Archived Topic

I formation effectiveness

by jonnylingo · 10/29/2010

jonnylingo

10/29/2010, 5:59:32 PM

Interesting post:

http://www.cougarboard.com/noframes/message.html?id=6131123" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

he runs through play by play of wyoming game and concludes that running plays out of the i formation is twice and effective as out of the shotgun.

thought i would pass it along. ever now and then if you look hard enough there is something useful on cb.

byutx

10/29/2010, 6:41:50 PM

Some of the discrepancy has to do with the fact that shotgun formations are often more necessary than other formations when the team is in a difficult situations, such as 3rd and long. Those types of situations aren't likely to be converted. That will explain some of the difference. But certainly not all of it. I'd like him to take down and distance as well as other factors into consideration.

I think the conclusion that we need to run more out of the I and out of other heavy sets is correct.

snoscythe

10/29/2010, 6:50:45 PM

The I-formation is not BYU football. Our coaches aren't versed in it, our players weren't recruited for it (they were recruited for the spread), and the fans won't stand for it. The only thing BYU should ever run is the wide-gap spread that our program is built for. Anything else would be an abomination, not BYU FOOTBALL. BTW...TIC.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Lawboy

10/29/2010, 7:46:58 PM

I Love pro style football. Love the I, love 2 back or one back sets. Loved watching USC and Michigan run it the last several years. Even split backs sets from under center can work great. I just think BYU needs to consider running that type of pro style offense more. I think it suits our personnel and has for the last several years.

byutx

10/29/2010, 7:51:10 PM

snoscythe wrote:
The I-formation is not BYU football. Our coaches aren't versed in it, our players weren't recruited for it (they were recruited for the spread), and the fans won't stand for it. The only thing BYU should ever run is the wide-gap spread that our program is built for. Anything else would be an abomination, not BYU FOOTBALL. BTW...TIC.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

You say TIC, but it's actually pretty close to Robert Anae's position on the issue.

Guest

10/29/2010, 7:58:27 PM

I love winning.

I love guys that play hard, and work hard, and don't sexually assault women.

That's all I ask for.

Cougy_Monster

10/29/2010, 9:12:58 PM

hawkwing wrote:
I love winning.

I love guys that play hard, and work hard, and don't sexually assault women.

That's all I ask for.

Man, you're hard to please!

snoscythe

10/29/2010, 9:20:07 PM

byutx wrote:
The I-formation is not BYU football. Our coaches aren't versed in it, our players weren't recruited for it (they were recruited for the spread), and the fans won't stand for it. The only thing BYU should ever run is the wide-gap spread that our program is built for. Anything else would be an abomination, not BYU FOOTBALL. BTW...TIC.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

You say TIC, but it's actually pretty close to Robert Anae's position on the issue.

It's what people said about incorporating the option with Nelson.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

byutx

10/29/2010, 9:50:15 PM

snoscythe wrote:
snoscythe wrote:
The I-formation is not BYU football. Our coaches aren't versed in it, our players weren't recruited for it (they were recruited for the spread), and the fans won't stand for it. The only thing BYU should ever run is the wide-gap spread that our program is built for. Anything else would be an abomination, not BYU FOOTBALL. BTW...TIC.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

You say TIC, but it's actually pretty close to Robert Anae's position on the issue.

It's what people said about incorporating the option with Nelson.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

I know-but then I applied to Robert Anae's "I did it my way" philosophy.

Schmoe

10/30/2010, 2:18:24 AM

Yeah, the I-formation works...vs Wyoming.

Brayden Green

10/30/2010, 4:04:22 AM

Schmoe wrote:
Yeah, the I-formation works...vs Wyoming.

and SDSU, and UNLV and CSU and Utah and whoever we play a bowl against...

I mean our receivers couldn't get separation if it could save their lives'

BroncoBot

10/30/2010, 4:49:34 PM

Schmoe wrote:
Yeah, the I-formation works...vs Wyoming.

There are a lot of teams that would struggle with BYU's o-line running over them again and again out of the I.

I'd love to see more of it.

Lawboy

10/30/2010, 4:54:26 PM

Watching some games this morning and they are talking about how many Big EAst teams are transitioning to I formation. Geeze, even Syracuse is running it and they beat WVU last week with it and are beating Cinci today with it. Syracuse has been DOA for a decade. Play to strength.

Mingjai

10/30/2010, 7:43:36 PM

I don't really care as much about how the backs are positioned as much as I want to see the QB under center at least 80% of the time and the OL back in tighter splits. If they want to have the backs in split pro-set, near, far, I-formation, weak-I, strong-I, single back, I'm don't really care--that's all details to me at this point. I agree that BYU can get a better mix of plays and less predictable if they switch back to their pro style offense.

Normally, I'm not a big fan of USC or Stanford, but watching them run their west coast offenses makes me nostalgic...

Lawboy wrote:
Geeze, even Syracuse is running it and they beat WVU last week with it and are beating Cinci today with it. Syracuse has been DOA for a decade. Play to strength.

It's good to see a school with a strong football tradition like Syracuse finally decent again--they haven't been good since BYU played that home-home series with them in the early Naughties.

Mars

10/31/2010, 9:16:42 AM

Schmoe wrote:
Yeah, the I-formation works...vs Wyoming.

I love how Wyoming completely sells out to stop the run and Anae is too stupid to throw over the top.

That's the entire reason you run the ball, and vice-versa, to keep the defense on their toes and guessing, allowing you to continue to gain yards and score. Anae is a moron in my book that can't do anything right. He keeps a defense that is set to stop the run guessing by calling passes into the backfield. Which is actually worse than actually running it into a waiting defense from a power set. Which he continually switches back to the shotgun anyways, despite the fact that it's less effective to begin with. I could kick him.

runbyu1

10/31/2010, 4:55:03 PM

Mars wrote:
Yeah, the I-formation works...vs Wyoming.

I love how Wyoming completely sells out to stop the run and Anae is too stupid to throw over the top.

That's the entire reason you run the ball, and vice-versa, to keep the defense on their toes and guessing, allowing you to continue to gain yards and score. Anae is a moron in my book that can't do anything right. He keeps a defense that is set to stop the run guessing by calling passes into the backfield. Which is actually worse than actually running it into a waiting defense from a power set. Which he continually switches back to the shotgun anyways, despite the fact that it's less effective to begin with. I could kick him.

I'm with ya mars. Why set up the pass when you can just run against an even more stacked box and become less and less effective as the game goes on? TIC

kfilly20

10/31/2010, 5:10:10 PM

I think heaps looks more comfortable in the I, under center. He looks really comfortable off of play action.

Brayden Green

10/31/2010, 9:25:52 PM

kfilly20 wrote:
I think heaps looks more comfortable in the I, under center. He looks really comfortable off of play action.

Heaps has a really, really good playaction. He sells it better than most Senior quarterbacks. The throws off playaction, are a little rushed and jittery and normally to a wr that doesn't have seperation, but he can sell it very well.

This is an archived topic from the original CougarCorner forum. New replies are not accepted.