forums

MOAR X/Os! Let's talk run game...

ghost2

ghost2

Retired staff
Premium
Joined
Nov 3, 2011
Messages
6,185
With the success of the last X/O thread, I'd like to extend the discussion a bit into concepts for the run game.

We've seen a LOT of stretch plays from our run game - do you think this is the way to go, given the RBs on our roster? If not, what would you run?

Also, feel free to talk about any and all RB/blocking scheme ideas you have. Let's do this!!
 
Advertisement
I'm also interested in everyone's thoughts on our continuous use of the stretch play (which is a zone-blocking scheme, right?).

I've gone back and forth in my opinion, and I'm starting to think that's because it works with Duke, and it's often terrible when someone else runs it. I remember in the first part of last year, Duke seemed to rip off nice chunks on the stretch play...I think because he has such good vision and such a nasty ability to cut back and burst through a seam.

Now, when those plays don't work, they look ugly. And they seemed to work a lot less often when Dallas and Gus were the ballcarriers. Conversely, with Dallas and Gus (who obviously got a lot more carries once Duke was out), I remember yelling at my tv begging for us to run isos with lead blockers and leave the stretch alone. And it seemed that Dallas, in particular, was much more effective that way.

In my mind, I figure Duke showed such effectiveness running the stretch early on (i.e. as soon as he arrived on campus) that it became a staple. Then when he got hurt, we still ran it because it was an integrated part of our system. But I really don't know.

Thoughts?

As far as I can tell - and I'm not a big recruiting guy - Yearby seems to have a skillset comparable to Duke's, so maybe he'll be similarly effective running the stretch.
 
Last edited:
That's kinda where I'm at as well, Vice. It seems to me that for guys with great vision who can create cutback lanes (like Duke and, IMO Yearby) the stretch play works well. Guys like Dallas who might not have that same kind of knack work better hitting a hole/following a fullback.
 
In that regard, it would seem that Coley and the staff would consider working a bit more on the non-stretch stuff after what happened last season...especially knowing that Duke and Yearby are both coming off injury.
 
True - I'm interested in some opinions on the advantages/disadvantages of stretch vs. power/trap concepts. Stretch seems like it'd be easier to teach schematically ("rip n' run") for the OL but I don't know enough to expound...
 
I would like to see Miami line up and run some smash mouth power dive plays from Power I formation from time to time or some counter trey runs, so the big hosses up front can just use their size and strength to their advantage. The way Miami finished the UNC game last season with the power running by Dallas was refreshing to see.

I would like to see the jumbo formations inside the 5 yard line or goal line situations, or some 3 TE or extra T like they did with Seantrel his freshman year.
 
Id like to see more just power running/Big on Big blocking. Im not a huge fan of the slow developing power/counter play we tend to run on short yardage





Youd get more out of Gus this way IMO as opposed to Coleys favoritable stretch game, most RBs dont have the vision El Duke has
 
I can explain it in more detail once I get on a desktop, but essentially what the stretch play does is put huge amounts of pressure on that edge player.
The stretch run play gets the defensive players shoulders running to the sideline so the ball carrier doesn't get the edge. The gap assignments and blitz calls are hard to get done because of the fast moving gap assignments. With this in mind is allows the ball carrier to have great potential for cutback lanes.
So really the stretch play says we're gonna get the outside but really we want to one cut and go upfield between the tackles, they just happend to be moving.
 
It's actually harder to coach point of attack plays, like some of you guys are asking for, big power I stuff.
Reason for this is if the defensive player is just simply moved from, say head up on the guard to inside shade of the guard, you need completely different foot and handwork to get the same player.
 
Advertisement
I prefer a zone run game, it allows you to attack all fronts on the fly and it's not as limited since you're blocking an area and not a man.

For example in a man scheme if the defenses tackle is better than your guard, you can't run in that hole all game. Likewise at any other position upfront. Or if a dlineman lines up in a gap and leaves an olineman uncovered, he's basically without someone to block and/or the dlineman is basically unreachable for a block giving the defense the advantage once again. In a zone scheme you're blocking an area so if the defenses linemen are better than yours its not as big of a hinderance especially since you're usually doubling down before moving up to the next level. Teamwork and communication matters more than pure size or talent upfront.

Also, when its going well its harder to stop because there is no 'hole' per se which makes it difficult for defenses to read keys in the run game. The 'hole' is wherever the back sees a crease. It forces defenses to read more than react which gives the offense an advantage. If they're too aggressive you open up cutback lanes and they're too passive it leaves big holes on the frontside. Its also adaptable to many different fronts on the fly and allows you to be power and finesse all at the same time.
 
