Serious Question About Our Offense

[BWahlberg]

Bubble screens, or quick hitters to the outside more frequently in Stitt's offense, are not substitutes for the running game. They are in addition to the running game, and are designed to do a couple of things beyond pick up yardage: (1) spread the defense to OPEN more traditional running lanes, and (2) tire out LBs and linemen who have to chase them down.

:thumb:

Nothing to add really but those are two damn good points

Put it in Louie Mcgees hands and I doubt there will be any more complaints about bubble screens

No shit, at least not if the spring game was a preview

:thumb: :thumb: :thumb:

 

[BWahlberg]

So it seems that 2 of the 3 "concerns" are the lack of blockers, pointing out the lack of the TE or a blocking back and the use of a bubble screen for a run play because of the lack of a TE.

Might I point out... the "H" wide receivers:

Josh Horner, 6-5 220
Mike Ralston, 6-5 260
Colin Bingham, 6-3 220
Makena Simis, 6-2 205

Makena's the odd-man out here but Horner, Ralston, and Bingham are what you claim Stitt doesn't have. All three played as TE's in high school, have the size of most FCS TE's, and are used to block in running situations with this current offense. Suggesting Stitt doesn't utilize players like Horner, Ralston, and Bingham to help the running game is just silly.

Dude, I have addressed you on this issue before but it looks like it does'nt sink in. Having a motion player, no matter how big and tough he is, try to engage a LB in a hole while running laterally before turning to engage is not quite the same as having a blocking back with 4 steps before contact. It is just apples and oranges.

Might want to re check which WR they use for motion plays there chief. Not always the case but many times it's the smaller receiver. The larger "H" is often used just as a TE is used.

 

[doc3kgt]

So it seems that 2 of the 3 "concerns" are the lack of blockers, pointing out the lack of the TE or a blocking back and the use of a bubble screen for a run play because of the lack of a TE.

Might I point out... the "H" wide receivers:

Josh Horner, 6-5 220
Mike Ralston, 6-5 260
Colin Bingham, 6-3 220
Makena Simis, 6-2 205

Makena's the odd-man out here but Horner, Ralston, and Bingham are what you claim Stitt doesn't have. All three played as TE's in high school, have the size of most FCS TE's, and are used to block in running situations with this current offense. Suggesting Stitt doesn't utilize players like Horner, Ralston, and Bingham to help the running game is just silly.

Dude, I have addressed you on this issue before but it looks like it does'nt sink in. Having a motion player, no matter how big and tough he is, try to engage a LB in a hole while running laterally before turning to engage is not quite the same as having a blocking back with 4 steps before contact. It is just apples and oranges.

Might want to re check which WR they use for motion plays there chief. Not always the case but many times it's the smaller receiver. The larger "H" is often used just as a TE is used.

Then why not just call them TE's and be done with it?? Why does stitt insist on being gimmicky?

 

[grizindabox]

So it seems that 2 of the 3 "concerns" are the lack of blockers, pointing out the lack of the TE or a blocking back and the use of a bubble screen for a run play because of the lack of a TE.

Might I point out... the "H" wide receivers:

Josh Horner, 6-5 220
Mike Ralston, 6-5 260
Colin Bingham, 6-3 220
Makena Simis, 6-2 205

Makena's the odd-man out here but Horner, Ralston, and Bingham are what you claim Stitt doesn't have. All three played as TE's in high school, have the size of most FCS TE's, and are used to block in running situations with this current offense. Suggesting Stitt doesn't utilize players like Horner, Ralston, and Bingham to help the running game is just silly.

Dude, I have addressed you on this issue before but it looks like it does'nt sink in. Having a motion player, no matter how big and tough he is, try to engage a LB in a hole while running laterally before turning to engage is not quite the same as having a blocking back with 4 steps before contact. It is just apples and oranges.

Might want to re check which WR they use for motion plays there chief. Not always the case but many times it's the smaller receiver. The larger "H" is often used just as a TE is used.

Then why not just call them TE's and be done with it?? Why does stitt insist on being gimmicky?

why does it matter what they are called......and is it gimmicky to call a TE an H receiver.....is an H-back a gimmick.....

 

[BWahlberg]

So it seems that 2 of the 3 "concerns" are the lack of blockers, pointing out the lack of the TE or a blocking back and the use of a bubble screen for a run play because of the lack of a TE.

Might I point out... the "H" wide receivers:

Josh Horner, 6-5 220
Mike Ralston, 6-5 260
Colin Bingham, 6-3 220
Makena Simis, 6-2 205

Makena's the odd-man out here but Horner, Ralston, and Bingham are what you claim Stitt doesn't have. All three played as TE's in high school, have the size of most FCS TE's, and are used to block in running situations with this current offense. Suggesting Stitt doesn't utilize players like Horner, Ralston, and Bingham to help the running game is just silly.

