2nd-team offense as Flexbone. Completely crazy idea or crazy-like-a-fox?

[blacklistedbully]

Just throwing this one out there for discussion. We've seen "1a-1b" defense. Though not many were happy with the outcome, and acknowledging that our offense, as is, is very productive, might it not be interesting if we had a complete Flexbone offense made up of 2nd-stringers?

One would think our 2nd-string athletes wouldn't be taking a back-seat athletically to GT quality linemen. Our backs & WR's are better, and we've got a QB riding the pine who could thrive, I believe.

I would imagine, from a coaching perspective, this might be an insane idea, likely taking away precious time getting the 1st unit ready each week. But imagine how much trouble we could give opposing defenses if, in any given game we could roll out an effective Flexbone offense for a few series. Imagine what toll it would take on other teams having to prep for us.

It's already acknowledged that prepping for the Flexbone in just a week is really difficult, and takes time. How would a defense prep for the possibility of it AND prepare to face Dak & Co.?

To clarify, I'm not talking about throwing some Diamond formation into our scheme, rather literally having an entire unit working on it as their primary role.

For the fun of it, let's project who could be on that unit that won't likely be a starter. Who is the QB? Who are the 2 A-backs? The B-back? The 2 WR's? The Center? 2 Guards? 2 Tackles?

How would you like to be the DC who would have to get ready in 1 week to face a team like that?

[Irondawg]

It's impossible with the 2nd stringers them being asked to master two systems, but is a fun idea. Fitz is probably your QB and i think your RB's would be Lee and either Holloway or one of the speeds freshman slot/scatback types.

Take your best blocking WR out of the 3rd string group. Christy/Johnson or something. carter, Flowers, Warren, thomas and someone else as the o-line.

I'll admit it's an interesting idea even if you just had those guys learn about 6 plays just to have it as a wrinkle if your main offense is totally stalling out for some reason.

[Barking 13]

Can't be any worse than 1B.. Yep, Fitz is the guy....

[dawgs]

I'd rather my starters just learn 6-8 plays out of the flex and have my starting OL blocking for my starting QB. RBs and WRs are gonna rotate regardless.

[cheewgumm]

Brilliant. We should start this next year.

[cheewgumm]

QB: Fitz
RB: Holloway
RB: Williams
RB: Somebody else

I love this idea, but think there is no way we would ever do it. Someone is going to do it and its going to work fantastically. Then we will copy it. So, in about 6 yrs we will be doing this.

Bravo

[dawgs]

Instead of spending valuable practice time coaching backups on a specialized package, why not spend that same time coaching up the starters though? They are starters for a reason. If the backup OL, especially as a total unit, can't block well enough, it doesn't matter how caught off guard the defense is. Also, they would know what we were doing as soon as the personnel came on the field. Have a few plays with the starters that could be intermixed with the base offense and normal personnel at QB and OL is how you really surprise them and you have your best players on the field to make the plays. WRs and RBs rotate enough that there wouldn't be a red flag sending in those guys.

[Johnson85]

Also, they would know what we were doing as soon as the personnel came on the field.

The point isn't to surprise the defense. We knew what Ga Tech was going to do and they still did what they wanted to because we apparently didn't prepare for shit.

The problem is the lack of practice time. For it to work, you'd have to have a coach and an entire offensive unit separate themselves during practice and work on installing an entire different offense while you are installing your preferred offense with the starters. But as someone else said, if you use the second team, then they either have to learn two offenses (and somehow prepare to execute both) or they are unavailable for subbing. So you'd basically have to use your third string, which most teams can't do.

If the blocking schemes are similar enough (I have no clue if they are), the way to do it would be to install it as a package for your backup QB. Let him come in for a series adn run the crap out of it, the other team will have to prepare for it in a weak, you can install it in the summer and use a little bit of time each weak practicing it, you don't have to worry about injuryng your starter, and you get your backup valuable experience, even if it's not running your main offense. It'd be especially fitting for us since we have two similar players in Staley and Fitz so that we can have one prepared as a backup and one prepared as a package QB.

