Will Kelly debut tag team offense against USC?

[johnnykillz]

Let me help everyone out here:

Leave the decisions to the experts.

Do not fret.

We are in good hands. We'll feel better once Hendrix busts off a 40 yard TD run or three. The space the option read creates for our running back is tremendous too.

A deep route will open-up as well via playaction.

Hendrix is special.

The future is bright.

 

[woolybug25]

That's fair. I'm not saying I'm against it, or that I'm assuming BK will mess it up. But I do have concerns.



Really? You can't think of one? B/c most people have a hard time coming up with one that actually DID work. Leak & Tebow were the exception, not the rule.

And I didn't say he should never bring him in during a close game. What I said was, if the offense under Rees if flying high and can't be stopped, but the game is still close, that's when I don't want to see Hendrix.

I'll just say this now so I can't be accused of second-guessing later: It's easy to say we all love this idea coming off a romp against Air Force in which Hendrix rushed for 100+ yards and completed all his passes. The first time he comes in and throws a pick in a close game, in game where Tommy was playing great, I wonder how many will be screaming bloody murder about what a dumn idea this was?

Leak/Tebow is the exception to the rule? Tell that to:

Jefferson/Lee (LSU) They are only the #1 team in the nation.
Bauserman/Miller (OSU)
Fitzpatrick/Brad Smith

As I said before, there is a huge difference between playing two quarterbacks and a 2-QB System. I don't think you are understanding me on this.

When we are "flying high" with Rees, but in a close game, we still need to change something. No coach wants to get into a shoot out, and if that is the case, it means we aren't running the ball well enough. Otherwise, it would be a lower scoring game that is close. Running the ball allows us to own the clock and manage the tempo. It also allows us to loosen up the defense for Rees. Saying we shouldn't change anything when "Rees is flying high" is like saying we shouldn't run the ball if we are passing effectively or vice versa.

 

[k1ssme1m1r1sh]

I am NOT, I repeat NOT worried about beating USC. It will happen. Notre Dame has improved immensely from games 1 and 2. It just keeps getting better. So do not fret, my friends. Keep putting your quaters in the Big Irish Machine, they will deliver. GO IRISH

 

[Aerosmith777]

Eh, we're definitely going to have to agree to disagree on this. It's easy to call the few that work "2-QB systems" and all the others "playing 2 QBs." (btw, I do not count the Bills in that mix. Playing the Wildcat once in awhile is nowhere near the same as what BK is trying to do here. Far less snaps, and they almost never throw it out of that set). I can give you million examples of it not working, but then you can just call all those "playing 2 QBs."

I lump them all together, regardless of reason for going back and forth. It works probably about 10% of the time.

They were running the ball fine before Air Force, so I don't buy that as a reason for bringing him in in those situations. When the offense is playing great, but the game is still close, then make changes on the defense. Stop the other team's offense. But don't fix what ain't broken imo.

 

[woolybug25]

I'm fine with just disagreeing (we have bigger enemies this week, namely USC), but I will leave you with this. The examples you are using for it not working are systems where they have two different QB's (albeit, often different types of athletes) running the same offense. This is not a ""2QB System". A two-QB system is one that employs two seperate offensive schemes, which has historically worked quite well. Systems that utilize two QB's on the other hand, have not.

Wildcat is a 2QB system. It fits the exact profile of what I am talking about. It has also been very effective in both college and pros.

In closing, I refer back to my earlier comment re: "Not broken, don't fix", that's like saying we shouldn't run the ball if we are passing the ball effectively. TEMPO is what Kelly is trying to accomplish by running a 2QB system, not effective scoring.

and on that note, I am off to the Gunner Kiel thread. Peace.

 

[Aerosmith777]

Unles you're in the team meeting rooms, how can you know what types of offenses they're running? I can't think of one example where a team used 2 QBs, and the coach said that they'd be using the same plays for both. They always tailor what they're doing to the guy who's in the huddle (or attempt to, anyway). BK's no different. Hendrix is still running the spread. He's just being asked to do different things with it than Rees (otherwise, why would he be in at all?).

Again, it's easy to say after the fact, "Well, despite the fact that they were using two different types of QBs, calling different kinds of plays, they were still running the same offense" after the fact when it doesn't work.

And the running the ball thing is a false analogy imo. Running and passing are both parts of a whole. You usually can't have an effective offense that completely ignores either. Subbing QBs is different. For one, I stand by the argument that historically, it usually doesn't work well (didn't say never, just not usually). Secondly, no one player is more important to the rythm of an offense than the QB. Choosing when to run the ball or pass the ball is like a conductor going back and forth between increasing the emphasis of different instruments in an orchestra. But changing QBs is like changing the conductor half way through the symphony. I'm not saying it can't work, but qualitatively it's different.

 

[woolybug25]

Unles you're in the team meeting rooms, how can you know what types of offenses they're running? I can't think of one example where a team used 2 QBs, and the coach said that they'd be using the same plays for both. They always tailor what they're doing to the guy who's in the huddle (or attempt to, anyway). BK's no different. Hendrix is still running the spread. He's just being asked to do different things with it than Rees (otherwise, why would he be in at all?).

Again, it's easy to say after the fact, "Well, despite the fact that they were using two different types of QBs, calling different kinds of plays, they were still running the same offense" after the fact when it doesn't work.

And the running the ball thing is a false analogy imo. Running and passing are both parts of a whole. You usually can't have an effective offense that completely ignores either. Subbing QBs is different. For one, I stand by the argument that historically, it usually doesn't work well (didn't say never, just not usually). Secondly, no one player is more important to the rythm of an offense than the QB. Choosing when to run the ball or pass the ball is like a conductor going back and forth between increasing the emphasis of different instruments in an orchestra. But changing QBs is like changing the conductor half way through the symphony. I'm not saying it can't work, but qualitatively it's different.

I know that they are running completely different offenses because I actually watched the games. Are you saying that Rees and Hendrix were running the same offense? Are you saying that Tebow and Leak ran the same offense? This is where I think we are disconnecting. A 2QB SYSTEM IS DIFFERENT THAN AN OFFENSE THAT USES 2 QB'S UNDER THE SAME SCHEME.

I stand by my run vs pass analogy. A TRUE 2QB system is about tempo. It isn't just about effective scoring, it's about controlling tempo and dictating to the defense how they have to play.

 

[Aerosmith777]

I've watched plenty of games where it hasn't worked too. And yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. They're using the same alignments, the same personnel (except for the QB), the same playbook. Just different plays for different QBs. Obviously BK's never going to call a QB draw w/ Rees. Doesn't make it a different offense. I'm sure Tennessee had plays they they'd call w/ Ainge that they'd never call w/ Clausen, and vice versa. It's still the same playbook though.

From what I can tell, the only difference between the two is a 2 QB system is what we call it when it works, and an offense that uses 2 QB's is what we call it when it doesn't work.

I'll give you that the wildcat is something different though. That's one that does kind of apply, because they are trying to do completely different things when teams run that scheme. But in most cases, its just two sides of the same coin. Of course it looks different, the whole reason to use 2 QBs is because you're trying to do some things w/ one that you can't do w/ the other, and vice versa. But that's no different when it doesn't work vs. when it does.

 

[woolybug25]

Ainge and Clausen was the same formation and set. This is exactly what I am saying. When we use Hendrix, it is a different set.

If you have seen plenty of 2QB systems (not systems utilizing two QB's) that didn't work, then give me an example. This example should be a team that had different sets/looks for each QB. Go on now, show me.

The wildcat fits my description exactly the way you described it. It is two different sets for two different QB's. This is what you are just not getting. There is a distinct difference between 2QB Systems and Systems that use more than one QB. 2QB systems are offenses that utilize two different looks depending on who lines up behind center. We aren't talking about play books or whether the QB is a "true QB", we are simply talking about offenses that change sets for different QB looks (hence, dictating tempo).

I thought you agreed to disagree?

 

[irishtrinity]

Can we get it right LEPRACAT..

 

[Aerosmith777]

Ainge and Clausen was the same formation and set. This is exactly what I am saying. When we use Hendrix, it is a different set.

If you have seen plenty of 2QB systems (not systems utilizing two QB's) that didn't work, then give me an example. This example should be a team that had different sets/looks for each QB. Go on now, show me.

I thought you agreed to disagree?

Stanley Jackson and Joe Germaine, Troy Smith and Justin Zwick, Robert Mavre & Rob Henry, Jesse Palmer and Rex Grossman, Jesse Palmer and Doug Johnson, Michael Vick and Donovan McNabb, Bryson Spinner and Matt Schaub, Sean Mannion and Ryan Katz. And very soon I think we'll be able to add Case McCoy and David Ash to this list.

Now, despite the fact that in all those examples the coaches tailored their plays to the guy who was in the huddle at the time, please tell me why they don't count.

And agreeing to disagree is no different than any other agreement. You need cooperation from both sides. I interpreted your response of "I'd rather just disagree" to mean you rejected the offer. Perhaps I was in error. And by the same token, I thought you were done and off to the Gunner Kiel thread?

 

[Aerosmith777]

Can we get it right LEPRACAT..

Lol, that's only when ND does it.

 

[woolybug25]

Stanley Jackson and Joe Germaine, Troy Smith and Justin Zwick, Robert Mavre & Rob Henry, Jesse Palmer and Rex Grossman, Jesse Palmer and Doug Johnson, Michael Vick and Donovan McNabb, Bryson Spinner and Matt Schaub, Sean Mannion and Ryan Katz. And very soon I think we'll be able to add Case McCoy and David Ash to this list.

Now, despite the fact that in all those examples the coaches tailored their plays to the guy who was in the huddle at the time, please tell me why they don't count.

And agreeing to disagree is no different than any other agreement. You need cooperation from both sides. I interpreted your response of "I'd rather just disagree" to mean you rejected the offer. Perhaps I was in error.

None of them count because they all ran the same offense. There was zero difference between sets in say McNabb/Vick. Furthermore, take your McCoy/Ash example. They were in a QB battle, not a two look/ 2QB set. I give up. I don't think you can grasp what I am talking about. Every example you gave was either a QB battle or an offense that was utilizing two QB's for the same system.

I left the argument and you just continued to gripe, I gave you a chance to leave the argument on the high ground and you chose not to. As I said, your example proves my point that you simply do not understand what I am trying to say.

 

[Aerosmith777]

Oh, there definitely was difference in the sets between McNabb/Vick. That's probably the one that had the most differences when it was going on.

In some of them there was a battle, but there were also points where the coaches were trying to use both of them to do different things.

I completely grasp what you're saying, I just think you're wrong. I don't know why you can't understand that. We can still agree to disagree.

 

[woolybug25]

Oh, there definitely was difference in the sets between McNabb/Vick. That's probably the one that had the most differences when it was going on.

In some of them there was a battle, but there were also points where the coaches were trying to use both of them to do different things.

I completely grasp what you're saying, I just think you're wrong. I don't know why you can't understand that. We can still agree to disagree.

Then you don't understand offensive schemes. The Eagles offensive front did not change between Vick and McNabb. Every example you gave had the the same offensive front (albiet different play calling) for both QB's.

Done. Have the last word if you want, but if you dispute the FACT above about the offenses, then I will rebute. You cannot simply make up situations and call them fact. Every example you gave had the same offensive scheme with different playcalling, which is completely different from what Kelly is doing with this team, what Urban did with his team and what NFL teams do with the wildcat.

 

[Aerosmith777]

I already agree that the wildcat was a different situation.

As far as McNabb/Vick went, they used sets on the field and called plays they never used with McNabb, hell, including the wildcat.

Calling something a fact doesn't make it so. Rebute it if you want.

 

[woolybug25]

I already agree that the wildcat was a different situation.

As far as McNabb/Vick went, they used sets on the field and called plays they never used with McNabb, hell, including the wildcat.

Calling something a fact doesn't make it so. Rebute it if you want.

They did not use different sets, what in the F are you talking about. Did you ever actually watch that season? They ran the same offense and even called most of the same plays. Vick had a couple different option reads, but that didn't change the offensive set.

You didn't agree that wilcat fit what I was talking about, reread your post, and you are the one making up situations that arent true (ie your list of 2QB teams). You are just beating a dead horse on a topic you continually show your lack in knowledge in. Every example you have given in this argument show:

1) your lack of understanding of why teams utilize different look offenses
2) The difference between using two qb's, qb battles and utilizing 2qb sets
3) the difference between different play calling for QB's and different schemes.

I haven't gave one example that was false and claimed it to be fact, that is what you did with your list of 2QB systems that turned out to be nothing like what I was talking about. You can disagree with me if you want, but you haven't shown one fact that backs up your claim.

 

[Aerosmith777]

They did not use different sets, what in the F are you talking about. Did you ever actually watch that season? They ran the same offense and even called most of the same plays. Vick had a couple different option reads, but that didn't change the offensive set.

You didn't agree that wilcat fit what I was talking about, reread your post, and you are the one making up situations that arent true (ie your list of 2QB teams). You are just beating a dead horse on a topic you continually show your lack in knowledge in. Every example you have given in this argument show:

1) your lack of understanding of why teams utilize different look offenses
2) The difference between using two qb's, qb battles and utilizing 2qb sets
3) the difference between different play calling for QB's and different schemes.

I haven't gave one example that was false and claimed it to be fact, that is what you did with your list of 2QB systems that turned out to be nothing like what I was talking about. You can disagree with me if you want, but you haven't shown one fact that backs up your claim.

How is this not an admission that the wildcat fits what you were talking about?:

I'll give you that the wildcat is something different though. That's one that does kind of apply, because they are trying to do completely different things when teams run that scheme.

Use ad hominem all you want. I watched the games w/ Vick, I'm a friggin NFC East fan. They brought different personnel in, moved guys around in ways they never did w/ McNabb.

You've stated an opinion on the differences between all the times it's worked and my examples on the times it didn't. That's fine, but it's still just your opinion.

I'm fine w/ disagreeing on this, it's perfectly acceptable to see the same thing from two perspectives. It's the implication that no other opinion but your's is allowed to be held that I have a problem with.

 

[irishtrinity]

Lol, that's only when ND does it.

ya i know when we run it call it right...

 

[Aerosmith777]

ya i know when we run it call it right...

Fair enough. Although, in my defense, I think I was talking about the Bills when I used the term.

 

[woolybug25]

I'm fine w/ disagreeing on this, it's perfectly acceptable to see the same thing from two perspectives. It's the implication that no other opinion but your's is allowed to be held that I have a problem with.

I'm also fine with different opinions or if someone disagrees with mine. But when someone tells me i'm dead wrong about something and then uses a bunch of bad examples to prove their point, i'm going to tell you that you're wrong. That's exactly what you did with your long list of QB battles disguised as 2QB systems.

 

[Black Irish]

I like the idea of putting Hendrix in for A FEW SNAPS. Just enough to keep USC D-unit on their toes. I'm not a fan of gimmick football, but I do like to see coaches getting a little creative with their personnel to avoid getting into exploitable patterns of play.

Don't get me wrong, I think ND can win if they use Rees on 100% of their downs. I think the Hendrix threat is more of a mind game, forcing the USC D to try to be everywhere at once when he's out there. And, hey, I'd love to see the kid break off a big play or three just to make it worth his while. I'm hoping BK is using the dual threat as more of a psychological meta-strategy against USC's defensive coaches to make their job more difficult.

 

[johnnykillz]

I'm not a fan of gimmick football, but I do like to see coaches getting a little creative with their personnel to avoid getting into exploitable patterns of play.

Gimmick football?

WTF?

Read-option is now a gimmick?

I mean, someone seriously explain this to me, as I thought this play was a staple of most all spread offense nowadyas.

 

[woolybug25]

Gimmick football?

WTF?

Read-option is now a gimmick?

I mean, someone seriously explain this to me, as I thought this play was a staple of most all spread offense nowadyas.

It is. Read option is usaully the primary playcall in a spread, run or pass first.

This may be a thread that is better to sit back and read, trust me on this. Otherwise, you are going to have someone argue with you that a read-option never works and use Ryan Leaf's pro career as proof. I don't think most people understand the philosophies behind spread offenses, multiple QB looks or why teams utilize either.

 

[johnnykillz]

It is. Read option is usaully the primary playcall in a spread, run or pass first.

This may be a thread that is better to sit back and read, trust me on this. I don't think most people understand the philosophies behind spread offenses, multiple QB looks or why teams utilize either.

Thank God.

I thought I lost my marbles.

Gimmick offensive plays are wildcat, halfback toss pass, flea-flicker, WR screen-pass, tightend reverse, double tight end reverse, swinging gate, fumblerooski, etc.

But read option is my primary play out of shotgun or pistol offense at the pee wee level which is alost too much for that age group to grasp.

But it certainly wasn't ever a "gimmick."

 

[Aerosmith777]

I'm also fine with different opinions or if someone disagrees with mine. But when someone tells me i'm dead wrong about something and then uses a bunch of bad examples to prove their point, i'm going to tell you that you're wrong. That's exactly what you did with your long list of QB battles disguised as 2QB systems.

How is it different for me to say I have a difference of opinion on something vs. me saying I think you're wrong about this? It's not like I tried to demean your understanding of football b/c I disagree w/ you.

And I personally see no qualitative difference between the list I used and some of the others that have worked in the past. That's a difference of opinion.

I disagree on the level of difference we're talking here. By extension, that means I think you're wrong about it. I don't see why this is so friggin' personal.

 

[PANDFAN]

Thank God.

I thought I lost my marbles.

Gimmick offensive plays are wildcat, halfback toss pass, flea-flicker, WR screen-pass, tightend reverse, double tight end reverse, swinging gate, fumblerooski, etc.

But read option is my primary play out of shotgun or pistol offense at the pee wee level which is alost too much for that age group to grasp.

But it certainly wasn't ever a "gimmick."

watch 2010 and previous boise state, lsu and other sec teams...those teams have gimmick plays...you are correct in the fact the read option is really what the spread is about and why oregon, florida in past were excellent...hendrix game a very small glimpse of this in previous game but look for a lot more read option as this is what BK wants to have happen

 

[Aerosmith777]

In the end, all that really matters is they beat 'SC tomorrow, and I wouldn't really care if they used Floyd at QB to do it. I just have an opinion on how I want Kelly to use Hendrix (or more accurately, how I specifically hope he doesn't use him). That's all.

 

[johnnykillz]

In that same way of thinking, all that really matters at the end of the day, is how to get the ===> to the ().

 

[Aerosmith777]

Lol, well said.