|
Post by spreadattack on Apr 27, 2007 19:11:04 GMT -6
Ask defensive coaches why they run Cover 3, Cover 1, 2 or 2 man, etc.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Nov 29, 2007 9:19:47 GMT -6
Coachorr, I tried to get this topic going in the run game section: coachhuey.proboards42.com/index.cgi?board=run&action=display&thread=1196349406&page=1#1196349406And I don't really think you can run it from the gun or even pistol. Though maybe from the pistol. (But again, why not under center?). But if you want any hope lots of people reference Tony Demeo and maybe he is one to check up on on this stuff. But sure, I like good zone read teams like WV. What makes the zone-read so great is that it is great faking with two great runners going in opposite directions. The defense absolutely has to bring guys down to cover this properly. In my mind it's very hard to successfully defend unless you can play some solid man, which many teams (especially in HS) cannot.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Nov 28, 2007 20:48:17 GMT -6
I wrote about it in another thread so maybe can track that down. It's more of a RB path/blocking scheme issue. If you run the triple from say, splitback veer or the Nebraska I or the wishbone you have your OL block down to get the double teams and, for your dive back you read the DE. Then if you pull you look for that second back on the pitch. If you give it to the dive-back because of alignment and the guy you are reading you are essentially ensuring about 4 yards. In other words, the reason the triple works so well is that you overpower everyone else with the combos and you do not block the most dangerous man (the DE) and instead read him to "block" him by making him always wrong. What this does is immediately give you a numbers advantage (many double teams) and, with proper reading, ensures a perfect block. Both the dive back and the QB should have very clean lanes with the OL crushing the playside guys and your QB making the DE wrong every time. Then you put in the pitch man and you have even more success. Conversely on the gun-option all you're reading is the pursuit guy. It's more of a safety net issue than it is giving you a true playside advantage. By reading the backside DE on the zone, you're just making sure there's no backside pursuit. In other words, this isn't an "option" per se, it's just an improved bootleg where you take the guesswork out of whether the backside pursuit is going to crash. Does that make sense? So my point is that the gun option, including the gun-triple, is really just a playside run with a souped up bootleg action to make sure the backside pursuit stays at home. If you hand it off to the zone runner there's no such guarantee that the guy who stays to watch your QB was even going to be the biggest threat on the play, and it's not certain either whether the zone-read/gun-triple gives you more playside double teams are not. The one advantage with the pistol is that you can more easily have the dive back go to the playside so you can get these same advantages. So I'm not saying the gun-triple is unsound, but I am saying that it is not structurally set up in a way that I see it as a "if we execute, we will always be successful" type offense in the same way that, say, the Academies have done with their option games. It's good but it's not that good. In terms of the pistol I just don't think it's an "offense," it's just a particular formation. Anyway, these are just my thoughts. There are plenty out there who would disagree with me I'm sure. (Like those who run the gun-triple I guess! )
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Nov 27, 2007 9:31:49 GMT -6
There's an equilibria of offenses. The spread "exploded" because there was a dearth of teams running it; people didn't have good information on how to defense it; defenders weren't coached up in playing man and zone and covering the lanes and whatnot. Now - and this will continue for a couple years before it peaks - there are probably too many spread teams. So I think the answer to wildcat's original post is twofold: (1) Yes, defenses (particularly the good ones) are better at defending the spread because they have to be and they see it more and more. And (2) so many teams run the spread that, pick me a weekend and a region, and I can show you X number of spread teams that got "shut down." In 1997 it was like Purdue, Northwestern, and Kentucky. Now your grandma's flag football team is running the mesh and the zone read. Chris, Do you think there are too many because it's become a trend and everyone is jumping on the bandwagon? For a while there the Spread (and I'm sorry for referring to it in such a general way because I know there are too many variation to just refer to it as "the spread") was known to be an offense that comparatively had a better chance of being more explosive and getting you more points. Do you think that is the case anymore? Also, because I respect your intellect, do you have any thoughts on what the evolution from the current spread might be? Thanks for the compliments. I've probably been banging this drum for a couple years and probably the spread is going to continue to grow for awhile before we see it recede. But don't get me wrong, I think the "spread stuff" is great and sound and, although there's plenty of bandwagon, people got on board because they were moving the ball and scoring points with it. My larger point re: the spread is that it will stop (and is already approaching this) being an "equilizer offense" that you turn to so you can compete against the big