Well, I suppose not, but "The Fullback Controversy" bored even me as a title. There's been considerable discussion among the life-deprived as to the role, if any, of the fullback in the offense - enough that, courtesy of Phil Steele and TSN, I decided to explore a cross-section of teams to see who did what.I took two samples: (1) last year's top ten rushing teams, since it seemed likely they would probably use the fullback moreso than others, and (2) the usual suspects who finished last year ranked in the top ten. I also included us, so the sample is eighteen teams, since three teams were in both lists.For the record, the top ten rushers, listed in rank order from 1-10, were Navy, Air Force, Wisc, UNL, Army, Ohio, Rice, VT, TCU, and Toledo. Of those ten, it appears that eight of them - all but Wisc and VT - run some version of the option, be it out of the bone or the I. The mean rushing yardage was 264 ypg. To my surprise, the FB was not an overwhelming contributor, even in these run oriented attacks. The biggest, by considerable amounts, were the guys at Army and Navy, with carries and yards of 163-900 and 133-790, respectively. No other teams were even close, with the next highest being the guy at Rice, who was 83-338. Willie Miller at NU had 63-282.Looking next at the top ten, and bearing in my mind that three teams - UNL, Wisc, and VT - were in both samples, the fullback can apparently wear #63 for all the ball carrying action he gets. Miller was, by far, the most utilized, the next being the guy at VT, with 35-178 and the FSU FB, who was 36-82. Mean carries were 31 per team, with our Ricky Brown slightly below that at 25 carries last season.What does it mean? Well, I'm not altogether certain, but the data seems to indicate that the fullback spot has largely evolved into a combination OL/TE spot. It doesn't appear the the Davis offensive strategy is all that off the mark.Anyway, some grist for the discussion treadmill.Your thoughts?
Rushing Roulette
- Thread starter PhxHorn
- Start date
glenn, I'm uncertain what hornsfan meant. We happened to sit together at the Houston lunch bunch last Thursday, which featured Jerry Scarbrough. In the course, of the lunch, we got into a discussion, along with some others, about the various BBS - both public and private - each of us frequent in our often futile search for football.I observed, in regards to a couple of boards - neither being this one or Big12 - that most of the serious football posters seemed to have departed and the remainder seemed to be the name the defense crowd. Nothing wrong with that, other than those types of posts simply hold no interest for me.
Dead Kitten
< 25 Posts
I think to accurately analyze OUR utilization of the FB position against the top running teams, option offenses should be eliminated. "Pro-style" offenses (whatever that means) are really the only offenses that we should compare ourselves to.That being said, I like the way we've utilized our fullback in the past and I think the position fits well into our offense as a blocking, blocking, pass-catching, blocking and running position.A great offense is built on a steady foundation with a few skill positions providing the flair. I think we've got enough places where we're stock-piling flair that we can allow solid, blocking FB's to be part of the foundation. It all goes back to the old-saying that only one guy can have the ball at a time.
thanks, phx.i had the fear you were talking about us. very glad to hear i was wrong. i do recall that someone here apparently gave you an uncalled for reaming a while back. silly issue apparently. i was afraid there was some holdover bad feeling.you are perhaps the best all around poster on any of the boards i frequent, and i'm very happy you share your insight with us here.ps: do wish you hadn't used the term 'trapdooring' in an earlier post. it's all over the ag world just now.[This message has been edited by glenn (edited 07-16-2000).]
glenn, thanks for the kind words. I've always considered GoBig12 as "home", simply because that's where I started and because I'm familiar with so many posters over there - and there are some extremely good posters there, when the surly ******** can be convinced to talk about football rather than politics or STDs.Over time, this board has evolved into a second home. Especially since the split, this board has developed some very good posters on its own and, although some of them are bipolar (as I am), many post only here. Hence, my periapetic existence on both venues.I'm a little startled to find out I used the dreaded "trapdoor" word in a public format, although it is a fairly common term in college football circles - for a recent example, consider Spurrier at UF. Hopefully, I didn't imply Brown was doing it, since I don't believe he is - he seems to be merely be telling each player where he needs to improve and what his chances to play might be. When you get a bunch of kids who value PT over attendance at UT, some of them are going to seek their fortunes elsewhere.DK, I've never been too concerned about Davis' use (or lack thereof)of the fullback. I can't say the same thing about his blocking schemes, but have resigned myself to not seeing traps or anything else resembling a sophisticated run blocking approach.Your point about eliminating option teams and comparing ourselves to similar offenses is also a good one, but I'll be damned if I can figure it out from the pubs' descriptions - offset I, I, pro set, and the dreaded "multiple" - who the **** knows what any of it really means?Of all the offenses, it appears to me, and this based on viewing as well as reading, I think we compare most to FSU, or at least we will when Davis gets his skill positions fully manned. Lots of passes, dependence on the skill guys for yards after catch, etc. Rather than the Richt finesse running, however, it appears Davis likes the big back brute force approach.[This message has been edited by PhxHorn (edited 07-16-2000).]
Dead Kitten
< 25 Posts
Phx,I think we are pretty much in agreement on this subject. As far as run-blocking sophistication is concerned, I think the problem is both frustrating and here-to-stay (which makes it more frustrating). I would go so far as to say that that area of change has been one of the few negative changes under the new regime. I would even say that during Ricky's senior year this type of thinking had a negative effect on our running game (obviously more profound last year though). The problem is, IMO, that simply "over-powering" the opposing team in your running game only works against teams to which we are obviously superior.Examples:
1998: Ricky goes from 43 yards against KSU to two straight 300-yard games against weaker opponents.1999: Hodges gets eaten up by KSU (even though we abandoned him in the 2nd half) and in turn rolls over Rice.Obviously, your rushing game will suffer against tougher opponents but I think that ours goes into bigger hills and valleys than is healthy.This style of running the ball lends itself to letting you down in hard fought games, IMO. And in the end... aren't those the only ones where it mattered to begin with.Just to make this go on forever, I would just like to say that I feel this type of running-game mentality was the single biggest factor in the "poor performance" of our offensive line last year, not lack of experience (although that did play a role). Not keeping a good defense on their toes with your running game effects your ability to pass-block as well.Just my worthless opinion.
