X and O question: disadvantages of the spread out o-line

[dudenate]

I'm not familiar with what we saw today. The tv guys spoke of its various advantages (running lanes and passing lanes, throws off speedy d-ends, etc)... My question is what are it's disadvantages? Why isn't it seen more? It seems to fit a drop back or a spread type QB. Thoughts?

 

[sebastian91]

What I don't understand is why you have to line up on them when they are all spread out like that. Why can't you just flood the middle and blow up every play before it even starts? I'm sure there's a reason why, but that was my reaction. There's no point in having DEs lined up outside the hashes against a quick passing offense anyway. They'll never get to the QB in time.

 

[LuCane]

I talked about it in the gameday thread a little. The advantages are only there if:

(1) you have superior guys on the outside who can make plays (or if the plays are "given" b/c the defense plays off/zone)
(2) the defense sticks to its assignments and doesn't attack the gaps.

It's not seen more because you're likely to get your QB killed and plays blown up sooner or later when the defense adjusts, attacks the A and B gaps with violence, and presses outside. Everything gets thrown out of rhythm.

This isn't a "new" thing or something that lacks "film" (or history), which is something that was weird that the announcers alluded to. The 3' to 5' splits were historically used by wing and option teams trying to get advantages on their angles, make passing lanes a little clearer, making the zone reads easier for QBs and to mitigate the edge pass rush.

In the HS game, I've seen defenses take the very practical approach of slanting hard and/or placing LBs inside to blitz A gaps. In college, take a look at what teams try to do against Leach's Texas Tech teams that sometimes had very wide splits.What that leaves are some matchups in the secondary. However, I'd prefer to take my chances that a QB can consistently find and accurately hit his receiver (who's being covered man to man) while getting assaulted by defenders flying up the middle.

 

[AtrainCane]

we should have just lined up in those wide gaps and tackled the rb on the way to the qb. period

 

[JimmyJohnsonsHair]

What I don't understand is why you have to line up on them when they are all spread out like that. Why can't you just flood the middle and blow up every play before it even starts? I'm sure there's a reason why, but that was my reaction. There's no point in having DEs lined up outside the hashes against a quick passing offense anyway. They'll never get to the QB in time.

I was wondering the same thing. Seems like we played right into their scheme.

 

[motorcitycane]

Monster DT's would rape a scheme like that.
It would become 1 on 1, practice style football.

 

[LuCane]

Monster DT's would rape a scheme like that.
It would become 1 on 1, practice style football.

Depends on what they are asked to do.

 

[skyman]

Which is funny because we played very little press til late and had no pressure up the middle...

 

[Cats3x]

I think major disadvantage is that it makes everything one on one.

 

[dudenate]

I think major disadvantage is that it makes everything one on one.

I can see that. If a D has a dominant defensive lineman (either interior or d-end) it would hurt a system like this.

 

[CaneGang440]

It defiantly limited the pass rush on 3rd down making tyriq have to travel a longer distance to get to the qb

 

[DeadPoets]

You blitz this **** with LBs in the A gap on 3rd and long.
Fvck us

 

[WhatTheHell]

We played it about as gayly as possible.

 

[Bennubird]

I raised the question in another thread about why we didn't attack the A gap to force their QB to speed up his decision making and disrupt their offense when they were in those wide splits. Not doing so seemed like a conservative move on our part. I assumed we were trying to protect a defensive weakness, like not being able to cover the middle of the field with our LBs, but that was just a guess.

We tightened up some in the second half because we started getting more pressure on Wake's QB and forced him to rush throws.

I talked about it in the gameday thread a little. The advantages are only there if:

(1) you have superior guys on the outside who can make plays (or if the plays are "given" b/c the defense plays off/zone)
(2) the defense sticks to its assignments and doesn't attack the gaps.

It's not seen more because you're likely to get your QB killed and plays blown up sooner or later when the defense adjusts, attacks the A and B gaps with violence, and presses outside. Everything gets thrown out of rhythm.

This isn't a "new" thing or something that lacks "film" (or history), which is something that was weird that the announcers alluded to. The 3' to 5' splits were historically used by wing and option teams trying to get advantages on their angles, make passing lanes a little clearer, making the zone reads easier for QBs and to mitigate the edge pass rush.

In the HS game, I've seen defenses take the very practical approach of slanting hard and/or placing LBs inside to blitz A gaps. In college, take a look at what teams try to do against Leach's Texas Tech teams that sometimes had very wide splits.What that leaves are some matchups in the secondary. However, I'd prefer to take my chances that a QB can consistently find and accurately hit his receiver (who's being covered man to man) while getting assaulted by defenders flying up the middle.