The Texas Tech defense was taking away the running game and daring us to throw. We had just our 5 linemen Jantz and a back. They had 6 in the box. Telling us to either run the QB draw or throw. They also had press coverage on the outside receivers and our receivers are not strong enough to get off the line. Basically it came down to throwing to slot receiver or Flexed TE. Instead of having them cross in the middle, Messingham chose bubbles and outs. He never adjusted to what they were doing. Send a guy in motion or have bunch of receivers so they can get off the line. Messingham is a bad OC......and I mean Bad! We have a good D and a bad OC!
X's and O's thread
- Thread starter wartknight
- Start date
I'd just like to know why we went away from the Pistol and the 2 back set that worked so well in the 3rd quarter. I couldn't tell if Tech made a defensive adjustment to take away those looks or not but they were very effective.
Like noted above, the screen game won't work against press coverage and will just turn into 6 the other direction.
We tried to run slants and more often than not our receivers got eaten alive by the press coverage. I know two different plays Jantz looked for Horne on a slant from the slot and he was on the ground on one and was locked on the press coverage on the other.
I really would have liked to see a receiver in motion from the outside and ran the center slip screen when they were showing 7 committed to the LOS. The motion should remove the press coverage from being easily executed and if those players start up the field there are linemen against defensive backs behind them if we can get the pass dumped off.
l l l l
l l l l
l l l l
l l l ______ l
l l l l l
x l x xxxxxl l
x l
__________l
xx
After some studying, this is the only play we will ever be able to run and be close to scoring a touchdown. I call it a Hail Mary.
l l l l
l l l l
l l l ______ l
l l l l l
x l x xxxxxl l
x l
__________l
xx
After some studying, this is the only play we will ever be able to run and be close to scoring a touchdown. I call it a Hail Mary.
What he said. First time we ran it to Lenz we maybe got a half a yard. Have to be able to stretch field vertically vs their Defense if you want to pass the ball (Being able to run the ball is the best option) and make them pay for pressing the WRs
Use periods...
.........X................T..G..C..G..T..........Y
...................Z............................................H
.................................Q
...........................R
I like QB draw a lot vs the D they were playing. Better than read game because a well coached defense can dictate who gets the ball in the zone read. Problem is Jantz is not really an inside the tackles runner. He's a stumbler who can break a few sacks and keep a play alive, and can do decent work on the edges, but inside the tackles is not his thing
Very True, they also rolled into a version of cover three with the SS coming so they actually had 7 in the box against our 5 linemen or 6 when we had TE down.
Its time go under center and let the big boys lean on the team for a half instead of getting pushed on. WE have a huge oline vs most Big 12 defenses that are made to play against the spread With the D we have who can keep us in most games. Time to go to three yards and a cloud of dust, the fast backs will break one.
6 in the box, assuming ISU was in a 2x2/3x1 set (i.e. anything with no TE's closing either side of the formation which brings an extra defender in the box) gives you a good opportunity to run if you can execute. For example, a normal zone read will allow for your OL to account for the entire DL (with the exception of the backside read player, who is left unblocked) and the LB's...you make that read player wrong and you've got decent yardage to be had.
Anytime they put 7 or more in the box you have to make them pay through the air.
I know exactly the play you are talking about. Its a counter-type play designed to make defenses pay for "slow playing" the zone read. Team I've seen run it the best in the past is Northwestern. Also vs Tech's man coverage with the LB matching up on the RB, that's probably something ISU was probable trying to take advantage of as well and get the LB thinking.
RB comes across QB to take handoff, but then changes directions and goes back where he came from. Gets LB's moving and then the tackle/guard combo is supposed to pick him up with a pulling guard coming from the backside to kick out the DE who is "slow playing" the zone read. I love the thought behind it, but 2 problems. Back is coming to a complete stop in the backfield and running parallel to LOS too much, and the time I am thinking I saw it, the kickout guy got blown up by the DE and there was no hole anyway. A way we've run it in past is to send the RB all the way across and take the fake, then have the QB keep it and run up the hole. Need a qb that can run between the tackles to do that though, and it works better if you have a tackle from the backside and lead up and block the PSLB so you can take the G-T double team all the way to the backside LB.
