Coach Mathews should be interesting this morning.

[JacketVol]

Well, I'm not going to argue we should never go under center and use the I, but I do see the trade-off.

Under center handoff to a RB in the I (with or without leading blocker) is like tightening the choke on a shotgun: you may not be telling the defense precisely where the ball carrier is going...could be off-center, or off-guard to either side...but it's a pretty clear indicator for them. They pretty much know the guy is going somewhere between the left tackle and the right tackle (if it's a run play). So they can focus on defending the box. And just the box.

Back up to the pistol with the RB 7 yards deep, and you're giving up quick development of the play, but in exchange now you've sawed off the shotgun barrel. It's a real scatter shot, that RB can go anywhere from hash mark to hash mark, and beyond. Now you're forcing the D to defend a much broader space.

The latter works against slower or larger defenses. Forces them to cover the field, spread out. And once you spread them out, you can really get a decisive advantage at the point of your choosing (concentration of mass via surprise, for those using principles of war).

On the other hand, under center and I formation works better if the defense is small but quick, or if your offense has a significant size advantage over the other guys. For instance: we'd probably have been much better off just jamming I formation runs at App State last fall, slamming it straight into the box over and over again. Give up surprise and just go right at them with our greater size.

So...trade-off. Most of the time, in the SEC, we're better off in the spread. Even in short yardage situations. Simply too easy for very good SEC defenses to fill the box if they know pretty much where we're going.

Like I said starting off, that's not really the "opposite view" you were looking for, more like a balanced viewpoint.

Excellent post.

 

[KBVol]

Pre injuries, I think Sapp was going to be the guy along with Kirkland. Seems like McDowell is in the lead as of now

I would've thought so too given what we heard during last year's preseason. But when JRM got tossed vs App State, it was McDowell who went in and played (and played pretty well) rather than Sapp

 

[WhatInVolnation]

Is there any reason Kirkland and Bituli can't play together in the two or three linebacker formations? It seems that those two are getting the lion's share of buzz. I think one or both should be fast and athletic enough to play OLB, although I think the two LB positions are fairly interchangeable under the scheme.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

Excellent post.

Thanks, JacketVol.

Having mentioned that we could've probably benefited from under center / I formation vs App State last year, that got me thinking: we might benefit pretty nicely using it against Georgia Tech's defense on Sep 4th.

I mean, our OL has about 40 pounds average, per player, on their DL. Might be one of those games where just jamming it into the box over and over again from the I formation might work pretty well.

After we're a couple of scores ahead, of course. We should start off in the spread, just for more quick-scoring potential. We want to get them behind the curve on the score; that drives wishbone teams into frenzied fits.


EDIT: A further thought. If we were to spend significant time in the I for the Ga Tech game, we could probably get away with doing the same in the Indiana State game a week later. That would effectively shield from view a LOT of our spread offense changes from last year (new plays, new wrinkles, how it works with QD in the gun, etc.). Maintaining that surprise on the spread could help us a lot when we go full bore with it against Florida. It'll be giving them an offense they've hardly seen in spite of us being 3 weeks into the season.

And then we could hide the Spread away again the following week while playing U Mass...switch back to a lot of under center / I formation. So UGa would still have a limited look at the spread by the time we get to them in Week 5. More than Florida (thanks to the Vols-Gators game, of course), but still far less tape to study than 4 games oughta be giving them.

I like it! No idea if Butch would do it, but I like the idea.

 

[KBVol]

We run a pro style offense out of the shotgun. Go and read what Dobbs had to say about his transition to the NFL with the Steelers. He said it was smooth because they basically called the same plays at Tennessee. Same passing routes and concepts just had different names for them. This is very different from many of the pure spread systems like in the air raid offense where they don't run NFL passing routes and concepts. And where they are not doing full field reads but rather being told by the coaches where to throw the ball presnap.

We essentially run a pro style offense out of the shotgun formation.

1. How many pro offenses run zone read?
2. How many pro offenses design their offensive schemes to have their qb average 12 or carries per game and be their leading rusher like Dobbs did/was last year?
3. How many pro offenses don't huddle, then lineup, then look to the sideline for their call?
4. How many pro offenses never run from under center, including goal line situations?

There's a reason why NFL GMs have been hesitant to draft college QBs who only run spread offenses in college....it's such a departure from the NFL offense they'll be asked to run that they're not sure how to properly evaluate those QBs and whether or not their skills translate to the pro game.

Their are certainly pro elements and "concepts" in most any collegiate offensive system. But if you're running a zone read spread offense, which is Jones' offense, you're in no way running a prostyle offense. And if Jones is saying we are, he's stretching the truth for recruiting purposes imo. And if Dobbs is saying so, he's being very, very selective in which elements he's referring to, and likely throwing his former college coach a bone.

