The offense and what we will be capable of

[Coach007]

Just for the conversation...


Let's assume Stevens is here and KT stays knowing the offense will look like this:

Stevens in at QB. Hill and Thompson in the backfield. 2 wrs to the right, 1 to the left. KT motions to the left. The ball is snapped. Pause.


As a defense, that is a nightmare. Stevens can run, pass, hand it off. If he dumps it to KT.. KT can RPO too. Let choose that option right for now...

Upon snapping, Hill turns right, pushes of to cut left. Stevens fakes to him. Dumps to KT and runs a route up the right seam. The WR on the left runs a slant to right. Hill is now a blocker or a Receiver. KT can flip it to him, fake that and run (Hill Blocks). KT can throw it to a deeper route.

Hill could run that same route, get the handoff from Stevens and KT reads to block. OR it becomes and option from Hill.



Too many option and designs that can come from that.


I can understand WHY Moorhead would want Stevens.

[STATEBALLIN]

Doubt it. Sorry

[Coach007]

Doubt it. Sorry

DOubt what? KT staying? I've been told he is staying.

[the_real_MSU_is_us]

yeah we heard lots last offseason about 2 QB sets

To paraphrase coach Peterson when he was at Boise: "It doesn't matter how good the play design is, what matters is if you can teach it". I'm sure with 2 triple threat QB's you can scheme up a wide variety of plays, but every time you practice one is one less rep of a normal play. And normal plays are what we need to be able to run. Out of the threat of a 5 yard run up the middle comes the potential to trick LBs. Out of the threat for a 9 yard slant route can the safeties be made to bite underneath. If our OL misses assignments on routine runs, and if we can't connect o routine passes, then every DC will play us safe and no tricks work.

Now you might be thinking "But KT and Stevens together isn't a trick!", but let me tell you it 100% is. So let's take your situation with me as the DC: I man all 3 WR's and bring 4 rushers. That leaves me 2 S and 2 LB to defend Stevens, KT, and Hill. When the ball is snapped I bring a LB straight at KT so there's no time for a double pass play like you talk about. I have one S on the backside of the play to help contain the run/swing pass to Hill should Hill/Stevens go there. I tell the other S to stay deep in the offchance one of our WR's get's separation (again I stress the unlikeliness of that being a threat) and the last LB stays home on Stevens. So now you've got your passing options covered, 4 rushers on your 5 OL should you pass from the pocket, a LB bearing down on KT too fast for a play involving him to develop, 5 defenders playing the run to at most 5 blockers (if Stevens keeps behind Hill), and an unblocked man on the edges at all times. Your OL better be able to block damn good else you can't run or pass the ball through traditional means, and any pass play with KT involves a huge risk of my LB getting there in time to blow it up. But if your OL can consistently pass or run block 1 on 1, then why not use a vanilla O as you'll dominate anyway?

Basically KT can be completely taken away by bringing 1 guy hard after him as soon as the play is on. Now you're got an undersized TE with bad hands and blocking abilities OR a QB with no time to throw and no blockers OR an RB in space that isn't as good at making guys miss as an RB. You're better off bringing in Spivey and at least doing some of that well.

So these 2 QB gimmicks only work when you've got the basic plays down, which last year made pretty clear we shouldn't take for granted

[BulldogDX55]

yeah we heard lots last offseason about 2 QB sets

To paraphrase coach Peterson when he was at Boise: "It doesn't matter how good the play design is, what matters is if you can teach it". I'm sure with 2 triple threat QB's you can scheme up a wide variety of plays, but every time you practice one is one less rep of a normal play. And normal plays are what we need to be able to run. Out of the threat of a 5 yard run up the middle comes the potential to trick LBs. Out of the threat for a 9 yard slant route can the safeties be made to bite underneath. If our OL misses assignments on routine runs, and if we can't connect o routine passes, then every DC will play us safe and no tricks work.