[cheewgumm]

They could still come in and give the whole 1st team a rest. It would just be different totally. Only problem would be once injuries started, but I wouldn't care. I'd be glued to every game.

[dawgs]

With limited practice time, you can't afford to send 1-2 coaches and your whole backup offense off to learn a completely separate system. It either has to be a part of the playbook the whole team learns or its not an option. I don't want my WR coach off implementing a "1B" flex offense instead of watching, evaluating, and coaching the WRs.

As for resting offensive players, only the skill guys really need rest on offense. It'd be dumber than subbing in the "1B" defense to put in the an entire "1B" offense, especially at QB and on the OL, in a competitive game.

[7dawg]

Can anyone name the year and game? They ran about 4-5 plays out of the true flex bone in only one game. Who can name it.

[blacklistedbully]

Instead of spending valuable practice time coaching backups on a specialized package, why not spend that same time coaching up the starters though? They are starters for a reason. If the backup OL, especially as a total unit, can't block well enough, it doesn't matter how caught off guard the defense is. Also, they would know what we were doing as soon as the personnel came on the field. Have a few plays with the starters that could be intermixed with the base offense and normal personnel at QB and OL is how you really surprise them and you have your best players on the field to make the plays. WRs and RBs rotate enough that there wouldn't be a red flag sending in those guys.

Teams that run this do it, in part, because they can't get the athletes other schools get. It does require a ton of practice to get good at it. Timing is also so crucial. It would be really hard to have it as a legit package for your starters when they are spending the bulk of their time working on the main offense. The O-line would work on cut-blocking and getting to the LB's.

Perhaps you go past the 2-deep for the O-line. Don't think you'd have to worry much about the other positions, as I think the skills and prep for Flexbone would be more transferable to our regular offense. We wouldn't need our best, or even our 2nd-best player at each position to make an effective Flexbone offense.

[dawgs]

Teams that run this do it, in part, because they can't get the athletes other schools get. It does require a ton of practice to get good at it. Timing is also so crucial. It would be really hard to have it as a legit package for your starters when they are spending the bulk of their time working on the main offense. The O-line would work on cut-blocking and getting to the LB's.

Perhaps you go past the 2-deep for the O-line. Don't think you'd have to worry much about the other positions, as I think the skills and prep for Flexbone would be more transferable to our regular offense. We wouldn't need our best, or even our 2nd-best player at each position to make an effective Flexbone offense.

Well if the flex is so effective that guys that can't even crack the 2-deep for a program that's been pretty mediocre at recruiting OL the last few cycles could succeed at it, let's switch offenses and go sign a bunch of academy linemen and see what happens.

[blacklistedbully]

With limited practice time, you can't afford to send 1-2 coaches and your whole backup offense off to learn a completely separate system. It either has to be a part of the playbook the whole team learns or its not an option. I don't want my WR coach off implementing a "1B" flex offense instead of watching, evaluating, and coaching the WRs.

As for resting offensive players, only the skill guys really need rest on offense. It'd be dumber than subbing in the "1B" defense to put in the an entire "1B" offense, especially at QB and on the OL, in a competitive game.

Most of the work could be done at preseason camps. Perhaps you could even leave it to grad assistants to run practice for that group. It's not a complicated system, just one that requires a lot of learning time and practice to get the timing down. Now consider that the NCAA is apparently allowing everyone to add another assistant coach to the staff.

Hell, we could have Rocky Felker do it, if the rules allow him to coach.

[blacklistedbully]

Well if the flex is so effective that guys that can't even crack the 2-deep for a program that's been pretty mediocre at recruiting OL the last few cycles could succeed at it, let's switch offenses and go sign a bunch of academy linemen and see what happens.

We did in the 80's under Bellard, and had some success. But it can only take you so far, particularly since your QB get's the crap beat outta him. That's likely what doomed Bellard and the Wingbone at State, the fact that John Bond got so beat up he had trouble walking, much less playing.

