Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Encouragement, Encouragement, Encouragement
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
Owlman49 Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 53
Joined: Dec 2017
Reputation: 0
I Root For: Rice U
Location: DFW
Post: #21
RE: Encouragement, Encouragement, Encouragement
(12-02-2019 04:48 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  In fairness, I think a decent number of us ARE former players... many of whom won less frequently than some of our recent players... and yet we still see ways that the University and/or those put in charge of them have failed THEM.

Most of these complaints are because the players either can't complain... or because they are too close/lack the longer-term perspective to know how.

I guarantee these guys aren't satisfied with their record or performance.

These guys ARE Rice guys, and thus 'winners', no matter the score. Rice athletes RARELY peak in College.

+1
12-02-2019 06:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
75src Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,353
Joined: Mar 2009
Reputation: 21
I Root For: Rice
Location:
Post: #22
RE: Encouragement, Encouragement, Encouragement
Cubs won the World Series in 2016.

(10-02-2019 08:48 PM)OldOwl Wrote:  Rice Owl fans would make good Chicago Cub fans.
12-03-2019 01:12 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Seventyniner Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 940
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 12
I Root For: Rice
Location:
Post: #23
RE: Encouragement, Encouragement, Encouragement
It might not be popular or exciting, but dammit, it worked. Bring back the triple option. While Rice isn't a service academy, they have the same disconnect between the players they are able and willing to get and the rest of college football, without the big-conference resources. Having that offense that opponents don't have time to meticulously plan against is worth at least a win or two per season imo. It also dovetails perfectly with a strong defense.
12-04-2019 10:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
WRCisforgotten79 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,491
Joined: May 2007
Reputation: 36
I Root For: Rice
Location: Houston
Post: #24
RE: Encouragement, Encouragement, Encouragement
(12-04-2019 10:52 PM)Seventyniner Wrote:  It might not be popular or exciting, but dammit, it worked. Bring back the triple option. While Rice isn't a service academy, they have the same disconnect between the players they are able and willing to get and the rest of college football, without the big-conference resources. Having that offense that opponents don't have time to meticulously plan against is worth at least a win or two per season imo. It also dovetails perfectly with a strong defense.

No. Anyone with a week off ahead of time will stop it. Also, if you're behind in the 4th quarter by more than a touchdown, you lose.
12-05-2019 01:30 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 63,012
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1505
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #25
RE: Encouragement, Encouragement, Encouragement
(12-05-2019 01:30 AM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  
(12-04-2019 10:52 PM)Seventyniner Wrote:  It might not be popular or exciting, but dammit, it worked. Bring back the triple option. While Rice isn't a service academy, they have the same disconnect between the players they are able and willing to get and the rest of college football, without the big-conference resources. Having that offense that opponents don't have time to meticulously plan against is worth at least a win or two per season imo. It also dovetails perfectly with a strong defense.
No. Anyone with a week off ahead of time will stop it. Also, if you're behind in the 4th quarter by more than a touchdown, you lose.

Not everyone with a week off will stop it. On the other hand, even good defenses without a week off struggle to stop it. And if you choose your offense based upon being behind by more than a touchdown in the fourth quarter, aren't you admitting defeat up front? In that situation, most offenses lose. Shouldn't the objective be not to fall behind by more than a touchdown in the fourth quarter? And the flexbone has some advantages tat can help with that.

You have identified potential problems, without addressing potential advantages. For one thing, it operates with guys who are just athletes, rather than specialists. The big, often slow, pass protecting linemen, and the drop-back quarterbacks that are essential to a more pass-oriented attack generally cannot play anywhere else, whereas a lot of guys recruited for the option can play several on either side of the ball. For another, those linemen and quarterbacks are in heavy demand at P5 schools, while we have a much better shot at recruiting option types--smaller, more mobile o-linemen (who cam move to the defensive side of the ball if needed) and the kind of QB who is a good athlete, but TexasU tells him, "Come here and we'll make you a safety" (so obviously he can move there if you need him there). We can recruit a lot of d-linemen who can move over to the other side of the ball if needed there; Fred did a lot of this with a different offensive scheme, but he learned to do it coaching in Hatfield's flexbone system . These advantages regarding recruiting and flexibility/depth are IMO why it works well for the academies, and Rice has very similar limitations.