Now you might be thinking "But KT and Stevens together isn't a trick!", but let me tell you it 100% is. So let's take your situation with me as the DC: I man all 3 WR's and bring 4 rushers. That leaves me 2 S and 2 LB to defend Stevens, KT, and Hill. When the ball is snapped I bring a LB straight at KT so there's no time for a double pass play like you talk about. I have one S on the backside of the play to help contain the run/swing pass to Hill should Hill/Stevens go there. I tell the other S to stay deep so in the offchance one of our WR's get's separation (again I stress the unlikeliness of that being a threat) and the last LB stays home. on Stevens. So now you've got your passing options covered, 4 rushers on your 5 OL should you pass from the pocket, a LB bearing down on KT too fast for a play involving him to develop, 5 defenders playing the run to at most 5 blockers (if Stevens keeps behind Hill), and an unblocked man on the edges at all times. Your OL better be able to block damn good else you can't run or pass the ball through traditional means, and any pass play with KT involves a huge risk of my LB getting there in time to blow it up. But if your OL can consistently pass or run block 1 on 1, then why not use a vanilla O as you'll dominate anyway?

So these 2 QB gimmicks only work when you've got the basic plays down, which last year made pretty clear we shouldn't take for granted

Look, I don't think we'd run something like that, but your defensive analysis is waaaaay off. With that defense, all it takes is one receiver getting loose on a quick slant for a touchdown if the safeties are plying way up watching the backfield and you've got 4 rushing 5 up front.

[the_real_MSU_is_us]

Look, I don't think we'd run something like that, but your defensive analysis is waaaaay off. With that defense, all it takes is one receiver getting loose on a quick slant for a touchdown if the safeties are plying way up watching the backfield and you've got 4 rushing 5 up front.

No not at all. My D starts with 6 in the box and 5 secondary. I've got 3 CBs playing man on the WR's (no, we don't have have any playmakers that can beat this) The S on the weakside comes up if Hill goes that way. The toherside is a S that's saying behind the 2 WR's on that side. There's the LB that's covering KT/Blitzing if KT stays to block. Then there's the QB spy LB over the middle.

So as far as a "quick slant" would work, best you could do is have Hill go to the flat to draw up that S, have Stevens fake a keeper to keep the LB up, and then hit the WR (assuming he beats his CB), have the WR break his tackle if he's in position, and then hope the S on the other side of the field who's got a good angle misses the tackle. That's literally exactly the same as any 4-2-5 D... take us last year: We'd bring the front 4, blitz the nickel and swing up one of the 2 S to cover the slot, and one LB would be occupied by the RB/TE/blitz leaving 1 S deep and 1 LB in the middle. How many times did opponents burn us with a slant last year? like once?

[Coach007]

yeah we heard lots last offseason about 2 QB sets

To paraphrase coach Peterson when he was at Boise: "It doesn't matter how good the play design is, what matters is if you can teach it". I'm sure with 2 triple threat QB's you can scheme up a wide variety of plays, but every time you practice one is one less rep of a normal play. And normal plays are what we need to be able to run. Out of the threat of a 5 yard run up the middle comes the potential to trick LBs. Out of the threat for a 9 yard slant route can the safeties be made to bite underneath. If our OL misses assignments on routine runs, and if we can't connect o routine passes, then every DC will play us safe and no tricks work.

Now you might be thinking "But KT and Stevens together isn't a trick!", but let me tell you it 100% is. So let's take your situation with me as the DC: I man all 3 WR's and bring 4 rushers. That leaves me 2 S and 2 LB to defend Stevens, KT, and Hill. When the ball is snapped I bring a LB straight at KT so there's no time for a double pass play like you talk about. I have one S on the backside of the play to help contain the run/swing pass to Hill should Hill/Stevens go there. I tell the other S to stay deep in the offchance one of our WR's get's separation (again I stress the unlikeliness of that being a threat) and the last LB stays home on Stevens. So now you've got your passing options covered, 4 rushers on your 5 OL should you pass from the pocket, a LB bearing down on KT too fast for a play involving him to develop, 5 defenders playing the run to at most 5 blockers (if Stevens keeps behind Hill), and an unblocked man on the edges at all times. Your OL better be able to block damn good else you can't run or pass the ball through traditional means, and any pass play with KT involves a huge risk of my LB getting there in time to blow it up. But if your OL can consistently pass or run block 1 on 1, then why not use a vanilla O as you'll dominate anyway?

Basically KT can be completely taken away by bringing 1 guy hard after him as soon as the play is on. Now you're got an undersized TE with bad hands and blocking abilities OR a QB with no time to throw and no blockers OR an RB in space that isn't as good at making guys miss as an RB. You're better off bringing in Spivey and at least doing some of that well.

So these 2 QB gimmicks only work when you've got the basic plays down, which last year made pretty clear we shouldn't take for granted

I love threads like this vs bitching about everything. Thanks....


Ok. You are leaving 3 wrs in man. That's a dream for a QB and wrs. You are rushing only 4... with 6 in the box. That's great numbers for a run too. The RPO knows and reacts to what you do.

Let the LB laser towards KT and lanes are open. Impossible UNLESS the QB can't read.

[KOdawg1]

This is actually fun. Keep it up guys lol

[Coach007]

This is actually fun. Keep it up guys lol

I love it. I'm waiting on more to jump in and think about the possibilities...

[the_real_MSU_is_us]

I love threads like this vs bitching about everything. Thanks....


Ok. You are leaving 3 wrs in man. That's a dream for a QB and wrs. You are rushing only 4... with 6 in the box. That's great numbers for a run too. The RPO knows and reacts to what you do.

Let the LB laser towards KT and lanes are open. Impossible UNLESS the QB can't read.

For the 3rd time now, there's a S deep so it's not like the CBs are on an island. Secondly, our own D had 6 men in the box on 80% of plays last year. Are you saying Shoops' D is easy to run on? 4-2-5 is a common D these days. Lastly, there were many many D's last year that went man on our WR's and got away with it because our WR's are so far below average. Seriously, man free isn't out of the ordinary, and if you're wanting a 2nd S deep then by definition you can't have more than 6 in the box on a 3 WR set. You can't criticize the lack of S help and also the lack of men in the box

The O you describe is a 2 back set, where one goes in the flat. The gimmick is that KT can pass, most RB's cant. That's the only change to a normal RB swing lateral. So to say that having an LB take off after KT is going to make the D easy to gash is a strange claim to make since that's what most teams do when a RB rolls out for a lateral- the LB/S responsible for them immediately charges to blow the play up behind the line before the RB can catch the ball and make a move. Or at least they follow closely till the pass is made that there'd be no time to make a move after the catch, which means KT wouldn't have time to throw or run in your hypothetical play.

Seriously, all KT gives you is a tall RB that can throw, at the expense of a true TE/WR/RB. The only thing the DC has to do is keep their secondary assignment sound OR get to KT too fast for him to make the throw and his passing potential is gone. So if Stevens lateraled it to KT he would have: 3 WR's with CBs on them and a S over top, as an unblocked LB bears down on him, OR (if Hill doesn't go to the other side of the formation but instead comes underneath) 3WR's with CBs on them, 1 S over top, a LB bearing down on him, and a LB on Hill underneath. backside S/LB would take Stevens either way. You've gained absolutely nothing vs having KT as the QB from the pocket. The play only works if the CB's are too stupid to stay on their man AND the LB on KT can't get there in time, or if the WRs beat their coverage AND the LB doesn't get there in time.

And another thing, bringing 4 isn't a small amount when there's only 5 OL to block. Even if Hill or KT stay in the DC has to like those odds of getting reasonably quick pressure. And it's not like the DC couldn't occasionally bring up the S to cover the flats and blitz both LBs for a 0 blitz, it's not like what I described is literally the only play that can ever be run vs your scheme. Again, you've got a 2 RB set where one of them can throw to the below average WR's... there's not a dc in the SEC that can't figure that out.

I'd rather spend all that time learning real plays, and have KT develop as a pure QB rather than spend time making into a crappy RB/WR/ blocker that's not as ready is Stevens got hurt

[Percho]

Somewhere in all of that; Holloway just scored up the middle.:)

[Coach007]

For the 3rd time now, there's a S deep so it's not like the CBs are on an island.



So 4 in coverage on 3 men. I now have numbers. My QB has to find where the lack is. Somebody is open or has a gap.



Lastly, there were many many D's last year that went man on our WR's and got away with it because our WR's are so far below average.


Knowing Fitz could hit a deeper route. That changes.



The O you describe is a 2 back set, where one goes in the flat. The gimmick is that KT can pass, most RB's cant. That's the only change to a normal RB swing lateral. So to say that having an LB take off after KT is going to make the D easy to gash is a strange claim to make since that's what most teams do when a RB rolls out for a lateral- the LB/S responsible for them immediately charges to blow the play up behind the line before the RB can catch the ball and make a move.


Again, the issue here is that KT can pass. You have given up the numbers. In an RPO, somebody is open or the QB has a massive run. So let's assume the LB takes that option away. Who is on Hill?


You just stated the weak side S is taking him because your other LB is taking the QB. Now, Hill is on the same side as KT. So I'm going to assume you are not wanting to have your weak side S to rush across the field to cover him. That leave the ONLY player on the weak side a CB who is covering a WR. It would mean Stevens is sprinting to the weak side and either your LB (being blocked by the free OL that you left) or your CB (being blocked by the WR) is going to have to make one hell of a play.....

This is just one option of having both on the field.

[the_real_MSU_is_us]

So 4 in coverage on 3 men. I now have numbers. My QB has to find where the lack is. Somebody is open or has a gap.

Have you seen our WRs? Also it's extremely common for defenses to have a QB spy if he's mobile, and of course a LB has to account for the RB and someone takes the TE as well. So do the math, that leaves one free man to play over the top (4 rushers, 1 on the RB, 1 on the TE, 1 on QB, 3 on WR's in man = 10... so in most non-zone looks you're going to take just 1 S overtop assuming you don't bring 4 v a 6 man protection).




Knowing Fitz could hit a deeper route. That changes. Again, the issue here is that KT can pass.

Does it? can he? KT hasn't shown me that (sub 50% comp % in mostly mop up duty, doesn't look crisp to my eye, bad comp % this spring), maybe Stevens can. Either way, there's no denying that our WR's are below average for the SEC. Genuinely among the bottom 3/14.




In an RPO, somebody is open or the QB has a massive run. So let's assume the LB takes that option away. Who is on Hill?

Incorrect, RPO's work by finding a man with 2 assignments and making him choose between them. Man coverage prevents it as there are no double assignments... Why do you think we never did any quick RPO passes last year in SEC play? They played us man to man and so there was nobody to isolate. Like really though there are ways to counter the RPO, that's why everyone isn't running it every play and putting up 70 points a game. It's a tool you use when you notice the D's tendencies are favorable for it, just like play action is a tool used to get over the top of trigger happy S's.


You just stated the weak side S is taking him because your other LB is taking the QB. Now, Hill is on the same side as KT. So I'm going to assume you are not wanting to have your weak side S to rush across the field to cover him. That leave the ONLY player on the weak side a CB who is covering a WR. It would mean Stevens is sprinting to the weak side and either your LB (being blocked by the free OL that you left) or your CB (being blocked by the WR) is going to have to make one hell of a play.....

The backside S swaps assignments with the LB. Again, all you're describing here is a 2 back set with a mobile QB... if it's impossible to get an unblocked defender to the play when the RBs are lead blockers for then every O would be running 2 back sets. So the 3 CBs stay on 3 WR's, the 4 DL counter the 5 OL, and now e've got 2 LBs and 2 S's on Stevens, KT, and Hill, and that's assuming nobody previously mentioned near the play gets off their block. if 4 players can guard 3 playmakers and keep 1 deep there's a problem with communication

Again, Shoop ran the 4-2-5 and all the high paid OCs in the conference couldn't figure it out, if it was as simple as a 2 back set don't you think that would have been discovered at some point over the 6 years he's been a DC?


This is just one option of having both on the field.

And I'm for these gimmicks IF we have the regular O running flawlessly. But after last season, KT's obvious room for improvement, and Stevens' short time here before the season starts, I'd rather just get them both ready to be traditional QB's and the rest of the O more snaps executing it. Later in the season if things are going well sure, install a few of these plays... but to be clear I think trickeration comes AFTER the regular O is stressing the D. Take Florida last year.. they scored their TD on a WR pass, our S bit that it was a run and left his assignment. But if they hasn't been running that play for 10+ yards all game he wouldn't have left his assignment. Again, having KT take a pitch and then throw it is a tool to expose flaws in a D, but it isn't a cure vs all schemes else that's all anyone would do.