Best Radio Show Yet

[Declinometer]

I wish we would attempt a 3-3-5 look with Hunt as the 3rd linebacker. Let him and PJ alternate rushing the passer. I think it would give us a better shot at containing the QB, and rallying to stop the run. We get moved out of the run lanes when we rush 4 from our 4-2-5 look.

Or play the 3 man line with Hunt-Gostis-Gamble and let Freeman/Simmons line up in the LB spot.

Remember when Hunt was LB and tried to cover VT backs out of the backfield.......that was greaaaat.

 

[AE 87]

I wish we would attempt a 3-3-5 look with Hunt as the 3rd linebacker. Let him and PJ alternate rushing the passer. I think it would give us a better shot at containing the QB, and rallying to stop the run. We get moved out of the run lanes when we rush 4 from our 4-2-5 look.

Or play the 3 man line with Hunt-Gostis-Gamble and let Freeman/Simmons line up in the LB spot.

We played 3 down linemen a lot against CU last year. I actually think we should've done that a lot more last year since we had more LBs who could contribute and were thin on DL. This year, it would probably mean having Freeman and Simmons available as hybrid DE/LB in a 2pt stance.

 

[John]

A lot of interesting snippets in there:

• CPJ doesn't think the current group can run plays from over brown or over gray formations but thought maybe last year's team could have done it
• The twins over formation frequently called was to simplify the player blocking assignments which just depended on the direction of the play
  • ie. everyone do A if the play is to the over side OR everyone do B if the play is to the nub side
• The pre-snap read key was where the free safety lined up so that we could play the ball to the opposite side to get a numbers advantage

Ultimately, got the feeling that Coach Johnson thinks that he's handcuffed on the play calling a bit because the younger guys that are forced to play just haven't had enough time to learn the playbook yet. So I'm expecting improvements every week as the guys get more familiar with the plays (except for special teams, no idea what's going on there, I'm going to blame the rain *crosses fingers*).

 

[ibeattetris]

Thanks John for those tid-bits. It made me look into exactly what is "over brown" and why coach doesn't think we are capable of running it. Well, I wasn't successful, but I did find some interesting reads (for me anyways). Here is an explanation of the alignment we were seeing Saturday: http://flexboneassociationacademy.com/2013/10/03/why-over-green-is-a-great-formation/
The over brown (mentioned by John above) is addressed here: http://flexboneassociationacademy.com/2013/10/15/why-over-brown-is-a-great-formation/

Really, I am not sure I understand enough to realize why CPJ thinks we wouldn't be able to run over brown, but I trust his judgement. The links at least gave me more of an understanding for why we ran the covered receiver as often as we did.

 

[gtg936g]

Remember when Hunt was LB and tried to cover VT backs out of the backfield.......that was greaaaat.

Not suggesting that he should be covering in space. He could spy the QB or rush the passer. If you think of it in terms of playing to our strengths, we have guys that can cover in man coverage, so there is time for delayed blitzing. It would also be easier to rally to those quick screens Clemson likes to throw with 3 down linemen.

In order to beat Clemson we are going to need to stop the run and the running QB. Watson can beat us if he can run and throw. The only shot we have is to make him commit to one or the other. I am a fan of bringing pressure, but I don't think our current scheme of using 4 down linemen is working. I am simply suggesting an alternative to bringing 5 or 6 in an attempt to get pressure.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

So those who pointed to our guys getting the big heads from all the preseason praise, there it is.

Damn it.
I was hoping they were more grown up than that. But the results on the field are pretty tell tale.

 

[AE 87]

Thanks John for those tid-bits. It made me look into exactly what is "over brown" and why coach doesn't think we are capable of running it. Well, I wasn't successful, but I did find some interesting reads (for me anyways). Here is an explanation of the alignment we were seeing Saturday: http://flexboneassociationacademy.com/2013/10/03/why-over-green-is-a-great-formation/
The over brown (mentioned by John above) is addressed here: http://flexboneassociationacademy.com/2013/10/15/why-over-brown-is-a-great-formation/

Really, I am not sure I understand enough to realize why CPJ thinks we wouldn't be able to run over brown, but I trust his judgement. The links at least gave me more of an understanding for why we ran the covered receiver as often as we did.

I suspect that Over Grey is the same as Over Green. I'm not sure either, but I suspect that it has something to do with these formations lining up an A-Back as a Tight-End on the line of scrimmage. As a result, I think they lose their tackle-box exemption on cut blocks, as well as changing their angles/leverage etc. Of course, I could be completely mistaken, but that's my guess. Maybe @steebu can chime in.

 

[Declinometer]

Not suggesting that he should be covering in space. He could spy the QB or rush the passer. If you think of it in terms of playing to our strengths, we have guys that can cover in man coverage, so there is time for delayed blitzing. It would also be easier to rally to those quick screens Clemson likes to throw with 3 down linemen.

In order to beat Clemson we are going to need to stop the run and the running QB. Watson can beat us if he can run and throw. The only shot we have is to make him commit to one or the other. I am a fan of bringing pressure, but I don't think our current scheme of using 4 down linemen is working. I am simply suggesting an alternative to bringing 5 or 6 in an attempt to get pressure.

I'm with you!

 

[ibeattetris]

I suspect that Over Grey is the same as Over Green. I'm not sure either, but I suspect that it has something to do with these formations lining up an A-Back as a Tight-End on the line of scrimmage. As a result, I think they lose their tackle-box exemption on cut blocks, as well as changing their angles/leverage etc. Of course, I could be completely mistaken, but that's my guess. Maybe @steebu can chime in.

I tried posing the question in another thread. Hopefully it retrieves traction from those intimate with the offense.

 

[Skeptic]

Damn it.
I was hoping they were more grown up than that. But the results on the field are pretty tell tale.

Sometimes we do forget a lot of these players really are just kids, 18 or 19, and will believe what they want to believe, won't they?

 

[Techster]

Remember when Hunt was LB and tried to cover VT backs out of the backfield.......that was greaaaat.

Something tells me Jabari would be a damn good SDE. Remember, he was slated to play DE before he became ineligible.

I think the tools are there for him to be a really good DT, but not the experience. Unfortunately, this is his last year.

 

[Declinometer]

Something tells me Jabari would be a damn good SDE. Remember, he was slated to play DE before he became ineligible.

I think the tools are there for him to be a really good DT, but not the experience. Unfortunately, this is his last year.

He's had two years of experience

 

[UgaBlows]

I wish wewould play more 4-3, try to at least stop the run better with another linebacker

 

[gtg936g]

I wish wewould play more 4-3, try to at least stop the run better with another linebacker

The problem with doing that against a team like Clemson is that they will go 5 wide, which means you have a LB on a speedy receiver. They can also run the draw play out of that alignment, if you drop and play zone.

 

[Techster]

He's had two years of experience

Scout team last year, plus 5 games this year? You do realize we're talking P5 level and he came in as a LB, right? The majority of his college career was spent playing at another position.

 

[GTRX7]

Would have been nice to try this once before the fourth quarter (I believe we finally threw it one time at the end). This was wide open ALL DAY. If they shifted the A-back on the opposite side up to the line and dropped the slot back, the defender on the slot side may not even have noticed. We could have marched down the field throwing what would essentially be short smoke routes.

What are the odds they would have just "not noticed" more than once? Given that even I saw the formation all day and clearly noticed the one time they threw to that receiver, I am pretty sure the coaching staff on the other sideline paid millions noticed too and it would not have been open all day had we tried to run it over and over. Just my 2 cents though.

 

[iceeater1969]

View attachment 1225

This one probably shows more accurate spacing.

View attachment 1225

This one probably shows more accurate spacing.

IRON - THANKS
the play I was thinking about.
WE were driving on them toward south end zone - down 24-28 and needed to score.

we had run the same set up on the short side and BS also to the short side == got a good gain to right.

On this play we are now on the east side of the hash and BS is set up on the WIDE SIDE split out at least 7-8 yards to right and about 10 yds from a safety (tough block) with no one over him t.

I am curious if this is the SPLIT that folks have been saying?? Yes or no?? sure seems like a larger than normal split.

I like the WIDE SPLIT AND THEN the idea of BS stepping back and going in MOTION TOWARDS the sideline= that would panic the DC.

 

[IronJacket7]

IRON - THANKS
the play I was thinking about.
WE were driving on them toward south end zone - down 24-28 and needed to score.

we had run the same set up on the short side and BS also to the short side == got a good gain to right.

On this play we are now on the east side of the hash and BS is set up on the WIDE SIDE split out at least 7-8 yards to right and about 10 yds from a safety (tough block) with no one over him t.

I am curious if this is the SPLIT that folks have been saying?? Yes or no?? sure seems like a larger than normal split.

I like the WIDE SPLIT AND THEN the idea of BS stepping back and going in MOTION TOWARDS the sideline= that would panic the DC.

I beelieve you are correct.

If the A-Back steps up and BS steps back off the line then he becomes an eligible receiver to my knowledge. CPJ touched on this in the monday night call in. However, good defenses would pick up on this immediately and know that BS must be covered.

I trust CPJ. I have no doubt he makes mistakes because he himself acknowledges that he in fact makes mistakes. However, I don't know of an active college football coach that has been running the same system for 35 years. So I have the utmost confidence that CPJ knows every nook and cranny there is to the TOS.

That being said if he sees a weakness it will be exploited on the fly. Problems are more concurrent with Blockers missing their assignments rather than CPJ missing his.

 

[iceeater1969]

I beelieve you are correct.

If the A-Back steps up and BS steps back off the line then he becomes an eligible receiver to my knowledge. CPJ touched on this in the monday night call in. However, good defenses would pick up on this immediately and know that BS must be covered.

I trust CPJ. I have no doubt he makes mistakes because he himself acknowledges that he in fact makes mistakes. However, I don't know of an active college football coach that has been running the same system for 35 years. So I have the utmost confidence that CPJ knows every nook and cranny there is to the TOS.

That being said if he sees a weakness it will be exploited on the fly. Problems are more concurrent with Blockers missing their assignments rather than CPJ missing his.

Guess no one thinks a 8 yard head start is enough for the shift. Interesting.
I Talked to My son who coaches high school and the play I described is one they run = BS steps back and goes in motion on wheel route == qb has clear view of the wide wr who is going long and slot receiver who has safety trailing him _ with sideline as friend.
After reviewing I think coach missed this call .

maybe trying to prove a point = we run the damm ball and win this game doing it. !
Looking foward to seeing if ee see this much space

 

[AE 87]

Guess no one thinks a 8 yard head start is enough for the shift. Interesting.
I Talked to My son who coaches high school and the play I described is one they run = BS steps back and goes in motion on wheel route == qb has clear view of the wide wr who is going long and slot receiver who has safety trailing him _ with sideline as friend.
After reviewing I think coach missed this call .

maybe trying to prove a point = we run the damm ball and win this game doing it. !
Looking foward to seeing if ee see this much space

Do you really think trying to prove a point is a more likely explanation than simply running the plays practiced?