As you should know, I'm not a fan of pure wishbone or flexbone. I prefer something like the Erk Russell/Bob Wagner/Paul Johnson combination of option running game and run-and-shoot (or plug in the Air Raid or Ruowls's West Coast) passing scheme. The only way to stop our passing game is to let us run wild. The knock is that the two systems are supposedly too hard to combine, but Georgia Southern with Tracy Ham and Hawaii with Garrett Gabriel and Ivin Jasper ran it pretty effectively, and I doubt that either Hawaii or Georgia Southern had smarter players than we do.

It seems to me that you are citing issues that maybe--maybe--arise 20% of the time, and can be dealt with if they do, when there are offsetting plusses 80% of the time.
12-05-2019 02:11 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
WRCisforgotten79 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,491
Joined: May 2007
Reputation: 36
I Root For: Rice
Location: Houston
Post: #26
RE: Encouragement, Encouragement, Encouragement
The most idiotic argument ever for using the triple option (when faced with the reality of hopelessness when trailing by multiple scores late in a game): don't fall behind!

Wow - why doesn't every coach use that helpful idea?
12-05-2019 03:22 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 63,012
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1505
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #27
RE: Encouragement, Encouragement, Encouragement
(12-05-2019 03:22 AM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  The most idiotic argument ever for using the triple option (when faced with the reality of hopelessness when trailing by multiple scores late in a game): don't fall behind!
Wow - why doesn't every coach use that helpful idea?

Way to misstate my point. Beyond that, I'm simply not going to respond.
12-05-2019 05:38 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
owl at the moon Offline
Eastern Screech Owl
*

Posts: 5,770
Joined: Aug 2013
Reputation: 210
I Root For: Rice:NatlChamps
Location: 20mi from THE STAR
Post: #28
Encouragement, Encouragement, Encouragement
(12-05-2019 05:38 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(12-05-2019 03:22 AM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  The most idiotic argument ever for using the triple option (when faced with the reality of hopelessness when trailing by multiple scores late in a game): don't fall behind!
Wow - why doesn't every coach use that helpful idea?

Way to misstate my point. Beyond that, I'm simply not going to respond.


I’ll respond (albeit flippantly)...

The problem with a pass-based offense is that it is *impossible* to protect a lead by running out the clock
12-05-2019 05:51 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 63,012
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1505
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #29
RE: Encouragement, Encouragement, Encouragement
(12-05-2019 01:30 AM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  
(12-04-2019 10:52 PM)Seventyniner Wrote:  It might not be popular or exciting, but dammit, it worked. Bring back the triple option. While Rice isn't a service academy, they have the same disconnect between the players they are able and willing to get and the rest of college football, without the big-conference resources. Having that offense that opponents don't have time to meticulously plan against is worth at least a win or two per season imo. It also dovetails perfectly with a strong defense.
No. Anyone with a week off ahead of time will stop it. Also, if you're behind in the 4th quarter by more than a touchdown, you lose.

Pray tell, when you are behind by more than a touchdown in the fourth quarter, what offense doesn't lose the vast majority of the time?
12-05-2019 07:41 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 42,618
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 540
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #30
RE: Encouragement, Encouragement, Encouragement
(12-05-2019 03:22 AM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  The most idiotic argument ever for using the triple option (when faced with the reality of hopelessness when trailing by multiple scores late in a game): don't fall behind!

Wow - why doesn't every coach use that helpful idea?

I think every coach tries that.
12-05-2019 12:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ruowls Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,493
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation: 66
I Root For:
Location:

Football Genius
Post: #31
RE: Encouragement, Encouragement, Encouragement
(12-05-2019 02:11 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(12-05-2019 01:30 AM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  
(12-04-2019 10:52 PM)Seventyniner Wrote:  It might not be popular or exciting, but dammit, it worked. Bring back the triple option. While Rice isn't a service academy, they have the same disconnect between the players they are able and willing to get and the rest of college football, without the big-conference resources. Having that offense that opponents don't have time to meticulously plan against is worth at least a win or two per season imo. It also dovetails perfectly with a strong defense.
No. Anyone with a week off ahead of time will stop it. Also, if you're behind in the 4th quarter by more than a touchdown, you lose.

Not everyone with a week off will stop it. On the other hand, even good defenses without a week off struggle to stop it. And if you choose your offense based upon being behind by more than a touchdown in the fourth quarter, aren't you admitting defeat up front? In that situation, most offenses lose. Shouldn't the objective be not to fall behind by more than a touchdown in the fourth quarter? And the flexbone has some advantages tat can help with that.

