TN to use Fullback?

#51
#51
orangeslice13 said:
Coach Jones' offense is really hard to go against," said Broncos rookie defensive tackle Derek Wolfe, who played at Cincinnati. "You don't know what they're going to do because they do so many misdirection things. A play might look like it's going to be pass, and the next thing you know they're running power. It's nuts. There's a lot of stuff for defenses to prepare for."

Sounds to me like CBJ is following his plan and putting in the next part of his offence.
Crawl before you walk, walk before you run
Click to expand...

Hope you're right slice...cause right now we're most certainly crawling.
 
#53
#53
volswillrise12 said:
If the offensive line can't open up running lanes, and we have two running backs who aren't great at running between the tackles then what's a fullback going to do? I'm fine with CBJs offense, it's the old farts that complain about "traditional sets" and crap. Honestly, football can be effective running the spread no huddle guys we just don't have the personnel. Not flaming but a fullback wouldn't have helped against Florida. The O line has to open holes.
Click to expand...

This is as far as I got into this thread. This sums everything up brilliantly.

For all those griping about not having the type of players for the read option/spread, when has our o-line ever shown that they can create holes for a power I formation? When have our RBs shown they can run in between the tackles? How good of an idea is it to run a Power I when your fullback is a converted LB?
 
Last edited:
#55
#55
volfanbill said:
This is as far as I got into this thread. This sums everything up brilliantly.

For all those griping about not having the type of players for the read option/spread, when has our o-line ever shown that they can create holes for a power I formation? When have our RBs shown they can run in between the tackles? How good of an idea is it to run a Power I when your fullback is a converted LB?
Click to expand...

Appreciate the support due to the knob that disagreed with me earlier. I'll also say Dooley/Chaney ran a Pro Style/West Coast system with a FB (I think Bartholomew was our FB) and our running game still didn't improve all that much. People just don't want to accept that the problem is a combination of the line and the running backs. This O line is excellent at pass blocking but run blocking has always been a weakness. It's just unfortunate that they are great pass blockers and we suck at passing the football this year. Keep in mind that Florida's D line pretty much owned our O line last game. It's no wonder Neal and Lane dance to the outside--they couldn't get a thing at all inside. Easley and Fowler were blowing us up in the backfield. I don't think a fullback's going to do squat --just another inexperienced guy to rep. I mean I'm not going to hate on CBJ but hopefully the line starts to dominate. I'm not expecting it all the time but I think we should be seeing it some. It's on them.
 
#56
#56
utvols74 said:
Tough guy behind the keyboard -

My point about '93 was that Bama won with a very simple offense; granted they had an incredible defense. You missed that point I guess.

Wuerfell was successful BECAUSE of the system he was in. I'm saying that UT can build a system around its QB to help make him successful as well....and keep it simple as Bama did.

As far as I know, I'm typing on a keyboard and quite incapable of preventing Butch from doing his thing. I don't have an overestimated sense of influence as apparently you do.
Click to expand...

That Alabama team had one of the greatest defenses of all time....Im not sure if you have noticed that we do not.

As for Wuerfell.....Spurrier has coached several QBS before and since and most of them were average to below average.....I think u way undervalue Wuerfell's talent.
 
#57
#57
utvols74 said:
My point about '93 was that Bama won with a very simple offense; granted they had an incredible defense. You missed that point I guess.

Wuerfell was successful BECAUSE of the system he was in. I'm saying that UT can build a system around its QB to help make him successful as well....and keep it simple as Bama did.
Click to expand...

Alabama used to often follow the Neyland pattern, put your best athletes on Defense, it's all about defense, and the offense is an after thought. It used to work, and sometimes I think it still does. Build a Rock Solid D, and the offense only has to score so much.

