The Official "We Gonna Get Our Asses Kicked by OU" thread

Malzahn's spread has more wing t type misdirection. The option principles are based upon the bone. Chip Kelly's offense is based upon the wishbone principles.
http://www.pacifictakes.com/2011/9/2/2399802/oregon-ducks-lsu-tigers-preview-wishbone-offense


Paul Johnson even calls his offense a spread offense.

 

It's like you think that if you tell yourself you win an argument, it's true.

 

You are mistaken, Jay. I have never asserted that you can line the players up in a single file line. Would you like for me to give the strawman a holler? Would you like him to assert that for you?

Once again, no, you can not line the players up in a single file line. And, yes, you can adapt general schemes to best utilize your personnel. And when you get the offense in a situation where you know what they're going to do, you can do things to make yourself the "first mover" and make them react to you.

But relative to offense is scheme less important? Of course. And, honestly, this should shock nobody and is completely intuitive. I'm confused as why you're feigning surprise. The offense gets to move first. The defense has to react to that. Tennis analogy because you give me no choice: The guy serving a ball in tennis gets to choose whether he serves to the body, the backhand, the forehand, or flat, or with a slice, or with a kick. That's scheme. It goes hand in hand with playcalling, and those are options that first mover has. The returner has no option but to stand in the center of the court and react to where it goes. Can the returner "scheme" a little bit? Sure, based on known tendencies of the server or if the server has a garbage second serve (i.e 3rd and long), but that's still just a *very* little bit, because he still only has an educated guess about where it's going. He can have a hunch it's coming to his backhand and cheat over a step or two, but he's gotta be prepared to hit a forehand if it comes to that side, or he's getting aced. This analogy not only applies to football, but it applies tenfold to football. And you know this, and I know this, and freaking Marsellus knows this. It could be a run left, or a run right, or a play action pass, or a reverse, or a screen, or a bomb, or a quadruple option where it might seemingly be four of them all at once. Any of those and more could come your way, and you have to react. I don't know how I can explain that any clearer, and does anything other than nod their head. If you honestly disagree with that, you win.

So please pretty please with sugar on top, tell me you just nodded your head.

[video=youtube;3FC4PJQY-_E]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FC4PJQY-_E[/video]

 

Sure thing, Sandy. You ever find that spreadsheet?

Ha!

 

I just googled site:8thmaxim.com secretion indy. Came right up. Good stuff in there.

 

The returner in tennis doesn't really have a choice but to chase the ball, or he loses. The defense has all kinds of schematic options as to how they react (and at a lot of of levels the offense has schematic options as to how they react, mid-play, to that). So, I would say scheme is still pretty damn important, which might not be what you aren't saying. I'm not sure you can necessarily say it's less important than offense. There are a crapton of offenses in the NFL that outright suck and I really don't think it's because there aren't enough good OCs.

 

Yep. You definitely won that one.

 

I honestly just misunderstood your assertion. No need for the straw man comment.

I agree that the offense dictates most things. The defense can dictate what an offense does too, but generally, the offense does. The reason I think scheme is as important to a defense as it is an offense is because of that fact not in spite of it.

For the record, I consider taking care of responsibilities as part of the defensive scheme. A breakdown in a single player's responsibility is at least as devastating as an offensive missed responsibility.

 

I wouldn't define it as scheme, but I would assert that it's important, which is why I wasn't getting your questions on whether I thought defensive coordinators were unimportant. Of course they're important. Defensive players have to be taught technique, how to play within a given scheme, how to react to given situations within a scheme or a variation thereof, how to be mean and nasty while doing all of the above, etc. There's plenty to coach.

 

I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say here. And I read it three times.

 

You win at life.

 

Mainly that the reaction you are talking about is all a product of scheme, so I don't think one can really say the second move is less important than the first. Also, the way a defense reacts is going to be way more complex (and therefore more schematically impacted) than the way Nadal reacts to Federer's serve.

 

There is a shit load of scheming that goes into defense.

And don't you ever forget it.

 

It would take us playing a perfect game coupled with multiple OU turnovers to win this game. If we have a strong showing, play hard, and make it a game for 4 qtrs I'll be happy.

 

I'll see your happy with making it a game for four quarters, and raise you, I'll be happy if we make it a game for 12 minutes

 

Two things you don't put up on a pedestal:

1. The *****
2. Bob Stoops

 

Bob Stoops seems like he goes "full Richt" at least once a season. I hope it happens Saturday.

 

That would keep it close. Can hope.

 

Gonna put my orange shades on about 5pm Sat.