We shouldn't be basing our offense off of the Read Option anymore

[doc4aday 1,887]

something that I have not heard in a long time with references to offenses is the "Multiple Offense".  We used to hear this a lot decades ago when schools ran this. Is this concept used even in the most remote outposts like North Dakota State? Seriously folks, I would like to get a somewhat accurate definition of a true "Multiple Offense" Scheme.

[Dual-Threat Rigby 8,751]

I know people don't want to hear this from me, but Alabama has became very similar to this system with their hire of Daboll over the summer. Its worked out pretty well for them, they use the TE/FB how I believe this system wants it, they have a diverse running stable that fits various roles (!!!) and they've really made Jalen a semi-capable threat passing, even with a ton of new face receivers. Not to mention they are also distributing the ball well. You can really see the progression when Tu'a comes in the garbage time...that being said I haven't watched an Alabama game so Im going off of highlights, stats, and what I've heard.

 

Point really being, hopefully this system does progress far away from the necessity of running ROs (and faux ROs) and allows for a true down hill running game to emerge, ala TAMU. When Starkel was in, he was no threat, yet the creativity of the running schemes had their backs getting ridiculous yardage. Even looking forward to next year, with a QB stable of Malik and Gatewood (two more than capable RO managers), we can just simply allow them to be potential threats instead of forcing designated reads (again, how Alabama uses Hurts). Teams sniffed out when we tried the designated ROs a good bit in 2014, and since then its just gotten more obvious. I guess the wildcat has been their updated version for misdirections in the backfield, but ffs, that formation is even more of a Gus staple than the RO at this point.

[AUGoo 2,664]

Do we still run the read option?

Haven't really seen a true read option since Nick Marshall.  

Looks to me like just a simple hand off, coupled with a Slowed Up No Huddle, zero motion offense.

 

[Malcolm_FleX48 1,869]

41 minutes ago, AUGoo said:

Do we still run the read option?

Haven't really seen a true read option since Nick Marshall.  

Looks to me like just a simple hand off, coupled with a Slowed Up No Huddle, zero motion offense.

 

I've seen a few plays that leave the backside DE unblocked and most of our blocking schemes are still somewhat built with the remnants of the ZR in mind. That needs updating as well as our formations. 

[80Tiger 901]

9 hours ago, Dual-Threat Rigby said:

I know people don't want to hear this from me, but Alabama has became very similar to this system with their hire of Daboll over the summer. Its worked out pretty well for them, they use the TE/FB how I believe this system wants it, they have a diverse running stable that fits various roles (!!!) and they've really made Jalen a semi-capable threat passing, even with a ton of new face receivers. Not to mention they are also distributing the ball well. You can really see the progression when Tu'a comes in the garbage time...that being said I haven't watched an Alabama game so Im going off of highlights, stats, and what I've heard.

 

Point really being, hopefully this system does progress far away from the necessity of running ROs (and faux ROs) and allows for a true down hill running game to emerge, ala TAMU. When Starkel was in, he was no threat, yet the creativity of the running schemes had their backs getting ridiculous yardage. Even looking forward to next year, with a QB stable of Malik and Gatewood (two more than capable RO managers), we can just simply allow them to be potential threats instead of forcing designated reads (again, how Alabama uses Hurts). Teams sniffed out when we tried the designated ROs a good bit in 2014, and since then its just gotten more obvious. I guess the wildcat has been their updated version for misdirections in the backfield, but ffs, that formation is even more of a Gus staple than the RO at this point.

Alabama stats to date- 186 rushing attempts, 93 passing attempts, 60 completion with 1 guy getting 20 of those completions and next highest 7.

Auburn stats to date- 191 rushing attempts, 108 passing attempts, 76 completions with 1 guy getting 23 of those completions and next highest 11.

They have gained more yards than we have in rushing, but their blocking and backs are better.

My point is I don't see any difference in the systems as far as how they approach the mix of run to pass and distribution to receivers.

[Randman5000 4,234]

1 hour ago, AUGoo said:

Do we still run the read option?

Haven't really seen a true read option since Nick Marshall.  

Looks to me like just a simple hand off, coupled with a Slowed Up No Huddle, zero motion offense.

 

You will see it alot when Joey Gatewood is our quarterback. 

If Gus survives this year. 

[DAG 34,017]

I actually like chip Lindsey's offense and I think it will only get better with time and more cohesiveness. The only things I wish would be rid from it is all the screen passes and the annoying hb hand off that takes forever to develop.

