No Huddle Offense

#201
#201
kptvol said:
Big deal. Running past the line of scrimmage with no blockers downfield is practically the same thing.
Click to expand...

??? I'm unsure of what you mean. Lacrosspro thinks Meachem's 2 quick hitch patterns for TDs against Cal were screens.

Or do you mean that our linemen have been so poor in screen blocking that they are worthless out in space?
 
#202
#202
VolinArizona said:
Here is a little rough diagram of a WR screen, lacrossepro. It's nowhere near the routes Meachem ran against Cal.

wrscreen11ai5.jpg
Click to expand...

Yeah Meachem had about a 4-5 yard little hook out and broke the tackle and scored (both times), UT just caught them in man coverage both times with no safety help over top.
 
#203
#203
justingroves said:
Yeah Meachem had about a 4-5 yard little hook out and broke the tackle and scored (both times), UT just caught them in man coverage both times with no safety help over top.
Click to expand...

Exactly. One of the hitches may have been 7-8 yards, but they were no way in any shape, form, or fashion a WR screen.
 
#204
#204
Lol jesus easy how does confusing a quick hitch route with a screen pass for two plays make me the dumbest person on the board? I guess I'll point out the positive aspects of a WR screen. If you catch another team blitzing the outside corner, set up the screen, block the safties down field, and touchdown. It also draws safties in. The best example I can think of this is the 40 yard Bret Smith catch late in the LSU game in 2005. We faked a screen and Smith (who was playing slot reciever) ran a wheel route and was wide open.

Bascially I thought Meachem caught the pass behind the line of scrimmage. If he did it could be considered a screen. In a WR screen the blocking may be as simple as one receiver blocking ahead of another.
 
#205
#205
lacrossepro70 said:
Lol jesus easy how does confusing a quick hitch route with a screen pass for two plays make me the dumbest person on the board? I guess I'll point out the positive aspects of a WR screen. If you catch another team blitzing the outside corner, set up the screen, block the safties down field, and touchdown. It also draws safties in. The best example I can think of this is the 40 yard Bret Smith catch late in the LSU game in 2005. We faked a screen and Smith (who was playing slot reciever) ran a wheel route and was wide open.

In a WR screen the blocking may be as simple as one receiver blocking ahead of another.
Click to expand...

Because you thought a hitch was a screen. It's basics.
 
#207
#207
VolinArizona said:
??? I'm unsure of what you mean. Lacrosspro thinks Meachem's 2 quick hitch patterns for TDs against Cal were screens.

Or do you mean that our linemen have been so poor in screen blocking that they are worthless out in space?
Click to expand...

I was being facetious. I thought you would have more confidence in my knowledge. My feelings are now hurt.
 
#208
#208
Seems to me too that the no-huddle gives the opportunity to work the TEs into the package inasmuch as it is an extension of a "read" based offensive concept. And certainly this option plays to a strength.

And if the run balance is there, like the way the Colts used the run in the red zone down the stretch, the no-huddle could indeed be a nice evolution. Of course there is no way to know how much it will be used but it the experimentation at the very least is responsive to innovations in the game.
 
#209
#209
I don't think the 3 WR set is making the most use of UT's experienced players. UT doesn't have a lot of experience at the WR position.

I think a formation with 2 TE, 1 RB, 1 FB, and 1 WR would make better use of UT's experienced players. Or a formation with 2 TE, 2 WR, and 1 RB.

I know Holbert didn't make play that well as a sophomore and didn't play much as a junior. But he's a senior now and was a very highly recruited player out of high school. I would like to see him get on the field more instead of possibly a true freshmen WR. You could also use Hardesty occasionally at FB and get him in the game more with Coker.

UT has a lot of talented players and could use a lot of different formations. One play come out with 3 WR the next play 2 TE and a FB. I think it would create some mismatches for UT.

I liked the way Boise St uses a lot of different formations to keep the defense thinking. UT has a lot more talented players and could do the same thing.
 
#211
#211
oklavol said:
I think a formation with 2 TE, 1 RB, 1 FB, and 1 WR would make better use of UT's experienced players. Or a formation with 2 TE, 2 WR, and 1 RB.
Click to expand...

We ran a lot of Double TE 1 back sets last year especially with Coker. I'm afraid though that if we started running 2 TE with a Fullback and 1 WR, a lynchmob might form outside Cutcliffe's door in the pressbox.
 
#212
#212
GAVol said:
We ran a lot of Double TE 1 back sets last year especially with Coker. I'm afraid though that if we started running 2 TE with a Fullback and 1 WR, a lynchmob might form outside Cutcliffe's door in the pressbox.
Click to expand...

:lol: good point.
 
#213
#213
utvol0427 said:
Sorry if this has already been posted, but I just read this on the VN homepage. According to CPF, the Vols plan on using a no huddle offense next season. Thoughts?
Click to expand...
We will see how long that lasts if this is indeed what they do, Fulmer trying to go with the less conservative route let's hope.
 
#215
#215
Maybe Fulmer is smarter than many here seem to give him credit and realizes this is a survival issue.

He'll either figure out a way to win or the conference will leave him as a speck in the rear view mirror... assuming UT won't fire him.

I think his willingness to get rid of Sanders et al was a sign that he has a healthier perspective on loyalty. You have to be loyal to the "cause" first and then to the individuals within it. You can't sacrifice the "cause" everyone is involved in when someone isn't doing their job... even if it isn't for a lack of trying.

I still like what I see in the changes that Fulmer is making. He has taken proactive measures to continue fixing what was wrong.
 
#216
#216
GAVol said:
We ran a lot of Double TE 1 back sets last year especially with Coker. I'm afraid though that if we started running 2 TE with a Fullback and 1 WR, a lynchmob might form outside Cutcliffe's door in the pressbox.
Click to expand...

If we only have one WR (especially in a no huddle offense) Ainge won't be able to spread the ball around enough because of a lack of WRs. Plus that is a running formation and our offensive line isn't good enough to take over a game and shove the ball down their throats.
 
#217
#217
lacrossepro70 said:
If we only have one WR (especially in a no huddle offense) Ainge won't be able to spread the ball around enough because of a lack of WRs. Plus that is a running formation and our offensive line isn't good enough to take over a game and shove the ball down their throats.
Click to expand...

Don't give the TE's any credit huh? Just kidding I see what you're saying.
 
#220
#220
lacrossepro70 said:
Right, but some people on here are hard to convince. A couple guys pretty much require links to prove a point...
Click to expand...

When you're making wild accusations like players running 4.2 40s, yeah, we'll need sources. A lot, and I mean a lot, of people on this board don't know anywhere near what they think they know.
 
#222
#222
Well, if we're going to criticize Phil for conservative play-calling (myself included), then we have to at least adopt a "wait and see" approach to the no-huddle plan.

I'd like to see the Vols keep a couple of FB's on the roster. You can still use them in short yardage and goal-line situations. Spread the defense out, and a FB/RB draw with a 230 lb back becomes a one-on-one against a middle linebacker. If a lineman can get the LB blocked, your FB is running downhill towards a defensive back. I like those matchups.
 
#225
#225
VolinArizona said:
A qualifier like "In my opinion" or "I think" or names of people who know jack about football? Help me out.
Click to expand...

A qualifier like why your more knowledgable then the majority of fans, so your qualified to make the statement. Otherwise your just stating an opinion like everyone else in here.

You didn't think you would get a free pass?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top