Every snap that Eich, Hunt and AJAX played in our Bucs game | Page 3 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Every snap that Eich, Hunt and AJAX played in our Bucs game

The Bucs did not play 29 players (pretty much all of their starters). These guys should have handled the competition with ease....but they did not. So theres that.
 


Simply not accurate. He didn’t have a knock down on either play. Same with the take above on the solo video of Eich. Eich got driven several yards into the backfield and into the RB and his guy made the tackle. And that was a similar problem last year with letting DL get into his chest and driving him back.

Hunt was not very good in the game either but he was not the problem on that play which was going to Eich’s side. If Eich makes a good block the RB is not tackled for a loss. I would not have counted 4 negative plays as the original poster, but 3. Still, there is no basis for defending him on the negatives unless one has an a priori bias.
Okie dokie boss.
 
McD said that the OL that started the game had 10 positives and 3 negatives. IMO the 3 most egregious negatives and the ones I'm guessing McD counted were by Hunt, Eich and Coleman.

Hunt: he failed to pick up a stunt that came from the left. It resulted in a hit on Thompson and an incomplete pass.
Eich: got pushed back 2-3 yards and into Michel.
Coleman: got bull rushed back into Thompson on a play that resulted in a sack.

I counted a few others as negative myself but they had little or no impact on the play b/c of other factors.
 
McD said that the OL that started the game had 10 positives and 3 negatives. IMO the 3 most egregious negatives and the ones I'm guessing McD counted were by Hunt, Eich and Coleman.

Hunt: he failed to pick up a stunt that came from the left. It resulted in a hit on Thompson and an incomplete pass.
Eich: got pushed back 2-3 yards and into Michel.
Coleman: got bull rushed back into Thompson on a play that resulted in a sack.

I counted a few others as negative myself but they had little or no impact on the play b/c of other factors.
Yes he did. McDaniel clearly was not happy with our run blocking (per interview) but overall thought our OL looked solid. We had a lot of long and medium throws and not a lot of sacks, so obviously our OL did fine on pass pro.
Sometimes when folks breakdown film they assume that anytime a defender penetrates past the line of scrimmage that it means the OL lost. However - that's actually called an "influence block" where you let him go where he wants so long as its away from the play. You let him use all that energy to go the wrong way. I actually had the count right where McDaniel has it on my film breakdown.
 
Yes he did. McDaniel clearly was not happy with our run blocking (per interview) but overall thought our OL looked solid. We had a lot of long and medium throws and not a lot of sacks, so obviously our OL did fine on pass pro.
Sometimes when folks breakdown film they assume that anytime a defender penetrates past the line of scrimmage that it means the OL lost. However - that's actually called an "influence block" where you let him go where he wants so long as its away from the play. You let him use all that energy to go the wrong way. I actually had the count right where McDaniel has it on my film breakdown.

My uncertainty is, if reports TB had 8-9-in-the-box are true, that's not a 'typical' way to evaluate run blocks. Not saying it's 'OK,' but not a fair way to evaluate.
 
So I understand the line had a bit of a rough time with the running game but I don't see the "sky is falling" aspect of it. Pass protection looked pretty decent and given you aren't starting all the starters I just don't see the panic button yet.
 
Bowles had the box stuffed all night which is part of the reason we had receivers open all night on play action stuff.

McDaniel noted he was surprised by the approach and that's why he leaned on the pass game so much.

I mean we had receivers like 10-15-20 yards wide open in the middle of the field -- which was a giant hole in Tampons D!

Bloody well right!

BNF
 
My uncertainty is, if reports TB had 8-9-in-the-box are true, that's not a 'typical' way to evaluate run blocks. Not saying it's 'OK,' but not a fair way to evaluate.
Well, I'm sure at some point there's no way to block a full blown overload with everyone selling out to stop the run, but blocking 7-8 in the box is considered routine.

In the regular season you'll see us audibling to pass when there's 8 in the box often, and audibling to run when there's only 7 in the box.

Nothing the Bucs ran though would qualify as unblockable that I saw.
 
Bowles had the box stuffed all night which is part of the reason we had receivers open all night on play action stuff.

McDaniel noted he was surprised by the approach and that's why he leaned on the pass game so much.

I mean we had receivers like 10-15-20 yards wide open in the middle of the field -- which was a giant hole in Tampons D!

Bloody well right!

BNF
Not just crowding the box, but also using inside twists and stunts and DL inside slants. Bowles hates giving up the run and he sold out to stop it.
 
Well, I'm sure at some point there's no way to block a full blown overload with everyone selling out to stop the run, but blocking 7-8 in the box is considered routine.

In the regular season you'll see us audibling to pass when there's 8 in the box often, and audibling to run when there's only 7 in the box.

Nothing the Bucs ran though would qualify as unblockable that I saw.

Not "unblockable," but more difficult for any OL and particularly an OL with a new scheme and new Olmen.
I agree with you on the audibles, thus, my inclination this practice was more on getting the OL experience than generating yards.
 
As you said…the Bucs were focusing on stopping the run with the deep roster they have…so I’m not going to freak out about the running game at this point.

I am quite sure Tampa won’t do that if facing Hill and Waddle.

Thompson was still able to get the win and execute with the 2nd and 3rd team!
 
Back
Top Bottom