I will draw up the play I think ISU was trying and try to get it on here. I'm not sure its exactly accurate but it is close. We were trying it early in the game if anyone has a clip.View attachment 15280
Last edited:
Let's face it, I think TTU's game plan vs us was outstanding. They knew their cover athletes were better than ours and by manning up, they forced Jantz to make pinpoint throws. I didn't think our run game was actually that horrible, I just thought that we weren't patient enough with it.
We call that play "Dart" .
However, how do you get a backside lead up on the PSLB? Does the backside pull run past the DE/read player?
Visually, out of 2x2...
....................B..........B
..............RE...T....N.....LE
.................T..G..C..G..T
..................R.....Q
At the snap, R goes right and takes the fake...RT pulls left and passes(?) the RE who is chasing R on the fake? LT and LG combo the DT up to the nearside/playside LB...
We have run dart in the past, then the 3-3-5 became popular for a while and with all the movement it made things very tough on the pulling tackle. Blocked the front side big on big. The "Bend" play I am talking about ISU running, we just block as QB counter. RB comes across formation and takes DE. BSG pulls for kickout. BST pulls for PSLB. Downblocks go do BSLB. Center blocks back on #1 Backside. Good for teams that slowplay the zone read.
Aha. Yep, gotcha, that makes sense. I missed the part of the initial post regarding the BST and RB responsibilities.
Here's QB counter:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meD5DY2Fj_8
Blitzing LB almost blows it up in the backfield, DE/LB to be kicked jumps inside and safety takes over his responsibilities but Braxton Miller makes him look silly. This is just a variation to the play, using the H-back player instead of the BST to pull and lead. He actually ends up making his block early in the backfield, picking up that LB shooting through.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meD5DY2Fj_8
Blitzing LB almost blows it up in the backfield, DE/LB to be kicked jumps inside and safety takes over his responsibilities but Braxton Miller makes him look silly. This is just a variation to the play, using the H-back player instead of the BST to pull and lead. He actually ends up making his block early in the backfield, picking up that LB shooting through.
I wonder if it's time to change our entire offense philosophy. Recruit offensive linemen and tight ends who are built for run blocking and get a O line coach that knows how to coach run blocking. Don't offensive linemen like to run block more than pass block since they can be more aggressive? Get a quarterback that is a good game manager but can still throw accurate short passes. Go to a 2 back set and have a running back like Woody as well as a fast back.
If we can keep our defenses performing as they have, a ball control grind out the clock offense may be our best chance of success. Considering we will usually have 2 or 3 windy and/or cold conference home games a ball control offense may be our best chance of success. At least it would make opposing defenses have to prepare for a different offense instead of the offense that every other Big Twelve team runs except with less talented slower players.
Winning games 14 to 10 beats losing 42 to 35.
If we can keep our defenses performing as they have, a ball control grind out the clock offense may be our best chance of success. Considering we will usually have 2 or 3 windy and/or cold conference home games a ball control offense may be our best chance of success. At least it would make opposing defenses have to prepare for a different offense instead of the offense that every other Big Twelve team runs except with less talented slower players.
Winning games 14 to 10 beats losing 42 to 35.
This would explain why we tried so many QB draws - although I do not think the timing was ever good/fakes carried out effectively - whatever it takes.
I do recall one play was set up well & Jantz had a good seam, but then Brun wiffs on a block. Steele was miffed, slapping the ball and looked to be giving Brun an earful.
Also, Tech's front 4 were shifting a lot during the game after we came to the line. I think this was effective in confusing our OL and instead of having 1 un-blocked defender on the zone-read, we had 2.
Our running plays that worked seemed to be more of the quick-hitting type plays. Just wonder why we did not see more of them - as well as screens to the RB, not WR-screens, as well as wheels or posts/seams to RBs out of the backfield. If WRs are pressed & can't get open, suppose best to try our RBs vs LBs.
Am not a coaching-genius by any means. Just my 2 cents.