jjay2518
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2007
- Messages
- 9,665
- Likes
- 2,447
I hate to keep posting about this one topic, but here is one last comment on this article.
The two statements from Kelly that stand out to me the most are these.
"The inside zone is our go to work play. It has become or signature play. We want to get off the ball and be a physical, downhill-running football team. This is not a finesse play . We want to come off the ball, create a double team, knock the crap out of a defender, and deposit him in the linebackers lap."
"This may sound like a contradiction, but we do not read anything. When you read, you become uncertain. We want the ball in the running backs hands. We do not want the quarterback carrying the ball. The option can put the ball in his hands, but the defense can force it out of his hands. We want the quarterback to give the ball unless he cannot."
Both of these completely apply to our offense. I'd say Butch would agree 100% with these 2 statements, but I think both of these are overlooked by some fans.
The zone run game is downhill and physical. Even though we run the "spread," we want to be a power football team. This offense is not designed to get the quarterback runs. He is to hand off the ball unless he absolutely can not.
So do you think this system can work consistently in the SEC? Oregon is the best example of a team built for it, but are there examples of them putting up big numbers against a team with a big, talented, athletic DL? Stanford consistently shuts them down, and so did Auburn with Nick Fairley. It makes me wonder if the Oregon system can be totally effective in the SEC that is known for its defensive fronts.