Dichotomy Is The Word..............
- Thread starter PhxHorn
- Start date
Phx - it's a tossup which is more difficult: establishing a meaningful running game with our offense or attempting to succeed in readily accessing this Board.
In any case, this is just the kind of thread we all needed to see again -- and, surprise, it came from PhxHorn.
I've read (and reread) your initial post and each response -- it seems to me the whole thread is very good, full of substantive food for thought. Nonetheless, a couple of suggestions stood out in my feeble mind (after I compartmentalized Elle).
The suggestions in question were from HSS and HornInOz, both of whom appear to have playing and/or coaching experience related to the offensive line.
First, HSS has suggested that the Horns should have a couple of "signature running plays" that are aggressive (as distinguished from the draw plays we used with Hodges) and demand the kind of forceful blocking that could give our offensive team in general -- and our OL in particular -- at least a piece of the kind of dominating action that helps make you tough mentally. There have been several suggestions regarding what those plays might be -- but the important factor here would be that the Horns would have an aggressive "calling card" that the opposing defense (even if it's a Top Ten team) HAS to deal with successfully to keep UT from winning.
Or we'll run the damn plays all day.
And, as you have pointed out, PhxHorn, as the opposing defense reacts to those "signature" running plays, that would afford our OC (Mr. Davis) the opportunity to adjust our own offensive game plan to take advantage of the opposing defense's efforts to deal with those key running plays. THEN we might have a discernible pattern of offensive strategy that actually relates our "set-up" plays to those we implement as the game progressed.
HornInOz notes that we should have a "hard" script of about 20 plays and then hammer the three or four plays that work the best.
I think (they can correct me, of course, if I've misunderstood their points) they are talking about the same thing. We hear endlessly about how complex our offense is -- both Simms and Roy have been quoted directly to that effect. That's fine with the passing game (given our talent and the practice time allotments you have noted), but maybe we need to go the opposite direction with the running game.
Why not focus on a limited arsenal of running plays (that we DO have time to hone to perfection), include a counter trey, and force the opposing defense to stop "signature" running plays that have some aggressive force behind them.
It seems like we could do that within the framework of all the other factors that have been discussed in this thread. And that would go a long way, imo, towards addressing the concerns regarding the Davis-Nunez (Brown) approach to our running game, because those "signature" plays would be right there for everyone to see -- and we would either "execute" those plays or die in the process.
What we have right now is, as you (and others on this thread) already have pointed out, essentially much ado about nothing. The "passive approach" we used in the last two years (without a Ricky Williams) leaves a bad taste not only in our mouths, but also, imo, in the hearts and guts of our players.
We don't have to emphasize the running game more than the passing game to win this Fall at the University of Texas, but we damn sure better have some "signature" running plays this time around that have some aggressive force behind them (and can garner two yards when we have to have it) if we want to enjoy the whole enchilada.
Those refried beans are getting old.
Hook 'em.
Edited by kchorn on 5/13/01 01:02 AM.
In any case, this is just the kind of thread we all needed to see again -- and, surprise, it came from PhxHorn.
I've read (and reread) your initial post and each response -- it seems to me the whole thread is very good, full of substantive food for thought. Nonetheless, a couple of suggestions stood out in my feeble mind (after I compartmentalized Elle).
The suggestions in question were from HSS and HornInOz, both of whom appear to have playing and/or coaching experience related to the offensive line.
First, HSS has suggested that the Horns should have a couple of "signature running plays" that are aggressive (as distinguished from the draw plays we used with Hodges) and demand the kind of forceful blocking that could give our offensive team in general -- and our OL in particular -- at least a piece of the kind of dominating action that helps make you tough mentally. There have been several suggestions regarding what those plays might be -- but the important factor here would be that the Horns would have an aggressive "calling card" that the opposing defense (even if it's a Top Ten team) HAS to deal with successfully to keep UT from winning.
Or we'll run the damn plays all day.
And, as you have pointed out, PhxHorn, as the opposing defense reacts to those "signature" running plays, that would afford our OC (Mr. Davis) the opportunity to adjust our own offensive game plan to take advantage of the opposing defense's efforts to deal with those key running plays. THEN we might have a discernible pattern of offensive strategy that actually relates our "set-up" plays to those we implement as the game progressed.
HornInOz notes that we should have a "hard" script of about 20 plays and then hammer the three or four plays that work the best.
I think (they can correct me, of course, if I've misunderstood their points) they are talking about the same thing. We hear endlessly about how complex our offense is -- both Simms and Roy have been quoted directly to that effect. That's fine with the passing game (given our talent and the practice time allotments you have noted), but maybe we need to go the opposite direction with the running game.
Why not focus on a limited arsenal of running plays (that we DO have time to hone to perfection), include a counter trey, and force the opposing defense to stop "signature" running plays that have some aggressive force behind them.
It seems like we could do that within the framework of all the other factors that have been discussed in this thread. And that would go a long way, imo, towards addressing the concerns regarding the Davis-Nunez (Brown) approach to our running game, because those "signature" plays would be right there for everyone to see -- and we would either "execute" those plays or die in the process.
What we have right now is, as you (and others on this thread) already have pointed out, essentially much ado about nothing. The "passive approach" we used in the last two years (without a Ricky Williams) leaves a bad taste not only in our mouths, but also, imo, in the hearts and guts of our players.
We don't have to emphasize the running game more than the passing game to win this Fall at the University of Texas, but we damn sure better have some "signature" running plays this time around that have some aggressive force behind them (and can garner two yards when we have to have it) if we want to enjoy the whole enchilada.
Those refried beans are getting old.
Hook 'em.
Edited by kchorn on 5/13/01 01:02 AM.
GOBH, HIO, HSS, and kchorn, thanks for some very well conceived and well articulated responses. kc, it's good to see you again - I was concerned that my suggestion of FB abandonment would send you onto the ledge with CloseToJumping/horndfl.
I've got a mixed reaction to GOBH's very astute observations about there coming a day when, for either reasons of human frailty or curses from the weather gods, we have to run the ball. First, we did have several wet fields last season and the only time I recall us struggling was vs OU, and I don't think that was due to the damp. It certainly didn't bother the Sooners very much.
My personal view is that good teams don't necessarily take what the other teams give them, they take what they want. For us, that's the pass and, if we face a secondary who can run with the Big Three (and OU will be able to do so), we've got to win our share of those individual matchups, be it through scheme and route design or by player effort. Great players make plays, and, if we can't muster the playmaking to make our base offense successful, then we're likely ******.
To clarify the above - when I talk about executing the base offense, that means vs the opponents base defense, whether it be a 4-3 when we're in the two back, two WR set, or whether they're in the nickel/dime when we go four receiver/ one back formations. Our base offense, in that situation, simply must be good enough to force the opponents' to compromise their defensive posture to stop our passing game - and, when they do, then we must be able to run the ball, be it through draws, traps, counters, or whatever. I do like HSS' idea of getting the ball outside the tackles, thereby negating the inside blitzers.
A parallel to the above, on the other facet of the offense, is UNL. The Huskers are going to run the ball, using the option to stretch the field horizontally and the inside game to pound it between the tackles. The natural reaction from a defense that can't stop their attack with a base set, say the 4-3, is to cheat up one, or both safeties for increased run support. When that happens, ie, the defense has compromised their base set, then Crouch hits Wistrom, who's behind the cheating safeties, for about forty.
