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

[gocatsgo2003]

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.

Three WR doesn't really reduce the reliance on an underperforming WR group and sacrifices the formation variety having a SB on the field brings. That's why Vitale stays in for some of the two RB sets -- the defense isn't able to identify the run-heavy set and substitute accordingly, plus the SB should be a better blocked than another true RB.

Not saying we shouldn't see more of our RB group -- I think Vitale and Vault probably shouldn't ever really come off the field, moving around in the backfield and out wide -- but there are solid reasons we haven't seen two "true" RBs together on the field more often.

 

[PURPLECAT88]

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.

That was the whole point of moving him to WR.

 

[Turk]

That was the whole point of moving him to WR.

maybe a kid doesn't want to be moved to WR but wants to carry the pill. That seems to be what happened to Chris Brown. Egos are involved not just in recruiting but ongoing. Fitz has done a pretty good job of managing the team personalities. I think Walker stumbled on this a lot. And Fitz has moved a lot of players so I give him credit for fixing things along the way regarding player personnel and he doesn't appear to take on any collateral damage.

 

[KramerCat91]

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.

8 in the box means that if a WR catches a ball and breaks a tackle or gets a lot of separation he is likely to score a TD. If that is how teams would defend a 2-RB set then I think/hope that Thorson is good enough to burn the other team with his arm.

Also there is nothing to prevent us from morphing from 2-RB sets into 4 or 5-receiver sets (as longs as the RBs have good hands) and vice-versa to get favorable matchups and defensive alignments, figure out the coverage, etc.

 

[NUCat320]

Three WR doesn't really reduce the reliance on an underperforming WR group and sacrifices the formation variety having a SB on the field brings. That's why Vitale stays in for some of the two RB sets -- the defense isn't able to identify the run-heavy set and substitute accordingly, plus the SB should be a better blocked than another true RB.

Not saying we shouldn't see more of our RB group -- I think Vitale and Vault probably shouldn't ever really come off the field, moving around in the backfield and out wide -- but there are solid reasons we haven't seen two "true" RBs together on the field more often.

I think we're in the same page. There are opportunities for run/power sets with Vitale lined up in a blocking position relative to JJ and Vault split or in a slot, 'two-RB' sets with Vault (or Long) and JJ split alongside Thorson and traditional spread sets with Vitale and Vault both split or in the slot and JJ and a single setback.

Basically, NU seems to have a lot of RB talent and some versatile resources that are underutilized right now, while the WR group seems to have a lower ceiling.

 

[60657Cat]

I think we're in the same page. There are opportunities for run/power sets with Vitale lined up in a blocking position relative to JJ and Vault split or in a slot, 'two-RB' sets with Vault (or Long) and JJ split alongside Thorson and traditional spread sets with Vitale and Vault both split or in the slot and JJ and a single setback.

Basically, NU seems to have a lot of RB talent and some versatile resources that are underutilized right now, while the WR group seems to have a lower ceiling.

We shouldn't really forget that the playbook is barely open yet for a couple of reasons: I think the coaches have done a good job so far of easing Clayton into the pace of big time college football by managing his mental workload. He had a very small playbook against Stanford and it was clear to me that against EIU, they took advantage of the opposition to give him some more downfield crossing routes and play-action to ease him into the passing game. I'd expect us to have a more "Stanford" game plan against Duke and play to what our strengths are currently.

Secondly there's also no reason to put upcoming wrinkles on film against the likes of EIU and Ball State. There will be changes to the playbook when conference play comes around.

 

[Turk]

We shouldn't really forget that the playbook is barely open yet for a couple of reasons: I think the coaches have done a good job so far of easing Clayton into the pace of big time college football by managing his mental workload. He had a very small playbook against Stanford and it was clear to me that against EIU, they took advantage of the opposition to give him some more downfield crossing routes and play-action to ease him into the passing game. I'd expect us to have a more "Stanford" game plan against Duke and play to what our strengths are currently.

Secondly there's also no reason to put upcoming wrinkles on film against the likes of EIU and Ball State. There will be changes to the playbook when conference play comes around.

It seems to me that there better be changes before then against Duke if we want to stick around. Duke seems like a well coached team and will score points against us.

Like I said, wisdom will prevail. It's tough because my first reaction would be to lean on our defense and have conservative play calling on offense to limit any turnover risk. Hopefully, Duke cooperates with this plan and certainly our defense hasn't given us any reason to put the offense ahead of the defense. But couldn't we play conservative on offense but with quicker offensive personnel? Or do we do what the old Budweiser commercials used to say, "Leave it alone Louie!"

The Duke game is going to be fun because this is going to be a real battle of coaching wit.

 

[gocatsgo2003]

It seems to me that there better be changes before then against Duke if we want to stick around. Duke seems like a well coached team and will score points against us.

Like I said, wisdom will prevail. It's tough because my first reaction would be to lean on our defense and have conservative play calling on offense to limit any turnover risk. Hopefully, Duke cooperates with this plan and certainly our defense hasn't given us any reason to put the offense ahead of the defense. But couldn't we play conservative on offense but with quicker offensive personnel? Or do we do what the old Budweiser commercials used to say, "Leave it alone Louie!"

The Duke game is going to be fun because this is going to be a real battle of coaching wit.

I'm confident that the plays will be IN the playbook, but it will be a matter of whether they're necessary to call given the game situation. If we are playing well while sticking to the basics, there's very little reason to expand the play calling and thereby likelihood that the plays are not executed as well.