moving the ball on the ground...TOP was even, although Buffalo had a huge edge in the third . If you want to pick an ongoing trend from a year ago that bugs the hell out of me, it would be that one. We almost always had a huge deficet in time of posession coming out of the locker room. We're letting the other guys set the tempo and THAT has to stop if we're going to play to our potential.

Falcon30 · Post by **Falcon30** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 7:52 am

Just don't run the same play over and over.

That whole "run it until they stop it" idea is flawed completely because you KNOW the last time you run the play, you will be stopped. Can't we mix it up and NOT have them 'stop it?'

Last year, it was pass 100 times, then run 3 times in a row. then repeat.

Redwingtom · Post by **Redwingtom** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 10:45 am

Bear in mind that I did not see the Buffalo game and did not read all the analysis on this thread, but one thing I remember from last year in talking to a former player was that when Turner was given plays with deep routes to throw to he just chose not to throw the deep ball.

So let's just remember that sometimes the players just don't execute what they are given.

Bottom line...these things are all correctable with a young team.

Globetrotter · Post by **Globetrotter** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 11:52 am

Jacobs4Heisman wrote:To me, it felt like a QB by committee, especially in the first half. I remember one stretch when AT and Freddie alternated on 4 or 5 series in a row. I could be mistaken because it was hard to tell on the video feed who was who sometimes, but I think that was the case.

In actuality, my biggest fear is that winning yesterday hurts the program more long-term than losing would have. Brandon has shown time and time again that he thinks he 'dun good just because the team won, only to have it cost us dearly down the road.

Anthony Turner played in every series. I just looked it up