The same scenario could be said for us in 1998, as others have noted. We were using the same basic formations and blocking schemes that are still in place, possibly even less sophisticated (if that's possible), yet we ran effectively due to Ricky's outstanding skills and the blocking of the veteran Mike Deal-developed line. That success gave us a lot of eight-nine in the box and opened it up for Applewhite. Fast forward to this season - we don't know yet if we have that coveted tackle-breaking TB, but I didn't see one in spring. The OL, developed under that tutelage of Tim Nunez, is looking to be a solid pass protection unit, but I was underwhelmed with the run blocking. Tim, according to his resume, has coached the OL at Marshall and here, in both cases the offenses being pass oriented. I don't know how much experience he has in teaching the zone blocking techniques that he and Davis seem to favor. I also can't tell how much the OL's performance is hampered by the schemes and by the lack of a strong TB.
The other concern, that others have already alluded to, is the predictability of our playcalling. I claim no expertise in this aread, but others - better skilled than I - have made a habit of calling too many of our plays prior to the snap for my comfort level. If they can see it, presumably opposing DCs can see it, as well. The danger with that is a defense able to predict the play with some degree of accuracy is a defense tough to move out of their base set. For example, if we're running four receivers and the defense is in a nickel and playing a two deep zone, we should be able to pound it through the thinned box with success. However, if the safeties read run, they can walk it up during the snap count and turn into two additional LBs. Likewise, if the LBs read run, they start looking for gaps to shoot to disrupt the play in the backfield, rather than thinking about their drop zones. IOW, predictability allows an opponent to compensate for our strength, without being exposed for his adjustments.
I've got a mixed reaction to GOBH's very astute observations about there coming a day when, for either reasons of human frailty or curses from the weather gods, we have to run the ball. First, we did have several wet fields last season and the only time I recall us struggling was vs OU, and I don't think that was due to the damp. It certainly didn't bother the Sooners very much.
My personal view is that good teams don't necessarily take what the other teams give them, they take what they want. For us, that's the pass and, if we face a secondary who can run with the Big Three (and OU will be able to do so), we've got to win our share of those individual matchups, be it through scheme and route design or by player effort. Great players make plays, and, if we can't muster the playmaking to make our base offense successful, then we're likely ******.
To clarify the above - when I talk about executing the base offense, that means vs the opponents base defense, whether it be a 4-3 when we're in the two back, two WR set, or whether they're in the nickel/dime when we go four receiver/ one back formations. Our base offense, in that situation, simply must be good enough to force the opponents' to compromise their defensive posture to stop our passing game - and, when they do, then we must be able to run the ball, be it through draws, traps, counters, or whatever. I do like HSS' idea of getting the ball outside the tackles, thereby negating the inside blitzers.
A parallel to the above, on the other facet of the offense, is UNL. The Huskers are going to run the ball, using the option to stretch the field horizontally and the inside game to pound it between the tackles. The natural reaction from a defense that can't stop their attack with a base set, say the 4-3, is to cheat up one, or both safeties for increased run support. When that happens, ie, the defense has compromised their base set, then Crouch hits Wistrom, who's behind the cheating safeties, for about forty.
The same scenario could be said for us in 1998, as others have noted. We were using the same basic formations and blocking schemes that are still in place, possibly even less sophisticated (if that's possible), yet we ran effectively due to Ricky's outstanding skills and the blocking of the veteran Mike Deal-developed line. That success gave us a lot of eight-nine in the box and opened it up for Applewhite. Fast forward to this season - we don't know yet if we have that coveted tackle-breaking TB, but I didn't see one in spring. The OL, developed under that tutelage of Tim Nunez, is looking to be a solid pass protection unit, but I was underwhelmed with the run blocking. Tim, according to his resume, has coached the OL at Marshall and here, in both cases the offenses being pass oriented. I don't know how much experience he has in teaching the zone blocking techniques that he and Davis seem to favor. I also can't tell how much the OL's performance is hampered by the schemes and by the lack of a strong TB.
The other concern, that others have already alluded to, is the predictability of our playcalling. I claim no expertise in this aread, but others - better skilled than I - have made a habit of calling too many of our plays prior to the snap for my comfort level. If they can see it, presumably opposing DCs can see it, as well. The danger with that is a defense able to predict the play with some degree of accuracy is a defense tough to move out of their base set. For example, if we're running four receivers and the defense is in a nickel and playing a two deep zone, we should be able to pound it through the thinned box with success. However, if the safeties read run, they can walk it up during the snap count and turn into two additional LBs. Likewise, if the LBs read run, they start looking for gaps to shoot to disrupt the play in the backfield, rather than thinking about their drop zones. IOW, predictability allows an opponent to compensate for our strength, without being exposed for his adjustments.
Homer Simms Son
< 25 Posts
After years of collaboration and bull-sessions, I feel qualified to note that KC forgot to add that the signature play (series) can not be the DAMN DRAW!!!
Fundamentals are job one in 2001
Fundamentals are job one in 2001
Actually, HSS - there is a reference in my post above to the fact that we need some "signature" running plays that are aggressive -- as distinguished from the draw plays we ran with Hodges last season. In any case, we're on the same page, as usual.
Phx, if you come back through here (or if anyone else has an interest) -- what is your view of the "signature running play" issue?
Hook 'em.
Phx, if you come back through here (or if anyone else has an interest) -- what is your view of the "signature running play" issue?
Hook 'em.
kchorn -- in reference to your astute ability to highlight themes and make clarity out of opaquness, my basic point was sticking to plays that work after running an opening "hard" script. The reason I say "hard" script, is due to the fact we are running a scripted offense at the outset-- but the script is based on what the quarterback reads from the defense. My point, to be clear, is to get in the huddle, call one play, line up-- and fire out on "ONE" (or TWO if the line anticipates). This is precicely the way Bill Walsh ran his WCO in San Fran's golden years (pardon the 49er referenced pun).
PhxHorn -- you might find this hard to believe, but I've actually watched Marshall play a few times during Nunez' last year as OC there (my wife is an alum). They got by very well using a one RB set, and did very little other than execute zone/base blocking schemes. The reason? It really wasn't Moss or Pennington (although they helped)-- it was a smallish RB who had the ability to hit the LOS in an instant and, as well, had the ability to break a few tackles (I can't believe I don't remember the poor guy's name ). After looking at the Oregon game, the first thing that came into my mind was how fast one of their RBs hit the LOS and always managed to get a few yards. Again, after two beers, the name escapes me-- Rpongett can help us on that one.
My final point (since I'm failing miserably in the name placing department) is that we don't necessarily need another Ricky Williams to make the running game work under the current scheme. What we need is an RB with the ability to quickly read and hit the LOS before anyone really notices, and then break one arm tackle (RW was superb in hitting the LOS quickly). That equates to a 3 yard gain in most circumstances. Again, everything I've seen or heard about CB is his ability to do just that. We shall see.
kchorn -- as far as running "staple" plays, I'm a little mixed on the concept, as it pertains to our offensive play calling. On the one hand, putting in a new wrinkle, like the counter-trey, and perfecting it is appealing. On the other hand, if it begins to have much success, Greg Davis is using to so often (as in tunnel screen) it's effectiveness really wears off quickly. If we had the ability to keep 6-7 scripted running plays, ran them all in the first 20, and came back to the 3 most effective ones-- well, I think I'd be pretty happy.
