Hogville Info
• 9,748,646 Posts
• 394,622 Topics
• 22,261 Hogvillians
THE RULES (Read 'em!)
Quick Links
Pick'Ems:Football      Basketball      Baseball
Sister Sites:Gridiron HistoryFearless Friday
Listen NOW:Game ON 103.3 
  
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Did Arkansas & Mizzou trade offensive philosophies?  (Read 3232 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

tigerinhogtown

Did Arkansas & Mizzou trade offensive philosophies?
« on: April 12, 2018, 04:43:46 pm »

sounds like what AR is runnin is what Mizzou has been running the last 10 years.

Now with Dooley running things Mizzou switches to a pro style. 

i hope they are both successful but fear both will fail.
Logged

Inhogswetrust

  • Gold Hogvillian
  • *********
  • Total likes: 34
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 35,799
  • Guessing is easier than actually trying!
Re: Did Arkansas & Mizzou trade offensive philosophies?
« Reply #1 on: April 12, 2018, 04:45:11 pm »

Dooley would be perfect to coach with Bret.......stand around and look perplexed!
Logged

Sponsored Ad



Hogville encourages you to do business with the following...

31to6

Re: Did Arkansas & Mizzou trade offensive philosophies?
« Reply #2 on: April 12, 2018, 05:07:27 pm »

sounds like what AR is runnin is what Mizzou has been running the last 10 years.

Now with Dooley running things Mizzou switches to a pro style. 

i hope they are both successful but fear both will fail.
Arkansas went 8-1 with a close variant of this offense before the meddling started.

I have no doubt in my mind that it can succeed.
Logged

bphi11ips

  • Gold Hogvillian
  • *********
  • Total likes: 61
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15,071
  • I need help with my footwork, too.
Re: Did Arkansas & Mizzou trade offensive philosophies?
« Reply #3 on: April 12, 2018, 05:36:36 pm »

I hope so.
Logged

MuskogeeHogFan

  • Global Moderator
  • Gold Hogvillian
  • *********
  • Total likes: 48
  • Online Online
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 40,828
  • Nadine Coyle shakin it for the Hogs!!!!
Re: Did Arkansas & Mizzou trade offensive philosophies?
« Reply #4 on: April 12, 2018, 05:52:09 pm »

sounds like what AR is runnin is what Mizzou has been running the last 10 years.

Now with Dooley running things Mizzou switches to a pro style. 

i hope they are both successful but fear both will fail.

My opinion is that if Arkansas, with better recruiting classes than Missouri, can't pull off a Pro Style Power type of offense, Missouri surely can't. The type of offense that they ran gave them a chance in more games that they played, same as it should do for Arkansas. Of course they are in the East where recruiting over the past 5 years (2013-2017) for most teams hasn't kept pace with improvements made in the SEC West, so that at least should be an advantage for them.
Logged

#hammerdown

  • Varsity
  • ****
  • Total likes: 2
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 400
  • Bring Back the Chrome Dome
Re: Did Arkansas & Mizzou trade offensive philosophies?
« Reply #5 on: April 12, 2018, 06:35:20 pm »

My opinion is that if Arkansas, with better recruiting classes than Missouri, can't pull off a Pro Style Power type of offense, Missouri surely can't. The type of offense that they ran gave them a chance in more games that they played, same as it should do for Arkansas. Of course they are in the East where recruiting over the past 5 years (2013-2017) for most teams hasn't kept pace with improvements made in the SEC West, so that at least should be an advantage for them.

But the East is getting better just in time to welcome Dooley to MO
Logged

MuskogeeHogFan

  • Global Moderator
  • Gold Hogvillian
  • *********
  • Total likes: 48
  • Online Online
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 40,828
  • Nadine Coyle shakin it for the Hogs!!!!
Re: Did Arkansas & Mizzou trade offensive philosophies?
« Reply #6 on: April 12, 2018, 07:54:37 pm »

But the East is getting better just in time to welcome Dooley to MO

Georgia is getting better, Florida has a chance. S. Carolina will have a better defense, not sure about their offense. Muschamp can't seem to get both together at one time.
Logged

#hammerdown

  • Varsity
  • ****
  • Total likes: 2
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 400
  • Bring Back the Chrome Dome
Re: Did Arkansas & Mizzou trade offensive philosophies?
« Reply #7 on: April 14, 2018, 03:41:26 pm »

Nope.  Looks like even a second year head coach know that won’t work against superior talent.  Per spring game they may not be quite as fast to the line but the play calling and alignment look very similar.
Logged

MuskogeeHogFan

  • Global Moderator
  • Gold Hogvillian
  • *********
  • Total likes: 48
  • Online Online
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 40,828
  • Nadine Coyle shakin it for the Hogs!!!!
Re: Did Arkansas & Mizzou trade offensive philosophies?
« Reply #8 on: April 14, 2018, 04:12:29 pm »

Nope.  Looks like even a second year head coach know that won’t work against superior talent.  Per spring game they may not be quite as fast to the line but the play calling and alignment look very similar.

A "second year HC"? Referring to Missouri?
Logged

Dwight_K_Shrute

  • Gold Hogvillian
  • *********
  • Total likes: 72
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 14,958
  • Follow @fakewallyhall.
    • Missing your favorite thread?  It's probably in Vents and Rumors
Re: Did Arkansas & Mizzou trade offensive philosophies?
« Reply #9 on: April 14, 2018, 04:31:01 pm »

If Derek Dooley's last name was Smith he'd be lucky to be a high school position coach.
Logged

bennyl08

  • Gold Hogvillian
  • *********
  • Total likes: 12
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 19,454
  • Ever since the war I've had a drinking problem
Re: Did Arkansas & Mizzou trade offensive philosophies?
« Reply #10 on: April 14, 2018, 04:56:55 pm »

My opinion is that if Arkansas, with better recruiting classes than Missouri, can't pull off a Pro Style Power type of offense, Missouri surely can't. The type of offense that they ran gave them a chance in more games that they played, same as it should do for Arkansas. Of course they are in the East where recruiting over the past 5 years (2013-2017) for most teams hasn't kept pace with improvements made in the SEC West, so that at least should be an advantage for them.

We won 21 games over two seasons with a Pro Style, Power type offense under Petrino. We used 21 and 12 personnel packages more often than not with power blocking over zone blocking schemes.

People put too much importance on the scheme. Bielema could have run a HUNH spread attack and had the same success. Morris could run a power pro style offense and he'd have the same success that he will have here with his offense.
Logged

Inhogswetrust

  • Gold Hogvillian
  • *********
  • Total likes: 34
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 35,799
  • Guessing is easier than actually trying!
Re: Did Arkansas & Mizzou trade offensive philosophies?
« Reply #11 on: April 14, 2018, 05:09:23 pm »

If Derek Dooley's last name was Smith he'd be lucky to be a high school position coach.

No kidding because then he would be a relative of John L instead of Vince..................
Logged

MuskogeeHogFan

  • Global Moderator
  • Gold Hogvillian
  • *********
  • Total likes: 48
  • Online Online
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 40,828
  • Nadine Coyle shakin it for the Hogs!!!!
Re: Did Arkansas & Mizzou trade offensive philosophies?
« Reply #12 on: April 14, 2018, 05:11:29 pm »

We won 21 games over two seasons with a Pro Style, Power type offense under Petrino. We used 21 and 12 personnel packages more often than not with power blocking over zone blocking schemes.

People put too much importance on the scheme. Bielema could have run a HUNH spread attack and had the same success. Morris could run a power pro style offense and he'd have the same success that he will have here with his offense.

Opinions tend to vary.
Logged

#hammerdown

  • Varsity
  • ****
  • Total likes: 2
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 400
  • Bring Back the Chrome Dome
Re: Did Arkansas & Mizzou trade offensive philosophies?
« Reply #13 on: April 14, 2018, 05:24:51 pm »

A "second year HC"? Referring to Missouri?

Yes
Logged

bennyl08

  • Gold Hogvillian
  • *********
  • Total likes: 12
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 19,454
  • Ever since the war I've had a drinking problem
Re: Did Arkansas & Mizzou trade offensive philosophies?
« Reply #14 on: April 14, 2018, 06:02:02 pm »

Opinions tend to vary.

Very true. However, facts do not and Petrino ran a power pro style offense is a fact. We also had some really good success despite lesser recruiting than under Bielema.

Logged

Pig in the Pokey

  • Gold Hogvillian
  • *********
  • Total likes: 40
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 22,038
  • Roastin da bomb in Fayettenam.
Re: Did Arkansas & Mizzou trade offensive philosophies?
« Reply #15 on: April 14, 2018, 11:16:07 pm »

Derek Dooley is going to fail so badly.
Logged

checkraiser88

Re: Did Arkansas & Mizzou trade offensive philosophies?
« Reply #16 on: April 14, 2018, 11:41:20 pm »

Our offense will run the ball a lot more than Mizzou offense ever did. We will run a lot more pre snap motion as well.
Logged

rtr

Re: Did Arkansas & Mizzou trade offensive philosophies?
« Reply #17 on: April 15, 2018, 09:17:37 am »

We won 21 games over two seasons with a Pro Style, Power type offense under Petrino. We used 21 and 12 personnel packages more often than not with power blocking over zone blocking schemes.

People put too much importance on the scheme. Bielema could have run a HUNH spread attack and had the same success. Morris could run a power pro style offense and he'd have the same success that he will have here with his offense.
Not all pro style offenses are the same.  I do agree as Petrino ran a power I base offense but it was a lot more flexible, a lot of multiple looks.
Logged

Jborohog09

  • All-American Hogvillian
  • *******
  • Total likes: 2
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 2,288
  • Love the Wolves and love the Hogs.
Re: Did Arkansas & Mizzou trade offensive philosophies?
« Reply #18 on: April 15, 2018, 10:06:46 am »

Very true. However, facts do not and Petrino ran a power pro style offense is a fact. We also had some really good success despite lesser recruiting than under Bielema.



