|
Post by CoachMikeJudy on Feb 10, 2015 15:40:11 GMT -6
I think the expansion of packaged plays is dead on. We do it, we're one of 2 spread teams in the area that do it, and it is a biatch to defend if done right.
I think the biggest advances in our game will be off-the-field stuff. 20yrs ago you were ahead of the game with a 3-day/week strength routine. If you lifted in season you truly separated yourselves from the rest. Nowadays you have to do this just to maintain. Every single program is doing character development, intensive offseason programming, and speed development...this is where I think we'll see the biggest advancements.
|
|
|
Post by ccscoach on Feb 10, 2015 16:34:19 GMT -6
I think the next "revolution" is going to be in the rules of the game. I wouldn't be surprised to see not being able to leave one's feet to tackle and having to attempt to wrap when tackling...both rules in rugby which make for a safer game and better tackling. Bingo
|
|
|
Post by Coach.A on Feb 10, 2015 17:16:31 GMT -6
I think a 2 QB system may be the next evolution of the offensive game. Since right now most QB's are at least as much runners as they are passers. Take Ohio State for instance...well obviously they had 3 pretty good QBs playing QB, but Jalen Marshall #17 was a QB in HS. So he can throw it too. Since everyone one of them can run, I can see someone coming along and using this to their advantage. I'm thinking what Pittsburgh did with Heinz Ward and that other little QB/WR guy they had but more apart of the normal offensive scheme. I realize this will probably never happen, but I'd love to see an NFL team draft/trade for a stable full of running QBs then use an offense that relies heavily on QB runs and read option type plays. With the way the NCAA has evolved recently, there's no shortage of running QBs...and most will never get to play QB in the NFL (e.g. Denard Robinson, Pat White, Braxton Miller? etc.). You wouldn't have to pay these guys NFL QB money. The way it is now, if an NFL team has an athletic QB, the other QBs on the roster rarely have that same skill set. Plus every team is so scared of a QB getting hurt that they rarely run their QBs.
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Feb 10, 2015 17:26:48 GMT -6
I think a 2 QB system may be the next evolution of the offensive game. Since right now most QB's are at least as much runners as they are passers. Take Ohio State for instance...well obviously they had 3 pretty good QBs playing QB, but Jalen Marshall #17 was a QB in HS. So he can throw it too. Since everyone one of them can run, I can see someone coming along and using this to their advantage. I'm thinking what Pittsburgh did with Heinz Ward and that other little QB/WR guy they had but more apart of the normal offensive scheme. I realize this will probably never happen, but I'd love to see an NFL team draft/trade for a stable full of running QBs then use an offense that relies heavily on QB runs and read option type plays. With the way the NCAA has evolved recently, there's no shortage of running QBs...and most will never get to play QB in the NFL (e.g. Denard Robinson, Pat White, Braxton Miller? etc.). You wouldn't have to pay these guys NFL QB money. The way it is now, if an NFL team has an athletic QB, the other QBs on the roster rarely have that same skill set. Plus every team is so scared of a QB getting hurt that they rarely run their QBs. I have said this for a while. The reason they don't really run the qb all that much is because they don't want to get him hurt or he is too valuable. Now actually run college offense that are tearing up the NCAA - Auburn, Ohio State, Oregon with expendable QB's like you mentioned. Nick Marshall is another one. Plus you can save money and spend on your line, rb's, wr's, and defense! Improve your offense by scheme and improve your players and not be locked in to one qb or be in trouble because you had to go to your third string guy. I think it is a brillant strategy for some teams.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Feb 10, 2015 17:27:59 GMT -6
I think a 2 QB system may be the next evolution of the offensive game. Since right now most QB's are at least as much runners as they are passers. Take Ohio State for instance...well obviously they had 3 pretty good QBs playing QB, but Jalen Marshall #17 was a QB in HS. So he can throw it too. Since everyone one of them can run, I can see someone coming along and using this to their advantage. I'm thinking what Pittsburgh did with Heinz Ward and that other little QB/WR guy they had but more apart of the normal offensive scheme. I realize this will probably never happen, but I'd love to see an NFL team draft/trade for a stable full of running QBs then use an offense that relies heavily on QB runs and read option type plays. With the way the NCAA has evolved recently, there's no shortage of running QBs...and most will never get to play QB in the NFL (e.g. Denard Robinson, Pat White, Braxton Miller? etc.). You wouldn't have to pay these guys NFL QB money. The way it is now, if an NFL team has an athletic QB, the other QBs on the roster rarely have that same skill set. Plus every team is so scared of a QB getting hurt that they rarely run their QBs. How many QBs can they keep on their roster?
