In the spirit of fairness, I did get up early (I get up at 0500 pretty much every day so what else was I going to do?!) and watched a few games this morning where his offenses weren't so successful. A few things I noted, some good, not so good and interesting...
1. Interesting/good (mostly). He used to flip his tackles, depending on where he wanted the play to go. The guards and center were the only ones to stay in the same place. He called it the "quick" and "strong" side. It was certainly effective most of the time, especially in 2016, most of the season. Truth be told, I had forgotten all about him doing that until I watched the Houston game (didn't work that night). I don't know if he does it anymore and I'm not sure Jimbo would be on board.
2. Not so good (but fixable). Speaking of the Houston game (and Clemson earlier), I noticed right away his offenses are highly dependent on playing a very "clean" game i.e. limiting penalties, turnovers, missed assignments, etc. Yeah, I realize that is true for all offenses, but with Petrino, it is especially true. He is a rhythm play caller more than most. Disruption is one of his biggest enemies. Against Houston and Clemson, they were susceptible blitzing, but a lot of that started with "losing" on the interior immediately. At Houston, they simply could not block Oliver all night. Penalties were also a big problem. It started them behind the chains and took away a lot of good calls/plays from Petrino. Sound a little familiar?!
3. Good. In the losses, Petrino did not keep beating his head against the same brick wall. He kept trying to find "something" that would work...less read option, more TEs, more "hot" reads and such (Houston was too inspired that night. They just weren't going to lose). I think one finds out just as much about a team and coach when they are losing, as when they are winning. I still saw a lot of good calls and missed opportunities when Louisville was not shooting themselves collectively in the foot. Also, I saw no evidence of anyone "checking out" early. Frustration? Yes. Trying to do too much? Most definitely.
Looking ahead, there is going to be some adversity. The challenge is how the coaches and players handle it. I still believe Jimbo will have some valuable insights to pass on to Bobby. The questions become how the inputs are presented (and how often) and how the messages are received. If it goes something like this I think we will be extremely successful...
Jimbo - "Hey Bobby, I don't think 22 can cover our backs and tight ends...."
Bobby - "Yeah, I see that, too, Coach. We'll get them next series."
Gig'em!!!
1. Interesting/good (mostly). He used to flip his tackles, depending on where he wanted the play to go. The guards and center were the only ones to stay in the same place. He called it the "quick" and "strong" side. It was certainly effective most of the time, especially in 2016, most of the season. Truth be told, I had forgotten all about him doing that until I watched the Houston game (didn't work that night). I don't know if he does it anymore and I'm not sure Jimbo would be on board.
2. Not so good (but fixable). Speaking of the Houston game (and Clemson earlier), I noticed right away his offenses are highly dependent on playing a very "clean" game i.e. limiting penalties, turnovers, missed assignments, etc. Yeah, I realize that is true for all offenses, but with Petrino, it is especially true. He is a rhythm play caller more than most. Disruption is one of his biggest enemies. Against Houston and Clemson, they were susceptible blitzing, but a lot of that started with "losing" on the interior immediately. At Houston, they simply could not block Oliver all night. Penalties were also a big problem. It started them behind the chains and took away a lot of good calls/plays from Petrino. Sound a little familiar?!
3. Good. In the losses, Petrino did not keep beating his head against the same brick wall. He kept trying to find "something" that would work...less read option, more TEs, more "hot" reads and such (Houston was too inspired that night. They just weren't going to lose). I think one finds out just as much about a team and coach when they are losing, as when they are winning. I still saw a lot of good calls and missed opportunities when Louisville was not shooting themselves collectively in the foot. Also, I saw no evidence of anyone "checking out" early. Frustration? Yes. Trying to do too much? Most definitely.
Looking ahead, there is going to be some adversity. The challenge is how the coaches and players handle it. I still believe Jimbo will have some valuable insights to pass on to Bobby. The questions become how the inputs are presented (and how often) and how the messages are received. If it goes something like this I think we will be extremely successful...
Jimbo - "Hey Bobby, I don't think 22 can cover our backs and tight ends...."
Bobby - "Yeah, I see that, too, Coach. We'll get them next series."
Gig'em!!!
