I sure hope nobody else gets arrested so we can talk about something other than our gangsta *** team. This thread got me thinking. Football isn't a chess game, it's a poker game. The rules are simple, the layman can watch and understand what is happening, but much of the mechanics are hidden underneath layers and layers of complexity. If a running back busts a 30 yard run, it probably had much more to do with a good block, a good play call, or a missed tackle than anything the RB actually did. No one factor is a mystery, everyone knows what bad defense looks like (Thanks Mackovic!), but people seem too willing to erroneously point out one element to a team or game to single out for scrutiny. Here is what we know. Our 2005 OL shredded everyone put in front of them. Jamaal Charles showed as much promise as any freshman running back ever has, including the ones with lighting bolt shooting, cow transforming statues in front of the stadium gates. In 2006, that all vanished. We couldn't get a yard when we needed it against KSU. SHSU held us to under 4 yards per carry. Our once invincible line is getting shredded by the likes of anonymous Baylor DTs and Super Soldier Mark Dodge. What changed? Obviously, Vince left. That's going to be the first answer given by anyone. But ask the follow up, HOW did that change the offense, you'll get blank stares. It's my contention that it wasn't an underperforming line or runner that held us back, but the hastily assembled neo-Vince offense that emerged after it became clear that Colt either couldn't or shouldn't run the ball (both are true, which one caused the conservative change in the offense is left up for debate. If Mack and Greg thought Colt could survive running against Big 12 teams after the spring, then I really doubt anything that happened after changed their mind. If they couldn't plainly see what any casual fan could, then they probably never will. Odds are, they gave him the Vince-in-2005 red light to protect him from injury. Great idea, as it turns out). So now Colt has no running options. The zone read, QB draw, option, gonzo. Our hopes and dreams in 2006 are reduced to an astounding two plays. PROBLEM ONE: We only ran two plays. And with a shout out to my friend and a free 30 day trial of Flash Pro 8, here they are: -- This is the zone. One of the goals is to prevent penetration with quick, hard double teams of the DL. The playside OL (The LG and RG, who are initially striking back from the point of attack) tries to hold the DL long enough to let the back OL (The LT and C) slide underneath him. Having achieved that, the playside OL moves on to his target on the second level, and now every relevant defender has a body on him. We aren't trying to blow anybody backwards, but put a body on each of them and seal them off in one direction. We made two plays to illustrate this. The first diagram is the result of the "stretch" that the play puts on the defense. The running back needs to remain patient and pick his way through the crowd. Everyone is moving to the right, cracks and creases will open up as it his quite hard to maintain gap discipline between 7 guys when everyone is moving and fighting. The second diagram is what happens when a LB wants to pursue. The RG simply pushes the LB where he wants to go and the RB cuts in behind it. The defense is given enough rope to hang itself. If you're wondering why our RBs were meandering in the backfield so long, this is why. It's a patient man's game. Our other play is a counter: c="http://a907.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/74/l_061c55e1e074f37f16f8623dc1b408a2.gif"> -- The first key to the play, as it relates to us, is that the left side of the OL has to sell the zone blocking. They aren't zone blocking, but they have to look like they are so the WLB will follow them. The second key is the block of the pulling guard, and it's his decision that is the difference between the two drawrings. If he kicks out the end as in the first picture, is creates a lane through which the RT can lead the RB. If the end gets caught in too far, the RG can seal him inside and allow the RT to lead the RB outside. This is our 2006 rushing offense. I wrote that in 15 minutes. That is a problem. The basic theory behind all of it is fine, but in a practical sense, it all comes crashing down. PROBLEM TWO: Predictability is a bad thing. Being simple is ok. A&M is simple. OU is simpler. T. C. Williams high school ran 4 plays and won the state title with Denzel in charge of a bunch of actors. All of those offenses are simple, none of those offenses is predictable. We are. The difference is that the defense doesn't know where the ball is going. Our opponents do. It's either off tackle to the right or off tackle to the left and you don't need to make a choice between which one to defend. Step one in destroying us is simple alignment changes: 5 defenders for 4 blockers. Because the MLB is so well protected, the LG is the only one with a real shot at getting to him, which of course isn't going to work, it's just too far to run. And there you have it, the first thing our coaches asked of our players that was undeliverable. It goes on. Lining up like above does leave you open to things like counters, if that team runs them, so it's not entirely practical to do. Fortunately for our poor opponents, they didn't need to line up like that. They could disguise their destruction with post-snap stunting: The first zone is theory, it's what you teach is going to happen. This picture is what actually happened, time after time. Notice that on the snap, the defense is slanting hard to the left. This has two effects, we'll call them effect A and effect B, since the diagram was made before the description. A is the result of the DT's slant killing any chance the C has of controlling