Principles of Pro Style Offenses

[nofx94]

I was thinking about looking into y over.

The pro playbook I'm assembling for a new dynasty I'm going to start currently has strong twins and twin TE and weak normal in addition to I normal, twins, and tight.

I love the balance of strong twins and the ability to run stretch to the strength of the formation. Strong twin tight I mostly have because I like the unbalanced look. I need to experiment with it more.

I'm thinking of using weak y trips as well.

 

[TXHusker05]

As UC 20/21/22 stuff goes, do y'all prefer I or I-offsets? I find that I have a propensity to use strong much more than weak.

I used to be an all inline I-Formation guy because of my Nebraska Osborne offense and wanting triple option available in all my under center formations but I've now gone to Strong I almost exclusively when I get under center. I think it meshes nicely with my Gun Offset I/Wing stuff and gives it a more realistic feel. I really like the PA FB plays and it gives me a nice little package of FB Dive/PA FB Dive/Toss that I can go to when I jump under center. I also have Weak I Normal, but I use it solely for the Y Over Fly Sweep plays, which essentially makes it a strong formation anyway.

I'm getting more and more tempted to get into more of a pro-style offense at Clemson in Powerhouse and may end up using a bunch of Ace and Strong blended with Pistol and my wing gun stuff. I'm not sure if I want to fully commit to it, but I think it fits the personnel and I want to use my TEs more.

 

[TXHusker05]

What are some "traditional" pro-style/west coast concepts I should look to start plugging into the offense? I can't get away with running Shallow, Smash, Verts, Y Corner/China and Spot all game long if I'm going to throw more.

Texas is one I'm definitely going to install. It is something I have used quite a bit in the past, but I've had to "create" it using a combination of hot routes and motion. I use Deep Curl out of Pistol Full House to create a Texas concept from time to time and there are a couple vertical concepts in offset wing fun formations where the TE runs an angle out of the backfield that I've used to create Texas. I need some others though.

I think I may look to add Dagger if possible, that's probably a concept I could create with hot routes fairly easily since it is just a dig, clearout vert and occasionally a shallow.

I don't really want to leave Pistol and Offset Gun because of the run game, which may make this a bit tougher, but I'd like a more developed pass game. Traditional Gun has such good pass concepts but running the ball out of those blows. I may add a bunch of Ace and maybe some Strong/Weak depending on what the rest of the offense looks like.

 

[JSU Zack]

What are some "traditional" pro-style/west coast concepts I should look to start plugging into the offense? I can't get away with running Shallow, Smash, Verts, Y Corner/China and Spot all game long if I'm going to throw more.

Texas is one I'm definitely going to install. It is something I have used quite a bit in the past, but I've had to "create" it using a combination of hot routes and motion. I use Deep Curl out of Pistol Full House to create a Texas concept from time to time and there are a couple vertical concepts in offset wing fun formations where the TE runs an angle out of the backfield that I've used to create Texas. I need some others though.

I think I may look to add Dagger if possible, that's probably a concept I could create with hot routes fairly easily since it is just a dig, clearout vert and occasionally a shallow.

I don't really want to leave Pistol and Offset Gun because of the run game, which may make this a bit tougher, but I'd like a more developed pass game. Traditional Gun has such good pass concepts but running the ball out of those blows. I may add a bunch of Ace and maybe some Strong/Weak depending on what the rest of the offense looks like.

+1 for dagger. Look at the Drive, Dragon, and Hank concepts. Excellent complements to the spot concept.

I'd also suggest learning mesh & the NCAA (post-dig) concepts for man press. Spacing & stick for zone. Sail would be good for guys adamant against stopping smash.

I could go on & on... So many good concepts out of the West Coast. Just finished a book that looks like Iowa. Just zone running and every west coast concept known to man.

 

[bruin228]

Mesh is pretty worthless against man in the game doe.

 

[TXHusker05]

+1 for dagger. Look at the Drive, Dragon, and Hank concepts. Excellent complements to the spot concept.

I'd also suggest learning mesh & the NCAA (post-dig) concepts for man press. Spacing & stick for zone. Sail would be good for guys adamant against stopping smash.

I could go on & on... So many good concepts out of the West Coast. Just finished a book that looks like Iowa. Just zone running and every west coast concept known to man.

I run a ton of post dig NCAA routes in my Spread-I. There is one really good one designed off of PA in Normal Flex Wing and I create it out of Pistol PA Counter with that backside post quite a bit. I'm not sure what formations have a built in Hank concept, the two back gun ones all have it and I think there are a few in Pistol with a TE running the middle sit route. Dragon is obviously in every formation as slant/flat, but I wish there were more like the Ace Posts play in Ace Big where the slant is more of a 5 yard up and post. I love that route and you don't have to worry about the WR taking a weird angle back to the ball.

Guess it would help to decide what type of formations I really want to spend my time in. I made Chip Kelly my head coach at Clemson since I figured what the hell and I'm obviously a spread guy but it is tough to ignore these TEs.

 

[nofx94]

I ended up stripping out the I offset stuff and replacing it with Ace Bunch Base. I already had Twin TE and Twin TE slot. I've started a new dynasty as a coordinator to test it out.

 

[JSU Zack]

I ended up stripping out the I offset stuff and replacing it with Ace Bunch Base. I already had Twin TE and Twin TE slot. I've started a new dynasty as a coordinator to test it out.

I've found using the 21 personnel one back formations is often better than the standard I sets. The motion throws people off, and it has most everything you need.

 

[TXHusker05]

I'm kind of caught in between when thinking about stuff for Clemson. I have a power back, a more athletic than average QB, 3-5 really good WR and 2 really good TE, both are pass catchers more than blockers. I do have 3 other TE, 2 are blockers and one is a great pass catcher, but I'm redshirting two of them.

No one on the team is particularly athletic in terms of game changing speed, my quickest offensive players are Williams and Peake at WR and they are 91 and 92 SPD respectively. In the first game I was using Peake as my typical slotback role, throwing bubble to him and getting it to him on pitches and speed sweeps but I need to get Williams the ball more. I've always struggled getting perimeter WRs the ball and he's the best player on the team, 95 OVR with elite catch ratings.

If it weren't for the slow power back this would be easy, I'd go traditional gun and run an outside zone based spread. But in all my test games running zone stretch with him from traditional gun was very hit or miss. If I was able to get him downhill it was great, but getting the play stretched out enough to find the cutback lane was a struggle. Especially when my top TE is more pass catcher than blocker. Zone stretch from Ace, he's money though.

I'm guessing my best option is to go back to a Pistol/Offset hybrid, but maybe with some Empty added.

 

[TXHusker05]

Decided to dust off my "Husker Power" Osborne style offense for my game against Flann tonight. I didn't have any other playbook ready and I really didn't want to run my all Offset playbook. This will probably end in disaster but wanted to take a crack at it. It is my "hybrid" version that has Ace, I, Maryland I, Power I and Pistol so at least there is some Pistol stuff I can get to so we'll see.

If this just sucks, at least I'll know that trying to be power pro style is an idiotic idea in an all user v user OD and I can move on from it. Wanted to take a crack at it though. If it works vs Flann, it'll work vs anyone.

 

[nofx94]

Let us know how that goes. Can you detail the setup?

I have an Osbourne playbook I made based off of a link someone (maybe you) posted of the 1997 playbook. But I don't think I ever did anything with it.

 

[TXHusker05]

Wow, that worked unbelievably well all things considered. Won 41-7, ran 44 plays for 335 yards. 30 rushes for 211 yards and 4 TD and 9 of 14 passing for 124 yards and an INT. I got the short field for 3 drives in that game thanks to huge punt returns which helped quite a bit. Also had a pick six.

Watson threw 9 of 14 for 124 and an INT and ran for 3 yards. Wayne Gallman Jr ran 19 times for 157 yards and 3 TD, Zac Brooks ran 9 times for 49 yards and a TD. Managed to complete 3 of the 9 passes to Williams out wide for 44 yards.

It was my base Osborne offense with the majority of my Pistol stuff added in. I spent the majority of the game in the I, with dashes of Ace and Power I mixed in. I used Pistol maybe 10-12 times, most of that was end of half two minute drill spread stuff. Ran a Pistol Lead Option for a touchdown.

Trying to decide if I really want to commit to something like this, or maybe take some of the power under center stuff and blend it with my normal spread stuff. I always liked the blend of Ace, I, Power I and Pistol because if you think about it, it is a perfectly normal progression.

-----X-----------------T-G-C-G-T-Y---------------------
-----------------------------Q----------------------Z-----
-----------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------F----------------------------
-----------------------------T-----------------------------

-----X-----------------T-G-C-G-T-Y---------------------
-------------------------------------F---------------Z-----
-----------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------Q----------------------------
-----------------------------T-----------------------------

All you're doing is putting the quarterback where the fullback is and moving the fullback next to him or to the wing or into the slot. Adds a bit of an option game that otherwise doesn't exist under center. I wanted do be in full Pistol but the plays just don't exist in the game. The other idea would be pull Pistol and put traditional Gun in to get a gun power run game specifically for the QB. The thinking being I just ditch option and stick with power run, both for the HB and for the QB specifically.

 

[TXHusker05]

Let us know how that goes. Can you detail the setup?

I have an Osbourne playbook I made based off of a link someone (maybe you) posted of the 1997 playbook. But I don't think I ever did anything with it.

Yeah I probably posted it. My Osborne offense used to be very specific to the 1997 Nebraska teams, down to the letter. Every formation, every play, exactly as designed in the 90s. This version is a slightly adjusted version, focusing more on the power run stuff and less on the option and then Pistol added in as a way to run a little more read game and pass game.

The Osborne offense as designed is (Nebraska name for the formation in parentheses):

Ace Big (Ace)
Ace Big Twins (Ace Trips)
Ace Slot (Spread)
Ace Y Trips (Pro Trips)

I Slot (Open)
I Normal (Pro)
I Twins (Wide)
I Twins Flex (Wide)
I Y Trips (Wide Over)
I Tight (Tight)

Goal Line Normal (Tight Near)

Maryland I Wide
Maryland I Heavy

Power I Strong (Power)
Power I Tight (Power)

Flexbone Normal (Double Wing)
Flexbone Wing Trips (Slot Trips)

Shotgun Spread (Gun)

Concepts are inside zone (blast/slam), outside zone (stretch), counter, iso/dive, FB dive, toss and a few options here and there. Very basic, very easy. Tough to run against users, which is why I augmented it with Pistol but all things considered it is very successful. Way back in the day, like NCAA 12-13, I was Clemson and had a monster FB that I had recruited with 90 speed and was a devastating blocker and I ran this exact offense and it was nasty.

 

[TXHusker05]

Alright, need to run this by people to make sure it doesn't sound stupid, unwieldy or unmanageable.

I was rewatching the Oregon-Stanford game from this year just for some inspiration and was thinking, is it really that unthinkable to blend what Stanford and Oregon (or other spread to run teams) do together?

In a lot of ways, Stanford is already doing it, without the tempo. Stanford is lining up in 12, 22, 23, heavy, jumbo packages and running Power O, G Toss, Inside Zone, Wham, Trap, etc. Example: Tight Near Jumbo (7 OL, TE, FB, HB) Power O:



BUT, they are also getting into 11 personnel ace, trey and trips and running read option, pin and pull sweeps (with a backside read) and designed QB runs for Hogan. The very next play, Trey Right Gun pin and pull zone sweep, which Hogan kept for a gain of 5:



Those were back to back plays and just one example of what was easily dozens in the game for Stanford going in and out of heavy pro sets and spread gun sets and vice versa.

On the other side of the ball, you have Oregon, which is as spread as it gets in football, yet routinely gets into formations like this:



This is actually 11 personnel, that wing player to the top is Dwayne Stafford a WR with a back in the backfield next to Adams and a free safety/specialist Charles Nelson getting the ball on what was a pin and pull zone sweep. The exact same play Stanford ran above, with the same personnel on the field, but run with Jet motion. It went for a 75 yard TD. It was one of just four carries on the season for Nelson, but obviously they wanted to get him the ball some and he had been in some offensive sets in 2014 before transitioning to safety full time. He's a track star and it showed.

Is it really that outlandish to have a team going from heavy personnel jumbo sets and running your traditional pro power game while also still going into the gun and running the same concepts, paired with option? It seems like the line between "power pro style" and "spread" is getting more and more blurred. Even in the NFL you have pro style offenses and concepts getting paired with designed QB runs and options. It seems like a ton of teams at all levels are mixing and matching. Boise has done it for years, it is what made Boise Boise. Kansas State is very much like this. Even Nebraska this year was running all of Riley's pro style inside zone, outside zone stuff but out of both under center heavy sets and spread gun formations with reads and FB traps mixed in.

My thinking here is to essentially take the under center power component of my Osborne offense; the Ace, I, Power I and maybe add in some Strong/Weak and pair it with the Pistol or Gun (or both) Spread-I stuff I run. I've talked about it before but never really got around to it. Keep the concepts the same obviously, inside zone, outside zone and counter with power mixed in where applicable (and where it actually works). That goes against my typical philosophy, were I given a choice everything I do would be out of the Pistol and Gun, but the concepts don't exist across all the formations I want in the game. I'd like to blend the Oregon/Auburn/Clemson stuff I consistently run with some of the heavy power stuff I love historically. It would still be my typical two back power run, play action... just from a ton of different formations.

The most important thing to me when creating an offense in NCAA is that it be realistic. Anyone can put together an offense in NCAA just cobbling random crap together. Empty mixed with Power I mixed with offset read option mixed with everything else. I hate that. I enjoy putting together offenses that are realistic and that could be installed and practiced by any college team. That typically means limiting concepts. Formations are cheap, concepts cost a bunch of practice time. I like the idea of taking my four base run concepts; inside zone, outside zone, counter, power with the variations on each including iso, read, option, etc and blending them with some more advanced pass concepts to get the ball in the hands of perimeter receivers. Mess around with formation subs to get certain guys the ball in certain ways.

