(09-17-2016 01:19 PM)ruowls Wrote: The problem is that there is too much horizontal movement and the "concepts" themselves are garbage.
Agree, except that I'm not certain that we are actually running concepts. Concepts imply combo patterns, where routes are coordinated. We look more like old-time high school passing attacks where we appear to be running individual routes and relying on athleticism and individual effort to get open, instead of coordinated schemes to stress particular defenders. It might work if our receivers out-athleted their corners, but ours don't.
There are basically three ways to call pass patterns:
1) Call the primary receiver's route (Y cross) and the other receivers know what complementary routes they are assigned, or if you want to change a receiver's route, you add a "tag" (Y cross X post). This is what we did in HS and it is also the way Bill Walsh did it in the West Coast Offense. These calls can get long and bulky. When you just call the primary receiver, sometimes the other receivers forget and run the wrong complementary routes. And you really can't use this to call plays at the line, since you would be telling the defense what you are doing unless you used coded words.
2) Your use of a three or four number combination (Green 639) where each receiver has numbered routes, green is the pass protection, 6 tells receiver #1 to run a 6 route, receiver #2 to run a 3 route, and receiver #3 to run a 9 route. It's mnemonic, the bigger the number, the deeper the route. You tag any additional routes. This is the Don Coryell approach to the West Coast Offense. I like this because each receiver immediately knows both his route and the routes around him, so receivers can adjust as needed to stay out of each other's way. Bad thing is you are limited to 10 routes per receiver, although you might want more for a truly comprehensive attack. I did see one system that got around this problem by using numbers on outside breaking routes and letters on inside breaking routes. This approach may also give the defense too much information if used to call plays at the line, although again a code word can be used.
3) Concepts use just a name for every pattern, basically a code word. For example, "smash" means something like the inside receiver runs a corner/flag route and the outside receiver runs a hitch or in-breaking route underneath. Your backside receiver can run a post or streak to keep any backside support from rotating over. You stress the safety, if he goes to help on the corner, you throw to the hitch, if he breaks to the hitch, you throw to the corner. Using concepts has become popular with all the hurry up attacks, because it adapts well to calling plays at the line.
All of the coordinated patterns depend on timing. You take your drop, if any, plant, and either the ball is gone to your primary receiver or you're on to your second and third reads. You read your keys, figure out who is going to get open, and throw him the ball. You don't sit back and wait for somebody to get open. You'll get hammered if you do.
I really don't see much of this in our passing attack, but maybe that's just as you say, our concepts stink. I thought there was a great example of coordinated routes in the Southern Miss win over Kentucky. Southern gets the ball on about their own 30, under a minute left in the half, down by 25. They have the outside receiver run a deep out, looking to get maybe 15-20 yards, get OB to stop the clock, and run another play or two to get in position for a field goal to narrow the gap. The camera angle catches it perfectly, the safety breaks to the deep out route, and as soon as he does the QB looks to the inside receiver beating the nickel back on a streak, and hits him for the TD that ignited the comeback win. I don't see us doing that sort of stuff.
We run plays instead of an offense. We run pass routes instead of a coordinated passing attack.
Quote:Honestly, the passing game has to be completely revamped. As others have stated, it can work if you can run by people. If you can't, it looks really bad.
For those who only see a lack of separation due to not enough talent, I disagree. It is the system and rules of the system. With different reads and instruction, things could be much better.
There are schemes and systems that will work with the talent that we have. We don't have one of those schemes or systems. We're trying to out-athlete people instead of out-scheming and out-thinking and out-executing them. When we get Baylor's talent, it will work. How long before that happens?
And even with Baylor's talent, a coordinated scheme would be more effective.