You have identified potential problems, without addressing potential advantages. For one thing, it operates with guys who are just athletes, rather than specialists. The big, often slow, pass protecting linemen, and the drop-back quarterbacks that are essential to a more pass-oriented attack generally cannot play anywhere else, whereas a lot of guys recruited for the option can play several on either side of the ball. For another, those linemen and quarterbacks are in heavy demand at P5 schools, while we have a much better shot at recruiting option types--smaller, more mobile o-linemen (who cam move to the defensive side of the ball if needed) and the kind of QB who is a good athlete, but TexasU tells him, "Come here and we'll make you a safety" (so obviously he can move there if you need him there). We can recruit a lot of d-linemen who can move over to the other side of the ball if needed there; Fred did a lot of this with a different offensive scheme, but he learned to do it coaching in Hatfield's flexbone system . These advantages regarding recruiting and flexibility/depth are IMO why it works well for the academies, and Rice has very similar limitations.

As you should know, I'm not a fan of pure wishbone or flexbone. I prefer something like the Erk Russell/Bob Wagner/Paul Johnson combination of option running game and run-and-shoot (or plug in the Air Raid or Ruowls's West Coast) passing scheme. The only way to stop our passing game is to let us run wild. The knock is that the two systems are supposedly too hard to combine, but Georgia Southern with Tracy Ham and Hawaii with Garrett Gabriel and Ivin Jasper ran it pretty effectively, and I doubt that either Hawaii or Georgia Southern had smarter players than we do.

It seems to me that you are citing issues that maybe--maybe--arise 20% of the time, and can be dealt with if they do, when there are offsetting plusses 80% of the time.

Obviously, the primary goal of any offense is to score. However, a secondary goal, and a very important goal, is to control the game. What you really want is diversity to adapt to the situation. You want to utilize the run and the pass to create diversity and control the game. PTRCTC is a means to control the game as is the flexbone. However, these lack diversity that you may need at some point in the accomplish the goal of controlling the game and scoring. Running has the advantage of running time off the clock but lacks the greater likelihood of chunk plays. Passing has a greater likelihood of chunk plays but lacks the clock bleed you may want because first downs (a common occurrence with chunk plays) and incomplete passes stop the clock. Therefore, what you really want to do is use the pass and threat of the pass to change the defensive front to stop the pass which makes the run more advantageous and lets you control the clock.
Chunk plays and the ability to make chunk plays when you need them is the ultimate necessity. That lets you control the clock and the game and increases the efficiency of your possessions.
So, teaching your players how to make chunk plays is the primary focus. And this is teaching your players the dynamics of a defense and how you exploit these dynamics to your favor. As you can see, this is not exclusive to any "offensive system". Diversity and teaching the players how to recognize and manipulate the inherent weaknesses of the defense is much more important than teaching plays or running a scheme. Because that helps to increase the ability to create chunk plays rather than guessing what play will work against the defensive call on any given play.
12-05-2019 01:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 63,012
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1505
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #32
RE: Encouragement, Encouragement, Encouragement
(12-05-2019 01:03 PM)ruowls Wrote:  Obviously, the primary goal of any offense is to score. However, a secondary goal, and a very important goal, is to control the game. What you really want is diversity to adapt to the situation. You want to utilize the run and the pass to create diversity and control the game. PTRCTC is a means to control the game as is the flexbone. However, these lack diversity that you may need at some point in the accomplish the goal of controlling the game and scoring. Running has the advantage of running time off the clock but lacks the greater likelihood of chunk plays. Passing has a greater likelihood of chunk plays but lacks the clock bleed you may want because first downs (a common occurrence with chunk plays) and incomplete passes stop the clock. Therefore, what you really want to do is use the pass and threat of the pass to change the defensive front to stop the pass which makes the run more advantageous and lets you control the clock.
Chunk plays and the ability to make chunk plays when you need them is the ultimate necessity. That lets you control the clock and the game and increases the efficiency of your possessions.
So, teaching your players how to make chunk plays is the primary focus. And this is teaching your players the dynamics of a defense and how you exploit these dynamics to your favor. As you can see, this is not exclusive to any "offensive system". Diversity and teaching the players how to recognize and manipulate the inherent weaknesses of the defense is much more important than teaching plays or running a scheme. Because that helps to increase the ability to create chunk plays rather than guessing what play will work against the defensive call on any given play.

