Offensive formations debate

[Landthief 1972]

As we all know, OU runs a spread offense, which relies on speed and finesse. For the past 5 years, they have struggled to run between the tackles and get a consistent push from the O-line. This has resulted in poor red zone scoring. In the LSU and Florida NC games, our high-scoring offense was held far below their usual output in both yardage and scoring. Was this a symptom of playing better defenses than the Big Twetenineten could offer?

Moreso, speaking in hypotheticals, if Stoops had an opportunity to switch to more of a power game between seasons without growing pains, would you prefer that to the spread?

I feel myself getting wishful for a power game when we get into the red zone and can't punch it in with 7 attempts against the worst D in college football. It's frustrating.

BTW, what happened to using a TE dump like we did in the Trent Smith days? Hanna has the size, speed and jumping ability to make it work, but Bob seems intent on proving that he can score between the tackles with small running backs. Heck, he doesn't even try a FB dive with Millard, who could carry 8 defenders on his back into the end zone.

I'd appreciate some enlightenment from the Xs and Os guys on the board in this matter.

[starclassic tama]

OU doesn't really run a spread offense at all. the only "spread" elements are having more than 3 receivers on the field sometimes

[Landthief 1972]

OU doesn't really run a spread offense at all. the only "spread" elements are having more than 3 receivers on the field sometimes

I respectfully disagree. From wikipedia:


The spread offense is an offensive scheme in American and Canadian football that is used at every level of the game including professional (NFL, CFL), college (NCAA, NAIA, CIS), and high school programs across America and Canada. The spread offense begins with a no-huddle offense approach with the quarterback in the shotgun formation much of the time. The fundamental nature of the spread offense involves spreading the field horizontally using 3, 4, and even 5-receiver sets (some implementations of the spread also feature wide splits between the offensive linemen). The object of the spread offense is to open up multiple vertical seams for both the running and passing game to exploit, as the defense is forced to spread itself thin across the field (a "horizontal stretch") to cover everyone.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Moreso, speaking in hypotheticals, if Stoops had an opportunity to switch to more of a power game between seasons without growing pains, would you prefer that to the spread?

Lets step back and look at the question from a different perspective...

1. What are the most successful power running teams in terms of record in the last 10 years?
2. What are the most successful spread teams in terms of record in the last 10 years?

Looking a little closer, we played with this option in 2004, 2005, 2006. We were successful with it in 2004, but not in 2005/6. The 2004 team was extremely heavy with seniors (31 I believe), the other 2 teams were very young. This is a trend that you will see with most power running teams (Colorado under Barnett for example). Yet another trend is that these teams tend to drop 1-2 games early in the season before being dominant at the end of the season.

You've listed the downsides of the spread, but the question is whether you are okay with the downsides of power running (IE 11-1 followed by 3-8 or dropping 2 to east popcorn state and then running the table).

[thecrimsoncrusader]

Sans the 2004 season Orange Bowl debacle, Oklahoma's biggest problem in the BCS title games have been key injuries. Oklahoma had them, the opposition did. Hopefully, Oklahoma will be on the flip side of that this time at least in terms of Oklahoma being healthy as far as the key players.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Sans the 2004 season Orange Bowl debacle, Oklahoma's biggest problem in the BCS title games have been key injuries. Oklahoma had them, the opposition did. Hopefully, Oklahoma will be on the flip side of that this time at least in terms of Oklahoma being healthy as far as the key players.

Our biggest issue in bowl games has been our receivers having no clue how to play against physical press coverage.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Regardless of the offense we run. I f we can't run between the tackles or throw passes into the endzone and score more often that we have in the red zone, we will lose a game or two that we could or should have won. Probably why Broyles was reaching for the endzone and fumbled the ball. He couldn't be sure we would punch it through.

[yermom]

all those passes with no TDs in the redzone along with Chuck Long in the building was giving me flashbacks on Saturday

[thecrimsoncrusader]

Our biggest issue in bowl games has been our receivers having no clue how to play against physical press coverage.

Well, they should now thanks to Willie Martinez (and Bob Stoops) presenting it to them more frequently in practices than what was in place in years prior to last season.

[toast]

If you have an offense based upon power running you had better make sure you have a very solid defense. The ability to comeback from a couple of scores down or to score quickly is not a usual strength.

Every system has pros and cons.

[Landthief 1972]

Lets step back and look at the question from a different perspective...

1. What are the most successful power running teams in terms of record in the last 10 years?
2. What are the most successful spread teams in terms of record in the last 10 years?

Looking a little closer, we played with this option in 2004, 2005, 2006. We were successful with it in 2004, but not in 2005/6. The 2004 team was extremely heavy with seniors (31 I believe), the other 2 teams were very young. This is a trend that you will see with most power running teams (Colorado under Barnett for example). Yet another trend is that these teams tend to drop 1-2 games early in the season before being dominant at the end of the season.

You've listed the downsides of the spread, but the question is whether you are okay with the downsides of power running (IE 11-1 followed by 3-8 or dropping 2 to east popcorn state and then running the table).

So you're saying that running the spread allows us to finish 8-5 in a down year, whereas power formation teams will fare worse for more seasons between NC-caliber teams? I can see that. Thanks for the insight.

Curious to know, how would you improve our red zone offense? Install a different package? Run Millard? Granted, we left 2 TDs on the ground due to poor catching from Whaley and tripping by Millard, but the run game really suffers. Maybe our smaller, faster O-line can't get enough push against goal line D?

