Groves

CelticCat · Post by **CelticCat** » Sat Oct 08, 2005 8:19 pm

Got a few carries and made a couple nice runs.

Platinumcat · Post by **Platinumcat** » Sat Oct 08, 2005 8:30 pm

How many times did we try to rush the ball tonight. This can include a designed qb keeper. But, I'm more interested in attempts by Domineck and Groves.

I don't know if you heard the announcer, but we are just soooooo darned one dimensional. I don't want to rush on first down, rush on second down and throw on third. But, even 1/3 of our offensive plays would be nice.

grizzh8r · Post by **grizzh8r** » Sun Oct 09, 2005 12:08 am

barechestcat wrote:How many times did we try to rush the ball tonight. This can include a designed qb keeper. But, I'm more interested in attempts by Domineck and Groves.

I don't know if you heard the announcer, but we are just soooooo darned one dimensional. I don't want to rush on first down, rush on second down and throw on third. But, even 1/3 of our offensive plays would be nice.

Other than Lulay, we rushed 11 times the whole game. ELEVEN TIMES! However, during the pregame interview with Kramer, he stated that we would pass (and pass, and pass some more) on Weber, because they play man D with their DB's. We won, but I don't think the gameplan worked. IF Gatewood caught that first TD, I think the plan would have worked much better, as he only caught one pass after that (the toughest catch of the day, no less). He alone caused Lulays completion percentage to be below 50% in this game (four or five dropped passes on my count), for what it's worth.

gocats · Post by **gocats** » Sun Oct 09, 2005 12:21 am

Domenick acted like he was pussyfooting to the hole again. Not once did I see him hit the hole with any authority. And how many chances did Lulay give to Gatewood to prove he was in the game. Good thing there was nothing heavy around me during this game. I'd be out TV shopping right now. I still love the Cats, but they are gonna kill me yet.

grizzh8r · Post by **grizzh8r** » Sun Oct 09, 2005 12:33 am

gocats wrote: Domenick acted like he was pussyfooting to the hole again. Not once did I see him hit the hole with any authority. And how many chances did Lulay give to Gatewood to prove he was in the game. Good thing there was nothing heavy around me during this game. I'd be out TV shopping right now. I still love the Cats, but they are gonna kill me yet.

He only got the ball 5 times. You simply can't gain yards OR judge his performance on 5 carries. The game plan was to pass, therefore we did not run the ball much at all.

gocats · Post by **gocats** » Sun Oct 09, 2005 12:41 am

Maybe you're right. I'll give the benefit of the doubt, but even the guy I was watching the game with mentioned it at the exact same time I noticed it.

gocats · Post by **gocats** » Sun Oct 09, 2005 12:51 am

And hey, the Avs won too, I'm a very happy camper tonight.

GavinDonos · Post by **GavinDonos** » Sun Oct 09, 2005 5:41 am

grizzh8r wrote: He only got the ball 5 times. You simply can't gain yards OR judge his performance on 5 carries. The game plan was to pass, therefore we did not run the ball much at all.

Yeah, five carries is hard to judge on, but during his whole MSU career he has been plagued by that little stutter step before he hits the line. When he finds the hole and works the seam, then he is using his power game, and that is when he gets all of his yards. When he uses that little hitch step 2-3 yards before he hits the line, then he gets there late and is wrapped up for no gain or a loss.

But 11 carries for our RB's is waaaay too few. I realize that if the production isn't there then the coaches may be tempted to forget about the running game, but at some point i'd like to see us just try to stick with it for more than one carry per drive. And the fact that we only appear to have one or two running plays in the book is frustrating as well. How hard can it be to key on a cutback dive when it's the only running play we ever do? When was the last time we showed any type of blocking sophistication with our running game?

El_Gato · Post by **El_Gato** » Sun Oct 09, 2005 7:37 am

For the computer nerd in all of us, Dom's performance is a simple IF/THEN statement:

IF JD actually HITS the hole yesterday, as he did so successfully vs ISU, THEN he gets more than 5 carries. I really don't understand why/how this guy can be so GOOD at running north/south with authority one week, and then turn into John fricking Travolta the next...

Wait, maybe I do know why; maybe after his ISU performance, the coaches just decided that he "gets it" now and forgot to POUND into him ALL WEEK the importance of HAMMERING the line of scrimmage. I know, I know; he showed all us internet doubters a week ago; I hope he doesn't think 1 game was enough to shut us up.

Catz Rock · Post by **Catz Rock** » Sun Oct 09, 2005 7:50 am

Dominick would have had a much better day, IF our O-line could open up even the smallest of holes. I don't care who you put in the backfield, if there are no holes.......then no yards. It is time for our O-line to step up and do what they are supposed to.

2Cats · Post by **2Cats** » Sun Oct 09, 2005 8:17 am

Wasn't this thread on Groves?

It was mentioned on the broadcast that Goves was inserted in place of JD because he was quicker to the hole. One concern I have about Groves is that he doesn't like to Pass Block (he'll openly admint it) and so when he's in teams could start to key on the run.

Btowncat · Post by **Btowncat** » Sun Oct 09, 2005 9:10 am

I admit to not seeing all the game (I prefer not to have a stroke while yelling at the t.v.). I only saw Groves rush once, and he never had chance -- burried in the backfield for a 3 yd. loss. His final stats were 6 carries for 22 yds. Take out Travis's carries, and we ran 11 times for 34 yds. On the flip side, WE GAVE UP 232 FREAKIN' YARDS ON THE GROUND. That little stat includes -11 by their q.b.
We certainly need a more effective running game going forward. But I humbly suggest that in the Weber St. game, our offense was very good at moving the ball most of the day (while failing to but points on the board due to turnovers), but our defense continues to give me fits. Unless and until we can stop someone before midway through the 3rd quarter, we're not going too far from here.

grizzh8r · Post by **grizzh8r** » Sun Oct 09, 2005 10:57 am

For those of you wanting a running game, I will reiterate. Kramer said the game plan was pass, so we did. If the coaches make the descision to not run the ball, then we won't...

EDIT:

For what it is worth, I want to see a running game as well.

BozoneCat · Post by **BozoneCat** » Sun Oct 09, 2005 12:40 pm

Our run game has been completely anemic and ineffective to this point in the season. If it does not improve, we will again end the season at 6-5. There are many problems that are leading to our lack of a running attack. First, it starts with the O-line. That group has been the most disappointing unit of our team so far, in my mind. Why? Because I expected this group to be nasty and flat out dominate games. So far, they are not. Hard to get a running game going without lanes being opened. Second, our backs are not hitting the hole hard. Domineck is the worst of the lot in this regard. He just appears soft, and doesn't have the speed to get around end to dodge the big hits. That is why I really like Groves. He isn't very big, but he doesn't shy away from contact, and he hits the hole extremely hard. I'd prefer we take our chances with Evin until Bass gets back. Third, our play calling in regards to the running game is just terrible. Something has to be done to improve in this area, as it should be the most easily correctible. Bailey is just doing a terrible job with his run calls, or maybe just his play designs. Fourth, WHY ARE WE NOT RUNNING MORE OPTION??? We have a QB who is fast, strong, smart, and deadly on his feet. We have a line that isn't very good at opening holes up the middle but is pretty good at containing. This just seems to me like a natural fit for our offense. We ran the option ONCE yesterday with Groves, and lo and behold, we made a nice gain. Think about it, coaches!

Platinumcat · Post by **Platinumcat** » Sun Oct 09, 2005 8:44 pm

grizz8hr,
I know that Kramer said that before the game. But, I think the point trying to be made by everyone here is that a lot of us feel a larger effort should be put toward running the ball. At least that's my mindset.

BozoneCat · Post by **BozoneCat** » Sun Oct 09, 2005 9:24 pm

Yeah, to further my argument: I know that Kramer said we were going to throw a bunch, but that is just plum dumb IMO. Playing like that is what got us beat our last three games last year, and very nearly got us beat yesterday. Admitting you are going to be one-dimensional before the game even starts is not a good thing. And in talking about taking advantage of their big safeties, we didn't challenge them more than a couple times all game.