him. The RG has to choose between continuing on with the DT or leaving to get his target. In this case, he chooses to move on and leaves the C with an impossible task of running down a DT with a head start. The slant creates the penetration that we so try to avoid, and either swallows the RB in the backfield, or forces him to slow down and change directions, giving pursuit time to . . . well, pursue. Effect B is the OL deciding not to move on. Since the slant leaves the DT on top of the guard, he is unable to move to the second level, leaving his target, the WLB, untouched. Because of this the WLB is free to press the line and fill the gap, gathering the RB for no gain. This is but two examples of defenses being able to attack because they know what's coming. We cannot block this consistently, and blame falls on the person who has us stuck in neutral, not the players asked to do things like move 5 yards to the left while the DT only has to move 3 or 4 in the same time frame. One more thing before I move on. If Vince were still QB, this is all moot, because at the end of that play he's ten yards downfield. The play above is a sellout by the defense because they no longer have that dual threat to worry about. This is why it was so stupid of us to stay with that base. A running QB can only work if the guy can run. Seems obvious. This is why our 2005 offense worked, along with the variety and unpredictability Vince's legs brought. You can't sell out against dual threats. So maybe you're asking, if a team wants to slant so hard to our right, why not run the counter at them? Good question. It's a fine idea if the counter is truly a counter. If the defense is geared to stop one thing, and you do another. That is a counter. We ran way too many counters and it killed the surprise element. If you know a reverse is coming, it'll be a disaster for the offense, right? No different. PROBLEM THREE: A counter is as a counter does. On paper, our offense works. On the field, we are playing against teams that spend all week game planning specifically for us. They know all about our little game. They can find rock solid, 100% accurate reads that gives them a huge advantage on us, and we aren't even making it hard. For one, the ball ALWAYS goes where our RG goes. Always. If he moves right, it's a zone, if he moves left, its a counter (obviously real life is more complicated because he have more than one formation and don't always line up strong right, but the point is the same). If Greg Davis thinks the WLB is watching the LG, he's wrong. He's watching the RG. A&M's LBs in particular were awfully active in disrupting our run game, because they were always in the hole before the running back was. The other problem is the lack of accountability we put on defenses. The end could crash every time with no penalty because there was no one there to hurt them for it (remember Jevan Snead's first snap against KSU? He kept it on a zone read for like 15 yards. They were not prepared for that). For some reason, if I embed this one none of the others work. So, open this in a new browser: So effect A this time is the end crashing hard as he often does and creating a problem for the pullers before the RG even has a chance, creating interference for the play to be executed. The WLB is once again untouched to make the play. But even if he gets blocked, and the tackle find room to slip by, there is another, letterless problem. The LBs know its a counter from the get go. And for such a slow developing play, thats a kiss of death. Assume the RT gets around the end and blocks the WLB. The MLB recognizes so fast that he can get over top over the play and run it down. Charles has the speed to still get yardage out of this mess by outrunning LBs, but Young didn't, so we suffered extra when he was in. So even if the play doesn't end as it does above, there will be someone else right behind the WLB. One of them will make the play because both know exactly what to do and can act faster than we can. That's a bad thing. What's worse is, we are only making them remember two freaking reads. RG right = right. RG left = left. If you can't pass that test then you probably can't tie your cleats anyway. It's one thing to be predictable but so multiple that you get the delay you need just from sheer overwhelmance, which is a new word I just made up. So who deserves blame? The OL who can't even reach the guy he's supposed to be on the other side of, the RB who has no place to run, or the OC who is in charge of the whole mess? PS - If you want to see picture perfect zone blocking, go to 00:43 of this clip and watch it over and over again. Particularly the LG and C.
I guess one of the most respected and revered oc's by his peers and people who actually know what they are talking about as it is their business to do so. I would not blame him but if I was looking for time tested easy gripes and excuses after the fact and not having to make decisions based on talent I would know more about than anybody else, hmmm, don't know who to blame. But neato Toledo graphics and stuff.
Good post, Menjou. I don't blame our coaches very much last year for keeping as much the same as in 2005 as possible, not with so many players returning who knew that system so well. Until KSU, it really only hurt us in one game- tOSU. I do blame them for whatever they didn't do in the first week after the KSU game. Let's see- Colt was injured and kept out of practice, and they didn't put in anything different?
Excellent. It all boils down to a total lack of creativity and imagination on the O. With VY, imagination & creativity were just part of his MO. Without him, our average OC is just average again. Are you available to report to Belmont in the morning? Maybe your karma wil permeate the mind of GD and provide the spark that he lacks.
