Personally, I saw quite a bit more efficiency this year and a lot less head scratching. Particularly when JB got in his groove. Even in some of the losses we still had a chance to win because the offense kept the defense off the field for a at least a little while.
That was with a RSFr QB that will only get better. If he could take his completion % from 50 to 60+, we would have sustained a lot more drives.
Turnovers were really critical on a lot of drives. Also, WR drops were still and issue this year. A lot of that was on the veteran WRs. The younger guys will have to play next year and we will see if they can be more sure handed.
Overall I saw moments this year that I hadn't seen in the previous two at all. The youth and inconsistency are issues that can be corrected with more time and consistency in the coaching staff should help some with that.
Messingham still has to step up. Hopefully he and CPR have a plan. (I'm going to keep saying this until I see the plan.)
Thanks. Now we are getting into analysis that has real depth, not just shallow general opinions.
1. I count 3, maybe 4 bad passes by Barnett on three drives: one in the first drive where Gary had fallen down, next play was high over Darks, next drive bounced one in front of Reynolds, and threw far over Reynolds on third drive.
2. I agree. Not only was this working in terms of gaining yardage, but it added some blitz protection.
3. WR blocking has been an issue all season. However, it is hard to think that this isn't in the practices and gameplans. It is okay to have 1-2 receivers who just run and catch, but guys who play lots of downs need to be able to block. I think we traded receiving ability for blocking ability this season, perhaps because they were seniors with great receiving ability.
4. The more I think about it, the more I wonder if bringing in Jantz wasn't part of the gameplan. Barnett had two drives that started well, but fizzled, so we settled for FGs. Then, he gets sacked in the pocket. I wonder if Herman (or Rhoads) planned to give him a few series and put in Jantz if Barnett struggled largely because it makes sense to think Jantz would have been more agile and crafty in scrambling away from blitzes.
5. We may have been a little loose in the first half, but not the second. The disappearance of Sanu in the second half, one catch by Coleman, and one catch by Jefferson suggests we were doing something right. And there were lots of throws that looked to be intentionally thrown high and uncatchable because of coverage, especially when the receivers were in the endzone in the first half.
6. I would have liked to have seen a few more of these. They could have been big gainers with the quickness of West and Horne, especially if the area was vacated by blitzers.
7. Same as #6.
8. See #2.
9. We did have one very good play by a TE. I would have liked to see Woody take more of this role as a receiver. We talk about his size and strength, but he has some quickness and moves also. I predict we will see much more of him next year.
10. See #2.
11. We got too much yardage for me to call it "vanilla." However, we really limited our options on 3rd down by not doing better on 1st down. I think both teams were 2 for 13 on 3rd down. However, ours were 3rd and long where we didn't execute well. Theirs were 3rd and short where our defense made stops.
Deep down, I was actually hoping for CM to be named the OC. Its a good day here on my end.
With that said, this offense might become real fun and exciting to watch with a much greater element of surprise.
Give us that TD back and with the way Jantz started rolling in the 4th quarter (right on schedule) and we would have had a ballgame on our hands. The big pass given up at the end sealed it unfortunately.
I wouldn't say pathetic. And the Rutgers offensive gameplan had its issues, mostly because of our solid defense. Apart from a 4-yard drive and an 86 yard TD, our defense held them to 13 points. Thus, I once again say that their big plays made the difference (one on defense in the 2nd Q and one on offense in the 4th Q). Do nothing but take those two plays away and the score is 13-13.
Someone asked earlier what we should have done differently.
Rutgers was blitzing inside gaps all days after the first two series. TH decided "awesome! Let's bring the slot right into the path of the stunt and hand off to him!" Predictably, this got buried in the backfield every time.
The Rutgers defensive ends were slanting in. You could see the couple of times we went off tackle (no zone read, just straight handoff) and the RB was caught from behind by the unblocked backside defensive end. This defense SCREAMS for a bootleg. It never happened.
I actually watched Steele Jantz attempt to run an option play. What in the **** was that? The usual result was running out of bounds to the short side for a two yard loss.
What should have happened: abandon the zone read because Rutgers was attacking so much. Call flanker slants, outside zone runs, stretch toss runs, play-action passes to a crossing route, roll-out flood passes, and the occasional counter/shovel off of the roll-out.
I'm happy with the hire, time will tell, but CPR must see something good in Messingham
I would add much more use of Woody. Right before he scored, I said that I thought it would be a great time to let him run up the middle because at worst he is going to run over a blitzer and at best he is going to be too free to stop easily. However, I didn't expect to see the speed and move that got him to the endzone.
While I think we should have tried more of the plays you list, I'm not sure how much success we would have had with the plays you list. We just didn't seem to be able to get outside the double blitzing from one side and the blitzes just seemed to come too fast for us to have receivers in place or to roll out. The speed of their d-line and LBs was impressive.