Wider line splits

[gawntrail]

Would wider line splits help open up running lanes AND passing lanes?

I think wider line splits would benefit us immensely.  At alignment, the defense is already spread out.  The above avg speed of SEC LBs slightly mitigated by the larger territory they would have to cover.  The front seven covering more ground and playing in more space might cause a break down in run fill/gap assignments AND give our OL more time to cause DL to turn creating cutback opportunity(s).

I think it might benefit our 3 step and 5 step passing game too by starting with wider passing lanes to 'peek and throw' through eventually leading to loosening the defense back in to more traditional 7 man boxes and true cover 2 shells.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

No, not with this O-Line and the quicker, faster interior 7's that we face.

[Dominicanhog]

No, not with this O-Line and the quicker, faster interior 7's that we face.

agree.. big boys like ours would have problems getting locked on smaller lineman if we had wider splits....

[sooeey pig pig pig]

We'd get blown up behind the line of scrimmage, with all that space in between the biggest offensive line in football but not exactly the quickest. 

[gawntrail]

No, not with this O-Line and the quicker, faster interior 7's that we face.

I think the speed could be offset with some jetsweep thrown in making them honor the outer edge and build in some more true misdirection causeing them to honor their initial read and run fill.  I think this leads to some behind the backer play action and some front of the backer 5 step.

Deeper threat may be in our future....... just trying to think of what benefits us considering whats on the shelf right now.

[Mike Irwin]

Would wider line splits help open up running lanes AND passing lanes?

Small classification high schools in Texas were doing this back in 50's when I was growing up. It was a way of moving the ball when they didn't have the size in their O-line to move bigger defenders.

I saw some outstanding guards and tackles who weighed in the 140-170 pound range. They used quickness and technique rather than bulk. There was a lot of angle blocking. Double teams and traps coming at the point of attack. A trap blocker is making contact at near full speed with a defender who is stationary. The force generated by smaller moving mass is greater than a larger stationary mass. It's physics, like the damage done by a bullet.

However, as has been pointed out, this is not what you'd want with the kind of bruisers that Bret Bielema likes to put along the offensive front. Wide splits would be completely counterproductive.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

I think the speed could be offset with some jetsweep thrown in making them honor the outer edge and build in some more true misdirection causeing them to honor their initial read and run fill.  I think this leads to some behind the backer play action and some front of the backer 5 step.

Deeper threat may be in our future....... just trying to think of what benefits us considering whats on the shelf right now.

You don't take massive O-Linemen that are a half-step to a step slower than the front seven they face that are increasingly schemed to stop the spread-read, and an O-Line that is designed for a power run game and expect them to cover more distance. That just isn't reality. It is rare when you have a 320-330 lb O-Lineman that can out-quick a 290-300 lb. D-Lineman, who are typically better all-round athletes to begin with. Something that you tend to see quite a lot of in the SEC.

Your philosophy might work in the Big 12 or even the Pac 12, but not in the SEC unless you are employing an offense that requires smaller, quicker, faster O-Linemen that can cover that additional distance. Our offensive philosophy doesn't fit what you are suggesting.

[gawntrail]

Just my opinion and why.  nothing more, nothing less.

Many on here talk about us being very close.  So, considering that, and the current personnel, maybe we simply need to tweak a few things. 

[MuskogeeHogFan]

Just my opinion and why.  nothing more, nothing less.

Many on here talk about us being very close.  So, considering that, and the current personnel, maybe we simply need to tweak a few things. 

I think that this staff has things well in hand. If you don't think so, check my thread on the passing games vs. the running games and the great strides and improvements that we have made in just two years.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

Small classification high schools in Texas were doing this back in 50's when I was growing up. It was a way of moving the ball when they didn't have the size in their O-line to move bigger defenders.

I saw some outstanding guards and tackles who weighed in the 140-170 pound range. They used quickness and technique rather than bulk. There was a lot of angle blocking. Double teams and traps coming at the point of attack. A trap blocker is making contact at near full speed with a defender who is stationary. The force generated by smaller moving mass is greater than a larger stationary mass. It's physics, like the damage done by a bullet.

However, as has been pointed out, this is not what you'd want with the kind of bruisers that Bret Bielema likes to put along the offensive front. Wide splits would be completely counterproductive.