Honest to God question... because I don't remember. We didn't run the ball out of the I. Ever? We never ran it from an Ace 2TE set? Ace 3 Wide? Or is it that no matter the set, we always ran the same play?
Fantastic question. My friend is probably off having fun right now so no animation, but we did run from the I last year. We did it mostly from an offset look, with the FB lining up behind the weakside tackle instead of the center in a true I. The play we ran though was the exact same. The FB blocked the end man on the line just like a second TE would have, or a slot receiver would have. It was the exact same play. I only recall this with any regularity in the A&M game. The thing is, if you aren't going to have your QB be a run threat, there is no reason to line him up in the shotgun every down, unless you are Texas Tech, which we are not. Having him under center gives us more options on the ground, as well as a stronger play-action game. The best part is, thanks to the flexibility of the zone blocking scheme, we can run the exact same plays. Colt can come in and be Peyton Manning or Jay Cutler, then Chiles can come in and be Pat White, and no OL assignments change. It's honestly not rocket science. Just put our guys in roles in which they can succeed, and run plays that make the defense guess or read and react. We'll win those games.
Years ago, this thread would have been near the top of the board with numerous replies from internet gurus and their detractors. The debate would have been lively. Now, it's buried beneath the banality of article links and even NFL drivel.
Menjou, Another question... Do you think the threat of a 3-5 yd gain by Colt is enough to counterbalance JC's threat on the other end of the TRUE Zone Read? Also, to what extent does the PA out of the shotgun set stress the safeties and LB's? Which options will be more likely to be left open after PA? TE? WR? Discuss it versus the various primary D sets we will see this coming season. Cover 2 Tampa 4-2-5 Cover 2 Man Under Inverted 2 Deep Cover 3 Man Cover 3 I know there are tons more but hit a few of those (I understand no Flash...
TJ The majority of the top offensive seasons in Texas Longhorn history (total offense, passing offense, rushing offense, scoring offense any thing else you want to imagine) have come under the watch of Greg Davis. Dude is FAR from perfect, but he is doing something right.
Greg Davis is responsible for 14 game seasons. His second specialty is lighting up patsies only to have our run game stuffed by anyone mediocre.
I think the RBs have more to do with results that was said. If Jamaal torches people a few times and takes it to the house, the same old plays do keep the defense more on their toes. I do agree that the shotgun seems to give less play action flexibility with Colt in there.
An interesting thread, wildly inaccurate but interesting none the less. RP has taken the time to break down and chart the actual plays and formations we ran. Here are the 4 that I saved. I'll post the others if I find them: Baylor OU Neb TT The Link The Link The Link The Link Perhaps if some of you watched the actual plays, you would realize our offense attempted to be more diverse. We had a new QB (who had never played under center before) we had a RS Freshman forced to play OT. We lost our best OG. It is funny that the best OC by far the University has ever seen, is considered the wiping boy around here. True internet genius.
Before I even start, I want to announce publically that when it comes to football, rpgonett doesn't know his *** from a hole in the ground (the one we are going to stomp TCU into). Some of those play descriptions are hilarious. OK, I just watched all the actual plays from the OU game. All but three were counters or zone. One was the reverse to Pittman, one was the QB sneak (run several times) and one was a zone read that Colt kept. Only the QB sneak worked. But beyond this, echeese, you are missing the point. Honored as I am that you stopped by, this thread isn't about semantics. "No, see, the center pulled so you are wrong." They are all the same play with different assignments based on alignment. If I went through every single one this thread would be massive and unreadable. I'm speaking big picture here.
Tony Hills was god awful against Baylor. That stunt they ran got him every time. He needs to work on his vision. Also, these clips echeese posted prove once and for all how much freaking better Charles in that Young. He gets like 70% more yardage out of the same situations Heh. I just clicked on Melton's pick against Baylor, rpgonett had it listed as some sort of weird zone blitz when it was a normal 6 man rush with man defense. Robison looks like he was going to cover the RB on the play. No zone at all. I love that guy.
cheese I'll cut you a break since you don't read this forum often, but I'm not ignoring anything. I've made numerous posts about those subjects. This thread was about one thing specifically, that playcalling affected our performance more than the players did. In the clips you showed, and I watched every single one, our guys killed when they actually got their hands on the defense. The OL was not the problem (exception being Hills, especially against Baylor). Charles was awesome, getting more yards than almost any other RB could muster. I say our 3.8 ypc post-OU had more to do with coaches than players. That's it.
