I'm all for ditching the spread

This forum is for Football related topics only. Other topics will be moved to the appropriate forum.
hickaggie
Posts: 3058
Joined: November 15th, 2010, 10:13 am
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 129 times

I'm all for ditching the spread

Post by hickaggie » October 22nd, 2014, 12:16 pm

at least for the rest of the year.

Think about it. It requires a playmaker at QB and we're looking at Harrison and a true Freshman. Our O-line has not blocked well on the traditional spread plays including the read option and all the cutesy wide out stuff. We've already had to resort to max protect. The TE has had to become a tackle or FB in order for the Aggies to get yards

Why not go back to a proset, 2 backs to provide a lead guy. That opens up the TE to run some routes in max protect by leaving the FB in. It opens up more carries for Hunt, and more wheel mismatch routes for Hill. Its much more simple for the new QB. Finally, and most importantly it reduces the temptation of McGivens to throw in all the little I drew this up on a napkin cute stuff.

Its not like we're able to run 3-4 man patterns anyway and most of that can be done from the Pro-Set. I just don't think our O-line and QBs are geared to run an effective spread. Even Garrettson would be much more effective.

Do this and challenge this O-line to hit someone in the nose and tell Mcgivens he has to make sure a RB gets the ball 60% of the play calls.



superaggie
Posts: 559
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 1:03 pm
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: I'm all for ditching the spread

Post by superaggie » October 22nd, 2014, 12:24 pm

hickaggie wrote:at least for the rest of the year.

Think about it. It requires a playmaker at QB and we're looking at Harrison and a true Freshman. Our O-line has not blocked well on the traditional spread plays including the read option and all the cutesy wide out stuff. We've already had to resort to max protect. The TE has had to become a tackle or FB in order for the Aggies to get yards

Why not go back to a proset, 2 backs to provide a lead guy. That opens up the TE to run some routes in max protect by leaving the FB in. It opens up more carries for Hunt, and more wheel mismatch routes for Hill. Its much more simple for the new QB. Finally, and most importantly it reduces the temptation of McGivens to throw in all the little I drew this up on a napkin cute stuff.

Its not like we're able to run 3-4 man patterns anyway and most of that can be done from the Pro-Set. I just don't think our O-line and QBs are geared to run an effective spread. Even Garrettson would be much more effective.

Do this and challenge this O-line to hit someone in the nose and tell Mcgivens he has to make sure a RB gets the ball 60% of the play calls.
I agree
I would run a veer/ single wing variation. We should have Myers at QB with Hunt,Sharp, Robinson, Vigil, Hill, and Hall rotating. JoJo is too small to carry the ball out out of the back field so I say no to him being back their. Then bomb the other team when they put too many in the box.



aggieaggie
Posts: 1719
Joined: November 11th, 2010, 10:45 am
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: I'm all for ditching the spread

Post by aggieaggie » October 22nd, 2014, 12:25 pm

“The system is phenomenal,” he said. “The execution is lacking.”



User avatar
DCS
Posts: 990
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 2:56 pm
Location: Salt Lake
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: I'm all for ditching the spread

Post by DCS » October 22nd, 2014, 12:30 pm

Yeah all those plays we've practiced all year, let's not run those anymore.



User avatar
3rdGenAggie
Pick'em Champ - '16 Kickoff
Posts: 5126
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 11:53 pm
Location: The City of the Salty Lake
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 25 times

Re: I'm all for ditching the spread

Post by 3rdGenAggie » October 22nd, 2014, 12:35 pm

I agree. I think it was OKAggie or maybe Sneelock that said that he thinks as a smaller school we should go with what isn't the most popular in order to help get the best recruits most suited to our system. I've thought about it, and am starting to agree. I wouldn't mind seeing us go with a little more pro-style stuff. Max protect with a fair bit of play action thrown in. Especially this year, like you said. It seems like that's what has worked best.


"I have no idea what I'm doing, but I know I'm doing it really, really well." -Andy Dwyer

hickaggie
Posts: 3058
Joined: November 15th, 2010, 10:13 am
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 129 times

Re: I'm all for ditching the spread

Post by hickaggie » October 22nd, 2014, 12:36 pm

aggieaggie wrote:“The system is phenomenal,” he said. “The execution is lacking.”
Thats such a cop out in this case anyway. Yes if we executed the spread perfectly the Aggies would score nearly every down. Since they have proven they can't execute it why the hell do they keep doing it. You know the saying about the definition of stupid...