I just don't like what it says about our coaches' confidence in the team's abilities. Nothing wrong with passing the ball, that is our strength. But you have to balance it out somewhat with an effective run game, or teams are just going to keep pinning their ears back and blitz us all game long. The griz game last year is a perfect example of how that strategy is a good way to beat us. We tore them up for a bunch of yards, yet we were never in the game because we couldn't control the ball and/or keep our defense off the field. Travis can't keep taking all the hits he does, and it isn't fair or right to expect him to have to carry so much of the load. To his credit, he never shies away from any of it. For all of the "taking care of the team" that Travis does, I would like to see the team help to take care of him a little bit, and a better running game would be a good step in that direction.

grizzh8r · Post by **grizzh8r** » Sun Oct 09, 2005 11:05 pm

Well put, and I agree. We need unpredictability in our offense.

Helcat72 · Post by **Helcat72** » Mon Oct 10, 2005 1:15 am

This is my take on the subject....
First of all whatever Kramer says to the TV commentators or the press about what he is going to do in the game is usually bogus. He has perfect plausible deniability if it doesn't work out the way he plans it. He often says someone will start or play who never sees the field, or someone is out who actually plays. I think coaches like to try and give opponents a false impression just to give them something more to prepare for.

Second if he knows he probably can't run, then why not say I'm going to pass pass pass!

Third, he always talks about this O-line being the best in Bobcat history. I think that is bogus too, but he has to make them think they are!

Fourth, when your defense is getting pushed around and you are down by a couple of touchdown, and you have Travis Lulay...you don't mess around with trying to establish a running game. We haven't had the luxury (except against SFA) to play our younger people or just try and run the ball.

Finally we don't really have the type of physical running backs or O-line (for that matter on their best day) that make for a power running attack. We don't have anyone that is 230 lbs and runs over people (Hilliard or Rubin type). We are a finesse team with athletic O-linemen that are good at what they do...and that is pass protect...but I'm sorry they do that so much that power blocking is not natural for them. IMO!

GavinDonos · Post by **GavinDonos** » Mon Oct 10, 2005 1:31 am

Helcat72 wrote:This is my take on the subject....
First of all whatever Kramer says to the TV commentators or the press about what he is going to do in the game is usually bogus. He has perfect plausible deniability if it doesn't work out the way he plans it. He often says someone will start or play who never sees the field, or someone is out who actually plays. I think coaches like to try and give opponents a false impression just to give them something more to prepare for.

Second if he knows he probably can't run, then why not say I'm going to pass pass pass!

Third, he always talks about this O-line being the best in Bobcat history. I think that is bogus too, but he has to make them think they are!

Fourth, when your defense is getting pushed around and you are down by a couple of touchdown, and you have Travis Lulay...you don't mess around with trying to establish a running game. We haven't had the luxury (except against SFA) to play our younger people or just try and run the ball.

Finally we don't really have the type of physical running backs or O-line (for that matter on their best day) that make for a power running attack. We don't have anyone that is 230 lbs and runs over people (Hilliard or Rubin type). We are a finesse team with athletic O-linemen that are good at what they do...and that is pass protect...but I'm sorry they do that so much that power blocking is not natural for them. IMO!

Thanks for the great perspective, Helcat. I think what I long for isn't so much a power attack as much as big-play scatback... and it just doesn't seem like our running plays are designed to be big burst plays. I don't know, I'm no coach, and I never played on O... maybe Quast can enlighten us with his observations. I still don't think i've seen one of our OLinemen pull this year... just basic, straight ahead running.

Lets put some salsa in our O playcalling.... I want to see Hirst come-a-pullin' and light up some poor opposing OLB while our RB busts a cap in a big one.

gtapp · Post by **gtapp** » Mon Oct 10, 2005 2:21 am

One answer to this is to go with NO one in the backfield except Lulay on every play and he determines if he runs or passes depending on what the defense gives him. This adds one more blocker to the offense, keeps the defense off balance and keeps the ball in the hands of our best athlete. I went to MSU for 5 years and during that time we only lost to the Griz once. In that year they put their RB in the shotgun and he ran every play. They killed us with that formation.