View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently August 20th, 2014, 10:35 pm



Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 
 Offensive playbook query... 
Author Message
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: January 26th, 2005, 9:34 pm
Posts: 10288
Location: Sycamore, IL
Post Offensive playbook query...
Before I get into this post, I just want to say that I know the Veer doesn't work in the NFL or D1 ball...It got me thinking about the offense and formations that Mooch could use...

What about using the Stack-I or the Power-I like Air Force and Georgia Southern utilize? I would love to see Bryson, Pinner, or White alongside KJ in on run plays. Or using a version of the wishbone, move one of the backs into a wing formation and send him in motion...

Would D-lines eat this formation up? I would think they would, just do to switching formation to have 3 backs. I think it would be good if Mooch could incorporate this into the offense, especially putting Bryson in motion as a blocking/receiving back. But, it's an open question that I was curious about.


Last edited by conversion02 on April 19th, 2005, 3:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.



April 19th, 2005, 2:48 pm
Profile
ST Coordinator – Danny Crossman

Joined: March 22nd, 2005, 8:42 pm
Posts: 3811
Post 
There hasn't been anything fancy with the backfield, but I think that was more a product of RW's and Roger's injuries. If they strech the field the underneath routes and screens will work. As far as the I formation, that is not the normal set in the WCO. I think the main problem we have though is that we have lots of good receiving RBs, but we do not have a complete FB. Rathman during his day could snare 60 plus passes a year. Also the TEs caught a lot more. We have not been able to execute that because of injuries and personnel.


April 19th, 2005, 3:04 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: January 26th, 2005, 9:34 pm
Posts: 10288
Location: Sycamore, IL
Post 
Well, I know that we haven't been able to due to injuries and I know that the I formation doesn't go along with the WCO. I was just asking if it was possible and how it would fair with 4-3 and 3-4 fronts. It's mainly used to attack a 5-2 D, but what about a 3-4? How would it fair? It seems like we have great personnel to run an I form style offense, or even a modified I (Stack-I, Power-I). I think if you can execute pulling blocks with your tackles and your linemen are very quick, an I form is really tough to stop... But in the pros??


April 19th, 2005, 3:08 pm
Profile
ST Coordinator – Danny Crossman

Joined: March 22nd, 2005, 8:42 pm
Posts: 3811
Post 
Oh, I see, against a 3-4? You know that is a very good question in light of the big overhaul through the league. I would have to ponder it more to do it justice.

Quickly, one would think that we would be doing more outside type running. That became very difficult about a decade ago as all these fast linebackers came in the league. That was why the Dallas style smash mouth type running up the middle became popular. This then led to a trend towards massive DTs to free up the smallish LBs. You are right, that the 3-4 features generally larger and slower LBs. The match up would be OTs and TEs seal blocking the larger DEs and the guards and centers that were pulling driving the OLB out of the play. Will that open up the outside running again? Very good question. I do not know.

As far as the power I, that would be one formation to try, but the 3-4 is the exact opposite of the 5-2. The fullback and TEs can be used from multiple positions and sent on multiple assignments including of course, sealing off the backside.


April 19th, 2005, 6:58 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: January 26th, 2005, 9:34 pm
Posts: 10288
Location: Sycamore, IL
Post 
Well, what brought the question on was thinking about my high school team running the Veer...the veer would more than likely get shut down at the pro level, but Carson-Newman (D2 school) and average nearly 350 yards rushing per game.

Granted, you can't compare the two, but outside running and option plays have nearly become extinct (unless you count the RB bouncing outside, which is very common).

I think HCs don't want QBs getting rocked by SSs and OLBs on the option.

It would be interesting to use formations like that, including the I form to keep Ds on their toes. Just don't know how it'd work :(


April 19th, 2005, 7:06 pm
Profile
ST Coordinator – Danny Crossman

Joined: March 22nd, 2005, 8:42 pm
Posts: 3811
Post 
The naked bootleg is probably as far as the NFL will go except for a few select quarterbacks. There is so much money invested in the position it is easy to see why the thought of a scrub railroading your QB gives you panic.