What I'm thinking is the base under center stuff from my Osborne offense:

Ace Big
Ace Big Twins
Ace Slot
Ace Y Trips

I Slot
I Normal
I Twins
I Twins Flex
I Y Trips
I Tight
I Twin TE

Goal Line Normal

Maryland I Wide
Maryland I Tight

Power I Strong
Power I Tight

Then either go traditional gun to run QB Power/Wrap type of stuff or take my Pistol/Offset stuff to focus more on inside zone slice/counter. In the end, I doubt I'd be much higher than 30 formations or so which is around my current Spread-I pro anyway. I think Pistol would blend the best, especially with up-tempo but Gun would add a nice little QB run game.

A lot of options, just don't want it to be overwhelming or unmanageable or absurd. Hopefully this makes a little sense.

 

[JSU Zack]

Sounds good to me.

 

[PSUEagle]

I really, really want to figure out how to get the following PB order:

Ace
Empty
I
Strong (or Weak)
Wishbone
Gun
Goal Line

Wishbone is honestly underrated in this game from both a run and pass game perspective, especially the latter: I'd rather use both versions (Wide and Tight) in lieu of the Pistol sets I've currently got in that spot.

 

[TXHusker05]

I really, really want to figure out how to get the following PB order:

Ace
Empty
I
Strong (or Weak)
Wishbone
Gun
Goal Line

Wishbone is honestly underrated in this game from both a run and pass game perspective, especially the latter: I'd rather use both versions (Wide and Tight) in lieu of the Pistol sets I've currently got in that spot.

Wishbone is what is killing you, for some reason, Wishbone seems immune to any of the techniques to screw around with formation group ordering. In my triple option playbook, I only have Gun, Pistol and Wishbone and managed to get Wishbone last which is perfect because it is my goal line formation. In a playbook with other under center stuff, good luck, seems like it ends up between I and Strong more often than not.

Honestly, the biggest reason I've put off doing a heavy power offense like this with a ton of formation groupings is because of the time it takes to actually get formations in the order I want. I don't know why I'm OCD about it but the playbook has to flow correctly and if it doesn't, I hate it and won't both.

Just last night I found a way to get Ace, I, Strong, Weak, Flexbone, Maryland I, Power I, Gun, Wildcat, Goal Line in that order. It was a god damn miracle and only took three tries. Stanford playbook, delete everything, add Ace Big, I Normal, Goal Line Normal, Strong Twins, Weak Twin TE, Flexbone Tight, the two heavy versions of Maryland I/Power I, Gun Ace, Wildcat Heavy Ace. Took a few tweaks, but got it on the third try. Now I have to find a way to get one that has Pistol in front of Gun and no Wildcat.

I'm going to make two versions of this power pro spread monster mash. The under center stuff will remain identical, but one will have traditional gun and wildcat to focus more on gap schemes and the QB run game. The other will have Pistol and maybe some Offset Gun and be more zone option based.

 

[nofx94]

How do y'all get so many sets in your playbook? At 26 I'm using 12/15 plays in most formations with a few that have 19 and maybe one that has 9

 

[TXHusker05]

How do y'all get so many sets in your playbook? At 26 I'm using 12/15 plays in most formations with a few that have 19 and maybe one that has 9

My formations are fairly limited, especially under center. Even in my Spread-I Pro playbook where I have 32 formations, 9 of them are under center formations with 4 plays or less in each. The under center stuff there is just single series type of stuff. In a couple I have Toss/FB Dive/PA FB, in another I have FB Dive/Power/PA Power, in one I have Trap/PA TE/Swing Screen, in one I have End Around, Fk End Around Slam, PA End Around. That allows me to have some more developed formations in the core of the offense.

My Gun triple option playbook is even more limited, I got it down to 25 formations and 250 plays this off-season and I still think I could go farther but I don't want to adjust it farther until I see how it plays out.

My HUNH offset gun offense is 30-295, but again, 9 of those formations total like 35 plays.

My biggest playbook is that Spread-I Pro where it is just loaded with my full Pistol and full Offset Gun compliment. I don't care that much about having a streamlined playbook since I huddle up every play and I don't do much audibling.

I love the idea of being streamlined and having a small playbook, but in the game it just isn't possible. I have very few concepts, but I like having a lot of formations and like having all my concepts available in each formation so the overall play total looks high but in reality I maybe have 40 unique plays.

 

[TXHusker05]

I wanted to use a Multiple playbook as a base for this offense rather than a Pro playbook, but it looks like Multiple (Nebraska) isn't going to give me order I want and it doesn't look like the recruiting requirements are different between the two. I'd need 2 FB either way.

