Yay the Shotgun-Only Offense looks to Finally be Removed!

[tnt]

Timjayko, you mean the Griz would have won it all like the time they did with Dave Dickenson in the shotgun almost exclusively???

Those were the mid 90's times have changed, defense is much bigger and better, can't get away with that any more unless you're super fast, oh yeah and Dave Dickenson was only the greatest QB ever to play the game for our program, so we could definitely get away with that.

Basically, what I'm trying to say here is that I'm happy we are changing our offensive scheme, because with the athletes we have it was just foolish to run. WE are not Oregon, we are Montana! We need to find an offense that fits us.

Take a look at North Dakota State, back to back Championships at the FCS level, look at their offensive scheme. They didn't win back to back Championships with shotgun-only offense, and neither would we.

Up till present, perhaps Dave has been the greatest QB to play for the Griz, however I am still hoping that a better one arrives.

I know its blasphemy, but if we had Don Read, his offense, and the '95 team back this fall at their peak, we would be hard pressed to make the play-offs this year. Things have change LOTS since then. Now take it back 20 years before that, and I'm afeared thats what what MD has planned for us now........

 

[RobGriz]

Timjayko, you mean the Griz would have won it all like the time they did with Dave Dickenson in the shotgun almost exclusively???

Those were the mid 90's times have changed, defense is much bigger and better, can't get away with that any more unless you're super fast, oh yeah and Dave Dickenson was only the greatest QB ever to play the game for our program, so we could definitely get away with that.

Basically, what I'm trying to say here is that I'm happy we are changing our offensive scheme, because with the athletes we have it was just foolish to run. WE are not Oregon, we are Montana! We need to find an offense that fits us.

Take a look at North Dakota State, back to back Championships at the FCS level, look at their offensive scheme. They didn't win back to back Championships with shotgun-only offense, and neither would we.

NDSU won almost soley based on their dominating defense.

As long as they have an offense that chews up clock and doesn't turn it over, they're going to win a ton of games.

Oh, and only 6 years ago App State was dominating using the shotgun almost exclusively with similar athletes that we have now, and won three titles in a row.

They likely wouldn't have won a single one with an offense like you're pitching.

When they need a yard in Fargo, it sure the heck isn't out of the shotgun. Yuck They bring in 2 TEs, and 2 FBs and ask you to stop it. Got to love the power running game, and the 2 FB Power I. I've seen a little bit of that with Packers too when they had Koehn and Hall in the Power I in past years. Love those 245 Lbs FBs leading the way.

Yeah, when you have a qb like JJ, that's exactly what you should do...take the ball out of his hands. Pure genius. :roll:
I mean what successful coach hasn't recruited a bunch of athletes to play positions which allow them to make plays only to never give them the ball.
If you think we are going to make it through the conference in any better shape than we did last year running a "power I" the whole game than you are not paying attention. BTW the VAST majority of our problems last year were due to a lack of a defensive backfield. Period.
Now if you're talking about running it when the situation dictates then I agree

 

[PlayerRep]

Those were the mid 90's times have changed, defense is much bigger and better, can't get away with that any more unless you're super fast, oh yeah and Dave Dickenson was only the greatest QB ever to play the game for our program, so we could definitely get away with that.

Basically, what I'm trying to say here is that I'm happy we are changing our offensive scheme, because with the athletes we have it was just foolish to run. WE are not Oregon, we are Montana! We need to find an offense that fits us.

Take a look at North Dakota State, back to back Championships at the FCS level, look at their offensive scheme. They didn't win back to back Championships with shotgun-only offense, and neither would we.

NDSU won almost soley based on their dominating defense.

As long as they have an offense that chews up clock and doesn't turn it over, they're going to win a ton of games.

Oh, and only 6 years ago App State was dominating using the shotgun almost exclusively with similar athletes that we have now, and won three titles in a row.

They likely wouldn't have won a single one with an offense like you're pitching.

When they need a yard in Fargo, it sure the heck isn't out of the shotgun. Yuck They bring in 2 TEs, and 2 FBs and ask you to stop it. Got to love the power running game, and the 2 FB Power I. I've seen a little bit of that with Packers too when they had Koehn and Hall in the Power I in past years. Love those 245 Lbs FBs leading the way.

