brophog

That's the point of the scrape exchange. The DE and backside LB exchange responsibilities. The backside DE crashes the line on every play, allowing the backside LB to scrape over the top and take the QB.

I'll get Al Gore right on this.

Athletes, especially at DE, can kill the zone read. The problem is that the QB portion of the zone read is a backside running play and because of that you have potential free defenders. That's how the scrape exchange works. It takes the 'read' out of the play by having the DE always come down the line, with the backside LB scraping to take the QB. It can be countered in numerous ways, but by taking the quick and dirty method of the zone read out of the equation it killed off most of the reasons that teams put the play in to begin with. What we're talking about with so many options in the backfield is being done. Oregon has used a modern day version of the wishbone. But even with the frontside zone blocking in place, the defense just keys on the heavy flow in the backfield and reads the play. The play devotes so much to backfield distraction that it simply runs out of blockers, so if the DTs can slow down those combo blocks then the backers, both front and back, have little to worry about. It can, however, make for a great passing play because you can freeze both the frontside and backside LBers so easily. The defense, in essence, just parts in the middle for you. Obviously you can throw a lot of screens and such into the play as well to create width that way. Lots of good options, but one has to be careful of them. Like any counter play, the real benefit is to allow your flow to create a number advantage on the backside for you. Adding options to the backfield, or backside receiver options, etcetera doesn't necessarily solve the problem solutions like the scrape exchange have caused for the zone read. It's biggest advantages are that it is a backside complement to the zone packages out of the gun, it's easy to install, and the reads were simple. While we can create these alterations to the play, and it is fun doing it, that's a serious amount of time to devote for any team that doesn't use the zone read as a big time part of its playbook. For most teams, that wasn't the case and as I alluded to above, that's why it's not run as much as it was.

I don't know, how much remorse is there after 'almost shot'?

Yep. And in a big way it is, in terms of moving the defensive pieces around as a complement to other things. To me, if you're going to track these things then options and screens should be considered their own plays in the stat sheet because of how one goes about defending them. The whole pass/run "balance" argument is a bunch of baloney. The only reason anyone even keeps track of whether or not it is a pass play is for the sake of the rules. One can draw up the same play, and depending on the angle of the pass it would get counted as either a forward pass or a run. To the defense, it's the same play and that's what ultimately matters. How many times you pass or run isn't very important. Much more important is when, and how, and what spacing the team uses, blocking schemes, route combinations, formations, sets............those are the important things to track. The fact you can tabulate run/pass as a simple ratio doesn't mean nearly as much as me saying Nebraska will run Play X with Rex in a singleback set at a depth of 5 yards. The fact that teams that have a 50/50 ratio will usually pass on second down following a failed first down run is noteworthy, but that kind of thing is never mentioned in all of the pass/run debates surrounding the sport. The 50/50 ratio is a big global tendency that doesn't get anywhere near the level of detail one needs to prepare for that team. It's about as significant as what color they wear, tbh. That's why coaches talk about it, because it doesn't mean anything if anyone knows it or not. TO also said something else that I don't think many appreciated until later (but noteworthy to this thread), and that is how dangerous those blind hits are in the pocket vs the hits a runner takes when he can prepare to be tackled. Not so sure that's quite as true to the same extent now with all of the emphasis now on protecting the QB.

That would be funnier if Dan Young hadn't have died a few years back.

While you are correct, there is a reason you see so much less zone read now than you did a few years back. Once defenses started running the 'scrape exchange' it forced offenses that wanted to continue to run the play to add more complexity, either by changing their blocking scheme to account for that scrape or combining it with other concepts. At that point, you're back to the timing, recognition, and rep problems you mention with the option.

What's 'true option'? Someone will have to define that one for me. We're going to see it a lot and out of a lot of different personnel groupings, formations, and sets. One of the things Beck did really good last year was get a lot of mileage out of his plays by utilzing them in multiple looks. Frankly, if we get good production from the slot, and this team has the capacity to do so, the option could make that position even more dangerous. That's one of the big personnel questions of this passing era: do you substitute a nickelback to cover the slot or do you try to hedge a LB and try to protect against the run. A 2x1 set with 20 personnel (2 back, no tight) can be really dangerous with the option. You don't see much 20 personnel because most teams that run 2 back want that TE in there, but a FB against a potential 6 man front can really pay dividends. Or, for that matter, 11 personnel (one back, one tight) with a tight end that can burn you deep with an option pass. Lots of possibilities, but none of them work if you don't block the option correctly. What separates those options from being good plays to great plays are the teams that just sprinkle in an option play in those sets vs the one that spends the reps on the option play. The option by itself can play havoc with defensive personnel packages, but when you can mix it in with traditional pass personnel sets you really start to make the other guy think a bit. When you start playing with numbers in the box, you make those Safeties have to move around a lot. That kind of thinking is what has made some of the offenses that have taken hold the last 10 years so deadly. Especially in this era where base defenses have been overtaken by packages, anytime you can present one personnel grouping but do something unexpected it is going to pay dividends. EDIT: I see a great example was put up above. Thanks, The Dude.