Stallings in 93 also had a team recruited by Curry, who seemed for awhile to be the Johnny Apple Seeder of recruiting championship teams that succeeded after he left. It's very easy to stick to simple when you have top talent. But we're not going to run Gene Stallings/Curry team, we're going to run a Butch Jones team, which means spread option offense....either get with it or don't watch but that is the system. But Butch is best when he does Butch.
 
Last edited:
#58
#58
volswillrise12 said:
Appreciate the support due to the knob that disagreed with me earlier. I'll also say Dooley/Chaney ran a Pro Style/West Coast system with a FB (I think Bartholomew was our FB) and our running game still didn't improve all that much. People just don't want to accept that the problem is a combination of the line and the running backs. This O line is excellent at pass blocking but run blocking has always been a weakness. It's just unfortunate that they are great pass blockers and we suck at passing the football this year. Keep in mind that Florida's D line pretty much owned our O line last game. It's no wonder Neal and Lane dance to the outside--they couldn't get a thing at all inside. Easley and Fowler were blowing us up in the backfield. I don't think a fullback's going to do squat --just another inexperienced guy to rep. I mean I'm not going to hate on CBJ but hopefully the line starts to dominate. I'm not expecting it all the time but I think we should be seeing it some. It's on them.
Click to expand...

The problem is talent across the board. We have a few playmakers at WR, but none of them are experienced enough to make the rest of the team better. Not great at qb, offensive line, TEs or RBs for any type of offense. Add to it that oru D is lacking on depth and notoriously slow, well it all adds up to a bad football team regardless of the coach and/or the schemes.
 
#59
#59
I know this is on a much different scale, but my sons HS team here in GA runs the spread no huddle. As a "wrinkle" for last week’s game and coming off a bye week they installed the power game no huddle as well. They stayed in the spread for all of the first half going into half time down 14-17. Came out 2nd half running a mixture of spread and power game at a hurry up tempo. Caught the opposing D off guard especially in regards to tempo and having the correct personal on the field. We won the game final score 31-20.

Again, I know there is a huge difference in college and HS but it did work very well.
 
#60
#60
BleedorangeinGA said:
I know this is on a much different scale, but my sons HS team here in GA runs the spread no huddle. As a "wrinkle" for last week’s game and coming off a bye week they installed the power game no huddle as well. They stayed in the spread for all of the first half going into half time down 14-17. Came out 2nd half running a mixture of spread and power game at a hurry up tempo. Caught the opposing D off guard especially in regards to tempo and having the correct personal on the field. We won the game final score 31-20.

Again, I know there is a huge difference in college and HS but it did work very well.
Click to expand...

Yep, I saw a HS team change back and forth from a wishbone with 2 tight ends to a spread formation. They were running "tempo" from both sets and the outcome was lethal. The defense didn't know if they were scratching their watch or winding their butt.
 
#62
#62
Crazy Ivan said:
I'm fine with CBJs offense, it's the old farts that complain about "traditional sets" and crap.

That offense works great when you've got a great QB and a set of WRs who can get open and catch the ball consistently. We certainly don't need to scrap the offense this season and I understand Butch has a process and he needs to keep the development of players within that system. But given the fact that he doesn't have many available players who played in that type of offense, it makes sense to use an I or variation some. 3 and outs are not helping our offense at all. Need to find something to sustain drives and vastly improve the
3rd down conversion rate.

Meyer at UF, Malzahn at Auburn, and Sumlin at aTm are the 3 coaches/teams that have had real success with that offense. The one thing they have in common is great QBs running their offense. Tebow, Cam, and Manziel. We need one of those types to be successful in the SEC in that offense.
Click to expand...

Wow...that should be easy. All we need is a HEISMAN TROPHY QB to run the offense. No problem.
 
#63
#63
Sgt_Nick_Fury said:
Alabama used to often follow the Neyland pattern, put your best athletes on Defense, it's all about defense, and the offense is an after thought. It used to work, and sometimes I think it still does. Build a Rock Solid D, and the offense only has to score so much.

