I've been writing a lot about Paul Johnson's offense recently. But sometimes, it's best to get it from the horse's mouth. (Note: It's not the wing-t, and it's not just the triple option. And, although close to the wishbone, it has evolved from it. That's why it is called the flexbone: the run & shoot doubleslot formation with some 'shoot passing concepts, and lots of option, though with plenty of other wrinkles sprinkled in too.)
UPDATE: Looks like LSU's coaches saw this video and have been reading my site. They fared far better than Georgia and the ACC.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
After Tech's slaughtering at the hands of LSU, we should also remember that unlike Georgia and the ACC, LSU had over 4 weeks to prepare for Johnson's flexbone. As you pointed out earlier in one of your posts, there is an advantage to being different but there is no doubt that this advantage was neutralized by the extended preparation time given to Les Miles and LSU
Really not fair to say the whole ACC had trouble with GT's offense.
They only had two really big wins Miami and Duke. The rest were close and GT's offense was not the main factor (they scored less than 24 pts)
DATE OPPONENT RESULT
6-Sep @ Boston College W 19-16
13-Sep @ Virginia Tech L 20-17
4-Oct Duke W 27-0
18-Oct @ Clemson W 21-17
25-Oct Virginia L 24-17
1-Nov No. 15 Florida State W 31-28
8-Nov @ No. 19 North Carolina L 28-7
20-Nov No. 23 Miami (FL) W 41-23
UNC beat them almost as bad as LSU. They also had a while to prepare. They had a bye week the week before.
IMO the Flexbone has proven it can compete, but I don't think you can say it is dominant at this point. Heck GT only beat Gardner Webb 10-7.
Should correct to say they only had two large margin of victory wins in the ACC. Miami and Duke.
And had one other close win FLA St where their offense scored over 21.
Another thing to remember is that GT was not without talent. They were a bowl team last year and have gone to bowls 12 straight years!
Guys this is a coaching site not a sports pundit site. We are coaches. We don’t look at a box score and make some punditry. The triple option was working well early in the game till GT got their spirits broken by special teams. I don’t think that when you go up a quick 21-3 thanks to good special teams play on your part and bad on theirs you can credit it to figuring out the other team’s offense. GT offense had only taken the field once and the game was already over.
If having the fullback at 4 yards works in this offense, why do more "regular" offenses always have their feature running back at 7-8 yards deep? It seems like they get stuffed a lot, and if they were to align say 5 yards from the ball, wouldn' they be able to have a quicker hitting running game? I would think traps, G's, and other man blocking plays would be much more effective... could you explain to me why most standard/pro-style offenses have their running back aligned so deep when under center?
The standard/pro-set RB depth is built to take advantage of play action where the extra steps build the illusion of handing the ball off. Triple option based teams like GT/Navy do not rely on the play action as much, and would rather have the RB (B Back) hit the line sooner to set the conditions for the option features of their system. Another issue is that the slots (A Backs) in the option usually go in motion behind the B Back before the snap and having him too far from the line would take more time and create too much distance to cover.
Post a Comment