Apparently No More Bubble Screens

[spongeandshoot]

According to a headline on Brand Sucks, it sounds like Arbuckle isn't a huge fan of them.

I didn't read the article...just going off the headline and a tweet saying the fans would be relieved.

If this is true, it is a great week in WSU sports.

Pac 12 champs for the ladies, no more bubble screens. Fook yeah!!

 

[Observer11]

These crazy Gen Z kids. No respect for history and what Uncle Denny brought to the Palouse.

Cutting edge stuff in '87/'88.

 

[cr8zyncalif]

Bubble screens are a great occasional play, but when they are a staple of the O they become too easy to blow up.

I'd put them in a similar bucket to other screens. Easy to stop if you see them coming, but dangerous if you have some trickery or some kind of mismatch, or have simply lulled the other team into a mode where they are playing the defenders way off the ball. To that extent they are as good today as they ever were. But you don't expect your ugly Christmas sweater to be everyday office wear, and you have no business running 12 bubble screens in a game (unless, of course, for what ever reason they are all successful; then you run them until they figure out how to stop them). It seems to me that three WR bunched together give you a chance to streak one, post another and do a curl with the third; and the curl guy is likely to get more than the bubble screen would have netted.

 

[ttowncoug]

He wants to attack the field. More like Leach. The bubble screen was more of the Morris offense to not make mistakes and play some sort of a control/tempo offense.

 

[chugspig]

Bubble screens are a great occasional play, but when they are a staple of the O they become too easy to blow up.

I'd put them in a similar bucket to other screens. Easy to stop if you see them coming, but dangerous if you have some trickery or some kind of mismatch, or have simply lulled the other team into a mode where they are playing the defenders way off the ball. To that extent they are as good today as they ever were. But you don't expect your ugly Christmas sweater to be everyday office wear, and you have no business running 12 bubble screens in a game (unless, of course, for what ever reason they are all successful; then you run them until they figure out how to stop them). It seems to me that three WR bunched together give you a chance to streak one, post another and do a curl with the third; and the curl guy is likely to get more than the bubble screen would have netted.

Great if you have a Dez Patmon blocking for a James Williams in the flat. Not if you have a 155 lb WR blocking for another WR who is 170lb and runs a 4.7.

 

[palouse*rr]

Thank goodness. Bubble screen has driven me crazy for years.

 

[etowncoug]

Great if you have a Dez Patmon blocking for a James Williams in the flat. Not if you have a 155 lb WR blocking for another WR who is 170lb and runs a 4.7.

Robert Lewis was a water bug who was an excellent blocker. Renard Bell and Lincoln Victor were decent blockers last year. Guys like Stribling didn't seem to care about blocking for teammates. Especially on quick hitters, give me someone who doesn't care about the size of the guy he's going to hit. All you need to do is occupy a block long enough to let the receiver get past. That's mostly about want to and not about size.

 

[95coug]

According to a headline on Brand Sucks, it sounds like Arbuckle isn't a huge fan of them.

I didn't read the article...just going off the headline and a tweet saying the fans would be relieved.

If this is true, it is a great week in WSU sports.

Pac 12 champs for the ladies, no more bubble screens. Fook yeah!!

I watched some highlights of W. Kentucky, and don't recall seeing anything thrown behind the LOS. He seems to like to create space using crossing routes and by sending multiple formations in different directions. There's a trips set he used to good effect, with short, middle, and option routes on every play. Lots of short- to mid-range, high percentage passes, but the concept and play design creates space underneath. Also did a decent job of opening running lanes.

It does require the QB to get a good read on the defensive alignment and where the open man is likely to be, and I expect that's where the weakness may be.

 

[froropmkr72]

Robert Lewis was a water bug who was an excellent blocker. Renard Bell and Lincoln Victor were decent blockers last year. Guys like Stribling didn't seem to care about blocking for teammates. Especially on quick hitters, give me someone who doesn't care about the size of the guy he's going to hit. All you need to do is occupy a block long enough to let the receiver get past. That's mostly about want to and not about size.

The block at 3:15.

 

[cr8zyncalif]

Fro, that was a great block! Thanks for sharing.

 

[ttowncoug]

The bubble screen can be effective if the defense is playing back off the receiver. Teams would generally cover our wide outs knowing they were going to get the quick screen.

If the new offense is more like Leach's, you have to read the defense and execute based on what they give you.

 

[spongeandshoot]

i dont have a problem with the bubble screen per se...I have a problem when the defense is expecting it and can blow it up which creates a higher risk of a fumble.

And I really have a problem with it when it is the OC's favorite play.

 

[79COUG]

i dont have a problem with the bubble screen per se...I have a problem when the defense is expecting it and can blow it up which creates a higher risk of a fumble.

And I really have a problem with it when it is the OC's favorite play.

Agreed.
And the OC should never have a "favorite play"... but if he does no one should know about it but he.

 

[wazzucougs96]

He wants to attack the field. More like Leach. The bubble screen was more of the Morris offense to not make mistakes and play some sort of a control/tempo offense.

More likely a product of a bad OL.

 

[95coug]

The OC’s favorite play should be any play that works.

 

[BiggsCoug]

i dont have a problem with the bubble screen per se...I have a problem when the defense is expecting it and can blow it up which creates a higher risk of a fumble.

And I really have a problem with it when it is the OC's favorite play.

If Im a DC I want the other team to throw as many bubble screens as possible. In fact, Im going to bait them into it the best I can.

1) if they throw 12 per game that’s fewer shots deep my corners have to defend and fewer mesh routes my linebackers have to wade thru.

2) more bubble’s mean less inside run attempts.

3) Im not even going to defend it. As a defense you cant defend everything. Some plays you just have to rally to and make a tackle. Pick one not to defend, deep pass, crossing route or bubble screen.

WSU is better off without the shitty OC they had last year. Good riddance.

 

[spongeandshoot]

More likely a product of a bad OL.

Yet when we threw the ball deep,.we had success.

And Watson had a pretty good year on the ground...and Jenkins had some nice runs.

He ran it a ton in the spring. He ran it and lateral swing passes ad nauseam in the fall because that is what he wanted to do.

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

If Im a DC I want the other team to throw as many bubble screens as possible. In fact, Im going to bait them into it the best I can.

1) if they throw 12 per game that’s fewer shots deep my corners have to defend and fewer mesh routes my linebackers have to wade thru.

2) more bubble’s mean less inside run attempts.

3) Im not even going to defend it. As a defense you cant defend everything. Some plays you just have to rally to and make a tackle. Pick one not to defend, deep pass, crossing route or bubble screen.

WSU is better off without the shitty OC they had last year. Good riddance.

No worries, in 6 months this OC will be just at shitty according to you ...

 

[Coug90]

I’m ok with them here and there, but the level at which they were run under morris was silly. The bubble screen should be a counter to catch a defensive tendency. Instead defenses were waiting for our bubble screens. Bad for the offense…bad for the receiver who gets clobbered 3 yards in the backfield after the ball hits his hands.

 

[BiggsCoug]

No worries, in 6 months this OC will be just at shitty according to you ...

Im willing to see what he has to offer.

I know well coached football when I see it. I know poorly coached football when I see it.

F’ing hell man. Have we all not seen great QB play? Bledsoe, Leaf, Gesser, Minshew…. Enough of which that we know poor QB play when we see it???

Same for OL.

For the money paid, these guys are not above criticism for coaching poorly. Not sorry.

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

Im willing to see what he has to offer.

I know well coached football when I see it. I know poorly coached football when I see it.

F’ing hell man. Have we all not seen great QB play? Bledsoe, Leaf, Gesser, Minshew…. Enough of which that we know poor QB play when we see it???

Same for OL.

For the money paid, these guys are not above criticism for coaching poorly. Not sorry.

Just like you'll never stop giving the coaches shit, I'll never stop pointing out that you give all the coaches shit all the time, no exceptions. The next "good" coach will be the first by your standards...

