The O line

Westover is a hybrid (TE and H-back).

I like Pleasant but not sure he should get many carries over McGrew and Newton.

I still think the offense will put up 30+ against Arizona and we'll see more play-action. Wonder if we'll see Thomson for a series to mix it up if he is healthy.

 
Play by down and distance:[/b]
1-3 yards to go - 87% run
3-7 yards to go - 75% run
8+ yards to go - 65% run
Click to expand...
That's play by distance not down and distance. If you have it broken down by down and distance that would be chinteresting. Obviously first down is mostly 10 yards to go but second down 1-3 yards to go, 3-7 yards to go etc and same for third down would be chinteresting.

Also this is probably unrealistic but if you have numbers for averages either in CFB or P5 to have a baseline to compare against that would be quite helpful.

Not expecting you to, but ye have not because ye axe not, yada yada.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you're right. I have it, but I have some shit to do now after procrastinating all day. I'll cut that data later.
Click to expand...

TYFYS
 
Westover is a hybrid (TE and H-back).

I like Pleasant but not sure he should get many carries over McGrew and Newton.

I still think the offense will put up 30+ against Arizona and we'll see more play-action. Wonder if we'll see Thomson for a series to mix it up if he is healthy.
Click to expand...

Pleasant has little to no upside, he isn't bad but he is quiet literally a JAG RB...

Newton needs to fix his weird backing into tackler thing he keeps doing, he sure looked like he hadn't improved himself much in the off season.

Mcgrew is the only one I am confident in being able to catch a pass and find the correct hole on an important play, but it wouldn't surprise me if he struggled against more athletic defenses.
 
Last edited:
Play by down and distance:[/b]
1-3 yards to go - 87% run
3-7 yards to go - 75% run
8+ yards to go - 65% run
Click to expand...
That's play by distance not down and distance. If you have it broken down by down and distance that would be chinteresting. Obviously first down is mostly 10 yards to go but second down 1-3 yards to go, 3-7 yards to go etc and same for third down would be chinteresting.

Also this is probably unrealistic but if you have numbers for averages either in CFB or P5 to have a baseline to compare against that would be quite helpful.

Not expecting you to, but ye have not because ye axe not, yada yada.
Click to expand...

After being bullied by @dnc here is the revised down and distance.

1st down[/b]:
1-3 yards - 1 time (1st and goal), 100% rush
4-7 yards - 2 times, 100% rush
8+ yards - 28 times, 75% rush

2nd down[/b]
1-3 yards - 5 times, 100% rush
4-7 yards - 8 times, 100% rush
8+ yards - 9 times, 77% pass

3rd down[/b]
1-3 yards - 7 times, 72% rush
4-7 yards - 7 times, 72% pass
8+ yards - 4 times, 75% pass

I don't love the 2nd down numbers, but it's a small sample. I'm staying fairly optimistic for many of the reasons Gladstone pointed out earlier.
 
1) High percentage of plays w 2 or 3 TEs
2) Run first offense that is keeping the offense "on time"
3) High rate of 3rd down conversions - especially when running
4) Dominating TOP

It's the HH offense people cried for -- one that plays to our proven strengths (RB, O-line, TE) and should help RB recruiting going forward.

I'm looking for any reason to bash the OC but this gameplan all things considered was fine to me. Now if it's the same exact thing against UA...
Click to expand...

View attachment 26755

Thank you Doogstone. This is how I felt the last two days as I’ve been reading the boreds. No getting cute when you’re running it down the defense’s throat. No crazy formations with 17 shifts.

OSU had a weakness and Lake kept at it. The drops by Bynum, Puka, Ty, and Rome would have been big conversions and two TDs. Suddenly Morris’ numbers look much better for his first game and throw in 267 on the ground for good measure.

They had a game plan for OSU’s weakness on the line, the weather, and an inexperienced line and WB, and it worked. Lake says they plan for their offense to be able to execute multiple game plans, and we will see if that is true against Arizona. Let’s see if they are a multiple offense that adjusts to their opponent. Let’s see if Lake is all talk.