boys. Instead the spread more and more is an "amplifier" offense. What I mean by this is say you get in 5-wides, 3x2, and you want to run some pass play. Say Smash or curl/flat or all slants. The problem arises when they have 5 cover guys better than your 5 receivers, and their pass rushers can beat the OL. In this case you haven't "put your kids in position to win," instead you've put them in 1 on 1 matchups they are bound to lose. The run game can suffer from similar defects. Overall I think the zone-read itself is an incredibly sound play. Bootlegs haven't gone away in 70 years of the "tee" offense, and the zone read, to me, is simply a dynamic bootleg. And the other great thing is you have great faking between one runner going one way and another going the other. I.e. the Pat White/Steve Slaton phenomena - who do you watch for? The zone-read/gun-option triple, on the other hand, has structural problems (or just weaknesses) that make it overall less effective than the tradition triple option (primarily relating to the difference between a dive-back with the playside combos and just reading the backside DE). The other phenomenon is just information. If I am a DC, but I've never faced the spread, and next year I face three spread teams. So in the offseason I find this site...well...let's just say that I'm glad I live in 2007 instead of 1977, or even 1987, or hell, 1997. There's also more clinics, books, manuals, downloadable playbooks, etc. One of the points I made related back to the college football season when Texas/Vince Young won the Nat'l Title. The question was how can you be "different" when you run exactly what Ohio St., Penn St., and Texas run? And each was in a BCS game? Where things will go? I can't be sure. My guess is you will see teams go farther on one end of the creativity (i.e. see Mizzou, with the plethora of unbalanced stuff, screens, jets, pistol used properly as a changeup, quicks, etc). And then a few "spread" staples will just always be there for everyone. The zone read is going to be used by plenty of pee wee teams in the coming years. And then from there I think the legacy of these few years is just the change in the quarterback position. I think you have two phenomena's, (1) the increased line of scrimmage responsibility for QBs, coupled with (2) more and more QBs who can throw and are athletic. For the second factor thank guys like Darin Slack. The coaching is (slowly) getting better at all levels. I don't know if I answered your questions. If the question is whether you can be "new" or "different" by being spread the simple answer is no. Maybe you can if you adapt a few more wrinkles (if you want wrinkles look up the wild bunch). But even Ted has to say, hey, when I first started drawing this up there were a handful of teams ANYWHERE who did this stuff. Now it's slowly coming around.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Nov 26, 2007 18:21:13 GMT -6
There's an equilibria of offenses. The spread "exploded" because there was a dearth of teams running it; people didn't have good information on how to defense it; defenders weren't coached up in playing man and zone and covering the lanes and whatnot. Now - and this will continue for a couple years before it peaks - there are probably too many spread teams.
So I think the answer to wildcat's original post is twofold: (1) Yes, defenses (particularly the good ones) are better at defending the spread because they have to be and they see it more and more. And (2) so many teams run the spread that, pick me a weekend and a region, and I can show you X number of spread teams that got "shut down." In 1997 it was like Purdue, Northwestern, and Kentucky. Now your grandma's flag football team is running the mesh and the zone read.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jul 11, 2006 20:30:45 GMT -6
Someone once told me a story that when Marino was in the gun back in his heydey he had his centers practice their snaps and the ball rotation to the point to where when the ball hit his hands his fingers were already in the laces.
Don't know if that's true but I've never gotten that good with my centers! Supposedly they had it down to like five spins or something. I'm just happy when it's not in the dirt or over his head
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Oct 22, 2007 10:21:34 GMT -6
What do you run right now? What drills have you been doing everyday that fit towards what you have been doing?
I ONLY recommend starting over if your program is at a cross-roads and you need an offense that is more flexible than whatever you do now. If that is what you are going to do I would suggest doing a lot of research and finding something flexible, dynamic, and easy to teach (because you will be new to it). These considerations go in opposite directions.
Sounds like you've got to transform your kids in the offseason and in next fall with your football skills, and you need a framework. Again, I reserve what kind of advice I'd give.
I recently consulted with a coach who wanted a switch and, based on what they had done before and what he had been doing he actually ended up installing an adjusted double slot offense of all things. Worked quite well with him with the base inside spin series and the wings going around. He mixed in a little jet with some formation adjustments, and could even run a little "spread." He had a nice gun package with his base double-slot stuff as well. Ran two protections, 6-man slide and 7-man BOB.
But there was more overlap with what they had done previously than it sounds, but just before they had no framework.