You know where they should use the option play: on kick returns. I swear to God that a team with three rugby players and a few trained special teamers could score 75% of the time until teams would be forced to adjust. Even then, they would have to invest hours to stop you.


April 19th, 2005, 7:10 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Player
User avatar

Joined: April 5th, 2005, 7:03 am
Posts: 7411
Location: Ford Field - 35 yard line / Row 32
Post 
Conversion,

I think one of the reasons that you won't see Mooch blend a 'power run' type set as you described is also because of the O-line.

If you remember back to the Bobby Ross days (when he drafted Gibson for example) his power run required massive linemen (330 plus kind of behemoth's) who can take an enormous pounding to drive a hole in the defense. The WCO requires a smaller, faster more athletic linemen who can pull and get upfield a little to block. The reason being that so many plays are short passes and screens.

Any defensive coach will try to simplify things for his players by saying there's only 3 ways to run; right, left or up the middle. Obviously it is more complicated than that but for this conversation what I would say is this: I also would like to see more creativity in the running game, but I would also like to see more short passes to the backs. I think one of the ways to spice things up a little and still utilize the personal that we have effectively is to try more two TE sets (we will have a third by training camp - most likely in the draft). Having their blocking ability on the field at either end of the line allows more off tackle runs, tosses and sweeps in either direction.

Green Bay has used this very effectively over the years and obviously has dominated this division. Of course having Favre doesn't hurt either. One of the reasons is it's very versatile; you can run or pass very effectively and it works really well in the red zone where there's less than 30 yards of field. If you don't like what I'm saying, I'm sorry. But you can't mix a smash mouth game with the WCO, the O-line will get beaten like a rented mule.


April 19th, 2005, 7:44 pm
Profile WWW
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: January 26th, 2005, 9:34 pm
Posts: 10288
Location: Sycamore, IL
Post 
I just think it would be interesting to see some creativity out of Mooch. I mean, last season was aweful as far as offensive creativity. We need to do on offense what Philly does on defense. If we could be that creative on offense, we'd be unstoppable. I'm just spouting out some ideas to see what everyone thinks would work and why. Just hoping for some production. Whether that comes from new formations or not. It'd be nice to see though.

As far as the Power-I and the option offense, you need to have a very fast OL. OGs and OTs have to trap/bounce out around the TE to pick up blocks on OLBs before the back gets too close. Whether those guys come at 330, doesn't really matter. I guess, I'm not all that big on huge OL. I've seen smaller O-linemen dominate bigger D-linemen with technique, footwork, and better lower body control.

Once the Lions can be consistantly productive, then I would like to see some new stuff. Mooch's boring crap doesn't do it for me. I know it's because people were hurt. But when KJ is running for 120 yards a game and Bryson is the leading receiver, he should figure out a way to get them both on the field...new formations is one way to do that. That would take a little pressure off of our horrid receivers in Hakim at #1 and Kircus at #2...


April 19th, 2005, 8:40 pm
Profile
Stadium Announcer

Joined: March 21st, 2005, 12:13 am
Posts: 66
Post 
the major reason for the lack of loaded backfields in the NFL is because of the size and and speed of defensive fronts. teams with guys like shaun rogers that have the ability to dominate and plug 2 holes by themselves can shut down a run in no time. the outside contain of speed linebackers creates many problems as well. its easier for teams to spread more players wide and run off defenders than to try and over power and clear gaps beyond the linebackers.

i do believe that with a RB like KJ and a physical FB power running in the NFL is definitely possible but it usually has to be done with regular I-formation and not power. the vision and running capabilities of good backs in the league also put the down the need for a second blocker. too many men in the backfield can restrict that vision. Barry didnt like having a FB just for that reason. he had a amazing vision that took his legs everywhere they went.

as the season went on, and mooch allowed for a more consistent running game it got better. but successfully running the ball when wanting to is very key for success.


April 19th, 2005, 9:10 pm
Profile
ST Coordinator – Danny Crossman

Joined: March 22nd, 2005, 8:42 pm
Posts: 3811
Post 
Excellent post. You should deign to educate us more often. Thanks!


April 19th, 2005, 10:19 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 10 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: jrd66 and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.