Looking ahead to 2020

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's not that I hate him on the 7 it's that I really like Josh and Trevon (off combo) on that route and I really, long term, want the ball in Luke's hands as often as possible. Finding him space underneath on these types of concepts is an easy way for Brandon to speed up his internal clock (Which is crucial for his development) and get Luke that ball on what my napkin shows is a low-risk, higher percentage look. Luke Ford is going to be the most talented player on this football team. I want to manufacture as many looks his way as possible.

And yes, that's exactly what we're both doing.
The one thing that worries me about Ford in that Corner (any tight end really) is going to be time. Its going to take longer for Ford to get to space than Trevon. And that was talking Smash Concept. Whats next? China? Backside 2x2 concepts? Drive? Mesh?
 
The one thing that worries me about Ford in that Corner (any tight end really) is going to be time. Its going to take longer for Ford to get to space than Trevon. And that was talking Smash Concept. Whats next? China? Backside 2x2 concepts? Drive? Mesh?
Again, we're both drawing this up in our heads but to me you're gonna get more space for Luke if you're running Josh on the flat 7 at the top than you will with Trevon running the bait out of combo which is kinda what I'm thinking.

If you're running "China" do you want Luke at the Z then? That's gonna put less stress on the safety than it would if you have Trevon there (Down the road, James Frenchie). For me, I want something quicker if it's Luke. Go diagonal and do a couple different things: Draw him inside to sell a screen (Which kills the LB) and work him back or I get him on an outside release to give Brandon the quick read. Or I get the CB to pinch down and go to the 7. And you can do both off of playaction, which is great for us.
 
Again, we're both drawing this up in our heads but to me you're gonna get more space for Luke if you're running Josh on the flat 7 at the top than you will with Trevon running the bait out of combo which is kinda what I'm thinking.

If you're running "China" do you want Luke at the Z then? That's gonna put less stress on the safety than it would if you have Trevon there (Down the road, James Frenchie). For me, I want something quicker if it's Luke. Go diagonal and do a couple different things: Draw him inside to sell a screen (Which kills the LB) and work him back or I get him on an outside release to give Brandon the quick read. Or I get the CB to pinch down and go to the 7. And you can do both off of playaction, which is great for us.
The only question I have is are we really going to Flex him? Will that hurt our running game or help? I am pro having Ford and Barker on the field. I am even pro flexing both of them on the same side of the field. You wanna sell a screen; throw Barker, Ford, and Trevon/Cumby in a bunch 3x1 with Bhebhe backside. Call 3 plays: Bubble, Inside Zone, or if you love the match-up you draw with Bhebhe go there. I'm going on a tangent.

To finally answer your question: I don't hate Ford anywhere and I don't think there is a wrong answer. But if I have to answer I think I like him most in the #2 spot. Each spot draws a new question the defense would have to answer and we haven't even switched concepts.
 
The only question I have is are we really going to Flex him? Will that hurt our running game or help? I am pro having Ford and Barker on the field. I am even pro flexing both of them on the same side of the field. You wanna sell a screen; throw Barker, Ford, and Trevon/Cumby in a bunch 3x1 with Bhebhe backside. Call 3 plays: Bubble, Inside Zone, or if you love the match-up you draw with Bhebhe go there. I'm going on a tangent.

To finally answer your question: I don't hate Ford anywhere and I don't think there is a wrong answer. But if I have to answer I think I like him most in the #2 spot. Each spot draws a new question the defense would have to answer and we haven't even switched concepts.
Bold: Where he lines up shouldn't affect the run game much.
 
If you do that I want Cumby there but my true goal is get Luke in the underneath. I don't want him on the 7, I want him as that easy valve for Brandon for a number of reasons.

But that's just me.
Not just you. Brandon plays better when he doesn't have to think too hard. If all our pass plays are "If the guy you're staring down isn't open, dump it to Luke.", we'll have a much improved offense next year.

BUT... the thought of BheBhe and Ford trucking down the outside lanes makes me smile. That's a ball Peters will throw 100% of the time, and those two can get it.
 
Likes: thunderwear
Not just you. Brandon plays better when he doesn't have to think too hard. If all our pass plays are "If the guy you're staring down isn't open, dump it to Luke.", we'll have a much improved offense next year.

BUT... the thought of BheBhe and Ford trucking down the outside lanes makes me smile. That's a ball Peters will throw 100% of the time, and those two can get it.
In his defense, the offense puts him in those situations quite frequently. It's a heavy vertical tree out of half reads which means that at times, we are very literally telling him focus on the safety to drive where the ball goes. This gives the illusion that he's incorrectly staring down the WR or one half of the field when in reality he's merely running the play as designed.
 
Likes: thunderwear
I started to notice this as the year went on.

I was feeling very critical of Peters' play early in the season and realized my criticisms were in the wrong spot.

That being said I think sometimes it's frustrating visually.
 
Likes: QCillini48
Brandon will have a much better understanding of the offense next season.and won't have to thinks so much, so to speak.
 
Likes: ILLINISON1
I think the passing game with Barker and Ford could be 90% 3 plays and it would work. Smash for cover 2, Mesh for Man, 4 Verts with option routes for everything else. Run all of them from same formation. Shotgun 2 TEs tight and 2 WRs wide. Running game is RO inside zone and RO outside zone (with passing option bubble screens and slants). Play deep?, here comes inside zone and mesh. Play tight?, here comes 4 verts. Send blitzes? Here comes bubble screen off RPO.