[OUinFLA]

We need a bulldozer fb that doesnt drop the ball.

[Landthief 1972]

We need a bulldozer fb that doesnt drop the ball.

I always thought Runnels and Millard are that type of back, but we never used Runnels like that, and we don't use Millard that way. :/

[TahoeSOONER]

We need a bulldozer fb that doesnt drop the ball.

Millard is a beast and if you can't see his impact on the field, catching the ball and creating miss matches lining up out of the backfield, you might want to watch him more.

[oudanny]

Until the o-line learns how to know people backwards or quits turning a defender loose into the backfield, it won't matter who is running with the ball. It all starts up front.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

OU doesn't really run a spread offense at all. the only "spread" elements are having more than 3 receivers on the field sometimes

This.. It's a multiple offense with some spread elements

[Sinyeah12]

I would think Broyles in the Wildcat formation inside the 10 would garner some immediate attention.

[picasso]

A dropkick is only worth 3 points but it's sexier than a field goal.

Let's try that.

[Landthief 1972]

This.. It's a multiple offense with some spread elements

Would you be more comfortable with the term pro-style spread? I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that bubble screens were an integral part of the spread formation.

I've always operated under the idea that the primary formation was spread, and then the offense adjusted on the fly based on the situation thanks in part to athletic personnel that can play multiple positions, ala Millard, Broyles, Finch, etc.

[Soonerjeepman]

Millard is a beast and if you can't see his impact on the field, catching the ball and creating miss matches lining up out of the backfield, you might want to watch him more.

except...course this is live (was at the game) but I don't believe we use Millard at all...as far as catching the ball. but I agree he is a beast and love to see him involved in the game.

[Breadburner]

Why has Hanna been invisible....???

[SoonerInFortSmith]

The problem with a power running game is that a defense can stop it by putting 8 or 9 men in the box. Let's say we get in the "I" formation with two tight ends and one receiver at the 3 yard line going in. The receiver and corner cancel each other out. So the D has 10 men piled up in the middle. The running back can't block for himself (duh) and the QB doesn't block so that leaves 8 men to block 10 defenders. Add to that the fact that even poor defenses have athletes that are bigger, faster, and stronger than they have ever been.

That being said I would love to see Millard at halfback on the goalline. However, there must be some reason they don't do it because I guarantee it has been discussed in coaches meetings. Maybe we don't have another fullback that blocks well enough to be able to do it. We may never know the reason.

I think an inside trap play is worth a try down there. If done correctly it can create enough of a crease to gain 2 to 3 yards. However, one small mistake in the blocking can get the RB tackled at just about the same time he is trying to grab the ball, so it is a two-edged sword.

[instigator]

To hell with Millard at HB. How about that quick hand off to him out of the I? We ran that last year a lot and it was good for 3-4 yards almost every time. I don't think I've seen it one freaking time this year.

[SoonerInFortSmith]

That play is much different on 1st and 10 at the 40 than it is at the 3 yard line when the D is packed in.

[OUInformant]

Some good points have been brought up. We seem to have a pretty unimaginative running game near the goal line. Also, some of our formations in the red zone are downright mind-boggling, i.e., I don't know what we are doing. Instead of reacting to the defense, and changing up our run, we just run right up the gut, almost like we're trying to prove something.

Also, you ask why we don't use Millard, and I say, good question? Why do we not use Roy Finch more? Where is Hanna? I think there is a lot we can do with our running game and even our passing game.

Although our coaches have done a dynamite job this year and you can't blame them for not being perfect, the coaches can also improve each week like the players. Heupel is new, so he likely has a lot of room to improve. That being said, he's done a pretty damn good job for this being his first year as OC.

[winout]

Sat. game's problem was partially due to Whaley dropping a sure TD and then Jones mis-firing on a couple of passes. I think that was the same RZ possession.

I'm not sure why we don't look to a bigger target when passing inside the 10. Would someone like Miller or Haywood provide a size mismatch most of the time?

It's apparent our line just cannot drive the other line into the EZ as needed on the goal line. When we are outside the RZ and more field to cover then that opens up some runs for our guys due to the dbacks having to protect against Stills and Broyles going long.

Good discussion, BTW.

[dennis580]

I would think Broyles in the Wildcat formation inside the 10 would garner some immediate attention.

I don't at all like that idea. Instead we need to stay in the I formation, and to run on both 1st down, and 2nd down, and if we are 2 or 3 yards away run again 3rd down, and on 4th down if were a yard away(and mix in play action once in a while from the I formation. We stray from the run to much inside the 5, and from the I formation set. We are unwilling to run it on back to back carries very often.

[BoomerSooner3]

I don't know why we don't utilize the fade route more with any of our receivers. I am highly confident that Kenny Stills could beat 90% of corners in the country on this play if the ball is thrown properly.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

Would you be more comfortable with the term pro-style spread? I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that bubble screens were an integral part of the spread formation.

I've always operated under the idea that the primary formation was spread, and then the offense adjusted on the fly based on the situation thanks in part to athletic personnel that can play multiple positions, ala Millard, Broyles, Finch, etc.

Here is a few thoughts Landthief, and I could be wrong in defining this also..

You are right on the screens, but they do a lot of playaction, under center, double tights ,etc..We are running quite a few sets with just stills and broyles at WR and sometimes Reynolds now..I can't remember how many 4 or 5 WR sets we have ran but not many..


A lot of times, that 3rd receiver is a TE that they use no huddle and they stretch him out and then bring him back in.

[JLEW1818]

all those passes with no TDs in the redzone along with Chuck Long in the building was giving me flashbacks on Saturday

:ambivalence:

[JLEW1818]

Here is a few thoughts Landthief, and I could be wrong in defining this also..

You are right on the screens, but they do a lot of playaction, under center, double tights ,etc..We are running quite a few sets with just stills and broyles at WR and sometimes Reynolds now..I can't remember how many 4 or 5 WR sets we have ran but not many..


if you actually watched the games it would help some .... heh.

A lot of times, that 3rd receiver is a TE that they use no huddle and they stretch him out and then bring him back in.

if you actually watched the games it would help some .... heh.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

Suck it ball tapper

[SoonerLB]

all those passes with no TDs in the redzone along with Chuck Long in the building was giving me flashbacks on Saturday

At one point I wondered if we were playing down to his level just for old times sake, LOL! :D

[oudavid1]

I respectfully disagree. From wikipedia:

One of the best argument quotes ever!

[soonercastor]

To hell with Millard at HB. How about that quick hand off to him out of the I? We ran that last year a lot and it was good for 3-4 yards almost every time. I don't think I've seen it one freaking time this year.

This play was ****ing awesome last year.

[soonercastor]

almost like we're trying to prove something.


This is the feeling I had last year @ A&M, we just kept running it 8 straight times I felt like we kind of took it personally that we wouldn't and kept going back to the same lay as if we were trying to prove a point.

[East Coast Bias]

I agree we need more imaginative plays. It seems stoops is 'Old School", just wants to line up and prove we are tougher at the line of scrimmage. There are times in the game when it is advantagious to run the ball and we can always be counted on to try and impose our will. That is what made the TE call at OSU last year at the end of the game work so well, it was totally outside our normal tendency. Most of us here can predict what plays are run inside the 10, the defenses are no different. The coaches got spoiled by AD like all of us. Those kind of backs don't come along very often. We need better play design and blocking to get the skat backs into the endzone.

[hornswaggled]

Sat. game's problem was partially due to Whaley dropping a sure TD and then Jones mis-firing on a couple of passes. I think that was the same RZ possession.

I'm not sure why we don't look to a bigger target when passing inside the 10. Would someone like Miller or Haywood provide a size mismatch most of the time?

It's apparent our line just cannot drive the other line into the EZ as needed on the goal line. When we are outside the RZ and more field to cover then that opens up some runs for our guys due to the dbacks having to protect against Stills and Broyles going long.

Good discussion, BTW.

I noticed the DL was submarining against our OL inside the 3 yard line. When they do that the OL can't get an angle to drive them back. This results in a huge pile of flesh lying on the ground in front of the RB. Then the LB's only have to make sure the RB doesn't make it over the top of the pile.

[OUInformant]

I don't think that it has anything to do with our linemen. I think some of our schemes at the goal line are messed up, almost like we don't spend much time working on them. We seem to consistently line up weird, and always seem to run into the strength of the defense. I don't really get it. Maybe the coaches know some stuff that I don't. I don't know, but I also think Roy Finch should be on the field a heckuva lot more. Just my opinion though.

Also, we frankly need to execute better within the 10, regardless of what we do. As everybody saw, Dom dropped a gimme pass at the goal line, which was a sure score. Landry also made some bad throws. Lastly, when we are within the 5, I think that we shouldn't have to throw the ball at all. Hand it off to Millard and run a sweep with two TEs or something. Again, just my opinion.

[lasooner123]

i think the problem is that we rely so much on rhythm and timing and when you take a month off you lose that timing

[dennis580]

I agree we need more imaginative plays. It seems stoops is 'Old School", just wants to line up and prove we are tougher at the line of scrimmage. There are times in the game when it is advantagious to run the ball and we can always be counted on to try and impose our will. That is what made the TE call at OSU last year at the end of the game work so well, it was totally outside our normal tendency. Most of us here can predict what plays are run inside the 10, the defenses are no different. The coaches got spoiled by AD like all of us. Those kind of backs don't come along very often. We need better play design and blocking to get the skat backs into the endzone.

Are you guys watching the same games I am? We waste to many downs passing inside the 5. That is the whole problem is we waste to many downs passing. We need to line up in the I formation, and give it to Whaley again, and again, and again, and mix in play action every once in a while.

[Penguin]

Did anyone else think that this thread was going to be about formations that they found offensive?

[BoulderSooner79]

Are you guys watching the same games I am? We waste to many downs passing inside the 5. That is the whole problem is we waste to many downs passing. We need to line up in the I formation, and give it to Whaley again, and again, and again, and mix in play action every once in a while.

No, I must be watching a different game. When I watch and we predictably line up and say "here we come, try and stop us" - they do just that. Even if we could do it against Tulsa, it would have not mean we could do it against a bowl opponent.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

So you're saying that running the spread allows us to finish 8-5 in a down year, whereas power formation teams will fare worse for more seasons between NC-caliber teams? I can see that. Thanks for the insight.

Curious to know, how would you improve our red zone offense? Install a different package? Run Millard? Granted, we left 2 TDs on the ground due to poor catching from Whaley and tripping by Millard, but the run game really suffers. Maybe our smaller, faster O-line can't get enough push against goal line D?

We went through this earlier in the year. The difference between a successful play in the red zone vs successful play between the 20s is % of players who execute. It is quite possible to have incredibly successful plays between the 20s with very few offensive players executing their assigments. In the red zone this is typically not the case unless you have an overwhelming talent edge at the point of attack.

