Diamond formation

[Scratchtown]

I think we should still use it...and If I were Beck, I'd use it a lot. I'd run it as the base. That's just me though.

:facepalm: why run it as base? If you ran it as base it wouldn't be as successful as it is. Opposing defenses would spend more time during the week to defend it. Come on. Lets put the diamond thing to rest. Its good for a different look here and there maybe 5-7 times a game. The thing that makes option football successful is having ALOT of formations and fewer plays. Obviously our offense is mostly based on option football. Then again, that's just me though

 

[PaulCrewe]

I think putting Turner in there is a perfect fit. Beck could throw in a play in which Turner can either run the option off of it(ala Rex in the Michigan game on the goalline) or pull up and throw it to a WR or a throwback to Taylor. Jamal could add many more wrinkles to a set in which there are tons of plays to run out of it without him. Jordan Westerkamp could be a stud in this set as well IMO, Especially coming out of the backfield matched up on a LB potentially.

 

[Hoosker]

I think putting Turner in there is a perfect fit. Beck could throw in a play in which Turner can either run the option off of it(ala Rex in the Michigan game on the goalline) or pull up and throw it to a WR or a throwback to Taylor. Jamal could add many more wrinkles to a set in which there are tons of plays to run out of it without him. Jordan Westerkamp could be a stud in this set as well IMO, Especially coming out of the backfield matched up on a LB potentially.

Exactly. Jamal is too multi-talented to not use in that way. He would be lethal in the diamond.

 

[HuskerShark]

I agree with a few others that Jamal could easily be thrown into the mix there, or turn it into a power running/play action set with Rex, Zimmerer/Cross, and Marrow back there. I don't care how they do it, but I want the diamond formation used at least 5 plays a game.

 

[bshirt]

I think we should still use it...and If I were Beck, I'd use it a lot. I'd run it as the base. That's just me though.

:facepalm: why run it as base? If you ran it as base it wouldn't be as successful as it is. Opposing defenses would spend more time during the week to defend it. Come on. Lets put the diamond thing to rest. Its good for a different look here and there maybe 5-7 times a game. The thing that makes option football successful is having ALOT of formations and fewer plays. Obviously our offense is mostly based on option football. Then again, that's just me though

Why run it as a base? Well, heaven forbid we would ever develop an identity for our offense. Marginal at everything, excellent at nothing......gotta love being "multiple"!

:corndance

 

[zoogs]

When we have it as a base, people will get sick of it. It's inevitable. Look at what happened to the previous flavor du jour, the zone read, when we had that as our base, bread and butter. This was in 2010 and our offensive coordinator was criticized for not having more creativity. Well....that's what you call a base. And not being real multiple.

I think we could stand to be less multiple in one area, though, and that's the option. Either commit to it, or relegate it to the same place as reverses and halfback passes. Don't just kinda do it badly some of the time as a decent but not major part of the offense.

 

[bshirt]

When we have it as a base, people will get sick of it. It's inevitable. Look at what happened to the previous flavor du jour, the zone read, when we had that as our base, bread and butter. This was in 2010 and our offensive coordinator was criticized for not having more creativity. Well....that's what you call a base. And not being real multiple.

I think we could stand to be less multiple in one area, though, and that's the option. Either commit to it, or relegate it to the same place as reverses and halfback passes. Don't just kinda do it badly some of the time as a decent but not major part of the offense.

Well, the zone read was our base/identity for a whole (.5) years. Just maybe that's not what Uncle Milt would call our "identity". Also, that's hardly the only reason Callawatts was let go.

Fully agree about the option though. Again, either fully commit to it or use it "very" sparingly. Someway, somehow we simply must commit to something. Or at least I hope so......

 

[Scratchtown]

I think we should still use it...and If I were Beck, I'd use it a lot. I'd run it as the base. That's just me though.

:facepalm: why run it as base? If you ran it as base it wouldn't be as successful as it is. Opposing defenses would spend more time during the week to defend it. Come on. Lets put the diamond thing to rest. Its good for a different look here and there maybe 5-7 times a game. The thing that makes option football successful is having ALOT of formations and fewer plays. Obviously our offense is mostly based on option football. Then again, that's just me though

Why run it as a base? Well, heaven forbid we would ever develop an identity for our offense. Marginal at everything, excellent at nothing......gotta love being "multiple"!

:corndance

Option football is our identity. How do you not see that? I wasn't saying be multiple schematically. Have multiple formations with similar concepts. There is a huge difference.

 

[Scratchtown]

I think we should still use it...and If I were Beck, I'd use it a lot. I'd run it as the base. That's just me though.

:facepalm: why run it as base? If you ran it as base it wouldn't be as successful as it is. Opposing defenses would spend more time during the week to defend it. Come on. Lets put the diamond thing to rest. Its good for a different look here and there maybe 5-7 times a game. The thing that makes option football successful is having ALOT of formations and fewer plays. Obviously our offense is mostly based on option football. Then again, that's just me though

Having 3 backs on the field gives you options...LOTS of options. You can always pop out into the I and spread things...I'm not saying run it 100% of the time, just use it more than he did last year...make it be the formation we normally use.

Lots of options yea of course. How many of them are realistic that coincide with your lineman and their blocking scheme. How far do you go before you out think yourself and get too cute. Trust me, as a student of the game and assistant high school coach I have plenty of time to draw up formations, schemes, plays, whatever...there is a point at which you can get too cute, and the play you thought was genius ends up making you look like an idiot.

 

[RedDenver]

Alright, I'm not a coach, so can somebody explain how the "diamond formation" is different from the "wishbone"? Is it just the pistol set of the QB?

 

[zoogs]

Option football is our identity. How do you not see that?

Is it?

 

[Scratchtown]

Option football is our identity. How do you not see that?

Is it?

Mostly. Belly G option, power option, zone read, etc...most of our play action is off of option looks

 

[IvabigN]

We better find something to do with turner besides playing BEHIND inferior talented players who happen to line up correctly.

Sort of wonder why Ameer can fumble multiple times and maintain his #2 position and JT makes one bad play in a nothing Minnesota game and gets benched?

You think two Texans were talking about that a few times?

 

[HuskerShark]

Option football is our identity. How do you not see that?

Is it?

Mostly. Belly G option, power option, zone read, etc...most of our play action is off of option looks

Streeter, you are 100% right. I like how our offense is very reminiscent of TO's old offenses style-wise and some people complain about running the ball too much or being too predictable. Do they not remember what the teams were like in the 90's? I was really young during the glory years, but I still remember the attitude that those teams used to have. "Yeah, we are gonna run the ball 80% of the time, but you try and stop it." I love that mentality, and I think we are slowly trending that way.

2011's offense was as pleasing of a performance as I have seen in a while. Some people disagree, but I like where the offense is headed. We moved the ball pretty well on some really good defenses last year, let's not forget that.

 

[Scratchtown]

Option football is our identity. How do you not see that?

Is it?

Mostly. Belly G option, power option, zone read, etc...most of our play action is off of option looks

Streeter, you are 100% right. I like how our offense is very reminiscent of TO's old offenses style-wise and some people complain about running the ball too much or being too predictable. Do they not remember what the teams were like in the 90's? I was really young during the glory years, but I still remember the attitude that those teams used to have. "Yeah, we are gonna run the ball 80% of the time, but you try and stop it." I love that mentality, and I think we are slowly trending that way.

2011's offense was as pleasing of a performance as I have seen in a while. Some people disagree, but I like where the offense is headed. We moved the ball pretty well on some really good defenses last year, let's not forget that.

I agree. The only thing that really held back the offense from shining aside from turnovers is the offensive line. People want to dog on Martinez all season long well thats fine but our offense doesn't require him to be completing 75 percent of is passes. Although it would be nice I'm fine with 57-63%.