Dinich: State football hope and concern

'12 Football18

Video link to ESPN. Dinich says our hope is in the O-Line and our concern is with the linebackers, which is a fair assesment.

Some highlights:
Offensive Line:
*4 of 5 starters return, led by seniors Wentz and Mattes.
*96 combined career starts
*Average weight 312 lbs

Linebackers
*Replacing all 3 starters
*Young, inexperienced group
*Tenuta is back.

Please check out the SFN Forums to dicuss a variety of topics to get us through the next few months until football season.

About StateFans

'StateFansNation' is the shared profile used by any/all of the dozen or so authors that contribute to the blog. You may not always agree with us, but you will have little doubt about where we stand on most issues. Please follow us on Twitter and FaceBook

'12 Football

18 Responses to Dinich: State football hope and concern

  1. Greywolf 06/17/2012 at 9:51 AM #

    While not disagreeing with Dinich this thread
    http://www.statefansnationforums.com/topic.php?id=7466
    has a more comprensive discussion of this topic.

  2. StateFans 06/17/2012 at 9:55 AM #

    I recognize that we have a lot of experience returning in the offensive line…but, this exact same line struggled to create any semblence of a running game last year and didn’t do that much better protecting Glennon for more than quick drops.

    Will the experience translate to better play this year?

  3. TheCOWDOG 06/17/2012 at 10:08 AM #

    Heather is a silly girl. She does not know how to count.

    State has to replace 2 starting LBs, not three.

  4. RedandWhite97 06/17/2012 at 10:10 AM #

    ^I was hoping it would make a difference last year. I think there was improvement from 2010 to 2011, but not as much as I expected from a mostly junior line. I expect there to be improvement again from a mostly senior line (from ’11 to ’12) , but I’m not expecting this to be a ‘strength’ like HD and several of the preseason mags indicate. Hope the big boys prove me wrong!

  5. RedandWhite97 06/17/2012 at 10:13 AM #

    ^I was hoping OL exp. would make a difference last year. I think there was improvement from 2010 to 2011, but not as much as I expected from a mostly junior line. I expect there to be improvement again from a mostly senior line (from ’11 to ’12) , but I’m not expecting this to be a ‘strength’ like HD and several of the preseason mags indicate. Hope the big boys prove me wrong!

  6. old13 06/17/2012 at 10:34 AM #

    Cowdog, I believe that technically it is three STARTING LBs to be replaced as Lucas was not a starter. Cole, Green and Manning were the starters.

  7. tuckerdorm1983 06/17/2012 at 10:35 AM #

    Can’t wait to see how we do against the Vols

  8. TheCOWDOG 06/17/2012 at 10:41 AM #

    No, post GT, we played with 2 LBs and a Rover. ( Donte Johnson )

  9. JK3 06/17/2012 at 10:49 AM #

    “*4 of 5 starters return, led by seniors Wentz and Mattes.”

    Anyone want to take any bets on who will be some of the first players announced as injured and missing most or all of the season??

  10. Greywolf 06/17/2012 at 11:35 AM #

    Yeah, I’ll take those bets. No mention has been made of Strength and Conditioning Coach, Corey Edmunds. There were no significant injuries in the Spring and some players (Creecy in particular) are raving about how much stronger and explosive they are getting with the personalized workouts Coach Ed is designing for them.

    It’s easy to point to the OL for the failure of the running game. To some apparently the running backs have nothing to do with the success or failure of the running game. I wonder why anyone cares whether or not we land a 5* RB, it’s all on the OL.

    Does the phrase “coverage sacks” mean anything to you. In an offence designed to be basically a short pass, possession type offense coverage sacks can and will occur when the basic routes are not run well or the DBs know what’s coming. Having to protect an immobile QB also contributes to giving up sacks.

    Last but not IMO least an unimaginative offense that is easily prepared for can make the best look bad. When the Pack DLine knew a pass was coming, they looked like the Green Bay Packers. Bible’s refusal to put in wrinkles to keep the defense on it’s toes really helps the other team prepare for us and a well prepared team is a tough team to block.

    There’s not a lot anybody can do about Coach “Old Testament” but we can ‘pray.’

    I agree that there was not THAT much difference made from SO to JR year and wouldn’t expect the elevation of going from being JRs to SRs to greatly impact their performance. I do think that additional strength and explosiveness can and will make a difference. I for one am going to wait until AFTER the OL fails to improve before give up on them.

  11. tjfoose1 06/17/2012 at 12:09 PM #

    Does Dinich really collect a paycheck with this drivel?

  12. Wufpacker 06/17/2012 at 1:10 PM #

    I think maybe the pine trees have begun talking back to her.

  13. TheCOWDOG 06/17/2012 at 2:35 PM #

    ^ Hey Bra’ , they talk to me all the time.

    Happy Father’s day out there.

  14. tjfoose1 06/17/2012 at 3:09 PM #

    More imaginative play calling will do wonders for the OL.

    It’s amazing how much better they, and the entire offense, looked whenever Bible would sprinkle screens and misdirection into the flow of the play calling.

    We often went through long stretches without employing even the most basic of tactics to assist the OL and slow down the defense.

    It’s a heck of a lot easier to play D when you don’t have to wait, read, and react. “Keep them guessing” was often NOT in our game plan.

  15. Prowling Woofie 06/18/2012 at 10:53 AM #

    I know what we’ll run on first and ten…

  16. howlie 06/18/2012 at 11:31 AM #

    I understand it is the fashion to bash the OC, but I remember the brain-dead nazi doctor OC, as well as Mazzone, & Bible’s schemes are divine by comparison.

    I’m obviously looking from a different perspective, but it seems Dana ‘sets up’ the opponent with repetition, then springs something unexpected at just the right time.

    While I will concede that a brilliant OC like Chow (or misdirection of WFU or GT) can make a lot of average players look good, I think our offensive problems are on the OL. If you watched the WFU game last year, the comparison was glaring. Their line were beasts, and simply blew us off the ball. We were pushed around, perforated, & penetrated at will.

  17. logarithm 06/18/2012 at 8:49 PM #

    Wasn’t the upper-class experience of the o-line one of the things we thought was going to be a sure-fire thing to fall back on last year?

  18. Greywolf 06/18/2012 at 9:32 PM #

    @howlie,
    “Their(WF) line were beasts, and simply blew us off the ball. We were pushed around, perforated, & penetrated at will.”

    You realize of course the the misdirection etc., sets up those blocks, right? Were we doing things to confuse WF defense, we may have been ‘pushing around, perforating and penetrating at will.’ Repetition, i.e., running the same plays over and over, makes the OL look bad just as WF & GT misdirection makes average players look good.

    tjfoose1 and I aren’t suggesting running a WF or GT offense, we are suggesting enough motion, etc., to cause the opps defense to have to hesitate and think. As the DOG has said, what we did with Clemson messed with their heads. We want everybody’s head messed with.

    College football teams have a limited practice time. “Keeping it simple” maximizes the time available to prepare for teams keeping it overly simple.

    Your “repetition” theory above doesn’t work iwhen you fall behind 2 or 3 TDs like we did at BC and a few other losses.

Leave a Reply