[Disclaimer] I haven't seen the KU game yet as I'm in London with quite possibly the worst internet connection ever

Last year (aTm included) we saw time and time again a random failed assignment that allowed a defender a free run at the ball carrier. This year there has been some improvement, but we still see it rear its ugly head when we have a defensive mismatch at DT or DE. How you beat this is to pre-identify the mismatch and cause them to block themselves. However, that is extremely difficult when its a random dropped assignment. The TE only works if you have a legitimate running threat to suck in the linebackers, which I don't feel our coaches think we have at this point. This has left us with the fade to stills which is a low risk/low reward type of play.

[cleller]

We all know Millard is a beast. I've repeatedly heard the players and coaches talk about Austin "Big A" Heywood the same way. Both great blockers. Now my eyes are not fast enough to see if we design any runs to take advantage of the two guys at the same time, but obviously this has not escaped the coaches.
Anybody noticed these two opening paths on a regular basis? The problem here is that it dictate running more to the outside....

[Landthief 1972]

We went through this earlier in the year. The difference between a successful play in the red zone vs successful play between the 20s is % of players who execute. It is quite possible to have incredibly successful plays between the 20s with very few offensive players executing their assigments. In the red zone this is typically not the case unless you have an overwhelming talent edge at the point of attack.

[Disclaimer] I haven't seen the KU game yet as I'm in London with quite possibly the worst internet connection ever

Last year (aTm included) we saw time and time again a random failed assignment that allowed a defender a free run at the ball carrier. This year there has been some improvement, but we still see it rear its ugly head when we have a defensive mismatch at DT or DE. How you beat this is to pre-identify the mismatch and cause them to block themselves. However, that is extremely difficult when its a random dropped assignment. The TE only works if you have a legitimate running threat to suck in the linebackers, which I don't feel our coaches think we have at this point. This has left us with the fade to stills which is a low risk/low reward type of play.

Thanks for the insight, jkm. Regarding the Kansas game, blocking execution was the big culprit last Saturday, but we had some blown assignments and dropped easy catches by WRs and RBs as well.

[NormanPride]

Yeah, jkm is right, and you hear it from the coaches as well. It's all about execution down on the goal line, and our OL misses their assignments.

Now, do you think that's because we don't practice it enough? What do you take away from to practice goal line running?

[starclassic tama]

the execution on defense against the run in the first half of the kansas game is going to make jkm cry a few tears when he sees it...

[NormanPride]

Then Bird came in and started attacking blockers. Why are our backups more technically sound than our starters? Do the coaches tell the starters to play like that to not get hurt?

[Soonerjeepman]

Did anyone else think that this thread was going to be about formations that they found offensive?

the formation I found offensive was that Ninja thing...with a diamond out in the wide receiver area...are you kidding me? we have to resort to that crap? ugh~

[starclassic tama]

Do the coaches tell the starters to play like that to not get hurt? what does this mean?

[NormanPride]

Mostly being facetious. It seems like the starters do nothing but chickenfight with blockers, and the backups come in and fly downhill and make plays in the run game.

[bowfin]

BTW, what happened to using a TE dump like we did in the Trent Smith days?

This is a question I have seen asked by almost every college football fan except Ohio State's.

As near as I can figure out, there is a secret NCAA rule that limits each team to only six passes to a tight end each season. Nebraska has foolishly used up four of these in the first six games, so we only have two left, and we will want to keep one of those for any bowl game.

You guys and the Longhorns are smart not to use them up so fast. Ohio State is known for their cheating, which is why they throw to their tight end Jake Stoneburner constantly while claiming he is really a wide receiver.:wink:

[NormanPride]

Unknown NCAA bylaw. Flexing the TE out does not add to this counter.

[OU_Sooners75]

What type of offense do you really run is the best question.

I think it is a hybrid type of offense that is fashioned mainly out of the west coast offense:


The West Coast Offense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Coast_Offense) is a passing ball control offense. Once thought a contradiction in terms, it achieves ball control by using short, high percentage passing routes. Since the routes are relatively short, and the pass leaves the quarterback's hand quickly, there is less need for additional blockers. Thus all five eligible receivers are (typically) used extensively in the West Coast offense. Spreading the ball to all potential targets can create mismatches, often between a running back and a linebacker, or perhaps the tight end and a linebacker. By forcing tighter coverage between the safeties and offensive players, the West Coast offense can pull the safeties toward the line of scrimmage without running and thus it can set up the long pass play with shorter passes or allow a WR to break a tackle for a long gain.

With a little bit of spread thrown in:


The "Spread Offense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spread_offense)" is a generic term used to describe an offense that operates out of a formation with multiple wide receivers, usually out of the Shotgun, and can be run or pass oriented. One of the goals of the spread offense is to stretch the field both horizontally and vertically, and to take what are usually a teams' best defenders (linebackers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linebacker)) out of the game by utilizing three or more receivers.

With a little bit of Pistol Offense mixed with it:


The Pistol Offense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pistol_Offense) is an offense that features a quarterback in a short three yard shotgun and a running back three yards behind him. Upon the quarterback receiving the direct snap he may turn around and hand the ball off to the running back behind him, look up to pass or execute the option from the "pistol" with the running back. The advantage of this offense is that it gives the quarterback an opportunity to read the defense without the disadvantages of a normal shotgun such as signaling a pass play. It also allows the running back an opportunity to run downhill as opposed to the shotguns normal sideways angles.

With perhaps a little bit of power (smash mouth) offense as well:


A power offense is the more traditional style of offense. It often results in a higher time of possession by running the ball heavily. So-called "smash-mouth football" is often run out of the I-formation or wishbone, with tight ends and receivers used as blockers. Though the offense is run-oriented, pass opportunities can develop as defenses play close to the line. Play-action can be very effective for a run-oriented team.

And finally a dash of the old pro set offense:


The Pro Set (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro_Set) was the default NFL scheme for most of the 1960s to the 2000s. While it is more of a formation, the underlying philosophy of the pro set was based on becoming more successful at passing while still providing 1 or even 2 backs to help protect the QB.
The Pro Set features a TE, 2 WRs, and a Halfback and fullback, often split behind the QB. While QBs can take a snap from the center from the shotgun position, in general the pro set QB takes the ball under center to allow for better play action fakes to the running back.

As far as our red zone woes...I cannot answer this correctly...but in my opinion it is a mixture of a few things.
1. Coaching: Maybe our OL coach is too focused on the finesse of our offense that they forget to really hammer away at the smash mouth blocking it takes to make a push when there is 8 to 9 guys within 2 yards of the LOS.
2. Play calling: It seems our coaches abandon (sometimes) what got us to the red zone in the first place. Does our coaches not have confidence to continue to run our normal offense in the red zone? Sometimes it seems like it.
3. Execution. This is the most likely culprit. It takes an attitude by the offense, in particular the offensive line, to get a push up front. It takes a attitude to bully the opposition and sometimes it seems we do not have that attitude.

The style of our offense has nothing to do with our redzone. Our players must have an attitude to get that ball across the goal line..especially when they are lining up to run the ball.

[SoonerAtKU]

Do you think they've been coached so strictly to not overrun plays that they've become too careful? I would agree that more often than not, if a play is being made in the backfield by a LB, it seems to be on a designed overload rather than beating or shedding a blocker.

[soonerboy_odanorth]

FURE VURNERABLES!!!

[8timechamps]

Being a power running team has to start with having a power running back. We are not built for that. We gave up big o-linemen to gain lighter, quicker guys that can run 100+ plays a game. It's kind of a gamble "I bet you I can score more because of tempo and speed".

If you watch Alabama, you can see how an o-line, that's built to run the ball, operates. The biggest weakness of a spread-like offense is, and will always be, the lack of a power running game. That's why Stoops was so vocal this year about not being a "spread" team, rather a "multiple" offensive team (referring to his preseason interview). The truth is, we struggle running the ball.

Why we don't do better inside the redzone is a mystery to me. I looked at the KU game as a learning tool for Josh. And, as mentioned earlier, the drop by Whaley would have been a TD, so I don't count that in the "failed" play-calling category.

It also appeared that we were far more successful running the ball inside against KU. They were committed to keeping us from running wide. Once we made that adjustment, the running game seemed to open up.

I still think the old saying "run to set up the pass" is not as true today. I think you can "pass to set up the run" if you have the QB and receivers to present a real threat.

[VA Sooner]

To hell with Millard at HB. How about that quick hand off to him out of the I? We ran that last year a lot and it was good for 3-4 yards almost every time. I don't think I've seen it one freaking time this year.


This is what I was expecting to see after our 3rd or 4th attempt at the goal line. Worked last year and hasn't been in the playbook this year at all. Are we saving some tricks for our later games? Kind of like our 50 defense that we unveiled in Stillwater.

[bowfin]

Why we don't do better inside the redzone is a mystery to me.

My theory is that there is less field for a spread offense to spread out the defense. The defensive backs aren't worried about getting beat 40 yards down the field when the offense is on the five yard line. They don't worry about double moves and the linebackers can clog up the passing lanes when they only have to play five yards between the linemen and the DBs.

God forbid anyone put two running backs in the backfield, or even mention having one of those "F" word guys to use inside the red zone. (f*llback).

I just don't believe that a team that can pass great will suck at running and vice versa. A good carpenter can both hammer and saw, a good cook can both bake and broil, why when we get to sports is it that the human being becomes so one dimensional that pitchers can't bat, lineman can either pass block or run block, and centers can't shoot free throws?

[Breadburner]

All of you are dingleberrys....Stoops n crew knew we had this game well in hand and wanted to get the kicker some reps....!!!!

[OU_Sooners75]

Do you think they've been coached so strictly to not overrun plays that they've become too careful? I would agree that more often than not, if a play is being made in the backfield by a LB, it seems to be on a designed overload rather than beating or shedding a blocker.

No, I just think (sometimes) we don't have the attitude to get the front push that is necessary when running the ball inside the redzone.

I have seen on quite a few plays were the DL was in the backfield. I don't know if it is blocking scheme or what. But it seems to happen at least 2 or 3 times every series inside the redzone.

[OU_Sooners75]

Being a power running team has to start with having a power running back. We are not built for that. We gave up big o-linemen to gain lighter, quicker guys that can run 100+ plays a game. It's kind of a gamble "I bet you I can score more because of tempo and speed".

If you watch Alabama, you can see how an o-line, that's built to run the ball, operates. The biggest weakness of a spread-like offense is, and will always be, the lack of a power running game. That's why Stoops was so vocal this year about not being a "spread" team, rather a "multiple" offensive team (referring to his preseason interview). The truth is, we struggle running the ball.

Why we don't do better inside the redzone is a mystery to me. I looked at the KU game as a learning tool for Josh. And, as mentioned earlier, the drop by Whaley would have been a TD, so I don't count that in the "failed" play-calling category.

