Get the Ball to the A-Backs

[77GTFan]

How would you go lateral longer if there is a defender in contain? The point of the contain is to prevent the QB from moving laterally (and outside the pocket).

btw, the best example of how this does not work was that one game where Nesbitt tried to throw a pitch over a defender by jumping and it got intercepted.

You run right at the contain man and force him to commit and then pitch. If you turn inside the contain man every time there is one you end up with your QB running 29 times and your A backs running 6 times. What running back in his right mind would want to come play in that offense? Do you think those out of balance numbers are good? What we seem to be saying is if you play a contain man on the edge we will read it and run the QB keeper every time. That is called being suckered into what the opponent wants you to do. It's a good way to rush for 290 yards and put a big 7 on the board against Air Force. If defenses have figured out a way to defense us so that they don't have to worry so much about the option pitch then this offense has been figured out pretty well. I don't think that is the case - I think our QB execution of the offense, particularly the last five games, needs to improve.

 

[alpha]

You run right at the contain man and force him to commit and then pitch.

When the defender is in contain, his job is not only to contain you inside but to cut off the pitch. What do you think is going to happen when you pitch the ball and there's a defender in between the QB and pitchman? The ball is magically going to go from the QB's hand, through the defender's body, and into the a-back's hands? This is all beside the fact "force him to commit and then pitch" isn't as easy as it sounds.

If you turn inside the contain man every time there is one you end up with your QB running 29 times and your A backs running 6 times. What running back in his right mind would want to come play in that offense? Do you think those out of balance numbers are good?

Probably RBs that didn't get many other scholarship offers? The b-back is the feature back in CPJ's offense. I doubt our recruiters tell potential a-backs that they are going to get most of the carries.

What we seem to be saying is if you play a contain man on the edge we will read it and run the QB keeper every time. That is called being suckered into what the opponent wants you to do. It's a good way to rush for 290 yards and put a big 7 on the board against Air Force.

How are you not getting this? If a defense is committing to the perimeter, the inside should be open. Or if CPJ still likes the numbers on the perimeter, he can try to get that contain defender blocked. Do you think that Tevin/Joshua/CPJ has some kind of vendetta against the a-backs and they scheme the offense so that the a-backs intentionally don't get the carries? Or is it possible that the QB and B-back are getting most of the carries because the defense is taking away the perimeter? Hrm... toughie.

I honestly don't want our a-backs getting the ball. They didn't understand the fundamental concept of "catching" and "protecting" the ball this season.

If defenses have figured out a way to defense us so that they don't have to worry so much about the option pitch then this offense has been figured out pretty well. I don't think that is the case - I think our QB execution of the offense, particularly the last five games, needs to improve.

Our offense has been figured out. Everyone has the blueprint to defend the "triple option offense". Good lord, let's fire CPJ now.

Of course our QB execution needs to improve. So does the offensive line. So does a-back execution. WRs. Special teams. Defense. Everything needs to improve.

 

[floridajacket]

What running back in his right mind would want to come play in that offense?

headdesk

Yeah, AA and Dwyer were really screwed over by this offense, weren't they.

Now you can say that you were talking about those specifically recruited for A-backs, but A-backs are more like speedy slot receivers than running backs. Slot receivers don't touch the ball a lot in any offense.

 

[77GTFan]

OK, Alpha - your point is that the A-backs are not a viable option most of the time due to the defensive strategy. I guess the 51 handoffs and keeps were good reads and there were only six (actually less since the 6 total carries included a couple of pitch sweeps) good reads to the A-backs.

My point is that either defenses are dictating to us or we are not running the option well to be this unbalanced. And, we are more effective when we run the A-backs more.

Finally, watching option football surely you would agree some of the biggest plays occur when the QB pitches just before taking a hit. That seems to seldom happen with us this year, particularly with Tevin this year. Perhaps the QB's are coached that way to avoid taking too many hits. I don't think we will be as successful unless we truly are a triple option offense. If we are primarily a B-back handoff or QB keep offense with a weak passing attack we are in trouble. I know Paul Johnson has not had this type of two dimensional attack at Navy, GSU, or Hawaii. And, I think we were more balanced in years 1 and 2.

Finally, if Florida Jacket is right and the A-backs are in effect slot backs who will not get the ball often, I would ask, what talented running back or receiver would want to come play that position?

I am not against a triple option offense. It can be very effective and had been for us in seasons 1 and 2. I would just say that the offense became more predictable and less effective this season, especially after the injury to Nesbitt.

 

[alpha]

My point is that either defenses are dictating to us or we are not running the option well to be this unbalanced. And, we are more effective when we run the A-backs more.

We are not running the option well. That is a fact. The a-backs not getting the ball "enough" is not the problem. If anything, the fact that they got the ball in the first place resulted in a lot of our turnovers this past season.

