Why not try this

#1
5

56 VOL

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2007
Messages
119
Likes
0
#1
I don't profess to be a football coach just a long time Vol fan but we obviously cannot continue the game management used Monday night. Why would we not put Foster and Hardesty in the backfield at the same time? Can you imagine how different the result would have been in the overtime period if those two were in the backfield at the same time and with Gerald Jones at quarterback and Brandon Warren at tight end and Lucas Taylor at WR. In my opinion that would give defensive coordinators ulcers and allow us to play to win rather than play to tie. If Dave Clawson is as innovative as we have been led to believe, you would think he would have had a formation such as this in his back pocket for use in critical situations especially when it is obvious that the kicker and quarterback are struggling
 
#2
#2
I have come to expect ZERO innovation or half time adjustments.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#3
#3
After the way Crompton played, I think Hardesty and Foster should take turns taking snaps, and just run a double RB option every single play.
 
#4
#4
With the way our passing game looked, I'm for going back to the old single wing offense! :crazy:
 
#5
#5
If you are saying GJ should be our full time QB then you have serious problems. Maybe as a change of pace formation but not full time.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#7
#7
This with hardesty and foster... D sure has to respect fosters catching ability and hardesty's speed.
 
#8
#8
GV182 you obviously missed the words" critical situation"
I was proposing this new formation to keep defenses off guard instead of just letting them come after Crompton every play. If the philosophy is to put the ball in the hands of the "playmakers" then put the playmakers on the field. I think it would even be a good idea to put Foster and Hardesty together in the backfield with Crompton and put GJ at wide receiver. I saw numerous posts that indicate that Brandon Warren is a game changer and we saw him 3-4 plays.
 
#9
#9
How about we continue to let Clawson who has proven himself over the course of his career to be a consummate professional keep improving and refining his O... and kindly ask Chavis not to give up easy 8 play drives playing soft coverage, OK?
 
#11
#11
Business said:
Man, I have been screaming Pro-Set since 2006.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't want that. If it went in as a primary weapon, I'd be clamoring every single week to run the option nonstop out of it. Is that really what you want?:p

Having a two-back backfield and not running option is a complete waste. It's not as bad as a couple years ago when I was coaching against a team that ran the wishbone and no option, but it's close.
 
#12
#12
"We ain't ever needed no adjustments and we don't need no adjustments now" said Vols coach Fulmer. Then he added, "Does anyone here know what an adjustment is, anyhow?"

And DC Chavis could be heard in the background chanting "Prevent! Prevent! P-R-E-V-E-N-T! That's the way you spell it, here's the way you yell it. PREVENT! "

j/k

:post-4-1090547912:
 
#14
#14
MWRaider said:
"We ain't ever needed no adjustments and we don't need no adjustments now" said Vols coach Fulmer. Then he added, "Does anyone here know what an adjustment is, anyhow?"

And DC Chavis could be heard in the background chanting "Prevent! Prevent! P-R-E-V-E-N-T! That's the way you spell it, here's the way you yell it. PREVENT! "

j/k

:post-4-1090547912:
Click to expand...
A little early to be hitting the sauce.
 
#16
#16
I think all of this time since the game Monday night is starting to make a few of us delirious. Hurry up and get here Saturday.
 
#17
#17
hmanvolfan said:
I think all of this time since the game Monday night is starting to make a few of us delirious. Hurry up and get here Saturday.
Click to expand...

Life is to short not to have some enjoyment.

When your team loses to a team that by all accounts they should have beaten, then delirium tends to set in. Especially when it is 2 weeks until things can actually get any better.
 
#20
#20
I thought it had something to do with the smell coming off the creek.... :eek:lol:
 
#22
#22
Ohio Vol said:
You wouldn't want that. If it went in as a primary weapon, I'd be clamoring every single week to run the option nonstop out of it. Is that really what you want?:p

Having a two-back backfield and not running option is a complete waste. It's not as bad as a couple years ago when I was coaching against a team that ran the wishbone and no option, but it's close.
Click to expand...

I get down with you because you're down with the X's and O's.

I've always wanted it because it, in my mind, would balance out the defense. Have their mind on two people. The misdirections, putting a man in motion to get the defense unbalanced, etc.

I'm not saying Pro-Set being the main formation. Just as a change up to get two playmakers out there and get the defense thinking. Like baseball, sometimes when your ahead in the count, you throw a pitch to set-up a hitter for what your about to throw.

Maybe, have 5 plays the whole game from Pro-Set all runs and then on an obvious run down later in the game set up in Pro-Set, saftey creep up, little playaction BAM! 60 yard bomb. Given that the pass protection was giving that much time for a fake.

I think I sit and talk with you all day about X's and O's.
 
#24
#24
Business said:
I get down with you because you're down with the X's and O's.

I've always wanted it because it, in my mind, would balance out the defense. Have their mind on two people. The misdirections, putting a man in motion to get the defense unbalanced, etc.
Click to expand...

Well, it wouldn't balance out the defense. And that's exactly the beauty of it. If a team has the ability to go both ways with the ball (weakside and strongside, not right and left), it forces the defense into a mismatch by alignment. If they adjust to strength, they leave themselves shorthanded on the weakside. If they don't adjust to strength, they're outnumbered to the strongside.

The real beauty with a multi-back look is that, over time, it starts to create a series of one-on-one matchups out in space. It then usually leads to either a cover-1 (two fly patterns down the sideline create a problem there) or a cover-3 (blocking by WRs or a bunch of short routes will bury that).

I'm not saying Pro-Set being the main formation. Just as a change up to get two playmakers out there and get the defense thinking. Like baseball, sometimes when your ahead in the count, you throw a pitch to set-up a hitter for what your about to throw.

Maybe, have 5 plays the whole game from Pro-Set all runs and then on an obvious run down later in the game set up in Pro-Set, saftey creep up, little playaction BAM! 60 yard bomb. Given that the pass protection was giving that much time for a fake.
Click to expand...

Unless it's as basic as a standard split set (TE and flanker one side, split end the other way), there's too much going into it to justify a mere five plays a game.

My last stop where I wasn't running the offense (dumb, I know:blink:) involves four or five basic formation groups, and we sucked at every one of them. Understand that putting in a new formation package isn't as simple as adjusting the alignment; there's a ton of work on timing that has to go into it. That's why, all things being equal, a team with a small playbook will usually thump one with a large one. They get a ton more reps on the bread-and-butter plays, as opposed to the inherent question of "How important are these formations and these plays?"

I think I sit and talk with you all day about X's and O's.
Click to expand...

Only if you loathe the wing-T as much as I do.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top