Stallings in 93 also had a team recruited by Curry, who seemed for awhile to be the Johnny Apple Seeder of recruiting championship teams that succeeded after he left. It's very easy to stick to simple when you have top talent. But we're not going to run Gene Stallings/Curry team, we're going to run a Butch Jones team, which means spread option offense....either get with it or don't watch but that is the system. But Butch is best when he does Butch.
Click to expand...


Yes, I made note of the tremendous D Bama had. If you want to see just how good - Youtube Bama vs. Miami in the Sugar Bowl in 93'.

I'm not opposed to the spread or read option. My past posts have said as much. What I am opposed to it putting your players in a position to lose running a scheme you don't have the talent for. Your scheme should match your talent level and then evolve into your "perfect storm" of offensive finesse. Most kids "get" basic sets and if you can't be successful with that, you're probably not going to be successful (especially early in the season) with more sophisticated schemes. I don't have a problem with a FB (although I doubt its effectiveness against FL), but it seems we should have pulled this trigger earlier in the season to get the players used to it. Switching from power sets to read option to spread is great - as long as you have the talent. I'm not sure we do (at this point). As someone said earlier, walk before you run. Its as if we tried running, now we're back to walking.
 
#65
#65
Giveem6 said:
Let me explain football to you. When you have no threat of a passing game the defense focuses solely on the run. That off balance in the offense allows the D to load the box every time with 6-8 defenders for 5 lineman to block. That is why the running lanes aren't available. Not to mention that our running plays consist of read options which end up always being sweeps or mid draws because we don't have a mobile quarterback.

Adding a fullback lets me know two things.

1. Bajakian realizes that it's time to change it up because our reads and mobility aren't there at qb.

2. They are trying to account for the D loading the box again and again to allow running lines via an extra blocker.

So you're wrong. A fullback is a great sign
Click to expand...

Or...

1) They want a way to buy more time in the pocket with an extra blocker.

and...

2) They're going to throw fewer receivers out there...

because...

3) They're preparing to throw a freshman QB into the fire.
 
#66
#66
utvols74 said:
Yes, I made note of the tremendous D Bama had. If you want to see just how good - Youtube Bama vs. Miami in the Sugar Bowl in 93'.

I'm not opposed to the spread or read option. My past posts have said as much. What I am opposed to it putting your players in a position to lose running a scheme you don't have the talent for. Your scheme should match your talent level and then evolve into your "perfect storm" of offensive finesse. Most kids "get" basic sets and if you can't be successful with that, you're probably not going to be successful (especially early in the season) with more sophisticated schemes. I don't have a problem with a FB (although I doubt its effectiveness against FL), but it seems we should have pulled this trigger earlier in the season to get the players used to it. Switching from power sets to read option to spread is great - as long as you have the talent. I'm not sure we do (at this point). As someone said earlier, walk before you run. Its as if we tried running, now we're back to walking.
Click to expand...

Then you have to reteach a scheme each year that's just not how it works, and it means not being able to work on fundamentals. You install the system first. You pull in talent for keys positions.....but you don't want to to be reinventing your offensive scheme every year to match current talent that's what Got Fulmer in trouble in the end.

Let him get his system in place and have patience....
 
#67
#67
golf437 said:
Our offensive has proven not to be our strength so we cannot do as you wish against SEC teams. It might work Sat. though.
Click to expand...

I agree our offense has been "offensive". We haven't tried what I've suggested, so you don't know if it will work or not.
 
#68
#68
RiotVol said:
Or...

1) They want a way to buy more time in the pocket with an extra blocker.

and...

2) They're going to throw fewer receivers out there...

because...

3) They're preparing to throw a freshman QB into the fire.
Click to expand...

Blocking out of I form or strong I isn't nearly the most effective way to add an extra blocker for the passing game. This offense relies heavily on the ability of the tight ends to chip and go the outside rusher and get open on the flats, upfield, or to make their reads based on the defense.