Ok-- THAT was my last point!
________
Go Horns Go!
PhxHorn -- you might find this hard to believe, but I've actually watched Marshall play a few times during Nunez' last year as OC there (my wife is an alum). They got by very well using a one RB set, and did very little other than execute zone/base blocking schemes. The reason? It really wasn't Moss or Pennington (although they helped)-- it was a smallish RB who had the ability to hit the LOS in an instant and, as well, had the ability to break a few tackles (I can't believe I don't remember the poor guy's name ). After looking at the Oregon game, the first thing that came into my mind was how fast one of their RBs hit the LOS and always managed to get a few yards. Again, after two beers, the name escapes me-- Rpongett can help us on that one.
My final point (since I'm failing miserably in the name placing department) is that we don't necessarily need another Ricky Williams to make the running game work under the current scheme. What we need is an RB with the ability to quickly read and hit the LOS before anyone really notices, and then break one arm tackle (RW was superb in hitting the LOS quickly). That equates to a 3 yard gain in most circumstances. Again, everything I've seen or heard about CB is his ability to do just that. We shall see.
kchorn -- as far as running "staple" plays, I'm a little mixed on the concept, as it pertains to our offensive play calling. On the one hand, putting in a new wrinkle, like the counter-trey, and perfecting it is appealing. On the other hand, if it begins to have much success, Greg Davis is using to so often (as in tunnel screen) it's effectiveness really wears off quickly. If we had the ability to keep 6-7 scripted running plays, ran them all in the first 20, and came back to the 3 most effective ones-- well, I think I'd be pretty happy.
Ok-- THAT was my last point!
________
Go Horns Go!
Thanks, HornInOz - that's another good post.
Each of your points makes good sense, imo, and it seems to me that your approach would be consistent with the notion of limiting the number of running plays in our repertoire so that we could then practice enough -- even with the limited practice time available -- to execute those plays precisely.
Then, as I understand your explanation, we could select the three or four plays from that group that work the best against a particular opponent and go with those until the opponent adjusts (if ever). Once the adjustment is made on the defensive side, then it's up to our OC to counter by going to whatever offensive plays would be the most likely to take advantage of the changes in the defense.
It certainly seems like we could do that -- and include a counter trey in the mix -- without any great difficulty. So if we're not doing that, what's the reason? Again, I wonder if the media ever discusses this type of issue with Mack when he has his press conferences, or when they interview him (or Davis) separately.
In any case, these are all interesting and constructive thoughts -- and one common note has been sounded throughout the thread: the right running back could make a huge difference this Fall.
Hook 'em.
Edited by kchorn on 5/13/01 01:17 AM.
Each of your points makes good sense, imo, and it seems to me that your approach would be consistent with the notion of limiting the number of running plays in our repertoire so that we could then practice enough -- even with the limited practice time available -- to execute those plays precisely.
Then, as I understand your explanation, we could select the three or four plays from that group that work the best against a particular opponent and go with those until the opponent adjusts (if ever). Once the adjustment is made on the defensive side, then it's up to our OC to counter by going to whatever offensive plays would be the most likely to take advantage of the changes in the defense.
It certainly seems like we could do that -- and include a counter trey in the mix -- without any great difficulty. So if we're not doing that, what's the reason? Again, I wonder if the media ever discusses this type of issue with Mack when he has his press conferences, or when they interview him (or Davis) separately.
In any case, these are all interesting and constructive thoughts -- and one common note has been sounded throughout the thread: the right running back could make a huge difference this Fall.
Hook 'em.
Edited by kchorn on 5/13/01 01:17 AM.
HIO, I believe the UO running back was Maurice Morris, who was the top producer in the nation year before last. Can't help you on Marshall, but thanks for the insights - I didn't to see them during Nunez tenure there, but I know they put up some impressive numbers.
KC, I'm more in line with HIO about the use of a few scripted running plays. To that end, it appeared that we were attempting that in spring - it didn't look to me that we ran more than 5-6 plays, although we did run them out of multiple formations, which gives the D different while simplifying the line blocking assignments. I did not the counter trey and doubt we'll see it, although one can hope, I suppose. Perhaps I should just be content that we now pull the guards every now and then.
I think it was Walsh who either started, or at least popularized, the scripting approach and apparently it's prettty widely used. However, when you consider the number of slow starts we had this year - only 14% of our points came in the first - I have to wonder if our scriptwriting might need some enhancement and editing. From where I sat, it looked like macho city - we come out determined to prove our worth by pounding it between the tackles, they come out determined to stop the run, thereby making us one-dimensional, and load eight in the box. They seemed to win more often than we did.
Now, I understand that a coordinator has to test the opponent's defense to figure out what their defensive strategy in going to be. However, it seems to me that it could be tested with plays having a higher probability of success than what we've accomplished. I don't know how much freedom the QB has to audible in the initial series, but I certainly hope he had the authority, after spotting the defense with eight up, to audible to some kind of passing play. Likewise, if we've got a pass on and he notices the D softening up and safeties going deep zone, I would hope he could opt for a draw, or some other running play.
At any rate, I think HIO's concept of a game plan consisting of relatively few plays, those to be tested fairly early to determine the success factor, makes good sense. After all, the key to nearly every play in each game is quality of execution and the odds of successful execution would seem to escalate where we've devoted substantial practice time.
kc, I'm not sure how tough the media is on Brown and Davis, but I suspect they're not too tough. Brown, for all his charm and media skill, has shown he can be thin-skinned when the questions may get into the quick. He seems especially defensive of his coaches, a trait for which I don't fault the man. After all, it's hardly good technique to throw a subordinate to the wolves in public. Additionally, the media have to work with these guys on a day in, day out basis, so I doubt they're going to do anything that might lessen their access. Bottom line, I doubt that these types of questions get posed in a public forum
KC, I'm more in line with HIO about the use of a few scripted running plays. To that end, it appeared that we were attempting that in spring - it didn't look to me that we ran more than 5-6 plays, although we did run them out of multiple formations, which gives the D different while simplifying the line blocking assignments. I did not the counter trey and doubt we'll see it, although one can hope, I suppose. Perhaps I should just be content that we now pull the guards every now and then.
I think it was Walsh who either started, or at least popularized, the scripting approach and apparently it's prettty widely used. However, when you consider the number of slow starts we had this year - only 14% of our points came in the first - I have to wonder if our scriptwriting might need some enhancement and editing. From where I sat, it looked like macho city - we come out determined to prove our worth by pounding it between the tackles, they come out determined to stop the run, thereby making us one-dimensional, and load eight in the box. They seemed to win more often than we did.
Now, I understand that a coordinator has to test the opponent's defense to figure out what their defensive strategy in going to be. However, it seems to me that it could be tested with plays having a higher probability of success than what we've accomplished. I don't know how much freedom the QB has to audible in the initial series, but I certainly hope he had the authority, after spotting the defense with eight up, to audible to some kind of passing play. Likewise, if we've got a pass on and he notices the D softening up and safeties going deep zone, I would hope he could opt for a draw, or some other running play.
At any rate, I think HIO's concept of a game plan consisting of relatively few plays, those to be tested fairly early to determine the success factor, makes good sense. After all, the key to nearly every play in each game is quality of execution and the odds of successful execution would seem to escalate where we've devoted substantial practice time.
kc, I'm not sure how tough the media is on Brown and Davis, but I suspect they're not too tough. Brown, for all his charm and media skill, has shown he can be thin-skinned when the questions may get into the quick. He seems especially defensive of his coaches, a trait for which I don't fault the man. After all, it's hardly good technique to throw a subordinate to the wolves in public. Additionally, the media have to work with these guys on a day in, day out basis, so I doubt they're going to do anything that might lessen their access. Bottom line, I doubt that these types of questions get posed in a public forum
Normally I don't post once a particular thread surpasses 20 printed pages, but I can't help myself. This is yet another excellent post from the fertile mind of PhxHorn. His posts seem to bring out the best in everyone's responses and we are lucky to have his contributions here. Now, Phx, if you could figure out this broadband stuff...
You made an excellent comment that is so simple in this game yet often overlooked in the quest for the perfect scheme, or gameplan: That great players make great plays. Count me in the minority, but I don't really have an issue with our offensive scheme at this time. I believe that execution, and great players, will make this offense click.
The Greg Davis offense heavily relies on YAC plays; meaning Yards after Contact or after the Catch. The much maligned O-line and it's coach are not counted on to create massive, gaping, drive-a-truck through holes in the D-line. Rather, as many on this thread have pointed out, the SEAMS are what's important. So the lust for the counter trey is unfounded if we have a back that can sniff out the seams and burst through the arm tackles along the line. I have a pretty strong feeling that we will be seeing a far more successful running/blocking game once said running back is in place. Of course, I believe that back to be Cedric Benson, but that thread has been beaten into the ground so I will wait untill August before I annoint him the savior of the balanced attack.
I am also of the opinion that there is NO better way to beat a solid opponent then when you have a powerful rushing attack. Yes, the spread will open up the running game, but what if you have a running game that is still successful even when the defense knows you are going to run? What if you need 1 yard, and the defense lines up to stop you, and you continuously get 2? What if you hold a slim lead in the fourth quarter, and the defense needs some rest? What if your strong armed QB makes a mistake in his reads, misses a disguised zone and throws a pick (or four) for six? TTFT can often bite you in the ***.
As far as the scripted plays and the 5 or 6 special, successful running plays; did not Mack Brown say exactly that, that he wanted a few plays that they were good at and to master those plays until they were great?
We have the talent and depth on offense to run any type of scheme because, to a man, ours are better than theirs. We would be foolish to abandon any hopes of a power running game to simply pass the hell out of the ball. Sure, we'd kill most teams, but we kill most teams anyway. It's the two or three that we have trouble with and not being able to convert 3rd and short on the ground killed us last year. Yes, we couldv'e passed in those situations, or we could put someone in there who can get that ******* 2 yards between the tackles. Great players make great plays and great offensive coaches. See Josh Huypel.
Remember, this is still a game of inches.
I myself dabbled in pacifism once. Not in 'Nam, of course.
-Walter
Edited by Sejjr on 5/13/01 03:46 PM.
You made an excellent comment that is so simple in this game yet often overlooked in the quest for the perfect scheme, or gameplan: That great players make great plays. Count me in the minority, but I don't really have an issue with our offensive scheme at this time. I believe that execution, and great players, will make this offense click.
The Greg Davis offense heavily relies on YAC plays; meaning Yards after Contact or after the Catch. The much maligned O-line and it's coach are not counted on to create massive, gaping, drive-a-truck through holes in the D-line. Rather, as many on this thread have pointed out, the SEAMS are what's important. So the lust for the counter trey is unfounded if we have a back that can sniff out the seams and burst through the arm tackles along the line. I have a pretty strong feeling that we will be seeing a far more successful running/blocking game once said running back is in place. Of course, I believe that back to be Cedric Benson, but that thread has been beaten into the ground so I will wait untill August before I annoint him the savior of the balanced attack.
I am also of the opinion that there is NO better way to beat a solid opponent then when you have a powerful rushing attack. Yes, the spread will open up the running game, but what if you have a running game that is still successful even when the defense knows you are going to run? What if you need 1 yard, and the defense lines up to stop you, and you continuously get 2? What if you hold a slim lead in the fourth quarter, and the defense needs some rest? What if your strong armed QB makes a mistake in his reads, misses a disguised zone and throws a pick (or four) for six? TTFT can often bite you in the ***.
As far as the scripted plays and the 5 or 6 special, successful running plays; did not Mack Brown say exactly that, that he wanted a few plays that they were good at and to master those plays until they were great?
We have the talent and depth on offense to run any type of scheme because, to a man, ours are better than theirs. We would be foolish to abandon any hopes of a power running game to simply pass the hell out of the ball. Sure, we'd kill most teams, but we kill most teams anyway. It's the two or three that we have trouble with and not being able to convert 3rd and short on the ground killed us last year. Yes, we couldv'e passed in those situations, or we could put someone in there who can get that ******* 2 yards between the tackles. Great players make great plays and great offensive coaches. See Josh Huypel.
Remember, this is still a game of inches.
I myself dabbled in pacifism once. Not in 'Nam, of course.
-Walter
Edited by Sejjr on 5/13/01 03:46 PM.
Sejjr -- excellent post. I think you've summarized most of what we belive is true about this offensive staff, like it or not. As Phx pointed out, we might WANT to see those counter-treys, but GD's philosophy tells us otherwise.
As for the idea of scripted plays, my issue is that we currently go two the LOS with two plays (at least) in mind. Once the QB "reads and reacts" to the defensive alignment (after milking 25 seconds or so) either Play "A" or Play "B" is called. My point is that we should line up with ONE and ONLY ONE play in mind and run it-- at least under the first 20 plays. I think audibles and reads are what box us into running 95% base/zone blocking plays-- and opposing defenses know when it is coming. I could live with 70% of our plays being base blocking and seam dependent, but Davis needs a collection of running plays that can create gaping holes as a Plan "B".
Lord knows, we needed Plan "B" last year and it took GD until late October to come up with a simple trap play. And two weeks later to some up with a Roy-based reverse.
If CB or another RB becomes the seam-buster we are so desparately seeking, then the point (as Sejjr so deftly points out) is moot. Then all we need to worry about is all the possible holes on defense...
________
Go Horns Go!
As for the idea of scripted plays, my issue is that we currently go two the LOS with two plays (at least) in mind. Once the QB "reads and reacts" to the defensive alignment (after milking 25 seconds or so) either Play "A" or Play "B" is called. My point is that we should line up with ONE and ONLY ONE play in mind and run it-- at least under the first 20 plays. I think audibles and reads are what box us into running 95% base/zone blocking plays-- and opposing defenses know when it is coming. I could live with 70% of our plays being base blocking and seam dependent, but Davis needs a collection of running plays that can create gaping holes as a Plan "B".
Lord knows, we needed Plan "B" last year and it took GD until late October to come up with a simple trap play. And two weeks later to some up with a Roy-based reverse.
If CB or another RB becomes the seam-buster we are so desparately seeking, then the point (as Sejjr so deftly points out) is moot. Then all we need to worry about is all the possible holes on defense...
________
Go Horns Go!
Was the Marshall running back Doug Chapman? I think he's a back-up for the Vikings now.
An opinion is a direct attack on the politically correct.
[email protected]
An opinion is a direct attack on the politically correct.