I am not against a triple option offense. It can be very effective and had been for us in seasons 1 and 2. I would just say that the offense became more predictable and less effective this season, especially after the injury to Nesbitt.

Did the math of the top BB, QB and also top 4 ABs (since CPJ shuffles a lot of ABs) for 2009 and 2010.

2009 Carries
BB Dwyer: 235 (33.9%)
QB Nesbitt: 279 (40.2%)
AB Allen: 64
AB Jones: 52
AB Wright: 33
AB Peeples: 31
AB All: 180 (25.9%)

2010 Carries
BB Allen: 217 (34.5%)
QB Nesbitt: 166
QB Washington: 88
QB All: 166 + 88 = 254 (40.4%)
AB Smith: 49
AB Jones: 50
AB Peeples: 46
AB Bostic: 13
AB All: 158 (25.1%)

Realized half way through the above calculations that it might be better to just get the % of carries by ABs overall instead of just the top 4 ABs.

2009 Carries
ABs: 186 (Allen, Jones, Wright, Peeples, Smith)
All: 792
23.5%

2010 Carries
ABs: 164 (Smith, Jones, Peeples, Bostic, Wright)
All: 696
23.6%

Source Data:
2009: http://web1.ncaa.org/mfb/2009/Internet/ranking_summary/2009000000255rush.html
2010: http://web1.ncaa.org/mfb/2010/Internet/ranking_summary/2010000000255rush.html

Anyone know where I can get stats for fumbles by player?

 

[floridajacket]

Ugh, I know there will be no convincing you, but it still doesn't seem like you understand how the option works. We have no control over how the other defense plays the option. Period. If they're playing the pitchman, then the QB has to keep it. Period. End of Story. At least within an option play, there is nothing we can do about it.

Now, remember that we had nearly 300 yards of offense and averaged five yards a carry in our last game. If we had a crisis in running the option, I must have missed it. If the defense is overplaying the pitch option and giving AA or TW room for five yards a pop, we should take it.

The issue with our offense is outside of the option. We have horrific passing efficiency this year and we have of course have had issues with turnovers. The base options themselves have been fine, but it can't work without some form of a passing attack and we haven't really had that this year.

 

[ncjacket]

OK, Alpha - your point is that the A-backs are not a viable option most of the time due to the defensive strategy. I guess the 51 handoffs and keeps were good reads and there were only six (actually less since the 6 total carries included a couple of pitch sweeps) good reads to the A-backs.

My point is that either defenses are dictating to us or we are not running the option well to be this unbalanced. And, we are more effective when we run the A-backs more.

Finally, watching option football surely you would agree some of the biggest plays occur when the QB pitches just before taking a hit. That seems to seldom happen with us this year, particularly with Tevin this year. Perhaps the QB's are coached that way to avoid taking too many hits. I don't think we will be as successful unless we truly are a triple option offense. If we are primarily a B-back handoff or QB keep offense with a weak passing attack we are in trouble. I know Paul Johnson has not had this type of two dimensional attack at Navy, GSU, or Hawaii. And, I think we were more balanced in years 1 and 2.

Finally, if Florida Jacket is right and the A-backs are in effect slot backs who will not get the ball often, I would ask, what talented running back or receiver would want to come play that position?

I am not against a triple option offense. It can be very effective and had been for us in seasons 1 and 2. I would just say that the offense became more predictable and less effective this season, especially after the injury to Nesbitt.

Sigh....the problem with the offense was...say it with me people...TURNOVERS. PJ doesn't care who gets the ball. The idea of the option is that whatever man the defense doesn't cover should get the ball. It's predicated on the idea that they can't handle all 3 if we block it correctly.

The QB is supposed to hand it off it that's open, keep it it isn't and pitch if he's taken. There is a reason the pitch is the 3rd option. In most cases one of the other two will be open. But when both are taken that should mean nobody is left outside on defense and the pitch should go for big yards.

If you look at the stats everywhere PJ has been, the B back and QB get the bulk of the carries but the As have higher yards per carry numbers. He tells them that when he recruits them.

 

[GTBlazer]

didn't know you sat in on his recruiting visits...thanks for the insight.

 

[ncjacket]

didn't know you sat in on his recruiting visits...thanks for the insight.

All you have to do is read his comments when he talks about what he says to players and comments from playersnhe has recruited. It's really not that complicated. Go find the interviews with AA when PJ had first talked with him.

 

[declinometer]

in hind sight i think it was a mistake move aa to b-back. he was one of the better blocking a-backs that we had. we could have played b-back by committee.

 

[JacketFan77]

in hind sight i think it was a mistake move aa to b-back. he was one of the better blocking a-backs that we had. we could have played b-back by committee.

Really? Do you think he would have produced 1000+ yards and been in a position to keep us in games from the A-Back position?