Anyway, this is all unhelpful. These threads all have a kind of running theme, instead of chicken or the egg it is coach or the system. I don't know. Coaches come up in systems, they gravitate to them, and they know them. Urban Meyer woke up one day and decided to be a spread gun-option coach. He may have been successful otherwise, but it is no doubt it has made him both very successful and very rich. And he's done it at three different schools. I've seen the same thing with other programs.
I think of Randy Walker at Northwestern as the best example. He overhauled his offense, but repeatedly talked about how the underlying schemes were the same ones he had done since he was at Miami of Ohio. So again, we see the tension: do something new and flexible but is easy to teach and consistent with what went before.
Good luck?
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Aug 28, 2006 6:00:45 GMT -6
For pass plays I use average yards per pass, factoring in incompletions and sacks. If you just look at completion percentage you'll fool yourself with a lot of short passes where you could be running; if you look at yards per completion you will probably run too many high-risk or low-completion percentage plays.
As far as whether a counter in the wing-t should average more that all depends on how risky the play is. If it averages a lot more then your other plays then you aren't using it enough. It's yards per attempt should sort of whittle down to being more in line with your other plays, but your overall production should go up (i.e. the average for your base plays should go up as the average on the counter goes down). Otherwise the only plays that need to average more are riskier plays--plays that fumble or turn it over more, or have a bigger chance for a loss, like reverses etc.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Feb 5, 2007 12:37:40 GMT -6
Having this same conversation with a couple of guys on another board...coach over there says the Bears were playing a Cover IV and not a Cover II and that might explain why the flats were open all night. WR ran the CB off and then Briggs and Hillenmeyer couldn't get to the flat quick enough... I think they definitely played some Cover 4 but also I think it just one of their Cover 2 variants. If the Colts receivers had run hitches the corners would have jumped them, but if they threaten vertical they run with them for at least a bit. This is how Peyton was able to look downfield and as soon as the corners turned their hips he hit Addai/Rhodes in the flats. At this level though the coverages kind of get mixed together.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Feb 5, 2007 10:10:00 GMT -6
They were running a variant of Tampa 2, which can look kind of like Cover 4 when the outside receivers take off; the corners will turn and run with the outside WRs to stop fade passes. I suppose their theory was take away Wayne and Harrison (2 deep safeties, corners run with them) but the RBs did a great job making them pay and getting extra yards on the swing passes. Normally the Bears have gotten a lot of picks off this coverage because their corners are good at "peeling off" and picking off the underneath passes, but Manning was so quick and the Colts receivers were such vertical threats they weren't able to react.
The Bears were overmatched. They were terrified of Manning and the deep receivers, and the Colts OLine came to play and the RBs made them pay for being so conservative. Manning forced it early and, maybe unlike the past, kept his poise and was extremely patient and it paid off. He was content to let his backs and inside receivers make plays and they came through for him. I can't give the OLine enough credit. The Colts constantly got good double teams and got downfield and put Urlacher on roller skates.
The Bears O played into the Colts' D's hands. They play good run D with Bob Sanders because they just play alot of 8 man fronts, and Grossman was unable to make them pay.
The first pick was a poor choice and the receiver gave up. The second pick was just a poor throw into the rain. Bad breaks? Nerves? Poor QB'ing? Rex will get better, but he may not always be a Bear.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Feb 11, 2007 9:58:35 GMT -6
Likely the domain expired. Maybe someone can track down the guy who ran it and see if someone else wouldn't want to put up a mirror site. It was outdated but he had a great repository of very good info. Some of the Bill Walsh articles Huey reposted were from there, and he had some others that I think couldn't be found anywhere else.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Dec 25, 2007 11:23:50 GMT -6
No this is a good discussion. I think we see it the same way.
And I agree about NW's pass game. For a couple of years there it was exactly the problem you would see when spread passing games go sour: Lots of individual routes where the receiver couldn't beat the man over them. It worked for awhile obviously because the run game was simply such a threat. But it all receded. I think Purdue's presence in the Big 10 gave teams lots of experience dealing with the shotgun quicks. It was frustrating to watch because it didn't seem like they were that far away.
But I 100% agree with what I believe was your thesis, that while RR came up with some of the novelty, it was really Northwestern that transformed it into a true approach. And I agree about that Clemson film - I often found it disappointing. The best part of their game was some of the shotgun quicks - the QB footwork, even with Dantzler, was always good - but the offense had not gelled into anything totally coherent. It was a little of this, a little of that, let Woody run right, let Woody run left, fake it to this guy, hope the DE rushes upfield and we can get past him, lots of plays busted in the backfield.