[email protected]
It's kind of a chicken / egg thing. Is the running attack there to set up the pass or vice versa? The bottom line is that, depending on the personell, you build your offense accordingly. When you guys had Ricky Williams winning the Heisman and Major gunslingin', your offense was unreal. (I should know. I threw an empty keg through a plate glass window back in 1998 watching that game. I really thought we had a shot until Demond had that TD called back... how many did that make called back against you guys for his career, 3? 4? Damn...)But, the bottom line is that, lately, nobody has really had to respect EITHER aspect of your O with Major hurt, Chris learning and the running game being more or less anemic. That ALLLLLL changes next year. You're bringing back a young and hungry and VERY talented offense, and what will be a much improved D. Sure you lose a few players, but, everybody does. OU lost two of their best defenders and we'll have an even better D this year. Mark my words...
I think that Texas will compete for a Big 12 Title this year, but it'll all be based on Oct 6th. Just like it should be. You've got all the weapons in place, and Mack just has to prove that he can make the calls when they matter the most... Until that happens, you're the favorite in the South... for second. Do I think you can beat us? Hell yes you CAN !!! Do I think you will? Hell no I don't. I wouldn't be a Sooner if I said that you did. But, if you DO beat us, the NC talk will start right after the game and go until you get bucked off or win it all. If you beat us and DON'T win it all... Next year is gonna be slim pickin' around the Austin Ranch. See you in the fall...
--------------------
If you can't bring an argument, PLEASE don't bring your lack of one at a higher volume. Thank you...
I think that Texas will compete for a Big 12 Title this year, but it'll all be based on Oct 6th. Just like it should be. You've got all the weapons in place, and Mack just has to prove that he can make the calls when they matter the most... Until that happens, you're the favorite in the South... for second. Do I think you can beat us? Hell yes you CAN !!! Do I think you will? Hell no I don't. I wouldn't be a Sooner if I said that you did. But, if you DO beat us, the NC talk will start right after the game and go until you get bucked off or win it all. If you beat us and DON'T win it all... Next year is gonna be slim pickin' around the Austin Ranch. See you in the fall...
--------------------
If you can't bring an argument, PLEASE don't bring your lack of one at a higher volume. Thank you...
Rpongett-- thanks for your response, despite your effots to ruin the party!
You actually bring up some very interesting points, as well as something missing from this discussion that I'd like to bring forward for consideration.
First of all, the view that a "hard" script for any offense is counterprodutive is certainly open to debate. I've seen it work very well for some and not so well for others. My sense is that RC has the potential mess up just about ANY type of offensive plan, let alone the mechanics of doing a "script". But again, you get a few good check marks in my mind for questioning whether it would work well for "our offense".
The point of a "hard" script, simply put, is to explore what you need to be running in certain situations by seeing how the defense reacts early in the game. The 49ers would run scripted plays based on certain situations (2nd and 10, 3rd and 2, etc.) and have those plays on a list, "ready" for those situations. And they basically lined up and ran them. After executing those 20 plays, Montana would make an effort pre-snap to read the defenses and audibled to those plays that tended to work best in the 1st quarter.
It's not a foolproof method, mind you, but there were many games where the 49ers would jump out to some good early leads just by running these plays back-to-back-to-back. The point being, most defenses will be running their base sets at the start of the game to get a feel for the offense as well. Many teams did a pretty good job of running "hard" scripts against our defense last year, and got early leads. Before you ask, Kansas and Stanford are examples.
The bigger issue, in my humble opinion, is how we approach calling plays at the line. For every scripted play we stand at risk for calling "wrong" because might run into the teeth of a blitz, I've clearly see a pattern of QB's making the "wrong" audibles by simply misreading defenses (running the dreaded trap play in the teeth of a blitz, or throwing a 7 yard out on 3rd and 10). Why? Likely because defenses were disguising their alignment until just before the snap.
My point is that we have a terribly predictable pattern in operating this offense. Same rhythm, same read progression, same wait until there are exactly 1.5 seconds left to snap the ball, and same base blocking schemes after the snap. At one point last year, I could (with some regularlity) guess what we were about to run just by the formation. I'm sure more than one DC in this conference figured out our reading schemes, and could narrow down what we were going to run-- well before the snap of the ball. And all a defense had to do was disguise alignments until, say, the 3 second mark.
Maybe the better question to pose-- Rpongett, et.al., is whether we are doing more damage than good to our offensive productivity by going through these reads on EVERY SINGLE PLAY. Part of benefit of running a "hard" script is not only "exploration", but the exercise speeds as well as changes the rhythm of the offense. IMO, I feel we need that change in rhythm just as much as needing that ever elusive "YAC" tailback.
I'd be interested in your thoughts on this issue...
________
Go Horns Go!
You actually bring up some very interesting points, as well as something missing from this discussion that I'd like to bring forward for consideration.
First of all, the view that a "hard" script for any offense is counterprodutive is certainly open to debate. I've seen it work very well for some and not so well for others. My sense is that RC has the potential mess up just about ANY type of offensive plan, let alone the mechanics of doing a "script". But again, you get a few good check marks in my mind for questioning whether it would work well for "our offense".
The point of a "hard" script, simply put, is to explore what you need to be running in certain situations by seeing how the defense reacts early in the game. The 49ers would run scripted plays based on certain situations (2nd and 10, 3rd and 2, etc.) and have those plays on a list, "ready" for those situations. And they basically lined up and ran them. After executing those 20 plays, Montana would make an effort pre-snap to read the defenses and audibled to those plays that tended to work best in the 1st quarter.
It's not a foolproof method, mind you, but there were many games where the 49ers would jump out to some good early leads just by running these plays back-to-back-to-back. The point being, most defenses will be running their base sets at the start of the game to get a feel for the offense as well. Many teams did a pretty good job of running "hard" scripts against our defense last year, and got early leads. Before you ask, Kansas and Stanford are examples.
The bigger issue, in my humble opinion, is how we approach calling plays at the line. For every scripted play we stand at risk for calling "wrong" because might run into the teeth of a blitz, I've clearly see a pattern of QB's making the "wrong" audibles by simply misreading defenses (running the dreaded trap play in the teeth of a blitz, or throwing a 7 yard out on 3rd and 10). Why? Likely because defenses were disguising their alignment until just before the snap.
My point is that we have a terribly predictable pattern in operating this offense. Same rhythm, same read progression, same wait until there are exactly 1.5 seconds left to snap the ball, and same base blocking schemes after the snap. At one point last year, I could (with some regularlity) guess what we were about to run just by the formation. I'm sure more than one DC in this conference figured out our reading schemes, and could narrow down what we were going to run-- well before the snap of the ball. And all a defense had to do was disguise alignments until, say, the 3 second mark.
Maybe the better question to pose-- Rpongett, et.al., is whether we are doing more damage than good to our offensive productivity by going through these reads on EVERY SINGLE PLAY. Part of benefit of running a "hard" script is not only "exploration", but the exercise speeds as well as changes the rhythm of the offense. IMO, I feel we need that change in rhythm just as much as needing that ever elusive "YAC" tailback.
I'd be interested in your thoughts on this issue...
________
Go Horns Go!
gemini & PhxHorn -- thank you very much for filling in the blanks on the RB's. Morris came ot me pretty quickly, but I would have had to dig through some programs to remember Chapman.
SicHuevos -- what you might not appreciate is that our OC has a knack for living or dying with his "system". If he doesn't have the personnel already in place, it has proven to take a lot of time to make the necessary adjustments. Ricky Williams was featured more because he was exactly the type of RB the offense needs to be effective.
You might want to ask others, but I have yet to see this OC new designs schemes around the talent we currently have. Just remember, though, when we have the personnel-- and we're close-- this offense will be hard to stop.
That being said, I think Stoops has seen some patterns in our offense that he will continue to exploit until we get it figured out. In other words, I think our win on 10/6 will end up being a pretty low scoring affair.
________
Go Horns Go!
SicHuevos -- what you might not appreciate is that our OC has a knack for living or dying with his "system". If he doesn't have the personnel already in place, it has proven to take a lot of time to make the necessary adjustments. Ricky Williams was featured more because he was exactly the type of RB the offense needs to be effective.
You might want to ask others, but I have yet to see this OC new designs schemes around the talent we currently have. Just remember, though, when we have the personnel-- and we're close-- this offense will be hard to stop.
That being said, I think Stoops has seen some patterns in our offense that he will continue to exploit until we get it figured out. In other words, I think our win on 10/6 will end up being a pretty low scoring affair.
________
Go Horns Go!
rpongett
100+ Posts
HorninOz:
Actually, the RB that hits the whole the quickest for Oregon (and did so against us also), was Alan Amundson (sp?). Morris was the buy who burned us on the screen on 3rd and long for a TD -- that play probably determined the winner more than any other, including our drops (I believe Greg Brown whiffed on Morris on it, too). Amundson is shorter and quicker, while Morris is bigger, but also fast as hell (FYI, on some lists, it was Morris, and not Auburn's Rudi Johnson, who was the #1 JUCO RB last year, and I think Morris also broke the All-Time JUCO rushing record). Another FYI, the guy that probably will hit the whole quickest this year, though still as a backup to Morris, will be Onterrio Smith -- yes, the same Onterrio Smith that kicked *** in the Cal-Tex All-Star game two years ago, and went to Tennesee (he transferred to Oregon).
Re "Hard" scripting, I still don't see the advantage. If you're worried about predictability based on schemes, then the logical thing to do would be to switch up the plays out of particular formations, or just have the QB vary the changes at the LOS -- just not in a way which runs into the teeeth of a defense, as such a "Hard" script would do.
I see absolutely zero advantage in "hard" scripting to reduce predictability that couldn't easily be solved just by adjusting play options and getting the QB to vary line calls more.
This is an annoyingly lame counter-argument, but I couldn't help think about as you brought up Walsh's 49ers: weren't they always falling in a hole, even against crappy teams, and having to come back on these 2-minute style passing drills with Joe Montana improvisation late in games? Maybe, in retrospect, he should have junked it altogether and let Joe do as them from the opening snap (he might have also shifted to that over time).
Another argument against such scripting: it goes totally against the success the Spread offenses are currently enjoying. They basically have the QB make all adjustments at the line as they line up, depending on the defense or whatever he decides will keep them off-balance (also very few, if any, post snap reads by WR's). While its a pretty simple offense for the team to run (and that's why many new coaches have gone immediately to it for quick transitions), the QB really controls the whole enchilada, and does most of the playcalling at the line. A lot of them used to run off a base veer play that it is called differently depending upon defensive alignments -- thought that's chagned greatly. Anyway, its a prime example of a great offense that is keeping everyone off-balance that is about as "soft" scripted as it gets.
Actually, the RB that hits the whole the quickest for Oregon (and did so against us also), was Alan Amundson (sp?). Morris was the buy who burned us on the screen on 3rd and long for a TD -- that play probably determined the winner more than any other, including our drops (I believe Greg Brown whiffed on Morris on it, too). Amundson is shorter and quicker, while Morris is bigger, but also fast as hell (FYI, on some lists, it was Morris, and not Auburn's Rudi Johnson, who was the #1 JUCO RB last year, and I think Morris also broke the All-Time JUCO rushing record). Another FYI, the guy that probably will hit the whole quickest this year, though still as a backup to Morris, will be Onterrio Smith -- yes, the same Onterrio Smith that kicked *** in the Cal-Tex All-Star game two years ago, and went to Tennesee (he transferred to Oregon).
Re "Hard" scripting, I still don't see the advantage. If you're worried about predictability based on schemes, then the logical thing to do would be to switch up the plays out of particular formations, or just have the QB vary the changes at the LOS -- just not in a way which runs into the teeeth of a defense, as such a "Hard" script would do.
I see absolutely zero advantage in "hard" scripting to reduce predictability that couldn't easily be solved just by adjusting play options and getting the QB to vary line calls more.
This is an annoyingly lame counter-argument, but I couldn't help think about as you brought up Walsh's 49ers: weren't they always falling in a hole, even against crappy teams, and having to come back on these 2-minute style passing drills with Joe Montana improvisation late in games? Maybe, in retrospect, he should have junked it altogether and let Joe do as them from the opening snap (he might have also shifted to that over time).
Another argument against such scripting: it goes totally against the success the Spread offenses are currently enjoying. They basically have the QB make all adjustments at the line as they line up, depending on the defense or whatever he decides will keep them off-balance (also very few, if any, post snap reads by WR's). While its a pretty simple offense for the team to run (and that's why many new coaches have gone immediately to it for quick transitions), the QB really controls the whole enchilada, and does most of the playcalling at the line. A lot of them used to run off a base veer play that it is called differently depending upon defensive alignments -- thought that's chagned greatly. Anyway, its a prime example of a great offense that is keeping everyone off-balance that is about as "soft" scripted as it gets.
Do I Make You Horny?
100+ Posts
I have no qualms with a scripted offensive game plan, my concern is with who is scripting the damn story. Sometimes I wonder if Davis realizes who the protaganist is. A well thought out 15-play script can be very effective. The purpose of the script is to explore the defensive philosophy early on--defensive coverages, front seven alignment, linebacker responsibilities, etc. Then throughout the game the OC can work mismatches and at key moments will also have an idea of the defensive tendencies. The script should NOT contain 7 different variations of the halback dive. Instead the scripted plays usually run out of 9 to 11 different formations. Ideally the scripted plays could be finished in the first 2 drives (one 7 play drive and one 8 play drive) but with some of our early struggles we may be forced to play a whole half before we finish the script (five 3-and-outs!). I dislike the slow starts as well but I also realize that scripted plays have a long-term benefit (and implemented correctly are barely noticeable as "scripted" and can be very effective from the onset).
HorninOz--Thanks for the breakdowns of the offensive line play. I have another question about our OL scheme:
Since I don't expect to see us suddenly adapt a trapping, pulling emphasis in our running game (and the desire to duplicate Tenopir's methodology is IMO impractical to marry with a pro passing offense at the collegiate level) what are we doing wrong with the current scheme?
If we have the hosses to be pass-blocking turrets (and who are similiar skillwise with pro schemes) then how do we go about emulating those same professional running schemes? I can see our premise of a passing team that employs an inside draw to exploit quick rushing DL. Even improvement with our pad level and drive blocking technique may not be enough to correct our problems but I recognize that professional teams can get by with less than stellar drive blockers. Basically such large guys are not able to drive back linemen several yards but can position themselves between defenders and cut off pursuit.
What do you think of our linemen blocking on the second level? In the inside zone blocking scheme are our frontside blockers not keeping the linebackers from scraping over the top?
