sushihorn

I should have posted the roster early. The comments about not being able to drive block anyone using Inside Zone would be much more obvious. I almost pity that Center. A 275 pound RS Freshman trying to get off a good snap then having to block an All-American NT has a really tough job. I expect he will need guard help a large majority of the snaps.

West Coast people complain that their teams and players are under recognized because no one watches most of their games. Sometimes that helps them, like no one seeing Penix vs WSU, OSU or ASU this year.

I forgot to add roster details. Starting LT: #55 Fautanu - 6’4” 317 pounds LG: #71 Kalepo - 6’6” 327 OC: #72 Brailsford - 6’2” 275 RG: #77 Buelow - 6’8” 311 RT: #73 Rosengarten - 6’6” 300

They do call OL for holding in the B1G. I do worry about bias towards an incoming conference member.

Fif myself

…

They are average in stopping pressure: 35 QBH surrendered vs 55 hurries inflicted by the Texas D. UW is good at preventing pressure from becoming sacks. Penix’ pocket presence is part of that.

Not much of a running threat, especially after 2 ACL surgeries. He can pick up short yardage if you don’t account for him but he’s not going to break a long run. Also, Penix is central to the offense and I doubt DeBoer would risk him.

With UW, it’s usually a half-roll to move the pocket and confuse the pass rush’s aiming point. Penix is at his best in the pocket and I’ve seen very few plays that looked designed to have him throw on the run.

I survived Covid, got married and started a new business. RealLife (TM) has demanded too much of my time the last few years. Lol

So how does this play out when matched up against the Texas front? I don’t think we will get consistent pressure when rushing Penix, certainly not early pressure when rushing 4. But I think the Texas pass rush can cause problems by denying Penix the ability to step up in the pocket and the time to go deep. The style matchup in the running game is a very bad one for the Huskies’ OL. They couldn’t drive block weaker fronts; don’t expect them to do that to Texas. As for the pulling guards, you defeat that by holding the edge and creating a traffic jam. That forces the play wide where speed matters and pursuit can clean it up. Or the RB can look for a cutback lane against the interior DL. Good luck with that when one man is blocking back on our DTs. Lol Oregon played a lot of 3 man fronts, asking a LB 4-5 yards off the ball to hold the edge. They gave up a soft corner by scheme. Texas rarely uses a 3 man front and usually only on obvious passing downs. Even against Tech’s empty set, Texas used 3 DL plus a stand up edge at the LOS. No soft corners here.

Offensive Line is any area about which little is written, yet it is foundational to the entire offense. It is not sexy or spectacular. There are a lot of subtleties and success is tough to measure directly. Because of those factors, I wanted to start with the O-Line. These are my opinions alone but I hope they start a good discussion: Strengths: Mobility, Positioning and Footwork, Unit Cohesion Weaknesses: Size, Power (These assessments are relative to other top teams, not FBS as a whole) Watching the Washington offensive line, I sometimes wonder how they get it done. They are not especially impressive to look at and they don’t blow anyone off the ball. Yet statistically they are excellent pass protectors (19 sacks surrendered) and good run blockers (1,000 yard rusher at 5.5 YPC). How do we reconcile those conclusions? They rarely bust blocking assignments, so pass rushers get blocked unless they bring numbers. Thus, Penix faced little early pressure and he was good at stepping up in the pocket or unloading the ball quickly. The O-Line buys ENOUGH time for the quick passing game and the occasional deep shot. They don’t have to look impressive doing it. The run blocking seemed more problematic to me. For the most part, UW hasn’t been able to drive block opposing fronts. In every game I’ve watched, they struggled to move defenders when blocking straight up without the advantage of angles or momentum. It was almost sad watching them run Inside Zone even against weak teams like Stanford and WSU. Yet they manufactured a decent running game against Oregon twice and USC. They did it by using the linemen’s mobility and footwork to compensate for lack of size and strength: pulling guards (PnP and counter), running out on the quick pitch, getting downfield on screens. This is a tribute to coaching recognizing unit strengths and using those to cover up a serious weakness. They may have some smaller linemen but the coaches got them into favorable positions and matchups.

And now a message of hope and reconciliation from our friends in the ANC:

O-Line for UW is strong in pass pro, mobile for screen game and pulling but not much as drive blockers in the running game. DL can mostly hold their ground and absorb blocks to let the LBs stay clean. One dangerous edge rusher. I think Texas should win most of the line battles and could dominate the LOS.

Maybe by comparison to the other CFP HCs, he’s not a strong recruiter but I think you’re overstating the case. The one full recruiting class was ranked about where UW has been forever.

You are correct. I should have qualified that statement with this being the source of the big plays.

The two teams get there in very different ways. Washington completes a lot of deep and intermediate passes, often to covered WRs. Texas throws mostly short: behind the LOS and within 10 yards of it. The speed creates a ton of YAC. Ewers has really improved at quick recognition and hitting moving receivers in stride so they can leverage defenders’ angles.

UW played defense to limit big plays in the conference CCG. That was also true to an extent when the played the Ducks and Beavers during the regular season. Inge played a more aggressive defense in the Apple Cup against a less talented WSU.

First, welcome to surly. A lot of us are jaded on the issue of recruiting talent - legacy of Mack Brown. I find that data useful but limited. The rankings are based largely on measurables and statistical performance against overmatched HS kids. When I look at what makes Washington go, measurables are important but far from a complete explanation. The outside receivers are the strength of the offense. They get credit for talent for their size and strength. But in terms of effectiveness, I think the catch radius, ability to recognize the coverage and find the gaps, making the catch by beating a defender and being on the same page as their QB are collectively more important. Size and strength are easy to measure. The other factors are not. If those factors are more important, any discussion of talent misses much of the point.

That’s pre-Madonna you damn sip.

They remind me a lot of those old Lloyd Carr Michigan teams with a superior QB and more limited running game. I’ve seen comparisons to Air Coryell and those also seem apt. Pro style offense for sure and they take more deep shots than almost anyone I’ve seen in FBS.

You are absolutely correct. Unfortunately, the average fan looks at the shiny object. In the case of football, that would be the offensive skill positions and especially the passing game. And of course that is the area of biggest improvement over last year for them. The shiny object is shinier, therefore EVERYTHING must be better, right?

Texas has both talent and depth at interior DL. OU negated the depth with hurry up that prevented rotation. UW hasn’t played that way and would have to change radically to do so in the playoffs.

I’m pretty sure most aggy ancestors were sporting white sheets during Reconstruction.

They pull guards across the formation in both of those concepts. You know what blows up pulling guards? Penetrating DT, especially when they push the Center into the backfield. Now who might have DTs capable of doing that?