Going to use Stanford as a base for the under center + traditional gun gap scheme power offense and then see if I can redo my Husker Power offense with Gun added in to do the inside zone based scheme.

Liking where this is headed, even though it is as anti-spread as it gets. Who knows if it'll keep working but worth a shot, even though I made Chip Kelly my head coach. I'm just bored being super spread, it feels like every game is just spread on spread.

 

[TXHusker05]

Welp, my base playbook crashed my xbox while I was editing it and it corrupted and now I can't get the formations to order in the right way. Can't win with this game.

 

[PSUEagle]

Wishbone is what is killing you, for some reason, Wishbone seems immune to any of the techniques to screw around with formation group ordering. In my triple option playbook, I only have Gun, Pistol and Wishbone and managed to get Wishbone last which is perfect because it is my goal line formation. In a playbook with other under center stuff, good luck, seems like it ends up between I and Strong more often than not.

Honestly, the biggest reason I've put off doing a heavy power offense like this with a ton of formation groupings is because of the time it takes to actually get formations in the order I want. I don't know why I'm OCD about it but the playbook has to flow correctly and if it doesn't, I hate it and won't both.

Just last night I found a way to get Ace, I, Strong, Weak, Flexbone, Maryland I, Power I, Gun, Wildcat, Goal Line in that order. It was a god damn miracle and only took three tries. Stanford playbook, delete everything, add Ace Big, I Normal, Goal Line Normal, Strong Twins, Weak Twin TE, Flexbone Tight, the two heavy versions of Maryland I/Power I, Gun Ace, Wildcat Heavy Ace. Took a few tweaks, but got it on the third try. Now I have to find a way to get one that has Pistol in front of Gun and no Wildcat.

I'm going to make two versions of this power pro spread monster mash. The under center stuff will remain identical, but one will have traditional gun and wildcat to focus more on gap schemes and the QB run game. The other will have Pistol and maybe some Offset Gun and be more zone option based.

I actually got the exact order I wanted in NCAA 13 using the Syracuse PB, but there's too things from my end that are missing in NCAA 14:

Empty Trips
Wishbone Normal

Trips would put empty behind my Ace and in front of the I sets for me everytime, while Normal was the only Wishbone version that wouldn't automatically scoot to the front of the pack. I wouldn't use either set once I got the order set, but they were great as placeholders.

I'm as OCD as you are about formation/formation family order, BTW. I think the only difference between us is I use the traditional EA method in two back sets of going 21/20/22 as opposed to what you do with 20/21/22. I also rarely put three runs in one column, but in both instances that's because I grew up calling plays with the traditional EA setting and feel uncomfortable changing, I guess.

 

[TXHusker05]

I actually got the exact order I wanted in NCAA 13 using the Syracuse PB, but there's too things from my end that are missing in NCAA 14:

Empty Trips
Wishbone Normal

Trips would put empty behind my Ace and in front of the I sets for me everytime, while Normal was the only Wishbone version that wouldn't automatically scoot to the front of the pack. I wouldn't use either set once I got the order set, but they were great as placeholders.

I'm as OCD as you are about formation/formation family order, BTW. I think the only difference between us is I use the traditional EA method in two back sets of going 21/20/22 as opposed to what you do with 20/21/22. I also rarely put three runs in one column, but in both instances that's because I grew up calling plays with the traditional EA setting and feel uncomfortable changing, I guess.

I may try the Syracuse playbook next just to see. I had it perfect in the Stanford playbook and then it got corrupted and I can't replicate it. I can get it right if I sacrifice Wildcat, but I really don't want to do that because I want the QB Power/Counter game. Maybe that's just me being stubborn though.

I can get it close if I remove Weak, which might not be a bad idea since I think I'd only end up with two Weak formations anyway.

This is frustrating.

 

[nofx94]

What would you say are the benefits and costs of Ace vs Pistol or Iform?

 

[JSU Zack]

What would you say are the benefits and costs of Ace vs Pistol or Iform?

Single back sets put an additional receiver on the LOS. I form gives you an extra blocker to run between the tackles. Pistol gives you the option game/better throwing lanes for passing (IRL).

Most zone running teams use the single back sets. They take out the FB and replace him with a 2nd TE on the LOS. If you compare IForm to a two tight end ace set, you create an additional gap in the ace set while IForm gives you an additional blocker in the A or B gap.

It all depends on what you want to do. If a team is bull rushing the outside gaps, bring out that extra tight end. Is the Mike blowing up the line? Put in the FB and run Iso, Power, Counter Trey. Note zone blocking schemes can also account for the interior defenders by double-teaming and then "moving up" to the LB, but if the LB is fast, you're screwed. IRL, teams have reintroduced trap & wham plays to counter this if they want to remain in single back sets. Kiffin-era Alabama does this A LOT.

 

[TXHusker05]

What would you say are the benefits and costs of Ace vs Pistol or Iform?

Benefit of Ace, for me, is a really nice outside zone stretch game with some great play actions off of the stretch action. I'll run some inside zone and counter out of my Ace formations but zone stretch is what makes it go. Pistol just doesn't have the play selection available, stretch isn't in every single back Pistol set and there is no play action off of the stretch action in Pistol which is disappointing.

In a perfect world, I'd stay in Pistol the whole time, but the plays just don't exist in the game. The only effective play actions in Pistol are off of Counter and Read action and the lack of a uniform run game is unfortunate. Stretch and Power O aren't in every Pistol formation and the inside zone plays off of slam and/or dive aren't consistently blocked formation to formation. Two back Pistol mostly has option plays, which is unfortunate as well.

I use I-formation more for gap scheme stuff and inside zone, although I'll run a stretch play from two back I every so often. The main reason I go "I" is to run Counter (Trey and Trap), lead inside zone, lead draw and G toss.

Being "only" Pistol is almost impossible, the plays just don't exist. You have to compliment it with something else, whether it be under center Ace/I or Gun.

 

[TXHusker05]

Single back sets put an additional receiver on the LOS. I form gives you an extra blocker to run between the tackles. Pistol gives you the option game/better throwing lanes for passing (IRL).

Most zone running teams use the single back sets. They take out the FB and replace him with a 2nd TE on the LOS. If you compare IForm to a two tight end ace set, you create an additional gap in the ace set while IForm gives you an additional blocker in the A or B gap.

It all depends on what you want to do. If a team is bull rushing the outside gaps, bring out that extra tight end. Is the Mike blowing up the line? Put in the FB and run Iso, Power, Counter Trey. Note zone blocking schemes can also account for the interior defenders by double-teaming and then "moving up" to the LB, but if the LB is fast, you're screwed. IRL, teams have reintroduced trap & wham plays to counter this if they want to remain in single back sets. Kiffin-era Alabama does this A LOT.

Spread teams are starting to utilize wham and trap a lot as well. Spend all day running inside zone, double teaming that 1 tech over and over and then all of a sudden your C-G bypass him to pick up the LBs on the second level, the 1 tech thinks he's finally in the clear and the wing H-back folds down on the wham and blows up the unsuspecting tackle. Gets you a couple big guys to the second level to pick up those LBs. Ohio State torched Oregon last year running Wham and G-H Counter Trey against Oregon's odd front. The two plays compliment each other really nicely in a one back wing tight end formation.

I've noticed Oregon has started running Trap more this year as well. It is an obvious compliment to inside zone and Oregon's tight power play. Instead of washing that interior lineman down, just bypass him and trap him to pick up second level blocks. Really nice way exploit overly aggressive linemen and linebackers.

 

[nofx94]

How do y'all feel about the effectiveness of toss plays?

 

[JSU Zack]

How do y'all feel about the effectiveness of toss plays?

They're not

 

[TXHusker05]

How do y'all feel about the effectiveness of toss plays?

Toss from I: Works great, as long as you quick motion the FB to get a head start. Recommend HB Toss Wk out of Y Trips, Tight and Twins Flex over standard Toss.
Toss from Maryland I: Works great, as long as you quick motion the FB closest to the QB to get a head start.
Toss from Strong I: Works great
Toss from Power I: Works great, especially if you motion the FB closest to the QB out to the wing.
Toss from Gun Slot F Wing and Wing Offset: Works great, as long as you don't flip the formation
Toss from Ace: Garbage
Toss from Weak: Garbage

No matter what formation you're in, have a run audible ready if there is a tight overhang player towards the direction you're running toss.

I love toss. Toss sweep is one of my favorite plays in football and it works pretty well in the game, as long as you know which tosses and which formations work best. In my Osborne offense, I run toss mostly as HB Toss Wk out of Y Trips, Tight and Twins Flex. In my spread offenses, I jump under center into Strong I to run a FB Dive/HB Toss/PA FB series which is really effective. In my gun triple offense, that HB Toss play out of Slot F Wing is a deadly short yardage/goal line play. Again, DO NOT flip the formation.

 

[nofx94]

Right now I'm working on a one back book that operates out of the same sets from ace, pistol, and gun.

Three problems I'm encountering:
1 - some of the ace sets have multiple versions in gun. For instance, trips 4wr, which I'm not using because I want to be more 11 than 10, has - in gun - trips and wk and open and open HB str.