That's why I liked the Erk Russell/Bob Wagner/Paul Johnson Georgia Southern/Hawaii offense so much. It could run the ball 50 times and score 40 points, or throw the ball 50 times and score 40 points. I understand why nobody else has tried it--the knock is that it's too hard to teach both flexbone and run-and-shoot. But there aren't many formations, and there aren't many plays, so you can get plenty of reps of everything. Georgia Southern and Hawaii kids were smart enough to learn it, so I'm guessing ours would be too.

Johnson didn't keep the shoot part when he got to Annapolis or at Georgia Tech, but that seems to have been more because his QBs were always better at run than shoot. He said on several occasions that if the right opportunity presented itself, he would love to be able to throw the ball 50 times in a game. Not every QB can be Tracy Ham or Garrett Gabriel, but I think we have a better shot at getting one of those, particularly as a G5, than we do another Tommy Kramer or an Andrew Luck. We can get the kid who is a good athlete, good HS QB, that TexasU tells, "Come here and we will make you a safety," but he still wants to play QB at the next level. Get 3 or 4 of those, and with proper coaching you can probably turn one of them into Tracy Ham or Garrett Gabriel. And as for the rest, you could turn one or two of them into safeties that could start at TexasU.

The pass side doesn't have to be run-and-shoot. You could do Air Raid or your West Coast/Air Coryell approach, or combien aspects of all three (with all three, you still wouldn't have that many pass plays). It's a better complement to the rest if you have your QB throw on the move for most passes, but with the kind of QB that I think we can get, that's probably the best way for him to throw anyhow. Use the run threat to create holes in the secondary to give QB easy throws, like Dinger did with Bert Emanuel. And use the pass threat to force the defense to take people out of the box, and then run wild. The only way to stop our passing is to let us run.
12-07-2019 09:25 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ruowls Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,493
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation: 66
I Root For:
Location:

Football Genius
Post: #33
RE: Encouragement, Encouragement, Encouragement
(12-07-2019 09:25 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(12-05-2019 01:03 PM)ruowls Wrote:  Obviously, the primary goal of any offense is to score. However, a secondary goal, and a very important goal, is to control the game. What you really want is diversity to adapt to the situation. You want to utilize the run and the pass to create diversity and control the game. PTRCTC is a means to control the game as is the flexbone. However, these lack diversity that you may need at some point in the accomplish the goal of controlling the game and scoring. Running has the advantage of running time off the clock but lacks the greater likelihood of chunk plays. Passing has a greater likelihood of chunk plays but lacks the clock bleed you may want because first downs (a common occurrence with chunk plays) and incomplete passes stop the clock. Therefore, what you really want to do is use the pass and threat of the pass to change the defensive front to stop the pass which makes the run more advantageous and lets you control the clock.
Chunk plays and the ability to make chunk plays when you need them is the ultimate necessity. That lets you control the clock and the game and increases the efficiency of your possessions.
So, teaching your players how to make chunk plays is the primary focus. And this is teaching your players the dynamics of a defense and how you exploit these dynamics to your favor. As you can see, this is not exclusive to any "offensive system". Diversity and teaching the players how to recognize and manipulate the inherent weaknesses of the defense is much more important than teaching plays or running a scheme. Because that helps to increase the ability to create chunk plays rather than guessing what play will work against the defensive call on any given play.

That's why I liked the Erk Russell/Bob Wagner/Paul Johnson Georgia Southern/Hawaii offense so much. It could run the ball 50 times and score 40 points, or throw the ball 50 times and score 40 points. I understand why nobody else has tried it--the knock is that it's too hard to teach both flexbone and run-and-shoot. But there aren't many formations, and there aren't many plays, so you can get plenty of reps of everything. Georgia Southern and Hawaii kids were smart enough to learn it, so I'm guessing ours would be too.

Johnson didn't keep the shoot part when he got to Annapolis or at Georgia Tech, but that seems to have been more because his QBs were always better at run than shoot. He said on several occasions that if the right opportunity presented itself, he would love to be able to throw the ball 50 times in a game. Not every QB can be Tracy Ham or Garrett Gabriel, but I think we have a better shot at getting one of those, particularly as a G5, than we do another Tommy Kramer or an Andrew Luck. We can get the kid who is a good athlete, good HS QB, that TexasU tells, "Come here and we will make you a safety," but he still wants to play QB at the next level. Get 3 or 4 of those, and with proper coaching you can probably turn one of them into Tracy Ham or Garrett Gabriel. And as for the rest, you could turn one or two of them into safeties that could start at TexasU.

The pass side doesn't have to be run-and-shoot. You could do Air Raid or your West Coast/Air Coryell approach, or combien aspects of all three (with all three, you still wouldn't have that many pass plays). It's a better complement to the rest if you have your QB throw on the move for most passes, but with the kind of QB that I think we can get, that's probably the best way for him to throw anyhow. Use the run threat to create holes in the secondary to give QB easy throws, like Dinger did with Bert Emanuel. And use the pass threat to force the defense to take people out of the box, and then run wild. The only way to stop our passing is to let us run.

You bring up an interesting point to discuss. Is it better to have a mobile and running QB set up the pass or a passing QB set up the run?
I would say the latter. I have been saying all along, the advantage of the passing game is it can change the front and control it more easily than the run. A running QB acts as an extra runner. It gives the offense an extra blocker. To defeat it, the defense can bring more defenders in the box. The defense can plug the gaps and stop the run. The problem with having your QB throw on the run all the time is that it compresses the field. As such, the throwing lanes become tighter. Moving the QB is good if the defense is in man coverage. It is not as good against zone. Additionally, a defense can pull a rusher to spy the QB (rush 3 and have a rusher follow the QB) and zone the coverage and delay rush a backside zone defender that isn't needed when the field compresses. There is a place to use the QB as a runner and move the pocket. In a nutshell, make a running QB throw. The QB and the offense has to be diverse enough to adjust the passing game to weaken the front.
12-09-2019 04:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 63,012
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1505
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #34
RE: Encouragement, Encouragement, Encouragement
(12-09-2019 04:44 PM)ruowls Wrote:  You bring up an interesting point to discuss. Is it better to have a mobile and running QB set up the pass or a passing QB set up the run?
I would say the latter. I have been saying all along, the advantage of the passing game is it can change the front and control it more easily than the run. A running QB acts as an extra runner. It gives the offense an extra blocker. To defeat it, the defense can bring more defenders in the box. The defense can plug the gaps and stop the run. The problem with having your QB throw on the run all the time is that it compresses the field. As such, the throwing lanes become tighter. Moving the QB is good if the defense is in man coverage. It is not as good against zone. Additionally, a defense can pull a rusher to spy the QB (rush 3 and have a rusher follow the QB) and zone the coverage and delay rush a backside zone defender that isn't needed when the field compresses. There is a place to use the QB as a runner and move the pocket. In a nutshell, make a running QB throw. The QB and the offense has to be diverse enough to adjust the passing game to weaken the front.

I think there are arguments both ways. I the specific case of Rice, I think we are more likely to be able to recruit a running QB who can throw than a pocket passer with a rifle arm. I think there are times when you may want to drop back and times when you may want to get the QB on the move. When the defense brings more defenders to stop the run, that necessarily opens up passing lanes. But a well-crafted passing scheme can overcome any secondary scheme if you can protect the passer long enough. True run-and-shoot moves the QB on almost every play, Air Raid less so, and as I understand it, your approach even less.

On a related topic, there was a time several years ago when many on here wanted, or expressed interest in, Gus Malzahn. Watching the Iron Bowl, he has a pretty sophisticated running attack, but it is truly amazing how primitive his passing schemes are. Even alumni dismiss it as a high school passing attack. He could use your input for at least a spring training.
(This post was last modified: 12-09-2019 05:46 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
12-09-2019 05:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ruowls Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,493
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation: 66
I Root For:
Location:

Football Genius
Post: #35
RE: Encouragement, Encouragement, Encouragement
(12-09-2019 05:43 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(12-09-2019 04:44 PM)ruowls Wrote:  You bring up an interesting point to discuss. Is it better to have a mobile and running QB set up the pass or a passing QB set up the run?
I would say the latter. I have been saying all along, the advantage of the passing game is it can change the front and control it more easily than the run. A running QB acts as an extra runner. It gives the offense an extra blocker. To defeat it, the defense can bring more defenders in the box. The defense can plug the gaps and stop the run. The problem with having your QB throw on the run all the time is that it compresses the field. As such, the throwing lanes become tighter. Moving the QB is good if the defense is in man coverage. It is not as good against zone. Additionally, a defense can pull a rusher to spy the QB (rush 3 and have a rusher follow the QB) and zone the coverage and delay rush a backside zone defender that isn't needed when the field compresses. There is a place to use the QB as a runner and move the pocket. In a nutshell, make a running QB throw. The QB and the offense has to be diverse enough to adjust the passing game to weaken the front.