The other part to that is consistency. When you get a 59 yard untouched run ride that baby the rest of the game. Its usually indicative of an opponent's weakness which in fact was CSU's weakness. :bangwall: I'm not sure but Hunt's big run looked like the same play.



QuackAttackAggie
Pick'em Champ - '12 Bowl; '15, '17 Weekly; '18 BB Predict the Score
Posts: 15724
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 12:08 pm
Location: 서울
Has thanked: 119 times
Been thanked: 556 times

Re: I'm all for ditching the spread

Post by QuackAttackAggie » October 22nd, 2014, 12:38 pm

hickaggie wrote:
aggieaggie wrote:“The system is phenomenal,” he said. “The execution is lacking.”
Thats such a cop out in this case anyway. Yes if we executed the spread perfectly the Aggies would score nearly every down. Since they have proven they can't execute it why the hell do they keep doing it. You know the saying about the definition of stupid...

The other part to that is consistency. When you get a 59 yard untouched run ride that baby the rest of the game. Its usually indicative of an opponent's weakness which in fact was CSU's weakness. :bangwall: I'm not sure but Hunt's big run looked like the same play.
that's a quote from bronco. he basically was saying he designed the perfect defense, but his players were too stupid or too slow to carry it out.



hickaggie
Posts: 3058
Joined: November 15th, 2010, 10:13 am
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 129 times

Re: I'm all for ditching the spread

Post by hickaggie » October 22nd, 2014, 12:40 pm

DCS wrote:Yeah all those plays we've practiced all year, let's not run those anymore.
Football's all about adjustment. The Aggies should be simplifying things and asking their O-line to step it up. To answer your question, yeah, lets not run the plays that on average have caused the Aggies so many third and longs.



User avatar
hipsterdoofus21
Posts: 15850
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 9:39 pm
Has thanked: 401 times
Been thanked: 1014 times

Re: I'm all for ditching the spread

Post by hipsterdoofus21 » October 22nd, 2014, 12:41 pm

Could Court be considered a fullback option? Seems like a good lead blocker.



Smokin Joe
Posts: 3605
Joined: July 11th, 2011, 9:59 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 106 times

Re: I'm all for ditching the spread

Post by Smokin Joe » October 22nd, 2014, 1:09 pm

You don't just "ditch" an entire (and major) component of your offense mid-season and expect a happy outcome. It doesn't work that way.



User avatar
USU78
Pick'em Champ - '16 Weekly
Posts: 7347
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 6:43 am
Location: Sandy
Has thanked: 1256 times
Been thanked: 368 times

Re: I'm all for ditching the spread

Post by USU78 » October 22nd, 2014, 1:31 pm

Mmmmmm . . . did somebody say Single Wing?

[youtube][/youtube]


You keep using that word. I do not think that word means what you think it means.

User avatar
jackmormon
RIP
Posts: 10564
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 4:53 pm
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: I'm all for ditching the spread

Post by jackmormon » October 22nd, 2014, 1:43 pm

hickaggie wrote:
aggieaggie wrote:“The system is phenomenal,” he said. “The execution is lacking.”
Thats such a cop out in this case anyway. Yes if we executed the spread perfectly the Aggies would score nearly every down. Since they have proven they can't execute it why the hell do they keep doing it. You know the saying about the definition of stupid...

The other part to that is consistency. When you get a 59 yard untouched run ride that baby the rest of the game. Its usually indicative of an opponent's weakness which in fact was CSU's weakness. :bangwall: I'm not sure but Hunt's big run looked like the same play.
If you take out the three longest runs against the CSU, we had something like five yards rushing for the game.



User avatar
hipsterdoofus21
Posts: 15850
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 9:39 pm
Has thanked: 401 times
Been thanked: 1014 times

Re: I'm all for ditching the spread

Post by hipsterdoofus21 » October 22nd, 2014, 1:45 pm

USU78 wrote:Mmmmmm . . . did somebody say Single Wing?

[youtube][/youtube]
Coach Dunn!



User avatar
ViAggie
Posts: 8779
Joined: June 16th, 2011, 6:49 pm
Location: Temecula, California
Has thanked: 436 times
Been thanked: 260 times

Re: I'm all for ditching the spread

Post by ViAggie » October 22nd, 2014, 2:49 pm

man... talk about slow white kids :joking:

Maybe it's just the speed of the film? :noidea:


Just another day in the (Aggie) Brotherhood

brian5562
Posts: 1430
Joined: November 18th, 2010, 8:08 am
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 75 times

Re: I'm all for ditching the spread

Post by brian5562 » October 22nd, 2014, 3:01 pm

When has the oline showed that they can line up and knock people off the ball? This team has playmakers at wideout and a back that is dangerous in the open filed. I don't think lining up and trying to win with a power game is the answer.

I actually think Wells is right it comes down to execution.



User avatar
hipsterdoofus21
Posts: 15850
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 9:39 pm
Has thanked: 401 times
Been thanked: 1014 times

Re: I'm all for ditching the spread

Post by hipsterdoofus21 » October 22nd, 2014, 3:32 pm

ViAggie wrote:man... talk about slow white kids :joking:

Maybe it's just the speed of the film? :noidea:
I'm waiting to hear Quack's analysis before I answer.



User avatar
bigbluebaby
Posts: 1543
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 2:11 pm
Location: Logan, Idaho Falls, Rock Springs,
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 22 times

Re: I'm all for ditching the spread

Post by bigbluebaby » October 22nd, 2014, 3:51 pm

USU78 wrote:Mmmmmm . . . did somebody say Single Wing?

[youtube][/youtube]

That video is awesome..

Most of those boys could tackle..

Football hasn't changed that much.


"So your saying I got a chance ??!!"

hickaggie
Posts: 3058
Joined: November 15th, 2010, 10:13 am
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 129 times

Re: I'm all for ditching the spread

Post by hickaggie » October 22nd, 2014, 3:56 pm

Smokin Joe wrote:You don't just "ditch" an entire (and major) component of your offense mid-season and expect a happy outcome. It doesn't work that way.
In a lot of ways it was exactly what the Aggies did last year to go 6-1. They went a lot of double tight and some 2 back and some motion to create lead blockers simplified the passing scheme and rode the O-line and Joey D. They also slowed things down, went back to the huddle, and under center.

Your not creating something new as we ran a ton of pro under Bubbles and it is an element of what the Aggies have been doing and aside from a true 2 back involved most of the concepts they used against BYU.

When I say ditch the spread, I'm talking moving a back in and not running read option, the 3 stack sets exc. The Aggies have already moved in that direction. You can still run shotgun or go under center depending on the QB's comfort with either and if you want to go pistol out of the pro occasionally it really just requires a back in motion.

The Aggies are multiple formation anyway and ditching the one back 3-4 Wide out look and adding a guy to the backfield or going more double tight isn't remaking anything. Its Just getting rid of what's not going to work with the QB and O-line situation and focusing on what's been effective and/or needs to be much more effective.

Maybe what I meant to say is regardless of the formation or name, cut the crap and get back to basics.



hickaggie
Posts: 3058
Joined: November 15th, 2010, 10:13 am
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 129 times

Re: I'm all for ditching the spread

Post by hickaggie » October 22nd, 2014, 4:07 pm

bigbluebaby wrote:
USU78 wrote:Mmmmmm . . . did somebody say Single Wing?

[youtube][/youtube]

That video is awesome..

Most of those boys could tackle..

Football hasn't changed that much.
That is just awesome. Was that at Logan or BE. The field was an absolute mudhole. Love those kind of games.



Smokin Joe
Posts: 3605
Joined: July 11th, 2011, 9:59 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 106 times

Re: I'm all for ditching the spread

Post by Smokin Joe » October 22nd, 2014, 4:11 pm

DCS wrote:Yeah all those plays we've practiced all year, let's not run those anymore.
^^^^^ +1000

Thank God some of you guys are not football coaches. You wouldn't last one game. I read some of this stuff and think I am on Boogerboard.



Smokin Joe
Posts: 3605
Joined: July 11th, 2011, 9:59 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 106 times

Re: I'm all for ditching the spread

Post by Smokin Joe » October 22nd, 2014, 4:13 pm

hickaggie wrote:
bigbluebaby wrote:
USU78 wrote:Mmmmmm . . . did somebody say Single Wing?