Yeah, when you have a qb like JJ, that's exactly what you should do...take the ball out of his hands. Pure genius. :roll:
I mean what successful coach hasn't recruited a bunch of athletes to play positions which allow them to make plays only to never give them the ball.
If you think we are going to make it through the conference in any better shape than we did last year running a "power I" the whole game than you are not paying attention. BTW the VAST majority of our problems last year were due to a lack of a defensive backfield. Period.
Now if you're talking about running it when the situation dictates then I agree

The defensive backfield was not the primary problem last year. The main problem was the inability to score and even get first downs in the second half. Not having Johnson or any experienced qb was probably the main cause of the offensive problems in the second half. The pass defense was bad in the ND game, but for the most part the defensive was good last year and sometimes very good. Go look at the stats and drive charts for the second half and 4th quarters of the games we lost, especially as the season went on.

 

[RobGriz]

NDSU won almost soley based on their dominating defense.

As long as they have an offense that chews up clock and doesn't turn it over, they're going to win a ton of games.

Oh, and only 6 years ago App State was dominating using the shotgun almost exclusively with similar athletes that we have now, and won three titles in a row.

They likely wouldn't have won a single one with an offense like you're pitching.

When they need a yard in Fargo, it sure the heck isn't out of the shotgun. Yuck They bring in 2 TEs, and 2 FBs and ask you to stop it. Got to love the power running game, and the 2 FB Power I. I've seen a little bit of that with Packers too when they had Koehn and Hall in the Power I in past years. Love those 245 Lbs FBs leading the way.

Yeah, when you have a qb like JJ, that's exactly what you should do...take the ball out of his hands. Pure genius. :roll:
I mean what successful coach hasn't recruited a bunch of athletes to play positions which allow them to make plays only to never give them the ball.
If you think we are going to make it through the conference in any better shape than we did last year running a "power I" the whole game than you are not paying attention. BTW the VAST majority of our problems last year were due to a lack of a defensive backfield. Period.
Now if you're talking about running it when the situation dictates then I agree

The defensive backfield was not the primary problem last year. The main problem was the inability to score and even get first downs in the second half. Not having Johnson or any experienced qb was probably the main cause of the offensive problems in the second half. The pass defense was bad in the ND game, but for the most part the defensive was good last year and sometimes very good. Go look at the stats and drive charts for the second half and 4th quarters of the games we lost, especially as the season went on.

I agree that the D was, for the most part, good (at least the front 7) last year and that the offense could have done the defense a HUGE favor by eating up some clock (the Eastern game especially) and scoring some points in the second half. But you have to admit the cb's and safeties last year SUCKED and were a HUGE liability although they did make progress. Your point about JJ is dead on which is why I don't believe that running the 22 style offense from 1950 that so many seem to be in favor of here is anything but stupid as it essentially makes JJ a non-factor if all he is going to be doing is handing off the ball.
And as far as the stats, well the Griz gave up a 3172 yards, which is dead last, in Pass defense in the conference.
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/footba...e&cat2=Passing&conference=I-AA_BSKY&year=2012
Wow. That's twice in two weeks you and I have agreed on something. You been drinking?

 

[granitegriz]

Rob--I am not an expert offensive mind in the slightest so don't take offense. But can't you run the option and zone read with two tight ends in the game?

 

[uofmman1122]

Rob--I am not an expert offensive mind in the slightest so don't take offense. But can't you run the option and zone read with two tight ends in the game?

Not from under center.

 

[krammer]

Rob--I am not an expert offensive mind in the slightest so don't take offense. But can't you run the option and zone read with two tight ends in the game?

Not from under center.

,,,you must not be familiar with the wish bone offense that switzer and Oklahoma ran,,,the read on the defensive end was the key to that offense and qb was under center,,,really not much different than what you see today...except they hardly ever threw the ball....

 

[uofmman1122]

Rob--I am not an expert offensive mind in the slightest so don't take offense. But can't you run the option and zone read with two tight ends in the game?

Not from under center.

,,,you must not be familiar with the wish bone offense that switzer and Oklahoma ran,,,the read on the defensive end was the key to that offense and qb was under center,,,really not much different than what you see today...except they hardly ever threw the ball....

I love all the hypothetical OCs coming out defending putting JJ under center. :lol:

We're not going to run a wishbone.

 

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

I know its blasphemy, but if we had Don Read, his offense, and the '95 team back this fall at their peak, we would be hard pressed to make the play-offs this year. Things have change LOTS since then. Now take it back 20 years before that, and I'm afeared thats what what MD has planned for us now........

If we ran the same offense that Read ran in 95 with a QB like Dickenson it would still be unstoppable.

It was all about execution and there were too many options to stop, but hey you keep on blathering out of your piehole, its what this site is all about.

 

[Hammer]

Rob--I am not an expert offensive mind in the slightest so don't take offense. But can't you run the option and zone read with two tight ends in the game?

Not from under center.

Why not? You can run the option from just about any alignment you can think of. You can run it from shotgun (usually zone read) or from under center. You can run it from the I or out of veer, or the wishbone. There are so many versions of the "option" out there now. Why can't you run some form of option out of a twin tight set?

 

[Hammer]

I know its blasphemy, but if we had Don Read, his offense, and the '95 team back this fall at their peak, we would be hard pressed to make the play-offs this year. Things have change LOTS since then. Now take it back 20 years before that, and I'm afeared thats what what MD has planned for us now........

If we ran the same offense that Read ran in 95 with a QB like Dickenson it would still be unstoppable.

It was all about execution and there were too many options to stop, but hey you keep on blathering out of your piehole, its what this site is all about.

I agree for the most part but the play they ran with Dicky that was probably their bread and butter then was the Griz screen. If blocked correctly it was unstoppable. Not saying it still isn't an effective play but teams have figured out how to defend it better today. And yes Don Read was the original architect of the "middle screen", it will always be the Griz screen to me.

 

[uofmman1122]

Rob--I am not an expert offensive mind in the slightest so don't take offense. But can't you run the option and zone read with two tight ends in the game?

Not from under center.

Why not? You can run the option from just about any alignment you can think of. You can run it from shotgun (usually zone read) or from under center. You can run it from the I or out of veer, or the wishbone. There are so many versions of the "option" out there now. Why can't you run some form of option out of a twin tight set?

Again, of course we can. I'm saying we shouldn't.

The key word is "sometimes". Putting JJ under center for more than 10% of the plays is wasting his greatest strength: getting in space and making plays.

Goal line? Sure. Go for it.

Any other time I think it's a bad idea.

 

[RobGriz]

Rob--I am not an expert offensive mind in the slightest so don't take offense. But can't you run the option and zone read with two tight ends in the game?

Not from under center.

,,,you must not be familiar with the wish bone offense that switzer and Oklahoma ran,,,the read on the defensive end was the key to that offense and qb was under center,,,really not much different than what you see today...except they hardly ever threw the ball....

Oh, I am familiar with it alright. See Cornhuskers vs Miami....Rose Bowl...2002. And then look at what the Huskers run now.

 

[RobGriz]

Rob--I am not an expert offensive mind in the slightest so don't take offense. But can't you run the option and zone read with two tight ends in the game?

Not from under center.

Why not? You can run the option from just about any alignment you can think of. You can run it from shotgun (usually zone read) or from under center. You can run it from the I or out of veer, or the wishbone. There are so many versions of the "option" out there now. Why can't you run some form of option out of a twin tight set?

Again, of course we can. I'm saying we shouldn't.

The key word is "sometimes". Putting JJ under center for more than 10% of the plays is wasting his greatest strength: getting in space and making plays.

Goal line? Sure. Go for it.

Any other time I think it's a bad idea.

DING DING DING!!!! We have a winner.

 

[RobGriz]

Some of you would benefit GREATLY by going here:
http://fishduck.com/
So that when you come here and talk about the Oregon Spread option you know about that which you are speaking. As for those of you that wish to go back to the power I or what-the-hell ever 3 yards and a cloud of boredome offense you played in in 1956 I have one thing to say...Larry Donovan.

 

[Hammer]

Rob--I am not an expert offensive mind in the slightest so don't take offense. But can't you run the option and zone read with two tight ends in the game?

Not from under center.