Dude, I have addressed you on this issue before but it looks like it does'nt sink in. Having a motion player, no matter how big and tough he is, try to engage a LB in a hole while running laterally before turning to engage is not quite the same as having a blocking back with 4 steps before contact. It is just apples and oranges.

Might want to re check which WR they use for motion plays there chief. Not always the case but many times it's the smaller receiver. The larger "H" is often used just as a TE is used.

Then why not just call them TE's and be done with it?? Why does stitt insist on being gimmicky?

It's the design of the offense, the H can block but in a pass heavy offense is used more as a receiver.

 

[Copper Griz]

Debating this is foolish. You don't like Stiit and that is really at the heart of the issue. You would be happy with Bobbyball and ground/pound. Bobby did not get the job. Deal with it and support the coach and team. He had a damn good first year. This is not about debating schemes and football. This is about your whining that he got hired.

 

[brewskis]

Bubble screens, or quick hitters to the outside more frequently in Stitt's offense, are not substitutes for the running game. They are in addition to the running game, and are designed to do a couple of things beyond pick up yardage: (1) spread the defense to OPEN more traditional running lanes, and (2) tire out LBs and linemen who have to chase them down.

Yeah, and it worked sooooo well last season, eh? :roll:

You criticized our offensive line for being small and having no talent, you said the same about Naccarato. So in your eyes, where is the smoking gun? We beat the shit out of our rivals and went 2-1 against the MVFC. With the lack of talent that you have been preaching about. What did you say? "Delaney set our program back 5 years with poor recruiting" ..... so you must be impressed with what Stitt accomplished with this lack of talent right?

 

[Bear Axed]

Dude, I have addressed you on this issue before but it looks like it does'nt sink in. Having a motion player, no matter how big and tough he is, try to engage a LB in a hole while running laterally before turning to engage is not quite the same as having a blocking back with 4 steps before contact. It is just apples and oranges.

Might want to re check which WR they use for motion plays there chief. Not always the case but many times it's the smaller receiver. The larger "H" is often used just as a TE is used.

Then why not just call them TE's and be done with it?? Why does stitt insist on being gimmicky?

why does it matter what they are called......and is it gimmicky to call a TE an H receiver.....is an H-back a gimmick.....

Haven't the kitties been using some gimmicky guy called a rover or something, the last few years on that rock bottom defense ? :lol:

 

[BWahlberg]

Bubble screens, or quick hitters to the outside more frequently in Stitt's offense, are not substitutes for the running game. They are in addition to the running game, and are designed to do a couple of things beyond pick up yardage: (1) spread the defense to OPEN more traditional running lanes, and (2) tire out LBs and linemen who have to chase them down.

Yeah, and it worked sooooo well last season, eh? :roll:

You criticized our offensive line for being small and having no talent, you said the same about Naccarato. So in your eyes, where is the smoking gun? We beat the shit out of our rivals and went 2-1 against the MVFC. With the lack of talent that you have been preaching about. What did you say? "Delaney set our program back 5 years with poor recruiting" ..... so you must be impressed with what Stitt accomplished with this lack of talent right?

Good luck getting him to agree with that.

 

[kemajic]

So it seems that 2 of the 3 "concerns" are the lack of blockers, pointing out the lack of the TE or a blocking back and the use of a bubble screen for a run play because of the lack of a TE.

Might I point out... the "H" wide receivers:

Josh Horner, 6-5 220
Mike Ralston, 6-5 260
Colin Bingham, 6-3 220
Makena Simis, 6-2 205

Makena's the odd-man out here but Horner, Ralston, and Bingham are what you claim Stitt doesn't have. All three played as TE's in high school, have the size of most FCS TE's, and are used to block in running situations with this current offense. Suggesting Stitt doesn't utilize players like Horner, Ralston, and Bingham to help the running game is just silly.

Only Ralston from the above list fits the bill of a real TE that can handle multiple blocking assignments.

 

[kemajic]

Bubble screens, or quick hitters to the outside more frequently in Stitt's offense, are not substitutes for the running game. They are in addition to the running game, and are designed to do a couple of things beyond pick up yardage: (1) spread the defense to OPEN more traditional running lanes, and (2) tire out LBs and linemen who have to chase them down.

Yeah, and it worked sooooo well last season, eh? :roll:

You criticized our offensive line for being small and having no talent, you said the same about Naccarato. So in your eyes, where is the smoking gun? We beat the shit out of our rivals and went 2-1 against the MVFC. With the lack of talent that you have been preaching about. What did you say? "Delaney set our program back 5 years with poor recruiting" ..... so you must be impressed with what Stitt accomplished with this lack of talent right?