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Feb 10, 2015 18:47:28 GMT -6
I think they can have 3 on active roster, but I am not rules guru.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2015 18:50:45 GMT -6
Offensively, I think there's going to be more emphasis on TEs, H-Backs, and unbalanced lines in the context of a spread option offense with even more packaged plays. It seems like everyone uses or wants a heavy package now. You're going to continue to see teams experiment more with weird/unorthodox groupings and formations to leverage a defense.
In the last 15 years, the standard personnel groupings have gone from 21 to 10 and are now going to transition back to an 20 or 21 personnel look again, but with a sniffer H-Back inserting in shotgun sets rather than lining up deep as a RB--you're going to get a lot more of what's basically I formation football, but with the shotgun read elements to it. They'll try to keep at least 3 WRs in the game and be shotgun in order to be "spread," but with a bulldozer blocking back.
The No Huddle bandwagon is going to continue to grow, as well.
Defensively, I see defenses going to more of a stable shell and making automatic checks based on D&D to combat this. Defenses will begin to look a lot more like TCU or MSU over the next few years, but meshed with an odd front to give the offense tougher blocking angles. Odd fronts are everywhere where I'm at, while 4-3s are kind of a thing of the past, but will be making a comeback as more people study MSU.
As for things I see falling by the wayside, the true zone read spreads who live in 4 wide and rely on the QB as a featured runner have become significantly less effective in recent years with more teams playing Quarters and getting the secondary to the football in the running game, as well as making scrape exchanges. The mobile QB will always have a place, but just reading the BSDE for a naked bootleg doesn't cut it anymore.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 10, 2015 18:56:11 GMT -6
I think the biggest advances in our game will be off-the-field stuff. 20yrs ago you were ahead of the game with a 3-day/week strength routine. If you lifted in season you truly separated yourselves from the rest. Nowadays you have to do this just to maintain. Every single program is doing character development, intensive offseason programming, and speed development...this is where I think we'll see the biggest advancements. But where would it go? You already just described a situation where programs are basically 365 day a year programs
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Feb 10, 2015 19:06:24 GMT -6
I think they can have 3 on active roster, but I am not rules guru. Three might not be enough if the idea is that they're expendable. There's no limit by rule but they're only allowed 53 men on roster and they can only dress 46. Most teams do not dress their 3rd QB now but if they go to this system they'll need to. That leaves somebody off, somebody who may be more useful situationally or on ST's. I don't see it happening.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2015 19:11:59 GMT -6
I think they can have 3 on active roster, but I am not rules guru. 3 is the standard number, with the #3 designated as the "emergency QB," meaning your starter can't go back in during a half in which that guy has played. However, they can carry more (or less) than 3 if they like. I forget who it was, but a few years ago some team only carried 2 QBs and designated a WR as "emergency QB." They figured if they really needed a third to start, they were better off just signing some guy off the street who didn't want to be a 3rd stringer. I also recall some teams keeping 4 QBs. The reason why "expendable running QB" offenses don't really take hold in the NFL are because of a few factors: 1.) The grind of the season. 4 Preseason games, 16 regular season, and as many as 4 post-season games lining up against 300lb men who run 4.8 and can break the team bus in half? You'd be lucky to get through the season with 3 or 4 QBs. 2.) Marketing. The NFL knows that passing=$$$ from fans. They've known that for decades. All the rules changes reflect this. The generic pro-style NFL offense with its emphasis on pocket passing 40+ times a game reflects this. That's what the fans want to see and where the money is. You could win the Superbowl running the Flexbone and still be ranked near the bottom in terms of revenue and ticket sales. After all, who puts more butts in seats: Peyton Manning or Russell Wilson? Tim Tebow nearly got his team to the Superbowl by making clutch plays with his legs, so he got blamed for not winning it all and was promptly benched and cut the following year. 3.) Passing in the NFL is ridiculously hard. People don't appreciate just how quick, strong, accurate, and smart an NFL QB has to be to throw against the elite NFL defensive players and complex coverages that every team has at that level. Drew Brees is SCARY accurate and would probably complete about 90% of his passes at the college level, but is "only" around 70% in the NFL. A QB who can't carve up a defense is no use to anybody in a league where you safeties can start at the opposite hash and make a TFL on a running play to the far sideline. 4.) Culture. The NFL guys all think their way is the only "real football" because it's what they know. They feel like they are at the top of the mountain and the most enlightened minds in the game. This has loosened up some as the 49ers, Eagles, and Seahawks have had a lot of success running "college offenses" but it's still there. Also, their scouts and GMs simply don't know how to find players to fit a system that emphasizes the running QB. 5.) Rules. With the ridiculous rules about contact with a WR in the NFL, you'd be a fool not to air the ball out as much as possible. Teams can stack the LOS all they want, but they can't touch your receiver once he goes 5 yards downfield. 3rd and 2 is a passing down to them because of this. Personally, I'm much more surprised that an NFL team hasn't tried running the Air Raid and chucking it 50-60 times a game.
