1. Why does JSmith hate Myles Gaskin? 2. Why does JSmith hate winning football? 3. Why does JSmith hate wearing Polish peasant scarves? 4. Why does JSmith hate Lavon Coleman? 5. Why does JSmith hate Jake Browning's completion percentage and public reputation? 6. Why does JSmith hate fitting scheme to personnel? 7. Why does JSmith hate running with lead blockers? 8. Why does JSmith hate running? 9. Why does JSmith hate winning game plans?
Etc.
Lead blockers? What is this, 1995?
Stanford and Michigan both love lead blockers and the old "man ball" I-formation stuff and both of their offenses have AIDS.
The Husky offensive schemes are brilliant. The guy calling the plays and building the game plans is not.
Their offenses are fine. Their QB's are shit. Stanford had one of the best offenses in the country last year.
They had that despite the scheme, not because of it.
Running antiquated I-formation offense is a handicap. When teams are successful with it, it is because their players are good enough to overcome it.
Just my opinion, but I'm also right.
You need elite personnel to make it work. Doesn't make it antiquated
1. Why does JSmith hate Myles Gaskin? 2. Why does JSmith hate winning football? 3. Why does JSmith hate wearing Polish peasant scarves? 4. Why does JSmith hate Lavon Coleman? 5. Why does JSmith hate Jake Browning's completion percentage and public reputation? 6. Why does JSmith hate fitting scheme to personnel? 7. Why does JSmith hate running with lead blockers? 8. Why does JSmith hate running? 9. Why does JSmith hate winning game plans?
Etc.
Lead blockers? What is this, 1995?
Stanford and Michigan both love lead blockers and the old "man ball" I-formation stuff and both of their offenses have AIDS.
The Husky offensive schemes are brilliant. The guy calling the plays and building the game plans is not.
Their offenses are fine. Their QB's are shit. Stanford had one of the best offenses in the country last year.
1. Why does JSmith hate Myles Gaskin? 2. Why does JSmith hate winning football? 3. Why does JSmith hate wearing Polish peasant scarves? 4. Why does JSmith hate Lavon Coleman? 5. Why does JSmith hate Jake Browning's completion percentage and public reputation? 6. Why does JSmith hate fitting scheme to personnel? 7. Why does JSmith hate running with lead blockers? 8. Why does JSmith hate running? 9. Why does JSmith hate winning game plans?
Etc.
Lead blockers? What is this, 1995?
Stanford and Michigan both love lead blockers and the old "man ball" I-formation stuff and both of their offenses have AIDS.
The Husky offensive schemes are brilliant. The guy calling the plays and building the game plans is not.
Their offenses are fine. Their QB's are shit. Stanford had one of the best offenses in the country last year.
They had that despite the scheme, not because of it.
Running antiquated I-formation offense is a handicap. When teams are successful with it, it is because their players are good enough to overcome it.
Just my opinion, but I'm also right.
You aren't right. Michigan is a top 5 team. Stanford has been one of the most successful programs in the country the past 7,8 years.
Alabama just started running the spread this year and that is due to their QB. The good coaches fit schemes to the players.
There are tons of shitty teams that run spread offenses.
Running some plays out of the I is not a handicap. I like UW because they are multiple on offense.
1. Why does JSmith hate Myles Gaskin? 2. Why does JSmith hate winning football? 3. Why does JSmith hate wearing Polish peasant scarves? 4. Why does JSmith hate Lavon Coleman? 5. Why does JSmith hate Jake Browning's completion percentage and public reputation? 6. Why does JSmith hate fitting scheme to personnel? 7. Why does JSmith hate running with lead blockers? 8. Why does JSmith hate running? 9. Why does JSmith hate winning game plans?
Etc.
Lead blockers? What is this, 1995?
Stanford and Michigan both love lead blockers and the old "man ball" I-formation stuff and both of their offenses have AIDS.
The Husky offensive schemes are brilliant. The guy calling the plays and building the game plans is not.
Their offenses are fine. Their QB's are shit. Stanford had one of the best offenses in the country last year.
Like the Northwestern game?
Check the stats and record Boobie. If Stanford'a defense didn't give up 38 to Oregon they would have been in the playoffs. Their offense was elite in every game after Northwestern.