2 - the other issue connected to that one is deciding between running offset or flat gun at a few permutations. In my spread-i playbook I have normal offset wk and wing offset, for instance. I'm also trying to decide between trio, trio weak, and offset

3 - limiting concepts to a realistic amount. I'm mostly running zone but I do have counters and reads. Trying to decide if I'd rather have QB power or HB buck sweep in some places. Mostly s running issue, but I also want my passing to move between formations pretty seamlessly, and I've noted before that I'm not the best passer, anyway.

---

I have the one-back book built. It just needs testing and my determining whether I want to stay flat or go offset from gun; leaning to the latter. Thinking maybe offset. Now I'm trying to build an ace-pistol-gun book that's based on 2-back for blocking/option.

 

[PSUEagle]

Has anyone here used the under center singleback formations where the lone back is offset instead of directly behind the QB?

As far as I know there's only two sets that have those alignments: Tight and Bunch Base. Each has a three play series with an Off Tackle run (same action from the back and QB as the Off Tackle play in Split Pro) and a couple of drop back passes.

Been watching some Mike Martz film from his Chicago Bear days lately and figured I'd give these alignments some burn after basically ignoring them since like Madden 08. I'd prefer a more developed series with stuff like Offset Trap, Trap Pass, Quick Pitch, etc but I figured why not use it: it's something different for a couple plays a game and I've always liked that setup IRL for certain plays.

 

[JSU Zack]

Has anyone here used the under center singleback formations where the lone back is offset instead of directly behind the QB?

As far as I know there's only two sets that have those alignments: Tight and Bunch Base. Each has a three play series with an Off Tackle run (same action from the back and QB as the Off Tackle play in Split Pro) and a couple of drop back passes.

Been watching some Mike Martz film from his Chicago Bear days lately and figured I'd give these alignments some burn after basically ignoring them since like Madden 08. I'd prefer a more developed series with stuff like Offset Trap, Trap Pass, Quick Pitch, etc but I figured why not use it: it's something different for a couple plays a game and I've always liked that setup IRL for certain plays.

I use them, and they work.

 

[Haze88]

Just how Multiple do you guys get both formation and personnel wise? I would love to do something like what New England does with a bunch of personnel and formations, but the game limits prevent a lot of things I want to do such as rotating 2 backs and a receiver into the back field and placing a 2nd TE as an H-Back in certain formations the way we did with the Hooman at times. Times like this I wish custom packages was still a thing.

 

[nofx94]

Formation subs might be your best bet. As well as setting your audibles in different formations so as to allow you to create those mismatches.

 

[TXHusker05]

Just how Multiple do you guys get both formation and personnel wise? I would love to do something like what New England does with a bunch of personnel and formations, but the game limits prevent a lot of things I want to do such as rotating 2 backs and a receiver into the back field and placing a 2nd TE as an H-Back in certain formations the way we did with the Hooman at times. Times like this I wish custom packages was still a thing.

Formation subs might be your best bet. As well as setting your audibles in different formations so as to allow you to create those mismatches.

Formation subs really are the best bet. In formation packages can get you close here and there, but you can only have one package at a time and they are fairly limited. In my HUNH offense that involves a lot of TEs but in spread formations, I have a few formations where I've just formation subbed a TE as the solo side WR or hot routed two TE to one side of a spread formaton or hot routed a WR into the backfield to run swing screens and things like that.

It isn't perfect and can sometimes backfire when a player gets tired or hurt, but for the most part formation subs are your best bet if you're really wanting to integrate multiple TEs across the field or get receivers/tight ends in to the backfield.

I think my advice would be, know what you can and cannot do with packages and then use formation subs to augment that. Just as an example, I know I can get my TE into the slot using packages in just about any formation, but very few formations have a TE @ WR package. So in some formations I will formation sub TE2 to an outermost WR spot and then when I want to put another TE on the field, I'll augment it with the TE Slot package.

 

[JSU Zack]

Just how Multiple do you guys get both formation and personnel wise? I would love to do something like what New England does with a bunch of personnel and formations, but the game limits prevent a lot of things I want to do such as rotating 2 backs and a receiver into the back field and placing a 2nd TE as an H-Back in certain formations the way we did with the Hooman at times. Times like this I wish custom packages was still a thing.

Depends on the flavor of the month, but I vary from a dozen or so sets up to thirty. All depends on the team.

 

[nofx94]

How do y'all feel about the effectiveness and utility of the Maryland/Stack I and Power I in this game?

Since seeing New Mexico break out a Maryland I Pistol in their bowl game I've felt compelled to give it a try

 

[JSU Zack]

How do y'all feel about the effectiveness and utility of the Maryland/Stack I and Power I in this game?

Since seeing New Mexico break out a Maryland I Pistol in their bowl game I've felt compelled to give it a try

Power I is great with motion, but I wish they had an outside zone play. The others are relatively useless.

 

[nofx94]

Power I is great with motion, but I wish they had an outside zone play. The others are relatively useless.

Drat! Foiled again. I'll just work it out in PS2 NCAAs

 

[JSU Zack]

Drat! Foiled again. I'll just work it out in PS2 NCAAs

It's unfortunate, but 2/3 of the plays in the game are useless. The team responsible for coding the plays basically went down a checklist to add it to the game without actually testing it.

 

[nofx94]

Well shitfire! That's a downer. I know I've read of wishbone working at the goal line at least. Is that one ineffective otherwise?

I mean, generally I understand if these formations can't be used ubiquitously on account of they aren't in real life. But, it'd be nice if they were worth the effort of addition. I mean, they took out the Power T and the split-back twins, so if they're including these others, they may as well make em work. Shout out to whatever stickler put em in there, though. I'm sure plenty of guys were ready to cut them loose on account of the fact that they included ten or eleven (not counting, probably 20+) variations of fucking Wildcat. It's odd to me that they'd duplicate a gadget formation but neglect the usefulness of something(s) that were mainstays, nay major innovations, of college football. Such is life, one supposes.

 

[PSUEagle]

Wishbone is awesome: don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

 

[TXHusker05]

How do y'all feel about the effectiveness and utility of the Maryland/Stack I and Power I in this game?

Since seeing New Mexico break out a Maryland I Pistol in their bowl game I've felt compelled to give it a try

I use Maryland I and Power I extensively in my Osborne offense, but I wouldn't make a living out of it. In the case of Power I, if you motion the FB directly behind the QB to the strength of the formation you essentially get a Strong I Twin TE type of look and can run Power or Toss really easily.

In the case of Maryland I, I only use it to run HB Toss, again with the FB closest to the QB motioned out quickly to the toss side to get out and front and lead block. Snap it before he stops or the play will go nowhere. Once he moves, snap and go.

Honestly, the only plays I like out of either formation is Toss and Power O. I guess the Inside Zone/Slam/Blast plays are decent but wouldn't make a living off of them. Iso and FB Dives and such are worthless.

I love that Stack Maryland I Pistol formation UNM uses, I'd kill for that in my Spread I Triple offense since what I do is modeled entirely off of UNM to begin with. That said, there are a lot of weaknesses in a formation like that, weaknesses that can be overcome by aligning in a Full House/Diamond backfield. You get the same 3 back benefits but also gain quicker access to both the flats and vertical.

I like Wishbone as well and use it as my short yardage/goal line in my Triple Option, but not sure I'd make an offense out of it.

 

[Haze88]

How do you guys keep play counts down? I want to be able to have a lot of different formations that have the same personnel groupings but could be anything formation wise ((i.e 2RB/3WR could be I-Slot, Split back, Pistol, or Shotgun) but I'm struggling to keep the plays to a minimum

 

[JSU Zack]

How do you guys keep play counts down? I want to be able to have a lot of different formations that have the same personnel groupings but could be anything formation wise ((i.e 2RB/3WR could be I-Slot, Split back, Pistol, or Shotgun) but I'm struggling to keep the plays to a minimum

You need an inside run, outside run, man beater, zone beater, PA, and deep pass. The rest is up to you.

 

[Haze88]

You need an inside run, outside run, man beater, zone beater, PA, and deep pass. The rest is up to you.

See I try to snag everything in one go. I think nearly every run with a pulling guard will be removed since they rarely work and keep stripping from there. From UC, which I'm pretty unfamiliar with which runs are zone vs man blocking? It's not nearly as intuitive to me as I fee it should be

 

[JSU Zack]

See I try to snag everything in one go. I think nearly every run with a pulling guard will be removed since they rarely work and keep stripping from there. From UC, which I'm pretty unfamiliar with which runs are zone vs man blocking? It's not nearly as intuitive to me as I fee it should be

Stretch/off tackle = outside zone
Blast/Slam = inside zone

 

[Haze88]

Stretch/off tackle = outside zone
Blast/Slam = inside zone

Alright I'll try. Im not used to being in anything but the gun in this game. I can't fathom how you guys can have a 3 play formation in a book. Then again I want an option/RNS playbook which requires a whole lot of plays to mesh

 

[LEGEND]

Stretch/off tackle = outside zone
Blast/Slam = inside zone

Which ace formations have you used? I tried going UC singleback offense and the running game was a disaster!!!

I tried running inside and outside zone from Ace slot, ace trips etc... The RB seem like he lost acceleration and speed! He could never get going... My opponent even noticed. My RB has 97 acceleration with 92 speed my opponent said it looked more like 86 acceleration and speed.

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk