(11-12-2015 08:53 AM)ruowls Wrote:  You don't simplify to execute. You teach the theory and exploit change. You didn't come to Rice and say I'm going to simplify math and only do long division so I can execute it great. Success lies in forcing favorable resources to be better than your opponent. As Owl53 said, a power, zone, Iso/lead, option, or whatever is what it is. It is coupling passing with running and forcing the opponent to defend multiple choices. It is what makes Navy so hard to defend. They force a defense to go from gap responsibility to man responsibility with multiple variations and choices. You know I love you but don't dummy things down.

Probably didn't express it very well, but I wouldn't be dummying things down. I'd cut down on the number of formations and plays, and then work on running each play in different ways to take advantage of different defensive responses. Instead of running 100 different plays from 20 different formations, master 30-40 plays from 6 formations, and as you say, teach theory and exploit change. You learn how to run each play 3 or 4 different ways to take advantage of what a defense does, so you can impose your will no matter what they do. You have the chalk last, because you keep the chalk after the ball is snapped.

I may be misunderstanding, but that's the way I've always understood your passing game to work.

(11-12-2015 12:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-12-2015 08:53 AM)ruowls Wrote:  You don't simplify to execute. You teach the theory and exploit change. You didn't come to Rice and say I'm going to simplify math and only do long division so I can execute it great. Success lies in forcing favorable resources to be better than your opponent. As Owl53 said, a power, zone, Iso/lead, option, or whatever is what it is. It is coupling passing with running and forcing the opponent to defend multiple choices. It is what makes Navy so hard to defend. They force a defense to go from gap responsibility to man responsibility with multiple variations and choices. You know I love you but don't dummy things down.

Probably didn't express it very well, but I wouldn't be dummying things down. I'd cut down on the number of formations and plays, and then work on running each play in different ways to take advantage of different defensive responses. Instead of running 100 different plays from 20 different formations, master 30-40 plays from 6 formations, and as you say, teach theory and exploit change. You learn how to run each play 3 or 4 different ways to take advantage of what a defense does, so you can impose your will no matter what they do. You have the chalk last, because you keep the chalk after the ball is snapped.

I may be misunderstanding, but that's the way I've always understood your passing game to work.

Sorry. It is the nuances that I'm talking about. We are basically saying the same thing. However, it isn't the plays you master but responsibility for a component of the play by any given individual. If you have a 0-10 route passing tree and four receivers, then all the combination possibilities would be 0000-9999. You don't use them all nor do you teach 10,000 different passing plays. As others stated, you teach spacing when attacking a defender or area by common used combinations.
You use a variety of formations, motions, shifts, and personnel groupings to accentuate a weakness. As another example, a power is down blocking along the line with the end getting kicked out. Formation changes allow multiple ways to accomplish this. The kick out block can be a back, H-back, G, T, C, or TE. Some choices are better than others. You could even motion Z across to do it but usually they don't have the skills to be successful doing this.
I'd use many formations and many different player configurations within these formations to achieve the goal. And formations and player groupings will isolate someone somewhere.

For example,

...X...........TTGCG...Y.........................................
......................Q..F...Z......................................

......................T........................

is a bear to defend. You have line strength to the left with overload, tripps bunch to the right that can be run heavy or pass heavy based on the end's alignment and how they cover the bunch. They have to slide line strength to the overload which leaves secondary in run support to the tripps bunch but also have to account for pass. You have an isolated receiver to line strength and they have to choose to support the run on that side which leaves X isolated. If they use secondary to double him, the tripps is single coverage. If the try to cover the passing game, they pull someone out of run support in the line overload. You can use various TE/F combos in the tripps bunch or go 4 WR in the entire grouping. You can go play action, roll, bootleg, option, counter, iso, lead draw, fly sweep, power, zone, or stretch to either side. You can motion one of the bunch to create more overload to the left. You can try and force the corner over by motioning Z or a LB/S with F. You can put a TE at Z and motion him and get more size on the overload if the corner follows outside receiver. You could put a slot receiver at F and motion him across to get him isolated with a S in the passing game. And you couple all of this with the best way to run a route/pattern based on defense responsibilities and their movements (or block in the running game with power, iso/lead, sweep, option, zone, stretch....).

Long story short, it about the coordination and execution of what can be done versus just executing a play.

(11-12-2015 02:33 PM)ruowls Wrote:  Long story short, it about the coordination and execution of what can be done versus just executing a play.

Exactly.

A wise old coach who won a few Super Bowl rings a few miles north of where you are once spoke (probably many times actually, but once in my presence) about the difference between running plays and running an offense. Right now I think we run plays. We lack the understanding to put it together and run an offense.

(11-11-2015 07:16 PM)ruowls Wrote:  

(11-11-2015 04:27 PM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  If I could have the offense for 3-4 years (because it takes that much time to implement a system fully; combination of education and recruiting), I would go with an offense that has an emphasis on the run game. This could be due to my background as an offensive lineman.

1) Have the basic run schemes such as zone, power, and iso but be able to run them from multiple formations. This would include I-formation and single back from under center along with spread formations. Zone would always have an option to pull, then occasionally a third option for a bubble route or quick pass. A true pitch option would be of minimal use. There are many ways to confuse and mystify a defense with blocking schemes and formations, which unfortunately I cannot demonstrate on here, but I think would be extremely effective.

2) As with many teams, the run game would set up the passing game. Hopefully, the run game would open up play action which could be the deep threat. The quarterback would not need to be a gunslinger, but be efficient with the ball and get it to where it needs to be. Most pass plays would have a deep option, because you always want to attack downfield if the read is favorable.

Passing sets up the run. Passing gets a defense to have to adjust fronts with coverage changes. You can teach this in 3 weeks.

Passing does set up the run. But the run sets up the pass as well. They honestly both set up each other. It's the preference of the coach. I'd rather be a smash-mouth, physical, team. Which is associated with a strong run game. Formations can make defenses adjust fronts and coverages. So can a game plan.

Some unconventional wisdom from Baylor:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/baylor-bears...1447358072

Interesting stuff on Baylor!

All I want is an offense that doesn't waste half the game awaiting instructions.

We have to be realistic. We need an offense thay gives us recruiting advantages vs the average school, we can't hope to get the best pro style QB's and linemen. An offense that controls the clock, a possession type offense, is much easier at Rice than a fast paced guns blazing offense. From what I've seen as an Owl fan, we get more possession type WR's than blazers. It's been that way regardless of the offense. UH can recruit several speedsters at WR since they have a bigger pool to pick from, we'll get more possession types that lack top level speed bigger programs are attracted to but could be just as good or better. Same thing with QB's. We have more success recruiting duel-threat than pure passers. That's not going to change until we develop a reputation of being a good spot for pro prospect QBs. Unless we get lucky. The right coach could make it work, but it will take time to sustain it. The season fell apart once our option game was nullified IMO. That's the offense we have. The run game is predictable outside of the option. As far as devloping a stronger defense, I'm all for it but it's easier to recruit offensive players. We get a lot of offensive players that we convert to defense, as is. I imagine it's harder to convince players who have other options to play defense.

(11-13-2015 07:37 PM)Buho00 Wrote:  We have to be realistic. We need an offense thay gives us recruiting advantages vs the average school, we can't hope to get the best pro style QB's and linemen. An offense that controls the clock, a possession type offense, is much easier at Rice than a fast paced guns blazing offense. From what I've seen as an Owl fan, we get more possession type WR's than blazers. It's been that way regardless of the offense. UH can recruit several speedsters at WR since they have a bigger pool to pick from, we'll get more possession types that lack top level speed bigger programs are attracted to but could be just as good or better. Same thing with QB's. We have more success recruiting duel-threat than pure passers. That's not going to change until we develop a reputation of being a good spot for pro prospect QBs. Unless we get lucky. The right coach could make it work, but it will take time to sustain it. The season fell apart once our option game was nullified IMO. That's the offense we have. The run game is predictable outside of the option. As far as devloping a stronger defense, I'm all for it but it's easier to recruit offensive players. We get a lot of offensive players that we convert to defense, as is. I imagine it's harder to convince players who have other options to play defense.

You do realize that you have just recited the entire litany of reasons to run the flexbone, right?

(11-13-2015 01:51 PM)talon owl Wrote:  Some unconventional wisdom from Baylor:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/baylor-bears...1447358072

Interesting. Reminds me of how Lionel Messi had one of the lowest work rates during last year's World Cup. Maybe the secret to success isn't constantly pushing yourself to your limit?