Throughout camp WR spoke highly of the aggressive downfield passing with chances to make plays. I doubt they say that shit if all they do is block.
Click to expand...

Most rational poster on the board, rather easily. More of this. Less bridge jumping.
 
Last edited:
I counted Luciano as an additional TE, so that's the discrepancy on my end. I presumed he was technically eligible, but I don't claim to be an expert on all of this.

In the doldrums of summer, I actually tried to chart the entire 2019 offense to see if some of my memories were correct. Mercifully, the Husky Archive didn't have recordings of the Colorado or Stanford games, so I was forced to stop after 4-5 games.

It seems like this was appreciated, so I'll try to keep this up going forward. There are some good sites that compile the stats, but I'd never been able to find personnel groupings or specific plays/formations (wildcat and 5 wide in particular for the 2019 offense), so that's why I just started doing it myself. I'll have to check out this Sports Info Solutions site, but I'm assuming you have to pay for it and I'm a cheap bastard.
Click to expand...

As far as I'm aware, Luciano did NOT false start on the goal line this game. Progress.
 
Last edited:
1) High percentage of plays w 2 or 3 TEs
2) Run first offense that is keeping the offense "on time"
3) High rate of 3rd down conversions - especially when running
4) Dominating TOP

It's the HH offense people cried for -- one that plays to our proven strengths (RB, O-line, TE) and should help RB recruiting going forward.

I'm looking for any reason to bash the OC but this gameplan all things considered was fine to me. Now if it's the same exact thing against UA...
Click to expand...

View attachment 26755

Thank you Doogstone. This is how I felt the last two days as I’ve been reading the boreds. No getting cute when you’re running it down the defense’s throat. No crazy formations with 17 shifts.

OSU had a weakness and Lake kept at it. The drops by Bynum, Puka, Ty, and Rome would have been big conversions and two TDs. Suddenly Morris’ numbers look much better for his first game and throw in 267 on the ground for good measure.

They had a game plan for OSU’s weakness on the line, the weather, and an inexperienced line and WB, and it worked. Lake says they plan for their offense to be able to execute multiple game plans, and we will see if that is true against Arizona. Let’s see if they are a multiple offense that adjusts to their opponent. Let’s see if Lake is all talk.

Throughout camp WR spoke highly of the aggressive downfield passing with chances to make plays. I doubt they say that shit if all they do is block.
Click to expand...

Most rational poster on the board, rather easily. More of this. Less bridge jumping.
Click to expand...

I like my rational posts sprinkled into the crazy. Too much rational gets boring.
 
Yeah, Westover seems to be full on FB. I hope we blow someone out because I'd like to see Culp get some time at that position. He was a RB in high school.
 
1) High percentage of plays w 2 or 3 TEs
2) Run first offense that is keeping the offense "on time"
3) High rate of 3rd down conversions - especially when running
4) Dominating TOP

It's the HH offense people cried for -- one that plays to our proven strengths (RB, O-line, TE) and should help RB recruiting going forward.

I'm looking for any reason to bash the OC but this gameplan all things considered was fine to me. Now if it's the same exact thing against UA...
Click to expand...

View attachment 26755

Thank you Doogstone. This is how I felt the last two days as I’ve been reading the boreds. No getting cute when you’re running it down the defense’s throat. No crazy formations with 17 shifts.

OSU had a weakness and Lake kept at it. The drops by Bynum, Puka, Ty, and Rome would have been big conversions and two TDs. Suddenly Morris’ numbers look much better for his first game and throw in 267 on the ground for good measure.

They had a game plan for OSU’s weakness on the line, the weather, and an inexperienced line and WB, and it worked. Lake says they plan for their offense to be able to execute multiple game plans, and we will see if that is true against Arizona. Let’s see if they are a multiple offense that adjusts to their opponent. Let’s see if Lake is all talk.

Throughout camp WR spoke highly of the aggressive downfield passing with chances to make plays. I doubt they say that shit if all they do is block.
Click to expand...

Most rational poster on the board, rather easily. More of this. Less bridge jumping.
Click to expand...

I like my rational posts sprinkled into the crazy. Too much rational gets boring.
Click to expand...

To this point, I like to let everyone be bridge jumping. It doesn’t bother me one bit, in fact I think it brings a lot to the conversation because within the hysteria and vitriol is a lot of quality insight into weaknesses of the players/coaches/team. There needs to be some accountability, which is why this place is better than Doogman.

Then I come along and sprinkle a touch of rational and optimism. Guys question it, I retort, we all say yeah but still. Lather, rinse, repeat, it’s the script.
 
Yeah, Westover seems to be full on FB. I hope we blow someone out because I'd like to see Culp get some time at that position. He was a RB in high school.
Click to expand...

There is a lot of bullshit spewed about Westover because he’s white and was a walk on. He was never healthy in high school and was overlooked. The article in the Seattle Times said he ran a 4.6 and his vert was like 38” which was top 5-10 on the team.

He’s a very good athlete, seems tough, and was a good find. That has nothing to do with Culp, but I thought Westover was decent last year and will end up a good player for us. Not a star, but hopefully a guy that doesn’t everything relatively well and plays his role well.
 
Yeah, Westover seems to be full on FB. I hope we blow someone out because I'd like to see Culp get some time at that position. He was a RB in high school.
Click to expand...

There is a lot of bullshit spewed about Westover because he’s white and was a walk on. He was never healthy in high school and was overlooked. The article in the Seattle Times said he ran a 4.6 and his vert was like 38” which was top 5-10 on the team.

He’s a very good athlete, seems tough, and was a good find. That has nothing to do with Culp, but I thought Westover was decent last year and will end up a good player for us. Not a star, but hopefully a guy that doesn’t everything relatively well and plays his role well.
Click to expand...

You sure he won't get broken if he's tackled?
 
Yeah, Westover seems to be full on FB. I hope we blow someone out because I'd like to see Culp get some time at that position. He was a RB in high school.
Click to expand...

There is a lot of bullshit spewed about Westover because he’s white and was a walk on. He was never healthy in high school and was overlooked. The article in the Seattle Times said he ran a 4.6 and his vert was like 38” which was top 5-10 on the team.

He’s a very good athlete, seems tough, and was a good find. That has nothing to do with Culp, but I thought Westover was decent last year and will end up a good player for us. Not a star, but hopefully a guy that doesn’t everything relatively well and plays his role well.
Click to expand...

Oh I love Westover. I think he's a total stud. I'd just be interested to see how Culp would perform at that position since he clearly didn't cut it as a traditional TE.
 
Yeah, Westover seems to be full on FB. I hope we blow someone out because I'd like to see Culp get some time at that position. He was a RB in high school.
Click to expand...

There is a lot of bullshit spewed about Westover because he’s white and was a walk on. He was never healthy in high school and was overlooked. The article in the Seattle Times said he ran a 4.6 and his vert was like 38” which was top 5-10 on the team.

He’s a very good athlete, seems tough, and was a good find. That has nothing to do with Culp, but I thought Westover was decent last year and will end up a good player for us. Not a star, but hopefully a guy that doesn’t everything relatively well[/b] and plays his role well.
Click to expand...

I've seen him run, catch and block. He's solid, but ill reserve judgement until he throws a pass or pooch punts.
 
I counted Luciano as an additional TE, so that's the discrepancy on my end. I presumed he was technically eligible, but I don't claim to be an expert on all of this.

In the doldrums of summer, I actually tried to chart the entire 2019 offense to see if some of my memories were correct. Mercifully, the Husky Archive didn't have recordings of the Colorado or Stanford games, so I was forced to stop after 4-5 games.

It seems like this was appreciated, so I'll try to keep this up going forward. There are some good sites that compile the stats, but I'd never been able to find personnel groupings or specific plays/formations (wildcat and 5 wide in particular for the 2019 offense), so that's why I just started doing it myself. I'll have to check out this Sports Info Solutions site, but I'm assuming you have to pay for it and I'm a cheap bastard.
Click to expand...