Embrace Air Raid passing game and Read option running game with TEs playing slot WR roles.
 
I think the passing game with Barker and Ford could be 90% 3 plays and it would work. Smash for cover 2, Mesh for Man, 4 Verts with option routes for everything else. Run all of them from same formation. Shotgun 2 TEs tight and 2 WRs wide. Running game is RO inside zone and RO outside zone (with passing option bubble screens and slants). Play deep?, here comes inside zone and mesh. Play tight?, here comes 4 verts. Send blitzes? Here comes bubble screen off RPO.

Embrace Air Raid passing game and Read option running game with TEs playing slot WR roles.
Bold: This will only work against certain teams, which is why you want to stagger not necessarily your designs but your formations as Orange had stated a few pages back.

Kirby Smart running "Mint" would kill this.
 
Likes: QCillini48
Bold: This will only work against certain teams, which is why you want to stagger not necessarily your designs but your formations as Orange had stated a few pages back.

Kirby Smart running "Mint" would kill this.
Good thing we don't play Georgia! Obviously you should think of others counters, I was just talking on most base defenses and how I would think about utilizing our TEs. Couldn't you just load up one side of the field if you see match quarters? Run Flood? You have to audible formation I guess.
 
Good thing we don't play Georgia! Obviously you should think of others counters, I was just talking on most base defenses and how I would think about utilizing our TEs. Couldn't you just load up one side of the field if you see match quarters? Run Flood? You have to audible formation I guess.
But we do play Ohio State and Wisconsin. Jim Leonhard will run more professional game concepts that we can beat but he will run tite and he'll have the athletes to execute it with easy subs. Ohio State has the horses to defend us in any way they choose. This of course leads us to the conversation of whether or not we should be expecting our program to beat those teams on a consistent basis but purely from an Xs and Os standpoint, there are a number of teams in the conference that can defend us if we run basic formation. I would agree with Orange's stance. We don't have to run exotic design packages so long as we disguise how we're calling them.

Depends. Where would you play Luke in Flood, at the Z? And what would the objective for him be? If it's to run Option-Post (or simple post) at the top flood side with Luke at the bottom and dig from the short side, that's an easy way to get Luke underneath with space and if the MIKE picks him up you take the dig. I love that. Lots of teams do that, it's very effective.
 
Didn't we split Barker out a healthy amount of time the end of the season already? Sliding in Ford doesnt seem hard at the true TE spot.
 
In his defense, the offense puts him in those situations quite frequently. It's a heavy vertical tree out of half reads which means that at times, we are very literally telling him focus on the safety to drive where the ball goes. This gives the illusion that he's incorrectly staring down the WR or one half of the field when in reality he's merely running the play as designed.
Yeah? I don't have the football knowledge to recognize that, so I appreciate your setting the record straight.
 
Agreed. Peters and BheBhe were a nice help, but Betiku wasn't much outside early games. Others weren't impacts last year.
Huh? Without those two we win 2 games this year.
 
Tyngsborough, MA
I'm saying Peters and BheBhe were really the only high impact transfers we got last year. The rest were about the same as our returning players.
I agree with you. The rest provided numbers and depth, at least while they were able to play.
 
Our red zone and 3rd down offense will be deadly with the addition of Ford. Won’t have to count on busting big plays all the time. I just hope we don’t get away from Peters running the ball. It seemed like he elevated his game once he started pulling the ball at times and taking off
 
Do they have one for just the Big Ten (and other conferences)?

IF one takes the time to do the research, it is very evident that a team like the Illini have improved a great deal in Big Ten play. No two ways about it.

The rest of our season are Big Ten games. So, I see no reason to include non-Big Ten stats while trying to forecast/predict how we will fare in the Big Ten. Illinois is a very different team when one compares non-Big Ten games with Big Ten games. Way different.
 
Last edited:
Oswego, IL
Do they have one for just the Big Ten (and other conferences)?

IF one takes the time to do the research, it is very evident that a team like the Illini have improved a great deal in Big Ten play. No two ways about it.

The rest of our season are Big Ten games. So, I see no reason to include non-Big Ten stats while trying to forecast/predict how we will fare in the Big Ten. Illinois is a very different team when one compares non-Big Ten games with Big Ten games. Way different.
I think that's a football chart (though from the way I read it, it appears to be a positive for that group of Illini too).
 
I'm not sure what I'm looking at here, but it felt like Where's Waldo trying to find LSU. So being close to the national champion in this metric must mean something good, right? I just wish I knew what that something is.
 
Likes: pvaughn8
Captain 'Paign
Phoenix, AZ
I'm not sure what I'm looking at here, but it felt like Where's Waldo trying to find LSU. So being close to the national champion in this metric must mean something good, right? I just wish I knew what that something is.
Generally, upper right is "good" and lower left is "bad". Man, UMass must have been one heck of an atrocious team. They should just burn their program down (though that may have been us not all that long ago). And given where UConn is on there it shouldn't have been nearly as close as it was.
 
Generally, upper right is "good" and lower left is "bad". Man, UMass must have been one heck of an atrocious team. They should just burn their program down (though that may have been us not all that long ago). And given where UConn is on there it shouldn't have been nearly as close as it was.
Ha ha, I didn't mean I didn't know how to read the graph. I don't know what Success Rte * EPA is. USF was really good at that!

During lunch, I can play Where's Waldo? with Oklahoma.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.