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

[Arehel]

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.

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

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?

I'm in Canada so we played 12 man ball the sets we used were, 1 back 5wr or 2 back 4wr.
We mainly ran it out of a qb sneak or stretch play on the qb call, so the qb called either a qb sneak or stretch at the LOS. Used in any shortage situations, the read was how wide or tight and end played, if he played a 6tech or narrower run stretch to his side if they were wide and had 7 or less in the box or less he called qb sneak.

 

[pb5cane]

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.

Agreed Phi. Watching the spring game I couldn't help but think Tucker gives you a good chance of getting 7 on the ground in the redzone. We settled for 3 often last year or were unable to convert on 3rd and shorts. Duke's additional weight will be helpful but I definitely prefer a Mike James-type like Tucker to do the bulk of the heavy lifting.

 

[Arehel]

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.

Agreed Phi. Watching the spring game I couldn't help but think Tucker gives you a good chance of getting 7 on the ground in the redzone. We settled for 3 often last year or were unable to convert on 3rd and shorts. Duke's additional weight will be helpful but I definitely prefer a Mike James-type like Tucker to do the bulk of the heavy lifting.

Personally, I think Coley likes one guy who is a is just straight up wiggle guy, great in space, like Duke and Yearby and the other guy is more in between the tackle runner who can catch.
The FB position is dead, they gotta be athletic and their ability isn't in blocking, but I would imagine it doesn't hurt, gimme a guy who runs hard and can catch and is great on specials over a Vontae Leach type (not saying he isn't talented and has his spot on a team.)
It bring s a new match up nightmare cause the FB traditionally would be matched up with an even less athletic LB, usually the Mike or Will. and I'll take Walter Tucker on that one all day, hence why Lonnie Pryor at FSU did work against most teams.

 

[DiegoCane]

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.

Agreed Phi. Watching the spring game I couldn't help but think Tucker gives you a good chance of getting 7 on the ground in the redzone. We settled for 3 often last year or were unable to convert on 3rd and shorts. Duke's additional weight will be helpful but I definitely prefer a Mike James-type like Tucker to do the bulk of the heavy lifting.

Duke is/was a much better short yardage runner then Mike James.

Personally I think Duke is **** good in short yardage situations. He just needs to stay healthy. I imagine Yearby will be good at it as well as they possess some similar traits.

You don't have to be big to be good in short yardage. That is why I don't understand many peoples fascination in the "big back." Give me a guy with great vision, who is good between the tackles. I don't care how big he is.

 

[Angry Ibis]

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.

Agreed Phi. Watching the spring game I couldn't help but think Tucker gives you a good chance of getting 7 on the ground in the redzone. We settled for 3 often last year or were unable to convert on 3rd and shorts. Duke's additional weight will be helpful but I definitely prefer aMike James-type like Tucker to do the bulk of the heavy lifting.

Duke is/was a much better short yardage runner then Mike James.

Personally I think Duke is **** good in short yardage situations. He just needs to stay healthy. I imagine Yearby will be good at it as well as they possess some similar traits.

You don't have to be big to be good in short yardage. That is why I don't understand many peoples fascination in the "big back." Give me a guy with great vision, who is good between the tackles. I don't care how big he is.

This. I just want that guy who can get me the tough yard, key first down, goal line points.

 

[WestEndZone]

Duke is/was a much better short yardage runner then Mike James.

Personally I think Duke is **** good in short yardage situations. He just needs to stay healthy. I imagine Yearby will be good at it as well as they possess some similar traits.

You don't have to be big to be good in short yardage. That is why I don't understand many peoples fascination in the "big back." Give me a guy with great vision, who is good between the tackles. I don't care how big he is.

The truth is in BOLD

 

[pb5cane]

Personally I think Duke is **** good in short yardage situations. He just needs to stay healthy.

I agree but I think you keep him healthy by limiting the banging between the tackles if possible. It's a long season.

 

[WestEndZone]

Personally I think Duke is **** good in short yardage situations. He just needs to stay healthy.

I agree but I think you keep him healthy by limiting the banging between the tackles if possible. It's a long season.

We just need depth. Recruiting is almost always the answer in CFB.** EDITED** To be fair, you need to include player development into that sentence.

Think of the last time we had real depth (Clinton, Willis, Frank, and Najeh). We need to aim for that again. In 2002 we lost Frank before the year even started and didn't miss a beat with Willis. In 2003 we lost Frank again and we suffered with Jarrett Payton. Last year we lost Duke and we suffered with Dallas/Gus.

DEPTH! We need it on both sides of the ball. That's how you reload every year. That's how you dominate for a decade.

 

[KingDingaLing]

Duke is a zone technique runner. Plain and simple

 

[GhostofVenice01]

It all sounds great on paper but Ill stand by my statement: We shouldnt be running those long zone stretch plays on short yardage






How many times did this **** get blown up last yr???

 

[Arehel]

It all sounds great on paper but Ill stand by my statement: We shouldnt be running those long zone stretch plays on short yardage






How many times did this **** get blown up last yr???

I hear ya, but all you're really asking is for your center guard and playside tackle to make a block. If that playside tackle scoops that block around the edge player sooo money.
But I get ya, zone is either looks real pretty or ugly as sin.

 

[LuCane]

It all sounds great on paper but Ill stand by my statement: We shouldnt be running those long zone stretch plays on short yardage






How many times did this **** get blown up last yr???

I hear ya, but all you're really asking is for your center guard and playside tackle to make a block. If that playside tackle scoops that block around the edge player sooo money.
But I get ya, zone is either looks real pretty or ugly as sin.

Our center had a really difficult time getting to the spot (laterally). Hope they clean that up.

 

[GhostofVenice01]

It all sounds great on paper but Ill stand by my statement: We shouldnt be running those long zone stretch plays on short yardage






How many times did this **** get blown up last yr???

I hear ya, but all you're really asking is for your center guard and playside tackle to make a block. If that playside tackle scoops that block around the edge player sooo money.
But I get ya, zone is either looks real pretty or ugly as sin.

 

[OBLIVION]

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 agree on just lining up, and smashing defenses with the power run. I also agree with another poster in here. That you don't need to be some big *** RB to do it either.

The problem imo, isn't the fact. That we don't have a big in between the tackles back. We just have a soft *** OL, that when it counts. No matter how much more they outweigh the DL. They just can't get off the ball, and achieve this.

Sure i expect any OL to struggle vs the cream of the crop DL in the country, but this is an issues for us. IMO weekly, and vs lower tier DL. This is college, not Pro Ball. A program, such as this one. Is getting massive sized, talented OL.

 

[GhostofVenice01]

Honest question, is our OL problems strength or talent or even coaching???

 

[Bennubird]

Your logic is sound frat. Keeping Duke healthy must be a high priority because we go as he goes even more so with a young QB. However, I also think we would be served well not to formally designate a short yardage or between the tackles back so that we can keep defenses off balance.

My main point was that I'd like to see Tucker used as a weapon - running the ball, screens, and short passing game. I agree with Ghost that he does remind me of DB, but I think he has a higher top end and can legitimately go the distance if he gets a step on the second level.

Personally I think Duke is **** good in short yardage situations. He just needs to stay healthy.

I agree but I think you keep him healthy by limiting the banging between the tackles if possible. It's a long season.

 

[OBLIVION]

Honest question, is our OL problems strength or talent or even coaching???

I think we got some big strong talent guys on the OL, but somewhere they are missing that switch. That when they step out on that field. They ain't just looking to knock that guy in front of em on his ***. They want to keep on bowling dudes down the field. I feel our guys are letting up to soon. Not having that passion. to keep going, even after the whistle is blown. Just not intense enough, compared to teams, that have solid pound you ground attacks.

 

[WestEndZone]

Just a heads up:

Got off the phone with a former colleague and he had some interesting information to offer on this topic. He went to a few practices this spring and he mentioned that the offense was practicing the jet/power play (inverted veer[they ran it both ways]) with Coley running the jet sweep and usually the backs running the power. It looks like they're doing more than experimenting.

The inverted veer doesn't require an incredibly mobile quarterback, but it's better if you do (obvi). It also doesn't require extra teaching on the offensive line. They run their power scheme like they always do (there might be a few minor variations). The only new teaching comes with the backs. They won't need to kick anybody out; and all they have to teach is the timing and footwork for the jet/power action.

This is probably what they're selling to Torrance Gibson. I'm intrigued.

 

[ghost2]

That is interesting! Is that similar to what UF ran with Harvin? Or is that something else? Good stuff!

 

[Arehel]

That's the benefit of teaching a zone blocking scheme, it's all about stay on your tracks and block your zone, as opposed to moving objects in a man-to-man scheme.

That inverted veer that you're talking about is that the same one Gus Malzahn has been using with his QB over at Auburn, here's the link to it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtDXpRfIKws

Check out the 2 minute mark for the best view, tight view, and if that's what you're talking about.
If it is, man I don't know if we got the QBs for this type of beating, outside of Gray Crow, unless there gonna bring him situationally, which according to Duke doesn't work out that bad.