HorninOz--Thanks for the breakdowns of the offensive line play. I have another question about our OL scheme:
Since I don't expect to see us suddenly adapt a trapping, pulling emphasis in our running game (and the desire to duplicate Tenopir's methodology is IMO impractical to marry with a pro passing offense at the collegiate level) what are we doing wrong with the current scheme?
If we have the hosses to be pass-blocking turrets (and who are similiar skillwise with pro schemes) then how do we go about emulating those same professional running schemes? I can see our premise of a passing team that employs an inside draw to exploit quick rushing DL. Even improvement with our pad level and drive blocking technique may not be enough to correct our problems but I recognize that professional teams can get by with less than stellar drive blockers. Basically such large guys are not able to drive back linemen several yards but can position themselves between defenders and cut off pursuit.
What do you think of our linemen blocking on the second level? In the inside zone blocking scheme are our frontside blockers not keeping the linebackers from scraping over the top?
Ghost of Bill Hicks
< 25 Posts
Crikey, this is a long post!
If anyone is still around, I hope you can validate my memory of the '96 Big XII championship game. That Nebraska defense was damn good, but we beat them due primarily to two reasons.
1 - They couldn't sack James Brown no matter how many times they got in the backfield, and
2 - We ran quick-hitting running plays right at them with Priest Holmes. No draws, no sweeps, no delay of any kind (that I recall). Snap the ball, turn around, Priest is already full speed and running at the hole that only has to be open for half a second. The speed and strength of the Blackshirts gained them a heaping helping of jack squat on those plays, because the 'Horns only had to win a very localized battle for a very brief period to gain decent-to-substantial yardage.
How many times last year did we see a draw to Hodges that resulted in a loss not due to the center or guards losing their matchup, but because someone had time to come off the end and wrap him up before he could get started?
The draw gives too many opponents the opportunity to squash it. With a quick hitter, most of your line can get knocked on their *** with absolutely no damage to the play, as long as two linemen succeed for an instant. Of course, you need to spread the field as much as you can to prevent the linebackers and safeties from having an opportunity to stuff the play before it gets started. Anyone remember how we achieved this in '96?
Additionally, by using quick hitting plays (pass or run) you change the tempo for the defense. A draw play has the same tempo as a conventional pass play (and that's the point of the "deception"). Defenses can get into a rhythm and feel comfortable when all your plays take the same amount of time to get going.
Phx Horn, the OU game was one in which all 3 factors came into play. It was drizzling, OU had an excellent secondary, and neither Simms nor Applewhite were "on". With no running game, hello 63-14. I'm not saying we win with a running game in those circumstances, but given the ability to get a few first downs on the ground, we would certainly have blunted the initial onslaught.
Which brings up a topic for another thread: the first series of both OU and A&M, I believe, constituted a run for 2 or 3 yards, two completed passes, and a punt. That type of playcalling drives me batshit, and I fully expect to never see it again from a team with these types of weapons or I can't be held responsible for my actions.
If anyone is still around, I hope you can validate my memory of the '96 Big XII championship game. That Nebraska defense was damn good, but we beat them due primarily to two reasons.
1 - They couldn't sack James Brown no matter how many times they got in the backfield, and
2 - We ran quick-hitting running plays right at them with Priest Holmes. No draws, no sweeps, no delay of any kind (that I recall). Snap the ball, turn around, Priest is already full speed and running at the hole that only has to be open for half a second. The speed and strength of the Blackshirts gained them a heaping helping of jack squat on those plays, because the 'Horns only had to win a very localized battle for a very brief period to gain decent-to-substantial yardage.
How many times last year did we see a draw to Hodges that resulted in a loss not due to the center or guards losing their matchup, but because someone had time to come off the end and wrap him up before he could get started?
The draw gives too many opponents the opportunity to squash it. With a quick hitter, most of your line can get knocked on their *** with absolutely no damage to the play, as long as two linemen succeed for an instant. Of course, you need to spread the field as much as you can to prevent the linebackers and safeties from having an opportunity to stuff the play before it gets started. Anyone remember how we achieved this in '96?
Additionally, by using quick hitting plays (pass or run) you change the tempo for the defense. A draw play has the same tempo as a conventional pass play (and that's the point of the "deception"). Defenses can get into a rhythm and feel comfortable when all your plays take the same amount of time to get going.
Phx Horn, the OU game was one in which all 3 factors came into play. It was drizzling, OU had an excellent secondary, and neither Simms nor Applewhite were "on". With no running game, hello 63-14. I'm not saying we win with a running game in those circumstances, but given the ability to get a few first downs on the ground, we would certainly have blunted the initial onslaught.
Which brings up a topic for another thread: the first series of both OU and A&M, I believe, constituted a run for 2 or 3 yards, two completed passes, and a punt. That type of playcalling drives me batshit, and I fully expect to never see it again from a team with these types of weapons or I can't be held responsible for my actions.
GOBH, re the 1996 UNL game, Priest scored two of his three touchdowns on sweeps to the left, where Dan Neil pulled and kicked out on Wistrom, while Priest cut inside the block to score. On the other one - the quick handoff up the middle that he took for around 60 - we doubled the playside DT and Adams and Bishop pulled from the backside. Adams kicked out on Tomich, while Oct played Peterbilt to Mike Minter's armadillo impersonation. Gratifyingly visceral.
The "run the ball because of weather" discussion got beaten like a borrowed mule about a year ago - you may not have been on here at that time. While I am not opposed in the least to a good running game, I don't think weather alone is a terribly compelling reason to spend the considerable practice time that would be needed to develop same. Top of mind, I think we had marginal weather vs both Mizzou and Baylor, along with OU - don't recall the situation at KU, but I thought we had considerable wind, as did we vs the Ags. I do agree with your comments on the factors at OU, but would submit the ****** conditions had much less to do with our performance than did the Stoops boys abilities to recognize Major's shortcomings and to game plan accordingly, coupled with a playscript, on our first three series, that we can only hope was ghostwritten for Davis and not a product of his own imagination.
In any event, I don't disagree in the least that a decent running game would have been of use, especially had it been able to produce some first downs and keep OU's offense off the field, or at least keep them away from short fields. However, I would submit that the conditions were ****** on both sides of the field and Heupel certainly didn't seem to suffer from it. Of course, going back to the run, the OU players commented post-game that they knew almost every play we were going to run prior to the snap, based on personnel and formations. So much for deception.
Based on what I've seen in the past two years, coupled with viewings in the spring, I simply see no reason to be especially sanguine about the running game and, as I mentioned earlier, given the passing game talent, I'm not sure that's cause for alarm. True, if the other guys starting running the nickel as a base and dropping seven-eight guys into coverage, ala the second half Aggies in 1999, then we've got to exploit the thinned box. If we can't - in essence, demonstrating our inability to make them pay for defensive overadjustments - then our passing game will take some hits, especially against the good secondaries (of which there are gratifyingly few on the schedule).
BTW, I agree that this thread is getting too long. I have enough trouble getting hornfans to load on a normal thread, much less one that is getting voluminous. For anyone who reads this and wants to add on or pile on, I suggest a new main board post. BTW, be sure and read the post contrasting UNL and UT OLs - very solid and informative.
