(09-21-2016 12:06 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote: (09-21-2016 11:22 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: (09-21-2016 11:15 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: (09-20-2016 10:24 PM)raptorsareout Wrote: Then we need to get much more athletic. Let's call it whatever we want. There's obviously something wrong, and it can't all be blamed on coaching. We look slow against top 60 competition. There's a clear disparity in athleticism. It's especially obvious on television. Our guys look small and slow.
How is that not on coaching?
1) recruit more athletic players.
2) use a system that doesn't require superior athleticism.
3) make those players you CAN recruit more athletic (usually S&C)
Whom would you put such a task on/charge with fixing such an issue?
It will be interesting to see how the next coach solves those problems. 1&3 are pretty obvious.
For #2, other than the triple option offense that the service academies use and that we discarded, what offenses and defenses work that don't need superior athleticism?
Answer to #2 - see any post from ruowls.
Precisely.
Use physics and geometry to overcome athleticism. This is what the wishbone does, but so does rugby and soccer and lacrosse and basketball. A 180lb guy can block a 280 lb guy if he comes from the side. He can't if he comes from in front. You can complete a pass more easily if the defender is behind, not in front of you.
The ideal WR is probably 6'3, 215, 4.4, big vertical and great hands.
I'd focus on the hands first. Doesn't matter if you're open if you can't catch it, and the difference between 4.4 and 4.5 over 10 -15 yards is nothing, and neither is the 'catch radius' of someone 6'3 vs 5'10. Of course, if you can get the other guy, so much the better.
We've all played some form of 'tag'. I want shifty runners, not necessarily fast ones. Guys who can avoid being tagged/jammed at the LOS and catch the ball. We can teach that kid to get open. Think Danny Amendola as opposed to Amari Cooper. We are more likely to get 5'10, 4.5 Amendola than 6'2 4.4 Cooper.
The common thought is that you can't teach size, so that is what most people go for... Like Navy, I'm going for the guy who most places would see as too small. Not diminutive of course, and there is also need for bigger WRs... but on 3rd and 3 or on the goal line, the fade is a tough throw and requires all sorts of athleticism. The quick slant or stop requires is the ability to get inside the defender and recognize who has the passing lane and adjust. 4.2 doesn't help there, and 6'2 can be defeated by 6'3 on the fade.
I'm putting a premium on QBs who can throw slants, stops and swings (momentum going forward, recognizing where the 'threat' is, and it's NOT the guy behind our receiver)... not fades.
Similarly on defense, better use of disguises and unusual packages... i.e. drop an end into coverage (changes the passing lane) and then blitz the backer who NORMALLY would have covered that lane. Focus your athleticism here. Other teams WILL move the ball... You're not going to win 7-3 without athleticism... but you might win 31-24.