So are you suggesting Naccarato was D1 material? And you were not totally embarrassed with how we matched up with NDSU when it counted?

 

[brewskis]

Bubble screens, or quick hitters to the outside more frequently in Stitt's offense, are not substitutes for the running game. They are in addition to the running game, and are designed to do a couple of things beyond pick up yardage: (1) spread the defense to OPEN more traditional running lanes, and (2) tire out LBs and linemen who have to chase them down.

Yeah, and it worked sooooo well last season, eh? :roll:

You criticized our offensive line for being small and having no talent, you said the same about Naccarato. So in your eyes, where is the smoking gun? We beat the shit out of our rivals and went 2-1 against the MVFC. With the lack of talent that you have been preaching about. What did you say? "Delaney set our program back 5 years with poor recruiting" ..... so you must be impressed with what Stitt accomplished with this lack of talent right?

So are you suggesting Naccarato was D1 material? And you were not totally embarrassed with how we matched up with NDSU when it counted?

I am not suggesting that at all! In fact I agree with growler on that one. I'm pointing out how he flip flops on his logic.

He said that the quick screens didn't work and Stitt is stupid for using them. Then in every other thread he says our line sucks and Lyons and Naccarato are terrible receivers. Sooooooo.....is it the scheme or the players? How did we win some big games last season?

My bet is some of the players aren't as bad as grunter claims, and Stitts schemes are a LOT better than groaner proclaims.

 

[Atlanta Griz1]

Yeah, and it worked sooooo well last season, eh? :roll:

You criticized our offensive line for being small and having no talent, you said the same about Naccarato. So in your eyes, where is the smoking gun? We beat the shit out of our rivals and went 2-1 against the MVFC. With the lack of talent that you have been preaching about. What did you say? "Delaney set our program back 5 years with poor recruiting" ..... so you must be impressed with what Stitt accomplished with this lack of talent right?

So are you suggesting Naccarato was D1 material? And you were not totally embarrassed with how we matched up with NDSU when it counted?

I am not suggesting that at all! In fact I agree with growler on that one. I'm pointing out how he flip flops on his logic.

He said that the quick screens didn't work and Stitt is stupid for using them. Then in every other thread he says our line sucks and Lyons and Naccarato are terrible receivers. Sooooooo.....is it the scheme or the players? How did we win some big games last season?

My bet is some of the players aren't as bad as grunter claims, and Stitts schemes are a LOT better than groaner proclaims.

Have another toke, dude. Uh, where did I say 'quick screens", as you so incorrectly label them don't work? they work when executed properly, but just not 20 times a freakin' game! I said that Stitt stated in a press conference that he would use bubble screens like a running game, to gain short yardage, and I said that was total bullsh*t, for several reason which I outlined in a previous post. Yes, Delaney's recruiting was weak. Does that mean that he didn't recruit some talented players? Schooling you on a daily basis is tiresome, especially when you mis-quote me all of the time. I don't flip flop, you just have a problem with understanding much over Ted & Sally.

 

[Atlanta Griz1]

Bubble screens, or quick hitters to the outside more frequently in Stitt's offense, are not substitutes for the running game. They are in addition to the running game, and are designed to do a couple of things beyond pick up yardage: (1) spread the defense to OPEN more traditional running lanes, and (2) tire out LBs and linemen who have to chase them down.

Yeah, and it worked sooooo well last season, eh? :roll:

You criticized our offensive line for being small and having no talent, you said the same about Naccarato. So in your eyes, where is the smoking gun? We beat the shit out of our rivals and went 2-1 against the MVFC. With the lack of talent that you have been preaching about. What did you say? "Delaney set our program back 5 years with poor recruiting" ..... so you must be impressed with what Stitt accomplished with this lack of talent right?

So are you suggesting Naccarato was D1 material? And you were not totally embarrassed with how we matched up with NDSU when it counted?

Kem, he is another Griz fan who endorses participation trophies.

 

[Atlanta Griz1]

So it seems that 2 of the 3 "concerns" are the lack of blockers, pointing out the lack of the TE or a blocking back and the use of a bubble screen for a run play because of the lack of a TE.

Might I point out... the "H" wide receivers:

Josh Horner, 6-5 220
Mike Ralston, 6-5 260
Colin Bingham, 6-3 220
Makena Simis, 6-2 205

Makena's the odd-man out here but Horner, Ralston, and Bingham are what you claim Stitt doesn't have. All three played as TE's in high school, have the size of most FCS TE's, and are used to block in running situations with this current offense. Suggesting Stitt doesn't utilize players like Horner, Ralston, and Bingham to help the running game is just silly.