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Feb 10, 2015 19:26:47 GMT -6
I think they can have 3 on active roster, but I am not rules guru. Three might not be enough if the idea is that they're expendable. There's no limit by rule but they're only allowed 53 men on roster and they can only dress 46. Most teams do not dress their 3rd QB now but if they go to this system they'll need to. That leaves somebody off, somebody who may be more useful situationally or on ST's. I don't see it happening. You are talking three in a game. That should be more than enough. If one gets injured for the season, you just sign another. Heck, Tim Tebow is your 4th qb, you just don't sign him until you have to. I would think dressing 43 non-qbs wouldn't be that much different than 44 especially if it is worth changing your offense and having an extra 15 million to spend on other players. I am not saying this is the way to do it or it will happen. I was just agreeing with another poster and certainly think this is a viable strategy for struggling NFL organization. But it would have to be something you would plan out to from the top to botton.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Feb 10, 2015 19:55:47 GMT -6
Three might not be enough if the idea is that they're expendable. There's no limit by rule but they're only allowed 53 men on roster and they can only dress 46. Most teams do not dress their 3rd QB now but if they go to this system they'll need to. That leaves somebody off, somebody who may be more useful situationally or on ST's. I don't see it happening. You are talking three in a game. That should be more than enough. If one gets injured for the season, you just sign another. Heck, Tim Tebow is your 4th qb, you just don't sign him until you have to. I would think dressing 43 non-qbs wouldn't be that much different than 44 especially if it is worth changing your offense and having an extra 15 million to spend on other players. I am not saying this is the way to do it or it will happen. I was just agreeing with another poster and certainly think this is a viable strategy for struggling NFL organization. But it would have to be something you would plan out to from the top to botton. That's another reason it won't happen. What's struggling in the NFL? Everybody's making money and even the worst teams think that they're just a QB away from contending for at least a playoff berth.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 10, 2015 19:56:22 GMT -6
You are talking three in a game. That should be more than enough. If one gets injured for the season, you just sign another. Heck, Tim Tebow is your 4th qb, you just don't sign him until you have to. I would think dressing 43 non-qbs wouldn't be that much different than 44 especially if it is worth changing your offense and having an extra 15 million to spend on other players. I am not saying this is the way to do it or it will happen. I was just agreeing with another poster and certainly think this is a viable strategy for struggling NFL organization. But it would have to be something you would seel out to from the top to botton. Interesting--yes, but a viable strategy? I am not sure. I think the quality of the front 7 on defense in the NFL is significantly greater relative to offenses than the front 7 in the NCAA. My supporting evidence would be that only 33% of NFL teams averaged 4.3 yards a carry or better, but over 50% of the NCAA teams hit that mark. (NOTE---I believe these stats might be a little skewed, as in the NCAA a sack is subtracted from rushing yards, and in the NFL they are taken from passing yards) Also, as @coacharnold points out, the rules in the NFL are so biased towards the offense, particularly the passing game, that I don't see how gearing up your team for the run would be the best solution, even considering the the benefits of being "unique". That said, I do think the monetary issues are interesting. But who knows...you are seeing a trend in the NBA where ball movement and teamcentric play is producing wins rivaling and exceeding star-heavy isolation ball
|
|
|
Post by Coach.A on Feb 10, 2015 20:26:25 GMT -6
My supporting evidence would be that only 33% of NFL teams averaged 4.3 yards a carry or better, but over 50% of the NCAA teams hit that mark. (NOTE---I believe these stats might be a little skewed, as in the NCAA a sack is subtracted from rushing yards, and in the NFL they are taken from passing yards) I would think yards per carry difference between the NFL and the NCAA could in part be explained by the talent discrepancy in some games (e.g. Alabama vs. Western Carolina Catamounts). There is much more parity in the NFL. It would be interesting to see a yards per carry stat in all the games where NCAA top 25 teams squared off.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Feb 10, 2015 20:39:23 GMT -6
I would think yards per carry difference between the NFL and the NCAA could in part be explained by the talent discrepancy in some games (e.g. Alabama vs. Western Carolina Catamounts). There is much more parity in the NFL. It would be interesting to see a yards per carry stat in all the games where NCAA top 25 teams squared off. Generally, even in those games teams ran the ball pretty well. scores.espn.go.com/ncf/scoreboard?confId=80&seasonYear=2014&seasonType=3&weekNumber=17
|
|
|
Post by coachbdud on Feb 10, 2015 20:46:21 GMT -6
I think they can have 3 on active roster, but I am not rules guru. just list the others are RBs or WRs haha be 10 deep at QB lol
|
|
|
Post by CoachMikeJudy on Feb 11, 2015 7:06:54 GMT -6
I think the biggest advances in our game will be off-the-field stuff. 20yrs ago you were ahead of the game with a 3-day/week strength routine. If you lifted in season you truly separated yourselves from the rest. Nowadays you have to do this just to maintain. Every single program is doing character development, intensive offseason programming, and speed development...this is where I think we'll see the biggest advancements. But where would it go? You already just described a situation where programs are basically 365 day a year programs I'm thinking quality of the execution. Just as most teams are doing character training/wt room etc...not all of them are being executed at the same level by the coaches/admin. The information is out there now and readily available to make these facets better. Over time, these facets will become more complete. For example our SAQ program has transitioned from buffet style/no agility and speed work in the late 80s and 90s to a more complete version- SAQ work every session, better progression based on the needs of the individual kid, and this year I implemented a total nutritional education program for the players breaking down caloric needs in and out of season. Just this one part of the offseason program has become way more intensive. It's no longer a secret what the top-level guys are doing (besides the Chip Kelly stuff) so more and more programs will continue to develop there program using this readily available information.
|
|
|
Post by olinedude on Feb 11, 2015 10:06:31 GMT -6
I think the run pass options will continue to grow and get more creative. I think the base spread stuff with decline and teams will either incorporate a lot of run pass options or go back to ball control run based offenses. The tempo used to, and still does in some cases, wear defenses out, but its starting to swing back to offensive coaches pulling their hair out wanting the ball back on 4+ minute drives.
|
|
|
Post by coachbdud on Feb 11, 2015 20:13:11 GMT -6
I think packaged plays might get restricted
Read on Twitter today that ncaa officials are meeting to discuss moving the OL going downfield on pass from 3 yards to 1 yard
Which doesn't make "a packaged play illegal" But you can't have guys as far downfield and not get called for it
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2015 20:26:04 GMT -6
I think packaged plays might get restricted Read on Twitter today that ncaa officials are meeting to discuss moving the OL going downfield on pass from 3 yards to 1 yard Which doesn't make "a packaged play illegal" But you can't have guys as far downfield and not get called for it not to change the subject, but in doodlings, I sometimes wonder if packaged plays has more than 1 meaning.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2015 7:40:25 GMT -6
I think packaged plays might get restricted Read on Twitter today that ncaa officials are meeting to discuss moving the OL going downfield on pass from 3 yards to 1 yard Which doesn't make "a packaged play illegal" But you can't have guys as far downfield and not get called for it I've been waiting for this for a while, honestly. If the officials enforce the rules properly as it is, there are usually linemen downfield on the packaged plays and, IME at the HS level, it does get called because it's often blatantly obvious. When your LG is 7 yards downfield, that will get flagged. Bubbles and screens packaged with runs are different, though. Those things I expect to see continue to grow.