It was a hybrid of spread and pro.  Lot of I formation stuff, but a lot of empty, doubles, trips, and pistol formations as well. 
Logged

bigalphahawg

Re: Did Arkansas & Mizzou trade offensive philosophies?
« Reply #19 on: April 15, 2018, 10:16:13 am »

We won 21 games over two seasons with a Pro Style, Power type offense under Petrino. We used 21 and 12 personnel packages more often than not with power blocking over zone blocking schemes.

People put too much importance on the scheme. Bielema could have run a HUNH spread attack and had the same success. Morris could run a power pro style offense and he'd have the same success that he will have here with his offense.
People tend to get caught up in schemes and appearance. I believe that talent and execution are what usually determine success, which I am assuming is your point. 
Logged

razorback44

Re: Did Arkansas & Mizzou trade offensive philosophies?
« Reply #20 on: April 15, 2018, 12:28:46 pm »

sounds like what AR is runnin is what Mizzou has been running the last 10 years.

Now with Dooley running things Mizzou switches to a pro style. 

i hope they are both successful but fear both will fail.

Did you watch the Mizzou spring game? The average fan probably won’t be able to tell the difference between Heupel and Dooley’s offenses.
Logged

oldhog63

Re: Did Arkansas & Mizzou trade offensive philosophies?
« Reply #21 on: April 15, 2018, 12:29:55 pm »

People tend to get caught up in schemes and appearance. I believe that talent and execution are what usually determine success, which I am assuming is your point.

Can you expand on this? While superior talent is an advantage, I don’t think at the SEC level it is enough by itself. I think scheme very much matters as well as the coach knowing how to utilize a particular scheme. I agree that you can be successful with many different types of schemes. But, I think the coach has know how to maximize the picked scheme and also has to have the right personnel to run the chosen scheme. I don’t think Bielema understood the scheme he was trying to use nor did he understand how to utilize it and it looked to me he didn’t allow his coordinators to do their jobs.
Logged

rtr

Re: Did Arkansas & Mizzou trade offensive philosophies?
« Reply #22 on: April 15, 2018, 01:11:59 pm »

Can you expand on this? While superior talent is an advantage, I don’t think at the SEC level it is enough by itself. I think scheme very much matters as well as the coach knowing how to utilize a particular scheme. I agree that you can be successful with many different types of schemes. But, I think the coach has know how to maximize the picked scheme and also has to have the right personnel to run the chosen scheme. I don’t think Bielema understood the scheme he was trying to use nor did he understand how to utilize it and it looked to me he didn’t allow his coordinators to do their jobs.
The thing that gives me hope about Morris is he knows what he wants to do.  I don't think Coach B knew or understood what he  was trying to do.
Logged

oldhog63

Re: Did Arkansas & Mizzou trade offensive philosophies?
« Reply #23 on: April 15, 2018, 01:13:08 pm »

The thing that gives me hope about Morris is he knows what he wants to do.  I don't think Coach B knew or understood what he  was trying to do.

Yes! I agree.
Logged

Ched "UglyUncle" Carpenter

  • President and life time member of the Hobby Shop.
  • Global Moderator
  • Gold Hogvillian
  • *********
  • Total likes: 27
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 15,567
  • SPORTS HAS NEVER BEEN SO UGLY!
    • facebook.com/uglyuncle.
Re: Did Arkansas & Mizzou trade offensive philosophies?
« Reply #24 on: April 15, 2018, 02:09:17 pm »

I don't mean to disagree with Benny or others, but Petrino called his offense a "Power spread" (seriously...no jokes here please).  That is a fact.

His scheme mattered very much.  His play calling set him apart, but his scheme fit his philosophy, talent he recruited and teams we played against. 
Logged

rtr

Re: Did Arkansas & Mizzou trade offensive philosophies?
« Reply #25 on: April 15, 2018, 02:18:30 pm »

Most NFL teams spread the field, they are not strictly ground and pound Barry Alvarez Wisconsin Badger.
Logged

12247

Re: Did Arkansas & Mizzou trade offensive philosophies?
« Reply #26 on: April 15, 2018, 03:40:18 pm »

Petrino had faults but knowing what to do with what he had available was not one of those faults.  Petrino could have recruited better, had an overall better attitude but he was the best at setting up a defense with his offense.  He refused to let players slack off and take plays off.  He showed confidence in his plan by running any play at any time he chose to run it as opposed to worrying about us knowing how to go forward.  Defenses could never be sure he wouldn't go deep on third and short.  He did show his hand with who he would bring in at RB quite often.  The size and speed of the RB was a great indicator of what the defense would see.  Other than that, a D coordinator could never know what was coming.  His offense always looked planned, Bret's never did.  I love simple offensive football as in what can we do to advance the damn football.  Correct answer is to hit the D where they are the weakest.  Also throw in a dab of don't try to use your ineffective o-line to run over an 'SEC defense.  Don't be too lazy to come on out and try and prepare your team.
Logged

bennyl08

  • Gold Hogvillian
  • *********
  • Total likes: 12
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 19,454
  • Ever since the war I've had a drinking problem
Re: Did Arkansas & Mizzou trade offensive philosophies?
« Reply #27 on: April 15, 2018, 03:53:56 pm »

Can you expand on this? While superior talent is an advantage, I don’t think at the SEC level it is enough by itself. I think scheme very much matters as well as the coach knowing how to utilize a particular scheme. I agree that you can be successful with many different types of schemes. But, I think the coach has know how to maximize the picked scheme and also has to have the right personnel to run the chosen scheme. I don’t think Bielema understood the scheme he was trying to use nor did he understand how to utilize it and it looked to me he didn’t allow his coordinators to do their jobs.

People tend to get caught up in schemes and appearance. I believe that talent and execution are what usually determine success, which I am assuming is your point.

It was a hybrid of spread and pro.  Lot of I formation stuff, but a lot of empty, doubles, trips, and pistol formations as well.

I don't mean to disagree with Benny or others, but Petrino called his offense a "Power spread" (seriously...no jokes here please).  That is a fact.

His scheme mattered very much.  His play calling set him apart, but his scheme fit his philosophy, talent he recruited and teams we played against.

Most NFL teams spread the field, they are not strictly ground and pound Barry Alvarez Wisconsin Badger.

Some good stuff here. First and foremost is that spread and pro style are not mutually exclusive things. Heck, you have pro style offenses that operate almost exclusively out of the shotgun and they are every bit as pro-style as an offense that is run exclusively under center.

"Pro Style" has very little to do with personnel or formations but instead complexity and responsibility. For example, a pro style offense will have a qb go through progressions. Fully pro style would allow the qb to have the entire field to throw to. At the other end of the spectrum, you have the sort of stuff that Cam described under Gus where he had a single read in the throwing game, and if that wasn't there, run. In the middle, you may have a system where you have the qb read only half the field, which we saw a lot of in the spring game. The qb may make a couple progressions, but they don't have to make many.

Another distinguishing factor is what the play caller hopes to gain from the defensive reactions. A pro-style play caller will generally want the defense to act exactly as expected. They will use the defense's own schemes against them. Petrino was great at this. Getting Wright lined up against the aggies LB's consistently. That fourth down call against LSU where we went deep to Adams for a td. A prostyle offense will send a player in motion to either get a numbers advantage or to help the qb read the defense pre-snap and figure out what the defense is doing. This is in stark contrast to the typical hurry up offenses of today. They don't use motion to read the defense, they want to try and confuse the defense and get the snap off before the defense can align. For them, reading the defense takes too much time. Their aim is to confuse the defense with smoke and mirrors.

Hopefully, through reading that, I was able to communicate that these things aren't always black and white, but like most things in life, there's a spectrum. The counter is a common run play in pro style offenses that uses misdirection to try and trick defenses, but like most HUNH offenses, if the defense isn't tricked, the play is then reliant on just out-talented the opponent. In contrast, the pro-style offense almost never relies on mere out-talenting the opponent, but instead on outsmarting them and having the talent to capitalize. At the other end, Peyton Manning would run a HUNH offense at times, where he was then still play calling with a pro-style mindset, but utilizing the hurry up to save time, tire out the defense, and maximize personnel mis-matches. It's never simply one style or the other. Plenty of plays can incorporate aspects of both. However, most will tend to lean more heavily towards one style or the other. The HUNH puts the majority of the decision making onus on the coaches, leaving very little for the players to do other than execute, with the playcalling relying on mistakes by the defense for the offense to capitalize. While the pro-style, otoh, puts much more decision making responsibilities on the players, while leaving the playcaller to have to call an intricate game of chess. Again, HUNH playcallers will incorporate some inherent strategy too and don't solely rely on defensive mistakes and pro style will also try to capitalize on defensive mistakes, but in general, they favor the one or the other.

The best coaches IMO are scheme independent. Take Petrino and Bellichek as two examples most here are quite familiar with. His playcalling changed quite a bit going from having Mallett and Knile Davis to having Wilson and Dennis/Wingo/Green. Knile worked best with a fullback and power, man blocking schemes with Mallett taking shops deep downfield on play action. Johnson worked best in a zone blocking scheme and Wilson rolling out of the pocket and such. With Mallett, we had audibles and snaps mostly under center. With Wilson, we incorporated more shotgun and some more hurry up. Now at Louisville with Lamar Jackson, you wouldn't even know it was Petrino as the coach there other than the crossing routes. With the Patriots, their offense changes weekly. One week, Brady will throw like 15 total passes while they ground and pound the other team. The next week, they'll throw 60 times and barely run the ball. One week they'll do zone blocking and quick screen and then the next they'll turn around and use power schemes and downfield play action passes. One week they'll go no huddle for much of the game while the next, they'll drain the clock as much as possible and huddle up almost exclusively.

Petrino wasn't good because of his scheme. His scheme changes based on the players he has to work with. He's good because no matter what type of offense he is coaching, he's going to execute it precisely and maximize the talent he has in the process. Saban does the same thing. Saban has been recruiting dual threats his entire time at Bama. However, early on, his best qb's were game managers, so he has an offense designed around long drives, lot of running, and a defense that compensates. When he gets AJ McCarron, the offense changed style to the Petrino power pro style/power spread. Then with Coker, back towards the game manager, but then he had some rushing qb's be the best, so he changes his philosophy yet again. Even on defense, you see changes in what he wants to do. When he had really good pass rushers, he didn't blitz as much and played his corners further off the receivers. When he doesn't have pass rushers, he'll play a lot more press coverage.

While it is absolutely true that you have to have the right players to run a certain type of scheme, that is exactly why you don't see the good coaches stay married to a super specific style. Mike McCoy went from giving Kyle Orton a career season to making the best lemonade he could with Tebow at QB before going on to revamp a slumping Rivers. A coach will typically recruit the best players he can that fit within the team's culture. Going back to Petrino, none of the rb's on the roster were the same. At qb, we ranged from Mallett, to Wilson, while having BA and dual threats with Youngblood, Mitchell, and Walker. We had the big WR's, small shifty WR's, and so on. None of those fit some pre-determined scheme other than the scheme of wanting to be able to be multiple on offense and knowing you can be flexible enough to take advantage of the wildly different skill sets.
Logged

ChicoHog

  • Hall of Fame Hogvillian
  • *******
  • Total likes: 3
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9,612
  • RIP Glenn. You're "Already Gone" way too soon
Re: Did Arkansas & Mizzou trade offensive philosophies?
« Reply #28 on: April 15, 2018, 05:38:30 pm »

Georgia is getting better, Florida has a chance. S. Carolina will have a better defense, not sure about their offense. Muschamp can't seem to get both together at one time.
Muschamp is a heck of a recruiter and they will be pretty decent I think.  I like them to finish second in the East behind UGA and ahead of UF.  Bentley is a good QB and I think their offense will be fine. 
Logged

TheGrove68

Re: Did Arkansas & Mizzou trade offensive philosophies?
« Reply #29 on: April 18, 2018, 05:37:25 am »

It was a hybrid of spread and pro.  Lot of I formation stuff, but a lot of empty, doubles, trips, and pistol formations as well.

We are not running a true pro style...still a lot of RPO,Spread formations and added some pistol. What was changed was a true route tree for WR, more reading the Defenses on predetermined routes as opposed to the WR reading the LB/DB and QB then making throws. Added some pro style elements but that's it.

Not sure if Dooley is worth a crap this change could be a huge failure as it might be to complex and intensive for out talent to execute...and Heck Dooley has never been a OC!! But the over all formations and such are about the same, its how they go about executing them that is different.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2018, 05:47:45 am by TheGrove68 »
Logged

Jborohog09

  • All-American Hogvillian
  • *******
  • Total likes: 2
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 2,288
  • Love the Wolves and love the Hogs.
Re: Did Arkansas & Mizzou trade offensive philosophies?
« Reply #30 on: April 19, 2018, 03:25:35 pm »

We are not running a true pro style...still a lot of RPO,Spread formations and added some pistol. What was changed was a true route tree for WR, more reading the Defenses on predetermined routes as opposed to the WR reading the LB/DB and QB then making throws. Added some pro style elements but that's it.

Not sure if Dooley is worth a crap this change could be a huge failure as it might be to complex and intensive for out talent to execute...and Heck Dooley has never been a OC!! But the over all formations and such are about the same, its how they go about executing them that is different.

I know yall aren't a pro style, but pro style teams do run RPOs.  Enos ran a decent amount of them the last three years.  They were mainly of the pre-snap read variety though.
Logged

gawntrail

  • Senior
  • *****
  • Total likes: 0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,015
  • Surfing the web at Hogville.net
Re: Did Arkansas & Mizzou trade offensive philosophies?
« Reply #31 on: April 19, 2018, 04:21:07 pm »

My understanding is this:

Play pairing or packaging is a group of plays blocked similarly that depend on defensive alignment presnap reads to determine which in the pairing/package is actually executed.  These are usually called from the sideline in a ‘look at me’ play calling system.

Run/Pass Option is a run play with the interior 5 OL and the RB with routes run by the remaining eligible 4.  Run/Pass decision is based on a predetermined A/B read.

Current RPOs are an extension of triple option concepts, post-snap, that include down field reads.  Early read of front side DE/OLB for give/pull, then reading front side ‘hole’ defender for which route to hit.  With QB keeping being the Third or Fourth option depending on strong or weak being the ‘front side’.



Logged

Dwight_K_Shrute

  • Gold Hogvillian
  • *********
  • Total likes: 72
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 14,958
  • Follow @fakewallyhall.
    • Missing your favorite thread?  It's probably in Vents and Rumors
Re: Did Arkansas & Mizzou trade offensive philosophies?
« Reply #32 on: April 19, 2018, 04:26:29 pm »

Muschamp is a heck of a recruiter and they will be pretty decent I think.  I like them to finish second in the East behind UGA and ahead of UF.  Bentley is a good QB and I think their offense will be fine. 

I think he learned some lessons from Florida stint too.  SC doesn't have the expectations nor the ahole fans of a Florida.  He did alright his first year considering what he took over and got them to 9 last year. 
Logged

Pig in the Pokey

  • Gold Hogvillian
  • *********
  • Total likes: 40
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 22,038
  • Roastin da bomb in Fayettenam.
Re: Did Arkansas & Mizzou trade offensive philosophies?
« Reply #33 on: April 19, 2018, 04:35:34 pm »

Did you watch the Mizzou spring game? The average fan probably won’t be able to tell the difference between Heupel and Dooley’s offenses.
what a ridiculous thing to say!! DOOLEY has literally never even had "an offense". My God, dude. Could you be any more misinformed? Dooley = Heupal lmao, boy that is rich. If this turns out to be true Ill come back and bow down to you, Oh Wise Sage~!  ;)
Logged

Jborohog09

  • All-American Hogvillian
  • *******
  • Total likes: 2
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 2,288
  • Love the Wolves and love the Hogs.
Re: Did Arkansas & Mizzou trade offensive philosophies?
« Reply #34 on: April 19, 2018, 05:09:36 pm »

My understanding is this:

Play pairing or packaging is a group of plays blocked similarly that depend on defensive alignment presnap reads to determine which in the pairing/package is actually executed.  These are usually called from the sideline in a ‘look at me’ play calling system.

Run/Pass Option is a run play with the interior 5 OL and the RB with routes run by the remaining eligible 4.  Run/Pass decision is based on a predetermined A/B read.

Current RPOs are an extension of triple option concepts, post-snap, that include down field reads.  Early read of front side DE/OLB for give/pull, then reading front side ‘hole’ defender for which route to hit.  With QB keeping being the Third or Fourth option depending on strong or weak being the ‘front side’.





Some teams (like Arkansas will this year) even read the safety.  Not all pre-snap reads are called from the sideline either.  It's up to the QB to make the read to hand it or throw it, and in some cases the wide receiver reads how the DB is lined up to determine his route.  Just depends on how much football IQ your guys have and how much trust you have in them.
 Some RPOs are pre-snap decisions, but the most common ones are post-snap.  Here's an example of a pre-snap one Enos used at the 2:39 mark:


Here, Austin counted the numbers in the box, saw he had one-on-one with outside leverage with the corner that was playing off and made the correct decision to throw the slant.  Notice everyone else on the play went to run-block so if the numbers had been favorable AA would have handed it off.

Some teams even package in the pre-snap read with a post-snap read.  One guy I listened to at a clinic had the QB read the single receiver side pre-snap and if he liked what he had he'd immediately go there.  If he didn't, he'd read the backside end and if that guy stayed at home then they'd run inside zone.  If the end crashed, then the QB would read the outside LB or strong safety and if that guy crashed he'd throw the quick screen to the receiver.  If they went towards the receiver, the QB would keep it.  This is more of the triple-option RPO you described.  Typing all of it out makes it sound a little complex, but it's really pretty simple as long as your QB understands his reads properly.  Ultimately, some of this just comes down to semantics and what terminology the coach prefers.

I could talk about this stuff all day lol.
Logged

#hammerdown

  • Varsity
  • ****
  • Total likes: 2
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 400
  • Bring Back the Chrome Dome
Re: Did Arkansas & Mizzou trade offensive philosophies?
« Reply #35 on: April 19, 2018, 07:21:46 pm »

what a ridiculous thing to say!! DOOLEY has literally never even had "an offense". My God, dude. Could you be any more misinformed? Dooley = Heupal lmao, boy that is rich. If this turns out to be true Ill come back and bow down to you, Oh Wise Sage~!  ;)

Somebody please pin this post.  Somehow I think this will turn into “that’s not what I said”
Logged

TheGrove68

Re: Did Arkansas & Mizzou trade offensive philosophies?
« Reply #36 on: April 20, 2018, 03:16:59 am »

I know yall aren't a pro style, but pro style teams do run RPOs.  Enos ran a decent amount of them the last three years.  They were mainly of the pre-snap read variety though.

Our offense isn't a whole lot different than Last year, Heupel even called his offense a power spread with some pro style elements in the run game. As I said The Biggest difference is in the WR routes, and QB pre-snap reads. The WR are running pre-determined routes off a passing tree and not reading the DB's, and the QB has to read on the fly as well. Drops are slightly different for the QB as well.

Logged

TheGrove68

Re: Did Arkansas & Mizzou trade offensive philosophies?
« Reply #37 on: April 20, 2018, 03:25:29 am »

Somebody please pin this post.  Somehow I think this will turn into “that’s not what I said”

I understood what you said, you meant that schematically, formation wise, play wise that the offenses are very similar.And the average fan couldn't tell the difference base on how we line up or by the type of plays we ran. It's a fact that Dooley is using a lot of Heupels plays and scheme. And that he has mixed in some of the Dallas stuff to try and complement and cover up some of our weak spots.

I knew you where not referring to production and pace of the Heupel offense in you comment on how fans couldn't tell the difference. In fact the pace has changed as that could be the biggest thing fans see, we do hurry at times and keep a brisk pace but it's not the break neck speed of the Heupel offense.

Also we hired a former Ark. OC under Petrino Garrick McGee, so I'm sure he will bring some of those elements as well to the offense.
Logged

Peter Porker

  • All-American Hogvillian
  • *******
  • Total likes: 3
  • Online Online
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 4,425
  • Love God. Love Others. It's that simple.
Re: Did Arkansas & Mizzou trade offensive philosophies?
« Reply #38 on: April 20, 2018, 07:45:48 am »

Arkansas went 8-1 with a close variant of this offense before the meddling started.

I have no doubt in my mind that it can succeed.

LOL this narrative.
Logged

Dwight_K_Shrute

  • Gold Hogvillian
  • *********
  • Total likes: 72
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 14,958
  • Follow @fakewallyhall.
    • Missing your favorite thread?  It's probably in Vents and Rumors
Re: Did Arkansas & Mizzou trade offensive philosophies?
« Reply #39 on: April 20, 2018, 08:08:47 am »

Also we hired a former Ark. OC under Petrino Garrick McGee, so I'm sure he will bring some of those elements as well to the offense.

Good luck with McGee bringing anything to the table.  He has been an abject failure when not partnered with Petrino.  The Illinois offense the last two years was putrid.  They won 5 games total in that time.  Their offense against FBS teams averaged 15.7 ppg over the two years, and actually went down in year two.  5-19 as a head coach at UAB where again they got worse in year 2.  Couple this with the fact that Dooley has never actually been an OC and I'd be worried. 
Logged

SooieGeneris

  • Senior
  • *****
  • Total likes: 4
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 1,052
  • You don't ever want to be chasin' speed..
Re: Did Arkansas & Mizzou trade offensive philosophies?
« Reply #40 on: April 20, 2018, 01:08:47 pm »

Some good stuff here. First and foremost is that spread and pro style are not mutually exclusive things. Heck, you have pro style offenses that operate almost exclusively out of the shotgun and they are every bit as pro-style as an offense that is run exclusively under center.

"Pro Style" has very little to do with personnel or formations but instead complexity and responsibility. For example, a pro style offense will have a qb go through progressions. Fully pro style would allow the qb to have the entire field to throw to. At the other end of the spectrum, you have the sort of stuff that Cam described under Gus where he had a single read in the throwing game, and if that wasn't there, run. In the middle, you may have a system where you have the qb read only half the field, which we saw a lot of in the spring game. The qb may make a couple progressions, but they don't have to make many.

Another distinguishing factor is what the play caller hopes to gain from the defensive reactions. A pro-style play caller will generally want the defense to act exactly as expected. They will use the defense's own schemes against them. Petrino was great at this. Getting Wright lined up against the aggies LB's consistently. That fourth down call against LSU where we went deep to Adams for a td. A prostyle offense will send a player in motion to either get a numbers advantage or to help the qb read the defense pre-snap and figure out what the defense is doing. This is in stark contrast to the typical hurry up offenses of today. They don't use motion to read the defense, they want to try and confuse the defense and get the snap off before the defense can align. For them, reading the defense takes too much time. Their aim is to confuse the defense with smoke and mirrors.

Hopefully, through reading that, I was able to communicate that these things aren't always black and white, but like most things in life, there's a spectrum. The counter is a common run play in pro style offenses that uses misdirection to try and trick defenses, but like most HUNH offenses, if the defense isn't tricked, the play is then reliant on just out-talented the opponent. In contrast, the pro-style offense almost never relies on mere out-talenting the opponent, but instead on outsmarting them and having the talent to capitalize. At the other end, Peyton Manning would run a HUNH offense at times, where he was then still play calling with a pro-style mindset, but utilizing the hurry up to save time, tire out the defense, and maximize personnel mis-matches. It's never simply one style or the other. Plenty of plays can incorporate aspects of both. However, most will tend to lean more heavily towards one style or the other. The HUNH puts the majority of the decision making onus on the coaches, leaving very little for the players to do other than execute, with the playcalling relying on mistakes by the defense for the offense to capitalize. While the pro-style, otoh, puts much more decision making responsibilities on the players, while leaving the playcaller to have to call an intricate game of chess. Again, HUNH playcallers will incorporate some inherent strategy too and don't solely rely on defensive mistakes and pro style will also try to capitalize on defensive mistakes, but in general, they favor the one or the other.

The best coaches IMO are scheme independent. Take Petrino and Bellichek as two examples most here are quite familiar with. His playcalling changed quite a bit going from having Mallett and Knile Davis to having Wilson and Dennis/Wingo/Green. Knile worked best with a fullback and power, man blocking schemes with Mallett taking shops deep downfield on play action. Johnson worked best in a zone blocking scheme and Wilson rolling out of the pocket and such. With Mallett, we had audibles and snaps mostly under center. With Wilson, we incorporated more shotgun and some more hurry up. Now at Louisville with Lamar Jackson, you wouldn't even know it was Petrino as the coach there other than the crossing routes. With the Patriots, their offense changes weekly. One week, Brady will throw like 15 total passes while they ground and pound the other team. The next week, they'll throw 60 times and barely run the ball. One week they'll do zone blocking and quick screen and then the next they'll turn around and use power schemes and downfield play action passes. One week they'll go no huddle for much of the game while the next, they'll drain the clock as much as possible and huddle up almost exclusively.

Petrino wasn't good because of his scheme. His scheme changes based on the players he has to work with. He's good because no matter what type of offense he is coaching, he's going to execute it precisely and maximize the talent he has in the process. Saban does the same thing. Saban has been recruiting dual threats his entire time at Bama. However, early on, his best qb's were game managers, so he has an offense designed around long drives, lot of running, and a defense that compensates. When he gets AJ McCarron, the offense changed style to the Petrino power pro style/power spread. Then with Coker, back towards the game manager, but then he had some rushing qb's be the best, so he changes his philosophy yet again. Even on defense, you see changes in what he wants to do. When he had really good pass rushers, he didn't blitz as much and played his corners further off the receivers. When he doesn't have pass rushers, he'll play a lot more press coverage.

While it is absolutely true that you have to have the right players to run a certain type of scheme, that is exactly why you don't see the good coaches stay married to a super specific style. Mike McCoy went from giving Kyle Orton a career season to making the best lemonade he could with Tebow at QB before going on to revamp a slumping Rivers. A coach will typically recruit the best players he can that fit within the team's culture. Going back to Petrino, none of the rb's on the roster were the same. At qb, we ranged from Mallett, to Wilson, while having BA and dual threats with Youngblood, Mitchell, and Walker. We had the big WR's, small shifty WR's, and so on. None of those fit some pre-determined scheme other than the scheme of wanting to be able to be multiple on offense and knowing you can be flexible enough to take advantage of the wildly different skill sets.

The items bolded above are the critical differences IMO. Malzahn and Morris put a lot less on the QB than a pro-style offense or the hybrid that Petrino ran here.

I recall Saban in a pre game interview making a telling remark about how much responsibility the QB had in our offense. Malzahn, as we all know was Morris' mentor, and he is calling most of the shots from the sideline as the offense lines up without allowing time for the defense to sub.

Petrino was very harsh in dealing with QBs, seemingly more with Tyler Wilson than the others. I remember the 2011 game at Vandy, Bobby had veins sticking out of his neck every time Wilson would return to the sidelines, screaming in TW's face.

I'm sure the gameplan had us not challenging Casey Hayward much and Wilson kept throwing to the short side of the field to Hayward's man. IIRC, Hayward had an INT and dropped 1-2 more. Hayward, is now a Pro Bowl caliber CB for the Chargers after starting his career in GB.

In spite of a good career here, I don't think that type of offense was ideal for TW as he had never taken a snap from center and had been in a similar offense as Morris' in HS. Tyler just couldn't seem to make the transition to reading the defense pre and post snap and getting the ball out quickly that is required in the NFL.

I also think TW suffered more than one concussion here and took a savage beating which didn't help matters.

As for Dooley at Mizzou, I don't look for their offense to change drastically. They had problems scoring on better defenses the last 2 years, but like us, their defenses have been awful.

They got on a roll, albeit against losing teams last season, but won 5 of 6 I guess it was, so my guess would be a few tweaks here and there but more of the same on offense.

Lock coming back for his SR year helps them as he could handle more now, so maybe they run some pro-style, but I wouldn't look for a Bert type plodding offense out of them..
Logged

Pig in the Pokey

  • Gold Hogvillian
  • *********
  • Total likes: 40
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 22,038
  • Roastin da bomb in Fayettenam.
Re: Did Arkansas & Mizzou trade offensive philosophies?
« Reply #41 on: April 20, 2018, 01:19:04 pm »

Somebody please pin this post.  Somehow I think this will turn into “that’s not what I said”
We got another Dooley Hugger, boys! Ill bet anything you want to bet their numbers will be down on offense this year, and that is with the supposed all league QB coming back.
Logged

TheGrove68

Re: Did Arkansas & Mizzou trade offensive philosophies?
« Reply #42 on: April 23, 2018, 09:26:42 am »

I think everyone expect the numbers to go down...what is hoped for is that we will be more consistent across the board versus teams.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
 

KARK
KWNA
Fox 16 Arkansas