Only Ralston from the above list fits the bill of a real TE that can handle multiple blocking assignments.

It's refreshing to see a post from a fan who gets it! Nice work, Kem.

 

[Atlanta Griz1]

Dude, I have addressed you on this issue before but it looks like it does'nt sink in. Having a motion player, no matter how big and tough he is, try to engage a LB in a hole while running laterally before turning to engage is not quite the same as having a blocking back with 4 steps before contact. It is just apples and oranges.

Might want to re check which WR they use for motion plays there chief. Not always the case but many times it's the smaller receiver. The larger "H" is often used just as a TE is used.

Then why not just call them TE's and be done with it?? Why does stitt insist on being gimmicky?

why does it matter what they are called......and is it gimmicky to call a TE an H receiver.....is an H-back a gimmick.....

His whole offense is gimmicky. That's why no one else runs it. :lol:

But he did a stellar job of selling it to Griz Nation. It takes about 3 years of mediocrity until it sinks in, however.

 

[BWahlberg]

So it seems that 2 of the 3 "concerns" are the lack of blockers, pointing out the lack of the TE or a blocking back and the use of a bubble screen for a run play because of the lack of a TE.

Might I point out... the "H" wide receivers:

Josh Horner, 6-5 220
Mike Ralston, 6-5 260
Colin Bingham, 6-3 220
Makena Simis, 6-2 205

Makena's the odd-man out here but Horner, Ralston, and Bingham are what you claim Stitt doesn't have. All three played as TE's in high school, have the size of most FCS TE's, and are used to block in running situations with this current offense. Suggesting Stitt doesn't utilize players like Horner, Ralston, and Bingham to help the running game is just silly.

Only Ralston from the above list fits the bill of a real TE that can handle multiple blocking assignments.

It's refreshing to see a post from a fan who gets it! Nice work, Kem.

And you're clearly showing you don't get this offense because Stitt wants this group, for the most part, to be a little lighter and quicker so they're more dangerous in the passing game.

However I'll take your comment as acknowledgment and agreement that we do have at least 1 guy that's the right size and plays the right postion to serve as a good additional blocker.

 

[Atlanta Griz1]

I generally also dislike the spread offenses and high volume play calling....but when watching the Griz and Stitts offense...idk what it is, but it just seems a bit different, I cant quite put my finger on it.

Let me help put your finger on it. Stitt's offense is a gimmick offense, variations of which have been tried over the past 25 years or so, with some success, but which always disintegrate against really good defenses. The problem is the lack of a solid, consistent running game. Yeah, I understand that Stitt's teams at Mines had some 1000-yard rushers. But, I would bet that most of those yards were on a few longer runs. And, it was against Division II defenses. As you go up the scale from NAIA, Div. III, Div. II, FCS, FBS, to the NFL, it gets increasingly more difficult to execute gimmick offenses. The defenses are just too good.

Here is another example of why the yards/per/carry (YPG) stat is meaningless. 5-receiver offenses tend to create a few long runs each game, due to the defenses' responsibility to stop the pass. However, it is the inability to gain the tough 2-3 yards on third/fourth down by running the ball that is the downfall of these gimmicky offenses. And, good defensive teams have the ability to put offenses into many 3rd-n-short situations, as we saw last season. If you can't get the tough short yards to sustain a drive, you are punting the ball.

 

[AllWeatherFan]

I'm just here to find a friend.

 

[Atlanta Griz1]

So it seems that 2 of the 3 "concerns" are the lack of blockers, pointing out the lack of the TE or a blocking back and the use of a bubble screen for a run play because of the lack of a TE.

Might I point out... the "H" wide receivers:

Josh Horner, 6-5 220
Mike Ralston, 6-5 260
Colin Bingham, 6-3 220
Makena Simis, 6-2 205

Makena's the odd-man out here but Horner, Ralston, and Bingham are what you claim Stitt doesn't have. All three played as TE's in high school, have the size of most FCS TE's, and are used to block in running situations with this current offense. Suggesting Stitt doesn't utilize players like Horner, Ralston, and Bingham to help the running game is just silly.

Only Ralston from the above list fits the bill of a real TE that can handle multiple blocking assignments.

It's refreshing to see a post from a fan who gets it! Nice work, Kem.

And you're clearly showing you don't get this offense because Stitt wants this group, for the most part, to be a little lighter and quicker so they're more dangerous in the passing game.

However I'll take your comment as acknowledgment and agreement that we do have at least 1 guy that's the right size and plays the right postion to serve as a good additional blocker.

I totally get this offense, which is why I know it will never get us to where we want to be, in the national Championship game.