But hey, you keep doing you. And to be fair, the criticisms are fine - your entitled to your opinion. Its the childish name calling that I don't get. You don't even know these guys personally, and overall what they do and how they do it has zero effect on your life, but for some reason it generates enough emotion in you to solicit that reaction.
But again, Biggs is going to Biggs...

 

[BiggsCoug]

If you don’t like my posts click ignore and move on the same way I’ve done you. Rarely ever do I see anything you write.

I think it’s interesting that you comment about me calling people names while you find a way to shit on me out of nowhere. I didn’t mention you but here you are manufacturing a way to drag me. It goes both ways.
Click ignore on my posts and move on.

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

If you don’t like my posts click ignore and move on the same way I’ve done you. Rarely ever do I see anything you write.

I think it’s interesting that you comment about me calling people names while you find a way to shit on me out of nowhere. I didn’t mention you but here you are manufacturing a way to drag me. It goes both ways.
Click ignore on my posts and move on.

Its hard to ignore you because you engage with everyone on just about every thread, just like Ed does.

Not only that, but when someone who isn't ignored replies I get to see the ignored post in all its glory. It really doesn't work that great.

Btw, pointing out the obvious and true - why is that "shitting on you". Its what you do, Biggs. You seem to own it and be proud of it, so why does what I think - that name calling is unnecessary - matter to you?

 

[BiggsCoug]

Its hard to ignore you because you engage with everyone on just about every thread, just like Ed does.

Not only that, but when someone who isn't ignored replies I get to see the ignored post in all its glory. It really doesn't work that great.

Btw, pointing out the obvious and true - why is that "shitting on you". Its what you do, Biggs. You seem to own it and be proud of it, so why does what I think - that name calling is unnecessary - matter to you?

So you make up excuses to read my posts. Then why respond? You don’t have to write anything. And why drag my name into at all? You don’t have to write anything about me. You complain about how I write about others while you shit on me? Amazing.

Do you even come here to talk football? Or just virtue signal about how you are such a great fan because some other fan thinks the coach sucks and you’re gonna call him out for it….

Click ignore and move on.

 

[dgibbons]

Bubble screens are a great occasional play, but when they are a staple of the O they become too easy to blow up.

I'd put them in a similar bucket to other screens. Easy to stop if you see them coming, but dangerous if you have some trickery or some kind of mismatch, or have simply lulled the other team into a mode where they are playing the defenders way off the ball. To that extent they are as good today as they ever were. But you don't expect your ugly Christmas sweater to be everyday office wear, and you have no business running 12 bubble screens in a game (unless, of course, for what ever reason they are all successful; then you run them until they figure out how to stop them). It seems to me that three WR bunched together give you a chance to streak one, post another and do a curl with the third; and the curl guy is likely to get more than the bubble screen would have netted.

I'm curious, if a bunch of running plays get stuffed, should the OC keep calling them?

 

[dgibbons]

i dont have a problem with the bubble screen per se...I have a problem when the defense is expecting it and can blow it up which creates a higher risk of a fumble.

And I really have a problem with it when it is the OC's favorite play.

Based on your posts, it seems like you certainly have a problem with bubble screens per se. Has there been a single bubble screen that gets stuffed that you haven't complained about? Conversely, have you complained about runs getting stuffed?

 

[BiggsCoug]

I'm curious, if a bunch of running plays get stuffed, should the OC keep calling them?

To insert myself into your conversation…

Yes. The same way you have to throw the ball deep occasionally as well. Or, the same way an option team would throw the ball to keep people honest. The success of the play isn’t always about yardage, it’s about making the defense stop it.

There is value in making the defense run down the sideline to break up a pass the same way there is value in making the defense make a tackle and stop the inside run.

Once a DC knows that an OC refuses to call a play or attack a particular area of the field, he can move assets somewhere else to help stop other plays. Essentially moving numbers where they are needed, not where they aren’t needed.

 

[dgibbons]

To insert myself into your conversation…

Yes. The same way you have to throw the ball deep occasionally as well. Or, the same way an option team would throw the ball to keep people honest. The success of the play isn’t always about yardage, it’s about making the defense stop it.

There is value in making the defense run down the sideline to break up a pass the same way there is value in making the defense make a tackle and stop the inside run.

Once a DC knows that an OC refuses to call a play or attack a particular area of the field, he can move assets somewhere else to help stop other plays. Essentially moving numbers where they are needed, not where they aren’t needed.

So why are bubble screens that get stuffed so terrible? Especially if you have a bad OL.

Is the logical fallacy clear to you?

 

[BiggsCoug]

So why are bubble screens that get stuffed so terrible? Especially if you have a bad OL.

Is the logical fallacy clear to you?

I understand what you are saying.

The issue I have with them is the volume of them. There comes a time when you’ve run so many of them that you are limiting your offense.

Can the defense know what’s coming every snap? Can your offense only attack 1 area? Can your offense focus on only 1 position group making plays? All no.

Unless you have such a talented receiver catching them that it doesn’t matter if the defense knows it’s coming, it is probably best to not run the play that often.

 

[dgibbons]

I understand what you are saying.

The issue I have with them is the volume of them. There comes a time when you’ve run so many of them that you are limiting your offense.

Can the defense know what’s coming every snap? Can your offense only attack 1 area? Can your offense focus on only 1 position group making plays? All no.

Unless you have such a talented receiver catching them that it doesn’t matter if the defense knows it’s coming, it is probably best to not run the play that often.

So your solution is to run plays the offense can't execute?

The problem was that the OL was bad.

 

[BiggsCoug]

So your solution is to run plays the offense can't execute?

The problem was that the OL was bad.

No. My solution is to run plays that keep the defense honest. And sometimes those plays don’t always net yardage, which is ok. The same way a team that throws 10 balls down the field doesn’t connect on 10/10. The offense makes the defense run the length of the field anyways. There is also value in what those plays set up. Run the ball 10 times in a row, is the pass open? Throw the ball deep 10 times in a row, has the defense cheated back and now the run is open?

When the OL was good, with Dillard and Abe, why didn’t Leach run the ball?

Good OL, bad OL, there are ways to run the ball. Draw, qb draw, lead qb draw. Play action run. Even commit more numbers in TEs and wings. Find a way to get better match ups.

Was this also the same OL that blocked for Jenkins 130 yards on 13 carries against SC?

I wont argue that the OL wasn’t very good. I also won’t argue the play calling and qb wasn’t very good either.

 

[dgibbons]

No. My solution is to run plays that keep the defense honest. And sometimes those plays don’t always net yardage, which is ok. The same way a team that throws 10 balls down the field doesn’t connect on 10/10. The offense makes the defense run the length of the field anyways. There is also value in what those plays set up. Run the ball 10 times in a row, is the pass open? Throw the ball deep 10 times in a row, has the defense cheated back and now the run is open?

When the OL was good, with Dillard and Abe, why didn’t Leach run the ball?

Good OL, bad OL, there are ways to run the ball. Draw, qb draw, lead qb draw. Play action run. Even commit more numbers in TEs and wings. Find a way to get better match ups.

Was this also the same OL that blocked for Jenkins 130 yards on 13 carries against SC?

I wont argue that the OL wasn’t very good. I also won’t argue the play calling and qb wasn’t very good either.

And it was the same OL that generated 23 rush yards against Oregon State. Everyone can cherry pick stats.

If the offense isn't very good, you run the plays you can execute.

 

[BiggsCoug]

And it was the same OL that generated 23 rush yards against Oregon State. Everyone can cherry pick stats.

If the offense isn't very good, you run the plays you can execute.

Do you know how to read stats?

Jenkins had 6 carries for 42 yards. 7 yard average.

It was Ward and his 11 attempts for -21 yards that made it 23 yards overall. Most likely being sacked that drove the overall numbers down. Not exactly the indictment you wanted to it be on the OL’s run blocking.

So looks like your cherry picking line backfired.

If your RB is averaging 7 yards per carry you keep feeding him.

 

[dgibbons]

Do you know how to read stats?

Jenkins had 6 carries for 42 yards. 7 yard average.

It was Ward and his 11 attempts for -21 yards that made it 23 yards overall. Most likely being sacked that drove the overall numbers down. Not exactly the indictment you wanted to it be on the OL’s run blocking.

So looks like your cherry picking line backfired.

If your RB is averaging 7 yards per carry you keep feeding him.

Except it didn't. Same OL was blocking. What other single games would you like to examine? Utah? Fresno State? That's just off the top of my head.

 

[BiggsCoug]

Except it didn't. Same OL was blocking. What other single games would you like to examine? Utah? Fresno State? That's just off the top of my head.

I dunno. Which games would you like to be found a fraud for your football knowledge? You aren’t able to read a stat line for comprehension. Wow. And you’re here to lecture others? Ok.

You point to a lack of execution but the kid averaged 7 yards per carry. Is that not up to your standard of execution?

 

[cr8zyncalif]

I'm curious, if a bunch of running plays get stuffed, should the OC keep calling them?

Gib, I used to hate it when a teacher would answer a question with another question. So now, of course, I do that very thing myself. My answer to your question is to ask you, "why did a bunch of running plays get stuffed"?

We often look to execution as the be all and end all. Certainly CML did; and he won enough games to show that sometimes...maybe even most of the time...execution is the major factor. But it is far from the only reason that a play gets stuffed. Even a smaller and out-manned D can stuff a good offense's run play if they commit enough resources. Of course, that leaves them open elsewhere, but if they are certain that a run play is coming, maybe it is a good decision. I'd suggest that last season we made virtually no effort to disguise bubble screens, and very seldom would show them and then run something else. Even good execution can be defeated by being sufficiently obvious.

Tactically we did not have a great run blocking line last year. But strategically we had to run enough to prevent the DC from pulling resources from stopping the run so he could use them to stop other things. Sometimes tactics and strategy end up in conflict for a specific play or plays. Usually strategy has to win that conflict, for obvious reasons. So no, we can't stop running the ball if we have several unsuccessful attempts. Now, that is not the same thing as saying that we should run the play over and over again. If the LB's are committing to dives, run a cross buck. If straight ahead blocking is not good, run something that involves a slant or slant and pull line scheme. If their rush is penetrating on sweeps, start that and come back the other way. Mix it up. But don't stop running the ball altogether.

You can't stop running. But you have to understand why your attempts failed and change it up in some manner. And even if the issue is execution, it could be anything from poor technique to sloppy or unfocused effort to simply being overpowered by someone who is physically superior. A good OC understands why it failed and adapts. You can't afford to throw out the baby with the bath water.

 

[BiggsCoug]

Gib, I used to hate it when a teacher would answer a question with another question. So now, of course, I do that very thing myself. My answer to your question is to ask you, "why did a bunch of running plays get stuffed"?

We often look to execution as the be all and end all. Certainly CML did; and he won enough games to show that sometimes...maybe even most of the time...execution is the major factor. But it is far from the only reason that a play gets stuffed. Even a smaller and out-manned D can stuff a good offense's run play if they commit enough resources. Of course, that leaves them open elsewhere, but if they are certain that a run play is coming, maybe it is a good decision. I'd suggest that last season we made virtually no effort to disguise bubble screens, and very seldom would show them and then run something else. Even good execution can be defeated by being sufficiently obvious.

Tactically we did not have a great run blocking line last year. But strategically we had to run enough to prevent the DC from pulling resources from stopping the run so he could use them to stop other things. Sometimes tactics and strategy end up in conflict for a specific play or plays. Usually strategy has to win that conflict, for obvious reasons. So no, we can't stop running the ball if we have several unsuccessful attempts. Now, that is not the same thing as saying that we should run the play over and over again. If the LB's are committing to dives, run a cross buck. If straight ahead blocking is not good, run something that involves a slant or slant and pull line scheme. If their rush is penetrating on sweeps, start that and come back the other way. Mix it up. But don't stop running the ball altogether.

