I want to see the "I"..

[ESPY]

I miss the 'I,' too. We can't run it, though. Why? Because we aren't Stanford or Wisconsin. We don't have the personel. This is what I propose for those begging for the 'I.'

 

 

 

The blocking may change depending on field position and defense, but you get the gist.

Jeremy, you make it all look so easy. Actually now that I think about it, we did something exactly like this vs Idaho this season. And IT WORKED! Anyone else remember that, or is it just me?

I remember it well.

 

Go to 1:17 in this video, and it is the play in discussion.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cb671XwyCYU

 

I don't understand why we don't run traditional option more.

Great find, Enhance. That play was a thing of beauty, and did you see how accurate Martinez' pitch was? Don't tell me that wouldn't have worked in conference play.

[zoogs]

Didn't anyone watch the Colorado game? We ran several plays out of the I-formation, and they were quite effective, as I recall. I have yet to watch that game on DVR, but from the stands it looked pretty good.

 

Yeah, and as I asked Nexus earlier, I wonder if this doesn't have a lot to do with who the QB is. He and houseofspears mentioned something about footwork in relation to the I formation, and that could be a reason why we see Martinez mostly from the shotgun, while Green's strengths seem to enable lining up under center to be a bigger part of the game plan.

 

On something like an exotic option play like that, someone or other probably felt it was too risky (I mean, with the fumble problems we already had - to bring that out against OU? Didn't they have a fast, attacking perimeter defense that could stop us cold on slow-developing runs to the outside? .... Anyway.). I think the story on last year is that Watson had the Wildcat installed the whole year but Bo felt it was gimmicky and wouldn't let it be unwrapped until the end; and then it worked, and Bo embraced it. Not too sure on the validity of this one, so take it for what it is worth. The first part of it (Watson having the Wildcat ready and installed for the whole year last year) seems plausible, and the second half may be a (fair) guess.

[Nexus]

I will say this, Tray Robinson appears more comfortable in the i-formation than any other formation. Not surprising since his high school predominantly runs out of the i.

[Enhance]

I will say this, Tray Robinson appears more comfortable in the i-formation than any other formation. Not surprising since his high school predominantly runs out of the i.

I noticed this, as well. His running out of the shotgun early in the year was really quite bad.

[zoogs]

It'll be interesting to see Green next year. Supposedly his HS runs I too and he wants a lead blocker. But I've also heard tossed around that Aaron is the kind of back perfect for a zone read offense.

[wiby_NU]

Didn't anyone watch the Colorado game? We ran several plays out of the I-formation, and they were quite effective, as I recall. I have yet to watch that game on DVR, but from the stands it looked pretty good.

 

Yeah, and as I asked Nexus earlier, I wonder if this doesn't have a lot to do with who the QB is. He and houseofspears mentioned something about footwork in relation to the I formation, and that could be a reason why we see Martinez mostly from the shotgun, while Green's strengths seem to enable lining up under center to be a bigger part of the game plan.

 

On something like an exotic option play like that, someone or other probably felt it was too risky (I mean, with the fumble problems we already had - to bring that out against OU? Didn't they have a fast, attacking perimeter defense that could stop us cold on slow-developing runs to the outside? .... Anyway.). I think the story on last year is that Watson had the Wildcat installed the whole year but Bo felt it was gimmicky and wouldn't let it be unwrapped until the end; and then it worked, and Bo embraced it. Not too sure on the validity of this one, so take it for what it is worth. The first part of it (Watson having the Wildcat ready and installed for the whole year last year) seems plausible, and the second half may be a (fair) guess.

Zoogies you must have a list of excuses written down on a piece of paper for every offensive play Wats doesnt run, fails to run effectively, or runs over and over again...i could care less whether OU could've stopped the play on the video..but was it worth a try?..sure, why not...It would have been something else besides a zone read play going for a 5 yard loss, or a sack going for a 10 yard loss, maybe another fumble? possibly..whats another fumble when you have 42 on the season anyway. Is the play "exotic" NO..its a triple option in the shotgun formation. If it was so exotic than why did we run it in the first place, and with success? And now your agreeing that OU's defense was too fast on the perimeter, saying that the zone read wasnt working. When above you deliver excuses as to why Martinez was "just made bad reads". You confuse me..is Wats paying you to defend his every play call..or are you infact, the Wats himself????