But what we're talking about here is a change-of-pace. QB doesn't take the brutal beating Bond did because he doesn't see 25% of the action. You run enough of it to make it a real threat that the other team must spend valuable practice time prepping for. You see, our 2nd and/or 3rd-stringers would be prepping for running it, but their 1st teamers would have to practice stopping it.

[BulldogDX55]

Can anyone name the year and game? They ran about 4-5 plays out of the true flex bone in only one game. Who can name it.

I think it was Auburn, 2010, got big yardage but then fumbled.

[cheewgumm]

The 3rd teamers, or whoever the "Wishbone team" is made up of, would be practicing it all the time. All day, everyday....wishbone(flexbone, wahtever).

when they came in, what they lack in experience, they'd make up for in execution. It would be awesome.

[7dawg]

I think it was Auburn, 2010, got big yardage but then fumbled.

at least that is the only game I remember. I believe it was the first series of the second half. We were gashing them for 7-8 yards a pop then my memory fades. I thought we started passing in true MSU form then had to punt, we could have fumbled also. We never went back to it in that game or any other. Baffles the mind. It was the flex and not the wishbone.

[Todd4State]

I think the idea is good. I don't think it's very feasible, and it's fairly risky.

If our spread option QB went down, then our flexbone QB hasn't really run the 1A offense plays- then what? Do we put all of our backups in or do we let them stay in knowing that are starters haven't practiced the flexbone very much? And you could do that for every position really. That's why you don't see anyone doing it. The thing about the option is you have to really commit to it because if you don't, you're going to probably have a lot of turnovers and look a lot like Croom.

I do like running the wishbone on the goal line though.

[Todd4State]

Oh- and we would probably have to get rid of Brian Johnson and have to hire a flexbone guy to run it. That's another issue.

[fishwater99]

Not no, but HELL NO..

We need to be done with swapping out entire units unless we are up 4 touchdowns on a team.

[blacklistedbully]

I think the idea is good. I don't think it's very feasible, and it's fairly risky.

If our spread option QB went down, then our flexbone QB hasn't really run the 1A offense plays- then what? Do we put all of our backups in or do we let them stay in knowing that are starters haven't practiced the flexbone very much? And you could do that for every position really. That's why you don't see anyone doing it. The thing about the option is you have to really commit to it because if you don't, you're going to probably have a lot of turnovers and look a lot like Croom.

I do like running the wishbone on the goal line though.

Don't need to use the 2nd team QB. If we actually got down to our 3rd string QB, we've got bigger problems than whether or not our 3rd string QB could come in and run our normal offense. At that point, we're probably going pure vanilla with play-calling.

Really don't think we'd have to make staff changes. The Flexbone isn't complicated, it just needs great execution, which comes from repetition, and a good QB for the system. There aren't even many different plays. Any of our QB's could fit it well, IMO. Clearly not going to be Dak, but whoever isn't 2nd team to Dak from Williams, Fitz, Staley & Tiano could be a solid candidate. All can run & pass.

I could be wrong, but I suspect the RB's in the Flexbone practice would still have skill development that would make them transferable to our main offense. To me, it's about the QB & the O-line, as the QB needs to be able to read correctly and be more in tune with multiple pass targets, etc, and the O-line, as thr blocking assignments & techniques would be different.

We have enough talent & depth at QB to be alright. My question would be, do we have enough depth at O-line to keep the starters and 2 or 3 others focused on the primary offense, yet still have the bodies to come up with a Flexbone Center, 2 Guards & 2 Tackles? They don't have to be anyone close to making the 2-deep, unless we're really that thin on the roster.

This year we had 17 O-linemen on our roster. Though that could vary a bit, depending on losses to grad, injury and addition from recruiting, etc, it would seem to me we could find 7 or so of them to be in the alternate Flexbone offense, allowing for substitution or injury. And if we ran it in games just 3 or 4 drives, odds of injury go way down.