Once again, the I formation has proven successfull to an incredible degree. I counted three times we were in the I and it resulted in 2 TDs. Here's the deal, and it may not seem like much, but it is. The D doesn't know who is going to run the ball, or in tonight's case, who is going to catch the ball. This formation is so superior to the single back formation, that I think we tried only once, with J. Gray carrying the ball. Everybody in the stadium knew he would get the ball, he did, he was stopped for no gain. I'm not saying run the I all of the time, but I am saying run the I a large percentage of the time, say at least 30%. We're trying to run the ball anyway, why not give this a try?
we need to run the I about 25% against Wvirginia to help ball control. If we can do a couple of 7 minute drives early in the game, and get one stop, just one stop, that will put us at a great advantage.
Don't know about the I formation (you may be right), but we've definitely got to run the ball early and often, even if just to eat up some clock. Holding the ball from them will be a victory in and of itself.
slugga, I know you don't believe in magic bullet formations, but watch OUR stats, not other teams. We run the I so rarely, but it works at an incredible rate. That fake off the I that Ash made the other day was like a dream, it was so good.
So we ran the I three times, all inside the 3 yard line, and scored 2 TDs. How does this statistic by itself tell anyone anything about the I-formation?!
so, I guess you're saying my 25% is too high, which I can kind of accept, but I believe there is a percentage of usage higher than what we're using, I think. If we can score on it two out of three times, why not use it in the middle of the field 3 more times in the 1st half, to run the clock and get a 1st down, especially when our offense is in a stall mode? Cross up the D, they won't know what to expect. Do it again in the 2nd half, somewhere in the field, not just the goal line. If you did that and had a total number of snaps from the I at 9, and you gained two first downs, and two TDs, and you were wearing out the clock and the other team, I think that makes the formation a success. So, it's not 25%, it's more like 10%. Just for comparison, I did see Gray run that one time as the single back. He gained nothing. Did I miss it, that we ran the one back set other times? Were we successful?
I like how our "new" offense uses different sets. I think the idea is to watch how the defense reacts to a particular set and then work off of that tendancy. If your inside the 20 and you go to an I out of which you have twice run off tacle, and both times the safeties started cheating up, play action their asses and maybe don't even go back to the I the rest of the night. At least that's what I think I'm seeing.
Big fan of the i-formation with our personnel. That being said, we must consider the defense called on these 3 plays. Short-yardage defenses are not the same defensive formations as you would see opposing the I-formation in a longer down and distance situation at another area of the field. Defenders sell out faster and more guys squeeze the line. If you make it passed the first wave, you score. It's a little different in other formations. Not trying to argue against more usage of the I, just saying the opposition differs in other situations. It may prove to be just as successful, but the sample size now is too small and too specific in the way it's been defensed in a stop or score situation.
Now that an I-formation thread has come back around again I've been meaning to ask... did we ever name the defense?
We don't have a fullback that can block. The only thing Roberson is good at is catching the ball out of the backfield. I only see us using the I for play action purposes. If we want to run the ball better than we did last Saturday, then I suggest we go 3 wide with a tight end. Spread the defense out a bit, and see if your back can't do something using the power or the pin 'n pull.