[youtube][/youtube]

That video is awesome..

Most of those boys could tackle..

Football hasn't changed that much.
That is just awesome. Was that at Logan or BE. The field was an absolute mudhole. Love those kind of games.

Love the snow.



hickaggie
Posts: 3058
Joined: November 15th, 2010, 10:13 am
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 129 times

Re: I'm all for ditching the spread

Post by hickaggie » October 22nd, 2014, 4:28 pm

Smokin Joe wrote:
DCS wrote:Yeah all those plays we've practiced all year, let's not run those anymore.
^^^^^ +1000

Thank God some of you guys are not football coaches. You wouldn't last one game. I read some of this stuff and think I am on Boogerboard.
So you excited for another steady diet of fumbled fly sweeps, DTs blowing up the read, plenty of bubbles to Natson. Two yard slants on third and 9, Nick Vigil sweeps to the short side. I'm no coach but I've played a fair number of positions on various teams and I see an offense that to me is not working. Of course its execution. The spread is a fine system when run by Keeton and a good 0-line. Our guys don't execute these plays very well and there seems to be no theme, rhyme, or reason.

All of the things I pointed out we're already doing to a large extent and they've worked but there is no follow up or consistency. Maybe the coaches who have seen thousands of hours of film just would love to go smash mouth but just don't believe in the O-line. I know obviously nothing we say on here will influence things and of course they shouldn't but I hope the Aggies at least try to get back to what started the winning streak last year. On today's team that would seem to be a healthy sustained dose of Hill, Hunt, and Vigil.

Think of it this way. If you are UNLV with a porous run D your D-Coordinator is going to be esctatic with a 65-35 pass run ration and 10 attempts inside the tackles.



NavyBlueAggie
Posts: 2111
Joined: November 5th, 2010, 9:28 am
Has thanked: 170 times
Been thanked: 176 times

Re: I'm all for ditching the spread

Post by NavyBlueAggie » October 22nd, 2014, 6:23 pm

Hick, it appears the game was played at old Romney Stadium. 1967 was the last year for games in the old Romney and the turf showed lots of wear and abuse. The brief shots of the south end zone show an elevated bowl end which would confirm Romney and eliminate either Box Elder or Logan High football fields.



User avatar
DCS
Posts: 990
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 2:56 pm
Location: Salt Lake
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: I'm all for ditching the spread

Post by DCS » October 22nd, 2014, 6:35 pm

hickaggie wrote:
Smokin Joe wrote:
DCS wrote:Yeah all those plays we've practiced all year, let's not run those anymore.
^^^^^ +1000

Thank God some of you guys are not football coaches. You wouldn't last one game. I read some of this stuff and think I am on Boogerboard.
So you excited for another steady diet of fumbled fly sweeps, DTs blowing up the read, plenty of bubbles to Natson. Two yard slants on third and 9, Nick Vigil sweeps to the short side. I'm no coach but I've played a fair number of positions on various teams and I see an offense that to me is not working. Of course its execution. The spread is a fine system when run by Keeton and a good 0-line. Our guys don't execute these plays very well and there seems to be no theme, rhyme, or reason.

All of the things I pointed out we're already doing to a large extent and they've worked but there is no follow up or consistency. Maybe the coaches who have seen thousands of hours of film just would love to go smash mouth but just don't believe in the O-line. I know obviously nothing we say on here will influence things and of course they shouldn't but I hope the Aggies at least try to get back to what started the winning streak last year. On today's team that would seem to be a healthy sustained dose of Hill, Hunt, and Vigil.

Think of it this way. If you are UNLV with a porous run D your D-Coordinator is going to be esctatic with a 65-35 pass run ration and 10 attempts inside the tackles.
I think it's pretty obvious that the play calling will change somewhat. I expect to see more runs and a few more plays from under center. I don't expect the type of offense that is run will change much at all. The offense is built around the skill set of the players USU has. The WRs on this team are the playmakers. The coaches seem to be trying to find as many ways to get them the ball as possible. The fly sweep has been effective sometimes and not effective others. Just because it was fumbled on a play or that a defense makes a good play doesn't mean it's thrown out of the playbook. The coaches and the QB need to see when the play will be effective against the defense and use it then.

