Would it be wrong to shift to a two RB system?

[Turk]

I've watched this team for 2+ years now and although it is apparent to me that we don't really have anything more than functional wide outs, we have 4 solid RB's, 3 of which have to stand on the sidelines to accommodate 4 wr on the field. Should Macan Wilson, Austin Carr, etc be getting tons of plays while we watch Vault, Anderson, Long, or Jackson on the sidelines?

It seems to me that we have so many options if we put two running backs on the field at the same time, and not necessarily both directly behind the QB. Since things were not solved and addressed with our OL and WR for the third year in a row, it appears we are running into the same issues.

At this point, I really don't know and remain hopeful, and maybe Macan Wilson, McHugh, Carr, and Scanlan will really be something, but thus far, Im not impressed with their routes or speed. So, here we go again.

I don't have the answers here and the season is early, but watching stud RB's stand on the sidelines, when I get the feeling that they can contribute, just doesn't seem right to me, especially when we insist on going with 4 wide outs, only one or maybe two of which are really solid.

And yes, I know it sounds odd to have two RB's behind an OL that is lacking, but imo something gotta give. Still uncomfortable with this offense.

 

[shakes3858]

I said in the spring and again when camp was going on, I'd move Vault to WR. Now you have 1 less stud RB on the sideline and one more stud position player at a position of need.

Additionally, if Anderson does have fumbling issues as you suggested (I'm not suggesting this as I forgive 1 fumble (yes, 1 too many, but things happen)), he could go to WR where there are less bodies out there to strip the ball. Although if a guy has fumbling issues, would you think he has catching issues.

 

[ColumbusCatFan1]

There is a flaw in your topic heading. McCall's "system" is about spacing. "Players, formations, plays" is the mantra. I wouldn't be surprised to see some 2 back looks going forward, but the 'Cats won't be switching over to something like Mummy/Leach's Kentucky air raid (3 WR 2 RB). NU has and will continue to be multiple under McCall. That's a good thing, IMHO.

 

[stpaulcat]

I've watched this team for 2+ years now and although it is apparent to me that we don't really have anything more than functional wide outs, we have 4 solid RB's, 3 of which have to stand on the sidelines to accommodate 4 wr on the field. Should Macan Wilson, Austin Carr, etc be getting tons of plays while we watch Vault, Anderson, Long, or Jackson on the sidelines?

It seems to me that we have so many options if we put two running backs on the field at the same time, and not necessarily both directly behind the QB. Since things were not solved and addressed with our OL and WR for the third year in a row, it appears we are running into the same issues.

At this point, I really don't know and remain hopeful, and maybe Macan Wilson, McHugh, Carr, and Scanlan will really be something, but thus far, Im not impressed with their routes or speed. So, here we go again.

I don't have the answers here and the season is early, but watching stud RB's stand on the sidelines, when I get the feeling that they can contribute, just doesn't seem right to me, especially when we insist on going with 4 wide outs, only one or maybe two of which are really solid.

And yes, I know it sounds odd to have two RB's behind an OL that is lacking, but imo something gotta give. Still uncomfortable with this offense.

 

[stpaulcat]

I've been wondering the same thing for a while. Why do we have a spread offense when we don't have but a few decent wide receivers? Nor do we know if we have a QB that can reliably throw a downfield pass. Is the spread like an appendix for us?

 

[shakes3858]

I've been wondering the same thing for a while. Why do we have a spread offense when we don't have but a few decent wide receivers? Nor do we know if we have a QB that can reliably throw a downfield pass. Is the spread like an appendix for us?

What do you recommend switching to? A west coast offense? You still need great wide receivers and super knowledgeable receivers that can make adjustments. A pro-style running attack with a play action game? Nope, we need a much better line to do that. A triple option like Army and Navy? That might work, but I really don't want to see it. I got it.... the Lou Holtz Twin Veer offense.

 

[Turk]

I said in the spring and again when camp was going on, I'd move Vault to WR. Now you have 1 less stud RB on the sideline and one more stud position player at a position of need.