Do you think the philosophy changes as you get closer to the red zone? Would you reach for more "hat-on-hat" blocking on 3rd and Goal, say, or stick with the zone?
 
No. At least it wouldn't for me.

In the redzone, and more specifically on the goaline the threat of the pass is reduced. Most defenses are just going to try to outnumber you in the box. There really is no way to get a hat on a hat on all necessary defenders in the scenario. Zone would actually be even more effective there IMO. But of course I'm talking about inside zone.

I did work with one coach who swore on the outside zone in that scenario. His reasoning was you're gonna be outnumbered up the middle, your best bet is to try to get the edge. And if you can get the defense moving horizontally your chances of a crease opening up increases. I guess I can see his reasoning, I don't agree though. I'd stick to straight inside zone there.
 
killa1storm said:
No. At least it wouldn't for me.

In the redzone, and more specifically on the goaline the threat of the pass is reduced. Most defenses are just going to try to outnumber you in the box. There really is no way to get a hat on a hat on all necessary defenders in the scenario. Zone would actually be even more effective there IMO. But of course I'm talking about inside zone.

I did work with one coach who swore on the outside zone in that scenario. His reasoning was you're gonna be outnumbered up the middle, your best bet is to try to get the edge. And if you can get the defense moving horizontally your chances of a crease opening up increases. I guess I can see his reasoning, I don't agree though. I'd stick to straight inside zone there.
Click to expand...

I agree with the coach you worked with. I ran that as a tail for 5 years in university in the redzone, it's a dream
 
I like the stretch play, but i felt we leaned on it a bit much in short yardage and goal line situations and it wasn't as effective as it could be.
 
Arehel said:
killa1storm said:
No. At least it wouldn't for me.

In the redzone, and more specifically on the goaline the threat of the pass is reduced. Most defenses are just going to try to outnumber you in the box. There really is no way to get a hat on a hat on all necessary defenders in the scenario. Zone would actually be even more effective there IMO. But of course I'm talking about inside zone.

I did work with one coach who swore on the outside zone in that scenario. His reasoning was you're gonna be outnumbered up the middle, your best bet is to try to get the edge. And if you can get the defense moving horizontally your chances of a crease opening up increases. I guess I can see his reasoning, I don't agree though. I'd stick to straight inside zone there.
Click to expand...

I agree with the coach you worked with. I ran that as a tail for 5 years in university in the redzone, it's a dream
Click to expand...

Yea I see his logic because if you get those guys 'chasing' a crease is likely to open up somewhere and then you have a 2-for-1 option so to speak as far as running frontside or having something open up backside. Where I disagree is using it as a base, especially against a really fast penetrating type defense. But I guess in that scenario you have the possibility of the boot as a counter.

What set did you run the outside zone out of?
 
killa1storm said:
Arehel said:
killa1storm said:
No. At least it wouldn't for me.

In the redzone, and more specifically on the goaline the threat of the pass is reduced. Most defenses are just going to try to outnumber you in the box. There really is no way to get a hat on a hat on all necessary defenders in the scenario. Zone would actually be even more effective there IMO. But of course I'm talking about inside zone.

I did work with one coach who swore on the outside zone in that scenario. His reasoning was you're gonna be outnumbered up the middle, your best bet is to try to get the edge. And if you can get the defense moving horizontally your chances of a crease opening up increases. I guess I can see his reasoning, I don't agree though. I'd stick to straight inside zone there.
Click to expand...

I agree with the coach you worked with. I ran that as a tail for 5 years in university in the redzone, it's a dream
Click to expand...

Yea I see his logic because if you get those guys 'chasing' a crease is likely to open up somewhere and then you have a 2-for-1 option so to speak as far as running frontside or having something open up backside. Where I disagree is using it as a base, especially against a really fast penetrating type defense. But I guess in that scenario you have the possibility of the boot as a counter.

What set did you run the outside zone out of?
Click to expand...


This. I would imagine if you've been running stretch all day, the boot option (TE leaks out or just run it in) would be pretty wide open.
 
Advertisement
Good post Ghost. My initial thought is that zone blocking requires athletic offensive linemen who can engage in space. If we have that cool because Duke and Joe certainly can run effectively behind a zone blocking scheme. However, last season there were numerous plays where our OL were not able to effectively block in space. One of the main culprits transferred. So if we can block in space and do it well then let's continue the zone blocking as part of our running game. That said, we all know football is situational so against smaller opponents I'd go full bulldozer mode and plow the road and against more stout opponents I'd use more stretch plays to create running lanes.

A word on Walter Tucker
While we are on the subject of the running game, Walter Tucker is a tailback and not just a fullback, and I hope our coaches figure that out. We can use him like a fullback, but he runs downhill with his pads down in a way that I wish Gus would. I'm not crowning him because the Spring game is a small sample to go off of, but I hope they give him at least a handful of carries when the lights come on so we can see what he can do. I'm optimistic about him because he runs fearlessly - no tip toeing. He gets it and hits it. As we've seen year after year, some guys light it up on Greentree then don't do much during the season. Tucker's performance on the biggest stage during Spring practice suggests he might be the type of player that rises to the occasion. He ran like he understood that with Duke and Joe out this was his one chance to show what he could do. I think he made the most of that opportunity. I think he will run the ball well between the tackles and surprise teams with his combination of power and speed.
 
I think the term "fullback" is misleading in Tucker's case. I don't think we'll be seeing him as a lead-blocker in the Power-I too much. I suspect Coley's been looking for that Lonnie Pryor guy and Tucker might fit the mold. Quick hits, tosses, screens etc. I like what Tucker brings to the table - one poster (grover I think) in another thread mentioned Damien Berry as a comparison and I kinda like that.
 
This will be my only response. I'm starting my finals grind. Wish me luck!

I think we should have a diverse running game -- more diverse than our passing game (in comparison).

What we know:
There has been an obvious shift in our personnel selection on the offensive line and at tight end. An argument can be made at running back too, with our consistent search for a big back, but I think that's necessary for any offense. On the offensive line, we have shifted from the recruit all tackles philosophy, that we had under Randy, to a more balanced approach (true tackles/true guards). I'm not exactly sure why they have done that, but I can say that it allows us to have more options in terms of scheme. It helps us in the zone game and I think in the screen game too.

Our drop back pass protection might suffer, but we might gain a better sprint/boot game. A balanced line will help certain portions of our power/counter game, and hurt other parts. We might get a better lead through with our quick guards or we might be able to hit a wider gap, but our double at the point of attack might be weaker. *Just speculation*.

At tight end, we have made the biggest change, in my opinion. Here's a quote from a previous thread I commented on:

You can tell that we're trying to load our roster with versatile tight ends. Playing with versatile tight ends allow us to disguise our intentions. Normally, in a pro style offense, you try to platoon various personnel groupings that are each specialized for different parts of your game plan. Versatile tight ends allow you to be a one back team, a two back team, and a "spread" team all in the same personnel group.

An H-TE can serve as a FB, which allows the offense to run power/counter [double-down, kick, lead] and isolation [on] concepts. An H-TE can also serve as a wing or another TE, which allows him to reach on the perimeter [O-zone] or kick out the backside end [I-zone]. And of course they can play in the slot.

Ever noticed the defensive staff holding up cards with two numbers on them? (21,12,20,etc.). Pre-snap, the defense gets an opportunity to see the offense's personnel grouping, and they're able to get themselves into a favorable play/personnel (an offense's playbook is limited to personnel groupings). Flexible TE's ***** everything up

It allows an offense to have nearly unlimited formation and scheme possibilities. It's very hard to game plan for, and it forces the defense to install a ton of checks. If you're going to play base, then you almost need your players to call their own game. You need to give them front and coverage call rules, and they make their own calls based on what they see after the huddle is broken (theoretical huddle). You really need to be able to trust your F$ and MLB.
Click to expand...

What I would like to see:
I like having a diverse running game, that has rhyme and reason; it really irks me when teams run plays just because they feel like it. What we're doing right now seems like we might have the possibility to have diversity to our scheme. Diversity means that defenses need to prepare for a lot. It also means that we run the risk of not being good at anything! If we do a lot, we need to make sure we're **** good at it. Most importantly, it means that we have answers. Answers are good.

With that being said, I don't think running outside zone (stretch) a million times is necessarily a bad thing. If we can shove a play down someone's throat, then do it. You run the risk of being too cute when you deviate too much from what is working. Sometimes thinking practically is more effective than thinking creatively. Coaches that are inexperienced or just full of themselves usually fall into that trap. The greatest offensive minds right now find a way to make the complex, simple.
 
So long as Coley is here, they're not moving away from Zone concepts, nor should they with Duke as our RB. Remember, there's a difference between inside zone and what many people consider zone blocking (zone stretch). I think I said this in another thread, but one of our problems is tipping off the types of running plays - power vs. zone - depending on personnel. We have to get better at that for sure. Get more into the Xs and Os of our running plays when I'm back in the office. When I get home, I can look up some of the games from last year that I charted. Our patterns were really predictable.
 
Back
Top