|
Replies: 4
| visibility 2,543
|
All-TigerNet [10871]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12937
Joined: 4/18/12
|
Not an X's and O's guy but why does our offense
Jan 7, 2018, 8:21 PM
|
|
Generally not use a fullback? Is it kind of an antiquated position? Also, I don't play close enough attention but do we use the pistol formation much anymore?
|
|
|
|
 |
110%er [5021]
TigerPulse: 88%
Posts: 8274
Joined: 12/9/12
|
Re: Not an X's and O's guy but why does our offense
Jan 7, 2018, 8:22 PM
|
|
Pro-Style Offense normally features use of the full back...We run the spread-option/zone-read offense....So to answer your question...Different style of offensive philosophies.
We do run the pistol here and there...We usually feature ours with a TE as lead block out of the backfield...
Message was edited by: jsebe10®
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [111541]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 73742
Joined: 9/10/03
|
Tommy Bowden
Jan 7, 2018, 8:31 PM
|
|
ran them off
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freshman [5]
TigerPulse: 37%
Posts: 40
Joined: 1/6/18
|
The offense doesn't use a fullback becausev
Jan 7, 2018, 11:12 PM
|
|
a fullback is not a part of our offensive mindset.
They've done extremely well with very, very minimal use of a fullback. I'm good with their choices. The results speaks for themselves.
Hope that helps
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Conference [439]
TigerPulse: 86%
Posts: 716
Joined: 10/26/06
|
Re: Not an X's and O's guy but why does our offense
Jan 8, 2018, 1:42 PM
|
|
FBs have generally been phased out of all levels of football because a dedicated blocker who's basically a big slow RB just doesn't give you the ability to spread it out like everybody wants to do. It's become more efficient to just have a TE slide into the backfield in regular sets because that still gives you an athletic pass catcher on the field if you want to check out of the run. And for goal line sets, you can just bring in a lineman because he's either going to run out as a decoy, or just run straight ahead with no real strategy other than hit whatever is in front of you.
Personally, I don't like it because running out of the shotgun leads to a ton of 2nd and 9s which basically means you just wasted first down. Both of my teams, Clemson and the Panthers have had issues with this over the past few years. Carolina was still trying to use a FB, but Mike Tolbert was basically just a surprisingly athletic, fat RB with below average blocking skills. Carolina has this reputation of being a power running team, but the truth is, without Cam, they'd be near the bottom of the league over the past 7 years because they don't have anybody that can really open up holes. True FBs give you an extra yard or so before contact by leading through the running lane and blowing up the defender who comes down to fill the hole that the line just opened. At best, they pancake the guy and create a wide open lane to the secondary. At worst they occupy a defender and give the RB a choice of which side to cut towards once they get past the LoS.
In Clemson's case, and this was especially evident during the Chad Morris days, this style of offense just doesn't give you the ability to control the game. You generally either score a long TD, or you get a 3 and out because you get behind schedule after a short 1st down run, then have to try to catch up on 2nd and 3rd. They've gotten a little better at it over the past few seasons, but much of that was due to Watson's ability to pick up yardage on scrambles or Gallman's refusal to go down, and then tailoring the offense to be more run-oriented because of Bryant's limitations as a passer this past year.
Hopefully over the next few years, we'll see offenses swing back to this style of play. The wide open, quick strike passing offense can be fun to watch when it's working, but it's maddening when you just need to run clock to win a game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 4
| visibility 2,543
|
|
|
50