The "run the ball because of weather" discussion got beaten like a borrowed mule about a year ago - you may not have been on here at that time. While I am not opposed in the least to a good running game, I don't think weather alone is a terribly compelling reason to spend the considerable practice time that would be needed to develop same. Top of mind, I think we had marginal weather vs both Mizzou and Baylor, along with OU - don't recall the situation at KU, but I thought we had considerable wind, as did we vs the Ags. I do agree with your comments on the factors at OU, but would submit the ****** conditions had much less to do with our performance than did the Stoops boys abilities to recognize Major's shortcomings and to game plan accordingly, coupled with a playscript, on our first three series, that we can only hope was ghostwritten for Davis and not a product of his own imagination.
In any event, I don't disagree in the least that a decent running game would have been of use, especially had it been able to produce some first downs and keep OU's offense off the field, or at least keep them away from short fields. However, I would submit that the conditions were ****** on both sides of the field and Heupel certainly didn't seem to suffer from it. Of course, going back to the run, the OU players commented post-game that they knew almost every play we were going to run prior to the snap, based on personnel and formations. So much for deception.
Based on what I've seen in the past two years, coupled with viewings in the spring, I simply see no reason to be especially sanguine about the running game and, as I mentioned earlier, given the passing game talent, I'm not sure that's cause for alarm. True, if the other guys starting running the nickel as a base and dropping seven-eight guys into coverage, ala the second half Aggies in 1999, then we've got to exploit the thinned box. If we can't - in essence, demonstrating our inability to make them pay for defensive overadjustments - then our passing game will take some hits, especially against the good secondaries (of which there are gratifyingly few on the schedule).
BTW, I agree that this thread is getting too long. I have enough trouble getting hornfans to load on a normal thread, much less one that is getting voluminous. For anyone who reads this and wants to add on or pile on, I suggest a new main board post. BTW, be sure and read the post contrasting UNL and UT OLs - very solid and informative.
Do I Make You Horny?
100+ Posts
Phx--Don't forget the Tech game, the conditions for that one was nasty. Also was one of the few games that we did run well (and actually executed the draw play well ).
Homer Simms Son
< 25 Posts
At the risk of going around in circles here, I'd like to point out that the C-3 is just one of many schemes that has OPTIONS for the blockers and runners. These plays (draw included) adjust to the D via blocking rules - not QB audibles - hence their effectiveness in simplifying the running game.
I'd also like to humbly point out that these running "plays" are only units of a series. Those series have complimentary plays already gameplanned to take advantage of such and such adjustments by the defense. I think last year GD did not make good complimentary calls.
It's not that the off-set I series is bad, but it can be severely hamstrung if it is run with blind playcalling and one-dimensional blocking patterns/rules.
Imagine if you will, we line up with one TE on the right, the fullback is bumped to his side and we give the ball to the TB to run between tackle and TE. We can block that same play many different ways (via huddle call or line adjust). Line adjusts would be calls for help in the form of double team, exchange responsibilites like cross blocks, or double for one count then slide to the LBs ie. the combination block. But let's just focus on the huddle call. We could designate blocking that play with (my favorite) G and T double team DT, T combos to MLB, TE releases and gets OLB, fullback kicks DE. Or TE kicks DE and FB isos OLB. Or T blocks DT and G pulls to kick DE and TE releases inside for MLB and FB again isos OLB. Or...., I could bore you with 3 others - base, O-block or motion a receiver to crack the OLB.... Same play, multiple blocking schemes - all fit nicely w/in a scripted start and the adjusted plan.
I don't care which series and which formation(s) we use - but I want us to be the smartest team out there. Last year's running woes were inconceivable - literally and figuratively.
Hook-em
Fundamentals are job one in 2001
I'd also like to humbly point out that these running "plays" are only units of a series. Those series have complimentary plays already gameplanned to take advantage of such and such adjustments by the defense. I think last year GD did not make good complimentary calls.
It's not that the off-set I series is bad, but it can be severely hamstrung if it is run with blind playcalling and one-dimensional blocking patterns/rules.
Imagine if you will, we line up with one TE on the right, the fullback is bumped to his side and we give the ball to the TB to run between tackle and TE. We can block that same play many different ways (via huddle call or line adjust). Line adjusts would be calls for help in the form of double team, exchange responsibilites like cross blocks, or double for one count then slide to the LBs ie. the combination block. But let's just focus on the huddle call. We could designate blocking that play with (my favorite) G and T double team DT, T combos to MLB, TE releases and gets OLB, fullback kicks DE. Or TE kicks DE and FB isos OLB. Or T blocks DT and G pulls to kick DE and TE releases inside for MLB and FB again isos OLB. Or...., I could bore you with 3 others - base, O-block or motion a receiver to crack the OLB.... Same play, multiple blocking schemes - all fit nicely w/in a scripted start and the adjusted plan.
I don't care which series and which formation(s) we use - but I want us to be the smartest team out there. Last year's running woes were inconceivable - literally and figuratively.
Hook-em
Fundamentals are job one in 2001
mudboy
250+ Posts
I love this thread now that we can just go to the next page if we have it set at 50 replies per page(I think that is the default).
Anyways I think all of these replies are good. What i would love to see is just something that works, whatever that is. I don't care if we come to the line in a bum rush via Dykes's Tech teams, or running the Counter-trey via Mac 2's mid 90s teams, hell I would take nebraska's option if we had thier success(I just don't see simms running around the corner and tucking the ball 30 times a game, at least I hope not)
I would contend that it is not a exact secret running scheme that has to work, but with the lack of such a "perfect running play" then maybe a good substitute would just be an unpredictable scheme. In other words if we don't find the running play that we execute perfectly with great success, then we need to find a number of plays that keep the defense guessing.
As Phx noticed OU didn't seem to be guessing that much and Stanford didn't really look to be taken by surprise. What can we do to mix it up so OU can't make us go three and out every series? I think against some of our opponents this year we could skip the huddle and just put the plays on the jumbotron before they are run, due to some huge talent mismatches. I wouldn't afford that priviledge to OU so lets take advantage of the fact that they DON'T KNOW what we are gonna run and really try to confuse them.
I remember when OU ran that weird Leech formation three wides on each side and three lineman in 98. It caused quite a bit of confusion and if I remember got a little success, but I think it was the lack of predictability that kept them in the game.
I would kill everyone in this room for one drop of sweet beer.
-Homer J. Simpson
Anyways I think all of these replies are good. What i would love to see is just something that works, whatever that is. I don't care if we come to the line in a bum rush via Dykes's Tech teams, or running the Counter-trey via Mac 2's mid 90s teams, hell I would take nebraska's option if we had thier success(I just don't see simms running around the corner and tucking the ball 30 times a game, at least I hope not)
I would contend that it is not a exact secret running scheme that has to work, but with the lack of such a "perfect running play" then maybe a good substitute would just be an unpredictable scheme. In other words if we don't find the running play that we execute perfectly with great success, then we need to find a number of plays that keep the defense guessing.
As Phx noticed OU didn't seem to be guessing that much and Stanford didn't really look to be taken by surprise. What can we do to mix it up so OU can't make us go three and out every series? I think against some of our opponents this year we could skip the huddle and just put the plays on the jumbotron before they are run, due to some huge talent mismatches. I wouldn't afford that priviledge to OU so lets take advantage of the fact that they DON'T KNOW what we are gonna run and really try to confuse them.
I remember when OU ran that weird Leech formation three wides on each side and three lineman in 98. It caused quite a bit of confusion and if I remember got a little success, but I think it was the lack of predictability that kept them in the game.
I would kill everyone in this room for one drop of sweet beer.
-Homer J. Simpson
