Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Auburndawg's Film Room
Auburndawg
Member Posts: 362
I watched every offensive play in slow motion. Here is what I saw:
We ran the same two running plays over and over again:
The base running play out of the pistol with just basic zone blocking by the line. The point of attack is either left or right of the center, but it is really up to the TB to find a hole wherever he can. Sometimes it looks like read-option, but mostly it looks like play action. The threat of the pass holds the LBs and DBs, not the threat of Price running.
And a version of power, with a tackle pulling from the weak side. The threat there was a throw back to a WR on the weakside.
We also mixed in a few plays with FB lead from split backs, and a short yardage play with 6 blockers lined up on one side (Boise never seemed to figure out how to line up against that). That was pretty much it. The same plays over and over again, run with speed and precision.
When we threw the ball our biggest success was due to the fact that Boise usually didn’t man up on at least one slot receiver, often Mickens. The guy covering him also had run responsibilities and responded inside by a step or two to the play fake every time. Mickens was always open, either at the line or down field, Price got it to him quickly, and Mickens was too fast for the guy to recover . This is how we converted three big third downs. It is clear to me that to defend the spread you have to man up on all the eligible receivers all the time. Boise didn’t do that.
The bottom line is, we now have a clear, consistent offensive identity rather than being a little bit of this, and a little bit of that. And we executed.
If Sark sticks with this approach, and Price keeps on executing, we are going to be very tough to beat.
We ran the same two running plays over and over again:
The base running play out of the pistol with just basic zone blocking by the line. The point of attack is either left or right of the center, but it is really up to the TB to find a hole wherever he can. Sometimes it looks like read-option, but mostly it looks like play action. The threat of the pass holds the LBs and DBs, not the threat of Price running.
And a version of power, with a tackle pulling from the weak side. The threat there was a throw back to a WR on the weakside.
We also mixed in a few plays with FB lead from split backs, and a short yardage play with 6 blockers lined up on one side (Boise never seemed to figure out how to line up against that). That was pretty much it. The same plays over and over again, run with speed and precision.
When we threw the ball our biggest success was due to the fact that Boise usually didn’t man up on at least one slot receiver, often Mickens. The guy covering him also had run responsibilities and responded inside by a step or two to the play fake every time. Mickens was always open, either at the line or down field, Price got it to him quickly, and Mickens was too fast for the guy to recover . This is how we converted three big third downs. It is clear to me that to defend the spread you have to man up on all the eligible receivers all the time. Boise didn’t do that.
The bottom line is, we now have a clear, consistent offensive identity rather than being a little bit of this, and a little bit of that. And we executed.
If Sark sticks with this approach, and Price keeps on executing, we are going to be very tough to beat.
Comments