When RR showed up at Clemson they tried to put a dropback passer guy back there - I forgot his name - and sort of ended up alternating back and forth with him and Dantzler.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Dec 25, 2007 9:18:41 GMT -6
I was fortunate to be exposed to Rodriguez's spread at a very early juncture in its development. I don't want to re-route praise away from RR, but I think it would be helpful to understand that the offense's identity as a run based system really began to take hold at Northwestern. I learned the basics of RR's spread when he was at Tulane and then spent some more time one spring at Clemson. At this point the offense was still a passing system. The run game, albeit effective with an athletic QB was to be very honest with everybody quite sloppy, particularly in the power zone game. Kevin Wilson and the Northwestern staff after Randy Walker's first year visited Clemson and learned the basics of the offense. They significantly cleaned the run game. I visited them as well and they believed that they were running basic "I" formation running plays from the gun, which in fact they were. There run game was much tighter, downhill, and aggressive than Rodriguez's was at Clemson. Clemson's oline was passive and rarely got any type of a push. Northwestern was the first team to really run the ball with a traditional downhill, 2-back mentality from the gun with Zack Kustock. RR's run game became much more productive when he got to WV, in part thanks to Trickett. Although RR's offense was once rooted in the Run-n-Shoot, the principles guiding their passing game are much more simple. Their passing game has always been premised on half-filed, A-B type reads, and clear vertical stems. This is why the second year that Northwestern ran the spread they had problems in their passing game. Their splits were so wide they could not run shallows and crossers effectively. This is all true. On the passing game, yes, I have always felt that their splits were just too much (and too nonvariable) to be truly effective. It definitely limits them and has a tendency to put each individual receiver on an island. Which is fine if all your guys outclass the guy across, but that hasn't been the case for a bit. On the run stuff I agree but I don't want to diminish it too much. I agree that Kevin Wilson and Randy Walker were more committed to the run. (I wrote an entire article and the crux of the argument was that the "spread's" turning point was the 2000 game where Northwestern beat Michigan 54-51 and rushed for 300 yards.) But I would say that that's simply the nature of innovation. RR innovated the framework, Wilson and Randy Walker - coming from a more traditional background and a little more specific run game discipline - saw the potential and systematized the whole deal, and that influence went back to RR in his career. So I think RR is rightly seen as an innovator, but it is true he has had help, both internally and from across the aisle as to some of the specifics and in taking the run game to the new level.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Dec 24, 2007 14:54:29 GMT -6
Very good read. I did not know that Rich started out as a Mouse Davis run and shooter. Pretty cool. I had an old Tulane playbook and I've glanced at the WVU things. You can see the switch, a bit of the go, choice (he changed it largely to a backside hand signal, hitch/slant/fade for the X) and the Georgia concept. Things had been simplified and adapted though. And he focused on the 3-step game much more.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Dec 24, 2007 11:26:57 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jul 12, 2007 12:18:02 GMT -6
It's funny to see this thread today. A few weeks ago a guy who runs a Texas Longhorns site asked me to participate in some stuff, so I did. He asked about keeping your scheme steady, etc. I don't know much about the 'Horns but I gave it a shot. I'd be curious what some of you guys thought. www.burntorangenation.com/storyonly/2007/7/12/05023/4899
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jun 22, 2007 9:39:16 GMT -6
I'm still waiting to sit in the stands of a HS basketball game, see a kid start to take over the game with a barrage of scoring, to hear someone in the crowd exclaim: "Why, he's the next Olden Polynice!"
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jan 21, 2007 18:12:03 GMT -6
What kind of offense do you run? Practice "Scoring plays" like shovels, sprint out passes, play action and the like. Also defenses get more aggressive down there. Expect a blitz every other play. Also Bill Walsh liked to throw the ball into the end zone as soon as he hit the 25 or so, down at like the 8 it gets hectic.
As a final resort, some teams (like Georgetown college) ran a unique unbalanced delaware wing-t set down there. The idea was to do something unique based on misdirection and power when they got into the scoring area. Georgetown averaged something like 60 points a game for a season awhile doing that.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Sept 11, 2006 16:12:05 GMT -6
There are certain things an offense can do every time, and certain basic principles. This is a bit exaggerated, but, broadly, outnumbering the defense will always be successful. This comes in many forms, flooding a zone with pass patterns, having two receivers "pick" or "rub" one defender, having two blockers double-team a defensive player at the point of attack, and letting two players option off of one defender. In each scenario you can make the defense wrong, every single time.
The hard part is that the D has a counterpart for the ball carrier, so a good D will avoid these situations and have everyone accounted for. If your QB is not a threat to throw or run (or both!) then you make it more difficult for yourself. Same with players who cannot block or eligible receivers or runners who cannot run or catch.
This is where deception comes in, which is really just an attempt to make the defense honor all your players and also maybe even defend against things you're not even doing. Fakes of all kinds are very important.
Finally, players win games, so offensively you need ways to get the ball to good players. Some players are tough, hard nosed, inside runners, some are quick guys great in the open field, some have great hands, some have great vertical speed, some are great and powerful blockers, some are great trappers and pullers. Be flexible enough to play to the strength of your players. Emphasize what they do well.
With those ideas in mind you can really run just about any offense. From there it is what you and your staff can coach and what you choose to spend the most time developing. Time becomes the great limit of what you can do on offense. But if you can come back to those principles and core things that an offense can always successfully do, and put your kids in the position to do well, then you will have a successful offense, whatever it is.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Dec 12, 2007 16:06:17 GMT -6
It's the internet.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Mar 24, 2008 9:31:31 GMT -6
risk/reward
Working for you? Go for it. If you get 70% of your 4th and 1s inside their 20 then you should probably do it. If you get 70% of 4th and 1s on your own 5...maybe not? Maybe they keep scoring when you don't get it.
There are many coaches who don't take enough risks, but in football - as in life - the trick is for "calculated risks."
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Dec 19, 2005 14:37:35 GMT -6
Hey tog, nice job on the general info thread, btw. I was looking at the acronym thread and I wonder if it might not be a bad idea to have a board dedicated to intro questions, etc? I'm sure lots of the guests arent quite as football savvy and it can be intimidating. Also, when some veteran wants to explain the "basics" it doesn't always come out right. So maybe a place for some more basic questions. Could especially dual for first-time youth coaches who maybe know some football but want to get better at articulating it.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jun 27, 2006 10:50:24 GMT -6
When I played we won two state titles and had a bit of both to varying degrees, so I'm pretty fortunate. Great players? Depends what you mean by great. We had some D-1 guys, including one who went head-case his first year and just dropped out of Boston College and another who got kicked off a top 15 team for drugs. Great talents on friday nights. We had some guys who went on to D-II, D-III, and no football at all who were great starters for us and, more importantly, great leaders. When I was a sophomore those guys had my respect from day one.
I may have to vote coaches though. Most high school ball players won't play at the next level, and, at least with hindsight being 20/20 I'd prefer whoever could help me be a man and learn the lessons to be successful at whatever I do, which football teaches more than any other sport and a great coach can impart on every player, whether he runs a 4.4 or a 6.4.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jun 21, 2006 6:38:23 GMT -6
blb, I know what you mean. He's not always good about defining his terms at the start, and even if he does you keep having to flip back. I suppose it's because he has been around so long that the Bear Bryant/Bill Walsh/Gillman/Woody Hayes movements that more or less "standardized" many our football terms happened after he'd already started coaching, so he probably just integrated their thoughts into his and has just held on to those terms. Someone could probably go through and replace all of those with something we're more familiar with. On his debunking the shoot/veer/etc theories, I agree with you all, but I see what (at least I think) his point is, which is not to butt your head against the wall with an offense that passed its prime twenty years prior by "making it work" again, and instead to do the simple things that work well with great execution while integrating "the best of the new." I think we'd all admit that with an "old system," such as the veer, wishbone or wing-t it is easier to have success if you play in a district where the opponents don't see it every very often. What this means is they don't know its weaknesses and go through the same mistakes to find out. I'll just paste this post from his "Misconception Series" both because I agree with his theory, but I think in practice information travels a little more slowly. homersmith.net/?page_id=172I think all he's saying is you must keep the defense or offense on its toes, and simply "resurrecting the past" will not, by itself, do it. An interesting point is sites like these make that even more true. Even just ten years ago if I faced a "true R&S team" (that uses Mouse's protections as well) you might have no idea how to stop it or get pressure on the passer, and everyone ends up making basically the same mistakes that teams made for years. However, eventually Bob Davie and others DID get a plan for breaking the protection down (the zone blitzes, bringing heat off the edges and dropping inside rushers so the OL would block air) and now I can do a google search or come to a site like this, and bypass 10 years of mistakes and at least have a workable plan, even if I still get beat by execution, talent, etc. Anyway, no right answers but the guy tends to make me think, and for that I'm grateful.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jun 19, 2006 8:22:46 GMT -6
