Twoo new Offensive packages for the Falcons

MACMAN · Post by **MACMAN** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 5:16 pm

I over heard a couple of players talking about the two new offensive packages that were introduced post BSU.
Have any of you heard about these...are these game specific for the game against Bosie to better exploit their weak secondary, or just mix in something new, like GB does a few times a season?

Redwingtom · Post by **Redwingtom** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 5:26 pm

I don't know about post Ball State, but I seemed to think that we had a totally different offensive philosphy against Ball State.

It seemed like we were deliverately doing things a little slower. Omar did not look to the sidelines for many play changes. I thought at the time that maybe we were trying to slow the game down so that our defense had more time to rest.

FalconFanKM · Post by **FalconFanKM** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 5:36 pm

I would like to know what they are so when I finally see them I won't freak out....

It's the Journey... · Post by **It's the Journey...** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 8:04 pm

I am sure the rest of our schedule would like to know what they are as well.

Schadenfreude · Post by **Schadenfreude** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 8:07 pm

All this makes me wonder if we tried (or tried to try) a few new things against Ball State, and perhaps this is part of the reason it was so close.

I wasn't there, and I only listen to part of the game on the radio because of the problems here in Columbus. Just throwing that out there.

I did notice an unusual number of passes to tight ends. That was interesting.

BGGrad01 · Post by **BGGrad01** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 8:50 pm

It didn't seem to me like we did anything new against Ball State. We didn't throw nearly as many mid-range passes (10 to 15 yard) as I'm used to seeing, but I didn't notice any new sets or wrinkles. I think we try to get too cute with this offense at times. It's almost like our coaches think it's boring running the same plays and scoring 45 points a game.

always a falcon · Post by **always a falcon** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 9:14 pm

I turned to my husband many times and said, "These plays seem so slow to develop on offense." I hope we are a bit crisper against Boise.

Redwingtom · Post by **Redwingtom** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 9:23 pm

always a falcon wrote:I turned to my husband many times and said, "These plays seem so slow to develop on offense." I hope we are a bit crisper against Boise.

My personal gut feeling is that Lovett went to Brandon and pleaded to get his defense more rest between series...but then we ended up turning the ball over WAAAY to much and defeated anything we gained, that is the only reason that game was close.

MACMAN · Post by **MACMAN** » Fri Sep 16, 2005 11:01 am

Well I got information on the packages....
Some new plays, but GB developed a way for Omar to "call" plays with sets of hand signals to finall overcome issues with crowd noise...a silent offense. A silent Offense that contains the majority of our plays and the signals are easily changed week to week.
I like this and think it will realy help with the speed issue for our O when we face large crowds like we will against the broncos.

BGSUFootballFan · Post by **BGSUFootballFan** » Fri Sep 16, 2005 11:06 am

we need to worry about the D not the O. although i do understand trying for more time of possesion in order to help our D and entire team out.

sbrown · Post by **sbrown** » Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:54 pm

I was at the Ball State game. There was a lot more effort to include the tight ends in the offense. Surprisingly, I noticed several plays where Ruiz ran the long route to clear out the middle for one of the WR's. The other big difference in offense was that the lack of PJ in the backfield reduced the number of screens and passes to the running backs. As for the defense, I am still waiting to see some positive results from Lovett. Seems to me like the DB's are making the majority of tackles.

1987alum · Post by **1987alum** » Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:57 pm

sbrown wrote:Seems to me like the DB's are making the majority of tackles.

That's not an assumption, that's fact. Just check the stats and you'll see Perry, Jordan, Smith and Mayberry all near the top.

Falconboy · Post by **Falconboy** » Fri Sep 16, 2005 1:16 pm

1987alum wrote:
sbrown wrote:Seems to me like the DB's are making the majority of tackles.
That's not an assumption, that's fact. Just check the stats and you'll see Perry, Jordan, Smith and Mayberry all near the top.

Which of course is not good.

1987alum · Post by **1987alum** » Fri Sep 16, 2005 1:19 pm

Falconboy:

Exactly, a point I made in my blog, I believe.

Having one DB near the top is not good. Having all four near the top is well beyond that.

sbrown · Post by **sbrown** » Fri Sep 16, 2005 1:25 pm

I don't know that much about defensive schemes, but it seems to me that one of the big things BG lacks is the maniacal ball hawking Chris Haneline linebacker that has a nose for the ball and plays sideline to sideline. I thought TP was going to be that guy but I feel like he really tailed off last year. The DB's seem to be excllent tacklers, but you still need that LB or DE playmaker. If we had 'that guy' I think the rest of the team would rally around him and pick their game up. Place kicking and defensive front 7 will determine how far this team goes this year.