There's no doubt Pelini has shaped this program. The question is, what does that shape look like. Is it a 9-4 program year in and year out or a program that contests for conference titles and the benefits those titles often bring. That's what makes opinions on Pelini's job to this point so interesting. The one hand can say, "this program has come this close" while the other can say "this program is still only coming this close".

This thread was going so good.........

I'm not sure how it works on your specific carrier, but the B10 network employs temporary ghost channels during the football season just to carry games on. These often don't appear until later in the week. That's not of an issue this week, of course, because this is an ABC/ESPN2 game. ABC and ESPN use a reverse mirror system so you'll have to check your region nearer to game time to find out which of those two it will be on. OUTSTANDING! Did not know it was a mirror game. Now I can relax for the rest of the week. Thanks for the info unless of course you have DirectTV and it's a severe thunderstorm and the signal goes out....but that never happens...so don't worry about it. And it never, ever happens when you travel to the bar to catch the PPV.

I'm not sure how it works on your specific carrier, but the B10 network employs temporary ghost channels during the football season just to carry games on. These often don't appear until later in the week. That's not of an issue this week, of course, because this is an ABC/ESPN2 game. ABC and ESPN use a reverse mirror system so you'll have to check your region nearer to game time to find out which of those two it will be on.

But what we all really want to know is.........were they wearing free shoes..........

Athletics and media have for a very long time had a 'you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours' type of relationship. Find me a radio man that isn't an absolute homer. They don't really exist, because it's their job to be a homer because they're being paid to create excitement. Media credentials are often granted with the expectation that a certain atmoshphere is maintained, with some institutions having much higher standards of what that is than others. Some like that, some don't. There are obviously good arguments for both sides. In general, American sports media tend to be more 'commercial' in this respect. There's more of a business understanding here, and morality and business don't often connect. Foreign media, and it depends on where as to what degree, will tend to be more brutally honest in how they describe the action. I'm willing to accept a certain latitude here, if for no other reason than it's going to exist, but don't insult the viewers. If the QB is just doing one dumb thing after another, don't try to pretend like this guy is the greatest you've ever seen. Nobody is going to believe you, and no credibility doesn't do anyone any good. On the other hand, if you're going to criticize a player, coach, program, etcetera, then have a damn good, logical, well written article. You're a professional journalist, not a 12 year old on his twitter account. Act like it.

We'll see what happens. Predictions are based largely on what happened last year, and in many key areas this team was inexperienced last year. While experience is an important trend to prognosticators, it isn't necessarily consistent on a player to player, year by year basis. Sometimes guys just don't 'get it'. Sometimes whole classes, for whatever reason, never turn that corner.

Right now, I really only care about one thing: Taylor. If he can improve, and he should given both more experience for him and more time for Beck to be with him, then this team wins more games. Period. Normally I wouldn't put so much emphasis on only one player, but we simply must execute the plays that are out there to be executed better and a big part of that is on Taylor because he's such a focus of this offense. A few more made plays here and there and we win more games last year and these opinions are all very different. Having an experienced returning QB should be a big advantage, and I'd like to hope it is.

Ya but what would people be saying if Bo did this tonight, we would probably be concerned about our team. I would rather hear whats coming out of our camp....confidence. I like a little rough and tumble in preseason camp. Sharpens everyone up a bit. If you want to get someone's attention, do what you don't normally do. If you're normally a quiet type, then raising your voice makes them feel you mean business. If you're a loud type, go dead quiet for a minute. It jars them, especially if they've begun tuning out the yelling (and they eventually will). That's all external though, and never lasts very long. As you say, they pick up on such things pretty quick.

You'll be good at Row 12. One tip to anyone that hasn't gotten their tickets yet is to select a few different seating options by having the system hold your tickets (you have 15 minutes). The computer's view of 'best available' can be rather dubious at times.

He's the same in person. Sometimes I forget there is an 'r' in his name.

Last year this board talked and talked and talked about how badly Texas was going to get beat. You take it one game at a time for a reason.

It may be popular, but it is honestly the worst fantasy sport there is from a construct standpoint.

The combination of the offense being on the field a short amount of time and the defense being on the field a long amount of time can lead to fatigue for a defense.

He's the same in person. Sometimes I forget there is an 'r' in his name.

Good observations. There are several counters, as you mention, that we didn't run to what they were doing (though we did do some things, such as some motion). Paul Johnson is amazing at changing his blocking schemes to account for the Safety, who gave us problems most of the day. Here's one example: He does it with a flex look there, but that could easily be a TE and we have a couple capable ones. We did some of that with the TE on a Backer and tried to option off of the Safety. Sometimes we'd pull a guard around and bring the tackle down. How Beck adjusts those things series to series is something I'm watching for as he gets more experience. That's when the option becomes really powerful. All of that stuff out of the way, a lot of it was simple blocking as well. We really did have the right numbers most of the game, but we just need to tweak a few things. I really felt, overall, that this was a good play calling debut from Beck. I may be the only one saying that, considering the result.

I don't know. Could have been a confusion at a lot of levels. Watching it again, I wonder if Rex thought it was a running play. The backside O-line makes me wonder that, too.