1998: Ricky goes from 43 yards against KSU to two straight 300-yard games against weaker opponents.1999: Hodges gets eaten up by KSU (even though we abandoned him in the 2nd half) and in turn rolls over Rice.Obviously, your rushing game will suffer against tougher opponents but I think that ours goes into bigger hills and valleys than is healthy.This style of running the ball lends itself to letting you down in hard fought games, IMO. And in the end... aren't those the only ones where it mattered to begin with.Just to make this go on forever, I would just like to say that I feel this type of running-game mentality was the single biggest factor in the "poor performance" of our offensive line last year, not lack of experience (although that did play a role). Not keeping a good defense on their toes with your running game effects your ability to pass-block as well.Just my worthless opinion.
Darryl Johnson is, IMO, the model fullback for the offense that Greg David desires to run. Darryl's job was simple, hit the hole and knock the allforgodloving hell out of whoever was in his way. Darryl got the token carry every other game or so, and he caught the occasional pass, but on the cowboy's pecking order of offensive threats, he ranked just below the 5th WR, and just above Nate Newton.If we can find a guy who doesn't mind being a human wrecking ball in return for 4 years of top class education, these discussions about the fullback will go away. That guy may already be on campus, or he may be arriving in a few weeks.IMO, the reason we are having these discussions is simply beacuse we have a number of large athletes who many think would bring another element to the position. Talking about guys like Brock Edwards and Tyrone Richardson, who by strictly looking at their physical stats, could probably play LB, DE, TE, FB, or RB, is fun. It's been awhile since we've had these kind of guys on campus, and it is only natural for the casual fan to talk about it. It's certainly better than talking about aggies being weird, or to what degree ou sucks. We all know the ags are a peculiar bunch, and there are a few biblical references to the degree of suckage north of the Red River.The stats in your post seem to indicate that the elite teams in college football don't place much more of an enphasis on the FB than Davis seems to. For those questioning Davis in this regard, these numbers should be some food for thought. My opinion on why the don't use the FB more is pretty straightforward: they simply have sufficient quantities of talent at the other skill positions that they feel that a play for the FB is a play taken away from a gamebreaker. The solution to our fullback situation?? Line up the candidates in the fall, and tell them their job as a fullback is to be a bowling ball. Whoever knocks over the most pins in practice gets the start against ulala.
DK, I think the Hoss has pretty much nailed it. As best as I can interpret the data, the clear trend is for the fullback to be a bowling ball with hands. I don't know why, but would theorize more and more non-option teams are going to some version of the inexplicable WCO (whatever the **** that is) to counter the clear trend towards attacking defenses. While that doesn't remove the possibility of a running fullback, it seems to place a premium on guys who are primarily blockers, both for the run and for pass protection. Those guys may not be good ball carriers - conversely, a guy like Ivan Williams, oft mentioned as a FB type, may not block well enough for the offense.I've always thought that Davis wants to run a pass-oriented offense and is simply unwilling to sacrifice the practice snaps to develop a more sophisticated running game. Personally, I've always thought the essence of offensive strategy, apart from taking what the defense gives you, was to run your preferred style of offense - in our case, the short passing game - until the defense is forced to adjust. Then, when they go to the nickel or dime, or lay back the safeties and drop the LBs into coverage, it's a little easier to run against the thinned front.
oh, no, phx. no, you were talking about your former life. you just pinged a nerve over in the land of the looney and they've gone off on it.expect to see posts over on lone star alluding to mack eating his young as soon as they can figure out a way to fit it in.
http://srvr02.fansnetwork.lax2.viis.net/ubb/Forum2/HTML/006252.html oh, 'moreso' is not a word. should be 'more so'. and i agree with your conclusion re: use of the fullback. i think greg d may know what he's doing.
http://srvr02.fansnetwork.lax2.viis.net/ubb/Forum2/HTML/006252.html oh, 'moreso' is not a word. should be 'more so'. and i agree with your conclusion re: use of the fullback. i think greg d may know what he's doing.
glenn, now I recall the usage. Bragg actually works for the firm in which I was a partner, so BB and I were enjoying a private joke. Actually, I'm a little surprised some Aggie even reads my stuff, much less quotes it. Don't these people have lives? My sense of humor and writing style are not universally appealing, but neither is likely to change at this stage of my life. Brown's going to get the trapdoor accusations, just like he's going to have to deal with the depth chart issues, nor matter how invalid they may be. I don't think our attrition is any greater than any of the top programs nor do I think our depth chart is any deeper. However, when you're enjoying Brown's phenomenal run of recruiting success, negative recruiting is bound to rear its ugly head, and apparently started last year.
PhxHorn- between you,Scipio & Davey O'Brien (who does not post nearly as often as he should) you give this Texan food for thought.In that spirit, Phx, & I asked the same of Scipio below-in your expert & erudite opinion what do you think the defense -Carl Reese & the personnel he has can do over the next 3 years to bring us back to the elite level. I also ask the same question of the offense as well. I await your answer-Sir.------------------
"UNCOMMON VALOR WAS A COMMON VIRTUE"- Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz, speaking after the battle of Iwo Jima about the Marine Corps.
[This message has been edited by navblue (edited 07-16-2000).]
"UNCOMMON VALOR WAS A COMMON VIRTUE"- Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz, speaking after the battle of Iwo Jima about the Marine Corps.
[This message has been edited by navblue (edited 07-16-2000).]
