I want to see the "I"..

[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.

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.

You act like you're surprised we're in the shotgun all the time. Probably around 90% of the plays we have run this year have been from the shotgun, and you're complaining about lining up in said formation on a 3rd and 5-6? Find me more than a handful of teams that DON'T go into the shotgun in that situation in this day and age, and then I'll understand your complaint.

 

Furthermore, what if the pass had been completed and Martinez had made a good throw? Then you wouldn't even have anything to talk about right now.

 

As far as your point about the wildcat, Wats says he actually finds the wildcat 'predictable'. So, does that clear up why he didn't call that formation?

 

The point is this - complaining about play-calling is futile in most situations, because if you simply just execute, then there is nothing to complain about. That said, I think there is room to complain about play-calling when you try the same things multiple times and it just isn't working. You speak of T.O. and his offense like you are familiar with it, so do you also remember all those games when people would harp on Osborne to just "THROW THE DAMN BALL!" because the ground game wasn't doing much?

 

There was a lot more wrong with last Saturday than just the play-calling. Martinez deserves quite a hefty amount of criticism for his bad quarterback performance and turning the ball over, and our offensive line also deserves some heat for not playing very well at all in the second half.

 

Don't take this as me being in the Watson fan club, but there is a lot more wrong than just play-calling.

[Enhance]

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.

Truly a fantastic post, especially the first paragraph.

 

I have been saying similar things for awhile. The biggest problem I have with the offense is their focus, discipline, and execution. Just look at them in comparison to the defense. There is an obvious difference in the exact word you used - culture.

[zoogs]

I think Jason and Enhance both made some excellent points.

 

The call on the OU 39 that was 3rd and 8 to go, I'm not that pleased with the pass call (regardless of formation here) just because Henery needed exactly 0 yards to make a kick. We will may know who was behind that playcall completely because there are many sides to it, but given how Martinez has been struggling, I don't think you can put the ball into his hands on a pass play without realizing the risk of both interception, or a huge loss as he had taken big sack after big sack all night, even with good protection.

 

But Bo said afterwards, "We thought we had the distance." It is hard to argue this, too, though I did not like that quote at the beginning. It tells me that they figured if the pass failed, Henery could kick it through. And if the pass worked, we could keep the drive alive, kill down more clock (it was hardly close to the end of the game then), and either kick a sure FG from closer range after completely bleeding the playclock away, or get a touchdown.

 

Put in those terms, and rethinking it, I can't argue with either playcall on that drive anymore. Even though I had put the risks on Bo before. The 2nd and 8 play, if we called a safe run out of the Wildcat instead of a throw, would it have mattered if Taylor just took an 8-yard sack on the next play anyway? Maybe it would have but the percentages don't agree if you even have the slightest faith in your QB to not make a game-killing mistake. And while we can argue about whether Green or Taylor should have been out there, the bottom line is this: if you can't have the bottom line faith in your QB to even do that, you are screwed no matter what you do.

[Stuntz 2 Crouch]

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.

 

These are very good points that have been pointed out, however I have to disagree to a certain extent.

 

When I began this topic my intent was to suggest that with T. Martinez at less than 100%, other offensive formations have or should be considered. Even with the success we had running the "zone read" with Burkhead it goes without saying you simply can not use one offensive formation with only a shotgun variation during an entire game and be successful especially when it isn't working. (please re-read again before commenting using offenses that have had success with one formation and a slight variation, like Oregon). The key words here are formations and success. I totally agree with what has been said about execution, discipline, and the personnel you have running a particular scheme. Again I concur and using Florida was a great example (that's a compliment).

 

With all of that in mind I pose the question again, why not the "I"... as a optional offensive formation ? There were also many great posts pointing out that it wouldn't be best to have Helu and Burkhead in the backfield at the same time. Well I agree there may be other combinations using a true fullback instead of those two in at the same time. But the point I was trying to make is that you have to do something different than just the "zone read" and a shotgun formation. Have you taken the time to wonder why those plays were NOT executed well? It was because any defense that see's that, or any formation enough times is going to become aggresive and defend against it very well. Making it hard to execute (point noted and taken). I'm not saying that the plays ran out of the "zone read" formation or many others were executed to perfection in the CCG game, but I do know if I was a defensive coordinator preparing for NEBRASKA even mid-way thru the season with T. Martinez healthy or not, I WOULD PREPARE AND TAKE THE "ZONE READ" AWAY. Key on Martinez, dedicate a man to what ever back is in there and simply put a hat-on-a-hat, pin my ears back and come after you. Do I have the personnel for that? Who knows, depends on who the team is and again how healthy Martinez is. But I'd do my damndest not to let you "surprise" me with the "zone read".

 

So back to the begining. Personally I think the "I" would be a great alternative offensive formation that could be as successful as any other (if executed as mentioned). I'm not suggesting that the team has to "change it's philosophy week to week" as you stated. Simply be a little more diverse and possibly more succesful offensively and not so PREDICTIBLE.

[zoogs]

When I began this topic my intent was to suggest that with T. Martinez at less than 100%, other offensive formations have or should be considered.

 

Hard to say if that was in the realm of possibility for Taylor. The bigger question is if other QBs should have been considered, with Taylor not having the one thing that separates him and makes him great. Not that the other alternative would light it up, but if it would not be a steadying and safer, more effective option. Sticking with Taylor when he doesn't have 80% of what makes him dangerous is the decision that is interesting. As Bo said at the beginning of the year, Taylor separated from the pack because he forced defenses to defend 11 on 11, and that was introduced as a new criteria. Otherwise the other QBs graded out higher.

[Stuntz 2 Crouch]

When I began this topic my intent was to suggest that with T. Martinez at less than 100%, other offensive formations have or should be considered.

 

Hard to say if that was in the realm of possibility for Taylor. The bigger question is if other QBs should have been considered, with Taylor not having the one thing that separates him and makes him great. Not that the other alternative would light it up, but if it would not be a steadying and safer, more effective option. Sticking with Taylor when he doesn't have 80% of what makes him dangerous is the decision that is interesting. As Bo said at the beginning of the year, Taylor separated from the pack because he forced defenses to defend 11 on 11, and that was introduced as a new criteria. Otherwise the other QBs graded out higher.

 

Good point. I think a lot of the time these %'s are thrown around whether it's about a players health or a myriad of other topics. I think that the "mystery" that surrounds a players health is only truly known by select trainers, medical staff, and coaching staff. And as we all know most of the time that is a well guarded secret, especially concerning "star" players status unless truly obvious (like seeing a player suffer a devestating injury on-screen or in person). And then the "game begins" as to try and guess what other players will play, or who will be used and to what extent. Point well taken.