Return to the option all in Frost's plan?

[The Dude]

I'll have to rewatch the end of that Northern Illinois game but it seemed like it was closer to the tempo I saw when Frost was at Oregon and UCF.   I don't remember a lot of standing around staring blankly at the sideline.

[EmeraldIngot]

56 minutes ago, FTW said:

You don't become perfect by chance you do it by honing in and beating your craft over and over and over. It is constantly working hard at something repeatedly. Running formations under center to me, sounds like we're throwing stuff at a wall hoping it'll stick. We may run the ball more than we pass but, it isn't very effective. I continue to ask myself, "Are we a smash mouth team or an Air Raid? Multiple? What?" I think that the more they continue not to find their identity, the more we'll struggle on offense.

 

The thing about a specific play on offense, is that it can be broken down into 'concepts'. Rather, a set of common movements that cause a play to work. 

 

You can see this in passing plays quite easily. The 'Texas' concept involves a pair of mesh routes (usually with a rub or a pick) at the linebacker level, coupled with a sort of wheel route by the FB or HB, but over the center of the field, rather than down the sideline. You can run that play out of damn near any formation with damn near any personal group. If you have a shotgun 4-wide look, have the slot recievers run the mesh and the HB run the Texas route. Or, in a 2-TE I-formation, have the two TE run the mesh, etc. 

 

The same holds true for run blocking schemes. A run play called 'inside zone's uses zone blocking to (hopefully) open up several holes along the defensive line using double teams at the points of attack, and usually one or more linemen will climb up the field to block a LB as well. The RB simply chooses the most open lane and runs for it. 

 

A Trap run play has the center leave the nose guard unblocked, and instead crashes down either towards another D-lineman, or climb up to a LB, while a guard pulls around and blindsides the nose guard from the side where he doesnt expect it and knocks him out of the way of the ball carrier. That leaves 4 or 5 yards of almost always clear ground for the ball carrier to gain straight up the middle of the field. You can run that play out of nearly any formation, but it works best in a formation where the RB or FB can hit the line of scrimmage very quickly, so that the defense can't react in time. 

 

A clever coach can find a way to run nearly any concept out of nearly any formation. If the 'core concepts' of a coach's offensive system dont change from formation to formation (and are only adjusted to account for the new offensive alignment, and of course adjusted for defensive alignment) then the formation matters very little. Of course, quick-hitting plays like FB Dive or a Trap run work best with a QB under center and a RB closer to the line of scrimmage than is typical for a Shotgun or Pistol look, but that doesnt mean it can't be done. 

 

Blocking schemes (like pulling linemen) and running routes (like counters) or pass routes (like a curl, an out route, or a fade) in specific combinations are concepts. The best coaches run advantageous concepts out of unusual formations to catch defenses by surprise. If the core concepts you run dont change, it doesnt really matter how many formations your offense lines up in; they already know what to do.

 

And that, my friend, is 'being multiple' done right. 

[lo country]

5 hours ago, EmeraldIngot said:

 

The thing about a specific play on offense, is that it can be broken down into 'concepts'. Rather, a set of common movements that cause a play to work. 

 

You can see this in passing plays quite easily. The 'Texas' concept involves a pair of mesh routes (usually with a rub or a pick) at the linebacker level, coupled with a sort of wheel route by the FB or HB, but over the center of the field, rather than down the sideline. You can run that play out of damn near any formation with damn near any personal group. If you have a shotgun 4-wide look, have the slot recievers run the mesh and the HB run the Texas route. Or, in a 2-TE I-formation, have the two TE run the mesh, etc. 

 

The same holds true for run blocking schemes. A run play called 'inside zone's uses zone blocking to (hopefully) open up several holes along the defensive line using double teams at the points of attack, and usually one or more linemen will climb up the field to block a LB as well. The RB simply chooses the most open lane and runs for it. 

 

A Trap run play has the center leave the nose guard unblocked, and instead crashes down either towards another D-lineman, or climb up to a LB, while a guard pulls around and blindsides the nose guard from the side where he doesnt expect it and knocks him out of the way of the ball carrier. That leaves 4 or 5 yards of almost always clear ground for the ball carrier to gain straight up the middle of the field. You can run that play out of nearly any formation, but it works best in a formation where the RB or FB can hit the line of scrimmage very quickly, so that the defense can't react in time. 

 

A clever coach can find a way to run nearly any concept out of nearly any formation. If the 'core concepts' of a coach's offensive system dont change from formation to formation (and are only adjusted to account for the new offensive alignment, and of course adjusted for defensive alignment) then the formation matters very little. Of course, quick-hitting plays like FB Dive or a Trap run work best with a QB under center and a RB closer to the line of scrimmage than is typical for a Shotgun or Pistol look, but that doesnt mean it can't be done. 

 

Blocking schemes (like pulling linemen) and running routes (like counters) or pass routes (like a curl, an out route, or a fade) in specific combinations are concepts. The best coaches run advantageous concepts out of unusual formations to catch defenses by surprise. If the core concepts you run dont change, it doesnt really matter how many formations your offense lines up in; they already know what to do.