1. Why does JSmith hate Myles Gaskin? 2. Why does JSmith hate winning football? 3. Why does JSmith hate wearing Polish peasant scarves? 4. Why does JSmith hate Lavon Coleman? 5. Why does JSmith hate Jake Browning's completion percentage and public reputation? 6. Why does JSmith hate fitting scheme to personnel? 7. Why does JSmith hate running with lead blockers? 8. Why does JSmith hate running? 9. Why does JSmith hate winning game plans?
Etc.
Lead blockers? What is this, 1995?
Stanford and Michigan both love lead blockers and the old "man ball" I-formation stuff and both of their offenses have AIDS.
The Husky offensive schemes are brilliant. The guy calling the plays and building the game plans is not.
Their offenses are fine. Their QB's are shit. Stanford had one of the best offenses in the country last year.
They had that despite the scheme, not because of it.
Running antiquated I-formation offense is a handicap. When teams are successful with it, it is because their players are good enough to overcome it.
Just my opinion, but I'm also right.
You aren't right. Michigan is a top 5 team. Stanford has been one of the most successful programs in the country the past 7,8 years.
Alabama just started running the spread this year and that is due to their QB. The good coaches fit schemes to the players.
There are tons of shitty teams that run spread offenses.
Running some plays out of the I is not a handicap. I like UW because they are multiple on offense.
Michigan isn't a top whatever team because of its offense.
And Bama could be extremely successful running the wishbone or single wing. Bama made it work isn't a good argument.
Having a gold standard defense and elite players at every position gives teams the luxury to run shitty offenses.
1. Why does JSmith hate Myles Gaskin? 2. Why does JSmith hate winning football? 3. Why does JSmith hate wearing Polish peasant scarves? 4. Why does JSmith hate Lavon Coleman? 5. Why does JSmith hate Jake Browning's completion percentage and public reputation? 6. Why does JSmith hate fitting scheme to personnel? 7. Why does JSmith hate running with lead blockers? 8. Why does JSmith hate running? 9. Why does JSmith hate winning game plans?
Etc.
Lead blockers? What is this, 1995?
Stanford and Michigan both love lead blockers and the old "man ball" I-formation stuff and both of their offenses have AIDS.
The Husky offensive schemes are brilliant. The guy calling the plays and building the game plans is not.
Their offenses are fine. Their QB's are shit. Stanford had one of the best offenses in the country last year.
They had that despite the scheme, not because of it.
Running antiquated I-formation offense is a handicap. When teams are successful with it, it is because their players are good enough to overcome it.
Just my opinion, but I'm also right.
You aren't right. Michigan is a top 5 team. Stanford has been one of the most successful programs in the country the past 7,8 years.
Alabama just started running the spread this year and that is due to their QB. The good coaches fit schemes to the players.
There are tons of shitty teams that run spread offenses.
Running some plays out of the I is not a handicap. I like UW because they are multiple on offense.
Michigan isn't a top whatever team because of its offense.
And Bama could be extremely successful running the wishbone or single wing. Bama made it work isn't a good argument.
Having a gold standard defense and elite players at every position gives teams the luxury to run shitty offenses.
1. Why does JSmith hate Myles Gaskin? 2. Why does JSmith hate winning football? 3. Why does JSmith hate wearing Polish peasant scarves? 4. Why does JSmith hate Lavon Coleman? 5. Why does JSmith hate Jake Browning's completion percentage and public reputation? 6. Why does JSmith hate fitting scheme to personnel? 7. Why does JSmith hate running with lead blockers? 8. Why does JSmith hate running? 9. Why does JSmith hate winning game plans?
Etc.
Lead blockers? What is this, 1995?
Stanford and Michigan both love lead blockers and the old "man ball" I-formation stuff and both of their offenses have AIDS.
The Husky offensive schemes are brilliant. The guy calling the plays and building the game plans is not.
Stanford and Michigan have AIDS infested offenses because they have shit QBs and over-utilize the "man ball" to the point of being predictable and easy to stop.
Nobody is asking to transition to that. The basic identity of our offense is fine. What most of us have problems with is running a fucking end around to John Ross on 2nd and 1 when we're in rhythm and could easily jam it down the defense's throat for an easy first down. Misdirection and keeping a defense on its toes are great elements of an offense. But it hasn't dawned on our OC that it's okay to just line up every now and then in a basic formation and run right where the defense knows you're going to run it because you have the superior athletes and are going to buttfuck them with a high percentage play whether they like it or not.