It's a fullback not a two hback set out of shotgun. The only time the fullback blocking in the passing game becomes relevant is on play action or designed rollouts. I doubt Worley or one the freshman will be rolling out. Maybe later but with so little experience I don't see it just yet.

And I'm not saying a fullback isn't used in key spots to add pass blocking, just not for this offense. That's primarily the tight ends job.
 
Last edited:
#70
#70
Sgt_Nick_Fury said:
Then you have to reteach a scheme each year that's just not how it works, and it means not being able to work on fundamentals. You install the system first. You pull in talent for keys positions.....but you don't want to to be reinventing your offensive scheme every year to match current talent that's what Got Fulmer in trouble in the end.

Let him get his system in place and have patience....
Click to expand...

I agree sgt...you need to learn one scheme before you try to sprinkle in new ones.

Patience...dang I'm tired of "patience".
 
#71
#71
orangeslice13 said:
Coach Jones' offense is really hard to go against," said Broncos rookie defensive tackle Derek Wolfe, who played at Cincinnati. "You don't know what they're going to do because they do so many misdirection things. A play might look like it's going to be pass, and the next thing you know they're running power. It's nuts. There's a lot of stuff for defenses to prepare for."

Sounds to me like CBJ is following his plan and putting in the next part of his offence.
Crawl before you walk, walk before you run
Click to expand...

Or clutching at straws.... Anyone know how Peterman is doing?
 
#72
#72
Giveem6 said:
Blocking out of I form or strong I isn't nearly the most effective way to add an extra blocker for the passing game. This offense relies heavily on the ability of the tight ends to chip and go the outside rusher and get open on the flats, upfield, or to make their reads based on the defense.

It's a fullback not a two hback set out of shotgun. The only time the fullback blocking in the passing game becomes relevant is on play action or designed rollouts. I doubt Worley or one the freshman will be rolling out. Maybe later but with so little experience I don't see it just yet.

And I'm not saying a fullback isn't used in key spots to add pass blocking, just not for this offense. That's primarily the tight ends job.
Click to expand...

I don't see anything about I formation anywhere in that snippet, and we're assuming that the sports journalists actually know the difference between an H-Back in the shotgun vs. a fullback in a more traditional offense. I wonder if they're really seeking out a fullback in the traditional sense, or searching for h-backs who are better blockers than receivers.

To be clear, I agree with your sentiment, but I just wonder if what's going on is a little more nuanced than "Hey, we're looking for fullback, which means they want to run the ball more."

And I still think this could mean they're setting up for max protection with two (or three) receivers running routes. If that's the case, then that screams packages meant to protect a freshman qb and simplify the decisions he has to make.
 
#73
#73
KBVol said:
Butch isn't gonna forgo "his system" IMO. Our current personnel doesn't ideally fit the system he wants to run, but he's gonna go with what he knows and what he wants to run moving forward. Jmo.
Click to expand...

I agree.

I think it would be great if Butch could show we finally have a coach willing to adapt to his players and willing to make changes when something obviously isn't working though.
 
#74
#74
utvols74 said:
I really don't understand this. This staff has had since January to evaluate these players (at least those on campus...not fall enrollees). And NOW....we want to experiment?

If Steve Spurrier can make Worleyish type QBs win Heisman trophies while at Fla, then why can't we play to our strengths from day freaking 1 (of fall practice)? $2M+ a year and you're 1/4 into the season and thinking about fundamental changes? Whats wrong with lining up with a TE on every play, a FB on every play and KEEP THE OTHER GUY GUESSING? Keep it simple. Heck, Alabama won a NC in '93 with a WR at QB!!!! Gheez
Click to expand...

Spurrier passed on offering Worley, who was literally in his back yard.

That should tell you what he thought of Worley.
 
#75
#75
Best system for Worley to run. He is just not very good in the spread. We need a safety valve type player that he can dump the ball off to for a few yards now and then.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top