It also appeared that we were far more successful running the ball inside against KU. They were committed to keeping us from running wide. Once we made that adjustment, the running game seemed to open up.

I still think the old saying "run to set up the pass" is not as true today. I think you can "pass to set up the run" if you have the QB and receivers to present a real threat.

I disagree. I see Air Force, Navy, and other teams with smaller OL that can get that push. We have an OL that is bigger, faster, and more agile than those teams and we don't get that push in the power running game.

We may not have a back built like Richardson, but we have a couple that can get just as physical. It all starts at the line when it comes to a power rushing attack.

OL size:

Alabama:
TE: 6-6 269
OT: 6-5 311
OG: 6-3 320
OC: 6-1 294
OG: 6-3 303
OT: 6-6 335

Oklahoma:
TE: 6-4 243
OT: 6-6 307
OG: 6-6 313
OC: 6-4 295
OG: 6-5 304
OT: 6-6 300

We may not average as much as Alabama's OL, but we are big none-the-less

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

I disagree. I see Air Force, Navy, and other teams with smaller OL that can get that push. We have an OL that is bigger, faster, and more agile than those teams and we don't get that push in the power running game.

We may not have a back built like Richardson, but we have a couple that can get just as physical. It all starts at the line when it comes to a power rushing attack.

OL size:

Alabama:
TE: 6-6 269
OT: 6-5 311
OG: 6-3 320
OC: 6-1 294
OG: 6-3 303
OT: 6-6 335

Oklahoma:
TE: 6-4 243
OT: 6-6 307
OG: 6-6 313
OC: 6-4 295
OG: 6-5 304
OT: 6-6 300

We may not average as much as Alabama's OL, but we are big none-the-less

You can't use the service academies as examples because they get unlimited scholarships. The 85 man rule more than anything has been the achilles heel of power running games. To be a power running team, you need to recruit at least 8 OL per class and have at least 6 per class on the team. That is almost half of your schollies to OL which just isn't going to happen. What you normally see out of power running teams is that they are super stout when the majority of their linemen are Jr/Srs but they are weak as kittens when they have to field Fr/Sos.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

No, I just think (sometimes) we don't have the attitude to get the front push that is necessary when running the ball inside the redzone.

I have seen on quite a few plays were the DL was in the backfield. I don't know if it is blocking scheme or what. But it seems to happen at least 2 or 3 times every series inside the redzone.

The problem is that you can't isolate 1 player that is getting beat. Normally its a DIFFERENT guy every time (some exceptions when we play a guy who owns us like randel from texas and that aTm DE last year). Its just that we as an offense do not consistently across the board nail our assigments. If we have 9 1 on 1 matchups we'll nail 5 or 6 on just about every play. Between the 20's this doesn't have near as much impact as it does inside the 10.

[soonercastor]

(that aTm DE last year).

It was like we had never heard of this guy, dude ****ing owned us :highly_amused:

[King Barry's Back]

Regardless of the offense we run. I f we can't run between the tackles or throw passes into the endzone and score more often that we have in the red zone, we will lose a game or two that we could or should have won. Probably why Broyles was reaching for the endzone and fumbled the ball. He couldn't be sure we would punch it through.

Good point on Broyles. I wonder if there's been an interview or something where he discussed that? I guess, though, he couldn't say "I fumbled the ball because I have so little confidence in my teammates' ability to score..."

I think the lack of TDs in the redzone is due largely to one fact - in our pass-dependent offense that is reliant on stretching defenses, we are unable to vertically stretch the field in red zone situations. The threat of a 30-yard + completion is not there.

The inability to run is a problem everywhere on the field, but more evident in the red zone, due to the defense having to focus on only defending short passes or the run. But make no mistake, we can't consistently run anywhere on the field.

Sure, it's great to sit here and say "We should make some tweeks to run better," but after years of frustration, I think we either have to say "Bob's already tried all those solutions and they don't work," or "Bob's not trying those solutions because he already believes that they don't work."

There doesn't seem much point in repeating the same points game after game, year after year.

It would be more productive to discuss conference realignment.

[NormanPride]

It's not like we can't score in the red zone... we did it a couple times against KU. We're just not consistent. I think you'll see the coaches ditch the power run a bit more since it requires more people to execute perfectly. If we spread out the D laterally then we have a bit more leeway when trying to get our blocks.

[SoonerInFortSmith]

I disagree. I see Air Force, Navy, and other teams with smaller OL that can get that push. We have an OL that is bigger, faster, and more agile than those teams and we don't get that push in the power running game.


Navy and Air Force do not use a power running game. Their triple option schemes are based on trap/counter blocking inside and deception to get outside.

[NormanPride]

Plus the fact that those kids have to be really smart to get in, and their execution is high. They also don't have any early entrants to disrupt depth or continuity at the position.

[Partial Qualifier]

To hell with Millard at HB. How about that quick hand off to him out of the I? We ran that last year a lot and it was good for 3-4 yards almost every time. I don't think I've seen it one freaking time this year.

Was wondering this myself. It's a great play when setup properly.

Maybe they're saving it for when we really need it

[SoonerMarkVA]

Heck, he doesn't even try a FB dive with Millard, who could carry 8 defenders on his back into the end zone.

This has long been my complaint, that the fullbacks are ignored as options in a power running attack. I've been just about giddy to see that Millard at least gets some touches, but IMO the fullback is simply an ignored asset in the run game. It makes it both easier to defend us in short yardage and doesn't give the guy most built like a bull the chance to plow through defenders for those precious extra yards.

[Breadburner]

It was like we had never heard of this guy, dude ****ing owned us :highly_amused:

Von Miller.....

[Boomer.....]

This is not only a problem with us, but with a lot of teams as well. It's just hard to spread out the defense enough to run the ball up the middle successfully over and over. I wish we would start using Millard as a lead blocker, pitch it outside, or line up Hanna as a blocker and peel him off like we used to do over and over with Gresham.

[BoulderSooner79]

I seriously doubt Broyles was worried about redzone efficiency when he reached for the goal line. I believe he got a little carried away with the incredible night he was having and was trying to make a great play and took a little too much risk. He was clearly embarrassed afterward because he makes so few mistakes. Stoops said it in his presser - they are running the same plays as they did on '08 when they set records for redzone efficiency. I guess the implication is that these players are not as good as that team and I'm sure that's true. I guess you could respond that the coaches should not be running the same plays and should run a scheme more suitable to the talent we have. I don't think the answer is to out-Alabama Alabama.

[cccasooner2]

Plus the fact that those kids have to be really smart to get in, and their execution is high. They also don't have any early entrants to disrupt depth or continuity at the position.

Hey, we've got smart guys too. :(

[NormanPride]

Of course we do. But not everyone on the team is a genius. :)

[Breadburner]

Air Force also has the luxury of having not one but 2 prep teams that travel and play a full schedule......

[Landthief 1972]

Looks like The Oklahoman was wondering about this topic too:

http://newsok.com/sooners-have-issues-inside-the-20-yard-line/article/3614201?custom_click=lead_story_title

The coaches are saying that the linemen are having a hard time hearing calls and audibles at the line of scrimmage in goal line situation, which is leading to missed blocking assignments. [shrug]

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Plus the fact that those kids have to be really smart to get in, and their execution is high. They also don't have any early entrants to disrupt depth or continuity at the position.

Unlimited Scholarships. When you have 80 per class it makes it a lot easier to replace graduates.

[Landthief 1972]

Unlimited Scholarships. When you have 80 per class it makes it a lot easier to replace graduates.

Although you have to close your recruiting pitch with, "Oh by the way, after you play ball for us for 4 years, we get to ship you overseas to be shot at." Miami has something similar but they don't even have to ship you overseas to be shot at.

[BoulderSooner79]

Looks like The Oklahoman was wondering about this topic too:

http://newsok.com/sooners-have-issues-inside-the-20-yard-line/article/3614201?custom_click=lead_story_title

The coaches are saying that the linemen are having a hard time hearing calls and audibles at the line of scrimmage in goal line situation, which is leading to missed blocking assignments. [shrug]

Now that's a coaching issue because every team must deal with it. The obvious solution is to huddle so that only the snap count needs to be heard at the line. But that is more than a redzone issue as we saw at FSU. LJ was barking the call down to the last seconds on the play clock all the time and it hurt us. I still worry about that because we won't have to deal with it again most likely until the OSU game, and if we're lucky enough, the title game. I hope it has been addressed.

[NormanPride]

Although you have to close your recruiting pitch with, "Oh by the way, after you play ball for us for 4 years, we get to ship you overseas to be shot at." Miami has something similar but they don't even have to ship you overseas to be shot at.

I lol'd.

[OU_Sooners75]

You can't use the service academies as examples because they get unlimited scholarships. The 85 man rule more than anything has been the achilles heel of power running games. To be a power running team, you need to recruit at least 8 OL per class and have at least 6 per class on the team. That is almost half of your schollies to OL which just isn't going to happen. What you normally see out of power running teams is that they are super stout when the majority of their linemen are Jr/Srs but they are weak as kittens when they have to field Fr/Sos.

I can use the service academies all day long. They may have unlimited scholarships, but they are also much much much harder to get into than the vast majority of public and private universities.

Also, they have a weight requirement for their students. Sure, the athletes can be bigger, but they are also some of the smaller OLs in the nation.

Navy:
LT: 6-4 257
LG: 6-3 270C: 6-3 310
RG: 6-4 260
RT: 6-5 270
TE: no TE listed on their depth chart.
http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/navy/sports/m-footbl/auto_pdf/2011-12/depth_chart_non_event/2011_Navy_Football_Depth_Chart.pdf

(http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/navy/sports/m-footbl/auto_pdf/2011-12/depth_chart_non_event/2011_Navy_Football_Depth_Chart.pdf)Air Force:
TE: 6-4 235
OT: 6-8 295
OG: 6-1 280
C: 6-4 300
OG: 6-2 270
OT: 6-7 295
http://collegefootball.rivals.com/cdepthtext.asp?SID=1144&Year=2010&TEAM=AIRFORCE

Army:
TE: None listed
OT: 6-5 250
OG: 6-4 275
C: 6-2 284
OG: 6-2 270
OT: 6-1 252

http://collegefootball.rivals.com/cdepthtext.asp?SID=1144&Year=2010&TEAM=ARMY

[OU_Sooners75]

Navy and Air Force do not use a power running game. Their triple option schemes are based on trap/counter blocking inside and deception to get outside.

I played in a veer option/triple option offense in high school and college. It is a power rushing attack. Sure when one is pulling for a trap or counter, you need speed and agility. But the option game damn sure isnt a finesse offense.

[8timechamps]

I disagree. I see Air Force, Navy, and other teams with smaller OL that can get that push. We have an OL that is bigger, faster, and more agile than those teams and we don't get that push in the power running game.

We may not have a back built like Richardson, but we have a couple that can get just as physical. It all starts at the line when it comes to a power rushing attack.

