forums

The Run Game

WhatTheHell

WhatTheHell

"WE CANT DEMAND PERFECTION.”
Banned
Joined
Mar 7, 2012
Messages
21,161
I think we all agree it might be time to consider moving away from the zone blocking scheme, but another area I'd like to discuss is the implementation of Hagens as a blocking FB.

Re-watched the game last night, and the overwhelming majority of our running plays came from single-back sets. It takes too long to develop and our lineman are large, lumbering oafs built for mauling, in my opinion. Watching them clumsily try to move laterally as a unit while the defense shoots by them and into the backfield is frustrating.

I'd prefer to see more 21 personnel with Hagens as a lead blocker. We can go big, three-wide, off-set, whatever with it, but I'd like to see Hagens blowing people up in the hole to help clear some space for Duke, and I'd prefer to see this line mauling people at the snap instead of awkwardly stumbling sideways and wasting their raw power and size.

Thoughts from my fellow wiggers?
 
Advertisement
Duke is very comparable to LaDainian Tomlinson and oddly enough, LT owes a ton of his success to Lorenzo Neal. Put a fullback in front of Duke.
 
I think they went ace back mainly to stay away from the strength of the Florida d, the front 7. Bringing hagens in just brings more people in the box.
 
I don't think Duke needs a fullback, but I do feel that this zone blocking thing is not something our OL does well or is built for.

We can run run some power and counter plays from the 3-wide set with or without Hagens if the staff is dead-set on using 1-back.
 
Arehel said:
I think they went ace back mainly to stay away from the strength of the Florida d, the front 7. Bringing hagens in just brings more people in the box.
Click to expand...

And you think bringing in more TE's doesn't do the same thing?
 
Advertisement
I don't mind Ace sets & zone blocking. I'm from Houston so I get to see the Texans do it every Sunday.
One cut back and your RB is off to the races. It actually sets up well for Duke.

We need to get the passing game going - that's all.
As most have mentioned, UF was loading the box, blitzing CBs, etc & had no issue shutting down Duke in 2nd half.

It actually wasn't until we went "pro sets" that Duke starting getting stuffed. 3 wide and shotgun and he ran for 48+ yards in 1st quarter or whatever it was.
 
Our OL aren't good run blockers. Period. They were just as bad at it last season. None of them are maulers (except Linder) and none of them perform well in space except for Felizcumpleanos.
 
Duke Johnson is the perfect running back for the zone blocking scheme....

but i'm not really convinced that UM's O-line isnt "athletic" enough to zone block..... Jeff Stoutland had a lot of success w/ his zone blocking schemes and he had big *** O-lineman like at Alabama last year, and even while at UM w/ under developed offensive lineman.

Brandon Washington, Harland Gunn, and even Henderson all were some big "nonathletic" O-lineman during Stoutlands time at UM.


i honestly am starting to think Art Kehoe is more responsible for this teams flaws at run blocking
 
How about the alternative answer: we ran into a buzz saw in the gator defense.
We got conservative on offense and it played right into the gator strengths.
Doesn't mean we have to revamp our whole run offense.
Just means we ran into a defense that was beasting.

Another point to remember is that we played our "C" game against a defense that was all over us and we still won.
Imagine what happens when our offense starts playing their "A"game?
 
Advertisement
WildcatDefense said:
Arehel said:
I think they went ace back mainly to stay away from the strength of the Florida d, the front 7. Bringing hagens in just brings more people in the box.
Click to expand...

And you think bringing in more TE's doesn't do the same thing?
Click to expand...

Correct me, but doesn't another TE spread the LOS out, whereas using a lead blocker typically is for running within the traditional OL boundary? Unless you run a sweep with an FB, you're just delaying the point of contact against an elite unit like Florida has, which works against you when they're already in the backfield.

I would like to know why Miami doesn't run more misdirection with Duke.
 
All I know is, if you watch a lot of our running plays, had Duke hesitated or one-step juked, and run OPPOSITE of what was called - the field was wide open. Our line was telegraphing every run, and Florida was too fast to stop up the gaps.
 
rudebuddha said:
How about the alternative answer: we ran into a buzz saw in the gator defense.
We got conservative on offense and it played right into the gator strengths.
Doesn't mean we have to revamp our whole run offense.
Just means we ran into a defense that was beasting.