Bless you, PhxHorn - I'm glad you post here as often as you do (since you also are on the other board you mentioned), and selfishly I wish you posted here all the time. You are the godfather to us all.In that regard, any influence you can bring to bear on LHG to get the server ready for the football season would be much appreciated. That observation is mostly tongue-in-cheek, because I imagine she already is working on that. It's just difficult to imagine how this board (as popular as it is) is going to handle the traffic once the season starts -- especially if the Horns are winning.Anyhow, thanks for the numerous good topics you (and Scipio) have introduced during the long, hot summer to add some spiritual (that is the proper context for football, isn't it?) refreshment to our lives.If I may, here are the "offensive" issues I think still are on the table going into this season, and then I will respond to your question as to where (in my view) the FB matter may fit in
1) Wide receivers - We need a more consistent and effective deep-threat receiver at split end, and we would like to replace Kwame "in kind" at flanker. It is interesting that Steele has Montrell on the all-conference team (I think), and we all know we have the triumvirate coming in -- IMO, the greater issue with the Big Three is whether they are (and remain) healthy, rather than whether they can adjust quickly enough to major collegiate competition. I think we can find someone who can make the adjustment -- we just need whoever that is to be physically able to play.At flanker, Artie needs to make a similar adjustment to the big time (although he has the advantage of a year of practice) and, of course, he also needs to stay healthy. IMO, Roy could be a factor at either flanker or split end.(2) Tight End - We need Bo to be (and stay) healthy and constitute a real force in terms of pass receiving. If so, great (and Jones will help there, too); if not, Brock.(3) Offensive Line - My question is not the talent (or even the experience, although I wish we had more and believe we will be better off in that regard in future seasons under Mack). The primary concern, IMO, is whether we are asking too much from these guys through the predictability of our offensive scheme -- particularly in reference to the running game. My guess is that this season's passing game will be much less predictable than last year's (I'm thinking in terms of its predictability to worthy opponents with sound defenses here) because of the factors stated in (1) and (2) above. I'm not so sure about the running game diversity, however, because there is the lingering suspicion that we may be listening to the siren song of the passing fancies -- that capricious notion that if our passing attack is strong enough, we can relax and enjoy savoring the elixir of effortless (from the running attack standpoint) victories while Chris and Major take care of our witless victims.Let me interject at this point a clear heresy: even in regard to Florida State, I do not believe their disproportionate reliance on the passing game always has stood them in good stead. Others would know better, because I certainly have not followed the Seminoles that closely. They have lost some games during their period of dominance, however, and I am not a total believer that Bowden holds the keys to the gates of football heaven for the University of Texas.Furthermore, (and this is just a guess) I don't think Mack believes our program should necessarily mirror any other program -- including Fla St or Nebraska, much less OU -- in fact, I believe Mack is on record supporting the notion that balance between the passing and running attacks is a laudable goal for the Horns.So, to make a point-blank statement: I'm for Texas being whatever may make the Longhorns the best team in college football, and I really don't give a damn (other than for purposes of comparative analysis in the thought of enhancing our own program) what anybody else is doing. We're Texas, and it's not a pipe dream to believe that we can get to No. 1 our way -- based on our particular situation in recruiting, facilities, spirit and tradition. DKR did it his way, we all believed in it -- even though it was one of a kind -- and it worked.So that gets us to4) Fullback - It may be true that for some teams, the FB is little more than a blocker. Yet even in the most extreme instances, the FB carries the ball on some occasions and whatever we can do to maximize those opportunities for the good of the running game -- we should do that.In other words, if that means we could have an effective runner (say, to avoid implications with the current players, a James Buchanan) at FB who might capitalize on those rushing opportunities -- however few -- in a way that would further the cause of Texas football, even under the current offensive scheme, then I'm for that.It isn't just a matter of running talent for the FB, however; IMO the situation is exacerbated by the power running attack we attempted to utilize last season that relies primarily on straight-ahead drive blocking and essentially pits the TB (whoever he is) against the world (e.g., eight in the box).This may be all well and good against LaLa, but it was not effective last season against you know who (fill in four teams). My basic point is that we need to establish a running game (when the passing attack is not available due to factors such as weather, injuries, defensive adjustments) that gives both the TB and our offensive line some breathing room against a worthy opponent.This could be done in three basic ways, IMO, through: (a) a minimal diversification in the number of running play alternatives that the defense has to anticipate -- so that there is some question in Nebraska's mind on third and three as to what we are going to do -- when it already is clear that we have to run the ball; (b) the deployment of a FB who the Nebraska defense knows has running ability and the opportunity, on limited occasions, to use it, and (c) the use of an alternative set -- such as one utilizing an H-back -- that includes running options against a team like A&M for a player with the apparent running abilities of Bo Scaife or Brock Edwards.We're talking here not about replacing the offensive coordinator, or even revamping in any intrusive way the current UT offensive scheme. It's just like looking through the sights of a rifle and adjusting the focus just enough to hit the center of the target -- which in our case happens to be a national championship.The strongest argument for making the FB a more meaningful part of our efforts to meet that goal may well be how illogical it is not to do so. Under the rules of football, the fullback may be stationed behind the line of scrimmage before the snap, and he may take a hand-off and run with the football as effectively as he is capable of performing that feat. Hell, if he's going to do that at all, let's do it right. If he's a legitimate running threat, how can anyone argue that the University of Texas is not just that much better off as a team -- no matter how few carries are involved. And maybe, just maybe, he gets that first down (or, god forbid, a touchdown) when we absolutely, positively, have to have it, and we win.Thanks for your patience, and I hope this helps move the summer along.
1) Wide receivers - We need a more consistent and effective deep-threat receiver at split end, and we would like to replace Kwame "in kind" at flanker. It is interesting that Steele has Montrell on the all-conference team (I think), and we all know we have the triumvirate coming in -- IMO, the greater issue with the Big Three is whether they are (and remain) healthy, rather than whether they can adjust quickly enough to major collegiate competition. I think we can find someone who can make the adjustment -- we just need whoever that is to be physically able to play.At flanker, Artie needs to make a similar adjustment to the big time (although he has the advantage of a year of practice) and, of course, he also needs to stay healthy. IMO, Roy could be a factor at either flanker or split end.(2) Tight End - We need Bo to be (and stay) healthy and constitute a real force in terms of pass receiving. If so, great (and Jones will help there, too); if not, Brock.(3) Offensive Line - My question is not the talent (or even the experience, although I wish we had more and believe we will be better off in that regard in future seasons under Mack). The primary concern, IMO, is whether we are asking too much from these guys through the predictability of our offensive scheme -- particularly in reference to the running game. My guess is that this season's passing game will be much less predictable than last year's (I'm thinking in terms of its predictability to worthy opponents with sound defenses here) because of the factors stated in (1) and (2) above. I'm not so sure about the running game diversity, however, because there is the lingering suspicion that we may be listening to the siren song of the passing fancies -- that capricious notion that if our passing attack is strong enough, we can relax and enjoy savoring the elixir of effortless (from the running attack standpoint) victories while Chris and Major take care of our witless victims.Let me interject at this point a clear heresy: even in regard to Florida State, I do not believe their disproportionate reliance on the passing game always has stood them in good stead. Others would know better, because I certainly have not followed the Seminoles that closely. They have lost some games during their period of dominance, however, and I am not a total believer that Bowden holds the keys to the gates of football heaven for the University of Texas.Furthermore, (and this is just a guess) I don't think Mack believes our program should necessarily mirror any other program -- including Fla St or Nebraska, much less OU -- in fact, I believe Mack is on record supporting the notion that balance between the passing and running attacks is a laudable goal for the Horns.So, to make a point-blank statement: I'm for Texas being whatever may make the Longhorns the best team in college football, and I really don't give a damn (other than for purposes of comparative analysis in the thought of enhancing our own program) what anybody else is doing. We're Texas, and it's not a pipe dream to believe that we can get to No. 1 our way -- based on our particular situation in recruiting, facilities, spirit and tradition. DKR did it his way, we all believed in it -- even though it was one of a kind -- and it worked.So that gets us to4) Fullback - It may be true that for some teams, the FB is little more than a blocker. Yet even in the most extreme instances, the FB carries the ball on some occasions and whatever we can do to maximize those opportunities for the good of the running game -- we should do that.In other words, if that means we could have an effective runner (say, to avoid implications with the current players, a James Buchanan) at FB who might capitalize on those rushing opportunities -- however few -- in a way that would further the cause of Texas football, even under the current offensive scheme, then I'm for that.It isn't just a matter of running talent for the FB, however; IMO the situation is exacerbated by the power running attack we attempted to utilize last season that relies primarily on straight-ahead drive blocking and essentially pits the TB (whoever he is) against the world (e.g., eight in the box).This may be all well and good against LaLa, but it was not effective last season against you know who (fill in four teams). My basic point is that we need to establish a running game (when the passing attack is not available due to factors such as weather, injuries, defensive adjustments) that gives both the TB and our offensive line some breathing room against a worthy opponent.This could be done in three basic ways, IMO, through: (a) a minimal diversification in the number of running play alternatives that the defense has to anticipate -- so that there is some question in Nebraska's mind on third and three as to what we are going to do -- when it already is clear that we have to run the ball; (b) the deployment of a FB who the Nebraska defense knows has running ability and the opportunity, on limited occasions, to use it, and (c) the use of an alternative set -- such as one utilizing an H-back -- that includes running options against a team like A&M for a player with the apparent running abilities of Bo Scaife or Brock Edwards.We're talking here not about replacing the offensive coordinator, or even revamping in any intrusive way the current UT offensive scheme. It's just like looking through the sights of a rifle and adjusting the focus just enough to hit the center of the target -- which in our case happens to be a national championship.The strongest argument for making the FB a more meaningful part of our efforts to meet that goal may well be how illogical it is not to do so. Under the rules of football, the fullback may be stationed behind the line of scrimmage before the snap, and he may take a hand-off and run with the football as effectively as he is capable of performing that feat. Hell, if he's going to do that at all, let's do it right. If he's a legitimate running threat, how can anyone argue that the University of Texas is not just that much better off as a team -- no matter how few carries are involved. And maybe, just maybe, he gets that first down (or, god forbid, a touchdown) when we absolutely, positively, have to have it, and we win.Thanks for your patience, and I hope this helps move the summer along.Do I Make You Horny?
100+ Posts
Split BacksI was going to open a thread with such a title but PhxHorn's Rushing Roulette has a much better ring to it, so I will defer to such a snappy title and of course the honorarium of being associated with a PhxHorn discussion. Something about your posts, Phoneix, that draws out a multitude of rational posters, seemingly materializing from the very shadows of this summer purgatory. For the denizens of such a desolate wasteland your call to discussion brings forth hope that maybe the shadows will momentarily depart and allow us a glimpse of the promised land : DKR-Memorial Stadium awash with a sea of burnt orange, bubbling and boiling with anticipation for the next play that may lead our fearless warriors across the goaline and into the land of milk and honey. Of course it is only a temporary vision, the shadows return, once again our eyesight is clouded, and we return to counting the hours and minutes until Stockton kicks that old pigskin heavenward. Still we enjoy such moments of repast and must thank you for providing nourishment in such wearying times. Ahh...so what does Split Backs have to do with such moments of the beatific? Mayhaps it is my awkard use of metaphor;a clumsy contrast of the term against my emotional desire to seek simple answers from lengthy analysis and to draw forth such complexitites from such a simple goal - to move the offense forward. I wish the answers could be easy, simple to grasp, much like a RC Slocum offense primer:
See the tailback run.
Watch the line block.
Pick up five yards.
Listen to coach call the same play.
Look, another first down!
Not an entertaining read but it does have an economy of motion and an appeal of simplicity that can be endearing. Though such a story may appeal to the elementary mindset it ignores the villain, that bully who has read the same primer and is intent on spoiling any possibility of a happy ending. Thus the answers grow more complex but the goal is still to move forward. So what I propose is this:in order to move the offense forward we may have to make a lateral move.