You can't stop running. But you have to understand why your attempts failed and change it up in some manner. And even if the issue is execution, it could be anything from poor technique to sloppy or unfocused effort to simply being overpowered by someone who is physically superior. A good OC understands why it failed and adapts. You can't afford to throw out the baby with the bath water.

You only run the plays you can execute. Nothing else matters. All bubble screens all the time.

 

[dgibbons]

I dunno. Which games would you like to be found a fraud for your football knowledge? You aren’t able to read a stat line for comprehension. Wow. And you’re here to lecture others? Ok.

You point to a lack of execution but the kid averaged 7 yards per carry. Is that not up to your standard of execution?

His season average was 5.8 ypc.

What happens to his yards per carry if "you keep feeding him" with an OL that you do not dispute stinks. Please show us your brilliance.

 

[BiggsCoug]

His season average was 5.8 ypc.

What happens to his yards per carry if "you keep feeding him" with an OL that you do not dispute stinks. Please show us your brilliance.

Two things…

1) He could keep producing. Which only benefits the offense.

or

2) His average drops. Which Im fine with it dropping to 4 yards per carry. In theory, hand him the ball twice and it’s 3rd and 2. A good OC should be happy with that.

Ultimately I run my back until the defense has loaded up to stop him. Then I throw over the top or play action pass. Opens up more of the scheme.

What I don’t do is take a back averaging 5.8 ypc on the season and throw more bubble’s.

Please continue showing us your ignorance.

 

[dgibbons]

Gib, I used to hate it when a teacher would answer a question with another question. So now, of course, I do that very thing myself. My answer to your question is to ask you, "why did a bunch of running plays get stuffed"?

We often look to execution as the be all and end all. Certainly CML did; and he won enough games to show that sometimes...maybe even most of the time...execution is the major factor. But it is far from the only reason that a play gets stuffed. Even a smaller and out-manned D can stuff a good offense's run play if they commit enough resources. Of course, that leaves them open elsewhere, but if they are certain that a run play is coming, maybe it is a good decision. I'd suggest that last season we made virtually no effort to disguise bubble screens, and very seldom would show them and then run something else. Even good execution can be defeated by being sufficiently obvious.

Tactically we did not have a great run blocking line last year. But strategically we had to run enough to prevent the DC from pulling resources from stopping the run so he could use them to stop other things. Sometimes tactics and strategy end up in conflict for a specific play or plays. Usually strategy has to win that conflict, for obvious reasons. So no, we can't stop running the ball if we have several unsuccessful attempts. Now, that is not the same thing as saying that we should run the play over and over again. If the LB's are committing to dives, run a cross buck. If straight ahead blocking is not good, run something that involves a slant or slant and pull line scheme. If their rush is penetrating on sweeps, start that and come back the other way. Mix it up. But don't stop running the ball altogether.

You can't stop running. But you have to understand why your attempts failed and change it up in some manner. And even if the issue is execution, it could be anything from poor technique to sloppy or unfocused effort to simply being overpowered by someone who is physically superior. A good OC understands why it failed and adapts. You can't afford to throw out the baby with the bath water.

You, Biggs and sponge focus on the outliers, and don't consider whether the runs that pop are set up by the bubble screens. Plus, I will say for approximately the millionth time, the Air Raid is a PASSING OFFENSE. THAT'S WHAT IT IS. THAT MEANS THE BALL WILL BE THROWN. EVEN IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT. EVEN IF DOING SO IS NOT "CONVENTIONAL." GO COMPLAIN ABOUT THE FULLBACK DIVE ON THE NAVY FOOTBALL MESSAGE BOARD WHILE YOU'RE AT IT.

From what I saw, if you want to complain about bad coaching you're totally barking up the wrong tree. I'd really like to know why there seemed to be zero improvement on the scramble drill, given that the OL was undisputedly terrible. I'd like to know why there was nearly zero mesh concept, despite some of these guys being able to run mesh concept asleep and blindfolded. On the defensive side the zone coverage was trash. Third and long = first down, like stealing candy from a baby.