[zoogs]

Zoogies you must have a list of excuses written down on a piece of paper for every offensive play Wats doesnt run, fails to run effectively, or runs over and over again...i could care less whether OU could've stopped the play on the video..but was it worth a try?..sure, why not...

 

A TON of people lashed out at any run that wasn't up the middle. OU has a fast defense, you can't go sideways on them, got to go North/South, etc. But now people are looking at an option play that is running sideways and saying it should have been called against OU? My goodness...

 

In all honesty, I think if Taylor were zoned in instead of completely cold we could have run something like this. But if we had, it would have been "Damnit, Watson. Any fool would know the way to beat OU is to run between the tackles." Kind of like what has been said. Or "There we go again, going away from what is working."

 

maybe another fumble? possibly..whats another fumble when you have 42 on the season anyway.

 

Oy vey. If we had run that and a fumble occurred, there wouldn't be an end to "what are they thinking?! Calling a play like that, and not thinking it could result in a lost fumble? That cost us!" on this board. And that would be pretty fair. Like the "What are they thinking? Don't they know Martinez is liable to take a 10-yard sack here when we can't afford that?" Which I agree with completely.

 

And now your agreeing that OU's defense was too fast on the perimeter, saying that the zone read wasnt working.

 

Not really. The zone read was almost the only thing that worked. It worked with Burkhead. We had most success when Burkhead took it between the tackles, but he also had a sweep that went to the outside that gained 25 yards, which led to a field goal. OU has a fast defense but that doesn't mean you go up the middle every time, or go outside every time. Got to mix it up. The plays where Taylor handed the ball off to Helu outside, IIRC were the wrong reads. Instead of keeping it himself and maybe taking a modest gain of even one or two up the middle, we lose 4 yards. 2nd and 9 turns to 2nd and 14. That's where a bad read hurts us.

[mnhusker]

The zone read requires a mobile QB without that it is the zone "Well Kinda Read" this is why it worked with Burkhead. But hey why not go to drop back passes when the game is on the line. The option would be the same way if the QB can't move.

[wiby_NU]

Zoogies you must have a list of excuses written down on a piece of paper for every offensive play Wats doesnt run, fails to run effectively, or runs over and over again...i could care less whether OU could've stopped the play on the video..but was it worth a try?..sure, why not...

 

A TON of people lashed out at any run that wasn't up the middle. OU has a fast defense, you can't go sideways on them, got to go North/South, etc. But now people are looking at an option play that is running sideways and saying it should have been called against OU? My goodness...

 

In all honesty, I think if Taylor were zoned in instead of completely cold we could have run something like this. But if we had, it would have been "Damnit, Watson. Any fool would know the way to beat OU is to run between the tackles." Kind of like what has been said. Or "There we go again, going away from what is working."

 

maybe another fumble? possibly..whats another fumble when you have 42 on the season anyway.

 

Oy vey. If we had run that and a fumble occurred, there wouldn't be an end to "what are they thinking?! Calling a play like that, and not thinking it could result in a lost fumble? That cost us!" on this board. And that would be pretty fair. Like the "What are they thinking? Don't they know Martinez is liable to take a 10-yard sack here when we can't afford that?" Which I agree with completely.

 

And now your agreeing that OU's defense was too fast on the perimeter, saying that the zone read wasnt working.

 

Not really. The zone read was almost the only thing that worked. It worked with Burkhead. We had most success when Burkhead took it between the tackles, but he also had a sweep that went to the outside that gained 25 yards, which led to a field goal. OU has a fast defense but that doesn't mean you go up the middle every time, or go outside every time. Got to mix it up. The plays where Taylor handed the ball off to Helu outside, IIRC were the wrong reads. Instead of keeping it himself and maybe taking a modest gain of even one or two up the middle, we lose 4 yards. 2nd and 9 turns to 2nd and 14. That's where a bad read hurts us.