In order to achieve success we should gainfully employ the split backs.Why?The consensus is that Greg Davis prefers a power I-back running game that is a diversion from his passing fancy. The struggles at the end of the season highlighted the fact that opposing defenses were keyed to crowd the line of scrimmage and blitz constantly. With a young line, little speed at receiver, a small tailback, and a saavy but slow quarterback this type of defensive philosophy was the recipe for our unraveling. The solution to this dilemna is to either improve the skills of those factored above or adopt a new strategy. While I firmly believe that Coach Davis' offense can be effective there still is a part of me that plans for emergencies. In case we do struggle for an inordinate amount of time against the blitz I propose that we utilize the split back set.Much as been made of Hodges slight stature and lack of strength between the tackles. What he does well is use his quickness, speed, and moves in the open field to confound defenders. Placing him offset wide in the split back formation allows him quicker access to the corners, either as a runner or a receiving threat. Since the defense is looking to apply quick pressure up the middle or on the outside passrush, the edges are vulnerable to someone with Hodge's skills.The other back in this formation would be one of our numerous candidates for fullback. The most likely contenders appear to be either converted TE, Chad Stevens, or Matt Trissel. Since neither one has shown the skills to be a classic lead blocker role, why utilize them as such? Instead employ them as outlet receivers and as passblocking support.Of course, eeriely enough this sounds like Mackovic's offense which makes me wonder if the current blocking schemes could also be succesful within the confines of a split back offense. Please respond with your comments and ideas. And please remember, you do not have to reply with such a cumbersome flow of prose that I have used. I merely indulged in a moment of stylistic forays inspired by the master of pithy prose, PhxHorn. And it is true, imitiation is the sincerest form of flattery.
[This message has been edited by Do I Make You Horny? (edited 07-16-2000).]
See the tailback run.
Watch the line block.
Pick up five yards.
Listen to coach call the same play.
Look, another first down!
Not an entertaining read but it does have an economy of motion and an appeal of simplicity that can be endearing. Though such a story may appeal to the elementary mindset it ignores the villain, that bully who has read the same primer and is intent on spoiling any possibility of a happy ending. Thus the answers grow more complex but the goal is still to move forward. So what I propose is this:in order to move the offense forward we may have to make a lateral move.
In order to achieve success we should gainfully employ the split backs.Why?The consensus is that Greg Davis prefers a power I-back running game that is a diversion from his passing fancy. The struggles at the end of the season highlighted the fact that opposing defenses were keyed to crowd the line of scrimmage and blitz constantly. With a young line, little speed at receiver, a small tailback, and a saavy but slow quarterback this type of defensive philosophy was the recipe for our unraveling. The solution to this dilemna is to either improve the skills of those factored above or adopt a new strategy. While I firmly believe that Coach Davis' offense can be effective there still is a part of me that plans for emergencies. In case we do struggle for an inordinate amount of time against the blitz I propose that we utilize the split back set.Much as been made of Hodges slight stature and lack of strength between the tackles. What he does well is use his quickness, speed, and moves in the open field to confound defenders. Placing him offset wide in the split back formation allows him quicker access to the corners, either as a runner or a receiving threat. Since the defense is looking to apply quick pressure up the middle or on the outside passrush, the edges are vulnerable to someone with Hodge's skills.The other back in this formation would be one of our numerous candidates for fullback. The most likely contenders appear to be either converted TE, Chad Stevens, or Matt Trissel. Since neither one has shown the skills to be a classic lead blocker role, why utilize them as such? Instead employ them as outlet receivers and as passblocking support.Of course, eeriely enough this sounds like Mackovic's offense which makes me wonder if the current blocking schemes could also be succesful within the confines of a split back offense. Please respond with your comments and ideas. And please remember, you do not have to reply with such a cumbersome flow of prose that I have used. I merely indulged in a moment of stylistic forays inspired by the master of pithy prose, PhxHorn. And it is true, imitiation is the sincerest form of flattery.
[This message has been edited by Do I Make You Horny? (edited 07-16-2000).]
I think everybody would agree that a balanced offense (much like our 1998 version) is the most preferred type of offense to have . . . but also the most difficult to consistently produce.We should consider the restrictions (scholarships, practice time, eligibility) that NCAA programs must work within that professional teams do not have to.I think that most college programs are perceived as having either a running or a passing bias. Michigan might be one program that seems to be consistently balanced in my perception.Maybe Greg Davis (who I assume is a smart, dedicated, and experienced coach) has made a conscious decision to focus on a complicated passing offense and thus a simplified rushing offense. Obviously, in choosing a system that is less than optimal, there must be a perceived benefit, which I would guess is a greater chance of consistently achieving your goals (i.e. more years of GOOD offense instead of some years of GREAT offense and some of BAD offense).FSU and Florida seem to have had some success with this approach however there are also a whole slew of teams that have not done so well.Well, this is just my two cents. I think we will do very well against inferior teams and win most of the games we will be expected to. But against tough teams (NU, KSU), I think we will have to rely on our defense more than our offense.------------------
Truth - Knowledge - A Great Tan
Truth - Knowledge - A Great Tan
DIMYH - Enjoyed reading your post and agree with you re Phx -- it is a great benefit of being on the board to get the share thoughts in this fashion.I also concur with you that some alternative(s) to the running game options we saw last year would appear to be in order (without severely modifying the current system). My primary question in re to the proposal you have made is whether there is a practical way to teach and incorporate the additional blocking assignments that would result from the split back set.At least part of the answer would seem to rest with the number of sets and plays that would be involved -- if those numbers are limited, perhaps the coaching and learning time would be available to implement your proposal, at least to some degree.In any case, the basic point in your post, as well as that made by burdine88 and in my offering would appear to be essentially the same: the current system (as implemented last season) is -- in almost any observer's view -- "less than optimal" for our running game.If that is the case, the question is not so much whether something should be done, but rather what can be done.We have a number of suggestions in these posts -- some as simple as utilizing a FB who can both block and run effectively. (I thought DIMYH's observation re the possible need for improvement in lead blocking skills was interesting -- if we are not where we want to be in that category, and also may have less than optimal running, just exactly what does that leave?)The bottom line, IMO, is that we do not want to repeat the situation(s) from last season when our ball carrier (who was identified by the defense prior to the play) had 5-6 blockers to pave his way against 8-9 defenders who knew exactly where he was going.My guess is that the coaching staff knows this and intends to resolve the matter by creating more running alternatives within the current system in order to force the defense to earn its money when the chips are on the table. If this is the case, we will find out soon enough what those alternatives are and whether or not they involve the FB and/or an H-back (or some split back sets).If nothing at all is done to ameliorate the situation, that will be reflected on the field in the games against worthy opponents (if we encounter situations in which the passing game is stymied), and we should have some more interesting threads on this topic.Since we're all (players, coaches, fans) hoping to win these games, the smart money, IMO, is on the coaches coming up with the answers.
Good points, LS34 - The passing game should be great for us, and that (IMO) is a very good thing. In this day and age, placing the emphasis on the passing game is the way to go for numerous reasons -- one of which is recruiting, and another (minor point) is winning.The only "argument" (it really has been, for the most part, a very civilized discussion) relates to whether we've got a sufficient power running game for the relatively rare occasions (we hope) upon which we absolutely have to implement it in order to win against a worthy opponent.The thoughts expressed in the previous posts on this thread describe alternatives that might help in this regard to avoid the situations we found ourselves in last season on occasion when worthy opponents knew we had severely limited running options and were prepared to shut down those options.One interesting notion presented in one of the earlier posts on this thread is that even if we have the talent, for example, to both run and block at the FB position -- we would not necessarily do so under the current offensive scheme. Why not?Another comment has been made to the effect that while Ivan Williams (or Brock) might be effective as runners at the FB position, they may not be able to block effectively. In Brock's case, it's too early to tell - but for a returning player, it is an interesting thought that an exceptional athlete with good size cannot be taught how to block effectively.Back in the DKR days, that was precisely the situation with Jim Bertelsen. He came to the Horns from Hudson, Wisconsin -- he played against "questionable" talent in a small school system (sound familiar?) and had never been asked to block. He learned at Texas and became one of the best combination blocker/runner RBs we ever had.I'm sure there is more to all of this than meets the eye -- there may be players who could help us at FB who do not wish to do so. Regardless, the situation that DIMYH described (where we have both the blocking and running questions at that position) does not seem to be the answer.In any case, the bottom line is to give the Horns some alternative (other than TB up the middle against the world) when the chips are on the table and the defense knows we have to run. My guess is that the coaching staff will do that in one form or another.
navblue - my opinion is that Carl Reese is a ******* genius - anyone who could turn the hapless 1997 defense into the unit we fielded by the end of 1998 is simply a force with whom to be reckoned. With the personnel he's got this year - specifically, the CB depth - god only knows what kind of defense we'll see on the field. With that kind of man coverage available and with Rogers and Hamp clogging the middle, Carl has almost unlimited flexibility in his blitz packages. Davis is a bit more of a mystery to me. I would observe, however, that OCs seem to come in for a bit more criticism, in general, than DCs. FSU fans routinely ***** about Mark Richt, while according near deity status to Mickey Andrews. Go figure, I can't.Back to Davis - while I enjoy dissecting various aspects of football, at the end of the day, it's results that matter. Whether I fully appreciate Davis' offensive strategy is irrelevant if the guy matches the stellar 1998 output. Hell, even with last year's talent and experience limitations, he had a decent year, although we did fade badly against good defenses - don't face too many of those this season, however.I continue to believe Davis likes to air it out, despite his protestations of the much coveted balanced attack. In Greg's world, I think the latter means the ability to run when the D drops 7-8 guys into coverage. Looking at where the talent is going to be over the next few years, that doesn't seem to be a faulty strategy to me. As to balance and taking what the defense gives you, that's somewhat like espousing Mom and apple pie - IMO, good teams take what they want from the defense and they do it by proper execution of their preferred approach, which for us is going to be the short passing game. That does not imply that we can't run the ball or run a deep route - we'll do that when the defense is forced into adjustments to defend the short game and opens up those other plays.
LS34 you stole my idea, please refrain from this practice in the future. I particuarly did not like you wording it better than I would have either. With you thoughts in mind, why would we not use IWilliams as a FB/split back. While his blocking skills are maybe not that high, the pressure he would put on opponents with his speed and pass recieving should offset any lack of blocking ability. Remember RW was a FB for two years.Imagine a blitz against us with IW and his speed releasing into the secondary. I like his chances one on one with a saftey or LB.Great thoughts by all, I would like to have the problems Greg Davis faces, so many ways to get the job done.------------------
"The future's so bright we gotta
wear shades"
"The future's so bright we gotta
wear shades"
PhxHorn - That's good as far as it goes. What is your best thought to diversify the Horns' running game?Do you thinkA) We will continue to do exactly what we did last season.(B) The coaches will develop some means (more FB runs/use FB with running skills; H-back; split backfield) to diversify the running game on a minimal basis within the framework of the current system.(C) Punt.If we don't do (B), I think it's (C).
A) We will continue to do exactly what we did last season.(B) The coaches will develop some means (more FB runs/use FB with running skills; H-back; split backfield) to diversify the running game on a minimal basis within the framework of the current system.(C) Punt.If we don't do (B), I think it's (C).The wild card will be the buildup of guys like Scaife and Edwards. Guys who can be very good receiving threats and line up as an H-back. This gives you additional flexibility...great blockers who you've got to cover out of the backfield. I think that we'll see more and more of this type of athlete whenever we can land them, and I'll bet that Edwards plays often come late in the season in this role. Use the NFL two to ten years ago as a bench mark. Denver comes to mind, as does Dallas with Novacek for a slightly different example.I think our running game will be different from FSUs. We can get better linemen and we'll run bigger backs. This will let us beat up the sisters of the poor and be generally more balanced without a whole lot more practice snaps than we've been using.
kchorn, I wasn't ignoring your very well worded earlier response or that of DIMYH, I just needed some time to figure out how to respond.First, I'm approaching this from an empirical perspective, while you seem to be taking more of a theoretical stance. I'm not necessarily in disagreement with your views, but the data would seem to indicate that most college OCs don't share them. The issue, at least from my viewing of an obscene number of game tapes, is not one of alignment, as DIMYH suggests with his split backs proposal. Rather, it appears to me to be one of blocking schemes. As we've discussed before, we don't trap or run counters - we simply line up and, ala Sampson, grab the jawbone of an *** and flail the **** of the luckless Philistine across the way. In the "normal" alignment (and please realize there are almost infinite variations of "normal"), there just aren't any unfilled gaps - that's why the FB is needed as a lead blocker. If the fullback is used to carry the ball, especially in the offset I we seem to prefer, he's going to run, likely between the tackles, and there is simply no way to effectively block everyone.Personally, I like counters and traps, but Davis doesn't seem to share my enthusiasm for same. I don't know the reason, but have always assumed that Greg doesn't want to sacrifice scarce practice time for the effort associated with that type of blocking scheme. In my observation, we work on passing about 75% of the time - to install an offense where the linemen pull, and to perfect the timing and technique associated with same, is going to take time - and a good bit of it - away from those passing reps.As to your three choices, I rather hope it's not too much (c), given the woefulness of our punting game last year. It may be some version of (b), but I doubt it includes more use of the FB or a split backfield. I think it possible we'll see some more 2-TE sets - how many I don't know.If Hodges is the primary back, I think we'll see a fair number of delays and draws, just like last year. HM is a gifted young man, but a pilemover he is not and running him between the tackles doesn't look like an optimal strategy to me. Conversely, if Williams is in there, I would see us running between the tackles quite a bit - Ivan certainly fits the pilemover description.I will not be surprised in the least to see a lot of one back sets, featuring either two TEs or three wides, especially as the young guys get more experience and confidence. And, given the general scarcity of good cover backs and given the weapon that Scaife represents, I think that will be a productive move.DIMYH - thanks for the kind words and for the excellent response. I hope I've responded to your thoughts adequately in these other replies.[This message has been edited by PhxHorn (edited 07-17-2000).]
Phx - Thank you for the thoughts (and for initiating the opportunity to discuss these issues). You are correct, IMO, but:One of my thoughts is that the other offensive coordinators may be wrong, and Davis/Mack may be smart enough to figure that out.Saying (and I am not referring to anyone posting on this board, but am only making reference to the "conventional wisdom" in vogue at the moment) that it is immaterial whether the FB is an effective runner (even if he is going to carry the ball) won't hold water under any kind of objective analysis.Saying (same frame of reference) that the best we can do for a power running game is TB against the world -- with over-matched blockers attempting to dislodge eight-in-the-box for the preordained RB on a play everyone knows is coming before the snap count -- to me would be an indication that "coaching" is an abstract concept that has no practical application on game day.I believe Mack and Davis know this and will react accordingly. We'll find out soon enough.Addendum: Phx - in expressing these views, I am enjoying our discussion and presenting my thoughts honestly. I don't want you (or anyone else) to think that I'm under any illusion that my views re offensive strategies are anything more than sideline opinions that have little, if any, merit in comparison to what the paid coaching staff is thinking.It would not surprise me if they are reviewing similar issues with the same objectives in mind, but obviously they may reach an opposite conclusion. For example, they might believe something to the effect that the FB is nothing more than a blocker and so be it; further, that our power game (even if limited to one basic play -- to take the point to an extreme) will either prevail on the merits of our superior physical strength and talent (and the threat of our passing game) or fail.My view is that some alternatives would help the running game, but if that view is incorrect -- it certainly won't keep me from enjoying the season. Except on third and three. [This message has been edited by kchorn (edited 07-17-2000).]
L
LonghornStud34
Guest
Great posts, all. First, I would like to comment on something Phxhorn eluded to in one of his previous posts. He said our offense is becoming more and more like that of FSU's. I mentioned the same thing on a post I started titled "power running game". If you look at the type of athletes davis and brown are bringing in, we could throw the ball 50 times a game! We have 2 of the best qb's in the nation, one of the best young tight ends, and 5 possible studs to compete at WR, along with Artie Ellis, Flowers, and Garcia. I think we will have a competent running game, but no where near the days of RW, we just have too many weapons in the passing game. FSU has the "scatback" runner (travis minor) and we have 2 (mitchell and Ike). These guys aren't overpowering, but the will keep a D honest at times. Secondly, I wouldn't have a problem with the number of carries our FB gets per game, unless that FB is a good ball carrier. Say what you will, but I thought Ricky Brown was a talented back, and could have contributed significantly if he got 8-10 carries a game. Trissel, Stevens, and Matthews on the otherhand are what Davis prefers, they block first, catch second, and run third. Finally,
I think if Ivan were used at FB more along with Ike, Mitchel, and Hayter at TB, would add an extra element to our offense. Granted most of the plays trissel and stevens would be at fb. But, what do I know??------------------
"11 yards shy of the record...Ricky Williams breaks a hole! RICKY WILLIAMS HELLO RECORD BOOK!!!...RICKY WILLIAMS RUNS TO THE HALL OF FAME!!!...CUTS BACK...RICKY WILLIAMS TOUCHDOWN!!!"
I think if Ivan were used at FB more along with Ike, Mitchel, and Hayter at TB, would add an extra element to our offense. Granted most of the plays trissel and stevens would be at fb. But, what do I know??------------------
"11 yards shy of the record...Ricky Williams breaks a hole! RICKY WILLIAMS HELLO RECORD BOOK!!!...RICKY WILLIAMS RUNS TO THE HALL OF FAME!!!...CUTS BACK...RICKY WILLIAMS TOUCHDOWN!!!"
Phx--I've said it before and I'll say it again, you're the most wicked poster in all of netdom. I'd say most wicked poster in all existence, but with that, I harken back to a poster of Victoria Principal I saw as a kid.As to your thoughts, I like the results of your research. My only problem with our usage of the fullback is that I wish we'd throw to him at least once a game and handoff at least once as well. Just enough to at least make him a thought in the back of the defense's mind.Our scheme may not be the problem, really. Our problems last year can be attributed more or less to depth and talent issues. Except, of course, for O-Line, in which we may have had some systemic problems as well. Once we get all pistons firing, I expect to see a much more brilliant set of plays called each week. Regardless, I'm not sure if anything said here will be able to cure kcquixote of his disturbing yearning for the FB to receive 15 handoffs per game.Hook'em
horndfl and Phx - the only hope for me on this issue is therapy. I need for some "mind expert" to remove from my psyche all thoughts of how much Steve Worster meant to the Horns when we had that 30-game winning streak.Of course, the Wishbone days are a relic that may warrant some veneration, but they do not exactly provide an appropriate analogy for the situation we face in these days. It would help me if they would just quit calling the position "Fullback" and perhaps -- to go even further back than the wishbone days -- return to the use of the "Blocking Back" position.Another thing that would help would be if they would quit running stories on this board indicating that DD Lewis ran for 1,921 yards and 20 touchdowns during his senior year as a FB in high school. And stop mentioning James Buchanan on the recruiting board -- just kidding.Seriously, if nothing else, IMO we do need to get Hodges and Ivan some help when they run that play up the middle with more defenders than we have blockers. If they can do that (regardless of whether the FB is involved in the solution), I will be cured of the phobia that the situation(s) we saw on occasion last season might reoccur this time around.As noted, I believe the coaching staff will address that issue, and we will see the results this Fall.Then maybe we can return our focus to the offensive line.
