What's up with the Power-I set inside the 10?

[Jacket59]

We've gone to the Power-I set inside the 10 yard line in both the Clemson game and in the UNC game. It looked bad both times. It looks like it has a good chance at success but something has not clicked with it. Today it cost us a touchdown (and then Blair missed the FG). We had the ball 1st and goal from the 4, ran a Power play with Dwyer from that set and lost 4 yards. I love the idea but the execution is just not there right now.



Another thought I had is that our normal set should be great for goaline stuff. That should be another advantage to our offense. But, if CPJ sees where this will be better then great. I just don't want to see it cost us a game while we're still figuring it out.



Thoughts

 

[beej67]

I don't like it. Mostly because we line up in it and RUN SIDEWAYS... ...WTF....

If we're going to run power I, we should run STRAIGHT FORWARD.

 

[muscleman2470]

I couldn't understand why AA and Joe didnt just run up the middle to make blocks with JD right behind. Isn't that the easiest way to run that formation? Should have been a TD in two plays or less.

 

[Enuratique]

I totally agree with everything that's been said in this thread.

 

[theDude47]

I didn't see us once run the Power-I set during the UNC game. I saw us run the wishbone a couple of times. It could have just been the angle from where I was sitting.

 

[beej67]

I didn't see us once run the Power-I set during the UNC game. I saw us run the wishbone a couple of times. It could have just been the angle from where I was sitting.

It's a double FB single HB set. Not Wishbone, but not *technically* a power I either. It's not a terrible formation, necessarily.

I just don't get why we line up in it and run SWEEPS. Especially when our base formation is the Flex, which is BUILT to run SWEEPS. Gah. We did the same dumb **** against Clemson.