[DAG 34,017]

Also I wish they would take from Dabo's playbook with some more motions from the WR to the sticks and simple slant packages..just the little things can make a wide difference 

[McLoofus 35,182]

38 minutes ago, DAG said:

Also I wish they would take from Dabo's playbook with some more motions from the WR to the sticks and simple slant packages..just the little things can make a wide difference 

That's my thing. There's a whole third of the field that our opponents barely even have to defend when we're throwing the ball. Meanwhile, we just keep pissing in the wind with those bubble screens.

I guarantee you that a South American soccer coach who had never seen American football would watch a cutup of our offense and immediately ask why we don't try to exploit the middle of the field more. It's not football acumen. It's logic. 

Fortunately, Chip has done it plenty in the past. Not a ton of success here, but the routes are there. 

 

[Malcolm_FleX48 1,869]

21 hours ago, meh130 said:

AGreat stuff. I agree with most of it. I would say, I think Malzahn's original offense was intended to have some of this, he just didn't have much success at AU with this approach (for various reasons). Instead, he found success with a blend of his 2-back power running plays (the original Malzahn running offense) and the zone read option stuff he learned at Tulsa from Herb Hand. The power running and option running complemented each other, which meant there was not much reason to rely on passing. And the passing game he had was overly simple.

Malzahn also liked to archetype players into positions.

I think a more complex passing game, with more options for the QB, more routes, etc. is a good idea. I also like the idea of a player like Sal playing the hybrid TE/WR that Uzomah played.

When you go 4-wide and no H-Back/FB, you pretty much eliminate the power running plays, which almost forces the use of zone-read option running plays as your running constraint play.  However, other "Power Spread" teams like Urban Meyer's have been more effective using the TE or H-Back in the passing game, as has Penn State this year. So it is possible to combine the concepts.

It is okay for a non Dual-Threat QB in a more passing centric, or Air-Raid spread offense to occasionally run a zone read option play. Ole Miss did this pretty well.

We know we have what it takes to run the ball. I would love to see us bring more Air-Raid concepts into the offense. The original Air Raid offense at Kentucky was done out of Pro-Set, 21 Personnel Group offense. Originally it was not even a shotgun. It evolved into 3WR, then a QB shotgun 4WR, 1RB, 10 Personnel Group offense later. Only after that did Mike Leach go crazy with his 4-Verticals stuff.

I hear a lot of people on this board say "where is the TE"? I don't care, as long as we have a line, along with an RB, that can block a 4-man rush, and a plan to put the H-Back into a pass route, or the H-Back block and the RB go out on a route. I am also fine with a hand-down TE instead of an H-Back, or a flexed TE like Sal/Uzomah. Let's just get more competent passing, and give the QB more options.

As for the hand-down TE vs. H-Back, the H-Back originally was in Malzahn's power running offense derived from the Wing-T. It allows point of attack blocking for the power runs, but the truth is you can do that with pulling guards if you use a TE. The H-Back is an awesome thing to have in a zone read option game, especially the Inside Zone Read, to block the scraping ILB, or to allow a change-up of the read defender, but we don't need it as much if we ran less zone reads.

Last point. Clemson has done a great job of expanding the Tulsa Malzahn/Hand playbook. Also, Penn State runs a similar offense and has expanded it. We should do the same.

2

A possible way to remedy not being able to run Power-Run plays due to no H-Back is built in, in that the TE who is playing in the slot can actually motion back to the original formation and attach on as a Wing/H-Back and still give the ambiguity of being either a run-blocker or pass-catcher. Obviously, it takes a special athlete who can still be physical at the point of attack yet run routes to be able to give this formation any required "umph" but it's possible to get one of those. An O.J. Howard would be the type of athlete I'd be thinking of if you'd want to do both.

[Dual-Threat Rigby 8,751]

10 hours ago, 80Tiger said:

Alabama stats to date- 186 rushing attempts, 93 passing attempts, 60 completion with 1 guy getting 20 of those completions and next highest 7.

Auburn stats to date- 191 rushing attempts, 108 passing attempts, 76 completions with 1 guy getting 23 of those completions and next highest 11.

They have gained more yards than we have in rushing, but their blocking and backs are better.

My point is I don't see any difference in the systems as far as how they approach the mix of run to pass and distribution to receivers.

They execute better