|
|
|
Post by fshamrock on Feb 12, 2015 9:51:10 GMT -6
I think we will see a definite expansion of run/pass option offenses, and eventually develop into a whole lot of passes after hand-offs, (think iso/pop where you set the tb deeper and hand off to him then have him throw off the playside linebacker) It isn't all that odd, if you read lombardi's books it seems that the sweep pass was not a trick play for them but a staple of the offense. I doubt it will happen but I wish somebody would come up with an offense based entirely on laterals down the field. I don't know how many times I've seen a college or pro team pick up huge yardage or score by lateraling the ball around on a desperation last second play. Somebody at a school that doesn't have much pressure to win needs to pull the trigger on this for sheer entertainment value, you would probably have a lot of turnovers, but man..you gotta think you would score a bunch, the defense wouldn't be able to swarm all 11 to the ball, they'd have to stay on their assignments through the whole play to cover the laterals. Okay that's probably stupid but it would be fun to watch.
|
|
|
Post by fshamrock on Feb 12, 2015 9:58:39 GMT -6
It looks like the only thing we can be sure of is more change. As for TEs- I'm not so sure the game is going that way. I've always said that in order for me to have a TE I need to have 8 linemen first. Maybe It's just the areas I've been, but I've never seen that luxury. I coached 1 year at a school with a decent TE. We've always needed more linemen. Those "Tight Ends" have always served much more value as an Offensive Tackle. And yes, TEs tend to be scooped and horded by the DL coach early. I think the participation numbers for this sport are declining, and especially with bigger kids. I see lots of big kids around HS campuses. But they are soft and unwilling to participate in any kind of physical activity. I used to think this way too... heck i was a 100% 4 wide guy for 3 full years anyone who asked to play TE or Fb was just a fast O lineman however I will say now that I have gone back and do a lot of 21 and 12 personnel stuff, I love it! he is the thing, my very best OL plays TE and FB for me this year, and will again next season (class of 2016) hes also our 2 time defensive MVP (over 100 tackles a year, 1st team all league stud MLB) what i have discovered is this the buy in from the beginning of his sophomore year when he was a guard, to middle of that year when we moved him to TE has gone way up... he would do his job blocking at guard, but something magic about saying he was a TE and switching to a pretty #10 jersey... he busted his butt... we run 90% of the time, and he only caught a handful of passes but he started giving me more in practice and games on offense, and didnt save himself for defense anymore... he was phenomenal in indys this last year and got better every day the other benefit was putting him at TE, i KNEW he would kill his downblock and seal the box down for us... he routinely moved DTs out of the way if he played OL and i moved him unbalanced to down block you kind of know it is coming, where as at TE he moved around right and left all the time without it being so obvious the ball is coming right there at FB, he can lead on every play if i want him to kick out on power lead on counter lead outside on sweep lead inside on Iso i feel i can use him in more ways moving him around at TE and FB, just another side to consider to touch on the subject of fat kids being soft elementary teachers and their mothers make them soft, they are usually big as little kids and are constantly being told to play nice, or theyll hurt someone... so they just get raised as big softies the biggest kid in our entire school is a freshman, he is a legit 6'5" 350 lbs doesnt play football, is in the band i walked by him the other day after lunch, he was sitting on some stairs talking to another teacher, crying , because of something someone had said and while part of me feels bad and understands bullying and it's negative effects the football side of me says, you are 2x the size of anyone else on campus, downblock the little punk that bullied you and then come hit the weights with me John Madden wrote about fat kids being raised soft in his book "one knee equals two feet" ago. He had the same exact theory, he also said that the inverse was true, that when little guys are young and they are aggressive people tell them they are "cute and tough" so they stay aggressive. That's why we are always saying "i wish big billy had the toughness of little jim". His theory was that defensive lineman were likely to have been little guys growing up that grew late so they were big and aggressive, while offensive lineman were always the biggest kids and they got conditioned to be soft. His solution was to take his O-lineman into the gym periodically and have them take turns beating the hell out of a heavy bag, trying to teach to access all that aggression they've been pushing down
|
|
|
Post by coachbdud on Feb 12, 2015 10:22:23 GMT -6
my littlest OL was my most aggressive he was maybe 185 but he would put everything he had into, at hip level and grind his facemask into you
he was the best OL under 200 lbs i have coached
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Feb 12, 2015 12:01:27 GMT -6
Somebody at a school that doesn't have much pressure to win needs to pull the trigger on this for sheer entertainment value, Can you name a school like that?
|
|
|
Post by fshamrock on Feb 13, 2015 9:24:49 GMT -6
Somebody at a school that doesn't have much pressure to win needs to pull the trigger on this for sheer entertainment value, Can you name a school like that? Touche ..but a man can still dream
|
|