I think there are arguments both ways. I the specific case of Rice, I think we are more likely to be able to recruit a running QB who can throw than a pocket passer with a rifle arm. I think there are times when you may want to drop back and times when you may want to get the QB on the move. When the defense brings more defenders to stop the run, that necessarily opens up passing lanes. But a well-crafted passing scheme can overcome any secondary scheme if you can protect the passer long enough. True run-and-shoot moves the QB on almost every play, Air Raid less so, and as I understand it, your approach even less.

On a related topic, there was a time several years ago when many on here wanted, or expressed interest in, Gus Malzahn. Watching the Iron Bowl, he has a pretty sophisticated running attack, but it is truly amazing how primitive his passing schemes are. Even alumni dismiss it as a high school passing attack. He could use your input for at least a spring training.

I would move the QB. I would use rolls, half rolls, and boots. You have to move the QB. It helps to restrict the rush and blitzes. If the defense brings more into the box, the opening of the passing lanes depends on man versus zone coverage and the receivers ability to create separation with man. A loaded box with 3 or more receivers split out leaves a receiver uncovered with any coverage other than straight man. Straight man with a loaded box is still successful for the defense if the receivers can't beat man coverage. Receivers need to know if they get this situation they basically have a bunch of open space and can almost always make something happen.
12-09-2019 07:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hambone10 Online
Hooter
*

Posts: 32,466
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 806
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #36
RE: Encouragement, Encouragement, Encouragement
(12-09-2019 07:06 PM)ruowls Wrote:  I would move the QB. I would use rolls, half rolls, and boots. You have to move the QB. It helps to restrict the rush and blitzes. If the defense brings more into the box, the opening of the passing lanes depends on man versus zone coverage and the receivers ability to create separation with man. A loaded box with 3 or more receivers split out leaves a receiver uncovered with any coverage other than straight man. Straight man with a loaded box is still successful for the defense if the receivers can't beat man coverage. Receivers need to know if they get this situation they basically have a bunch of open space and can almost always make something happen.

Now what's REALLY interesting about this, and I would love to hear your thoughts on it.....

but the argument has always been that when you roll the pocket, you give up large portions of the field, compressing the success zone.... and QBs were told to NEVER throw back across the field... but now with the strength of many QBs, that's not the case and plays are being designed with a different geometry, or so it seems.
12-11-2019 03:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ruowls Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,493
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation: 66
I Root For:
Location:

Football Genius
Post: #37
RE: Encouragement, Encouragement, Encouragement
(12-11-2019 03:20 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  
(12-09-2019 07:06 PM)ruowls Wrote:  I would move the QB. I would use rolls, half rolls, and boots. You have to move the QB. It helps to restrict the rush and blitzes. If the defense brings more into the box, the opening of the passing lanes depends on man versus zone coverage and the receivers ability to create separation with man. A loaded box with 3 or more receivers split out leaves a receiver uncovered with any coverage other than straight man. Straight man with a loaded box is still successful for the defense if the receivers can't beat man coverage. Receivers need to know if they get this situation they basically have a bunch of open space and can almost always make something happen.

Now what's REALLY interesting about this, and I would love to hear your thoughts on it.....

but the argument has always been that when you roll the pocket, you give up large portions of the field, compressing the success zone.... and QBs were told to NEVER throw back across the field... but now with the strength of many QBs, that's not the case and plays are being designed with a different geometry, or so it seems.

Never throw LATE back across the middle.....05-nono

The absolute nevers in the passing game.
1) Never throw a quick out against a press corner.
2) Never underthrow an out (pick 6).
3) Never throw over a LB/safety who has intermediate zone over the middle.
4) Never throw late backside over the middle.

As to rolling the QB to a side.... It only compresses the coverage if the defense is playing zone. Instead of stretching the defense from sideline to sideline, the defense only has to cover 1/2-2/3 of the field. In man, there are no zones getting compressed and the receivers still can operate anywhere on the field so the limiting factor is the arm strength of the QB. A field is 53 yards wide so a throw from near one sideline back to the other and down the field can be a 60-70 yard throw.
12-11-2019 03:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2019 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2019 MyBB Group.