How's this for an Ogre package... - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: How's this for an Ogre package... (/thread-16236.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: How's this for an Ogre package... (/thread-16236.html)
How's this for an Ogre package... - Langdude - 08-04-2018
Left Left Tackle: Walker Little
Left Tackle: Foster Sarell (or he swings over to the right if they go unbalanced)
Left Guard: Nate HeBIG
Center: Jesse Burkett
Right Guard: Brandon Fanaika
Right Tackle: Devery Hamilton
Right Right Tackle: A.T. Hall
TE: Kaden Smith
Ogre: Nick Wilson
QB: K.J. Costello
RB: Bryce Love
Imagine a defensive coordinator scheming against that.
-m.
RE: How's this for an Ogre package... - qwerty49 - 08-04-2018
LOL I love it. But which of the OL is the 4th man in backfield and eligible to catch the TD pass?
RE: How's this for an Ogre package... - PVTree - 08-05-2018
(08-04-2018, 11:13 PM)Langdude Wrote: Left Left Tackle: Walker Little
Left Tackle: Foster Sarell (or he swings over to the right if they go unbalanced)
Left Guard: Nate HeBIG
Center: Jesse Burkett
Right Guard: Brandon Fanaika
Right Tackle: Devery Hamilton
Right Right Tackle: A.T. Hall
TE: Kaden Smith
Ogre: Nick Wilson
QB: K.J. Costello
RB: Bryce Love
Imagine a defensive coordinator scheming against that.
-m.
Switch Costello for Houston Heimuli and go WildLove on the defense. They'll know what's coming, but will they be able to stop it?
On really short yardage needed, even switching Scarlett for Bryce will bring nightmares to opposing DCs.
RE: How's this for an Ogre package... - qwerty49 - 08-05-2018
The only way Ogre has been stopped in the past has been by a fast edge defender getting the ball carrier from the side before he reaches the LOS.
I think our scheme is designed to take out one of the edge defenders, but not both, and when the D had two guys rushing hard from the edge the real battle began if the hole was slow to develop.
Gaffney had the brute strength to carry the tackler forward and make the yardage in those cases. CMac and Bryce didn’t.
RE: How's this for an Ogre package... - SamuelMcF - 08-05-2018
(08-05-2018, 07:18 AM)qwerty49 Wrote: Gaffney had the brute strength to carry the tackler forward and make the yardage in those cases. CMac and Bryce didn’t.
Wright and Scarlett were our short-yardage backs for precisely that reason.
RE: How's this for an Ogre package... - qwerty49 - 08-05-2018
(08-05-2018, 10:10 AM)SamuelMcF Wrote:(08-05-2018, 07:18 AM)qwerty49 Wrote: Gaffney had the brute strength to carry the tackler forward and make the yardage in those cases. CMac and Bryce didn’t.
Wright and Scarlett were our short-yardage backs for precisely that reason.
Well duh! I was ahead of that. I remember when we ran Ogre's predecessor, Power, all the time and not just on 3rd or 4th and short. I would love to see us run the Super-Inflated version of Ogre described in this thread on 1st down, and I don't particularly want Bryce sitting on the bench when that happens.
RE: How's this for an Ogre package... - CTcard - 08-05-2018
(08-05-2018, 07:58 PM)qwerty49 Wrote: I remember when we ran Ogre's predecessor, Power, all the time and not just on 3rd or 4th and short. I would love to see us run the Super-Inflated version of Ogre described in this thread on 1st down, and I don't particularly want Bryce sitting on the bench when that happens.
I suspect you'll get your wish, at least almost.
We ran Ogre quite often on first and second down last year; at least in the sense of having Nick Wilson (and sometimes Foster Sarell) in as an Ogre back/HB/Lineman. However, the usual personnel packages in these early down versions were not quite as large as that listed above as we typically had a FB in (Marx) and more often two TEs than two extra OLs.
Here is a very fun video of all of Love's TD runs last year.
All Love TDs
Without counting, I'd say that about half of these had Wilson in as the Ogre and half of those had no wideouts.
Given our expected maturation of several young OLs and the desire to utilize Love, I certainly don't see that going away. But not quite sure if we'll actually see 8 OL on the field on an early down.
RE: How's this for an Ogre package... - bl82 - 08-05-2018
I’d rather have Kaden and Colby in there to at least have the defense have to consider the possibility of play action. Of course we’d have to pass once in a blue moon to make this a credible threat...
RE: How's this for an Ogre package... - winflop - 08-06-2018
It won't happen but I'd love to see us run Heavy Heavy Jumbo for the entire first series against SDSU and DARE them to stop it. I predice a TD drive of about 12 plays, averaging 5-6 ypc.
No need for Kaden or Colby. Tell them we are running the ball between the tackles and dare them to stop it.
RE: How's this for an Ogre package... - Goose - 08-06-2018
(08-06-2018, 01:50 PM)winflop Wrote: It won't happen but I'd love to see us run Heavy Heavy Jumbo for the entire first series against SDSU and DARE them to stop it. I predice a TD drive of about 12 plays, averaging 5-6 ypc.It would be fun to watch. However, that approach would have to be used with Scarlett. Having Love run the ball 12 straight times for 5 to 6 yards per play may get him dinged up. Not worth the risk. Besides, if he breaks one, we don't get our 12 play drive.
No need for Kaden or Colby. Tell them we are running the ball between the tackles and dare them to stop it.
It was great to see Stanford do this against C.al last year, although we weren't strictly "Jumbo" all the time. We told them what was going to happen, and it did. SDSU may not be so easy to do this with. Their somewhat unusual defense often puts a player where you don't expect one to be. That messes up our blocking assignments.
RE: How's this for an Ogre package... - winflop - 08-06-2018
(08-06-2018, 02:21 PM)Goose Wrote:(08-06-2018, 01:50 PM)winflop Wrote: It won't happen but I'd love to see us run Heavy Heavy Jumbo for the entire first series against SDSU and DARE them to stop it. I predice a TD drive of about 12 plays, averaging 5-6 ypc.It would be fun to watch. However, that approach would have to be used with Scarlett. Having Love run the ball 12 straight times for 5 to 6 yards per play may get him dinged up. Not worth the risk. Besides, if he breaks one, we don't get our 12 play drive.
No need for Kaden or Colby. Tell them we are running the ball between the tackles and dare them to stop it.
It was great to see Stanford do this against C.al last year, although we weren't strictly "Jumbo" all the time. We told them what was going to happen, and it did. SDSU may not be so easy to do this with. Their somewhat unusual defense often puts a player where you don't expect one to be. That messes up our blocking assignments.
I'd be OK with Scarlett back there. The point is to show them exactly what we are going to do and them not being able to do anything about it. I don't care who they put in what gap - they will have to find a hole in a 3,000+ lb wall of muscle
RE: How's this for an Ogre package... - PVTree - 08-06-2018
(08-05-2018, 09:29 PM)CTcard Wrote:(08-05-2018, 07:58 PM)qwerty49 Wrote: I remember when we ran Ogre's predecessor, Power, all the time and not just on 3rd or 4th and short. I would love to see us run the Super-Inflated version of Ogre described in this thread on 1st down, and I don't particularly want Bryce sitting on the bench when that happens.
I suspect you'll get your wish, at least almost.
We ran Ogre quite often on first and second down last year; at least in the sense of having Nick Wilson (and sometimes Foster Sarell) in as an Ogre back/HB/Lineman. However, the usual personnel packages in these early down versions were not quite as large as that listed above as we typically had a FB in (Marx) and more often two TEs than two extra OLs.
Here is a very fun video of all of Love's TD runs last year.
All Love TDs
Without counting, I'd say that about half of these had Wilson in as the Ogre and half of those had no wideouts.
Given our expected maturation of several young OLs and the desire to utilize Love, I certainly don't see that going away. But not quite sure if we'll actually see 8 OL on the field on an early down.
Out of the 19, I only counted 3 TDs that were Bryce did not stay on his feet all through the end zone (tackled as he scored). Once against Washington and twice against TCU.
RE: How's this for an Ogre package... - CTcard - 08-07-2018
(08-06-2018, 02:21 PM)Goose Wrote:(08-06-2018, 01:50 PM)winflop Wrote: It won't happen but I'd love to see us run Heavy Heavy Jumbo for the entire first series against SDSU and DARE them to stop it. I predice a TD drive of about 12 plays, averaging 5-6 ypc.It would be fun to watch. However, that approach would have to be used with Scarlett. Having Love run the ball 12 straight times for 5 to 6 yards per play may get him dinged up. Not worth the risk. Besides, if he breaks one, we don't get our 12 play drive.
No need for Kaden or Colby. Tell them we are running the ball between the tackles and dare them to stop it.
That latter part is the real reason we'd have to do this with Scarlett or Speights. By the time we'd made it to 6 straight Love runs he'd either have broken one for a TD or we've punted.
More broadly, I am amused that suddenly more Ogre with fewer play-maker options is being called for on a fan board. For years, the extra OL formations were one of the main message board complaints, often made specific by decrying the lack of other options to be exploited to fool defenses.
RE: How's this for an Ogre package... - Goose - 08-07-2018
(08-07-2018, 09:15 AM)CTcard Wrote: More broadly, I am amused that suddenly more Ogre with fewer play-maker options is being called for on a fan board. For years, the extra OL formations were one of the main message board complaints, often made specific by decrying the lack of other options to be exploited to fool defenses.Oh, just wait a bit. I am sure you will hear the complaints as well. Consistency isn't a hallmark of internet discourse. The Cardboard is probably better than most, but even here disparate points of view are often presented, sometimes by the same source. As long you are amused rather than annoyed, it is a win.
RE: How's this for an Ogre package... - Langdude - 08-07-2018
(08-07-2018, 09:15 AM)CTcard Wrote: More broadly, I am amused that suddenly more Ogre with fewer play-maker options is being called for on a fan board. For years, the extra OL formations were one of the main message board complaints, often made specific by decrying the lack of other options to be exploited to fool defenses.
Let me provide you with more amusement, then. The extra OL formations used by Harbaugh were because we lacked "skill" players, and sought to strategically exploit one of three things: 1) sometimes we had better OL-men than the opponent's DL-men, 2) sometimes the opposing defenses were not experienced or equipped against such formations, and 3) sometimes we needed to run clock, and the other side knew that. In other words, given our personnel and theirs, it was the best play call option, at least if in the mix with other more traditional sets.
However, I think now it is different. We have - arguably, anyway - never had such a deep OL. This formation exploits that fact. So, this formation, IMHO, gets a significant number "play-makers," to use your term, on the field at once, no less than traditional sets.
-m.
RE: How's this for an Ogre package... - CTcard - 08-07-2018
(08-07-2018, 11:36 AM)Langdude Wrote:(08-07-2018, 09:15 AM)CTcard Wrote: More broadly, I am amused that suddenly more Ogre with fewer play-maker options is being called for on a fan board. For years, the extra OL formations were one of the main message board complaints, often made specific by decrying the lack of other options to be exploited to fool defenses.
Let me provide you with more amusement, then. The extra OL formations used by Harbaugh were because we lacked "skill" players, and sought to strategically exploit one of three things: 1) sometimes we had better OL-men than the opponent's DL-men, 2) sometimes the opposing defenses were not experienced or equipped against such formations, and 3) sometimes we needed to run clock, and the other side knew that. In other words, given our personnel and theirs, it was the best play call option, at least if in the mix with other more traditional sets.
However, I think now it is different. We have - arguably, anyway - never had such a deep OL. This formation exploits that fact. So, this formation, IMHO, gets a significant number "play-makers," to use your term, on the field at once, no less than traditional sets.
-m.
First of all, my apologies. It seems my use of "amused" came across as pejorative. It wasn't meant as an insult, but I am … interested(?) in the evolving views of our various extra-OL formations.
In my post, "play-maker" was used to indicate people who would handle the ball in moving it down the field, not in the sense of a player who is particularly good - a difference maker. So, RBs, WRs, and TEs. Perhaps I should have used "ball-handlers". No matter how good a player Walker Little is or becomes, he isn't going to be running downfield with the ball outside of a trick play.
More ball-handlers means that a particular formation has more options for plays. That's one way to attack a defense. Another way is to bring superior numbers or superior ability to the point of attack. That has often been Stanford's approach under both Harbaugh and Shaw - which is the point of having so many formations and personnel packages. If you can run five-wide empty backfield sets, traditional I-formation, 7/8-heavy run formations, etc.; almost every defense will have trouble matching up with at least one of those options. The heavy sets are particularly useful when you have a back like Love; bringing everyone up to the line of scrimmage means that a single decisive blocking win could mean breaking for a TD.
Like Goose, I suspect we will have times during the season that we'll read complaints about using too many heavy set formations, and these will morph to comments about Shaw's stubbornness. However, at the moment it looks to me as if these heavy formations play to a lot of Stanford's current personnel strengths and should be generally effective (though they do have to worry about cutting off the crashing rusher from off the edge which occasionally caused trouble last year).
RE: How's this for an Ogre package... - Goose - 08-07-2018
(08-07-2018, 12:24 PM)CTcard Wrote: Like Goose, I suspect we will have times during the season that we'll read complaints about using too many heavy set formations, and these will morph to comments about Shaw's stubbornness. However, at the moment it looks to me as if these heavy formations play to a lot of Stanford's current personnel strengths and should be generally effective (though they do have to worry about cutting off the crashing rusher from off the edge which occasionally caused trouble last year).The rush off the edge is a problem. It is more of a problem if you don't want to run inside the guards, i.e. right up the middle. The other problem we had last year was "traffic". Even when you have 3000 lbs of OL, it is hard to get to the LB that is stacked behind the DL. There are too many bodies inside a small space. That is why Love would often get stopped for a 3 yard gain. On fourth and 2, that is great. On first and 10, it may not be. That is also one reason why Oregon under Kelly liked wide line splits. He wanted to get one-on-one with no linebacker support.
No one football formation is a panacea. For every offense, there is a defense. Sometimes, you can find an offensive formation that gives you a big advantage because you execute it better than the other team executes the corresponding defense. However, if you rely on a particular formation or scheme with success, the defenses will eventually catch up with you. It is fun to watch the Ogre when it works. Against some teams, you can probably run it 12 straight times and have good results. Against USC and UW, I suspect not. But, we will make them prove it.
RE: How's this for an Ogre package... - Langdude - 08-07-2018
(08-07-2018, 12:24 PM)CTcard Wrote: First of all, my apologies. It seems my use of "amused" came across as pejorative. It wasn't meant as an insult, but I am … interested(?) in the evolving views of our various extra-OL formations.
In my post, "play-maker" was used to indicate people who would handle the ball in moving it down the field, not in the sense of a player who is particularly good - a difference maker. So, RBs, WRs, and TEs. Perhaps I should have used "ball-handlers". No matter how good a player Walker Little is or becomes, he isn't going to be running downfield with the ball outside of a trick play.
More ball-handlers means that a particular formation has more options for plays. That's one way to attack a defense. Another way is to bring superior numbers or superior ability to the point of attack. That has often been Stanford's approach under both Harbaugh and Shaw - which is the point of having so many formations and personnel packages. If you can run five-wide empty backfield sets, traditional I-formation, 7/8-heavy run formations, etc.; almost every defense will have trouble matching up with at least one of those options. The heavy sets are particularly useful when you have a back like Love; bringing everyone up to the line of scrimmage means that a single decisive blocking win could mean breaking for a TD.
Like Goose, I suspect we will have times during the season that we'll read complaints about using too many heavy set formations, and these will morph to comments about Shaw's stubbornness. However, at the moment it looks to me as if these heavy formations play to a lot of Stanford's current personnel strengths and should be generally effective (though they do have to worry about cutting off the crashing rusher from off the edge which occasionally caused trouble last year).
Oh, no worries. I was just participating in the joshing.
Yeah, we can't run that package every time; we need versatility. But, actually, I think that this formation could provide different options, it's just that most of the options would be different sorts of runs (with possible passes to the TE, Ogre, or RB). There are ways to be creative out of this front; I remember throwing a TD to Dalton out of it, for instance. My point is just that I hope we leverage the fact that we have 8 OL of very high quality, and it'd be good to use them. (And then, of course, use other formations that use our other weapons, including all our WRs and TEs. Lots of weapons.)
-m.
RE: How's this for an Ogre package... - Mick - 08-08-2018
Given Stanford's proclivity to attract very large numbers of very large OLs, is it just a matter of time before Stanford recruits a Jerome Bettis-style running back?
RE: How's this for an Ogre package... - CTcard - 08-08-2018
(08-08-2018, 06:38 AM)Mick Wrote: Given Stanford's proclivity to attract very large numbers of very large OLs, is it just a matter of time before Stanford recruits a Jerome Bettis-style running back?
I think Stanford thought they had that guy with Sione Lund, but he decamped back to Utah.
On their roster, Lund is listed as 6'0'', 250 pounds.
Will be interesting to see how he does at Utah, but he won't get on the field until 2019.
Personally, I don't see any reason why that kind of back would necessarily work better at Stanford than the smaller, faster guys.