1h offense vs. ECU was extremely promising.

[Money_Milton]

Not really sure if you guys wanted my thoughts or not, but we had a good convo after Cincy so figured I'd post...

Kind've did defense first for this game and also had to chart it for work and there were a crap ton of events so a little behind on my own stuff, but I thought the 1h was extremely promising.

Basically, were not going to get more pre snap motion, not going to get any 20 or 21 personnel ... Heupel's system is what it is and it's not changing.. so for the most part I'm going to stop asking for it haha. It's just not happening.

However this is what I took away from the 1h:

In the 1h vs. ECU, UCF had 22 1st and 10's. 16 passes thrown by a QB:
-> 0.7772 EPA/Dropback
-> 73.33% success rate
-> 1, 15 yard pen drawn.
-> 15.2 YPA
And after 4 of the inc, they went back to the pass on 2nd n 10, 3 times. 3 Com, ~10 YPA.

Establishing the pass to set up the run.
On their 5 1st and 10 runs:
-> 0.123 EPA/Rush
-> 80% succ rate
-> 7.4 YPC

Insanely better than 1st and 10 runs previously. (I know it's ECU but still)

ECU's defensive game plan played a factor in this imo.
It looked like they tried to copy Pitt's defense against UCF to a degree.
ECU went base personnel every single play of the 1h. UCF countered by lining up in 4 WR looks or Empty on 26 out of 41 snaps outside the RZ.

On 20 of those 26, UCF didn't have Hescock on the field.
This left a LB matched up on either Marlon, Harris, or Otis... which is just not fair.
On top of that, ECU went with a single high safety (playing a million yards off the LOS) or zero safeties on 44 of 46 plays.

This essentially forced ECU to play man on every snap and you don't exactly want to be doing that against UCF's WR's.

Despite a weaker opp, it was a promising sign from UCF's offense. Aggressive on 1st down and going against normal "11" personnel tendency to counter ECU's def.

 

[Stormthecourt?]

Not really sure if you guys wanted my thoughts or not, but we had a good convo after Cincy so figured I'd post...

Kind've did defense first for this game and also had to chart it for work and there were a crap ton of events so a little behind on my own stuff, but I thought the 1h was extremely promising.

Basically, were not going to get more pre snap motion, not going to get any 20 or 21 personnel ... Heupel's system is what it is and it's not changing.. so for the most part I'm going to stop asking for it haha. It's just not happening.

However this is what I took away from the 1h:

In the 1h vs. ECU, UCF had 22 1st and 10's. 16 passes thrown by a QB:
-> 0.7772 EPA/Dropback
-> 73.33% success rate
-> 1, 15 yard pen drawn.
-> 15.2 YPA
And after 4 of the inc, they went back to the pass on 2nd n 10, 3 times. 3 Com, ~10 YPA.

Establishing the pass to set up the run.
On their 5 1st and 10 runs:
-> 0.123 EPA/Rush
-> 80% succ rate
-> 7.4 YPC

Insanely better than 1st and 10 runs previously. (I know it's ECU but still)

ECU's defensive game plan played a factor in this imo.
It looked like they tried to copy Pitt's defense against UCF to a degree.
ECU went base personnel every single play of the 1h. UCF countered by lining up in 4 WR looks or Empty on 26 out of 41 snaps outside the RZ.

On 20 of those 26, UCF didn't have Hescock on the field.
This left a LB matched up on either Marlon, Harris, or Otis... which is just not fair.
On top of that, ECU went with a single high safety (playing a million yards off the LOS) or zero safeties on 44 of 46 plays.

This essentially forced ECU to play man on every snap and you don't exactly want to be doing that against UCF's WR's.

Despite a weaker opp, it was a promising sign from UCF's offense. Aggressive on 1st down and going against normal "11" personnel tendency to counter ECU's def.

So hescock wasn’t in there because we didn’t respect their pass rush? That changes a lot if Marlon is on the field rather than hescock

 

[Knight Strength]

Marlon is significantly bigger than any of our RBs. Get that man the ball!

 

[Happy Hands]

We had 20 grouping a few times, right? The TE acts as a lead blocker, or potentially a runner, and is ahead of the RB. Hell, the way Heup uses Mack we had a 30 grouping at times.

 

[Money_Milton]

We had 20 grouping a few times, right? The TE acts as a lead blocker, or potentially a runner, and is ahead of the RB. Hell, the way Heup uses Mack we had a 30 grouping at times.