I remember those days. It was a timing issue. You didn't need to literally blow the guy up that you were trapping, just get in his way, screen him out and allow the RB to pass quickly behind you. Quick traps, and they worked. But at that time, for the most part, you didn't have the athletes of speed, quickness and size on the D-Line that you have these days. Even in those days, there was an enormous amount of difference between high school and college level talent/competition, but none of that can be even remotely compared to what O-Linemen face today.

[Wildhog]

No, not with this O-Line and the quicker, faster interior 7's that we face.

[Doug]

SMDH.

[gawntrail]

You don't take massive O-Linemen that are a half-step to a step slower than the front seven they face that are increasingly schemed to stop the spread-read, and an O-Line that is designed for a power run game and expect them to cover more distance. That just isn't reality. It is rare when you have a 320-330 lb O-Lineman that can out-quick a 290-300 lb. D-Lineman, who are typically better all-round athletes to begin with. Something that you tend to see quite a lot of in the SEC.

Your philosophy might work in the Big 12 or even the Pac 12, but not in the SEC unless you are employing an offense that requires smaller, quicker, faster O-Linemen that can cover that additional distance. Our offensive philosophy doesn't fit what you are suggesting.

Where are we hanging our hat.  ISO type plays w/full back? inside zone from single back? off tackle with k/o on DE/EMOL type power O?  Weak side? Strong side?

I ask because the box numbers are the issue.  At the line checks based on box numbers can be made more favorable to our wheel house if we can force an alignment conflict. 

[MuskogeeHogFan]

Where are we hanging our hat.  ISO type plays w/full back? inside zone from single back? off tackle with k/o on DE/EMOL type power O?  Weak side? Strong side?

I ask because the box numbers are the issue.  At the line checks based on box numbers can be made more favorable to our wheel house if we can force an alignment conflict. 

I know, you want to be right, but the fact of the matter is, no matter how many scenarios you propose, wider splits are not going to happen. Might as well let it go. This is something that you just aren't going to see unless we find 330 lb.O-Linemen who all run 4.8/4.9 40's and possess the quickness at the snap to cover the ground that you propose. In short, probably not happening.

[gawntrail]

I know, you want to be right, but the fact of the matter is, no matter how many scenarios you propose, wider splits are not going to happen. Might as well let it go. This is something that you just aren't going to see unless we find 330 lb.O-Linemen who all run 4.8/4.9 40's and possess the quickness at the snap to cover the ground that you propose. In short, probably not happening.

So, forget about being right or considering wider line splits.....

Where are we hanging our hat.  ISO type plays w/full back? inside zone from single back? off tackle with k/o on DE/EMOL type power O?  Weak side? Strong side?

These are all different OL schemes and I'm curious considering the type of OL that we have and desire.  If we have and desire big OL that by definition have limited mobility, how do we get up on 2nd level players?  How do we pass block?  Are we a BOB scheme?  Slide?  Fan?

I'm wondering how really big OL with limited mobility will be able to hold blocks long enough for future speedsters to blow the top off and get open?  or let 7 step late developing routes open?

[ricepig]

Have you watched us this year, or last? If you can't tell the type of OL we want and offense we run, then go back and watch again.

[Oklahawg]

I know, you want to be right, but the fact of the matter is, no matter how many scenarios you propose, wider splits are not going to happen. Might as well let it go. This is something that you just aren't going to see unless we find 330 lb.O-Linemen who all run 4.8/4.9 40's and possess the quickness at the snap to cover the ground that you propose. In short, probably not happening.

Why would we abandon a philosophy now? Great post.

[elksnort]

What comes to mind were the wide splits by Lacewell's 80s ASU teams running the wishbone. 

Like what has been said, the wider splits are for quicker lines. 

[Oklahawg]

So, forget about being right or considering wider line splits.....

Where are we hanging our hat.  ISO type plays w/full back? inside zone from single back? off tackle with k/o on DE/EMOL type power O?  Weak side? Strong side?

These are all different OL schemes and I'm curious considering the type of OL that we have and desire.  If we have and desire big OL that by definition have limited mobility, how do we get up on 2nd level players?  How do we pass block?  Are we a BOB scheme?  Slide?  Fan?

I'm wondering how really big OL with limited mobility will be able to hold blocks long enough for future speedsters to blow the top off and get open?  or let 7 step late developing routes open?

Sounds like you found a wiki site with terms and are tossing them around like you know something.

The one thing you are missing in your effort today: the OL splits directly affect everything else. Wider splits requires a mobile QB who may even be a run-first threat. We do not have waifs at WR to run those jet sweeps numerous times a game, guys 5-6 x 150 who get blasted badly if you aren't careful.

[LSPRazorbac]

Would wider line splits help open up running lanes AND passing lanes?

No, our philosophy is more along a tight bunch set.

Think of our offense like a wedge.  We pack blockers into the "wedge" and try to split the defense up the middle.

As defenses try to clog the middle it opens up the outside to tosses, counters, and play action passing.

This is one reason why we throw outs and smash routes so much.

[gawntrail]

Have you watched us this year, or last? If you can't tell the type of OL we want and offense we run, then go back and watch again.

I delete the games from my DVR after I watch them.  From memory I've seen traps, kickout type blocking, and inside zone/'funnel' blocking.  I don't recall seeing full reach zone, or full power O type pulling guard and/or tackle type stuff.

That's why I ask. The three types I can remember are a mesh of different philosophies.

If you've got the games on DVD, I'll snail mail you copy costs and postage and I'll break the film.......... 

[gawntrail]

Sounds like you found a wiki site with terms and are tossing them around like you know something.

The one thing you are missing in your effort today: the OL splits directly affect everything else. Wider splits requires a mobile QB who may even be a run-first threat. We do not have waifs at WR to run those jet sweeps numerous times a game, guys 5-6 x 150 who get blasted badly if you aren't careful.

How do you hitch up in a 5 step or step up in to the pocket on a 7 step if everybody starts/ends up where you are trying to hitch/step up in to?

Jet sweep can be run by 5-10 X 185 pounders too.  I think that's the avg Z type in the SEC right now.  I think they're plenty fast enough to make the defense respect the edge and beyond.

[gawntrail]

No, our philosophy is more along a tight bunch set.

Think of our offense like a wedge.  We pack blockers into the "wedge" and try to split the defense up the middle.

As defenses try to clog the middle it opens up the outside to tosses, counters, and play action passing.

This is one reason why we throw outs and smash routes so much.

Thank you.  This makes sense.  So, we're talking drive blocking and wheel to create gaps or just drive and the back cuts to daylight?  The patience type of running they are teaching sounds more like the latter...........

[hoggusamoungus]

Sounds like you found a wiki site with terms and are tossing them around like you know something.

The one thing you are missing in your effort today: the OL splits directly affect everything else. Wider splits requires a mobile QB who may even be a run-first threat. We do not have waifs at WR to run those jet sweeps numerous times a game, guys 5-6 x 150 who get blasted badly if you aren't careful.

Nah, he's the Sheldon Cooper of football.

[ErieHog]

Where are we hanging our hat.  ISO type plays w/full back? inside zone from single back? off tackle with k/o on DE/EMOL type power O?  Weak side? Strong side?

I ask because the box numbers are the issue.  At the line checks based on box numbers can be made more favorable to our wheel house if we can force an alignment conflict. 

Look at the history of  complaints about running the same core group of plays, throughout the season;   'how many times are we going to run a weak-side toss sweep?'  ; 'The inside wham block isn't moving anyone, it is just clogging up the point of attack';   'how many times are we going to get stuffed on 4th and short in that iso play?';   -- we just aren't that great at establishing our identity successfully yet.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

Thank you.  This makes sense.  So, we're talking drive blocking and wheel to create gaps or just drive and the back cuts to daylight?  The patience type of running they are teaching sounds more like the latter...........

Well good grief, really? That 's what you have been told repeatedly in this thread so far and suddenly you have an "epiphany"? Ha, ha. OK.

[Mike_e]

Interesting how some on this board think that if something isn't working as well as they like  it needs to be fixed.

Our offense doesn't need to be fixed it needs to grow and be polished.  Apples don't grow on seedlings and offensive lines don't get where you want them to be in a year or two.

I don't care how many gazillion stars a kid has coming out of high school it just takes time.

[gawntrail]

Look at the history of  complaints about running the same core group of plays, throughout the season;   'how many times are we going to run a weak-side toss sweep?'  ; 'The inside wham block isn't moving anyone, it is just clogging up the point of attack';   'how many times are we going to get stuffed on 4th and short in that iso play?';   -- we just aren't that great at establishing our identity successfully yet.

not arguing any of what you said.  I've yelled at the TV hundreds of times.....

I'm still wondering what is OUR play?  Is it ISO?  Is it power O?  Is it inside zone?  What is it we want to call out at the line and make the defense stop.... the one thing we then build from?

[gawntrail]

Well good grief, really? That 's what you have been told repeatedly in this thread so far and suddenly you have an "epiphany"? Ha, ha. OK.

If you say so.

[Wayne Watson]

not arguing any of what you said.  I've yelled at the TV hundreds of times.....

I'm still wondering what is OUR play?  Is it ISO?  Is it power O?  Is it inside zone?  What is it we want to call out at the line and make the defense stop.... the one thing from which we build?

FIFY

Never end a statement with a preposition.

Thanks.

[gawntrail]

FIFY

Never end a statement with a preposition.

Thanks.

Thank you.  Catholic School primary.....SoCal public secondary.

[Oklahawg]

Thank you.  Catholic School primary.....SoCal public secondary.

Dude! A surfer boy?

[Oklahawg]

Interesting how some on this board think that if something isn't working as well as they like  it needs to be fixed.

Our offense doesn't need to be fixed it needs to grow and be polished.  Apples don't grow on seedlings and offensive lines don't get where you want them to be in a year or two.

I don't care how many gazillion stars a kid has coming out of high school it just takes time.

Fine post.

[gawntrail]

Dude! A surfer boy?

Balboa Blvd and 17th St in Newport Beach.  Best Friend's grandparents house.  Lots of time spent on those waves.  Lived 65 miles inland until 2009.  Don't miss anything about SoCal except the late afternoon sets and the early morning sessions before the tourists showed. 

[Oklahawg]

I've posted several times: too many posters see the same set over and over, and they see the RB getting the ball in the same basic spot. They then think, "gosh, the same play again?"

Two things:
1. remember 8th grade football? Same (darned) play over and over and over? The logic still applies - if we are perfect at a play we can run it successfully several times a game (ie, a solid "success" percentage, including some "big" plays).
2. we have multiple blocking schemes for the same (apparent) play. My favorite to illustrate is three TE/WR bunch on one side, ISO into the strong side of the LOS. We run each of three TE/WR in the bunch to a number of different blocking destinations. We block with two, decoy with one. We block with one, decoy with two. We bring one across the formation. We send them wide (stretch play?). Tons of options.

But you have to look for those options. You have to understand how one play sets up others. They will use a sequence of plays that are designed to spring the 4th or 5th in the sequence.

Too many fans see plays as a game of checkers, when it is a game of chess.

[Oklahawg]

Balboa Blvd and 17th St in Newport Beach.  Best Friend's grandparents house.  Lots of time spent on those waves.  Lived 65 miles inland until 2009.  Don't miss anything about SoCal except the late afternoon sets and the early morning sessions before the tourists showed. 

Nice. Since it is day 46 with clouds and no sun I would love that experience. (Gym was crowded this afternoon, too, so that is a bonus!)

[gawntrail]

I've posted several times: too many posters see the same set over and over, and they see the RB getting the ball in the same basic spot. They then think, "gosh, the same play again?"

Two things:
1. remember 8th grade football? Same (darned) play over and over and over? The logic still applies - if we are perfect at a play we can run it successfully several times a game (ie, a solid "success" percentage, including some "big" plays).
2. we have multiple blocking schemes for the same (apparent) play. My favorite to illustrate is three TE/WR bunch on one side, ISO into the strong side of the LOS. We run each of three TE/WR in the bunch to a number of different blocking destinations. We block with two, decoy with one. We block with one, decoy with two. We bring one across the formation. We send them wide (stretch play?). Tons of options.

But you have to look for those options. You have to understand how one play sets up others. They will use a sequence of plays that are designed to spring the 4th or 5th in the sequence.

Too many fans see plays as a game of checkers, when it is a game of chess.

Sounds like Wing-T.  Trap/Power/Counter/Waggle series philosophy.

So, Inside Zone is the centerpiece?  A NE Patriot type of single back power stuff.

[hawgfan4life]

Well now, I am throughly impressed with your ability to throw out football jargon with a little bit of knowledge about what some of it means.  As others alluded, and I have said many times in various threads.  Great teams don't do a whole lot of stuff.  They run a handfull of plays out of the same formations and they are as predictable as can be running the play.  The problem is stopping the darn thing.  Crappy teams generally run a whole lot of stuff, aren't good at any of it, and it doesn't matter if they are predictable or not because they will usually do something stupid to stop their own drives and beat themselves.

Watched Air Force beat a decent directional Michigan team last night.  They run the same stuff over and over.  Made one simple blocking adjustment to a play and ran all over them the entire second half.  Navy and Georgia Tech are the same way on offense.  I love watching them teams play.  I could care less about a pass when I am watching execution of a good running game.

AR does not have the personnel to run wide splits and if you are proposing a jet sweep scheme, you are proposing an entire package which will include a change of personnel, plays, and philosophy to what we are doing.  Sounds like a recipe for becoming a crappy team.

[Tyro3]

Sounds like Wing-T.  Trap/Power/Counter/Waggle series philosophy.

So, Inside Zone is the centerpiece?  A NE Patriot type of single back power stuff.

Jargonism? is that a word?

[Hoggish1]

Would wider line splits help open up running lanes AND passing lanes?

I think wider line splits would benefit us immensely.  At alignment, the defense is already spread out.  The above avg speed of SEC LBs slightly mitigated by the larger territory they would have to cover.  The front seven covering more ground and playing in more space might cause a break down in run fill/gap assignments AND give our OL more time to cause DL to turn creating cutback opportunity(s).

I think it might benefit our 3 step and 5 step passing game too by starting with wider passing lanes to 'peek and throw' through eventually leading to loosening the defense back in to more traditional 7 man boxes and true cover 2 shells.

Have you taken this up with Pittman?

[LSPRazorbac]

Have you taken this up with Pittman?

Is discussing football and Razorbacks frowned on Monday Morning QB now?

Or do we just sit around and post how great the football team is now?


Nothing wrong with the poster starting a little discussion.

[Hoggish1]

Is discussing football and Razorbacks frowned on Monday Morning QB now?

Or do we just sit around and post how great the football team is now?


Nothing wrong with the poster starting a little discussion.

We are not athletic enough to widen the splits, right now.  Maybe this will come in the future.  I think Wallace is athletic enough, but, right now we are not a spread team... 

My answer was smart ass. so I apologize.

[tophawg19]

the main issue with wide splits , is that LB'S would be shooting the gaps and disrupting the plays . especially quick LB's who are fat enough to time snaps

[Razorbacker79]

Jargonism? is that a word?

You're thinking of Jargonology.  It's Scientology's little brother. 

[gawntrail]

We are not athletic enough to widen the splits, right now.  Maybe this will come in the future.  I think Wallace is athletic enough, but, right now we are not a spread team... 

I don't know if Coach B would ever wrap his head around a zone read true QB threat type of offense.  I understand his philosophy and why.  I'm sold on his trying to mano y mano the big boys on the block.  What I'm not quite sold on is being able to consistently recruit the biggest OL to Arkansas.  Not that I'm down on his recruiting either.  I hear he is a great closer and parents love him.  My doubt is this.  Can we get these kids to leave FL, LA, TX, MS, and other more populous states (with multiple P5 schools in them) and come to AR.......

I love it here.  But, my reason for transplanting is different from an 18 yr old with 10 + real offers to choose from.  We're year 2 in to this.  Now granted, people say we have studs on the way.  Great.  But, when does the glow of what might be possible wear off?  When does possible 10 win seasons at AR get trumped by probable 10+ wins at Alabama? FSU? TX? OU? And the probable 9+ wins @ Auburn? FL? GA?

You probably get my point.  My criticism is because I think our window for breaking into the upper tier of our division (and by default the SEC and the country) is very narrow.  I think year 3 is make or break.  Maybe a great year buys us 1 more.  But, if we don't, then how are we going to convince those kids that have those probable 9 and 10 win schools offering them to pass and come here?  The kids we need to mano y mano Alabama, LSU, Georgia, etc.... 