1. Why does JSmith hate Myles Gaskin? 2. Why does JSmith hate winning football? 3. Why does JSmith hate wearing Polish peasant scarves? 4. Why does JSmith hate Lavon Coleman? 5. Why does JSmith hate Jake Browning's completion percentage and public reputation? 6. Why does JSmith hate fitting scheme to personnel? 7. Why does JSmith hate running with lead blockers? 8. Why does JSmith hate running? 9. Why does JSmith hate winning game plans?
Etc.
Lead blockers? What is this, 1995?
Stanford and Michigan both love lead blockers and the old "man ball" I-formation stuff and both of their offenses have AIDS.
The Husky offensive schemes are brilliant. The guy calling the plays and building the game plans is not.
Their offenses are fine. Their QB's are shit. Stanford had one of the best offenses in the country last year.
They had that despite the scheme, not because of it.
Running antiquated I-formation offense is a handicap. When teams are successful with it, it is because their players are good enough to overcome it.
Just my opinion, but I'm also right.
You aren't right. Michigan is a top 5 team. Stanford has been one of the most successful programs in the country the past 7,8 years.
Alabama just started running the spread this year and that is due to their QB. The good coaches fit schemes to the players.
There are tons of shitty teams that run spread offenses.
Running some plays out of the I is not a handicap. I like UW because they are multiple on offense.
Michigan isn't a top whatever team because of its offense.
And Bama could be extremely successful running the wishbone or single wing. Bama made it work isn't a good argument.
Having a gold standard defense and elite players at every position gives teams the luxury to run shitty offenses.
1. Why does JSmith hate Myles Gaskin? 2. Why does JSmith hate winning football? 3. Why does JSmith hate wearing Polish peasant scarves? 4. Why does JSmith hate Lavon Coleman? 5. Why does JSmith hate Jake Browning's completion percentage and public reputation? 6. Why does JSmith hate fitting scheme to personnel? 7. Why does JSmith hate running with lead blockers? 8. Why does JSmith hate running? 9. Why does JSmith hate winning game plans?
Etc.
Lead blockers? What is this, 1995?
Stanford and Michigan both love lead blockers and the old "man ball" I-formation stuff and both of their offenses have AIDS.
The Husky offensive schemes are brilliant. The guy calling the plays and building the game plans is not.
Stanford and Michigan have AIDS infested offenses because they have shit QBs and over-utilize the "man ball" to the point of being predictable and easy to stop.
Nobody is asking to transition to that. The basic identity of our offense is fine. What most of us have problems with is running a fucking end around to John Ross on 2nd and 1 when we're in rhythm and could easily jam it down the defense's throat for an easy first down. Misdirection and keeping a defense on its toes are great elements of an offense. But it hasn't dawned on our OC that it's okay to just line up every now and then in a basic formation and run right where the defense knows you're going to run it because you have the superior athletes and are going to buttfuck them with a high percentage play whether they like it or not.
The Huskies actually do that a fair amount (and yeah, they should probably do it a little more), they just never do it from a basic I formation using 12 personnel.
I guess I am stunned that there are so many people who fetishize fullbacks, the I-formation and Spider Y Banana. Almost nobody runs that stuff in HS and college for a reason. And even in the NFL, two-back I-formation sets are becoming relatively rare.
1. Why does JSmith hate Myles Gaskin? 2. Why does JSmith hate winning football? 3. Why does JSmith hate wearing Polish peasant scarves? 4. Why does JSmith hate Lavon Coleman? 5. Why does JSmith hate Jake Browning's completion percentage and public reputation? 6. Why does JSmith hate fitting scheme to personnel? 7. Why does JSmith hate running with lead blockers? 8. Why does JSmith hate running? 9. Why does JSmith hate winning game plans?
Etc.
Lead blockers? What is this, 1995?
Stanford and Michigan both love lead blockers and the old "man ball" I-formation stuff and both of their offenses have AIDS.
The Husky offensive schemes are brilliant. The guy calling the plays and building the game plans is not.
Their offenses are fine. Their QB's are shit. Stanford had one of the best offenses in the country last year.
They had that despite the scheme, not because of it.
Running antiquated I-formation offense is a handicap. When teams are successful with it, it is because their players are good enough to overcome it.
Just my opinion, but I'm also right.
You aren't right. Michigan is a top 5 team. Stanford has been one of the most successful programs in the country the past 7,8 years.
Alabama just started running the spread this year and that is due to their QB. The good coaches fit schemes to the players.
There are tons of shitty teams that run spread offenses.
Running some plays out of the I is not a handicap. I like UW because they are multiple on offense.
Michigan isn't a top whatever team because of its offense.
And Bama could be extremely successful running the wishbone or single wing. Bama made it work isn't a good argument.
Having a gold standard defense and elite players at every position gives teams the luxury to run shitty offenses.
Most teams run spread. Most offenses suck. HTH.
This is a terrible argument, from a pure logic perspective.
The bottom line is that whether you agree with my views on this or not, Petersen seems to. He is the real architect of this offense and I can't recall seeing the Huskies line up in a two back I-formation set more than once or twice since he has been here.
1. Why does JSmith hate Myles Gaskin? 2. Why does JSmith hate winning football? 3. Why does JSmith hate wearing Polish peasant scarves? 4. Why does JSmith hate Lavon Coleman? 5. Why does JSmith hate Jake Browning's completion percentage and public reputation? 6. Why does JSmith hate fitting scheme to personnel? 7. Why does JSmith hate running with lead blockers? 8. Why does JSmith hate running? 9. Why does JSmith hate winning game plans?
Etc.
Lead blockers? What is this, 1995?
Stanford and Michigan both love lead blockers and the old "man ball" I-formation stuff and both of their offenses have AIDS.
The Husky offensive schemes are brilliant. The guy calling the plays and building the game plans is not.
Their offenses are fine. Their QB's are shit. Stanford had one of the best offenses in the country last year.
They had that despite the scheme, not because of it.
Running antiquated I-formation offense is a handicap. When teams are successful with it, it is because their players are good enough to overcome it.
Just my opinion, but I'm also right.
You aren't right. Michigan is a top 5 team. Stanford has been one of the most successful programs in the country the past 7,8 years.
Alabama just started running the spread this year and that is due to their QB. The good coaches fit schemes to the players.
There are tons of shitty teams that run spread offenses.
Running some plays out of the I is not a handicap. I like UW because they are multiple on offense.
Michigan isn't a top whatever team because of its offense.
And Bama could be extremely successful running the wishbone or single wing. Bama made it work isn't a good argument.
Having a gold standard defense and elite players at every position gives teams the luxury to run shitty offenses.
Most teams run spread. Most offenses suck. HTH.
This is a terrible argument, from a pure logic perspective.
The bottom line is that whether you agree with my views on this or not, Petersen seems to. He is the real architect of this offense and I can't recall seeing the Huskies line up in a two back I-formation set more than once or twice since he has been here.
That's fine that Petersen agrees. Formations have little to do with an offense being boring. A lot of these dink and dunk spread offenses suck just like LSU's I-formation offense sucks.
It's almost like having a good QB is important and if you don't have one and aren't Alabama, you are fucked.
1. Why does JSmith hate Myles Gaskin? 2. Why does JSmith hate winning football? 3. Why does JSmith hate wearing Polish peasant scarves? 4. Why does JSmith hate Lavon Coleman? 5. Why does JSmith hate Jake Browning's completion percentage and public reputation? 6. Why does JSmith hate fitting scheme to personnel? 7. Why does JSmith hate running with lead blockers? 8. Why does JSmith hate running? 9. Why does JSmith hate winning game plans?
Etc.
Lead blockers? What is this, 1995?
Stanford and Michigan both love lead blockers and the old "man ball" I-formation stuff and both of their offenses have AIDS.
The Husky offensive schemes are brilliant. The guy calling the plays and building the game plans is not.
Their offenses are fine. Their QB's are shit. Stanford had one of the best offenses in the country last year.
They had that despite the scheme, not because of it.
Running antiquated I-formation offense is a handicap. When teams are successful with it, it is because their players are good enough to overcome it.
Just my opinion, but I'm also right.
You aren't right. Michigan is a top 5 team. Stanford has been one of the most successful programs in the country the past 7,8 years.
Alabama just started running the spread this year and that is due to their QB. The good coaches fit schemes to the players.
There are tons of shitty teams that run spread offenses.
Running some plays out of the I is not a handicap. I like UW because they are multiple on offense.
Michigan isn't a top whatever team because of its offense.
And Bama could be extremely successful running the wishbone or single wing. Bama made it work isn't a good argument.
Having a gold standard defense and elite players at every position gives teams the luxury to run shitty offenses.
Most teams run spread. Most offenses suck. HTH.
