TrueGSU.com

Follow GSUFANS.com on
     
Page 19 of 25 FirstFirst ... 1718192021 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 190 of 245

Thread: Andrew Cunningham Leaving

  1. #181
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    JDC325's Head
    Posts
    28,107

    Default Re: Andrew Cunningham Leaving

    Quote Originally Posted by pete4256 View Post
    Since you’re refusing to engage clearly, can you answer two (uh, three) yes or no questions?

    Aren’t you suggesting that we simply use our slots more often, motioning them into the backfield?
    Literally repeating myself for the I don’t know how many-th time...Yes, BUT ONLY IF WE GET RAVAGED BY INJURY AND ITS BETWEEN THAT OR PLUGGING IN A “LINEBACKER” AT RB.


    Quote Originally Posted by pete4256 View Post
    We did that last year a few times a game. They almost always employed jet sweep motion or orbital motion, and they carried out the pitch track virtually every time. Correct?

    And that’s my point and one I’ve said repeatedly....IT’S ALREADY IN THE PLAYBOOK. “Almost every time” means the IZ is there in the playbook too. IF...IF....IF (did you read it that time????) WE HAVE TO USE IT
    Quote Originally Posted by NO_QUARTER View Post
    I actually considered getting into a debate with Half one time (on something unimportant). But then chickened out because I knew my a$$ was about to get handed to me.

  2. #182

    Default Re: Andrew Cunningham Leaving

    Quote Originally Posted by half-n-half View Post
    Oh hell I’ll try one last attempt. Let me try using questions. These are simple yes or no. I don’t need a response with a breakdown of game film....

    1. Yes or No....If we get ravaged by injuries and have to choose between getting the slot more involved or putting in a backup LB (or any lesser player) we are better off putting in the “linebacker” than using the slot more?

    2. Yes or no....We already have formations and plays in the playbook that will allow for the slot to become more involved should Debeese absolutely have to go that route?
    Those aren’t “yes” or “no” questions, but I’ll do my best:

    1) Yes; we are better off playing a fourth RB (no matter where he comes from) than coming up with new ways for the slots to carry the ball. If you want the slot to carry the ball, move him to RB.

    2) No; DeBesse’s offense has no way to make the slot a consistent and legitimate IZ threat, which is why he plays TWO RB sets more often than not (so the defense has to guess which RB is the dive and which is the pitch). If we’re short of RBs and Thomson or Murray are our best options to pick up the slack as runners, move them to RB. That’s easier than coming up with new ways for the slots to carry the ball.

    If we run the same basic offense DeBesse ran in 2018, with the slots doing the same things, then fewer two-back sets means we’ll have to back off from relying so heavily on triple option. That’s not a crazy idea, though. Other teams do it. Ruse did it at GS.
    Last edited by pete4256; 8th May 2019 at 09:31 AM.
    Thanks, Rastabot!
    www.247sports.com/porkchops

  3. #183

    Default Re: Andrew Cunningham Leaving

    Quote Originally Posted by pete4256 View Post
    Basically, we always had a RB1 and usually a RB2. The RB2 obviously doesn’t show up on the stat sheet as often, even when he’s out there. That’s because he’s usually a pitch man or blocker, so—like A-Backs—touches don’t reflect the extent of his contributions.
    Sounds to me like "RB2" doesn't need to be a bonafide RB and doesn't necessarily need to be a guy you'd want running IZ.
    "Follow the trendlines, not the headlines." -Steven Pinker (?)

    REgardling football Scheduling.

  4. #184

    Default Re: Andrew Cunningham Leaving

    Quote Originally Posted by half-n-half View Post
    And that’s my point and one I’ve said repeatedly....IT’S ALREADY IN THE PLAYBOOK. “Almost every time” means the IZ is there in the playbook too. IF...IF....IF (did you read it that time????) WE HAVE TO USE IT
    No. It’s not really in the playbook except as exceptions.

    Kennedy motioned to a stationary RB2 one time in fifty-six snaps, so we might as well have broken the huddle in a two-back set.

    On the other play, Kennedy motioned to create the diamond formation and was the fake-handoff element of a play-action pass.

    I would file both plays under “exceptions that prove the rule,” with the rule being that the slot motions into a pitch track in this offense. It’s been that way since 2014.
    Last edited by pete4256; 8th May 2019 at 09:30 AM.
    Thanks, Rastabot!
    www.247sports.com/porkchops

  5. #185

    Default Re: Andrew Cunningham Leaving

    Quote Originally Posted by BillyBob View Post
    Sounds to me like "RB2" doesn't need to be a bonafide RB and doesn't necessarily need to be a guy you'd want running IZ.

    Both backs need to be IZ options, and they both need to be able to block. Obviously, if you’ve got Wright and Kennedy out there together, you’re setting up tendencies, which is somewhat unavoidable.

    But it’s basically the same idea as the two halfbacks in the wishbone or the two split-backs in the veer. Both should be capable of threatening inside and outside.
    Thanks, Rastabot!
    www.247sports.com/porkchops

  6. #186
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Sugar Hill, Ga
    Posts
    10,125

    Default Re: Andrew Cunningham Leaving

    I’ve been studying pages 4-19 of this thread really hard and am feel I might be ready for the Football Strategy 101 exam.

    Will this be via scantron and I need a #2 pencil?

  7. #187
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    JDC325's Head
    Posts
    28,107

    Default Re: Andrew Cunningham Leaving

    I give up. I ask you simple yes or no questions and you can’t do it. You have to write a dissertation to prove how much of an intellectual you are or something.

    You have talked so much and made something so much deeper and more complicated that it ever was to the point you are literally contradicting yourself AND continuing to prove me right in the same sentences you are telling me I’m wrong.

    If Kennedy motioned to a stationary RB2 spot once in 56 plays then do you know what that means? It means IT’S IN THE ****ING PLAYBOOK. Thank you for once again proving I’m right.
    Last edited by half-n-half; 8th May 2019 at 09:36 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by NO_QUARTER View Post
    I actually considered getting into a debate with Half one time (on something unimportant). But then chickened out because I knew my a$$ was about to get handed to me.

  8. #188

    Default Re: Andrew Cunningham Leaving

    Quote Originally Posted by eagle95 View Post
    I’ve been studying pages 4-19 of this thread really hard and am feel I might be ready for the Football Strategy 101 exam.

    Will this be via scantron and I need a #2 pencil?
    Don’t forget the essay portion.

    Also, you can’t diagram plays on a scantron.
    Thanks, Rastabot!
    www.247sports.com/porkchops

  9. #189

    Default Re: Andrew Cunningham Leaving

    Quote Originally Posted by half-n-half View Post
    I give up. You have talked so much and made something so much deeper and more complicated that it ever was to the point you are literally contradicting yourself AND continuing to prove me right in the same sentences you are telling me I’m wrong.

    If Kennedy motioned to a stationary RB2 spot once in 56 plays then do you know what that means? It means IT’S IN THE ****ING PLAYBOOK. Thank you for once again proving I’m right.
    We ran flex TWICE in that game. IT’S IN THE ****ING PLAYBOOK.

    My vote is more flex in 2019. That would ease your concerns about TE, wouldn’t it?

    If you don’t agree with that logic, you don’t understand what I’m saying.
    Thanks, Rastabot!
    www.247sports.com/porkchops

  10. #190
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    JDC325's Head
    Posts
    28,107

    Default Re: Andrew Cunningham Leaving

    Quote Originally Posted by pete4256 View Post
    No. It’s not really in the playbook except as exceptions.

    SO ITS IN THE PLAYBOOK. “It’s not in the playbook. Well except for when we run the play”. WTf?
    Quote Originally Posted by NO_QUARTER View Post
    I actually considered getting into a debate with Half one time (on something unimportant). But then chickened out because I knew my a$$ was about to get handed to me.

Similar Threads

  1. Andrew Power
    By EagleHawk in forum The Flight Line
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 2nd September 2009, 10:45 PM
  2. Andrew Power #99
    By straightshooter in forum The Flight Line
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 25th August 2009, 08:56 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •