The unofficial online home for fans of the Old Dominion University Monarchs. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

Again, Slade will do well as long as he drops some weight. He played too heavy last year and lost some explosiveness he had as a Freshman. Rahne knows what he has in him though, he will use him a bunch.

(06-19-2020 12:21 PM)BigBlueMonarch Wrote:  Oh and hopefully RR lost the play script for the WR screen we have run with minimal efficiency for the last 4 years. God I hate that play, guaranteed loss of two yards

give this man 100 internet points. The WR screen is straight garbage.

People do not understand the nuicances of calling 85 plays over the course of a football game. Not every play is designed to score a touchdown and some plays can be called to either set up other plays or keep defenses honest. I doubt there is a team in college football that does not call WR screens....and there is a reason for that.

I get what you are saying, but wonder when your offense is a consistent 3 and out if you can afford a throw away play setting something up for a future that never comes. A WR screen thrown in during the course of driving down field may make sense, but if you only get 3 touches, not sure you can waste one on a play that won't net + yardage

(06-29-2020 09:19 AM)VB Monarch Wrote:  I get what you are saying, but wonder when your offense is a consistent 3 and out if you can afford a throw away play setting something up for a future that never comes. A WR screen thrown in during the course of driving down field may make sense, but if you only get 3 touches, not sure you can waste one on a play that won't net + yardage

The problem in that scenario is with the offense overall not the WR screen.

Let's use an example in a different sport. I have never called plays for a football team, but I have done an awful lot of pitch calling in baseball, and the concept is similar. You don't call every pitch with the hope that you are going to throw it by someone, or even get a strike. You sometimes intentionally call a fastball up and in that is out of the strike zone to set up the slider on the inside half of the plate for the next pitch. That slider that looks like it is going to hit the batter is a lot more effective coming on the heels of that fastball that was a little too close to comfort.

If you have a pitcher that is struggling to just throw strikes, you still have to mix it up, because he is going to get destroyed if all you do is throw fastballs down the middle in hopes that he doesn't walk 8 batters in the game. If you have nothing but pitchers that can't throw a strike all season long, then you are just going to get crushed all season, and it is not going to be because you called that 3-2 curveball, but rather because your pitching staff sucks and can't execute an effective game plan.

(06-29-2020 08:44 AM)Gilesfan Wrote:  People do not understand the nuicances of calling 85 plays over the course of a football game. Not every play is designed to score a touchdown and some plays can be called to either set up other plays or keep defenses honest. I doubt there is a team in college football that does not call WR screens....and there is a reason for that.

While i've never called a play before, I'm very sure it is bad football to purposely call an offensive play that nearly always results in negative yardage. That is dumb play calling if you do that and Wilder did that consistently. At least get a nuanced play that goes forward not backwards.

(06-29-2020 10:01 AM)FTW ODU Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 08:44 AM)Gilesfan Wrote:  People do not understand the nuicances of calling 85 plays over the course of a football game. Not every play is designed to score a touchdown and some plays can be called to either set up other plays or keep defenses honest. I doubt there is a team in college football that does not call WR screens....and there is a reason for that.

While i've never called a play before, I'm very sure it is bad football to purposely call an offensive play that nearly always results in negative yardage. That is dumb play calling if you do that and Wilder did that consistently. At least get a nuanced play that goes forward not backwards.

The BW and Brian Scott offense was predictable, simple and unimaginative. Defenses knew exactly what was coming. They were completely out-coached by the Lane Kiffin's of C-USA. Giles seems to have a blind spot as an apologist for the old offensive scheme and coaches.

(06-29-2020 09:19 AM)VB Monarch Wrote:  I get what you are saying, but wonder when your offense is a consistent 3 and out if you can afford a throw away play setting something up for a future that never comes. A WR screen thrown in during the course of driving down field may make sense, but if you only get 3 touches, not sure you can waste one on a play that won't net + yardage

The problem is the offense sucked last year because we had no QB, injured RBs, and a no WRs (Moore/Fitzgerald slowly started developing as the year moved on).

There are no magical plays when you don't have talent.

(06-29-2020 10:27 AM)CalODUFan Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 10:01 AM)FTW ODU Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 08:44 AM)Gilesfan Wrote:  People do not understand the nuicances of calling 85 plays over the course of a football game. Not every play is designed to score a touchdown and some plays can be called to either set up other plays or keep defenses honest. I doubt there is a team in college football that does not call WR screens....and there is a reason for that.

While i've never called a play before, I'm very sure it is bad football to purposely call an offensive play that nearly always results in negative yardage. That is dumb play calling if you do that and Wilder did that consistently. At least get a nuanced play that goes forward not backwards.

The BW and Brian Scott offense was predictable, simple and unimaginative. Defenses knew exactly what was coming. They were completely out-coached by the Lane Kiffin's of C-USA. Giles seems to have a blind spot as an apologist for the old offensive scheme and coaches.

The offense was fine when we had talent. Actually it was quite good at times. It was great when it had a great QB in Heinicke. Really good with decent QB play by LaRussa/Washington. It was ok with Bentley. It was terrible with Hoy/Smart/deWeaver.

Overall, we had a very good offense for our level over the past decade. But, last year we lacked talent. And the talent that we did have was young. The good news this year is that we at least have some talent with a year under their belt.

(06-29-2020 10:45 AM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 10:27 AM)CalODUFan Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 10:01 AM)FTW ODU Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 08:44 AM)Gilesfan Wrote:  People do not understand the nuicances of calling 85 plays over the course of a football game. Not every play is designed to score a touchdown and some plays can be called to either set up other plays or keep defenses honest. I doubt there is a team in college football that does not call WR screens....and there is a reason for that.

While i've never called a play before, I'm very sure it is bad football to purposely call an offensive play that nearly always results in negative yardage. That is dumb play calling if you do that and Wilder did that consistently. At least get a nuanced play that goes forward not backwards.

The BW and Brian Scott offense was predictable, simple and unimaginative. Defenses knew exactly what was coming. They were completely out-coached by the Lane Kiffin's of C-USA. Giles seems to have a blind spot as an apologist for the old offensive scheme and coaches.

The offense was fine when we had talent. Actually it was quite good at times. It was great when it had a great QB in Heinicke. Really good with decent QB play by LaRussa/Washington. It was ok with Bentley. It was terrible with Hoy/Smart/deWeaver.

Overall, we had a very good offense for our level over the past decade. But, last year we lacked talent. And the talent that we did have was young. The good news this year is that we at least have some talent with a year under their belt.

Great talent overcame the mediocre offensive scheme. The offense did not assist players in getting better than they already were. The offense was only adequate when there was excellent talent. Even with DW and 3 NFL WRs (Pascal, Fulgham and Duhart) and 2 NFL RBs (Lawry and Cox) they barely beat a mediocre Eastern Michigan team in the Bahamas bowl.

(06-29-2020 10:45 AM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 10:27 AM)CalODUFan Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 10:01 AM)FTW ODU Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 08:44 AM)Gilesfan Wrote:  People do not understand the nuicances of calling 85 plays over the course of a football game. Not every play is designed to score a touchdown and some plays can be called to either set up other plays or keep defenses honest. I doubt there is a team in college football that does not call WR screens....and there is a reason for that.

While i've never called a play before, I'm very sure it is bad football to purposely call an offensive play that nearly always results in negative yardage. That is dumb play calling if you do that and Wilder did that consistently. At least get a nuanced play that goes forward not backwards.

The team wasn't as talented as others we've had i'll grant you that. However, they were not as bad as the record showed them to be. To often we were in games that were lost due to poor coaching and poor decision making (both by players and coaches). Our inept offensive play calling did nothing to help those kids succeed on the field.

The BW and Brian Scott offense was predictable, simple and unimaginative. Defenses knew exactly what was coming. They were completely out-coached by the Lane Kiffin's of C-USA. Giles seems to have a blind spot as an apologist for the old offensive scheme and coaches.

The offense was fine when we had talent. Actually it was quite good at times. It was great when it had a great QB in Heinicke. Really good with decent QB play by LaRussa/Washington. It was ok with Bentley. It was terrible with Hoy/Smart/deWeaver.

Overall, we had a very good offense for our level over the past decade. But, last year we lacked talent. And the talent that we did have was young. The good news this year is that we at least have some talent with a year under their belt.

(06-29-2020 11:00 AM)CalODUFan Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 10:45 AM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 10:27 AM)CalODUFan Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 10:01 AM)FTW ODU Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 08:44 AM)Gilesfan Wrote:  People do not understand the nuicances of calling 85 plays over the course of a football game. Not every play is designed to score a touchdown and some plays can be called to either set up other plays or keep defenses honest. I doubt there is a team in college football that does not call WR screens....and there is a reason for that.

While i've never called a play before, I'm very sure it is bad football to purposely call an offensive play that nearly always results in negative yardage. That is dumb play calling if you do that and Wilder did that consistently. At least get a nuanced play that goes forward not backwards.

The BW and Brian Scott offense was predictable, simple and unimaginative. Defenses knew exactly what was coming. They were completely out-coached by the Lane Kiffin's of C-USA. Giles seems to have a blind spot as an apologist for the old offensive scheme and coaches.

The offense was fine when we had talent. Actually it was quite good at times. It was great when it had a great QB in Heinicke. Really good with decent QB play by LaRussa/Washington. It was ok with Bentley. It was terrible with Hoy/Smart/deWeaver.

Overall, we had a very good offense for our level over the past decade. But, last year we lacked talent. And the talent that we did have was young. The good news this year is that we at least have some talent with a year under their belt.

Great talent overcame the mediocre offensive scheme. The offense did not assist players in getting better than they already were. The offense was only adequate when there was excellent talent. Even with DW and 3 NFL WRs (Pascal, Fulgham and Duhart) and 2 NFL RBs (Lawry and Cox) they barely beat a mediocre Eastern Michigan team in the Bahamas bowl.

DW was a decent QB, but not great. And was an FCS recruit, for example. (as was Pascal and Duhart; and Fulgham was a walk on). If those guys were so talented, why did they commit to an FCS team? Were they good in high school but no one saw it? It would be surprising if guys on NFL practice squad where at the same talent level as they were when they came out of high school and didn't improve.

FWIW, besides Pascal, has any of them played a down in the NFL?

That offense was still really good averaging 200 yards rushing per game and one of the better G5 offenses in the country. You are singling out one game where they scored 24 points; also had games of 42, 42, 51, 38, 31, 24, 36, 52, 33, 22, 7, 54. They had 1 bad offensive game all season.

(06-29-2020 11:45 AM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 11:00 AM)CalODUFan Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 10:45 AM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 10:27 AM)CalODUFan Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 10:01 AM)FTW ODU Wrote:  While i've never called a play before, I'm very sure it is bad football to purposely call an offensive play that nearly always results in negative yardage. That is dumb play calling if you do that and Wilder did that consistently. At least get a nuanced play that goes forward not backwards.

The BW and Brian Scott offense was predictable, simple and unimaginative. Defenses knew exactly what was coming. They were completely out-coached by the Lane Kiffin's of C-USA. Giles seems to have a blind spot as an apologist for the old offensive scheme and coaches.

The offense was fine when we had talent. Actually it was quite good at times. It was great when it had a great QB in Heinicke. Really good with decent QB play by LaRussa/Washington. It was ok with Bentley. It was terrible with Hoy/Smart/deWeaver.

Overall, we had a very good offense for our level over the past decade. But, last year we lacked talent. And the talent that we did have was young. The good news this year is that we at least have some talent with a year under their belt.

Great talent overcame the mediocre offensive scheme. The offense did not assist players in getting better than they already were. The offense was only adequate when there was excellent talent. Even with DW and 3 NFL WRs (Pascal, Fulgham and Duhart) and 2 NFL RBs (Lawry and Cox) they barely beat a mediocre Eastern Michigan team in the Bahamas bowl.

DW was a decent QB, but not great. And was an FCS recruit, for example. (as was Pascal and Duhart; and Fulgham was a walk on). If those guys were so talented, why did they commit to an FCS team? Were they good in high school but no one saw it? It would be surprising if guys on NFL practice squad where at the same talent level as they were when they came out of high school and didn't improve.

FWIW, besides Pascal, has any of them played a down in the NFL?

That offense was still really good averaging 200 yards rushing per game and one of the better G5 offenses in the country. You are singling out one game where they scored 24 points; also had games of 42, 42, 51, 38, 31, 24, 36, 52, 33, 22, 7, 54. They had 1 bad offensive game all season.

No convincing Giles. The last regime might have been pretty good FCS coaches, but they were way over their head in FBS. The bottom of the pile in CUSA coaching schemes.

(06-29-2020 12:19 PM)CalODUFan Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 11:45 AM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 11:00 AM)CalODUFan Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 10:45 AM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 10:27 AM)CalODUFan Wrote:  The BW and Brian Scott offense was predictable, simple and unimaginative. Defenses knew exactly what was coming. They were completely out-coached by the Lane Kiffin's of C-USA. Giles seems to have a blind spot as an apologist for the old offensive scheme and coaches.

The offense was fine when we had talent. Actually it was quite good at times. It was great when it had a great QB in Heinicke. Really good with decent QB play by LaRussa/Washington. It was ok with Bentley. It was terrible with Hoy/Smart/deWeaver.

Overall, we had a very good offense for our level over the past decade. But, last year we lacked talent. And the talent that we did have was young. The good news this year is that we at least have some talent with a year under their belt.

Great talent overcame the mediocre offensive scheme. The offense did not assist players in getting better than they already were. The offense was only adequate when there was excellent talent. Even with DW and 3 NFL WRs (Pascal, Fulgham and Duhart) and 2 NFL RBs (Lawry and Cox) they barely beat a mediocre Eastern Michigan team in the Bahamas bowl.

DW was a decent QB, but not great. And was an FCS recruit, for example. (as was Pascal and Duhart; and Fulgham was a walk on). If those guys were so talented, why did they commit to an FCS team? Were they good in high school but no one saw it? It would be surprising if guys on NFL practice squad where at the same talent level as they were when they came out of high school and didn't improve.

FWIW, besides Pascal, has any of them played a down in the NFL?

That offense was still really good averaging 200 yards rushing per game and one of the better G5 offenses in the country. You are singling out one game where they scored 24 points; also had games of 42, 42, 51, 38, 31, 24, 36, 52, 33, 22, 7, 54. They had 1 bad offensive game all season.

No convincing Giles. The last regime might have been pretty good FCS coaches, but they were way over their head in FBS. The bottom of the pile in CUSA coaching schemes.

You are free to your opinion.

I wouldn't expect us to have drastically different schemes, FWIW.

(06-29-2020 08:44 AM)Gilesfan Wrote:  People do not understand the nuicances of calling 85 plays over the course of a football game. Not every play is designed to score a touchdown and some plays can be called to either set up other plays or keep defenses honest. I doubt there is a team in college football that does not call WR screens....and there is a reason for that.

So you are saying we have been running a play that 2/3 of the time resulted in a loss of yardage or little to no gain on purpose to put ourselves in a 2nd or 3rd and long situation that we were unlikely to get out of? Seem like a nuance I could live without.

Its kind of like the Redskins throwing the corner fade to the back corner of the end zone all the GD time. They didn't have the QB for that throw and could not execute it but they kept running it over and over and over/ I bet they left a hundred or more points on the field over asinine play calling.

The step back WR screen we have been running has been a miserable failure, but we kept running it over and over with the same result. I PRAY WE NEVER REGULARLY RUN THAT PLAY AGAIN.

(06-29-2020 12:20 PM)BigBlueMonarch Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 08:44 AM)Gilesfan Wrote:  People do not understand the nuicances of calling 85 plays over the course of a football game. Not every play is designed to score a touchdown and some plays can be called to either set up other plays or keep defenses honest. I doubt there is a team in college football that does not call WR screens....and there is a reason for that.

So you are saying we have been running a play that 2/3 of the time resulted in a loss of yardage or little to no gain on purpose to put ourselves in a 2nd or 3rd and long situation that we were unlikely to get out of? Seem like a nuance I could live without.

Its kind of like the Redskins throwing the corner fade to the back corner of the end zone all the GD time. They didn't have the QB for that throw and could not execute it but they kept running it over and over and over/ I bet they left a hundred or more points on the field over asinine play calling.

The step back WR screen we have been running has been a miserable failure, but we kept running it over and over with the same result. I PRAY WE NEVER REGULARLY RUN THAT PLAY AGAIN.

If you can provide proof on how many times we have ran it and for what yardage (and what down situation), I will gladly respond.

Your post is full of hyperbole

(06-29-2020 12:41 PM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 12:20 PM)BigBlueMonarch Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 08:44 AM)Gilesfan Wrote:  People do not understand the nuicances of calling 85 plays over the course of a football game. Not every play is designed to score a touchdown and some plays can be called to either set up other plays or keep defenses honest. I doubt there is a team in college football that does not call WR screens....and there is a reason for that.

So you are saying we have been running a play that 2/3 of the time resulted in a loss of yardage or little to no gain on purpose to put ourselves in a 2nd or 3rd and long situation that we were unlikely to get out of? Seem like a nuance I could live without.

Its kind of like the Redskins throwing the corner fade to the back corner of the end zone all the GD time. They didn't have the QB for that throw and could not execute it but they kept running it over and over and over/ I bet they left a hundred or more points on the field over asinine play calling.

The step back WR screen we have been running has been a miserable failure, but we kept running it over and over with the same result. I PRAY WE NEVER REGULARLY RUN THAT PLAY AGAIN.

If you can provide proof on how many times we have ran it and for what yardage (and what down situation), I will gladly respond.

Your post is full of hyperbole

Like 98% of the posts on here....all I can speak to is what I saw with my eyes and either we did not have the players to run the play effectively; and if that is the case the blame lies with the coaches to either ditch the play or coach better. Either that, or the offensive scheme sucks and the blame is on the coaches again.

To my eye, the reason for the ineffective WR screen or whatever name you want to give it was a combination of bad execution (blocking) and predictability. To me, it seems like a vast majority of pass plays we run are designed to be caught outside the hash marks....rarely does it ever seem we throw it over the middle via the tight end or quick slants to a slot receiver. The defense can shade to the sidelines and not worry about getting burnt down the middle.

(06-29-2020 03:02 PM)Roy Munson Wrote:  To my eye, the reason for the ineffective WR screen or whatever name you want to give it was a combination of bad execution (blocking) and predictability. To me, it seems like a vast majority of pass plays we run are designed to be caught outside the hash marks....rarely does it ever seem we throw it over the middle via the tight end or quick slants to a slot receiver. The defense can shade to the sidelines and not worry about getting burnt down the middle.

Bingo. That was what was going on far too much.

(06-29-2020 03:02 PM)Roy Munson Wrote:  To my eye, the reason for the ineffective WR screen or whatever name you want to give it was a combination of bad execution (blocking) and predictability. To me, it seems like a vast majority of pass plays we run are designed to be caught outside the hash marks....rarely does it ever seem we throw it over the middle via the tight end or quick slants to a slot receiver. The defense can shade to the sidelines and not worry about getting burnt down the middle.

The WR screens were generally RPOs where the read told them throw out to the WRs.