 

And that, my friend, is 'being multiple' done right. 

^^^ This.  TO was incredibly multiple.  He had a core group of plays or "cpncepts" run from lultiple different formations.  It didn't matter what "formation" we wre in as he could run whatver plays he wanted regardless of the "look" he gave the D. 

 

Reading the Husker Chalk Talk last year, even with the uptempo stuff we were running (more like UCF/Oregon) Frost was using multiple formations and looks, but the same "core" concepts.  One play setting up another. If we are to believe the pressers, it is a lack of execution ie blocking, run the route, be in the correct spot, proper snaps, accurate passes etc....The new formations are just another wrinkle and might help us moving forward against teams with stout DL's (I'm thinking Iowa/Wisky).

[EmeraldIngot]

46 minutes ago, lo country said:

The new formations are just another wrinkle and might help us moving forward against teams with stout DL's (I'm thinking Iowa/Wisky).

 

My thoughts exactly. 

 

I think we will end up using more 'power' formations with 2AM under center over the next four games. Mills looked really good running out of the FB position in both the flexbone and I formation looks we ran against Ohio State. We will make it seem like we are switching mid-season over to a power concept. When we line up against Whisky, their defense will be in a slower heavy set defense to slow our rushing attack. 

 

That's when we audible to spread and burn them on the edges. They sub out for a lighter, speedier set, and all of a sudden we line back up in Power and run it down their throats. 

 

We can (hopefully) keep them trapped in a neverending cycle of being in the wrong defensive formation at the wrong time. 

 

If we execute it well and hold on to the ball, we'll make their defense look inept. I hope. 

[Slow yer Roll]

18 hours ago, milehighbob said:

 

 

It is my belief that Frost is building his program with a major focus on the offensive line being the foundation. 

 

 

 

 

How can it be anything else.

 

 

All the greatest offensive freaks on the planet are worthless without an awesome line.

 

 

 

 

With an awesome line even the mediocre offensive talents look great.

 

 

 

 

 

Seems like it should be priority no.1

[dvdcrr]

Many people believe Tom Osborne's offense was an option offense.  In truth the option was only utilized 25-30% of the time.  The offense was an I formation featuring power running, trap, option, and effective play-action passing.  Any of these different types of plays could be executed, and executed well out of multiple formations.  In essence, the Defense could not tell when and where the option or pass would be used. And there was a smattering of shovel passes, reverses, and QB traps. Mixing the requirements of assignment football needed to defend the option with the team pursuit requirements needed to defend the loaded off tackle power attack placed unmanageable stress on the defense.

Now we mix in world class speed and the strongest, most well conditioned offensive line, and you can see why we had to put in the reserves to start the 4th quarter against the undefeated and 2nd ranked team in the nation.

[r06ue1]

A few of those formations and the plays ran out of them from the '97 team:  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think teams running power against Ohio State's defense might find success, Wisconsin might give them some trouble this year.  

[Husker in WI]

57 minutes ago, r06ue1 said:

A few of those formations and the plays ran out of them from the '97 team:  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think teams running power against Ohio State's defense might find success, Wisconsin might give them some trouble this year.  

 

I'm curious how Ohio State looks against it when they've actually prepared, it's not like Wisconsin will surprise them with it. But LB is the one position group where I think OSU is just average, so you definitely could be right. 

[Nebfanatic]

13 hours ago, dvdcrr said:

Many people believe Tom Osborne's offense was an option offense.  In truth the option was only utilized 25-30% of the time.  The offense was an I formation featuring power running, trap, option, and effective play-action passing.  Any of these different types of plays could be executed, and executed well out of multiple formations.  In essence, the Defense could not tell when and where the option or pass would be used. And there was a smattering of shovel passes, reverses, and QB traps. Mixing the requirements of assignment football needed to defend the option with the team pursuit requirements needed to defend the loaded off tackle power attack placed unmanageable stress on the defense.

Now we mix in world class speed and the strongest, most well conditioned offensive line, and you can see why we had to put in the reserves to start the 4th quarter against the undefeated and 2nd ranked team in the nation.

Sounds like Frosts offense.

[lo country]

Here is a good article from Sip with an interview of DiNardo.  As a fan who remembers, I like it.  A lot.

 

From DiNardo:

"Part of what makes it interesting is that he has the balls to do it," said DiNardo, who was a head coach at Vanderbilt, LSU and Indiana. "I mean, here's this spread coach who goes against what most spread coaches would think to do.

"You know what they say: It's not the X's and O's, it's the Jimmy's and Joe's," DiNardo added before asking perhaps the most intriguing question of all. "What happens if Scott finds out that the Jimmy's and Joe's that he can recruit fit that formation?"

https://journalstar.com/sports/huskers/sipple/steven-m-sipple-dinardo-says-i-almost-fell-off-my/article_7c20c097-8739-5987-b81f-a64b9b455ea3.amp.html

[ndobney]

If Frost cant find success with his system do you think he would be asked to implement the TO version of the option? Could he even coach it? He ran some option plays against Ohio State with success I am not sure why he hasn't used it since.