Another point to remember is that we played our "C" game against a defense that was all over us and we still won.
Imagine what happens when our offense starts playing their "A"game?
Click to expand...

And all that while they were stacking the box and we had no incentive to try the one on one coverage deep.

It's the same **** argument that Florida fans make about them losing the game not us winning it. We were never put in a position where we had to win it because of our d. If the d sucked so bad last year and then did what they just did, I am confident Golden et al can fix the run game over the next few weeks given our personnel.
 
Not chimin' in as ya wigger (lulz) but my brothers and I were discussing (arging) that during the second half of the game. I dunno why we didnt use Hagens as a blocking back for Duke at ALL in the second half. Obviously they were getting penetration and OBVIOUSLY there we no way that swing or stretch ***** was working. We have the best success in the first quarter gashing them up the middle. Still scratching my head on that one. Maybe they though having Hagens back there would only encourage the Turds to pack the box with more bodies. Who knows?
 
Advertisement
Regardless of blocking scheme, the running game won't thrive if you don't use it. The Canes and Dolphins got away with victories despite running the ball very seldom. In our case, Florida led in rushing attempts 28-10 at halftime. Essentially it was 28-9 since our final rush was a kneel down. A couple of posters in another thread compared the Florida game to Virginia Tech last year. That was even more lopsided. I forget the specifics but at one point the Hokies had something like a 44-14 edge in rushes.

It's remarkable that we won both games with a deficit like that, and even more remarkable that our defense managed to hold on against Florida without being gashed on the ground. They had good variety in their run game. I kept dreading a 10 yard burst followed by a 40 yarder into the end zone. That type of thing inevitably happens when the rushing attempts mount. The defense got plenty of credit but deserved at least twice as much.

I thought we erred in the middle second quarter when we threw the ball three straight plays after the stoppage on downs. The second quarter is so pivotal in terms of how a game evolves physically. It's often the longest quarter in terms of total plays. When we took over with slightly more than 7 minutes remaining, our offensive line had held its own to that point. The quick hitting runs had been effective. Easley destroyed one second and short play on the previous possession but you can't overreact to that. When Coley threw the ball on three consecutive plays he played smack into Florida's hands, IMO. You have to maintain the physical edge, or at least stalemate. Instead, Florida's defense is resting on the sideline throughout the quarter and when they finally take the field you're not hitting them. It's guaranteed they'll grow in confidence if they are allowed to attack the line of scrimmage and chase the quarterback. Once that possession was a meek three and out, all through the air, I sensed we'd have great difficulty running the ball in the second half. I'm a huge believer in situational impact. Once Golden and Coley saw the 28-10 halftime rush deficit, it was a virtual certainty that we'd run on early downs in the third quarter. Sure enough. Not a friendly combo when Florida is rested and sensing vulnerability.

The combo of McDermott and Feliciano or Bunche side by side at center and left is going to be outmatched athletically by certain opponents, probably none to the degree of Florida. It was sad to watch the replay with our movement designs all but hopeless with the interior guys struggling to locate their assignment while the Gator defenders had already flashed beyond them.
 
Zone blocking is good for Duke's skill set (speed, vision, cut-back ability, awareness, etc.). The only thing with zone blocking is that the OL must have quick feet. The OL that I think could run this effectively is Linder, Feliciano, and Flowers. Henderson and Bunche work well in a power/smash-mouth running game.
 
Last edited:
Advertisement
The Running game plan was flawed from the start imo...... you cant send Duke out there as the only RB to get the rock the entire 1st half b/c he cant wear out a defense physically, and Florida was taking one cheap shot after the other on him whether Duke gained positive yards or negative.

The coaches shouldve put in the most veteran RBs on the team a lot more, like Eduardo and Mo Hagens. They are both developed and physical enough to dish out as much punishment as Florida's defense..... and using them earlier and often wouldve softened them up for Duke to have more success.
 
I always wanted us to recruit a true fullback. With our offensive line and with the ACC running out 220 lbs linebackers, we could just bully teams.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top