What are your thoughts on "the pass setting up the run" from west coast offense balanced attack perspective? How has this worked for you in practice?
I know for me defensively its going to be tough to open up the run by passing against unless your really pass dominant. I'll also usually be plus 1 in the run game most of the time regardless of playcalling. Now I say that not because I can't be run on, but I'm having trouble seeing this in practice.
I tend to do better either being run dominant or pass dominant. Mixing the two has giving me inconsistent results. What I'm trully trying to do is make my prostyle run game more explosive and efficient.
I've never been an efficient enough passer to use the pass to consistently set up the run. I'm much more prone to doing it the other way around. I try to be balanced but I admittedly force too many stupid passes, so I always skew probably 60-40 run. And I always recruit mobile QBs so I can rely on them to run as well, so I can try to limit my exposure in the passing game. I have never successfully been super pass-dominant. On the PS2 games, I had some 55-45 pass-run ratios on occasion, but the quasi-antiquated way that I look at passing (I'll throw screens but I stay looking down field) impedes an efficient application of air raid.
Anyone run undercenter iformation attack? Maybe something like Michigan or Stanford. I'm curious to see how that works and your strategy especially in the run game.
Have you attempted to do an I-form heavy attack? It's been my experience going back to the PS2 days that a custom playbook built around a primarily-2-back philosophy doesn't need the same variety of form/set permutations as, for instance, a spread book, because there simply aren't as many varieties. What I mean is that, you can have some variety of ace and gun sets in your I formation book because the I form (and I offsets, even) take up so little playbook space...
I form is definitely one of my favorite formations. I had an I form triple option squad on PS2 one time. That was nice. It's such a prototypical balanced formation.
I find in NCAA 14 that Power O doesn't work as well from I form as from Pistol, but it's not as awful as some people make it out to be, in my opinion. I have found, in making playbooks that attempt a balance of multiple formations, that I'll sometimes forego I form in favor of 2 back pistol looks because of the increased variety of play call p possibilities.
I've also found myself trying to build all of my playbooks with a realistically limited combination of looks and styles. For instance, I've found a general philosophy in reading about people's development of run games that 'teams either run power or zone,' and there's certainly a way to build your running game strictly one way or another; even if you want to include QBrun stuff, you're just picking qb wrap and power instead of zone read. And they're going along with base/01 dive and counter out of the gun as opposed to inside zone/outside zone.
But I've also read a breakdown of LSU's running game from a few years back that shows that they ran - out of 21 and 22 personnel - both power and zone looks effectively. This may not be exactly standard, as they relied on the running game near-completely and so were bound to have a more sophisticated running game than their passing game, but I read a breakdown of Harbaugh's Stanford stuff going into Michigan and he similarly combined power and zone.
Enviado desde mi Moto G (4) mediante Tapatalk