horndfl, thanks for the kind words. BTW, I got your email re lunch tomorrow - that's a go as far as I'm concerned. I'll call in the am and we'll figure out where to hook up.To you and our favorite FB-obsessed poster, kchorn - kc, no need for therapy - this discussion, no matter how fruitless, is infinitely preferable to "ags suck", "naming the defense", or "stadium yells". In terms of wanting to use the FB, you're basically wanting to move to some version of the Mackovic offense. For all the Mackovic bashing that periodically takes place on here, I thought Mackovic was a decent offensive coach, although I don't ascribe to him the genius label that some do. Having said that, I thought John's offensive acumen suffered in three areas: (1) he rarely took the obvious, preferring to outwit the opponent rather than overpower them (see Baylor of 1997 for example), (2)he relied too much on finesse, to the exclusion of any drive blocking in the OL, and (3) his offense was simply too complex to be consistently executed by a college team, especially a young college team - see 1997, entire season, for an example. I guess I could also add that John was a trifle rigid in terms of gameplan adjustments - see Route 66 for example.One of the things I liked, and still do, about the Davis system is that it appears to be relatively simple and therefore, at least in theory, easier for a bunch of college kids to execute on a consistent basis. I really would like to see more sophistication in the run blocking schemes, whether or not they involve the FB, but simply don't think I'm going to do so. Although I assume it's back to the practice time allocation thing, possibly Greg had a traumatic childhood incident involving rat elimination devices and goes bugshit when he hears the "trap" word. Who knows?To your point about running in the old crowded box, the answer is not more sophisticated blocking or use of the fullback. It's the TE or quick passes to wideouts who can separate quickly, and thereby punish the defense for taking run support (or blitz) liberties. Last year, we simply lacked those weapons - this year, we're going to have some of them, and maybe a bunch of them, depending on how many of the frosh can contribute.When, or if, that happens with sufficient regularity, then watch how the safeties start edging back and watch the OLBs cheat to the outside. Or, watch the DCs start going to nickel and dime packages. When that happens, then all of a sudden there's seven (or less) in the box and blocking gets much more straightforward.To me, the most interesting thing for next year is Davis' strategy at TB. Hodges is our most complete running back, even though he's certainly not a pilemover and he has a tough time holding off a blitzing 240 pound LB (sure doesn't keep him from sticking his helmet in the guy, however). With HM in the game, I simply can't see us running much between the tackles, at least against good defenses, given the nature of the blocking schemes. That looks like a job better suited to Ivan, IMO, which may mean we see multiple offensive approaches this year - a finesse, passing approach with HM and a power game when Ivan comes in. We'll see. rimbo, I've seen so many definitions of a WCO that I've given up. I also have an idea in my mind of what it means, although I doubt my fuzzy concepts would agree with, say, any group of a dozen, or so, other posters on here. As to using the FB, you can read my response to kchorn above and see if that is responsive to your discussion.[This message has been edited by PhxHorn (edited 07-17-2000).]
rimbo and kchorn - I don't feel any need to refute your point about gamebreakers, but would offer an alternative viewpoint. All of us - hell, certainly the coaches - would like guys who can do everything - tote the rock, block like a bulldozer, catch passes like a WR, etc. The issue is there aren't too many of those guys around. Ricky Williams was a superb fullback in his first two year and could do all of those things - yet, with a guy of that talent, I would submit you give him the ball every chance you get.This discussion has overtones - and I don't mean that disparagingly - of the old speed kills discussion that crops up now and again. Everyone wants LBs who go 245 and turn a 4.4, or DEs that go 270 and run 4.6. The issue is that there aren't many of those folks to be had, so coaches wind up in the speed/size tradeoff situation.Similarly with FBs, not too many guys can do the above three tasks with equal ability, so the coach has tradeoffs to make. It appears that Davis, along with a lot of other OCs, favors the blocking skill, followed by pass catching, over the running aspect. It also makes it tough to recruit such an animal. Remember that Keith Joseph was a strong lean to us, but wanted to play TB rather than FB, which was where we wanted him - hello, Aggies.I suppose it's possible, if we get someone who fills the above three dimensions, that Davis will adjust the offense to better utilize him. However, I see neither Matt nor Chad as ballcarriers - both are former HS TEs. Will Matthews might turn out to be the complete package, but is likely a ways down the road.
rimbo, thanks for the WCO definition - that's pretty much how I have it defined, as well, although the term seems to be so widely and loosely used, that I've pretty much quit thinking about it.On the FB, it's certainly plausible to recruit good runner and, as you say, bulk them up and teach them to block. Ivan Williams fits that mold - the difficulty is in convincing them to come in the first place. Great runners want to tote the rock, not block for the guy carrying the ball. Witness the Keith Joseph incident I mentioned. Of course, I suppose it's possible to get a good running recruit who is not as good a runner as others ahead of him on the depth chart and who will move to get PT. I think it more likely, however, that he simply heads for greener pastures.As well, unless Greg alters his scheme, and he well could do so, there are not a lot of good carry opportunities available to the FB. The quick dive and an off-tackle slant look to be pretty much it.
Weekly Prediction Contest
CFP Semifinals • Cotton Bowl
Friday, Jan 10 • 6:30 PM on ESPN
Prediction Results Threads
