No wonder why Montana leads the Big Sky in getting sacked

[Wolfman]

This is not meant to flame our offensive coordinator, Rob Phenicie, although he certainly deserves any flaming he receives. xeyebrowx

Rather, I have identified the reason why Montana leads the Big Sky in getting our QB sacked, by a WIDE MARGIN.

The reason is that the design of our passing game is ridiculous, requiring waaaaaay too long to execute the pass. Phenicie's offense relys almost exclusively on 5+ step drops, with a fake to a RB thrown in, before Berquist even looks downfield for a receiver. We almost never throw a slant, or a quick out, or a 3-step drop pass play. These 5+-step drop plays require the O-line to hold their blocks much too long. The result is that Berquist many times has a defender in his face before he has a chance to look downfield.

It is not the fault of the O-line. It is a flawed scheme on passing plays.

If I were an opposing D-coordinator, I would blitz almost every play against the Griz. Glanville figured this out, and his blitzing totally disrupted our passing offense. Yeah, we will break a few long runs each game if the opponent blitzes alot. but, it makes us virtually one-dimentional, with lots of losses on plays making it tough to sustain long drives. Second-and-17 all of the time against playoff teams isn't going to cut it. You can me quite certain that future playoff coordinators will be gearing up to bring the blitz against Montana.

For any football fan whop understands the game, it is quite obvious that something is wrong when your team gives up 5-7 QB sacks every game. Yes we are winning in spite of this. But, as we all know too well, these gaffs tend to spell trouble for us when facing playoff teams.

[Silenoz]

I will agree that the number of sacks we've given up this year has been quite alarming. Minuscule interceptions or no

[gbhmt]

Yeah I think Phenicie has clung a little too tightly to big plays. The majority of Bergquist's sacks come right after he finishes his drop. If our running game hadn't started to kick in (more evidence that the O-line can't be at that much fault), we'd have a couple more losses now. If he just ran the same plays with smaller drops and could keep his composure in the pocket we'd be better off. I think Bergquist is a little quick to scrambling, although it doesn't always end as bad as it could if he were immobile. This is one reason I've liked Andrew Selle. He's got a quick release, he's composed, has has good vision, and when he really does need to bail out of the pocket, he's relatively quick.

[slostang]

First off the Griz have given up 38 sacks in 10 game (still a lot) which means they give up 3.8 sacks a game, not 5 to 7 a game as you state.

Montana is also averaging 252 passing yards, 2.6 passing TDs a game, 416 total yards of offense per game and 35 points a game. While it may not be perfect, Montana has a very good offense.

[gbhmt]

First off the Griz have given up 38 sacks in 10 game (still a lot) which means they give up 3.8 sacks a game, not 5 to 7 that you state.

Montana is also averaging 252 passing yards, 2.6 passing TDs a game, 416 total yards of offense per game and 35 points a game. While it may not be perfect, Montana has a very good offense.

He's not debating that. He said pretty clearly that it still works at this point, but in the playoffs when teams exploit it by blitzing, we might not be so lucky. It's not bad, it could just be better without the huge drops. I say run quick passes to receivers like Ferriter and Mariani. They both do very well after the catch. When the other team doesn't blitz, it works great. The O-line can do decent in keeping the pocket, and the receivers run excellent routes. He can throw a great pass anywhere on the field. We'd be getting a lot more yards than what we get now if he always had time for that. But he doesn't when people blitz.

[Silenoz]

Or Schulte. He's so damn shifty that a quick slant is almost a guaranteed 8-15 yards

[gbhmt]

Or Schulte. He's so damn shifty that a quick slant is almost a guaranteed 8-15 yards

I like what we've been doing with him in the backfield too, though.

[gbhmt]

Also, Phenicie could and should use this to his advantage. Say the Griz continue to run the exact same offense in their last two teams. Any decent defensive coordinator could see that the solution is to blitz. With this in mind, the Griz can prepare for this by practicing plays to punish the blitz i.e. hot reads, quick fades (as a blitz would put receivers like Mariani in man coverage, where he'll win that battle 95 throws out of 100), WR or RB screens (especially with the speed Reynolds has shown he has), etc. To break habit mid-game and desert old habits, you'll catch the opposing teams off guard. Then they take it easy on the blitzing, and it's back to the old big-play, hit them where it hurts offense.

It works in theory, I suppose.

[Wolfman]

Leave it to Slostang to lamely twist the topic around.

There is yet another quirk in Phenicie's passing offense which I forgot to mention. About 40% of the time, Berquist takes the snap and drops to pass with his left shoulder leading the drop-back. In other words, he is dropping like a left-handed QB. He does this to facilitate the fake to a RB who is positioned to his left. Thus, before he can set up to pass, he must turn 180 degrees to get into throwing position. This adds about one second to the play, making sacks kore inevitable.

If you have never noticed these poor mechanics, watch for it on Saturday. No QB coach worth his salt would allow mechanics like this. There is a way to design the play so that most handoff fakes can be negotiated from the proper throwing position (for a right hander like Cole). Obviously, Phenicie has not read that book!

[gbhmt]

Leave it to Slostang to lamely twist the topic around.

There is yet another quirk in Phenicie's passing offense which I forgot to mention. About 40% of the time, Berquist takes the snap and drops to pass with his left shoulder leading the drop-back. In other words, he is dropping like a left-handed QB. He does this to facilitate the fake to a RB who is positioned to his left. Thus, before he can set up to pass, he must turn 180 degrees to get into throwing position. This adds about one second to the play, making sacks kore inevitable.

If you have never noticed these poor mechanics, watch for it on Saturday. No QB coach worth his salt would allow mechanics like this. There is a way to design the play so that most handoff fakes can be negotiated from the proper throwing position (for a right hander like Cole). Obviously, Phenicie has not read that book!

Oh man I was going to mention this. It drives me crazy. By the time he's done with the play fake he's done a full turn. On the handful of plays we've scored on with play action, I'm pretty sure none of them have been when this happens, because it always sticks out in my mind. I just shake my head whenever I see it. Once again, this is one of those things that I haven't noticed Selle do. He doesn't come off as an outstanding player, but he's got all the rudimentary skills down pat from what I've seen this year and last year.

[Grizalltheway]

Leave it to Slostang to lamely twist the topic around.

There is yet another quirk in Phenicie's passing offense which I forgot to mention. About 40% of the time, Berquist takes the snap and drops to pass with his left shoulder leading the drop-back. In other words, he is dropping like a left-handed QB. He does this to facilitate the fake to a RB who is positioned to his left. Thus, before he can set up to pass, he must turn 180 degrees to get into throwing position. This adds about one second to the play, making sacks kore inevitable.

If you have never noticed these poor mechanics, watch for it on Saturday. No QB coach worth his salt would allow mechanics like this. There is a way to design the play so that most handoff fakes can be negotiated from the proper throwing position (for a right hander like Cole). Obviously, Phenicie has not read that book!

Leave it to you to twist or flat out ignore the facts to suit your agenda.xrolleyesx

[Silenoz]

Yeah, I never understood the Bergquist roll outs to his left

Which we do...a lot

[Wolfman]

Leave it to you to twist or flat out ignore the facts to suit your agenda.xrolleyesx



You're just miffed that I pointed out something that you have never even noticed, being the predestrian Hauck-sniffer that you are. You should avoid all football discussions involving X's and O's, and stick to your hyperbole infested rhetoric.

[gbhmt]

Leave it to you to twist or flat out ignore the facts to suit your agenda.xrolleyesx

This has gotten really old. It's like if Wolfman did praise the Griz for something, it'd get even more attention than if he scrutinized it. And the scrutiny in this thread is about as real as it gets. Stuff like recruiting and coaching can be pretty subjective, but this one is just downright blatant.

[Grizalltheway]

You're just miffed that I pointed out something that you have never even noticed, being the predestrian Hauck-sniffer that you are. You should avoid all football discussions involving X's and O's, and stick to your hyperbole infested rhetoric.

And saying we average 5-7 sacks per game when in reality it's only 3.8 isn't hyperbole?

If you want to use this as an argument that Hauck sucks, so be it, but at least get your numbers straight or *God forbid* admit when you've made a mistake. xoopsx

[gbhmt]

And saying we average 5-7 sacks per game when in reality it's only 3.8 isn't hyperbole?

If you want to use this as an argument that Hauck sucks, so be it, but at least get your numbers straight or *God forbid* admit when you've made a mistake. xoopsx

So the numbers weren't right. It doesn't make the argument a single bit less valid. If you're going to disagree with his argument, disagree with the meat of it, not the trivial tidbits like the one you're dismembering.

[slostang]

Leave it to Wolfie to imbelish the facts to suit his arguement (ax to grind).

You pick out the one stat on offense that you can slam the Griz on and then you imbelish the stats.

If you are going to look at the offensive stats, why not look at all of them.

Scoring offense: #2 34.8 points per game

Passing offense: #5 252.2 yds/gm

Rushing offense: #2 164.5 yds/gm

Total offense: #2 416.8 yds/gm

Pass efficieny: #2 168.2

First downs: #2 219

4th down conversions: #1 70%

3rd down conversions: #1 43.6%

Time of possession: #2 32:30

[Wolfman]

So the numbers weren't right. It doesn't make the argument a single bit less valid. If you're going to disagree with his argument, disagree with the meat of it, not the trivial tidbits like the one you're dismembering.


That's the sugar-coater's mantra.....focus on a fact not being entirely correct, rather than admitting that the point made was valid. That's why they are fans, and should not participate in discussions regarding football theory.

[gbhmt]

Leave it to Wolfie to imbelish the facts to suit his arguement (ax to grind).

You pick out the one stat on offense that you can slam the Griz on and then you imbelish the stats.

If you are going to look at the offensive stats, why not look at all of them.

Scoring offense: #2 34.8 points per game

Passing offense: #5 252.2 yds/gm

Rushing offense: #2 164.5 yds/gm

Total offense: #2 416.8 yds/gm

Pass efficieny: #2 168.2

First downs: #2 219

4th down conversions: #1 70%

3rd down conversions: #1 43.6%

Time of possession: #2 32:30

Do I have to say it again? This isn't about failure. It's about concern that it's not going to be enough in the playoffs. We get it, we can play better than the teams in our conference. But we're going to be playing better teams than the teams in our conference in the playoffs. There's been a trend of Griz teams with more talent and skill than their opponents being flat out outcoached, resulting in a loss. This issue isn't something that is shown in the stats. It's shown when you watch the games. Come back with an argument once you've done that.


That's the sugar-coater's mantra.....focus on a fact not being entirely correct, rather than admitting that the point made was valid. That's why they are fans, and should not participate in discussions regarding football theory.

I agree with this except I certainly consider myself a fan. But you'd think that a fan would want best for their team, and you can't make anything better if you can't realize what's wrong.

[slostang]

So the numbers weren't right. It doesn't make the argument a single bit less valid. If you're going to disagree with his argument, disagree with the meat of it, not the trivial tidbits like the one you're dismembering.

He actually makes a valid point that the Griz give up a lot of sacks and he may even be right that they do to much 5 step drop ect..., but he embelishes the facts to suit his arguement and ignores the sucess the Griz offense has. Typical wolfie.

[gbhmt]

He actually makes a valid point that the Griz give up a lot of sacks and he may even be right that they do to much 5 step drop ect..., but he embelishes the facts to suit his arguement and ignores the sucess the Griz offense has. Typical wolfie.

Okay. The correction was made. Nobody's saying the offense doesn't succeed. But with the resources on offense, it should be succeeding more. The correction's made but the problem remains. It may come back to haunt us.

[Wolfman]

Do I have to say it again? This isn't about failure. It's about concern that it's not going to be enough in the playoffs. We get it, we can play better than the teams in our conference. But we're going to be playing better teams than the teams in our conference in the playoffs. There's been a trend of Griz teams with more talent and skill than their opponents being flat out outcoached, resulting in a loss. This issue isn't something that is shown in the stats. It's shown when you watch the games. Come back with an argument once you've done that.



I agree with this except I certainly consider myself a fan. But you'd think that a fan would want best for their team, and you can't make anything better if you can't realize what's wrong.



Exactly my point. Every year, we listen to Green26 and his legion of followers tell us how highly ranked our offense is, only to watch it disintegrate against playoff teams. Against UMASS, we scored ZERO points at home in the entire second half. Against Wofford, we scored 12 fewer points than the top 3 teams in their conference scored against them during the season. Our offense is exposed every year in the playoffs. We are lulled to sleep during the season by the weak level of competition, thinking our offense is fine, only to be exposed each and every year come playoff time.

[slostang]

BTW, I am sure that if you look at the stats you can find something negative to focus on for every team in the FCS. NO team is perfect.

The fact that the Griz give up a lot of sacks may keep them from going deep into the playoff. The fact that their offense is very good in other areas also might help them make a deep run. I admitted that wolfie has a valid point, but he will not acknowledge anyone points if they support the Griz.

[I Bleed Purple]

http://www.oldtimeconfection.com/Lollipops/Sugar%20Daddy%20Lollipop.JPG
Everybody, chant it with me.

Sugar Coat!

Sugar Coat!

Sugar Coat!

Sugar Coat!

As for the ONE Montana game I saw, they gave up sacks because the primary receivers ran long 15, 20+ yard routes and the QB didn't check down when they were covered quickly enough. Whether that's the coaches or the players "fault" or not is, according to one poster, whether you

Sugar Coat!

Sugar Coat!

Sugar Coat!

Sugar Coat!

or not.

[GolfingGriz]

This is a valid point and I agree needs to improve but it isnt as simple as eliminating the 5 step drop. Using mostly a 3 step drop greatly limits a passing game. The receivers have to make their breaks quicker which limits the routes they can run. If defensive backs can gear up to the shorter routes they can snuff out most of them.

Regarding how Cole drops back he is doing it to check the blindside for blitzing. Edwards did the same thing with Cockhill so its not like Cole has bad mechanics. I don't personally agree with it, but it does serve some purpose.

I think the biggest thing that needs to improve is Cole's presnap reads. He has the ability to call a hot route which he has done before, most notably against Cal Davis when he hit Mariani for the winning touchdown. If Cole can get a better idea of whether or not the defense will be bringing pressure we will become that much more effective on offense.

[Tod]

Great stuff! I'm learning a lot here, and I'm not kidding. I'm a big fan, but guess I still don't know all of what I'm seeing when I watch a game, and I'm glad I can learn by reading AGS. Thanks, all.

BTW, it's UC Davis or Davis, never Cal-Davis.

[bpcats]

I don't know about the whole season but against Weber the Griz were definitely going deep a lot, and I watched four times where Cole had a wide open checkdown option but took the sack. With Mariani tearing it up, I can understand why Cole would look downfield for him. With the sacks that they are taking, I would expect to see more screen passes set up.

[GolfingGriz]

Another quick point is that Cole can't throw the post corner on a 3 step drop. No other Montana QB can drop it in there as well as Cole.

[Tailbone]

I don't know about the rest of you, but it seems to me that a career as a prosthetics salesman is poor qualification for criticizing professional coaches.
(I sold greeting cards as a kid....maybe I'll plan a moon mission!) xlolx

I do however agree with Wolfboy on this point.....SloStang has a lot of nerve using facts to refute the argument (and uneducated opinion) of the great Stevie D. xrolleyesx

[gbhmt]

Another quick point is that Cole can't throw the post corner on a 3 step drop. No other Montana QB can drop it in there as well as Cole.

Exactly. When he gets the time for it, it's absolutely unstoppable; it can't be covered. But there isn't time for it often enough to run it so much.

[Proud Griz Man]

The reason is that the design of our passing game is ridiculous, requiring waaaaaay too long to execute the pass. Phenicie's offense relys almost exclusively on 5+ step drops, with a fake to a RB thrown in, before Berquist even looks downfield for a receiver. We almost never throw a slant, or a quick out, or a 3-step drop pass play. These 5+-step drop plays require the O-line to hold their blocks much too long. The result is that Berquist many times has a defender in his face before he has a chance to look downfield.

It is not the fault of the O-line. It is a flawed scheme on passing plays.

If I were an opposing D-coordinator, I would blitz almost every play against the Griz. Glanville figured this out, and his blitzing totally disrupted our passing offense.

For any football fan whop understands the game, it is quite obvious that something is wrong when your team gives up 5-7 QB sacks every game. Yes we are winning in spite of this. But, as we all know too well, these gaffs tend to spell trouble for us when facing playoff teams.

Our? You are not on the team Coyote.

It is Cole Bergquist. I guess you are not a true Montana fan whop understands the game.

[GolfingGriz]

Exactly. When he gets the time for it, it's absolutely unstoppable; it can't be covered. But there isn't time for it often enough to run it so much.

Run it so much?? We run it once maybe twice a game. You don't have to be a genious to know when either. When we are between 20 and 30 yards out and Ferriter or Mariani has man to man, its coming. Even when they have safety help over the top Cole can put it where his man or no one gets it.

The point being is that all the sacks aren't just from the scheme. We currently have a big play passing offense. Big plays take time to set up and increases the chances for sacks. If Cole doesn't want to get hit he could call an audible or hot route at the line. Currently he and the coaching staff would rather go for big plays at the risk of sacks. Its the gameplan and it has lead us to being 9-1. I'm not saying that the sacks aren't a problem because they are. I'm just pointing out that if you want to eliminate the sacks, you have to give up something in return which would be the frequent passing gains of 30+ yards.

[Wolfman]

I don't know about the rest of you, but it seems to me that a career as a prosthetics salesman is poor qualification for criticizing professional coaches.
(I sold greeting cards as a kid....maybe I'll plan a moon mission!) xlolx

I do however agree with Wolfboy on this point.....SloStang has a lot of nerve using facts to refute the argument (and uneducated opinion) of the great Stevie D. xrolleyesx



I have NEVER sold prosthetics. But, if you look down, you could use one. Did your mother have any children who lived? Some drink from the fountain of knowledge....Tailboner only gargled.

You really should refrain from posting in threads which discuss football topics. Now, have any large bowl of Frosted Flakes, and get your sugar fix.

[Grizzaholic]

I have NEVER sold prosthetics. But, if you look down, you could use one. Did your mother have any children who lived? Some drink from the fountain of knowledge....Tailboner only gargled.

You really should refrain from posting in threads which discuss football topics. Now, have any large bowl of Frosted Flakes, and get your sugar fix.

Way to spew hate!xnonox

[placidlakegriz]

I am almost positive that wolfboy and gbhmt are one in the same person.

[Tailbone]

I have NEVER sold prosthetics. .......

OK, OK. I used the term "prosthetics" loosely.
I didn't want to embarrass you by pointing out that the "medical products" you sold were Dr. Scholl's 2 inch lifts (something I am sure a man of your "stature" knows well) and feminine hygiene products.

BTW: thanks for the menu advice, Sugar Frosted Flakes are GRRRREAT!

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Let's see here...sugar coaters, check.

small penis joke, check.

exclaiming his vast knowledge of a game he never played but likes to act as if he did because he played baseball, check.

getting the facts wrong and overstating them to make his point, check.

Looks like another Wolfman thread is now complete.






ghbmt is at the very least a plant for Wolfman if not Wolfman himself. It would be a lot easier to give credibility to Wolfman when he makes a point about something if he had not completely trashed his credibility previously due to the fact that BH has in some way shown disrespect or elsewise made Wolfman feel like a cub. The National Enquirer may get a real story right once in a while but it's not where most of us go for news due to the constant BS that it puts out. Wolfman is the National Enquirer of this board.

[Mod22]

Please don't let personalities distract you from the thread and its flow. That usually doesn't end well.

[gbhmt]

Run it so much?? We run it once maybe twice a game. You don't have to be a genious to know when either. When we are between 20 and 30 yards out and Ferriter or Mariani has man to man, its coming. Even when they have safety help over the top Cole can put it where his man or no one gets it.

The point being is that all the sacks aren't just from the scheme. We currently have a big play passing offense. Big plays take time to set up and increases the chances for sacks. If Cole doesn't want to get hit he could call an audible or hot route at the line. Currently he and the coaching staff would rather go for big plays at the risk of sacks. Its the gameplan and it has lead us to being 9-1. I'm not saying that the sacks aren't a problem because they are. I'm just pointing out that if you want to eliminate the sacks, you have to give up something in return which would be the frequent passing gains of 30+ yards.

This is all correct. But we still have the ability to avoid the sacks and take shorter gains. But shorter gains adding up to ten yards makes it easier then getting a lot of 3rd and 17s and such. Break out a big play every now and then, that's great. But I feel like we're relying on it.

And we don't run that play once or twice a game. We complete it once or twice a game. Who knows how many times the play's been run and ended up in a sack or a hurry.