So your willing to have a running back run the zone read more effectively than our own QB? and then implement this as our base offense. Even though Wats said it himself, "we become to one dimensional when we run the Wildcat" therefore, we wont run the wildcat nearly enough to win the game. I encourage you to watch the OU game again. These were not necessarily bad reads by Martinez. There was nowhere for the play to go, whether the QB or running back kept it. Defenses know how to stop it, it is relatively easy to stop, and they know that no matter what, Wats will run the Zone read over and over. Watch the game, its easy to see our problem..Play calling. In regards to you now saying the option would not have worked because the OU defense was to fast on the perimeter. Once again, you are eating your words when saying that we ran effectively outside in earlier posts, and now their defense was too fast for us to run outside on them. The option and the zone read are two different plays. Zone read- the offense sits back and waits to see what the defense would give them. Speed option-no pulling guards and you get to the outside as quick as possible (no sitting around behind the line of scrimmage trying to read the defense). Triple option- even in the shotgun gives you 3 different chances for a play to work, yes you have to read the defense, but and in my opinion having Helu and Burkhead in the backfield is always a plus. Im not saying these would or wouldnt have worked (including the I formation), but as a "multiple" offense, why not try them to see if it works, obviously the zone read (with martinez) didnt. And dont tell me Martinez cant run the option and its too complex for him, i watched him run it in his high school footage out of the same basic formations.

[zoogs]

It can work for stretches at a time if it is our best option, but it would be nuts to implement it as a base offense.

 

The problem is Rex is literally almost no chance to throw. Unless I am seriously understating his ability as a passer (in which case he would just move to QB), if we do that, we become literally one dimensional because he would be good for what, 3, 4 passes in a game? That's really, really one dimensional in a completely different way from putting a QB back there and just running the ball a lot.

 

I can certainly watch some of those read plays again, but my feeling/recollection from the last time I watched them was Martinez could have gutted out even a yard or two, when handing it to the back guaranteed a big loss. Specifically on those runs with Helu where Martinez keeping it would have gone up the middle.

 

On the option, I think I am saying it would not have worked well because it was a big risk and Taylor was really not even capable of avoiding the most basic of mistakes. In the zone read, they are reading one player on the defense, and once that read is made the play takes off in one of two directions. On a speed option you run sideways for a while before a keep/pitch decision is made. I disagree that it is faster than a zone read. When Taylor's weakness is minimizing mistakes and reading the defense, I don't think you put him in a position to fumble and have to make a decision in the triple option like you suggest. OU is fast, but it doesn't mean you run it up the middle every single time. There are other considerations for a play like that. Mostly it boils down to, it probably was not installed in the gameplan for that week. There's only so much you can put in, and it's hard to argue with that. Taylor has enough on his plate with plays, I'm sure.

[wiby_NU]

Were just gunna have to agree to disagree my friend. it looks like Wats is no longer a candidate for the Vandy job and he will be here for at least another year. I respect the guy, but i dont respect his play calling...Do i think his play calling will win us 9-10 games next season..probably not...he will struggle against a conference that produces better defenses than the big 12 (especially the North)...i guess what im saying is that im not gunna hold my breath when the offense takes the field...i dont expect much out of them when it comes down to the big games (and we have a lot of them) as long as we have Wats at OC. Do i hope Wats proves me wrong? Sure, but judging from his track record and past 2 seasons, i just cant see it happening.

[suh_fan93]

The "i" would be great, but burkhead and helu wouldn't be in the backfield at the same time anyway. Like zoogies said, the only way for the two backs to be in is a two back shotgun. Which would be sweet, a zone read triple option would be awesome.

 

I think having legate in as a lead blocker in the "I" would be effective, he does that job very well. My only problem with the "I" is Martinez. I think we can all agree that his footwork isnt great. I dont think watching him drop back every pass play would be pretty..

 

Admittedly I'm not a scout, but my "armchair observation" tells me that Brion Carnes' footwork is pretty good. Watch this clip and tell me if I'm wrong? http://insider.espn.go.com/ncf/recruiting/player/videos?id=69991&_slug_=brion-carnes&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fncf%2frecruiting%2fplayer%2fvideos%3fid%3d69991%26_slug_%3dbrion-carnes

Nice find Nexus.

[Enhance]

In my opinion, we have enough weapons in the offensive backfield that we shouldn't have a problem being unpredictable in our play-calling.

 

I thought Wats called an O.K. game on Saturday. In fact, I've never really harped on Watson's play-calling, cause I know that if you execute, then everybody loves that play. My biggest problem with Wats has and will continue to be preparation and discipline among his players.

 

That said, the best of offense keep the defense off balance, even if the offense is somewhat predictable. Take a basic option attack, for example. You can either do basic runs up the middle, full back traps, stretch plays, ISO's, the option, and then pull one for a nice play-action pass. Everybody knows what you're going to do, but that doesn't mean they'll know what's coming. Unfortunately for us, everybody knows what we're going to do and they know it's coming.

 

I think a lot of our problems will be solved if Watson relied a little more on running between the tackles, a little less on the zone read, and a little more on perhaps some basic option plays out of the shotgun.

[REDSTEEL]

In my opinion, we have enough weapons in the offensive backfield that we shouldn't have a problem being unpredictable in our play-calling.

 

I thought Wats called an O.K. game on Saturday. In fact, I've never really harped on Watson's play-calling, cause I know that if you execute, then everybody loves that play. My biggest problem with Wats has and will continue to be preparation and discipline among his players.

 

That said, the best of offense keep the defense off balance, even if the offense is somewhat predictable. Take a basic option attack, for example. You can either do basic runs up the middle, full back traps, stretch plays, ISO's, the option, and then pull one for a nice play-action pass. Everybody knows what you're going to do, but that doesn't mean they'll know what's coming. Unfortunately for us, everybody knows what we're going to do and they know it's coming.

 

I think a lot of our problems will be solved if Watson relied a little more on running between the tackles, a little less on the zone read, and a little more on perhaps some basic option plays out of the shotgun.

So you were fine with Watson calling for a shotgun on OU 39 when Nebraska just needed probably 5 or 6 more yards for Alex Henery to be in fg range? Why he didnt want to run the wildcat at this time because it was working and he didnt want to be predictable.

 

I have no idea what to say to this kind of thinking.

 

I'm just glad that Osborne when running it straight at people and getting 5 yards a snap didnt think like this when he coached.

[Jason Sitoke]

This isn't an xbox, you can't just draw plays in the dirt and expect them to work. It takes practice and repetition to become skilled at anything, the formations and schemes weren't the problem, it was the lack of execution, fumbles and sacks that doomed us. The I formation doesn't have some magical property that would make the offense do the basic things that it failed at against OU.

 

I agree, Watson's schemes were flawless. Just a shame our guys suck so hard.

 

You missed the point. ANY scheme that fits your personnel will work as long as the execution is there. I am not advocating Watson's termination because I hate the read option, or think he should have run off tackle instead of off guard on this particular play. It has to do with the fact that the offensive culture appears to be one that is extremely unfocused and mistake prone. It also seems to be prevalent regardless of position, whether it's running backs that put the ball on the turf, receivers dropping 7-8 balls in a single game, a quarterback that takes bad sacks, an offensive line that kills drives with pre-snap penalties, etc.

 

Going to a different formation with a different philosophy skirts the issue that these guys are ill-prepared, and that starts in the spring and continues throughout the season. Asking a team that all ready can't execute its offense for more than 2 consecutive plays to change its philosophy week to week is ridiculous.

 

What's always funny about a team that has a great offense is how all the fans look at the scheme, as if they have found some unbelievable formula for moving the ball. They're STILL playing with 11 guys. Guess what? Florida SUCKED this year, even though they were running the exact same offense they were when they pounded teams and were winning national championships. No defensive coordinators are looking at Oregon's offense as some kind of black art. They SEE what they're doing, but what worries them is how WELL they do it. How they don't miss blocks, and how their running backs make you pay when you make a mistake. Talent and execution.