Question about scheme

[GTsapper]

I was talking about this on another board, and it got me to thinking. We all know (and probably hate) that "draw 'em offsides" play CPJ likes to run. Essentially, the first a-back goes in motion and then resets as a halfback just behind and offset the b-back (basically turning the flexbone into a wingbone). Then, the other a-back does the same thing (now a wishbone). Maybe the QB runs a play, maybe the other team jumps... but more than likely CPJ calls timeout and pisses off the whole stadium.

Here's my question: why not run this in other situations? Why not motion the first a-back and run a play from the wingbone? Or from the wishbone? To me, it helps a few things.

One: it helps defeat the mesh charge. Virginia Tech destroys our offense by attacking the mesh. Then the quarterback has to make an even quicker decision and a young guy like Vad has no idea what to do. Essentially, VT trying to jump the snap on the motion will be an offsides every time they try for it. I know we've done some motion and reset in the past to counter this, but now you can run a play from an unusual formation and confuse the defense.

Two: it adds more plays into the fold. I'm not a big fan of the wing or the wishbone, but I am a fan of confusing the hell out of opponents. Doing something like this adds even more counters, sprint options, tosses, sweeps, etc. I could just imagine Bud Foster in the booth losing his mind.

Three: it makes that "draw 'em offsides" play actually work. Since we'd be doing this multiple times a game, the other team wouldn't just "know" not to move because we're not going to run a play. Under this scenario, it's 4th and 2.... you're still going to try to jump the snap if you're a defensive tackle, linebacker plugging a gap, etc.

Am I crazy? Or does this make sense?

 

[stylee]

Makes sense and we have done it sometimes. I specifically remember scoring a TD on it last year v UNC.

One important thing to remember re: scheme is that there's a downside to every upside. If you do X, you can no longer do Y; if a player is in Spot A he is no longer in Spot B. If you're in the half-bone, you no longer have 4 immediate vertical threats, etc.

 

[GTsapper]

I guess my point is that I think CPJ needs more misdirection. That's what made him successful in the first place. However, it's pretty easy to argue that our better opponents have adapted. Now, I think we have to adapt to keep them guessing.

I think I remember that UNC play, but wasn't that a fourth down play? I'm thinking more like 15 plays a game. Sort of like Navy does the reset play against bigger teams (quite often, I've noticed).

 

[yjack]

The other side of the same coin is that if we don't run the "draw 'em off sides" play any other time, then when we do start it up on a fourth and short might the defense sense what is happening, relax a little, and wait for the time out? At that point would the defense be more vulnerable to actually running a play than hoping for an off sides penalty? I guess it's all about establishing and breaking tendencies.

 

[stylee]

I could be wrong, but I believe it was a 3rd and medium. Tevin took it to the house.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing that it could be a positive for us. I just think that what gets forgotten in discussions about scheme is that, when coming up with a gameplan, you're playing a game of "problem/solution." And for any given problem, there are 1000s of potential solutions. This is one bit of misdirection - but there are obviously others.

Zone Dive is, in a sense, a "misdirection" play in that you're working off of a team overplaying the triple option and flowing playside. If the DT is working hard to get into the B-Gap when he sees motion (because he knows that's where the triple option dive hits), he's going to be screwed if he gets zone blocked out into that gap and the running back cuts into the A-Gap.

To me, the real "problem" that the half-bone motion addresses is what you brought up v. VT, the cross charging outside 'backer who is timing up the snap. I think it's a great solution to that problem and would have loved to have seen it more. The solution we chose more often was the quick pitch on the triple option and the Rocket toss. Unfortunately, VT's guys were better at getting off of blocks than we were at blocking. Against UNC, they weren't and we got gains. That's football.

TL;DR; Cliffs: agree with you to a great extent.

 

[ATL1]

Welcome stylee

 

[Pj4prez01]

Someone beat to commenting that Navy does it. But we tried to do it against VT but the o-line kept jumping.

 

[Beau Vinetti]

PJ used to start and stop the A back much more often at Navy than he has here. It is not so much a play designed to draw a team offsides but it allows PJ to see if the safety is rolling up and running the alley in run support. It also allows him to get an idea of where the support guy is coming from as they often roll with motion.
It does all serve to draw a team offsides but they would have to be pretty dumb to do so considering I'm sure they have been coached to expect this on 4th and short.

 

[Oldgoldandwhite]

I do not think he trusts the offense enough to put in anything fancy. We tried early in the season and everything backfired. Fumbles, offsides, you name it.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

I do not think he trusts the offense enough to put in anything fancy. We tried early in the season and everything backfired. Fumbles, offsides, you name it.

I agree, we couldn't even vary the snap count vs VT without jumping. How simple is that?

 

[AE 87]

I think cpj had really high expectations this year. He introduced new formations and plays. He put JT in pretty early against Miami. I got the feeling he thought it was just going to start clicking but then it didn't. By georgie we were pretty vanilla.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

I think cpj had really high expectations this year. He introduced new formations and plays. He put JT in pretty early against Miami. I got the feeling he thought it was just going to start clicking but then it didn't. By georgie we were pretty vanilla.

That's what happens when you take a step back at both OL and QB.

 

[gtg936g]

A NT should never get drawn off sides from a defensive perspective at this level. The motion and the cadence appears designed to get a LB or a DE to jump across the LOS. I think there is more to this play than meets the eye though. I think this is a way for the QB to read the LBs to determine the probability of success on the called play, as well as to draw them off sides. If the called play is a dive, and both LBs follow their motion man, then you know in short yardage you only have to account for the Mike. If they do not follow the a back motion then the defense may be an inside run blitz causing you to lose the numbers advantage on the inside. We run very little triple from this formation.

 

[GTsapper]

A NT should never get drawn off sides from a defensive perspective at this level. The motion and the cadence appears designed to get a LB or a DE to jump across the LOS. I think there is more to this play than meets the eye though. I think this is a way for the QB to read the LBs to determine the probability of success on the called play, as well as to draw them off sides. If the called play is a dive, and both LBs follow their motion man, then you know in short yardage you only have to account for the Mike. If they do not follow the a back motion then the defense may be an inside run blitz causing you to lose the numbers advantage on the inside. We run very little triple from this formation.

I agree 100%, and this is the kind of thing I am talking about. There's a lot of information to be gained by doing this. Navy does it a lot more than we do, and Army does it almost every play. The false starts are the problem, I agree with y'all on that. Clearly, we don't have a team nearly as disciplined as Army or Navy (which, honestly, makes sense).

 

[bke1984]

I was talking about this on another board, and it got me to thinking. We all know (and probably hate) that "draw 'em offsides" play CPJ likes to run. Essentially, the first a-back goes in motion and then resets as a halfback just behind and offset the b-back (basically turning the flexbone into a wingbone). Then, the other a-back does the same thing (now a wishbone). Maybe the QB runs a play, maybe the other team jumps... but more than likely CPJ calls timeout and pisses off the whole stadium.

Here's my question: why not run this in other situations? Why not motion the first a-back and run a play from the wingbone? Or from the wishbone? To me, it helps a few things.

One: it helps defeat the mesh charge. Virginia Tech destroys our offense by attacking the mesh. Then the quarterback has to make an even quicker decision and a young guy like Vad has no idea what to do. Essentially, VT trying to jump the snap on the motion will be an offsides every time they try for it. I know we've done some motion and reset in the past to counter this, but now you can run a play from an unusual formation and confuse the defense.

Two: it adds more plays into the fold. I'm not a big fan of the wing or the wishbone, but I am a fan of confusing the hell out of opponents. Doing something like this adds even more counters, sprint options, tosses, sweeps, etc. I could just imagine Bud Foster in the booth losing his mind.

Three: it makes that "draw 'em offsides" play actually work. Since we'd be doing this multiple times a game, the other team wouldn't just "know" not to move because we're not going to run a play. Under this scenario, it's 4th and 2.... you're still going to try to jump the snap if you're a defensive tackle, linebacker plugging a gap, etc.

Am I crazy? Or does this make sense?

We actually did some of this against VT this year and it was working. The problem is that we started jumping offsides while we were doing it!

Updated: Sorry for the duplicate reply...But yeah, I'm not sure why we don't do this much. It could have a lot to do with lack of discipline.

 

[KlausMikaelsonTheOriginal]

That's what happens when you take a step back at both OL and QB.

A step back?

Didn't we have about 100+ returning starts on our OL plus 3 RS-Srs. and at least on RS-Jr.?

If we took a step back at those positions, is it possible that the that longer guys are in our program, do they plateau at a lower level than we would like them to?