Bingo!! why isn't Al understanding this. Why can't he leave the program alone, he knows he is in over his head. I don't get it.
forums
The entire focus of this program needs to be on moving....
- Thread starter canesman
- Start date
Bingo!! why isn't Al understanding this. Why can't he leave the program alone, he knows he is in over his head. I don't get it.
Advertisement
Gatorhater
All-American
- Joined
- May 17, 2013
- Messages
- 17,210
And, our old defense answers the hurry up also. It was simple and aggressive. Best thing to kill hurry up is a tackle for loss. The thing that has changed is college football is not the second coming of the option but rather the absence of Cane defense. Would today's offenses score some points and get some yards, and once in a while beat us, maybe, but in the end they lose more than win against us. We need to come back as ourselves not something new.
Republicane
Spirited but Cordial
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2011
- Messages
- 4,499
And? That's pretty much the nature of the sport. An innovative offense comes along and has great success. Eventually defensive coaches figure out how to stop it or slow it down. The offense does something else. The defense then has to adjust to that rinse repeat.
But to dismiss an offense that a lot of the HS players who play in your own back yard are PERFECT for, simply because some day it might not be as successful as it is right now is short sighted.
Johnson2TheJailHouse
Not M2TH
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2012
- Messages
- 135
Remember who you are responding to, Rep
sebastian91
Senior
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2012
- Messages
- 2,810
Which banned idiot did you used to be?
Gimmicks come and go, but lining up and whipping the guy in front of you, pounding it down his throat, forcing him to bring extra people into the box, then throwing over the top of him....it's worked since the 50s, and it'll keep working forever. Same with having a dominant Dline, fast LBs, and ball hawking DBs not afraid to lay wood on someone. That's how we got to where we once were, and it's how Saban got to where he is. The formula for winning at Miami is well established.
OP is dead nuts on. Football has been revolutionized by mastering tempo and spreading out the field. The bowl games support the spread premise, as does the shift in the NFL to a pass happy league.
If you don't have a mobile QB in todays college game you are giving away a built in advantage. At the pro level they are just too valuable to subject to the beatings you take as a read option QB.
If you don't have a mobile QB in todays college game you are giving away a built in advantage. At the pro level they are just too valuable to subject to the beatings you take as a read option QB.
Johnson2TheJailHouse
Not M2TH
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2012
- Messages
- 135
Right, because Oregon didn't pound the ball down FSU's throat or anything. What do you call 124 yards from their RB?
maurice3p
Senior
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2014
- Messages
- 3,037
Blake Barnett is a dual threat QB.
Advertisement
FullyERicht
Thunderdome
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2013
- Messages
- 5,591
Or we could follow the model that a team who actually has won a title recently uses: Seattle. Run the ball, speed everywhere, win lots of games. Simple.
UMFarArcher
All-ACC
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2011
- Messages
- 18,584
Yes they will
When the wishbone came out, it ran over defenses everywhere, and ran up phenomenal numbers. Seemed unstoppable. For years.
Then, gradually teams learned to shut it down, and you'll note that the mighty Wishbone is no longer used, although GT runs a variation. Gotta have speed and quickness, something Alabama didn't show much of, nor did FSU. They just couldn't get that extra half second they needed to shut things down.
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2012
- Messages
- 21,162
Sebastian's old crusty *** doesn't think Ezekial ran all over Bama just because he did it out of the shotgun.
230 yards? Doesn't count, you had 4 WRs on the field.
230 yards? Doesn't count, you had 4 WRs on the field.
Stanford already has, they have owned Oregon for years. Stanford Defensive staff has been holding clinics for years where NFL coordinators go to learn how to stop the Read option. So FSU's DC had paid watched the video or done a little research he would have found the secret recipe.
Here the article and there is also a video from the coaching clinic
http://coachingsearch.com/article?a=Stanfords-Derek-Mason-explains-how-to-defend-the-read-option
UM will and should stick with the pro-style offense just and in some tweaks from Baylor's offense (**** I love their offense).
Go Canes
Johnson2TheJailHouse
Not M2TH
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2012
- Messages
- 135
Here is another great article on how to stop the Read option using Stanford's 3-4 "one gap" defensive scheme over the years.
http://grantland.com/the-triangle/stanford-shows-oregon-its-own-brand-of-old-school-football/
Stanford Shows Oregon Its Own Brand of Old-School Football
by Chris B. Brown on November 20, 2012
It can’t be overstated just how impressive Stanford’s 17-15 overtime victory over Oregon was. Stanford almost entirely shut down Oregon and its record-setting offense, the same offense that shredded the Cardinal 53-30 last season. Last year, Oregon’s victory kept Stanford out of the national championship conversation. This year, the Cardinal might have returned the favor.
