I've thought it odd for a coordinator to call plays from the field. I kind of get it with Tish, since it's kind of a 2 man show with Lanning.

But Stein runs his own show, and I just don't understand how you can properly get a feel for the X's and O's at the field level to properly adjust to what the defense is doing.

And seeing that historically Stein's been bad at adjusting in game when the offense is struggling.

I'm sure he has eyes in the box for him, but I think he needs to see for himself what is going on and have someone at field level getting dudes on the phone instead.

I'm sure there are reasons and preferences, but aren't coordinators typically up in the box? IU's coordinators were.

Curious on others thoughts on this.

The performance of the offense was disappointing. The defense was not outstanding, but possibly good enough for a win against a fine Indiana team if the offense had played better.

Indiana's staff and players deserve much credit for their plan and execution, but I agree with many others that Stein was not at his best.

Specific problems:

1. Oregon had some success running the ball, especially with Jordan Davison between the guards. These kinds of plays featured our best two linemen and exploited their advantage against lighter defensive linemen. Many recall that Stein did not stick with this approach, for no apparent reason.

2. I remarked in the thread that OBD ran the ball into a seven-man box on first down early in the game, which predictably put us behind the chains. DL seemed to think this was a more frequent problem. I do not recall this being a persistent issue.

3. Erik Skopil stated that most of the sacks happened not because of our linemen lost one on one matchups, but when OBD were beaten by schemes that were not foreseen or not countered effectively. This issue was not fixed, but grew worse in the second half.

I have not coached or played one down of organized football, but I would think that the issues with the running game ought to have been apparent on the field. I would think it might be easier to see what the pass rushers are doing from the box. However, Stein may find it easier to coach Dante and Poncho on the field, and clearly some of that was needed.

To their credit, DL accepted responsibility rather than blame his players (unlike some other prominent coaches we have heard from recently), and Dante accepted blame rather than cast it on his teammates.

I respect them for that, and hold out some hope for improvement because of it.

I agree with you. Perhaps if he was in the box--he would see receivers downfield being missed. His reliance on the "check-downs" has become excessive, at least for this game, IMHO.

Although an experienced QB would make him look better on the sidelines!

If your job is "Xs and Os" how can you do it at the field level, you know?

Nobody ever schemes on a white board or tablet from a sideline view.

They spent a lot of money building boxes high in the sky for a reason.

I just can't fathom the advantage of being on the sidelines outweighing the bird's eye view. 🤷

Edited 1 hour ago1 hr by Solar

Oh the defensive side it is Lupoi and Hampton (in the box).

I'm not sure who is in the box on the offensive side of the ball right now.

But in not convinced making this change right now is worth it as it would throw their system off.

It was a poorly called game for sure but the players also didn't execute terribly well.

Everything from holding calls to Whittington not taking the first down yards in front of him was on the players. Moore missed throws he normally makes and there were receivers open but Moore never found.

My biggest criticism is one I make every single year... When there is a hit hand running the ball feed them the ball! Davison was gaining chunk yardage right up the gut. Let him be the featured back and run it.

In the end I think the run pass ratio was slightly pass heavy but I think we may have won that game if it became more run centric with Davison who really wasn't getting stopped.