As far as I'm aware, Luciano did NOT false start on the goal line this game. Progress.
Click to expand...

I believe he had the crucial hold toward the end of the game when we were in the red zone. It was the cal game 2.0 until the qb threw the ball off his offensive lineman back.
 
Play by down and distance:[/b]
1-3 yards to go - 87% run
3-7 yards to go - 75% run
8+ yards to go - 65% run
Click to expand...
That's play by distance not down and distance. If you have it broken down by down and distance that would be chinteresting. Obviously first down is mostly 10 yards to go but second down 1-3 yards to go, 3-7 yards to go etc and same for third down would be chinteresting.

Also this is probably unrealistic but if you have numbers for averages either in CFB or P5 to have a baseline to compare against that would be quite helpful.

Not expecting you to, but ye have not because ye axe not, yada yada.
Click to expand...

After being bullied by @dnc here is the revised down and distance.

1st down[/b]:
1-3 yards - 1 time (1st and goal), 100% rush
4-7 yards - 2 times, 100% rush
8+ yards - 28 times, 75% rush

2nd down[/b]
1-3 yards - 5 times, 100% rush
4-7 yards - 8 times, 100% rush
8+ yards - 9 times, 77% pass

3rd down[/b]
1-3 yards - 7 times, 72% rush
4-7 yards - 7 times, 72% pass
8+ yards - 4 times, 75% pass

I don't love the 2nd down numbers, but it's a small sample. I'm staying fairly optimistic for many of the reasons Gladstone pointed out earlier.
Click to expand...

1st down[/b]:
1-3 yards - 1 time (1st and goal), 100% rush
4-7 yards - 2 times, 100% rush
8+ yards - 28 times, 75% rush

2nd down[/b]
1-3 yards - 5 times, 100% rush
4-7 yards - 8 times, 100% rush
8+ yards - 9 times, 77% pass

3rd down[/b]
1-3 yards - 7 times, 72% rush
4-7 yards - 7 times, 72% pass
8+ yards - 4 times, 75% pass

Based on these numbers, we ran the ball about ~75% on standard downs (First downs, second-and-7 or fewer, third-and-4 or fewer, and fourth-and-4 or fewer)... As of 2018, national average was around 60%.

On passing downs (Second-and-8 or more, third-and-5 or more, or fourth-and-5 or more) we threw ~75%... In 2018 the national average was around 66%.

Relatively orthodox, in terms of pass and run distribution, based on down-n-distance.

 
Last edited:
Play by down and distance:[/b]
1-3 yards to go - 87% run
3-7 yards to go - 75% run
8+ yards to go - 65% run
Click to expand...
That's play by distance not down and distance. If you have it broken down by down and distance that would be chinteresting. Obviously first down is mostly 10 yards to go but second down 1-3 yards to go, 3-7 yards to go etc and same for third down would be chinteresting.

Also this is probably unrealistic but if you have numbers for averages either in CFB or P5 to have a baseline to compare against that would be quite helpful.

Not expecting you to, but ye have not because ye axe not, yada yada.
Click to expand...

After being bullied by @dnc here is the revised down and distance.

1st down[/b]:
1-3 yards - 1 time (1st and goal), 100% rush
4-7 yards - 2 times, 100% rush
8+ yards - 28 times, 75% rush

2nd down[/b]
1-3 yards - 5 times, 100% rush
4-7 yards - 8 times, 100% rush
8+ yards - 9 times, 77% pass

3rd down[/b]
1-3 yards - 7 times, 72% rush
4-7 yards - 7 times, 72% pass
8+ yards - 4 times, 75% pass

I don't love the 2nd down numbers, but it's a small sample. I'm staying fairly optimistic for many of the reasons Gladstone pointed out earlier.
Click to expand...

The first down numbers are somewhat concerning. It’s a myth that running on early downs helps protect your QB. If anything you want to pass more on early downs because it puts 3rd downs in a much more manageable position instead of 3rd and 6+. Also allows you to avoid 3rd downs completely which you obviously want to do. It’s Oregon State and it was shitty weather, still too early but it’s not good.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top