Last week, I described how Oregon’s flashy offensive attack is, at its core, truly about old-school, fundamental football. Stanford’s defense — Stanford’s entire program — is unequivocally about the same. On offense, the Cardinal are a power football team, with most of their passing game based on play-action. On defense, they use a “one-gapping,” attacking 3-4 system — the same system brought to Stanford by current San Francisco defensive coordinator Vic Fangio just a few years ago.
Fangio is a disciple of current Green Bay Packers defensive coordinator Dom Capers, and the system the Cardinal runs is really an adaptation of what the Steelers, Packers, and other “one-gap” 3-4 teams do. (To oversimplify, “one gap” means each defensive player is responsible for a gap between offensive players, while a “two-gap” system — which is more common for 3-4 defenses — requires defensive linemen to attack blockers instead of gaps and control gaps to either side while the linebackers are free to roam.)
In this scheme, Stanford’s defense has been great all year, but Oregon’s speed and system present a unique challenge. If you beat Oregon at all, you beat them up front, and Stanford’s defensive linemen and linebackers are the strength of its defense. But head coach David Shaw and defensive coordinator Derek Mason also had some wrinkles up their sleeves, specifically old-school principles that defenses have used for decades to stop option teams. Oregon is not a true “triple option” team, but their fast-break style of offense forces defenses, just like those option teams do, to account for every offensive player. This made Stanford’s impressive performance remind me of some old quotes from Iowa’s great (former) defensive coordinator Norm Parker when his team faced a true triple-option team, Georgia Tech, in the 2010 Orange Bowl. In that game, which Iowa won 24-14, Parker’s defense held the Yellow Jackets to 155 yards of offense — just under 300 yards less than their season average — and one touchdown.
Parker explained that it’s not about inventing some new defensive scheme, but about being schematically sound: “You only have 11 guys out there. When they are balanced, you have to play five and a half guys on one side and five and a half guys on the other side.” If the offense is unbalanced, with additional blockers or receivers to one side or the other, the defense must “match” them and not allow the Ducks to get extra numbers or leverage. “You have to change up how you are covering it,” Parker explained. Being sound is the most important thing. “What they are looking for is for you to make a mistake.”
The first thing Stanford did to adjust to Oregon’s multifaceted attack was a simple change: They backed up their linebackers. Normally, their inside linebackers play at a depth of about four yards, and against Southern Cal, they often stepped right up to the line to feign blitzes and confuse blocking schemes. Against Oregon, Stanford’s linebackers played five, six, and sometimes even seven yards off the ball. This allowed them a better chance to read Oregon’s attack. This is an old anti-option tactic, and it’s one Stanford used very successfully.
The Cardinal also did an excellent job of moving their three defensive linemen and linebackers around. Despite being a so-called “3-4″ team, Stanford played most of the game in what was essentially a four-man front, albeit with a stand-up hybrid linebacker/defensive end. Ultimately, Stanford didn’t blitz or do anything overly aggressive. Instead, they relied on Parker’s most fundamental edict about stopping an option team: “The secret to the whole thing is that you have to get off blocks and run to the ball.”
That’s not complex analysis, but to me that is why Stanford played great defense. Time and time again, I saw players like A.J. Tarpley, Ben Gardner, Trent Murphy, and Chase Thomas take on a blocker, discard him like an empty soda bottle, and stuff an Oregon runner for no gain or a loss. Blocks that had sprung long touchdowns for weeks led nowhere.
Oregon was not entirely blameless — Kelly likely should have stuck with straightforward inside runs longer rather than throwing 37 passes, and Kenjon Barner could not seem to find the creases in the way that LaMichael James always seemed to against Stanford. But this was a game Stanford earned. Stanford arrived as a program some time ago, but it remains remarkable that Shaw, Mason, and the rest of that coaching staff have truly built Stanford — Stanford! — into one of the toughest, most fundamentally sound and physically dominant teams in the country. Oregon may have their own spin on old-school football, but, at least this past weekend, Stanford showed them how it’s done.
http://grantland.com/the-triangle/stanford-shows-oregon-its-own-brand-of-old-school-football/
Stanford Shows Oregon Its Own Brand of Old-School Football
by Chris B. Brown on November 20, 2012
It can’t be overstated just how impressive Stanford’s 17-15 overtime victory over Oregon was. Stanford almost entirely shut down Oregon and its record-setting offense, the same offense that shredded the Cardinal 53-30 last season. Last year, Oregon’s victory kept Stanford out of the national championship conversation. This year, the Cardinal might have returned the favor.
Last week, I described how Oregon’s flashy offensive attack is, at its core, truly about old-school, fundamental football. Stanford’s defense — Stanford’s entire program — is unequivocally about the same. On offense, the Cardinal are a power football team, with most of their passing game based on play-action. On defense, they use a “one-gapping,” attacking 3-4 system — the same system brought to Stanford by current San Francisco defensive coordinator Vic Fangio just a few years ago.
Fangio is a disciple of current Green Bay Packers defensive coordinator Dom Capers, and the system the Cardinal runs is really an adaptation of what the Steelers, Packers, and other “one-gap” 3-4 teams do. (To oversimplify, “one gap” means each defensive player is responsible for a gap between offensive players, while a “two-gap” system — which is more common for 3-4 defenses — requires defensive linemen to attack blockers instead of gaps and control gaps to either side while the linebackers are free to roam.)
In this scheme, Stanford’s defense has been great all year, but Oregon’s speed and system present a unique challenge. If you beat Oregon at all, you beat them up front, and Stanford’s defensive linemen and linebackers are the strength of its defense. But head coach David Shaw and defensive coordinator Derek Mason also had some wrinkles up their sleeves, specifically old-school principles that defenses have used for decades to stop option teams. Oregon is not a true “triple option” team, but their fast-break style of offense forces defenses, just like those option teams do, to account for every offensive player. This made Stanford’s impressive performance remind me of some old quotes from Iowa’s great (former) defensive coordinator Norm Parker when his team faced a true triple-option team, Georgia Tech, in the 2010 Orange Bowl. In that game, which Iowa won 24-14, Parker’s defense held the Yellow Jackets to 155 yards of offense — just under 300 yards less than their season average — and one touchdown.
Parker explained that it’s not about inventing some new defensive scheme, but about being schematically sound: “You only have 11 guys out there. When they are balanced, you have to play five and a half guys on one side and five and a half guys on the other side.” If the offense is unbalanced, with additional blockers or receivers to one side or the other, the defense must “match” them and not allow the Ducks to get extra numbers or leverage. “You have to change up how you are covering it,” Parker explained. Being sound is the most important thing. “What they are looking for is for you to make a mistake.”
The first thing Stanford did to adjust to Oregon’s multifaceted attack was a simple change: They backed up their linebackers. Normally, their inside linebackers play at a depth of about four yards, and against Southern Cal, they often stepped right up to the line to feign blitzes and confuse blocking schemes. Against Oregon, Stanford’s linebackers played five, six, and sometimes even seven yards off the ball. This allowed them a better chance to read Oregon’s attack. This is an old anti-option tactic, and it’s one Stanford used very successfully.
The Cardinal also did an excellent job of moving their three defensive linemen and linebackers around. Despite being a so-called “3-4″ team, Stanford played most of the game in what was essentially a four-man front, albeit with a stand-up hybrid linebacker/defensive end. Ultimately, Stanford didn’t blitz or do anything overly aggressive. Instead, they relied on Parker’s most fundamental edict about stopping an option team: “The secret to the whole thing is that you have to get off blocks and run to the ball.”
That’s not complex analysis, but to me that is why Stanford played great defense. Time and time again, I saw players like A.J. Tarpley, Ben Gardner, Trent Murphy, and Chase Thomas take on a blocker, discard him like an empty soda bottle, and stuff an Oregon runner for no gain or a loss. Blocks that had sprung long touchdowns for weeks led nowhere.
Oregon was not entirely blameless — Kelly likely should have stuck with straightforward inside runs longer rather than throwing 37 passes, and Kenjon Barner could not seem to find the creases in the way that LaMichael James always seemed to against Stanford. But this was a game Stanford earned. Stanford arrived as a program some time ago, but it remains remarkable that Shaw, Mason, and the rest of that coaching staff have truly built Stanford — Stanford! — into one of the toughest, most fundamentally sound and physically dominant teams in the country. Oregon may have their own spin on old-school football, but, at least this past weekend, Stanford showed them how it’s done.
sebastian91
Senior
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2012
- Messages
- 2,810
When did I say they didn't?
Advertisement
Consigliere
All-American
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 21,927
LVCanesfan
Mr. B
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2013
- Messages
- 392
I don't remember the exact year, but I want to say Barrow, Armstead and Smith were the LB's at the U. We went to play West Virginia and their coach said something on the lines that they have a surprise for us and will shock the world. They went to run the spread/option offense and we smacked them around 40-something to 3 IIRC. I'm getting old, so it might not be 100% accurate.