Why not? You can run the option from just about any alignment you can think of. You can run it from shotgun (usually zone read) or from under center. You can run it from the I or out of veer, or the wishbone. There are so many versions of the "option" out there now. Why can't you run some form of option out of a twin tight set?

Again, of course we can. I'm saying we shouldn't.

The key word is "sometimes". Putting JJ under center for more than 10% of the plays is wasting his greatest strength: getting in space and making plays.

Goal line? Sure. Go for it.

Any other time I think it's a bad idea.

I don't know where you get the idea that JJ will be under center most of the time. I think you will see him under center some of the time, in pistol some of the time, and shotgun some of the time. Probably under center a lesser percentage than the other two.

 

[RobGriz]

Not from under center.

Why not? You can run the option from just about any alignment you can think of. You can run it from shotgun (usually zone read) or from under center. You can run it from the I or out of veer, or the wishbone. There are so many versions of the "option" out there now. Why can't you run some form of option out of a twin tight set?

Again, of course we can. I'm saying we shouldn't.

The key word is "sometimes". Putting JJ under center for more than 10% of the plays is wasting his greatest strength: getting in space and making plays.

Goal line? Sure. Go for it.

Any other time I think it's a bad idea.

I don't know where you get the idea that JJ will be under center most of the time. I think you will see him under center some of the time, in pistol some of the time, and shotgun some of the time. Probably under center a lesser percentage than the other two.

That is kind of what I am hearing as well. All things in their time.

 

[uofmman1122]

Not from under center.

Why not? You can run the option from just about any alignment you can think of. You can run it from shotgun (usually zone read) or from under center. You can run it from the I or out of veer, or the wishbone. There are so many versions of the "option" out there now. Why can't you run some form of option out of a twin tight set?

Again, of course we can. I'm saying we shouldn't.

The key word is "sometimes". Putting JJ under center for more than 10% of the plays is wasting his greatest strength: getting in space and making plays.

Goal line? Sure. Go for it.

Any other time I think it's a bad idea.

I don't know where you get the idea that JJ will be under center most of the time. I think you will see him under center some of the time, in pistol some of the time, and shotgun some of the time. Probably under center a lesser percentage than the other two.

Didn't mean to directly challenge you, but there are quite a bit of people in this thread and elsewhere in Griz Nation that think we need to go twin tight ends under center more than 10% of the time. In fact, it sounds like some people want us doing that all the time. These are the people I'm having issues with. :thumb:

I like the sound of Delaney and Co.'s new offense. I just hope it's not as extreme as some of the 22 Set people are clamoring for.

 

[timjayko]

I honestly hope it's more than 10% away from the shotgun. Football is so much like a chess match. Abusing one formation type around 90% of the time without a bunch of five star athletes is just foolish strategy in my opinion (now I agree with the notion of if a play keeps working to use it till the defense can stop it, but I feel our past OC's have done the inverse too often ( trying desperately to get a play call to work again and again that keeps failing )) 1 in 4 plays should be a formation besides shotgun for our offense. Let's make a harder gameplan for opposing defenses to prep for besides just the shotgun... Also for short yardage situations we should have audible set up to move from a drop back to a behind center run play or from behind center to drop back option run for when the QB might observe a weak spot in the defense to exploit.

 

[uofmman1122]

I honestly hope it's more than 10% away from the shotgun. Football is so much like a chess match. Abusing one formation type around 90% of the time without a bunch of five star athletes is just foolish strategy in my opinion (now I agree with the notion of if a play keeps working to use it till the defense can stop it, but I feel our past OC's have done the inverse too often ( trying desperately to get a play call to work again and again that keeps failing )) 1 in 4 plays should be a formation besides shotgun for our offense. Let's make a harder gameplan for opposing defenses to prep for besides just the shotgun... Also for short yardage situations we should have audible set up to move from a drop back to a behind center run play or from behind center to drop back option run for when the QB might observe a weak spot in the defense to exploit.

......I don't even know what to make of this post.

I'm not sure you actually understand the spread offense at all. There's more than one play per formation. :lol:

Thankfully, it sounds like the coaches aren't doing anything like what you're suggesting. :thumb:

This isn't Madden, dude. :lol: