Thought on Co-OC's

Have a question about the X's and O's? Ask it here.

Moderators: MINI14GB, Grizfan-24

User avatar
Grizfan-24
Posts: 1471
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2011 7:53 am
Location: Dumpster Fire.
Contact:

Thought on Co-OC's

Postby Grizfan-24 » Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:46 pm

My thoughts on co-OC's.

I like the idea for a few reasons.

1. Conquering the playbook.
2. In game adjustments
3. Player and personnel deployment

There are some issues:
1. Communication
2. Ego

http://monidasports.blogspot.com/2012/1 ... n-one.html

Thanks again for reading.
GF24
I'm very important. I have many leather-bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany.
--Ron Burgandy

http://monidasports.blogspot.com

grizpack
Posts: 343
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Thought on Co-OC's

Postby grizpack » Wed Dec 12, 2012 10:22 am

Good read 24. I hope you are right and that it will work. I worry about this being like having 2 starting QB's. You don't have one.......

I am glad I played when I did, with our 20 plays out of 3 or 4 formations. But we ran each one perfectly. :wink:

User avatar
Grizfan-24
Posts: 1471
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2011 7:53 am
Location: Dumpster Fire.
Contact:

Re: Thought on Co-OC's

Postby Grizfan-24 » Thu Dec 13, 2012 9:33 am

yeah, my one complaint for most spread offenses isn't the offense but rather for a focus of how you want to use it. There is so much there you can do, in fact the offense is the most flexible one known to man, but it takes considerable restraint.

I really think having two OC's in this regard is an aid. Just a lot of detail. People are right to have concerns, because the usage of two OC's is a bit unconventional. I think though with this type of offense, there is a better chance than not of this working well.
I'm very important. I have many leather-bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany.
--Ron Burgandy

http://monidasports.blogspot.com

kurtismichael
Posts: 55
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2012 9:51 pm

Re: Thought on Co-OC's

Postby kurtismichael » Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:20 pm

Great blog as usual. Saying it won't work because no one else does it that way is the worst reason ever not to try it. A lot of great ideas would have never been realized with that type of thinking.

User avatar
Grizfan-24
Posts: 1471
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2011 7:53 am
Location: Dumpster Fire.
Contact:

Re: Thought on Co-OC's

Postby Grizfan-24 » Wed Dec 19, 2012 8:36 am

Indeed. I agree completely.

For me there is a strong belief that much of the negativity surrounding Delaney has little to with his coaching methods. Moreover fans of football seem to be rather conservative in mind, in that, what worked in the 60's must be true today. Not sure why that is, but there are so many examples of unique and effective ways to coach football. Doesn't have to be like the SEC or the NFL to be wholly right. Football is a copy cat sport.

I do know that, if people would remove their emotional hangups around why Delaney was hired to coach the program and evaluate his progress based upon the similar expectations of new coaches in a program we might find more to be impressed with. I am not saying however his first season as coach was anything to write home about, but I would suggest that we might see a marked improvement this spring and off season.

Delaney was dealt a pretty crappy hand. I am not entirely sure very many people could have succeeded in the situation that he was given. A staff that he did not hire. Players that he did not recruit. What is apparent from reports in and outside of the program that he didn't get full buy in from multiple parts of his staff. In that he does bear some of the responsibility.

His job is to make the best out of the situation. Did he maximize the return? Probably not. But what I am sure about, is isn't because he didn't do the right things. But for the love of all that is holy, get off of his back because what he represents to you in your minds about what happened. He's cutting dead weight. He is restructuring to put a product on the field that he wants. If that fits your model then, fine but if it doesn't show some mental flexibility to see why he or anyone else would attempt to do so.
I'm very important. I have many leather-bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany.
--Ron Burgandy

http://monidasports.blogspot.com

User avatar
MissoulaMarinerFan
Posts: 996
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 9:01 am
Location: Missoula, MT
Contact:

Re: Thought on Co-OC's

Postby MissoulaMarinerFan » Sat Dec 22, 2012 2:46 pm

I think one of the reasons that so many were upset with how Delaney did was the fact that IN SPITE of all the crap that went on during the off-season, losing our starting qb, etc, was the fact that in just about all of our losses, we were ahead or "in striking distance." Maybe folks were thinking that with better coaching, those losses would have been wins.

putter
Posts: 497
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2011 7:13 am

Re: Thought on Co-OC's

Postby putter » Tue Oct 01, 2013 11:33 am

24- give me your thoughts on Co-OC's after the NAU game. I, for one, think they failed in this game. There are a lot of posters who are solely blaming the O-Line for the struggles (they did play bad) but I was confused with what they were trying to accomplish.

1) Abandoned run game. NAU pinned thier ears back because they knew Montana was not running much and our O-Line was providing no protection nor run blocking.

2) Committed to downfield passing. Don't know about you, but, roll-outs, bubble screens, slants etc. are the only way I know how to keep the backers and D honest about sending pressure. Get the ball out of the QB's hands quickly. I remember a 3rd and 4 and JJ throwing a deep out - 7 sacks!. Confusing to me - maybe you can lend some clarity.

3) Line adjustments. Looked to me like NAU would make adjustments at the line. I would watch Kannongata repeatedly come to the line to blitz and NAU throw right into that blitzing side with a lot of success. JJ doesn't seem to make as many adjustments.

4) Montana did not bring pressure. As you stated in another thread, does Montana have the correct personnel for our secondary? If we can't bring (and better disguise) blitzes Montana will make a lot of QB's look very good!

User avatar
Grizfan-24
Posts: 1471
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2011 7:53 am
Location: Dumpster Fire.
Contact:

Re: Thought on Co-OC's

Postby Grizfan-24 » Wed Oct 02, 2013 10:26 am

A few thoughts on the play calling:

1. What i understand, is that Hynson is the true play caller with Delaney holding over ride calls in certain situations. Gragg is the run game coordinator during the week, in charge of executing the inside run game. During the game he operates as quality control on the field and manages the deployment of the offensive line. This is my understanding. During the week, they both craft responsible for crafting and conducting a game plan for Saturday.

2. As for in game play calling, I think a lot of things conspired to lead to what seemed and was a shot gun approach to play calling. First, and I think this is difficult and you are right, it is so easy to abandon the run game when you are behind. I think there was a loss of composure in a lot of aspects on and off the field on Saturday night. I noted this in another comment, they got punched in the chin for the first time all season, and a lot of people including our star quarterback lost their fine focus. The run game is what is going to be most effective and should be for the remainder of the year. I think most would recognize and I do believe the coaches do, they probably went away from what worked within the game, and started chasing quick points.

3. As for screens, and I know this to be true because I coach in a system that uses them heavily, is either you use them a lot or they become difficult to employ. The scheme does and doesn't fit well within the power system that Delaney implemented but that isn't to say they shouldn't use bubbles, tunnel and slow screens to slow teams down. Screens take a lot of time in practice to work on. We spend at least 15 minutes a day and nearly an hour a week on screens alone.
Problem with play action as a counter to over committing to the run is that it is the significant amount of time to release receivers into routes. As the first three games shown when there is time, when the line is able to pick up pressure, our receivers have all day to get open. On saturday night, the failure was not in the play calling persay but rather the ability for the o-line to pick up the 5 or 6 man pressure that NAU was sending. Now a person would question why they went back to the play action game plan after abandoning the run, that is well a question and answer for another day.

4. All on the system. A lot of teams if they trust their play call they'll stick with it. Most spread systems don't have audibles but hot calls and they rep the holy living crap out of it during pass under pressure sessions in practice. Every offense is different about at the line adjustments with their quarterbacks and what the check at the line will be. I would assume, but then again I don't know, that JJ probably has an inside run check, outside run check, as well as a hot pass read check that he can call at the line.

Spread teams rarely audible because they rarely huddle and won't call plays until teams display their defense.

5. This conversation about blitzing and pressure is entirely a subjective one, because it is entirely within the package the Gregorak has installed. There are a lot of offenses, a lot that exist, that make it difficult for cover 2 shell, cloud or sky teams to blitz because of the coverage rules they have behind those blitzes. For example for the defense that my hs runs (4-2-5) when teams go 2x2 spread, and we go to a cover 2 shell look, we have difficulty in deploying anything more than 4 man pressures. For we only have 2 LB's and the second inside guy is deployed on the number 2 receiver to the weak side of the passing formation.

If Gregorak felt uncomfortable in running man coverage to either side because of the safety play, and I am only assuming this, that was going to make it difficult to send tremendous amounts of pressure from places other than the ILB. I'll try to craft a blog on this that will give a bit better visual than what I am writing here. But basically, the 5 man pressure is incredibly easy to pick up, regardless of what type of defensive front you have.

I don't think it is criminal not to pressure teams especially if your worry is to contain a back like Baumann. Nor do I think it is criminal either to make a inexperienced quarterback to pick apart the wide array coverages Gregorak used in the game.

But it is subjective to each DC about how they want to deploy their pressures. Spread teams make it incredibly difficult to play a two high shell out of a 4-3 format, which is why so many teams have gone to 3-3, 4-2 or even 3-5 looks. I think the 4-3 works, but you have to concede certain things in coverage as well as the run game to stick to the defense as it was originally constructed.

If the UofM wants to keep its base front seven personnel on the field, then it is going to ask a ton of safeties and corners to make a lot of plays in space. That is where I have changed my own defensive football philosophy over the past five years... I just think two high shell 4-3 teams give up a ton of angles in the run game and have to concede too much in the pass game against the spread (including blitzing and the type of coverages you run).
I'm very important. I have many leather-bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany.
--Ron Burgandy

http://monidasports.blogspot.com

User avatar
ALPHAGRIZ1
Posts: 3792
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:26 pm
Location: At the Mo Club........

Re: Thought on Co-OC's

Postby ALPHAGRIZ1 » Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:45 pm

You always post incredibly good stuff........but that may have been the best one yet.

Great read and great stuff :thumbsup:
Never look down on somebody, unless you're helping them up.


Return to “The Chalk Board”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests