goemaw.com
TITLETOWN - A Decade Long Celebration Of The Greatest Achievement In College Athletics History => Kansas State Football => Topic started by: fatty fat fat on September 06, 2011, 07:57:50 PM
-
the whole "didn't open our playbook" excuse sounds like something an overzealous goEMAW.com football board poster would say to excuse 10-7.
-
Old, not odd
-
He's super weird. I really hate listening to him talk.
-
The weirdest part about what Snyds has become is how his neckflab forms a neck vagina when he wears a tie.
-
the whole "didn't open our playbook" excuse sounds like something an overzealous goEMAW.com football board poster would say to excuse 10-7.
:frown:
-
the whole "didn't open our playbook" excuse sounds like something an over OPTIMISTIC goEMAW.com football board poster would say to excuse 10-7.
-
he has to hate the LHC Bill Snyder Show so much.
-
Come on Bill, the whole "didn't open the play book" "we were very vanilla" "just do enough to win" . . . you're stealing all the apologist thunder man.
-
I dislike his smug comments that he says calmly but you know deep down he is loling.
-
there were a lot of things we could have done offensively and I'm not sure why we chose not to use any of them. Weakside and backside pursuit were largely ignored. A few bootlegs, reverses, throwback screens would have put an end to the way they aggressively attacked the line. Middle screens were there for the taking as well.
But regardless of any of this stuff the timing and footwork for the OL was tragic. The spacing was terrible and nobody finished blocks. I said before the season started these are not strong point of attack guys in the interior like the 3 a year ago...but they're capable of more than what they showed Saturday.
-
not opening up the playbook =10 pts to a 1AA? :comehere: not buying
-
"Has become very odd"--you know about the pats of butter, right?
-
He seemed to lack the negativity regarding the preparation level of the team leading up the first game this year.
-
"Has become very odd"--you know about the pats of butter, right?
Yeah. When you're successful, you're "eccentric." When you're mediocre, you're "odd."
-
So do you have to open the playbook to not fumble 5 times? Does opening the playbook allow you to score a TD before 2 minutes left in the 4th qtr?
-
? #1 = no
? #2 = yes
always willing to help Froman
-
He seemed to lack the negativity regarding the preparation level of the team leading up the first game this year.
That + preseason optimism = puzzling
Being a respect, I took the optimism to mean that he thinks he has a competitive team. That concept conflicts with level of play shown during E. Kentucky.
Answers! I need answers!
-
There are a couple different ways to look at the "open up the playbook" argument. One is mix in more of your package than you originally wanted to (or hoped you needed to); ie. mix in different play calls like boot passes, misdirection, reverses etc. that you had hoped to "save" or that you didn't feel comfortable with. The 2nd is to vary the balance you wanted, whether it be between run and pass, QB run game vs RB run game, etc.
It appears pretty clear to me just looking at the discrepency in basic play calls between the 1st half and the 2nd that we had hoped we could just throw out the 3 headed monster RB trio and mix in a little QB run and passing game. Our first half plays featured 17 runs by the RBs, 7 by Klein, and 15 passes. In the 2nd half that changed drastically, starting with the first drive. We had 11 runs by the RBs, 16 by Klein, and only 9 passes. So you go from 43.6% RB run game, 38.5% pass, and only 17.9% QB runs to nearly reversing those numbers in the in the 2nd half; 44.4% QB runs, 30.6% RB runs, and 25% pass.
The decision was made then not to add in more/different play calls. If anything Snyder went backwards; those numbers look a lot more like how he used Klein last year, especially in the Texas game. Part of that is good because EKU's defense did not do a great job accounting for the QB run game and it was largely successful. However, we still couldn't sustain drives (though the 2nd and 3rd drives of the 2nd half both ended in turnovers) so its hard to tell if it could've been more successful or not.
Ultimately its hard to say what this means completely, but clearly what we had planned/hoped to do going in against EKU failed miserable, and our game plan adjustment (more Klein runs) worked moderately well (it did lead to decent drives our last 3 possessions; missed FG, made FG, TD), though probably not as well as hoped (punt on the first 2nd half possession). It also shows that either we didn't want to show more of our offense (boot, misdirection, reverse, etc.) or that Snyder did not trust the offense/Klein running the rest of our offense. We probably won't find out which it was until Kent State partially, and fully until we head to Miami.
-
The reason the game was so close can be easily traced back to the amount of stupid turnovers we had. If we had 1 or 2 turnovers rather than 5, we win that game by 21+.
-
Should be winning that game by 51+ imo.
-
The reason the game was so close can be easily traced back to the amount of stupid turnovers we had. If we had 1 or 2 turnovers rather than 5, we win that game by 21+.
True, but that really doesn't adress the point of this thread. Play calls and turnovers aren't mutually exclusive, but there was more to our game plan and switch in strategy from 1st and 2nd half than that, especially considering the first 5 plays of the 2nd half were Klein runs, before our two 2nd half TOs.
-
playbook or not, we got out-physicalled and played like pussies. if "not opening the playbook" = "our players just got manhandled by some Div 3 team" then i'm on board with Snyds.
-
playbook or not, we got out-physicalled and played like pussies. if "not opening the playbook" = "our players just got manhandled by some Div 3 team" then i'm on board with Snyds.
I agree, and this was the biggest disappointment from the game.
By far.
-
playbook or not, we got out-physicalled and played like pussies. if "not opening the playbook" = "our players just got manhandled by some Div 3 team" then i'm on board with Snyds.
I agree, and this was the biggest disappointment from the game.
By far.
Remember when Pete Carroll said that about us? :embarrassed:
-
playbook or not, we got out-physicalled and played like pussies. if "not opening the playbook" = "our players just got manhandled by some Div 3 team" then i'm on board with Snyds.
I agree, and this was the biggest disappointment from the game.
By far.
Remember when Pete Carroll said that about us? :embarrassed:
A lot of people did. IMHO this is really a key part of Snyder's offensive gameplan post-1996. A lot of people just say it was the implimentation of the QB run game, which is a big part of it. But more importantly it is utilizing QB run in "power running schemes", meaning you pull backside offensive line to get an extra body at the point of attack. Heck, lots of people had used some QB run game whether it was option football or traditional QB draw plays, but Snyder's revolution was QB run blended with power football. Not only do you "gain an extra man" because the defense normally didn't account for the QB run, but you also gained an extra man because you pulled offensive linemen. Almost as if you "gained" a numbers advantage of 2 people at the point of attack instead of just 1, but the key part of that was power and physical football with the QB.
-
There are a couple different ways to look at the "open up the playbook" argument. One is mix in more of your package than you originally wanted to (or hoped you needed to); ie. mix in different play calls like boot passes, misdirection, reverses etc. that you had hoped to "save" or that you didn't feel comfortable with. The 2nd is to vary the balance you wanted, whether it be between run and pass, QB run game vs RB run game, etc.
It appears pretty clear to me just looking at the discrepency in basic play calls between the 1st half and the 2nd that we had hoped we could just throw out the 3 headed monster RB trio and mix in a little QB run and passing game. Our first half plays featured 17 runs by the RBs, 7 by Klein, and 15 passes. In the 2nd half that changed drastically, starting with the first drive. We had 11 runs by the RBs, 16 by Klein, and only 9 passes. So you go from 43.6% RB run game, 38.5% pass, and only 17.9% QB runs to nearly reversing those numbers in the in the 2nd half; 44.4% QB runs, 30.6% RB runs, and 25% pass.
The decision was made then not to add in more/different play calls. If anything Snyder went backwards; those numbers look a lot more like how he used Klein last year, especially in the Texas game. Part of that is good because EKU's defense did not do a great job accounting for the QB run game and it was largely successful. However, we still couldn't sustain drives (though the 2nd and 3rd drives of the 2nd half both ended in turnovers) so its hard to tell if it could've been more successful or not.
Ultimately its hard to say what this means completely, but clearly what we had planned/hoped to do going in against EKU failed miserable, and our game plan adjustment (more Klein runs) worked moderately well (it did lead to decent drives our last 3 possessions; missed FG, made FG, TD), though probably not as well as hoped (punt on the first 2nd half possession). It also shows that either we didn't want to show more of our offense (boot, misdirection, reverse, etc.) or that Snyder did not trust the offense/Klein running the rest of our offense. We probably won't find out which it was until Kent State partially, and fully until we head to Miami.
I hate to be a pessimist but I think the fact that EKUs defense was on the field for something like thirty four minutes is probably a big reason why we started having success on offense in the fourth. It was probably a mix of better play calling and a worn down defense that had been playing extremely hard for three quarters.
-
playbook or not, we got out-physicalled and played like pussies. if "not opening the playbook" = "our players just got manhandled by some Div 3 team" then i'm on board with Snyds.
I agree, and this was the biggest disappointment from the game.
By far.
I don't think we got "out-physicalled." We owned them in every stat except turnovers. We did out-dumbass them, though. Which is not good.
-
Guys I feel like you are showing a lot of disrespect to an EKU team that, from what I saw on the field, deserves more.
-
Guys I feel like you are showing a lot of disrespect to an EKU team that, from what I saw on the field, deserves more.
:peek:
-
playbook or not, we got out-physicalled and played like pussies. if "not opening the playbook" = "our players just got manhandled by some Div 3 team" then i'm on board with Snyds.
I agree, and this was the biggest disappointment from the game.
By far.
I don't think we got "out-physicalled." We owned them in every stat except turnovers. We did out-dumbass them, though. Which is not good.
:popcorn:
-
Guys I feel like you are showing a lot of disrespect to an EKU team that, from what I saw on the field, deserves more.
:peek:
Haters gonna hate
-
25 carries by Klein per game = 4 wins
And isn't Snyder's post 96 "revolution" of power running combined with QB run essentially a variation of the single wing?
-
25 carries by Klein per game = 4 wins
And isn't Snyder's post 96 "revolution" of power running combined with QB run essentially a variation of the single wing?
I agree that 25 for Klein is too many.
Yes, most "innovative" football scheming is simply repackaging something that has been done before, as is/was Snyder's offensive system post-96. Mixing in the vertical passing game made it more unique.