 

[declinometer]

Really? Do you think he would have produced 1000+ yards and been in a position to keep us in games from the A-Back position?

whoever is the b-back in cpj offense will get 1000+ yards and will keep us in games. it's the nature of the offense that you will some day understand. my point is that he could have upped the talent level of our a-backs (blocking & running) while someone else held down the b-back position.

 

[JacketFan77]

whoever is the b-back in cpj offense will get 1000+ yards and will keep us in games. it's the nature of the offense that you will some day understand. my point is that he could have upped the talent level of our a-backs (blocking & running) while someone else held down the b-back position.

Oh, so you're saying that CPJ could just stick any old RB in there and he'll get 1000+ yards - that B-Back isn't a skill position and regardless of the size, strength and abilities of the RB, the "position" will produce 1000+ yards because it's the nature of the position. That's what you're saying, right?

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[declinometer]

Oh, so you're saying that CPJ could just stick any old RB in there and he'll get 1000+ yards - that B-Back isn't a skill position and regardless of the size, strength and abilities of the RB, the "position" will produce 1000+ yards because it's the nature of the position. That's what you're saying, right?

Thanks for clearing that up.

sort of. we have other people that can get 1000 yds at b-back. we don't have a-backs that block on the edge as well as aa.
cpj has said in the past that his offense is designed for the b-back to get 1000 yds. (or something like that). he did not say that he need jd or aa only to accomplish that.

 

[MtownJacket]

sort of. we have other people that can get 1000 yds at b-back. we don't have a-backs that block on the edge as well as aa.
cpj has said in the past that his offense is designed for the b-back to get 1000 yds. (or something like that). he did not say that he need jd or aa only to accomplish that.

We needed AA at B-back. We would have been pretty terrible if he was not there. Cox and Lyons were good backups but would not have gotten those 5 yarders that Allen could consistently get and would pretty much never have broken away for 10+ yard runs.

I would have liked to see AA move between B-back and A-back a bit to keep the defense guessing. Or similarly, I would have liked to see a bit more speed option to get AA on the edge.

 

[declinometer]

We needed AA at B-back. We would have been pretty terrible if he was not there. Cox and Lyons were good backups but would not have gotten those 5 yarders that Allen could consistently get and would pretty much never have broken away for 10+ yard runs.



I would have liked to see AA move between B-back and A-back a bit to keep the defense guessing. Or similarly, I would have like to see a bit more speed option to get AA on the edge.

why did you leave out drummond or watson. it cant be argued that aa was the best blocking a-back last year. all im trying to say is that we had trouble getting the lead blocks this year and in hind sight we could have used him there and let someone else be the b-back. aa did not take many plays(if any) to the house at b-back.

 

[stinger78]

How are you not getting this? If a defense is committing to the perimeter, the inside should be open. Or if CPJ still likes the numbers on the perimeter, he can try to get that contain defender blocked. Do you think that Tevin/Joshua/CPJ has some kind of vendetta against the a-backs and they scheme the offense so that the a-backs intentionally don't get the carries? Or is it possible that the QB and B-back are getting most of the carries because the defense is taking away the perimeter? Hrm... toughie.

This depends on how they shut off the pitch. If they do this with DB's then they could still shut down the dive. Iowa and Miami have done this the last 3 games with them. This forces the QB to run the ball, and is happening a lot to us against the teams with better D's. This is also where having a breakaway threat at QB would shift this O into high gear. Kaipo was this player for Navy, and D's couldn't just "force him to run" or he'd take it to the house. The day we get a guy like Kaipo, this O will hum. It's all built around the QB.

 

[MtownJacket]

why did you leave out drummond or watson. it cant be argued that aa was the best blocking a-back last year. all im trying to say is that we had trouble getting the lead blocks this year and in hind sight we could have used him there and let someone else be the b-back. aa did not take many plays(if any) to the house at b-back.

Because Cox and Lyons are better, or so says the depth chart.

 

[77GTFan]

Navy does not seem to follow the pattern of putting their best runner at B-back. They tended to play white guys who were proto-typical fullbacks. They broke a lot of long runs with their B-backs, but more because the defenses were concerned with Dobbs at QB and with the A-backs on pitches and counters. Becuase the B-backs were not the best runners, defenses often ignored them and they broke the line with lots of room to run. I think we saw a lot more room up the middle when we put Lyons in. Navy moves their A-backs away from the inside slot and into the backfield next to their B-back quite often. In that formation they run a lot of counters and traps with carries by the A-backs. I was really impressed with that dimenison of their running attack when I saw them in person this year.

 

[ncjacket]

Well you can't put your best back at B back if he isn't physically a good fit for the position. Navy hasn't had any backs like Dwyer or Allen so the comparison isn't really meaningful IMO.