Golden on the offensive line

[Ernie McCracken]

IMO, our "problem" with the O-line is that we're running the wrong ****.

Too much zone blocking. These guys are massive. They need to be getting a body-on-a-body and moving people. When they've been asked to do that they've been very successful. We're not athletic enough for so much zone blocking and stretch plays. I can't, for the life of me, figure out why we do so much of it.

That's why I hate when people say our guys can't get push. That's bullsh!t. Our scheme doesn't even require "push". Let our guys get body-on-body and see if we don't get push.

I just watched the whole game and looked at the OL specifically. We're either missing blocks because we're being asked to zone-block quicker defenders or we just plain block the wrong people. Against a D-line like UF's our OL will lose these battles 75% of the time. They're too quick. You have to get a body on them and move them.


Yall remember that game we lost to USF? Me and the head coach I worked for were talking to a USF GA (coach) after the game and when we asked him how they stopped our run game he said..."Well we knew we'd be screwed if they go body-to-body with us. They'd just move us off the ball, so we ran alot of movement (slants). We knew they were too big to handle movement."

So you want McDermott going mano a mano against Easley all game long?

You're not wrong that to zone block you need an athletic offensive line, but everybody zone blocks nowadyas, and if you can't do it, you have no business playing O line at this level.

That, and I seem to remember Easley getting good pad level on McDermott more than once and absolutely mauling him. If we didn't move the pocket, the game could have gotten ugly just for that reason alone.

Who says he has to block Easley by himself?

There's no way you could. But now you're playing 10 on 11, or even 9 on 11 since we don't have a mobile qb. That just gives their d coord way too much to work w as far as blitzes and so forth.

Because, to my dismay, their cb's didn't need too much safety help, and they have linebackers who could blitz. And they have that powell guy coming off the edge who made henderson look like he was standing in cement a couple times.

No, man, you have to be able to move the pocket.

That's not to say we shouldn't go downhill more than we do. **** yes we should.

My favorite play of the game (well one of them) were month hagans took it up the middle on a fb dive and we pushed the pile back 5 yards. We have some big boys out there.

 

[The Franchise]

IMO, our "problem" with the O-line is that we're running the wrong ****.

Too much zone blocking. These guys are massive. They need to be getting a body-on-a-body and moving people. When they've been asked to do that they've been very successful. We're not athletic enough for so much zone blocking and stretch plays. I can't, for the life of me, figure out why we do so much of it.

That's why I hate when people say our guys can't get push. That's bullsh!t. Our scheme doesn't even require "push". Let our guys get body-on-body and see if we don't get push.

I just watched the whole game and looked at the OL specifically. We're either missing blocks because we're being asked to zone-block quicker defenders or we just plain block the wrong people. Against a D-line like UF's our OL will lose these battles 75% of the time. They're too quick. You have to get a body on them and move them.


Yall remember that game we lost to USF? Me and the head coach I worked for were talking to a USF GA (coach) after the game and when we asked him how they stopped our run game he said..."Well we knew we'd be screwed if they go body-to-body with us. They'd just move us off the ball, so we ran alot of movement (slants). We knew they were too big to handle movement."

Exactly how I see it. This is a power OLine being axed to play finesse football. Hopefully, that's what The Don was talking about when he said the corches need to help the OL out. But I doubt it because it's probably too late to overhaul the entire running game.

 

[The Franchise]

IMO, our "problem" with the O-line is that we're running the wrong ****.

Too much zone blocking. These guys are massive. They need to be getting a body-on-a-body and moving people. When they've been asked to do that they've been very successful. We're not athletic enough for so much zone blocking and stretch plays. I can't, for the life of me, figure out why we do so much of it.

That's why I hate when people say our guys can't get push. That's bullsh!t. Our scheme doesn't even require "push". Let our guys get body-on-body and see if we don't get push.

I just watched the whole game and looked at the OL specifically. We're either missing blocks because we're being asked to zone-block quicker defenders or we just plain block the wrong people. Against a D-line like UF's our OL will lose these battles 75% of the time. They're too quick. You have to get a body on them and move them.


Yall remember that game we lost to USF? Me and the head coach I worked for were talking to a USF GA (coach) after the game and when we asked him how they stopped our run game he said..."Well we knew we'd be screwed if they go body-to-body with us. They'd just move us off the ball, so we ran alot of movement (slants). We knew they were too big to handle movement."

So you want McDermott going mano a mano against Easley all game long?

You're not wrong that to zone block you need an athletic offensive line, but everybody zone blocks nowadyas, and if you can't do it, you have no business playing O line at this level.

That, and I seem to remember Easley getting good pad level on McDermott more than once and absolutely mauling him. If we didn't move the pocket, the game could have gotten ugly just for that reason alone.

You don't have to zone block to put two hats on one guy.

 

[ARJB]

IMO, our "problem" with the O-line is that we're running the wrong ****.

Too much zone blocking. These guys are massive. They need to be getting a body-on-a-body and moving people. When they've been asked to do that they've been very successful. We're not athletic enough for so much zone blocking and stretch plays. I can't, for the life of me, figure out why we do so much of it.

That's why I hate when people say our guys can't get push. That's bullsh!t. Our scheme doesn't even require "push". Let our guys get body-on-body and see if we don't get push.

I just watched the whole game and looked at the OL specifically. We're either missing blocks because we're being asked to zone-block quicker defenders or we just plain block the wrong people. Against a D-line like UF's our OL will lose these battles 75% of the time. They're too quick. You have to get a body on them and move them.


Yall remember that game we lost to USF? Me and the head coach I worked for were talking to a USF GA (coach) after the game and when we asked him how they stopped our run game he said..."Well we knew we'd be screwed if they go body-to-body with us. They'd just move us off the ball, so we ran alot of movement (slants). We knew they were too big to handle movement."

Exactly how I see it. This is a power OLine being axed to play finesse football. Hopefully, that's what The Don was talking about when he said the corches need to help the OL out. But I doubt it because it's probably too late to overhaul the entire running game.

They've had a lot of time to figure out what kind of scheme we should be running. I doubt we'll see a change midseason.

 

[The Franchise]

These offensive line debates are starting to read like our defensive line debates last season

The major difference should be that there is talent, depth and experience on the OL unlike last year's DL.

 

[Ernie McCracken]

IMO, our "problem" with the O-line is that we're running the wrong ****.

Too much zone blocking. These guys are massive. They need to be getting a body-on-a-body and moving people. When they've been asked to do that they've been very successful. We're not athletic enough for so much zone blocking and stretch plays. I can't, for the life of me, figure out why we do so much of it.

That's why I hate when people say our guys can't get push. That's bullsh!t. Our scheme doesn't even require "push". Let our guys get body-on-body and see if we don't get push.

I just watched the whole game and looked at the OL specifically. We're either missing blocks because we're being asked to zone-block quicker defenders or we just plain block the wrong people. Against a D-line like UF's our OL will lose these battles 75% of the time. They're too quick. You have to get a body on them and move them.


Yall remember that game we lost to USF? Me and the head coach I worked for were talking to a USF GA (coach) after the game and when we asked him how they stopped our run game he said..."Well we knew we'd be screwed if they go body-to-body with us. They'd just move us off the ball, so we ran alot of movement (slants). We knew they were too big to handle movement."

So you want McDermott going mano a mano against Easley all game long?

You're not wrong that to zone block you need an athletic offensive line, but everybody zone blocks nowadyas, and if you can't do it, you have no business playing O line at this level.

That, and I seem to remember Easley getting good pad level on McDermott more than once and absolutely mauling him. If we didn't move the pocket, the game could have gotten ugly just for that reason alone.

I've never been of the belief that McDermott was one of our five best. I've always said that Linder should be playing center and we should have others in a fight to play the guard spots. I thought that Isadora would have been our best option at RG and our best O-Line would go Flowers/Feliciano/Linder/Isadora/Henderson...but what do I now

I agree w you. All I can think is that he does all the other things a center does a little better, because he's not brandon linder athletically.

I like where our line is going though. Gall reminds me of Feliciano...both maulers and just a different body type from the rest of the o line, Gadbois is going to be a stud, huge guy, Flowers is even bigger, and then we got that young McDermott coming in, man we're gonna be good for a while.

 

[Ernie McCracken]

IMO, our "problem" with the O-line is that we're running the wrong ****.

Too much zone blocking. These guys are massive. They need to be getting a body-on-a-body and moving people. When they've been asked to do that they've been very successful. We're not athletic enough for so much zone blocking and stretch plays. I can't, for the life of me, figure out why we do so much of it.

That's why I hate when people say our guys can't get push. That's bullsh!t. Our scheme doesn't even require "push". Let our guys get body-on-body and see if we don't get push.

I just watched the whole game and looked at the OL specifically. We're either missing blocks because we're being asked to zone-block quicker defenders or we just plain block the wrong people. Against a D-line like UF's our OL will lose these battles 75% of the time. They're too quick. You have to get a body on them and move them.


Yall remember that game we lost to USF? Me and the head coach I worked for were talking to a USF GA (coach) after the game and when we asked him how they stopped our run game he said..."Well we knew we'd be screwed if they go body-to-body with us. They'd just move us off the ball, so we ran alot of movement (slants). We knew they were too big to handle movement."

So you want McDermott going mano a mano against Easley all game long?

You're not wrong that to zone block you need an athletic offensive line, but everybody zone blocks nowadyas, and if you can't do it, you have no business playing O line at this level.

That, and I seem to remember Easley getting good pad level on McDermott more than once and absolutely mauling him. If we didn't move the pocket, the game could have gotten ugly just for that reason alone.

You don't have to zone block to put two hats on one guy.

You don't have to put two hats on the guy if you zone block. You buy yourself time by making him run laterally, and you can set it up so he goes thru your better linemen and not your weak link.

 

[The Franchise]

IMO, our "problem" with the O-line is that we're running the wrong ****.

Too much zone blocking. These guys are massive. They need to be getting a body-on-a-body and moving people. When they've been asked to do that they've been very successful. We're not athletic enough for so much zone blocking and stretch plays. I can't, for the life of me, figure out why we do so much of it.

That's why I hate when people say our guys can't get push. That's bullsh!t. Our scheme doesn't even require "push". Let our guys get body-on-body and see if we don't get push.

I just watched the whole game and looked at the OL specifically. We're either missing blocks because we're being asked to zone-block quicker defenders or we just plain block the wrong people. Against a D-line like UF's our OL will lose these battles 75% of the time. They're too quick. You have to get a body on them and move them.


Yall remember that game we lost to USF? Me and the head coach I worked for were talking to a USF GA (coach) after the game and when we asked him how they stopped our run game he said..."Well we knew we'd be screwed if they go body-to-body with us. They'd just move us off the ball, so we ran alot of movement (slants). We knew they were too big to handle movement."

So you want McDermott going mano a mano against Easley all game long?

You're not wrong that to zone block you need an athletic offensive line, but everybody zone blocks nowadyas, and if you can't do it, you have no business playing O line at this level.

That, and I seem to remember Easley getting good pad level on McDermott more than once and absolutely mauling him. If we didn't move the pocket, the game could have gotten ugly just for that reason alone.

You don't have to zone block to put two hats on one guy.

You don't have to put two hats on the guy if you zone block. You buy yourself time by making him run laterally, and you can set it up so he goes thru your better linemen and not your weak link.

I wouldn't design an entire run scheme based around having to play against Easley once. And, clearly, that zone scheme didn't work against him anyway. I just don't think it fits our players as well as a hat on hat and move em out system does.

 

[Ernie McCracken]

IMO, our "problem" with the O-line is that we're running the wrong ****.

Too much zone blocking. These guys are massive. They need to be getting a body-on-a-body and moving people. When they've been asked to do that they've been very successful. We're not athletic enough for so much zone blocking and stretch plays. I can't, for the life of me, figure out why we do so much of it.

That's why I hate when people say our guys can't get push. That's bullsh!t. Our scheme doesn't even require "push". Let our guys get body-on-body and see if we don't get push.

I just watched the whole game and looked at the OL specifically. We're either missing blocks because we're being asked to zone-block quicker defenders or we just plain block the wrong people. Against a D-line like UF's our OL will lose these battles 75% of the time. They're too quick. You have to get a body on them and move them.


Yall remember that game we lost to USF? Me and the head coach I worked for were talking to a USF GA (coach) after the game and when we asked him how they stopped our run game he said..."Well we knew we'd be screwed if they go body-to-body with us. They'd just move us off the ball, so we ran alot of movement (slants). We knew they were too big to handle movement."

So you want McDermott going mano a mano against Easley all game long?

You're not wrong that to zone block you need an athletic offensive line, but everybody zone blocks nowadyas, and if you can't do it, you have no business playing O line at this level.

That, and I seem to remember Easley getting good pad level on McDermott more than once and absolutely mauling him. If we didn't move the pocket, the game could have gotten ugly just for that reason alone.

You don't have to zone block to put two hats on one guy.

You don't have to put two hats on the guy if you zone block. You buy yourself time by making him run laterally, and you can set it up so he goes thru your better linemen and not your weak link.

I wouldn't design an entire run scheme based around having to play against Easley once. And, clearly, that zone scheme didn't work against him anyway. I just don't think it fits our players as well as a hat on hat and move em out system does.

