Navy, TEs, and Goal Line Sets

[beej67]

I can't quite recall seeing this in the Navy games I've watched. What did they do in Goal Line sets without technically having any TEs on their roster? Just have the SBs or linemen play TE?

 

[33jacket]

well...in 3-0 you only have two spots you can change...the two WRs.

So on GL; they can sub one WR for another OL; or both for two OL, or just leave them out there....

The thing with 3-0 is you can't "stack" the middle on GL D like a traditional I; b/c you have to cover the SB, QB and Pitch man as well as BBack. So most times...they are just in their normal formation and may bring in one extra OL

That is why on GL 3-0 offenses are VERY hard to defend.

 

[JoltinJacket]

So on GL; they can sub one WR for another OL; or both for two OL

6 or 7 O-linemen? Wouldn't that be an illegal formation? The wingbacks are usually in the slot behind each tackle, so who would cover up the end of the line?

 

[33jacket]

6 or 7 O-linemen? Wouldn't that be an illegal formation? The wingbacks are usually in the slot behind each tackle, so who would cover up the end of the line?

no not illegal. the second OL that comes in would be labeled an eligible OL. Happens all the time!!! Then he would be technically covering the tackle.

 

[JoltinJacket]

no not illegal. the second OL that comes in would be labeled an eligible OL. Happens all the time!!! Then he would be technically covering the tackle.

Gotcha! That would open up the possibility of tackle-eligible pass plays on the goal line as well. I would love to see Cord or A.J. take on an opposing LB on a drag route over the middle. :wow:

 

[augustabuzz]

Gotcha! That would open up the possibility of tackle-eligible pass plays on the goal line as well. I would love to see Cord or A.J. take on an opposing LB on a drag route over the middle. :wow:

Wow, "Drag Route" would take a new definition.

:laugher::laugher::laugher:

 

[lonestarjacket]

I can't quite recall seeing this in the Navy games I've watched. What did they do in Goal Line sets without technically having any TEs on their roster? Just have the SBs or linemen play TE?

I haven't really studied Navy's particular brand of triple option, but other teams run triple option and manage to incorporate TE's into the offense.

It seems limiting to not have any TE's available. When we ran the 'bone sometimes we ran with one TE and one SE; sometimes with with one back splitting out as a second WR; sometimes with two TEs; and sometimes with two SEs.

It seems if you have a decent QB who is a threat to throw then you would want want both TEs and SEs available as weapons in additon to the backs.

 

[ncjacket]

But if you throw from PJ's normal set you have two WRs, two SBs and the RB as targets. I don't get why having a TE adds anything?

 

[lonestarjacket]

But if you throw from PJ's normal set you have two WRs, two SBs and the RB as targets. I don't get why having a TE adds anything?

It just adds a different type of receiver. Sometimes those big TEs present a matchup problem that the RBs and SEs don't. And usually a TE can be a more effective blocker than a RB or SE.

We talk about putting in extra linemen in obvious run situations. A TE just means that extra lineman is a bigger threat to actually catch a pass.

I recall quite a few games when opponents could do nothing against our defense until they started using TEs instead of the WRs as primary targets. Ask our defense why the TE presented a problem when extra WRs did not.

 

[beej67]

But if you throw from PJ's normal set you have two WRs, two SBs and the RB as targets. I don't get why having a TE adds anything?

Another big dude, who might block or might catch.

Hey, I'm all for running spread in short yardage goal line situations, but you gotta admit it's nonstandard and worth inquiring about.

beej67,
acknowledges that incorporating a TE into the flex doesn't get you much if you're in the middle of the field, unless you're sacrificing a SB in the formation

 

[ncjacket]

Well, just amuses me that we've hired a coach who is supposed to be an offensive genius with a unique attack and we're agonizing about why he doesn't use a TE. Seems he may have another way to get it done?

 

[ramblinwise1]

Sounds like in the offense the pitch option is to a trailing or in-motion SB. The BB is going to have to run inside mostly and take a pounding. The QB needs to read but also needs to have quick feet to be an effective off-tackle/end threat and the pitch man is the speed back. The onside SB is a lead blocking back so the SB's both need to be able to block.

The SEs are out there to pull two defenders out of the box so they gotta be able to block on those runs. Then in the rarer case of run the SEs become traditional wide outs as do SBs, but the RB probably stays in to block for the QB. Is that close to the way this offense works?

 

[gt7282c@prism]

Well, just amuses me that we've hired a coach who is supposed to be an offensive genius with a unique attack and we're agonizing about why he doesn't use a TE. Seems he may have another way to get it done?

It stems from the fact that our CG never did. His failure to develop effective short passing routes was one of my main griefs with him. But of course he didn't run option either, so there you go.

 

[beej67]

Well, just amuses me that we've hired a coach who is supposed to be an offensive genius with a unique attack and we're agonizing about why he doesn't use a TE. Seems he may have another way to get it done?

I'm not agonizing. I'm just curious how he does stuff. I'm quite excited to see it, honestly - our new coaching staff is a who's-who of option football, we should be very schooled in what to do by the end of 2008.