forums

Why no I formation?

Advertisement
JaxonCane said:
In my opinion
No "I" formation or FB because most "D" coordeinators would tell you that it is probably one of the easiest formations to defend. Not better for power run game because you add defenders to the box, so you have to be physically better, if you are physcially better why the need of a FB in the first place. But if you take that FB type kid and make him a "H" back then he becomes much more multiple in the offensive attack. He can pull like a guard, trap, set an edge, or get our on routes like a TE. We have guys that can do that - and a lot of offensive coordinators are taking advantage of the multiple H back sets. some teams that use H backs a lot - Texas (Tom Herman), Ohio State, VT (Fuentes), Memphis, etc, etc.
So the thought is that a H back over a FB gives you the ability to be much more multiple in the pass game and still give you the advantage of the extra blocker in the box that can be pre or post snapped positioned to out number the defenders.
Click to expand...

Chris Herndon has played hback here...also the split back idea would be good as well.

I dont know just need more dynamite to create different ways to run the ball...help out your backs and oline.
 
I have watched a lot of Georgia football over the years. The fullback was always a staple of that offense. So the question is, has Richt abandoned that philosophy or is that we simply do not have a fullback to use? Time will tell I guess.
 
I think it has something to do with Rosier’s height. (Combined with no FB.)

He would be so ineffective under center that it’d be a complete tip of the cap to run out of the I.

I think it also starts at the high school level, these days. So many kids no nothing but shotgun. Times have changed, the game has evolved.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Advertisement
We tried Gaynor on the Goalline at FB. The board hated it

Irving can't block most people on this board, he's not the inline, edge setting TE you want to run behind. He can barely line up right and run 5 plays without being tired

Choc is not the answer at FB. FB is more about attitude than it is about 6'0 245, but that helps a lot too imo

I really think CMR is hamstrung to what he would really like to run because of the roster, least that is my hope
 
Put me in the camp of hating RPO’s. I get it that we are winning and we are using it bc it may be our best way to play given some issues but I am in the camp of the old canes pro style offense mindset.
 
Advertisement
Fellas our Our Oline isn’t good enough to run pro set! Best we can hope for is a zone concept run game and that’s not seeing
much success against good defensive lines! But to ask these guys to man handle a guy in front of them ain’t happening!
We need to recruit some elite Oline guys! I see we are going after elite defensive backs but we need some interior Oline talent
or we will continue so suck on offense! We have not had a decent Oline for as long as we have been a mediocre team!
 
bear said:
Put me in the camp of hating RPO’s. I get it that we are winning and we are using it bc it may be our best way to play given some issues but I am in the camp of the old canes pro style offense mindset.
Click to expand...

You guys don't even know what it is. You're hating something that you don't understand.
 
Didn't Homer just run for 170 a couple weeks ago and 4.8 yards per carry last week? One bad running game and now we're hollering for the I-formation?

Plenty reasons why that's a terrible idea.


#1 - Rosier can barely make the proper reads from the gun/spread but you want him to take 5/7 step drops while reading a defense.

#2 - We don't have a real Fullback

#3 - Our RB's are good zone runners, Homer especially. He runs zone like it's supposed to be run, puts his foot in the ground and gets north. Playing RB in the Pro is a different animal.

#4 - If we're having trouble running the ball against 6 man boxes, how in the **** do you think we'll be able to run against 8/9 man boxes? LOL

#5 - We have far too much potential at the WR position to line-up with less than 3 WR's every snap. We'd be doing ourselves a disservice. Who you wanna leave on the bench while we run the Pro? Berrios? Thomas? Langham?

#6 - Pro Style is easier to defend. Not debatable. Next.

#7 - Going Pro Style would get rid of Miami's main advantage over the rest of college football...SPEED.

#8 - It's easier to disguise your defense against a Pro-Style offense. Spreading the formation out makes it more difficult for DC's to play games pre-snap. It's much easier for Rosier to identify coverages and blitzes if he's in the spread.


And finally, every concept you can run from the Pro-Style can be ran from the spread/gun. Power, Iso, Counter, etc. We're just not creative enough. If you watch a legit spread offense you'll see them utilizing H-backs, running Iso, running Power, and all other concepts that formerly were only seen in Pro-Style sets.
 
Last edited:
Advertisement
TheRichtShow said:
Jax Cane said:
How about Trayon at Full Back?

How about some split back sets?

I am sick of the RPO
Click to expand...

And there we have it. A poster who is sick of winning.

Oklahoma, Penn St, OSU, Clemson, etc all run the spread with no I. Yet it's just a problem for us. Get ****ed
Click to expand...


Slow your roll newbie. Don't come at me with all that **** and vinegar internet tough guy. If you had a f#%kong clue you would see we have zero running game out of current formation. Oh and I don't give a **** what taint and pedofile state are running.
 
Coach Macho said:
elmalocane said:
Jax Cane said:
How about Trayon at Full Back?

How about some split back sets?

I am sick of the RPO
Click to expand...

amen brother. i hate the rpo's and read option. give me old school canes football!
Click to expand...

Why the **** would yall hate something that is working all over the country and is being adopted by the best coaches in the world? LOL
Click to expand...

Be a little less predictable. I’m not saying kill RPO’s but change it up to throw the Defense off. Not going to happen though.
 
Advertisement
Coach Macho said:
Didn't Homer just run for 170 a couple weeks ago and 4.8 yards per carry last week? One bad running game and now we're hollering for the I-formation?

Plenty reasons why that's a terrible idea.


#1 - Rosier can barely make the proper reads from the gun/spread but you want him to take 5/7 step drops while reading a defense.

#2 - We don't have a real Fullback

#3 - Our RB's are good zone runners, Homer especially. He runs zone like it's supposed to be run, puts his foot in the ground and gets north. Playing RB in the Pro is a different animal.

#4 - If we're having trouble running the ball against 6 man boxes, how in the **** do you think we'll be able to run against 8/9 man boxes? LOL

#5 - We have far too much potential at the WR position to line-up with less than 3 WR's every snap. We'd be doing ourselves a disservice. Who you wanna leave on the bench while we run the Pro? Berrios? Thomas? Langham?

#6 - Pro Style is easier to defend. Not debatable. Next.

#7 - Going Pro Style would get rid of Miami's main advantage over the rest of college football...SPEED.

#8 - It's easier to disguise your defense against a Pro-Style offense. Spreading the formation out makes it more difficult for DC's to play games pre-snap. It's much easier for Rosier to identify coverages and blitzes if he's in the spread.


And finally, every concept you can run from the Pro-Style can be ran from the spread/gun. Power, Iso, Counter, etc. We're just not creative enough. If you watch a legit spread offense you'll see them utilizing H-backs, running Iso, running Power, and all other concepts that formerly were only seen in Pro-Style sets.
Click to expand...

Great post! The only thing that I may disagree about is that speed is our main advantage over the rest of college football. I don't think that we look much faster than most of the teams that we play. That may have been the case 20 or 30 years ago, but I am not sure that applies much anymore. Not saying that we are slow by any means but it just doesn't look like a decided advantage to me.
 
Doubt it has to do with lack of FB. We had one last (who got drafted I believe) and still rarely ran I-form
 
If you want to see how to run I-form watch a Jaguars game. They run it against 8 in the box all game long since Bortles is trash. The Canes don't have a true FB and true blocking TE, BUT Homer would be great for that running style. He's a punishing one cut guy with speed. It's Richt's fault there's no FB right now. He could've easily gotten a FB from somewhere. The only one I'm aware of is committed for 19, but I could be wrong. The offense I could see this team running is Dennis Erickson's one back. We have the speed and personnel for it. Bottom line is that the team needs to add plays under center, misdirections, motion, and end arounds to mix things up. I'd love to go under center in a jumbo power package with Gainor as the TE on short yardage. There's no defense on the schedule that would stop that 2 plays in a row.
 
The simple answer to the OP is probably that we just don't have the appropriate personnel to run that, from Rosier on down to the O-line. I think it would be a disaster. Not only would we not move the ball any better, we'd also end up limiting ourselves for the big-play opportunities we are currently getting, without which we'd probably be 4-3 or 3-4.

My guess is that you could look to our 2003 game against Tennessee in the Orange Bowl for what our offense would look like if we tried to run that style. We had similar personnel issues.....most glaringly, a shorter QB who struggled in Coker's pro-style sets. How comfortable do you feel with Malik under center? I don't feel very comfortable with that at all.

The game has changed. No one runs that style anymore. Not sure we could get the players to run that style even if we wanted to, since all the high schools are running shotgun spread.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top