money3189
Living Legend
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 10,221
- Like
- 41,169
Absolutely. I agree. Part of evolution is taking what the past gives you and making it your own. Schemes are re created for modern players but football will always be about line play. You will always have your traps, counters, leads, power, sweeps. They run them now with less defenders in the box because of the emergence of slot wr's. It makes you defend the whole field. That's why there are specialized positions on defense now.Look at it this way: if in the past everyone wanted to have Butch and Sundance, the reason we don't have that now is because somebody decided to try something different. Things like the option and the nose tackle have appeared, disappeared and re-appeared. Most of what is done in any sport is invented early in its development. it's just repacked and re-popularized as the sport goes along and we call it 'evolution and thinks that that mans that anything we used to do must be bad.
I'm still amazed at what i see Michigan doing in the 1948 Rose Bowl. They seem to be running almost any play we have now. They are just doing it from the single wing. And they are doing a lot of things you don't see now at all. it looks far more sophisticated to me than Dino's "throw it to the sidelines and run up the middle" concept:
(3) 1948 Rose Bowl: Michigan 49 USC 0 - YouTube
I'm not saying we should adopt the single wing. I'm just saying that there are things they used to do that might work today because defenses won't be ready for them.
I like a balanced attack between running and passing. You can run pass plays to the halfback in a two back set that aren't dissimilar to the ones for the slot guy. And you don't have to be in the same set on every play. Trying to get all your rushing yards from one position works only with a dominant line or a dominant passing game that pulls the defense apart. We have neither. But we have a bunch of good running backs.
Our 1987 team got 614 yards from fullback Darryl Johnston which set us up to get 1,370 from Robert Drummond and Michael Owens at tailback. In 1998 we got 432 yards from Rob Konrad which set up Kyle McIntosh, James Mungro and Dee brown for 1,499 yards. In 2018, Eric Dungey essentially became our fullback, rushing for 949 yards, (754 net, with sacks), to set up Moe Neal and Dontae Strickland 1,484 yards. Last season our quarterbacks rushed for a combined 182 yards before sacks, there was no fullback and Jordan, Pierre, Tucker and Lutz totalled 1,058 yards. We were out-rushed 1,338-2,651 yards on the season. Now we've got Adams, Howard, Tucker, Lutz and Hough all stacked up at the same position with no fullback and we have no idea how much yards our quarterback will run for, (but it's unlikely to come close to what Dungey did).
Do we have five receivers as good as Adams, Howard, Tucker, Lutz and Hough? It will be great if we do - especially since we might see all of them on the field at the same time, not stacked up at a single position from which all the catches are supposed to come.
The zone read concept has change the run game forever. That's something they didn't have in the past. Inside and outside zone has been the most dominate run play for 20 years now. Simple blocking concept but its the most effective.
You dont need a athletic QB to have a good run game in a spread offense. Most teams have pocket passers and have great running attacks. Dual threat just makes it even more effective. 2018 run/ pass balance was good because is was a good team. We havent been good the last couple years because of various reasons not because of the scheme. I wouldn't use 2020 season for a comparison. The things that happened to us don't happen during a typical season. Injuries, opts outs etc... Wouldn't have matter if we ran the veer and shoot or the triple option with the lineman we were playing, 3rd QB, 7 true freshman defenders.
"Trying to get all your rushing yards from one position works only with a dominant line or a dominant passing game that pulls the defense apart"
I still dont understand what you are saying here. Everyone else is doing this and having great success.
From experience, you can't run two running back sets in a spread. If you do you are better off having 3 in the back field with a FB. If you think our RB's are that good and will be the difference in winning or losing then you are better off running a completely different scheme. Cant do both. Trying both will make you less effective because you have to spend time working on the other scheme. You will have to change your blocking footwork and techniques for certain plays. That will kills your offense overall. You will become a jack of all trades, master of none. You can add packages of some of that stuff you mention for short yardage, goal line, 3rd down situations but you cant put too much into it. One ex. Babers has heavy sets with power plays from under center, he's ran wildcats packages as well. I dont know if our running backs are good enough to force the coaches to run into a totally different scheme that they aren't accustomed to. Do we run block well enough to block 9 and 10 guys in the box every play? That's what going to happened when you go to these tight formations with multiple running backs.
Always enjoy your posts. That's why I try to give you a adequate response. You sound like a person that knows the game and its history. Those are people I normally converse with. I grew up playing in the 80's and 90's. I loved football prior to my time and I continue to enjoy it now as a coach.
Last edited: