GAME DAY: MISSOURI TIGERS VS GEORGIA BULLDOGS

I don't care anything about style points either, and I hesitate to say anything that might sound negative as some folk tend to get really defensive if you don't do anything but gush after a win.

That being said....

Until a couple of big plays, our offense was back to looking more like it did against USC than it did against UF. We abandoned TE involvement after it worked so well last week, and once again we could not run between the tackles. Before anyone says anything about the big D-line from Mizzou.. most teams in the SEC have big D-lines and Mizzou wasn't exactly sitting atop the league in D.

Fromm was also off.. he left at least 1 if not 2 TD's on the field. He missed seeing the open receiver a few times and made a bad throw one of the few times we did try and go to the TE.

Now on the other side of the ball.... Our D can flat out ball. Some names I started hyping as young pups were at again and man how they have matured into full grown Dawgs. I know it was against 2nd and 3rd string QB's, but they were spot on almost all night. Loved seeng that D-line performance... loved seeing that defense respond to the chance they had to give up their first rushing TD.

Next week we face Abuurn... Assburn.. whatever you want to call the team unsure of its moniker; War Eaglet.. Plainsmen.. Tigers.. whatever.

What I think we need to win that game? Balance.. Utilize the TE's, and for gosh sakes; stop running the read option look unless you actually have from pull the ball out and run it once or twice! NO ONE wastes their time worrying about the QB on a play that depends on the D worrying about the QB breaking edge contain for an easy run. As slow as Fromm is, he could still be running had he made the read and been ALLOWED to pull the ball out and run. Lord I hate that play in our offense.. it's like a one armed man in a boxing match every time we use it.

Question WartDawg . . . .

Are our problems on offense a product of game plan(s), or situational calls?

Seems to me that our defense is doing well. What is preventing our offense that has a lauded offensive line with depth (nationally noted), numbers 7, 35, 3, 4 at running back, quarterback that many say is a "coach on the field", with talent I might also add at the receiver position, and from where I sit more than average tight ends.

What?????

Something not quite right when I look at the talent and not get a more productive group from week to week.

Just asking . . . .

EDIT: Picked this up on the internet . . . .

“I think we’re so close to executing on all cylinders,” Fromm said after the game. “Sooner or later, we’re gonna break it out, and it’s going to be really fun to watch.”

Buc... in my opinion it's a couple of things.

You know that I had no love for Jim Chaney's offense and I think this is James Coley running Jim Chaney's schemes.

I believed that Chaney's offense was a bit outdated, and was predicated on just individual players on the LOS and in the skill positions winning matchups. No aspect of the offense is really creative and as good as an O-line as we have, other teams starters are rarely dominated. Other teams have big strong guys as well. I also think to some degree Chaney's offense features some things that Jake Fromm doesn't do well, and nothing indicates that more than the read option looks we show. That play does not work unless the defense actually plays the QB possibly running the ball honestly, and they don't against us. The two or three times Jake has actually pulled the ball out he has gotten around the crashing D-end easily, but that is so not his game.

I also look at our use of the TE. Coley is a TE guy, but Chaney never really was. That too indicates these are Chaney's schemes.

On the line, most of our blocking is straight up.. very little pulling, no trapping, and with so much of this rushing offense designed to run inside the tackles.. it's a recipe for clogged running lanes unless we just get dominating push.

I also think we have the Kirby factor. I think he dictates a very basic game-plan. I also think Kirby probably had a lot to do with retaining a lot of Chaney's offense. He wanted to maintain a continuity and limit Jake and the team having to learn a new offense, and as noted.. what we are using is a bit dated and predictable. That's too bad because I think Kirby underestimates his own guys ability to adjust.

Look at our successes.. When we are rolling, we are using the TE's and being creative getting outside the tackles. We are going outside zone instead of our usual inside zone.
I actually think it's a testament to our players talent that we actually are as good as we are as I see us often overcoming predictable offense we run.

The answer for me is to have Kirby let Coley be Coley. We can still be a ball control team and all that Kirby wants, but we can move on from a lot of Chaney's offense and let this team look a little different to our opponents.
I love to run, but I would like to see more outside zone blocking and pulling and trapping. The passing game will open up on it's own after that.

.... and utilize ALL of the eligible receivers!

I also look at our use of the TE. Coley is a TE guy, but Chaney never really was. That too indicates these are Chaney's schemes.

Lifted the above from your last post. Below is an article from Rivals. One of the comments made in the article really caught my attention concerning tight end play. Have read your post a couple of times, enjoyed and agreed with most of what you said both times while reading.

n.rivals.com/news/take-two-can-bama-take...-darnell-washington-