 

[KBVol]

Is there any reason Kirkland and Bituli can't play together in the two or three linebacker formations? It seems that those two are getting the lion's share of buzz. I think one or both should be fast and athletic enough to play OLB, although I think the two LB positions are fairly interchangeable under the scheme.

I'd love to see DKJr slide outside where I think he has plenty of athletic ability to play well and see Bituli inside at MLB which is where he's better suited to play.

 

[Vfl2407]

Excellent post.

If you are going to game, whose colors are you wearing and will you cheer for both teams? :loco:

 

[Hank Bukowski]

Well, I'm not going to argue we should never go under center and use the I, but I do see the trade-off.

Under center handoff to a RB in the I (with or without leading blocker) is like tightening the choke on a shotgun: you may not be telling the defense precisely where the ball carrier is going...could be off-center, or off-guard to either side...but it's a pretty clear indicator for them. They pretty much know the guy is going somewhere between the left tackle and the right tackle (if it's a run play). So they can focus on defending the box. And just the box.

Back up to the pistol with the RB 7 yards deep, and you're giving up quick development of the play, but in exchange now you've sawed off the shotgun barrel. It's a real scatter shot, that RB can go anywhere from hash mark to hash mark, and beyond. Now you're forcing the D to defend a much broader space.

The latter works against slower or larger defenses. Forces them to cover the field, spread out. And once you spread them out, you can really get a decisive advantage at the point of your choosing (concentration of mass via surprise, for those using principles of war).

On the other hand, under center and I formation works better if the defense is small but quick, or if your offense has a significant size advantage over the other guys. For instance: we'd probably have been much better off just jamming I formation runs at App State last fall, slamming it straight into the box over and over again. Give up surprise and just go right at them with our greater size.

So...trade-off. Most of the time, in the SEC, we're better off in the spread. Even in short yardage situations. Simply too easy for very good SEC defenses to fill the box if they know pretty much where we're going.

Like I said starting off, that's not really the "opposite view" you were looking for, more like a balanced viewpoint.

Interesting insights. Makes me pine for the days when a University of Tennessee offensive line quite often WON the box. "Yes, we are going to run between the tackles and right down your throat. Our beefeaters can and will push your beefeaters out of the way and you can't stop us."

See 1998...in fact, just about all of the 1990s. IIRC, I do believe "pound the rock" was not a slogan but a strategy for winning. Load the box and we will make you pay.

 

[KBVol]

Interesting insights. Makes me pine for the days when a University of Tennessee offensive line quite often WON the box. "Yes, we are going to run between the tackles and right down your throat. Our beefeaters can and will push your beefeaters out of the way and you can't stop us."

See 1998...in fact, just about all of the 1990s. IIRC, I do believe "pound the rock" was not a slogan but a strategy for winning. Load the box and we will make you pay.

Good points about being able to just line up and dictating things at line of scrimmage back in the day. We haven't been able to do that yet since Jones has been here, not to mention at any point really in the last 10-12 years. There are a handful of games we would've won under Butch the last couple years had been able to line up and play power football with the running game that resulted in just one more first down to close the game out....2015 Oklahoma and Florida games immediately come to mind.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

Good points about being able to just line up and dictating things at line of scrimmage back in the day. We haven't been able to do that yet since Jones has been here, not to mention at any point really in the last 10-12 years. There are a handful of games we would've won under Butch the last couple years had been able to line up and play power football with the running game that resulted in just one more first down to close the game out....2015 Oklahoma and Florida games immediately come to mind.

Very few SEC teams can do that any more. Because of the routinely stout size and quickness of SEC defenses.

So you don't see many using the I any more. Who last year? Bama and Arky? Anyone else? I don't recall.

Now, if you're Michigan in the B10, and six of your IN-CONFERENCE games are Rutgers, Maryland, Indiana, Minnesota, Purdue, and Mich St, before you even add in the OOC cupcake games ... then sure, in that case make the I formation your mainstay. Because your OLine is going to have 50 pounds per player on about three-fourths of the defenses you play all season. Works there.

Just not so well in the SEC, where defenses are routinely BIG. (yes, irony intended)

 

[Johnny Majors' Ghost]

very few sec teams can do that any more. Because of the routinely stout size and quickness of sec defenses.

So you don't see many using the i any more. Who last year? Bama and arky? Anyone else? I don't recall.

Now, if you're michigan in the b10, and six of your in-conference games are rutgers, maryland, indiana, minnesota, purdue, and mich st, before you even add in the ooc cupcake games ... Then sure, in that case make the i formation your mainstay. Because your oline is going to have 50 pounds per player on about three-fourths of the defenses you play all season. Works there.

Just not so well in the sec, where defenses are routinely big. (yes, irony intended)

lsu

 

[Nocleats]

For sure! He definitely fits the mold

Quick Enough?

 

[volsportsfan]

Well, I'm not going to argue we should never go under center and use the I, but I do see the trade-off.

Under center handoff to a RB in the I (with or without leading blocker) is like tightening the choke on a shotgun: you may not be telling the defense precisely where the ball carrier is going...could be off-center, or off-guard to either side...but it's a pretty clear indicator for them. They pretty much know the guy is going somewhere between the left tackle and the right tackle (if it's a run play). So they can focus on defending the box. And just the box.

Back up to the pistol with the RB 7 yards deep, and you're giving up quick development of the play, but in exchange now you've sawed off the shotgun barrel. It's a real scatter shot, that RB can go anywhere from hash mark to hash mark, and beyond. Now you're forcing the D to defend a much broader space.

The latter works against slower or larger defenses. Forces them to cover the field, spread out. And once you spread them out, you can really get a decisive advantage at the point of your choosing (concentration of mass via surprise, for those using principles of war).

On the other hand, under center and I formation works better if the defense is small but quick, or if your offense has a significant size advantage over the other guys. For instance: we'd probably have been much better off just jamming I formation runs at App State last fall, slamming it straight into the box over and over again. Give up surprise and just go right at them with our greater size.

So...trade-off. Most of the time, in the SEC, we're better off in the spread. Even in short yardage situations. Simply too easy for very good SEC defenses to fill the box if they know pretty much where we're going.

Like I said starting off, that's not really the "opposite view" you were looking for, more like a balanced viewpoint.

To truly be an effective run team you must be able to run between the tackles, off tackle, and outside ( toss or option ). And, to really make the run game nasty, have the olineman that can pull so you run pull plays and counters. Think Joe Gibbs and the Redskins. They are the best example of a run heavy team, no option. I would say Osborne and Nebraska would be the best example of heavy run with option.

 

[millst987]

I'm worried about LB

 

[KBVol]

Very few SEC teams can do that any more. Because of the routinely stout size and quickness of SEC defenses.

So you don't see many using the I any more. Who last year? Bama and Arky? Anyone else? I don't recall.

Now, if you're Michigan in the B10, and six of your IN-CONFERENCE games are Rutgers, Maryland, Indiana, Minnesota, Purdue, and Mich St, before you even add in the OOC cupcake games ... then sure, in that case make the I formation your mainstay. Because your OLine is going to have 50 pounds per player on about three-fourths of the defenses you play all season. Works there.

Just not so well in the SEC, where defenses are routinely BIG. (yes, irony intended)

So you're saying collegiate teams aren't able to close out games by getting that one more first down with the running game that puts the game on ice? We used to be able to routinely do that when we were really good.....Alabama does that now and they're really good....maybe there's a correlation? Besides, everybody's OLs are pretty big too, actually typically a good bit bigger than the DLs they're blocking.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

To truly be an effective run team you must be able to run between the tackles, off tackle, and outside ( toss or option ). And, to really make the run game nasty, have the olineman that can pull so you run pull plays and counters. Think Joe Gibbs and the Redskins. They are the best example of a run heavy team, no option. I would say Osborne and Nebraska would be the best example of heavy run with option.

I'm not sure anyone wants to be a run-heavy offense any more. Those days have passed.

At something akin to tectonic plate shift speed, offense and defense take turns having the advantage in football. These days, the offense is really in its heyday. That's why 3-0 and 7-3 scores are so uncommon, while games totaling 100 points or more of combined offense are no longer rare.

As long as the offense is in the cat bird seat, teams are going to want to use potent, quick-scoring schemes. Which means NOT run-dominated.

Having said that, you can still have an effective run game even while focusing on the pass first, and quick scoring. And it doesn't have to involve pounding it between the tackles. There are other ways to be really effective the 30%-40% of the time you run the ball.

[p.s. Tom Osborne retired from coaching 20 years ago...and the offense was already well on its way to outstripping the defense even back then]

 

[VFL-82-JP]

lsu

Thanks, Wooley, yeah, forgot about them.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

So you're saying collegiate teams aren't able to close out games by getting that one more first down with the running game that puts the game on ice? We used to be able to routinely do that when we were really good.....Alabama does that now and they're really good....maybe there's a correlation? Besides, everybody's OLs are pretty big too, actually typically a good bit bigger than the DLs they're blocking.

No, KB, I didn't say that.

But if you're building your entire offense around that one play you'll use at the end of each game to "ice it" with a 3-yard-run for a 1st down ... well, that's a lot of focusing on just that one play. You got 60-80 other offensive plays to think about too.

 

[volnpowell]

In regards to the FB comment, to be fair not many college football offenses use a FB in the running game.

Would be a nice "wrinkle" to add to the goal line offense.

 

[wildorange]

It's vital in short yardage situation to be able to run the football or at least make to respect it. There is nothing hard about having a short yardage or goaline package utilizing a FB or lead blocker, it is stupid in my opinion to be a the half foot line and have the QB in shotgun and running out of the spread. You just give away too much in them situations, you take the QB sneak out of the question as well as reducing your running threats. GBO!!!!

 

[wildorange]

No, KB, I didn't say that.

But if you're building your entire offense around that one play you'll use at the end of each game to "ice it" with a 3-yard-run for a 1st down ... well, that's a lot of focusing on just that one play. You got 60-80 other offensive plays to think about too.

Nobody is saying you have to build your entire offense around that style. But to neglect your short yardage game is kind of defeating the purpose of moving the chains or scoring touchdowns. GBO!!!!!

 

[JacketVol]

Thanks, JacketVol.

Having mentioned that we could've probably benefited from under center / I formation vs App State last year, that got me thinking: we might benefit pretty nicely using it against Georgia Tech's defense on Sep 4th.

I mean, our OL has about 40 pounds average, per player, on their DL. Might be one of those games where just jamming it into the box over and over again from the I formation might work pretty well.

After we're a couple of scores ahead, of course. We should start off in the spread, just for more quick-scoring potential. We want to get them behind the curve on the score; that drives wishbone teams into frenzied fits.


EDIT: A further thought. If we were to spend significant time in the I for the Ga Tech game, we could probably get away with doing the same in the Indiana State game a week later. That would effectively shield from view a LOT of our spread offense changes from last year (new plays, new wrinkles, how it works with QD in the gun, etc.). Maintaining that surprise on the spread could help us a lot when we go full bore with it against Florida. It'll be giving them an offense they've hardly seen in spite of us being 3 weeks into the season.

And then we could hide the Spread away again the following week while playing U Mass...switch back to a lot of under center / I formation. So UGa would still have a limited look at the spread by the time we get to them in Week 5. More than Florida (thanks to the Vols-Gators game, of course), but still far less tape to study than 4 games oughta be giving them.

I like it! No idea if Butch would do it, but I like the idea.

I do think you could ram it down Techs throat but think you need QD or JG to also have some live game reps with the spread in the Tech and IS games before Florida. But no reason we can't get a lead by over powering Tech and win if we protect the football.

 

[KBVol]

I'm worried about LB

We all are...and DT, and DE, and......

 

[JacketVol]

If you are going to game, whose colors are you wearing and will you cheer for both teams? :loco:

Answered this before. Butch needs this game more than Johnson and GT. Let's be honest. The passion for football is greater at Tennessee. If UT can do well this year, it will set Jones for a good run. If Tech loses, it will be in the paper Tuesday and then they move on.

Being a donor and having just celebrated my 28th anniversary of being married into a VOL family and both teams being 0-0, I will be wearing Orange.

I wasn't giimg to go since I could not take my son but just fod out this Thursday that a friend has scored a couple of nice 200 level tickets and he is taking me to the game. Excited about getting to go now and checking out the new stadium.

 

[KBVol]

No, KB, I didn't say that.

But if you're building your entire offense around that one play you'll use at the end of each game to "ice it" with a 3-yard-run for a 1st down ... well, that's a lot of focusing on just that one play. You got 60-80 other offensive plays to think about too.

Didn't say anything about building your entire offense around that. But a championship team HAS TO be able to close out games on the ground. Whether you're a spread offense or a Power I proset offense you have to be able to convert short yardage 3rd and 4th downs, and Jones's teams haven't been able to do that....and it's not an accident or mystery why.

We could've been an SECe division "championship" team had we been able to close out Florida by getting one more first down in 2015. We ran 3 straight running plays to try run down the clock late and end the game. Couldn't do it, the rest is history. Same thing goes for the Oklahoma game that year and I'd wager that if we'd been able to control the game on the ground better vs SCar last year, it would negated Dobbs' awful game where we put all our chips in him being able to win it for us. Bama hasn't been a one-dimensional power running team at all the last two seasons, yet they know what to do, how to execute the running game to close out wins when it's time. They did it to us in 2015.

Come on now JP, you're one of the brightest guys on here, you know what I was saying.