Postmortem Offense

I’m not sure if “open it up” is the same as ‘air it out”. Based on that and hearing him say that “we have to be good at what we do” makes me think it will still be a pretty similar approach to week 1.
 
This article says we plan to air it out. (This article is behind a paywall. I paid $1 for a 6 month subscription, and my account doesn't work)

Great plan there by Russ -- wait until AFTER we get our asses handed to us in the game that we allegedly had circled on the calendar all summer to decide to run a semi-coherent offense. Any reason why we didn't try this in Week 1??
 
Great plan there by Russ -- wait until AFTER we get our asses handed to us in the game that we allegedly had circled on the calendar all summer to decide to run a semi-coherent offense. Any reason why we didn't try this in Week 1??
Yep. Our toughest game of the year and multiple years of terrible starts to the season didn’t make us feel the need to call something other than running right into the center of our brand new offensive line? O line struggled badly but I’m not sure the point in switching them up now. Let those boys play now and get better. Anyway, I’m sure I’m preaching to the choir here but still so confused about what the huesmans were thinking before during and after the Lehigh game.
 
Anyway, I’m sure I’m preaching to the choir here but still so confused about what the huesmans were thinking before during and after the Lehigh game.
Do you think it is a good idea to have a father and son be the Head Coach and the Offensive Coordinator? Wouldn't this create a dynamic leading to insular and an echo chamber, rather than a free exchange of ideas, between coach and OC? The coach sets the priorities and the OC executes the plan, but what if the coach's scheme is a poor one? The younger Huesman is not experienced enough to push back.
 
Do you think it is a good idea to have a father and son be the Head Coach and the Offensive Coordinator? Wouldn't this create a dynamic leading to insular and an echo chamber, rather than a free exchange of ideas, between coach and OC? The coach sets the priorities and the OC executes the plan, but what if the coach's scheme is a poor one? The younger Huesman is not experienced enough to push back.
I do not agree with nepotism hires and would not even hire my own children when I started a business. It is actually unfair to your child since everyone will have them under a microscope from the very beginning. Not many work out but there are exceptions such as Tony Bennett.
 
I know we've gone to 3 NCAA playoffs in a row and won back-to-back CAA, but just doing the "eye test" this does not look like a football team that can meaningfully compete for NCAA titles that many of us are accustomed to. When you look at the CAA titles, it helps that JMU left and we weren't scheduled with the Villanova's or New Hampshire's of the conference.

Huesman is a good defense coach. This idea that our offense should be predicated on QB who runs first, but really isn't that mobile, doesn't make sense. Lauletta, Udinski, Coleman all pro-style passing QBs first, have been when our offense looks the sharpest.

Why we don't do that and insist on running the ball half the time and then throwing it 5 yards the other half, beats me.
 
I know we've gone to 3 NCAA playoffs in a row and won back-to-back CAA, but just doing the "eye test" this does not look like a football team that can meaningfully compete for NCAA titles that many of us are accustomed to. When you look at the CAA titles, it helps that JMU left and we weren't scheduled with the Villanova's or New Hampshire's of the conference.

Huesman is a good defense coach. This idea that our offense should be predicated on QB who runs first, but really isn't that mobile, doesn't make sense. Lauletta, Udinski, Coleman all pro-style passing QBs first, have been when our offense looks the sharpest.

Why we don't do that and insist on running the ball half the time and then throwing it 5 yards the other half, beats me.
Lauletta not his recruit, Udinski was a gift. Coleman was his recruit but decided to take it elsewhere. It's not like there's one of those types on every corner. If you're going to blame then blame the state of college sports and the free for all that it's created. We were set up with Coleman for a good run but he decided he was too good for Richmond. I suspect it's pretty hard to keep a stable full of pedigree QBs with 63 scholarships and kids today not very committed.
 
Lauletta not his recruit, Udinski was a gift. Coleman was his recruit but decided to take it elsewhere. It's not like there's one of those types on every corner. If you're going to blame then blame the state of college sports and the free for all that it's created. We were set up with Coleman for a good run but he decided he was too good for Richmond. I suspect it's pretty hard to keep a stable full of pedigree QBs with 63 scholarships and kids today not very committed.
It's not how we got them, it's the fact that our best offense has been under those QBs. So you would think Huesman would want to recruit and emphasize a system that fits a similar style.
 
It's not how we got them, it's the fact that our best offense has been under those QBs. So you would think Huesman would want to recruit and emphasize a system that fits a similar style.
The most telling was our last season with Lauletta. We had an NFL QB and we went 6-5 and we struggled to have a winning record.
 
It's not how we got them, it's the fact that our best offense has been under those QBs. So you would think Huesman would want to recruit and emphasize a system that fits a similar style.
He recruited Coleman. He left. KW stayed and is the most experienced QB on the current roster. A good coach has to coach to a player's strength not force a player to a system. He showed he's willing to open it up with Udinski and Kosh. They're gone too. He admitted after the Lehigh game that we were far too conservative and played to not lose which pretty much puts it on himself. Refreshing after watching our basketball program for the last 20 years. Good offensive line play can make a lot of QBs look better than they are and bad line play just makes the whole operation look bad. There's lots of work to do across the board including the coaches. I'm anxious to see what adjustments are made for the Wofford game.
 
I see how this works. Bad things are the fault of the head coach and good things are the result of the assistant coaches.
Huesman has an abrasive personality; he ran October off. Huesman also has a run first mentality, with a preference for QBs who have a running and bruising style of play. When a QB wants to run over a linebacker, the LB will probably win and the QB will get hurt.
 
Huesman has an abrasive personality; he ran October off. Huesman also has a run first mentality, with a preference for QBs who have a running and bruising style of play. When a QB wants to run over a linebacker, the LB will probably win and the QB will get hurt.
I find Huesman's personality delightful. I remember Stacey Tutt running over a few linebackers under Dave Clawson's reign but don't recall too many people complaining and Huesman certainly isn't the only coach that wants to establish the run. I wish I could say that I admire your ability to keep the pot stirred with supposition and personal opinion but I can't. I'm not close enough to the program to make such definitive statements. I try to see both sides to any argument and measure the success or failure based on results. The last few years have been a pretty good ride but Huesman seems to get very little credit. He's got 11 more games. I hope he gets it all sorted out.
 
I find Huesman's personality delightful. I remember Stacey Tutt running over a few linebackers under Dave Clawson's reign but don't recall too many people complaining and Huesman certainly isn't the only coach that wants to establish the run. I wish I could say that I admire your ability to keep the pot stirred with supposition and personal opinion but I can't. I'm not close enough to the program to make such definitive statements. I try to see both sides to any argument and measure the success or failure based on results. The last few years have been a pretty good ride but Huesman seems to get very little credit. He's got 11 more games. I hope he gets it all sorted out.
I agree with Gallipoli that Huesman tends to be more on the abrasive side, or at least it comes off that way in my opinion. I think it’s refreshing too his candor and ways to say it as it is, but sometimes you keep things inside the locker room. His demeanor has certainly ran off coaches and players. I can’t argue with the results, but do think luck has played into Huesman the last couple years like being in a watered down CAA, not playing the best teams in CAA. Our barometer of success for football should not be just to make the playoffs, but rather make deeper runs like we used to. That’s the standard set. His teams are not equipped to make it past the first maybe second round of playoffs.
 
Reading the Roll Spides... This is the dilemma...

A lot of our run looks saw 8 Lehigh defenders coming downhill near the line of scrimmage yet we never had our receivers trying to get into space behind them. So much of what we did attacked the flats that I’m curious if we have RPO or play action wrinkles to open up vertical throwing lanes behind linebackers.

 
The analysis continues...

Even on traditional passing downs too many plays looked like the below – Lehigh bringing 5+ defenders with all receivers outside the hashes, only working back to the middle very late in the route....

 
This underscores the criticism of Huesman...

Three seasons in and we’re still trying to center everything around the power running/short passing attack philosophy. There’s nothing else to say because we’ve said it all in past years. 10, 19, and 14 points our last three FCS openers. We have convinced ourselves that approach is our best plan despite every metric and result saying otherwise.

 
Back
Top