OL size:

Alabama:
TE: 6-6 269
OT: 6-5 311
OG: 6-3 320
OC: 6-1 294
OG: 6-3 303
OT: 6-6 335

Oklahoma:
TE: 6-4 243
OT: 6-6 307
OG: 6-6 313
OC: 6-4 295
OG: 6-5 304
OT: 6-6 300

We may not average as much as Alabama's OL, but we are big none-the-less

I wouldn't consider the service academies as power running offenses. Running an option offense every season has it's advantages. That type of offense is the only way those teams can compete.

We are big, but there is a marked difference in recruiting a pass blocking tackle versus a run blocking one. Two completely different skill sets, and it's not easy to find one that can do both at an elite level.

I still think it comes down to the back. Richardson is a power runner. We don't have one. We have a guy (Whaley) that can put his head down, but he relies more on speed and quickness (as do all of our backs), trademarks of spread option running backs. The closest we have is Millard.

We also run out of the gun/pistol a lot. There is never going to be a power running game if you're QB isn't under center.

Lastly, I wouldn't compare our O-Line with the academies for a lot of reasons, but mostly because of the level of competition. With the exception of Air Force, they mostly play "average" football. They all play mediocre teams most of the time. Sure, they can put up some numbers in a game here or there, but in the end, their style of offense barely keeps them competitive.

[OU_Sooners75]

I wouldn't consider the service academies as power running offenses. Running an option offense every season has it's advantages. That type of offense is the only way those teams can compete.

We are big, but there is a marked difference in recruiting a pass blocking tackle versus a run blocking one. Two completely different skill sets, and it's not easy to find one that can do both at an elite level.

I still think it comes down to the back. Richardson is a power runner. We don't have one. We have a guy (Whaley) that can put his head down, but he relies more on speed and quickness (as do all of our backs), trademarks of spread option running backs. The closest we have is Millard.

We also run out of the gun/pistol a lot. There is never going to be a power running game if you're QB isn't under center.

Lastly, I wouldn't compare our O-Line with the academies for a lot of reasons, but mostly because of the level of competition. With the exception of Air Force, they mostly play "average" football. They all play mediocre teams most of the time. Sure, they can put up some numbers in a game here or there, but in the end, their style of offense barely keeps them competitive.

As an olinemen, you still have to get that push. In fact, the option comes off the end in the triple or veer option attacks. The end contains, the QB hands to the FB. The end caves down on the block, the QB keeps and goes to a linear option with the HB.

Blocking schemes are power rushing. veer blocking all linemen are blocking to the inside, look from above and looks like they are blocking down to make a "V". trust me, you allow the DL to blow you off the ball, the play is dead in the backfield most of the time. Is it a power as in goal line with 3 TEs and 3 RBs? No...but it damn sure isn't patty cake where they zone blocking or allowing the defense to come to them.

[8timechamps]

As an olinemen, you still have to get that push. In fact, the option comes off the end in the triple or veer option attacks. The end contains, the QB hands to the FB. The end caves down on the block, the QB keeps and goes to a linear option with the HB.

Blocking schemes are power rushing. veer blocking all linemen are blocking to the inside, look from above and looks like they are blocking down to make a "V". trust me, you allow the DL to blow you off the ball, the play is dead in the backfield most of the time. Is it a power as in goal line with 3 TEs and 3 RBs? No...but it damn sure isn't patty cake where they zone blocking or allowing the defense to come to them.

I am very aware of how the option works. Don't confuse me saying "the option game isn't a power running game" with it being "patty cake" football. In the league I coach, we play at least 5 teams a year that run option attacks, we also play one team that runs a power running (I-formation) offense. There is a huge difference in the blocking schemes. Now, I would never say an option offense is a soft or "patty cake" running game, I'm saying that the goal of the option running game is to compete with bigger, stronger defenses. The one team in our league that runs a power running offense, lines up in an I formation and all but tells you what they're doing. They have tremendous size (especially in the middle) and a big power back. Just like the option, they are a possession offense, not built to score quickly but to wear down your defense and take as much time off the clock as possible.

My point in all of this is that Alabama's offense isn't going to be confused with Air Force, Navy or Army's offense. Everyone knows what Bama is doing, they just can't stop it. That's a power run game.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

Air Force is really leveraged based which is based on what Calhoun brought out of Denver..Cutblocks, etc...

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

I can use the service academies all day long. They may have unlimited scholarships, but they are also much much much harder to get into than the vast majority of public and private universities.

Also, they have a weight requirement for their students. Sure, the athletes can be bigger, but they are also some of the smaller OLs in the nation.


Entrance requirements are moot since they have more recruits per year than any other school. If they were so hard to get into, you would expect them to have less. The difference at these schools is that they are able to consistently trot out 5 22 year olds. 22 year olds are on average going to be more physically fit, more technically sound, more savvy and consistent than a corresponding 18/19 year old of considerable more "talent".

[8timechamps]

Entrance requirements are moot since they have more recruits per year than any other school. If they were so hard to get into, you would expect them to have less. The difference at these schools is that they are able to consistently trot out 5 22 year olds. 22 year olds are on average going to be more physically fit, more technically sound, more savvy and consistent than a corresponding 18/19 year old of considerable more "talent".

All true. Many (most) people think that the service academies struggle because the linemen are typically smaller than all the others. Technically, they are, on average, smaller. However, there probably isn't a line in the country as mature, seasoned and mentally capable as at the service academies (at least Air Force). It's the skill positions where they struggle.