[Pudgepork]

I agree with you that year 3 is very important.  This staff has given us a taste of
improvement and it's very important that the trend continues into next year.  Because of the 2 important SEC wins late in the season, wins are to be expected next season but I don't think Coach B's hot seat is plugged in.   Without the two SEC wins, the seat would be like a sweat box waiting for him.

Those wide splits would mean open season on the qb on any passing play.

[TheRazorback500]

This has been one of the most entertaining, informative threads I've read in a long time.

Wider line splits won't work IMO.

Doug, I rolled out of my chair when I saw your post.

:razorback:

[Rison Razor Hog]

I don't know if Coach B would ever wrap his head around a zone read true QB threat type of offense.  I understand his philosophy and why.  I'm sold on his trying to mano y mano the big boys on the block.  What I'm not quite sold on is being able to consistently recruit the biggest OL to Arkansas.  Not that I'm down on his recruiting either.  I hear he is a great closer and parents love him.  My doubt is this.  Can we get these kids to leave FL, LA, TX, MS, and other more populous states (with multiple P5 schools in them) and come to AR.......

I love it here.  But, my reason for transplanting is different from an 18 yr old with 10 + real offers to choose from.  We're year 2 in to this.  Now granted, people say we have studs on the way.  Great.  But, when does the glow of what might be possible wear off?  When does possible 10 win seasons at AR get trumped by probable 10+ wins at Alabama? FSU? TX? OU? And the probable 9+ wins @ Auburn? FL? GA?

You probably get my point.  My criticism is because I think our window for breaking into the upper tier of our division (and by default the SEC and the country) is very narrow.  I think year 3 is make or break.  Maybe a great year buys us 1 more.  But, if we don't, then how are we going to convince those kids that have those probable 9 and 10 win schools offering them to pass and come here?  The kids we need to mano y mano Alabama, LSU, Georgia, etc....

Well, if (I gather, according to you) we aren't getting there right now, how on earth did we get Alex Collins two years ago when Arkansas was at its nadir? How did we get the 5 and 4 star recruits to commit here in the last two years when we have had a historic ebb in our program? If Coach Bielema and staff can get them here after the 2012 and 2013 seasons, surely they can get them here moving forward. I, certainly, can't promise that, but what do you think, these guys are suddenly going to say "There is no future in the Razorbacks, so forget about it!"?

I don't know why we are worried about it anyway, it's not like our concerns will change the coaching staff. The players, though, do read here and they are impressionable, and maybe your (or other guys) negativity does affect them. I can't know, swear or affirm that is the case, but why be negative about the current state of the program when John Long isn't making retention decisions based on Hogville board chatter and Coach Bielema isn't making redshirt, recruiting or playing time decisions based on some anonymous posters' critique from Hogville.

I know your (and others) response is that its a message board designed for MMQB'ing any and all decisions, but I think you want to be negative for agenda driven reasons and those agendas aren't actually important or even operative, so please help us enjoy life a little more by being a little less negative. Sometimes I wonder if you guys are even really Hogs fans...

My .02, end of a mini rant, sorry.

[Piggfoot]

I'm not so sure I agree with all these opinions about us not being able to align in wider splits because of the lack of apparent speed in our line.
I played on one of those lower classification teams. We were slow white boys on a single wing team with a rollout passing option. Our splits were two arm lengths wide. We would stand straight up and extend our arms straight out from our sides to obtain our splits.
Being slow of foot in the forty does not necessarily translate to lack of quickness. Additionally we are talking about a race of one or two yards when the offense knows the snap count. In any system the objective is to beat your opponent across the line. We employed various techniques, cross blocking, double team and traps using pulling guards and a player called a blocking back. The actual blocking assignment depended on the defensive alignment and position of the lineman relative to your body center. Was he inside, outside, straight up. Each position required a different assignment depending on the gap atrack.
It required teamwork and intelligence. There was no zone blocking.




   
   
   

[choppedporkextrasauce]

What comes to mind were the wide splits by Lacewell's 80s ASU teams running the wishbone. 

Like what has been said, the wider splits are for quicker lines.

Or Hatfields teams.