I still count Y-back/H-back as a TE, but yeah they use that quite often. I just don't feel he's lined up in a position to receive a handofff which is what I use to decipher.

 

[Happy Hands]

I still count Y-back/H-back as a TE, but yeah they use that quite often. I just don't feel he's lined up in a position to receive a handofff which is what I use to decipher.

He could cut across the front of the QB. Not that I've ever seen them do that. Obviously they could both run routes, so in theory it's pretty close.

 

[Money_Milton]

He could cut across the front of the QB. Not that I've ever seen them do that. Obviously they could both run routes, so in theory it's pretty close.

Yeah, I mean technically anyone can receive handoffs (WR in motion) and TE's can run routes too. Just when I've done player positioning charting for PFF and STATS they're not considered RB's so I've kind've kept it that way when I do my own stuff.

 

[Happy Hands]

Yeah, I mean technically anyone can receive handoffs (WR in motion) and TE's can run routes too. Just when I've done player positioning charting for PFF and STATS they're not considered RB's so I've kind've kept it that way when I do my own stuff.

Well you're wrong and so is PFF. Maybe. I don't know.

If Otis can be a slot receiver, Heup can use Hescock as a running back and get in the hole.

Either way. Thanks for the info. It's interesting stuff.

 

[Money_Milton]

Well you're wrong and so is PFF. Maybe. I don't know.

If Otis can be a slot receiver, Heup can use Hescock as a running back and get in the hole.

Either way. Thanks for the info. It's interesting stuff.

This doesn't even make sense

 

[Happy Hands]

This doesn't even make sense

You cut to the core of me. It was pure gibberish.

To put it more clearly, if Anderson moves from RB to the slot you consider him a reciever for personnel purposes, but if Harrus moves from TE to lead blocker, you still consider him a TE. Right?

 

[Money_Milton]

You cut to the core of me. It was pure gibberish.

To put it more clearly, if Anderson moves from RB to the slot you consider him a reciever for personnel purposes, but if Harrus moves from TE to lead blocker, you still consider him a TE. Right?

Haha sorry... Yes that's correct.
I chart grouping and formation personnel though. I always chart Otis as a RB for grouping purposes just because im stubborn and believe that should be his position.
So if he's in the slot it'd be a 20/21 grouping, but formation wise (which is what I refer too) is 10 or 11.

For Hescock if he's not split out I count him as a TE. If you look at where he lines up, the closest he'll get to the QB is about 2 yards in front lined up over the tackle. At STATS, this year we are actually charting that as a "pass protector" this year.

He's never lined up in a position where he can receive a "normal handoff".

If in pistol/under center this could change.

Lineman can be lead blockers too... UCF just likes to lead with the H-back, but they'll run dart where the tackle pulls and is the lead blocker.

This probably makes 0 sense.

Hescock lines up where the "H-Back" is in this graphic.


I've seen it both ways to be fair, you do have a point (I admittedly over-reacted), but just based off what I've done for work, I like it as a tight end

 

[Money_Milton]

This is very similar/identical to UCF's when Hescock isn't in a normal TE/Wing pos

 

[Wings0fred]

Thanks for the insights (as always)!

We saw a lot of “new” things last week, I feel like. Some screens, different routes, and Even a trick play/pass! Curious if that was because we have more of the playbook under DG’s belt or if they went and got all extra since they had the bye week.

 

[Money_Milton]

Thanks for the insights (as always)!

We saw a lot of “new” things last week, I feel like. Some screens, different routes, and Even a trick play/pass! Curious if that was because we have more of the playbook under DG’s belt or if they went and got all extra since they had the bye week.

to be honest... there wasn't that many "new" plays... it kind of seemed that way in the first half because of how well the offense did, but the biggest change was just being more aggressive on early down imo.

They did use a few new run schemes and didn't use dart or an H-back lead nearly as much as they had been.

But, the screen was a really nice play, but I'm not sure it was new... it was the same exact play both times they ran a RB screen.

The Marlon pass, I'm sure they try and put in something like that for every week and with the bye might've had a little more time (I'm not a big fan of those plays).. we saw it with quady WR pass last season. And Marlon threw one to Mack in the Fiesta bowl.

But, I think biggest difference was Heupel being more aggressive and getting 4 WR's as much as he could to attack ECU staying in Base.