The coaches use the spread to try and get the defense to cover the entire field. Just because the backup QB won't be as good at getting the ball to the outside, doesn't mean you change that philosophy. All of the players know the current playbook, to switch the main portion of the offense IMO would create more problems for the offense. It's not what was practiced all year.

I agree with your point that you would like to see the offense play more of a run first offense, but this year the running game has been mostly stagnant. That doesn't mean the team needs to stop running the ball up the middle, but it does seem like the coaches are trying to come up with ways to get an advantage for the playmakers. With the QB change, maybe the team needs to shift into a more pistol oriented spread. Those plays seem to be more within the tackles, but still with the option for the spread attack for the WRs to keep their space.

I disagree entirely that the team should be going to a two tight end set as the main offense. If that gave the team the best option on offense, it would have already been implemented more. The TEs are good to great receivers, but not as effective as blockers. To me it would seem like you would try to use your team strengths and not force them into a formation because the QB has changed.



NVAggie
SJSU Ultimate Loser Award Winner - Given to someone that should probably give up but won't.
Posts: 16544
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 8:09 am
Location: Where the sagebrush grows!
Has thanked: 787 times
Been thanked: 696 times

Re: I'm all for ditching the spread

Post by NVAggie » October 22nd, 2014, 7:13 pm

If the TE are good receivers then why don't we throw to them?



User avatar
jackmormon
RIP
Posts: 10564
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 4:53 pm
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: I'm all for ditching the spread

Post by jackmormon » October 22nd, 2014, 7:32 pm

I hope to see full on spread, read option with Meyers at QB. :)



User avatar
JSHarvey
Posts: 1802
Joined: April 2nd, 2013, 12:45 pm
Location: Sandy, UT
Has thanked: 632 times
Been thanked: 97 times

Re: I'm all for ditching the spread

Post by JSHarvey » October 22nd, 2014, 7:34 pm

Just do what worked against BYU - as much as the QB situation allows. My guess is Coach Wells will do this.


"The purpose of education is not to validate ignorance but to overcome it." Lawrence Krauss

"Thinking is the hardest work there is, that's why so few people do it!" Henry Ford

Mediocre at Best
Posts: 799
Joined: January 1st, 2014, 11:30 pm
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 27 times

Re: I'm all for ditching the spread

Post by Mediocre at Best » October 22nd, 2014, 8:15 pm

Guys forgive me but perhaps I have been watching the wrong team or am in need of lasik eye surgery...but I was unaware that we had any tight ends this year.



User avatar
USU78
Pick'em Champ - '16 Weekly
Posts: 7347
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 6:43 am
Location: Sandy
Has thanked: 1256 times
Been thanked: 368 times

Re: I'm all for ditching the spread

Post by USU78 » October 23rd, 2014, 11:11 am

ViAggie wrote:man... talk about slow white kids :joking:

Maybe it's just the speed of the film? :noidea:
The latter: 16mm game film developed in slow motion for analytical purposes. These kids were quick from 1-10 yards, not so fast for 40 yards.

These were 2 of the best HS teams in the state, and the Logan QB, Craig Smith, was a HS all-American and went toe-to-toe with Tony Adams for the USU starting job, until Tony's sheer brilliance made the decision that landed Craig in the defensive backfield.


You keep using that word. I do not think that word means what you think it means.

User avatar
USU78
Pick'em Champ - '16 Weekly
Posts: 7347
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 6:43 am
Location: Sandy
Has thanked: 1256 times
Been thanked: 368 times

Re: I'm all for ditching the spread

Post by USU78 » October 23rd, 2014, 11:13 am

NavyBlueAggie wrote:Hick, it appears the game was played at old Romney Stadium. 1967 was the last year for games in the old Romney and the turf showed lots of wear and abuse. The brief shots of the south end zone show an elevated bowl end which would confirm Romney and eliminate either Box Elder or Logan High football fields.
That's exactly right, NBA.

Loan and BE ended the regular season tied, though Logan had won the first game: Logan's QB ran and passed 'em silly. It was an astonishing turnaround in the days before tiebreakers and you always settled things on the field.

I was at that game. Best defensive performance I ever saw (I missed Merlin's game in the snow against Idaho).


You keep using that word. I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Locked Previous topicNext topic