This is a terrible argument, from a pure logic perspective.
The bottom line is that whether you agree with my views on this or not, Petersen seems to. He is the real architect of this offense and I can't recall seeing the Huskies line up in a two back I-formation set more than once or twice since he has been here.
That's fine that Petersen agrees. Formations have little to do with an offense being boring. A lot of these dink and dunk spread offenses suck just like LSU's I-formation offense sucks.
It's almost like having a good QB is important and if you don't have one and aren't Alabama, you are fucked.
Whether an offense is "boring" or not doesn't even factor into it. An offense that can run or pass with similar effectiveness and can threaten the whole field (vertically and horizontally) is optimal.
If an offense can do those things without utilizing "spread" formations, great, but there are few that can at the college level. It requires elite personnel at multiple positions and a level of precision in the passing game (WCO concepts) that is difficult to achieve under NCAA practice rules.
I find it weird that some fans are so sentimental about fullbacks and downhill running "man ball" schemes. Apparently there is a decent amount of that sentiment around here.
Probably because fans like plays that work and when there is something that disappoints them they reflexively want to retreat to the familiar embrace of whatever they grew up with. I am sure when I-formation teams struggled in the 60s they had fans who wanted to go back to the T-formation.
The bottom line is that this is the best offense that the Huskies have ever had and it lines up in the shotgun or pistol approximately 90% of the time. And it lines up with a fullback 0% of the time.
To the extent there is a problem, it isn't because we! don't use a fullback, it is because the OC is a retard.
Because he doesnt have a TE to throw to dipstick. Josh Perkins and Pup are swilling beers and laughing are asses off over your post there passion. You of all people should understand. Stick to what you know,...why Whooching and obrien cant get to the qb. Now if Hunter Bryant doesnt get any seam love next year ill be concerned. Until then fuckoff. BTW, my good buddy and TE Perkins was the leading pass catcher last year...does that answer your question? Actually I already did
Comments
Alabama just started running the spread this year and that is due to their QB. The good coaches fit schemes to the players.
There are tons of shitty teams that run spread offenses.
Running some plays out of the I is not a handicap. I like UW because they are multiple on offense.
And Bama could be extremely successful running the wishbone or single wing. Bama made it work isn't a good argument.
Having a gold standard defense and elite players at every position gives teams the luxury to run shitty offenses.
Nobody is asking to transition to that. The basic identity of our offense is fine. What most of us have problems with is running a fucking end around to John Ross on 2nd and 1 when we're in rhythm and could easily jam it down the defense's throat for an easy first down. Misdirection and keeping a defense on its toes are great elements of an offense. But it hasn't dawned on our OC that it's okay to just line up every now and then in a basic formation and run right where the defense knows you're going to run it because you have the superior athletes and are going to buttfuck them with a high percentage play whether they like it or not.
I guess I am stunned that there are so many people who fetishize fullbacks, the I-formation and Spider Y Banana. Almost nobody runs that stuff in HS and college for a reason. And even in the NFL, two-back I-formation sets are becoming relatively rare.
The bottom line is that whether you agree with my views on this or not, Petersen seems to. He is the real architect of this offense and I can't recall seeing the Huskies line up in a two back I-formation set more than once or twice since he has been here.
It's almost like having a good QB is important and if you don't have one and aren't Alabama, you are fucked.
If an offense can do those things without utilizing "spread" formations, great, but there are few that can at the college level. It requires elite personnel at multiple positions and a level of precision in the passing game (WCO concepts) that is difficult to achieve under NCAA practice rules.
I find it weird that some fans are so sentimental about fullbacks and downhill running "man ball" schemes. Apparently there is a decent amount of that sentiment around here.
Probably because fans like plays that work and when there is something that disappoints them they reflexively want to retreat to the familiar embrace of whatever they grew up with. I am sure when I-formation teams struggled in the 60s they had fans who wanted to go back to the T-formation.
The bottom line is that this is the best offense that the Huskies have ever had and it lines up in the shotgun or pistol approximately 90% of the time. And it lines up with a fullback 0% of the time.
To the extent there is a problem, it isn't because we! don't use a fullback, it is because the OC is a retard.
Whooching and obrien cant get to the qb. Now if Hunter Bryant doesnt get any seam love next year ill be concerned. Until then fuckoff. BTW, my good buddy and TE Perkins was the leading pass catcher last year...does that answer your question? Actually I already did