Context? We don't need no stinking context!Yep, context is key. Walters was asked a question, and, in his answer, he said that NIU "came out in the first series and did a defensive front that the team wasn't expecting and the guys made adjustments that show the type of character we have...."
The question was asked at the 4:35 mark and that part of his answer is at the 5:09 mark. No excuses...just a response based on what actually happened.
Here is the video for context...
I fully expect to see a lot of stunts and blitzes against those teams. Ohio State, especially, I think we'll see using their athletes and speed on a number of different blitzes to disrupt the timing of our offense. Guys crossing over our lineman have seemed to confuse us every gameInteresting you would say that.
The three teams you mention are more likely to stay in their base defense because they feel they have better personnel then we have. They will stay scheme sound to not make mistakes and just try and physically win on defense.
In our first three games DONU had the better personnel so our opponents used scheme to even the playing field, something we will likely see with IU on this Saturday.
Ohio State has one of the best DL units in CFB to boot. That game scares me.I fully expect to see a lot of stunts and blitzes against those teams. Ohio State, especially, I think we'll see using their athletes and speed on a number of different blitzes to disrupt the timing of our offense. Guys crossing over our lineman have seemed to confuse us every game
To use the logic some are using on this board … we will have two starters for sure (Jurgens and Hixon) who will only have one year's worth of experience, we might have an OT shifting to OG (Farnoik - for Hixson?) thus creating another spot (Tackle) where there will be a new starter, likely someone who's only been with the team a year or two.... and really good next year.
Another year in the S&C program is no little thing and having continuity at least amongst 4 of the 5 spots on the OL should make a difference.To use the logic some are using on this board … we will have two starters for sure (Jurgens and Hixon) who will only have one year's worth of experience, we might have an OT shifting to OG (Farnoik - for Hixson?) thus creating another spot (Tackle) where there will be a new starter, likely someone who's only been with the team a year or two.
Yes, we will be one more year deeper into the SF era and one year further into the S&C program but its conceivable we might have 4 starters with one year or less experience at the positions they will lineup in!
I am being a bit pedantic and irreverent but I hope you understand the point I am making.
That's not what Walters said...that's what Reynoldson said. The video I posted earlier makes that clear.So basically all a team needs to do to make our offensive line “operate blind” is bring looks they haven’t done before?
Seems like theres a problem there somewhere.
I know - you're right about that.Another year in the S&C program is no little thing and having continuity at least amongst 4 of the 5 spots on the OL should make a difference.
Yes... so that you have more numbers than the other side at the point of attack... you'd think some of these DONU fans would understand that... that is the whole point of option plays, pulling guards and others on sweeps... virtually any offensive play and strategy.Most people have no clue as to what they are looking at via line play. Most would be surprised to learn there are plays we actually want guys to get through the line. screen plays are one example. You half halfheartedly throw the block let the line through block and let them through. Throw a screen behind them and now you have your OL blocking LB in the open field. Many would look at that and say oh we got lucky on that one. Look how close they got to our QB. When all along it was planned.
Now I am not saying that is what was going on with our guys. Just giving an example. There are a thousand other examples. A play like the sweep motion shuffle pass we did to Mo last weekend often involves leaving the back side end unblocked. You are betting that your back/WR can outrun the end and not get caught from behind. Again very often that DE will get close to the QB prior to him offloading the ball.
I say all of this to say. Most people see what they want to see, so watching the games again will not help them.
3) A redshirt junior with at least one year or more starting experience.I know - you're right about that.
Let me ask you a theoretical question … what do you think is better for an o-lineman?
1) A true sophomore with one year of starting experience -or-
2) A redshirt junior (4 years in the program) with no starting experience
Majority of teams have tendencies and things they do well. It's on film. You hear it everywhere at every position. When the film study you do and the gameplan you prepare, the plays you rep, the responsibilities change. This is a big deal. Huge deal. The thing with an experienced line is they can pull from past experience and change on the fly. This is how Blah Blah University played us. So it is not an excuse. Especially when you have coaches that love exploiting mismatches. How do you think teams end up with LBs on people they cant cover. Its film study. In this personal, they run this D and this is how they cover the slot. So you put Wandale in the back field..motion him to the slot and exploit the mismatch you saw on film. If you dont think football is rocket science...you arent paying attention.I get so tired of the excuse of "We didn't see that on film". It's football for crying out loud, not rocket science.