He's a pretty bright guy. He's interesting in that his academic pedigree is all Ivy League (Princeton for college, MBA from Stanford, Masters degree from Harvard, I'm pretty sure I saw where he was top 10% of his class at each) yet he has been in the trenches coaching football for a long time, particularly at places like Alabama where both the players, other coaches, and the faithful will chew you up and spit you out if you aren't "tough" enough. "Genius" is always a strong word, but I think on a message board all it means is their brains and intelligence have earned your respect, and that's all it has to mean.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jun 19, 2006 7:27:45 GMT -6
I agree tog, but there's no doubt that Homer Smith knows what he's talking about and the way the guy thinks about football is borderline revolutionary. I guess here's the question for jd, even if you missed 70% of what he was saying, how did that other 30% compare to lectures from other coaches? You can pick up things, though I agree maybe it is best in smaller chunks. The guy won a lot of games over the years, so I'm pretty sure he knew how to make sure his players "got it" too.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jun 17, 2006 15:50:05 GMT -6
Homer Smith is weird to read. The thing about him is I'd suggest try just read his stuff and then after awhile the light kind of goes on. It's not that it's otherworldly, some of it is just his writing style. I suggest reading some of the articles on his website (I particularly like the "misconceptions" series) which are short and getting those to digest. If you feel like you get a better handle on it and then you'll get more used to it. Also, like cc said the manuals are good and more direct as well. homersmith.net/?page_id=5
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jun 5, 2007 7:50:22 GMT -6
I agree with the good senator (and most everyone else in the thread). Since Coaches don't get to play, "scheme," your "system," or your strategies are only meaningful insofar as what your players can figure out and execute.
One way to think of it is just that if you overload your players, they are sure to play worse than their potential, and sharply so. If you get it "just right," you may maximize it, but you're better off erring on the safe side and focusing on what you know they can execute, and installing new things when they have mastered the old.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jan 5, 2006 11:22:14 GMT -6
P.S. I think the "Safest" pick for who will be a "solid" pro is LenDale White. Leinart, Bush, and Young are all better talents I think but have question marks on translating their games to the pro level. White I think is destined to at least have some good 1,000 yard rushing seasons if he lands in the right spot, I really like him as a running back. Though he looked awful tired there at the end on the fumble on 3rd down and the 4th and 2, and he'd been splitting time and only had carried it around 20 times.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jan 5, 2006 11:19:24 GMT -6
Random thoughts:
The one thing about the "phantom" TD when VY's knee was down was that if the play was called down at that spot it was already a first down, and it wasn't like USC had a lot of luck stopping Texas's offense anyway. Certainly you can't pencil in not scoring at all or even a field goal (though you never know).
I thought Leinart was shaky in the first half but man he was sharp in the second, particularly the third quarter and beginning of the fourth.
I didn't like a lot of USC's defensive strategies. Did anyone else keep wanting Texas, particularly in the first half, to throw some bubble screens or hitches to the uncovered slot? They kept lining up in trips tight and USC played a lot of 7 in the box with two safeties and no one on the slot. Sometimes a safety would come up but still. I was surprised how worried about getting beat deep Carroll was. They kept at least one and usually two safeties deep and back the whole game, and on the final two drives when they blitzed they were trying lots of corner and safety and zone blitzes (often coming from the right side, which I thought was a good idea) and Young was able to pick them apart (it'd have been nice if a single Texas receiver could run after the catch. It seemed like 90% of all their receptions were either going out of bounds or caught with a knee down).
Anyway, didn't matter. Young is a man out there and he brutalized USC's defense. I mean it was a wild game; USC's offense in the second half looked about as good as any offense I can imagine, and when Jarrett caught the TD pass and those two UT guys were knocked out it looked over. VY put the game on his shoulders. I mean I didn't really like a lot of UT's playcalling: the silly throwback pass to the TE off a roll-out on 3rd down when their base offense was just killing USC; going almost exclusively dropback passing on the final two drives, I thought with 3 timeouts and only 50 yards they could have run the zone read more since it had been so effective, fortunately for UT Young was just so amazing.
|
|