I think we should do both. If it were either/or, I would agree with you, but we should do both.

 

[DutchieFlair]

Fans know fuhk all. Chris Myers who was derided while here is making big paper at the next level and beloved by his team, the Houston Texans. Maybe Kehoe is the problem. Clearly there's talent but he's not coaching em up. I've never been a fan and was puzzled at his rehire.

 

[NorthFlaCane]

Fans know fuhk all. Chris Myers who was derided while here is making big paper at the next level and beloved by his team, the Houston Texans. Maybe Kehoe is the problem. Clearly there's talent but he's not coaching em up. I've never been a fan and was puzzled at his rehire.

Bull****, nobody derided Myers. He was considered our best offensive line for much of his career at Miami. He was the only reliable guy on the line.

 

[JHallCanes]

Playing it safe is something that Golden does that I'm not completely cool with. And when he did decide to take a chance against UF, Morris threw what could have been a devastating interception.

I don't think he was happy with that decision by Coley to air that out on 3rd & 25.

He was very complimentary of Coley after the game, but I think he referenced that play as one that probably shouldn't have been called.

Funny part is that the receiver was wide open on that play. El Girafe' just airmailed the pass and threw it late. It's tough to criticize a corch too much when he dials up a play that has the receiver open, but the QB just coughs up a hairball on the play.

Not getting technical on you but I thought that other thread pointed out how the ball was tipped, causing it to sail?

Not that there aren't other examples but I thought that one at least had been debunked?

Still seemed awfully late though regardless.

Maybe I'm talking about a different play, but the one I saw there was no tipped pass. Morris just threw a bad pass, and he threw it late. The receiver was open.

I never saw it either. Someone mentioned the other day if they zoomed in, it got tipped at the line just barely and some other people agreed, saw the same thing.

Didn't follow after that though, just tossing that out there.

 

[TreOFive]

Maybe it has to do with them being PUSSIES! They did well the first quarter then got intimidated for the rest of the game. They kept letting the DL talk **** and take cheap shots at Duke without any repercussions. The only player on offense i saw getting in the face of the DL and LBs was Duke. Our OL is suppose to fight those fights for him and protect him. I dont give a **** if we get penalized but we need to man up and start some **** when necessary.

Crazy but our greatly criticized DL played big boy football and our heralded OL played like lil ****es

I agree, S.H. big as.s should be first up

 

[PUNCICANE]

Maybe it has to do with them being PUSSIES! They did well the first quarter then got intimidated for the rest of the game. They kept letting the DL talk **** and take cheap shots at Duke without any repercussions. The only player on offense i saw getting in the face of the DL and LBs was Duke. Our OL is suppose to fight those fights for him and protect him. I dont give a **** if we get penalized but we need to man up and start some **** when necessary.

Crazy but our greatly criticized DL played big boy football and our heralded OL played like lil ****es

Kill yourself. (for those first 2 sentences)

Your ****** is clouding your judgement. Go rewatch the second half

 

[FullyERicht]

Were we a primarily zone blocking in 2000-2001? I ask bc our OL was as massive then as it is now, with the same OL coach, but results that are incomparable. Was that line just so much more athletic for their size? If you took them based on high school ratings, our current OL slays that 2001 in terms of recruiting rankings, but we all know how that goes.

Granted we are talking about Randy evals versus Butch. But man this OL should be better.

 

[PowerIslam aka Sumdumgoy]

Maybe it starts with putting people in the best positions they are suited for instead of shuffling them around all the time. Of having guys pulling in the running game who actually can move and are faster than a sea tortoise humping. Maybe it also starts with looking at what kind of job Kehoe is doing with all this OL talent.

The most head-scratching part of this whole thing is these guys are all veterans. The coaches are more than familiar with what they do best. Da **** is with all the indecisiveness at this point?

+1

 

[The Franchise]

Fans know fuhk all. Chris Myers who was derided while here is making big paper at the next level and beloved by his team, the Houston Texans. Maybe Kehoe is the problem. Clearly there's talent but he's not coaching em up. I've never been a fan and was puzzled at his rehire.

LULZ at you making **** up to try to prove a point. Myers was universally beloved by Canes fans.

 

[PowerIslam aka Sumdumgoy]

These offensive line debates are starting to read like our defensive line debates last season

LOL Inexplicably

 

[The Franchise]

Were we a primarily zone blocking in 2000-2001?

No.

 

[Big Sky Cane]

If you have any questions on "zone blocking" just ask NJtoFLAcane.