Additionally, if Anderson does have fumbling issues as you suggested (I'm not suggesting this as I forgive 1 fumble (yes, 1 too many, but things happen)), he could go to WR where there are less bodies out there to strip the ball. Although if a guy has fumbling issues, would you think he has catching issues.

I never suggested that Anderson had fumbling problems, I merely said that he has to take advantage of his opportunities on the field which don't include fumbling. Someone else said he had small hands. What I am saying is that I haven't seen any evidence that having 4 slow wide outs on the field who also lack size [Christian Jones excepted] and have a hard time separating with routes is working or really fooling anyone. I doubt LB's even bother with who is on the field. OTOH, I think having two running back studs on the field will make a LB take notice. Maybe we wouldn't have to change much of anything if McCall splits a RB out wide. I don't really have the answers other than when I watch our very very slow offense not fool anyone, nor do I expect it to, and at the same time watch Vault and Anderson standing next to the coach, it seems to me that we aren't properly utilizing our strengths or talents. What is worse is that all of these RB's are young, and all of our very slow wide outs are young, so if we are insisting that everything is in concrete, then this implicitly says that we will have 5 stud RB's on the sidelines next year when we toss in Moten. I just assumed that we wouldn't be lining up a 6 deep at RB and that Fitz would utilize the talent in the slot or somewhere on the field.

Like I said, I don't have the answers and it may be more complicated, but McCall is going to have to find a way, for victories, and to keep everyone happy....or else.

In any case, our defense is solid so I see 8-4 as a par at this point, but imo we will lose the games where we fall behind by anything more than 10 points. I just don't see much quickness or explosiveness or strength or size on the field but I do see a lot on the sidelines standing next to coach.

 

[shakes3858]

Sorry, it was footballfan76 that said he had fumbling issues in camp and now at the game. But yeah, I think the answer to our best 3 offensive skill position players being RBs is to move an RB to WR a la Chris Brown being a WR at NU when he and Damien Anderson were our best skill players.

 

[Figrating]

The point that NU has too much unused talent at RB is well made. "Switch" is not gonna happen, but it should be tried and it will likely be soon. The triple option with Thorson, JJ and Long... or mix and match w Alviti, Solo and AA...

 

[phatcat]

I've watched this team for 2+ years now and although it is apparent to me that we don't really have anything more than functional wide outs, we have 4 solid RB's, 3 of which have to stand on the sidelines to accommodate 4 wr on the field. Should Macan Wilson, Austin Carr, etc be getting tons of plays while we watch Vault, Anderson, Long, or Jackson on the sidelines?

Sounds like your general question is whether these guys should be on the field instead of the WR's. That's different from a "two running back system'.

Let the best guys play

 

[Sheffielder]

It's funny because I've been thinking a lot about this...I saw a two-back formation at least once during the Stanford game, can't remember at EIU. Either way, I think there are a lot of different ways to go with a dual-threat QB (whose passing may not yet be as crisp as we'd like it to be) and two viable RBs...I'm hopeful maybe we're saving some of these packages for conference games.

 

[NJCat83588]

It's funny because I've been thinking a lot about this...I saw a two-back formation at least once during the Stanford game, can't remember at EIU. Either way, I think there are a lot of different ways to go with a dual-threat QB (whose passing may not yet be as crisp as we'd like it to be) and two viable RBs...I'm hopeful maybe we're saving some of these packages for conference games.

Two games into the season and we're ready to scrap the offense.............

 

[Turk]

Sorry, it was footballfan76 that said he had fumbling issues in camp and now at the game. But yeah, I think the answer to our best 3 offensive skill position players being RBs is to move an RB to WR a la Chris Brown being a WR at NU when he and Damien Anderson were our best skill players.

There may be personnel issues as well. For instance, when Walker moved Chris Brown to wide out, he transferred the next year. I get the feeling that Lonestarmvp is upset about Anderson's time and I'm not sure if that is telling or not. Granted, Anderson seems more like a back that we would like to feature but with Jackson, not sure where the carries will come in a one back system. It's a tough McCall but I can't help but think we still can find a way to get our quickies out on the field, especially when our wide outs don't seem to be on the same caliber as the rest of the team. Maybe things are ok? Dunno. Fact is that we haven't seen our team from a TD behind so we don't really know if our offense can get to the next level, but I am concerned if Duke jumps out front early.

 

[Turk]

Two games into the season and we're ready to scrap the offense.............

I don't think anyone is suggesting that. What we are discussing is if we are going to tweak it with different personnel. The 4 wide outs are slow, lack size, lack strength [except Christian Jones] and can't seem to separate or do much of anything, imo. We need Cam Dickerson back.

 

[FeralFelidae]

During the Motor City Bowl season, the 'Cats had considerable success with 2 RB formations with Wright and Herron in the backfield. Both backs were threats to run or receive and could block to provide protection.

So your idea is not unprecedented at NU, but that was definitely a case of adapting the offense to the realities of that season. (Baz had a very rough sophomore year passing and needed the extra protection, and of course we had those two stud backs.) I'd like to see what Thorson can do in the traditional spread before committing to a two-back system with regularity, although surely it wouldn't hurt to try it out from time to time in certain situations.

 

[gocatsgo2003]

I've watched this team for 2+ years now and although it is apparent to me that we don't really have anything more than functional wide outs, we have 4 solid RB's, 3 of which have to stand on the sidelines to accommodate 4 wr on the field. Should Macan Wilson, Austin Carr, etc be getting tons of plays while we watch Vault, Anderson, Long, or Jackson on the sidelines?

It seems to me that we have so many options if we put two running backs on the field at the same time, and not necessarily both directly behind the QB. Since things were not solved and addressed with our OL and WR for the third year in a row, it appears we are running into the same issues.

At this point, I really don't know and remain hopeful, and maybe Macan Wilson, McHugh, Carr, and Scanlan will really be something, but thus far, Im not impressed with their routes or speed. So, here we go again.

I don't have the answers here and the season is early, but watching stud RB's stand on the sidelines, when I get the feeling that they can contribute, just doesn't seem right to me, especially when we insist on going with 4 wide outs, only one or maybe two of which are really solid.

And yes, I know it sounds odd to have two RB's behind an OL that is lacking, but imo something gotta give. Still uncomfortable with this offense.

We have plenty of two RB sets.

 

[Turk]

During the Motor City Bowl season, the 'Cats had considerable success with 2 RB formations with Wright and Herron in the backfield. Both backs were threats to run or receive and could block to provide protection.

So your idea is not unprecedented at NU, but that was definitely a case of adapting the offense to the realities of that season. (Baz had a very rough sophomore year passing and needed the extra protection, and of course we had those two stud backs.) I'd like to see what Thorson can do in the traditional spread before committing to a two-back system with regularity, although surely it wouldn't hurt to try it out from time to time in certain situations.

Walker matched the system to his personnel. He also ran a legit two back with Terrell Jordan as well. With McCall, he seems to fit a template on whoever he has as QB/RB/OL. For instance, him doing options with Trevor last year was dumb. very very stupid. Fitz has done well previously by getting the best players on the field. When he had Peterman, Brewer, CJ, Kakfa, he moved Brewer and Peterman to other positions to get the best athletes on the offense. That may be where things are headed now with Anderson.

 

[shakes3858]

During the Motor City Bowl season, the 'Cats had considerable success with 2 RB formations with Wright and Herron in the backfield. Both backs were threats to run or receive and could block to provide protection.

So your idea is not unprecedented at NU, but that was definitely a case of adapting the offense to the realities of that season. (Baz had a very rough sophomore year passing and needed the extra protection, and of course we had those two stud backs.) I'd like to see what Thorson can do in the traditional spread before committing to a two-back system with regularity, although surely it wouldn't hurt to try it out from time to time in certain situations.

Didn't we do some stuff with 2 backs and a pistol formation a couple years ago? Thought we even did a 3 back offense with Colter as QB one RB behind him and 1 on both sides of him.

 

[Turk]

We have plenty of two RB sets.

I hope we see some of it, or more of it, considering Dickerson hasn't played and our wr situation. I will admit that McHugh seems like he has great potential but for whatever reason it hasn't translated to solid game performances.

 

[Deeringfish]

I've watched this team for 2+ years now and although it is apparent to me that we don't really have anything more than functional wide outs, we have 4 solid RB's, 3 of which have to stand on the sidelines to accommodate 4 wr on the field. Should Macan Wilson, Austin Carr, etc be getting tons of plays while we watch Vault, Anderson, Long, or Jackson on the sidelines?

It seems to me that we have so many options if we put two running backs on the field at the same time, and not necessarily both directly behind the QB. Since things were not solved and addressed with our OL and WR for the third year in a row, it appears we are running into the same issues.

At this point, I really don't know and remain hopeful, and maybe Macan Wilson, McHugh, Carr, and Scanlan will really be something, but thus far, Im not impressed with their routes or speed. So, here we go again.

I don't have the answers here and the season is early, but watching stud RB's stand on the sidelines, when I get the feeling that they can contribute, just doesn't seem right to me, especially when we insist on going with 4 wide outs, only one or maybe two of which are really solid.

And yes, I know it sounds odd to have two RB's behind an OL that is lacking, but imo something gotta give. Still uncomfortable with this offense.

Not saying it is not a good idea but one problem with using more RB and less WR in the spread is that from the snap, you are spreading the field more behind the line of scrimmage and less down field, this creates a net loss at the snap relative to using WR's

 

[Turk]

Not saying it is not a good idea but one problem with using more RB and less WR in the spread is that from the snap, you are spreading the field more behind the line of scrimmage and less down field, this creates a net loss at the snap relative to using WR's

I hear ya and duly noted. I'm thinking more of the personnel as opposed to the position, when I say two RB, that means I consider Anderson a RB, but I'm really just saying let's put some speed on the field with him and Vault being on the field more instead of the sidelines. It could be WR it could be RB, my opinion is based on their talent and also my observing our WR which don't seem to exhibit much other than potential. I'm sure this is complicated and that Fitz will utilize Vault and Anderson moreso. Duke may force us to.

 

[DurhamCat]

What do you recommend switching to? A west coast offense? You still need great wide receivers and super knowledgeable receivers that can make adjustments. A pro-style running attack with a play action game? Nope, we need a much better line to do that. A triple option like Army and Navy? That might work, but I really don't want to see it. I got it.... the Lou Holtz Twin Veer offense.

I actually like what I saw with the 49ers offense last night - multiple tight ends (3), single back. They run the zone read with Carlos Hyde/Colin Kaepernick (a mobile QB). Granted it's the NFL and I don't know how well this all translates to college ball...

But if we accept the premise that the WRs are not our strength, maybe we play to our strength. We have a mobile QB and an awesome RB. Dickerson, Vitale are great TEs who can catch. Would need another TE to step up (Szott, Taylor, ?) I think it could work.

 

[Turk]

I actually like what I saw with the 49ers offense last night - multiple tight ends (3), single back. They run the zone read with Carlos Hyde/Colin Kaepernick (a mobile QB). Granted it's the NFL and I don't know how well this all translates to college ball...

But if we accept the premise that the WRs are not our strength, maybe we play to our strength. We have a mobile QB and an awesome RB. Dickerson, Vitale are great TEs who can catch. Would need another TE to step up (Szott, Taylor, ?) I think it could work.

I agree. We need to get thr right personnel on the field. We have been "all in" with the same ole wr for 2+ years and it just isnt happening while at the same time garrett vitale vault anderson and/or long are just standing on the sidelines so scanlon carr mchugh youngblood wilson ca get pt.
Our wr are our monster weakness so it makes no sense to me when i look at the sidelines and both vault and anderson are standing next to coach. Young dickerson only plays half the plays as well and it isnt like vitale is always on the field. I cant explain it but we have a few guys who arent productive or fooling anyone but are taking plays away from top players. With such a great sefense mccall may cost us a 3rd year in a row

 

[shakes3858]

I actually like what I saw with the 49ers offense last night - multiple tight ends (3), single back. They run the zone read with Carlos Hyde/Colin Kaepernick (a mobile QB). Granted it's the NFL and I don't know how well this all translates to college ball...

But if we accept the premise that the WRs are not our strength, maybe we play to our strength. We have a mobile QB and an awesome RB. Dickerson, Vitale are great TEs who can catch. Would need another TE to step up (Szott, Taylor, ?) I think it could work.

Taylor is out for the year with a broken ankle.

The 49ers have a power run blocking offensive line. Our Oline is far from that.

 

[NJCat83588]

But if we accept the premise that the WRs are not our strength, maybe we play to our strength. We have a mobile QB and an awesome RB. Dickerson, Vitale are great TEs who can catch. Would need another TE to step up (Szott, Taylor, ?) I think it could work.

I'd say Dickerson and Vitale are OK, definitely not great. Taylor is out for the season. Tommy Vitale is seeing time as a blocker at super back. Szott is purely a blocker.

 

[Sheffielder]

Two games into the season and we're ready to scrap the offense.............

Not at all...but would like to hold McCall accountable to his players/formations/plays mantra. I'm not saying we should default to the wishbone or the triple option, but I don't hate the idea of defenses having to cover every inch of the backfield while we still have one or two receivers about 7-10 yards up.

 

[Wrestlerneverdiesasacatfan]

I've watched this team for 2+ years now and although it is apparent to me that we don't really have anything more than functional wide outs, we have 4 solid RB's, 3 of which have to stand on the sidelines to accommodate 4 wr on the field. Should Macan Wilson, Austin Carr, etc be getting tons of plays while we watch Vault, Anderson, Long, or Jackson on the sidelines?

It seems to me that we have so many options if we put two running backs on the field at the same time, and not necessarily both directly behind the QB. Since things were not solved and addressed with our OL and WR for the third year in a row, it appears we are running into the same issues.

At this point, I really don't know and remain hopeful, and maybe Macan Wilson, McHugh, Carr, and Scanlan will really be something, but thus far, Im not impressed with their routes or speed. So, here we go again.

I don't have the answers here and the season is early, but watching stud RB's stand on the sidelines, when I get the feeling that they can contribute, just doesn't seem right to me, especially when we insist on going with 4 wide outs, only one or maybe two of which are really solid.

And yes, I know it sounds odd to have two RB's behind an OL that is lacking, but imo something gotta give. Still uncomfortable with this offense.

Turk, We need only JJ a on the slant running. We can do the two back set occasionally. Still,we can air it out now with Clayton

 

[Wrestlerneverdiesasacatfan]

I've watched this team for 2+ years now and although it is apparent to me that we don't really have anything more than functional wide outs, we have 4 solid RB's, 3 of which have to stand on the sidelines to accommodate 4 wr on the field. Should Macan Wilson, Austin Carr, etc be getting tons of plays while we watch Vault, Anderson, Long, or Jackson on the sidelines?

It seems to me that we have so many options if we put two running backs on the field at the same time, and not necessarily both directly behind the QB. Since things were not solved and addressed with our OL and WR for the third year in a row, it appears we are running into the same issues.

At this point, I really don't know and remain hopeful, and maybe Macan Wilson, McHugh, Carr, and Scanlan will really be something, but thus far, Im not impressed with their routes or speed. So, here we go again.

I don't have the answers here and the season is early, but watching stud RB's stand on the sidelines, when I get the feeling that they can contribute, just doesn't seem right to me, especially when we insist on going with 4 wide outs, only one or maybe two of which are really solid.

And yes, I know it sounds odd to have two RB's behind an OL that is lacking, but imo something gotta give. Still uncomfortable with this offense.

Turk, I love Vault and Anderson! Those guys are fantastic backs,along with Long!

 

[KramerCat91]

Two games into the season and we're ready to scrap the offense.............

I don't think that what Sheffielder is thinking of is scrapping the playbook just that more 2-back sets are part of the playbook that has yet to be unveiled. I am under the impression that we are going to see more 2-back sets perhaps because of the Stanford game.

 

[catfans5]

I don't think that what Sheffielder is thinking of is scrapping the playbook just that more 2-back sets are part of the playbook that has yet to be unveiled. I am under the impression that we are going to see more 2-back sets perhaps because of the Stanford game.

I don't think that what Sheffielder is thinking of is scrapping the playbook just that more 2-back sets are part of the playbook that has yet to be unveiled. I am under the impression that we are going to see more 2-back sets perhaps because of the Stanford game.

I think the one back is the right way. 3 wide outs with a super back prevents stacking the box. If you have 2 wides with Vitale offset the tackle on the right and one wide on the left with the ball on the left hash, the D has to cover the three on the right and maybe slide a safety there. With a qb who can run, the defense has to stay home which allows for a better point of attack if the ball goes to the back. If the defense slides to back, Qb keeps and scores. Isn't that Thorsen's touchdown.

Also, we shuffle 3 fresh backs in, we hammer them. I remember a number of good runs by Long Vault when we had our last scoring drive against the Cardinal. We go 2 back, we will face 8 in the box. This is my opinion and I could be completely wrong. The one back theory with 3 wides was something I saw on a program somewhere by smarter folks than me.

 

[techtim72]

Players, formations, plays. Best athletes on the field.

 

[Mr. Stupor]

I've been wondering the same thing for a while. Why do we have a spread offense when we don't have but a few decent wide receivers? Nor do we know if we have a QB that can reliably throw a downfield pass. Is the spread like an appendix for us?

That is an OUTSTANDING question and I'd like to see Fitz asked that question directly.

The best football this team ever played was in a pro set with a fullback, nothing even remotely named super-anything, a wide receiver and a flanker. They ran the counter trey and draw plays and play action. And Fitz was a member of that team. So why we insist on the dazzle dazzle 4-5-6 wide is beyond me.

 

[Turk]

Players, formations, plays. Best athletes on the field.

I agree. Thats why they pay mccall the big bucks. Get those athletes on the field. Fitz had brewer and peterman at qb but moved both to wr to play the best. Ive not seen much production from mchugh wilson scanlon carr. I mean even with shuler and dickerson out....we still have top athletes on the sidelines. Cmon maaaannn

 

[Turk]

That is an OUTSTANDING question and I'd like to see Fitz asked that question directly.

The best football this team ever played was in a pro set with a fullback, nothing even remotely named super-anything, a wide receiver and a flanker. They ran the counter trey and draw plays and play action. And Fitz was a member of that team. So why we insist on the dazzle dazzle 4-5-6 wide is beyond me.

How can we run power when our OL needs serious work because fitz hasnt addressed it? Im sure a spread is the only way our ol can function. But we need speed out there, and the only solution for speed is by playing two running backs in some sorta formation since our RB's are far superior speed than our outside guys. When I say two running back sets, I mean sets with Jackson plus Anderson, maybe that means Anderson in the slot. I know LB"s will give attention to Jackson so maybe we run some plays with Jackson flanked but Anderson behind Thorson. Dunno and I'm sure it is complicated but we have "Fish On" this year and we have to find the right solution or come close to the right solution on offense because "Supper is ready" for our defense which will be graduating some studs this year in Lowry, Gibson, Smith, Van Hoose, Henry. Just tweaking our weakness on offense may be all we need to do to see how deep this rabbit hole goes.

 

[Katatonic]

I actually like what I saw with the 49ers offense last night - multiple tight ends (3), single back. They run the zone read with Carlos Hyde/Colin Kaepernick (a mobile QB). Granted it's the NFL and I don't know how well this all translates to college ball.

W/ all the issues at WR last year, don't know why didn't go more w/ a 2-SB set (would have given the option of maximum protection, the run or the pass) and heck, w/ Vitale, Taylor and Dickerson all being talented receivers - why not stick one as a wideout?

That is an OUTSTANDING question and I'd like to see Fitz asked that question directly.

The best football this team ever played was in a pro set with a fullback, nothing even remotely named super-anything, a wide receiver and a flanker. They ran the counter trey and draw plays and play action. And Fitz was a member of that team. So why we insist on the dazzle dazzle 4-5-6 wide is beyond me.

The spread O has morphed over the years w/ many variations dotting the landscape.

A good no. blend the spread w/ a power run game, but that is if one has the right personnel.

 

[hdhntr1]

How can we run power when our OL needs serious work because fitz hasnt addressed it? Im sure a spread is the only way our ol can function. But with athletes on the sidelines, why not play them over wr who simply are not productive. 3 years in a row that we havent addressed the glaring probs.

OL has not remained healthy. Hard to address when you don't have guys on the field.

 

[NUCat320]

Sorry, it was footballfan76 that said he had fumbling issues in camp and now at the game. But yeah, I think the answer to our best 3 offensive skill position players being RBs is to move an RB to WR a la Chris Brown being a WR at NU when he and Damien Anderson were our best skill players.

I'm not sure "move Chris Brown to WR" is the best example. He was, of course, underutilized as a WR, transferred to Gary at Colorado, and had a long NFL career as a RB. NU should've found a way to get him on the field.

But shifting Jeff Backes worked, I guess.

 

[NUCat320]

That is an OUTSTANDING question and I'd like to see Fitz asked that question directly.

The best football this team ever played was in a pro set with a fullback, nothing even remotely named super-anything, a wide receiver and a flanker. They ran the counter trey and draw plays and play action. And Fitz was a member of that team. So why we insist on the dazzle dazzle 4-5-6 wide is beyond me.

Bah humbug.
Football has evolved, Stupor.

 

[60657Cat]

OL has not remained healthy. Hard to address when you don't have guys on the field.

There's also the elephant in the room which is a boatload of recruiting misses at the offensive line position. This isn't just down to one coach, as much as some people might have you believe, but offensive line is the hardest postion to project growth in. You can comfortably project that someone CAN put 30lbs of muscle to a 255lbs frame, but whether they will or not is the wildcard.

I've been accused of being a pollyanna on this board along with GCG but we were talking this weekend and agree that that was a putrid performance by the OL. We can point to 344 rushing yards as much as we like, but teams like Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska and Wisconsin are going to be licking their chops at the game film. I won't name names, but god knows, they're trying hard. Really hard. But some of them just can't cut it as much as it pains me to say.

It's an interesting question that Turk posed to be honest. I'm sure there will be some 2 "speed" back formations coming our way once we get into conference play, but our OL just isn't capable of being that power team that some of us want it to be. We have to, for better or for worse, stick to the spread concepts that we're running currently because that's what they were recruited to do.

 

[NUCat320]

We have plenty of two RB sets.

The distinction is that, I think all 2 RB sets have been with Vitale as a traditional H-back/fullback.

I think there's definitely opportunity to run some 3-wide, split RB sets, with Long and JJ together. I believe that Vault has seen some time in the slot already, but Long and JJ seem less suited to that role.

I don't know that we've seen a McCall offense run split backs at all, but the cupboard has been so bare for so long - he's never faced a situation where 2 or 3 RBs might have justified playing time.

We haven't seen much productivity from the WRs so far, though Thorson's inexperience and inconsistency have been a contributor as well. He's hit one long ball that was dropped, and missed every other shot, I think. Typically, Vitale in game two and Jones in game one have been relatively safe, short completions, with Vitale out of the backfield frequently.

Splitting backs leads to some versatility, albeit in a different way than we've seen since Mick has been here. I hope the approach is considered.