|
Post by Sly Fox on Aug 17, 2005 15:00:22 GMT -5
We're clearly not deep enough behind Farrel to have Terrell redshirt. So it would be nice for him to get some snaps in the Concord game. Obviously, he would probably be a little overwhelmed the next few weeks without some game experience should Farrel be injured (heaven forbid).
|
|
|
Post by PAmedic on Aug 17, 2005 21:52:45 GMT -5
if the 1st string QB is that mobile, I certainly hope they utilize the ol' option play. Thats what college football is all about. LOVE THE OPTION, BABY!
|
|
|
Post by jimflamesfan on Aug 17, 2005 22:35:22 GMT -5
I was also at the scrimmage on Saturday, and I do hope Terrell gets to play some at QB.
I know we run a "pro-style" offense, but I would like to see some plays with an option or bootleg. I think it would help our offensive line as well.
BUT, we can't just put Terrell for plays designed for him just to run. We tried that with Travis last year. You have to have him come in for a play or to and throw a short pass or hand-off as well to keep the defense off-balance.
But hopefully they work him in. The other thing that bothered me from last year is only using one tailback near the endzone (we just barely manage to score when we're inside the 10 yard line...we have these slow developing runs from way behind the line of scrimmage). I wish they would convert some big guy into a fullback for plays near the endzone...I know we're short on the O-line, but maybe they could use some backup lineman in short yardage situations near the goaline to bulldoze in.
|
|
|
Post by flamesfan710 on Aug 18, 2005 6:56:06 GMT -5
I should add that I would like to see Terrell run the offense just as much as the next guy. It would be nice that in the midst of that, he had a few plays where he could show off his mobility (like a bootleg or an option)
|
|
|
Post by HarrisburgFlame on Aug 18, 2005 7:10:40 GMT -5
jim:
You are absolutely correct. On the goalline I think you need that lead blocker. I even like the power I and then motioning the back out right or left out of the backfield. This forces the defense to adjust - you set up the opportunity to check them "stemming" when you go motion, you force the secondary to make a check, - just by that simple motion. I hate going single back on the GL - put the lead blocker in there!
|
|
|
Post by HarrisburgFlame on Aug 18, 2005 7:16:51 GMT -5
I like the option as well. The only catch is that you have to dedicate more practicce time than one might think to run it. If you read the option as a true triple option (which I doubt LU would do) You are looking at dedicating about 60% of your practice time to it. If you you looking to run just enough option to keep defenses honest and you're not worried about reading the inside option then you are looking at teaching the Qb to read the OT or DE (inside or outside triple), then you're working on teaching the QB to read the pitch man (DE or a OLB if it's a load option), then you're working with the WR's and TE's on perimeter blocking assignments which change due to alignment and coverage, etc.
I like the option - but be prepared coaches to spend a bunch of time in practice getting it right. I think too many teams dabble in it not knowing what they are trying to get done with it and end up blowing 2 or 3 plays a game messing around with the option. There has to be a certain degree of commitment to the option to be effective. But if you have the personnel to make it work - it may be worth the time investment.
|
|
|
Post by Sly Fox on Aug 18, 2005 7:48:24 GMT -5
The Spread Option, baby. Nobody knows how to stop it in college football right now.
|
|
|
Post by HarrisburgFlame on Aug 18, 2005 7:54:20 GMT -5
If we go to the spread - we would have to dump our entire pro-style package. The spread is an offense all into itself if you want to run it right.
Might be the ticket given Terrell's ability.
|
|
|
Post by PAmedic on Aug 18, 2005 10:44:58 GMT -5
and I think Greiser has the ability to lead block as well- fullback style. He's got the size anyway.
|
|
|
Post by bigsmooth on Aug 18, 2005 11:12:50 GMT -5
whatever happens, it look like we should have an exciting season. i favor a pro-style offense, but whatever our talent is we should adapt if necessary.
|
|
|
Post by flamesfan710 on Aug 18, 2005 21:54:54 GMT -5
now what would REALLY bew a change would be if we went to a West Coast offense...its always a possibility with the up and comers we have
|
|
|
Post by PAmedic on Aug 19, 2005 12:17:24 GMT -5
CCU is having some issues over there too- these reports from Bodoyle on their board:
|
|
|
Post by chris lang on Aug 19, 2005 20:50:34 GMT -5
Just an FYI: More notes and a feature on Brock Farrel to appear in the Saturday f'wrap. Also, just to give you an idea of some of the readers we get to deal with, we get an e-mail today from someone who complains about having too much local coverage in the paper. The kicker: He writes, "why do you cover Liberty football? They suck." Unreal. They are in our town after all.
|
|
|
Post by jimflamesfan on Aug 19, 2005 21:39:41 GMT -5
Well, hopefully we won't "suck" this year.
Anyway, I for one emailed the N&A and told them how much I appreciated the LU coverage.
By the way...when we post articles from Chris, I think we should just post the link, not the story... that way the N&A can know that we are all looking at the advertisments as well. That's just my opinion. Unless Sly wants to keep pasting the advertisments here as well. Ha, ha.
|
|
|
Post by Sly Fox on Aug 20, 2005 1:19:59 GMT -5
I think it is bad form to post the article without giving the link as well. But as long as there is credit given to the source, I don't see any problem in posting the content of the article in a thread. Now if it is premium material, that is a whole other can of worms. But newspaper content is coll as long as a link and credit is given.
I like you sense of humor, jim. Sometimes I can't help myself when I post.
|
|
|
Post by jimflamesfan on Aug 20, 2005 16:23:17 GMT -5
Well, I actually went and bought the paper today just so I could see this new phenomon (I can't spell) with my own eyes.
LU coverage in the N&A!! I'm very happy. I might have to buy it every saturday now.
|
|
|
Post by PAmedic on Aug 24, 2005 6:30:42 GMT -5
So much for the frosh RB sensation(s): Hamilton may start at tailback for LU3 questions:1. is Luck an upgrade from Stokes at TE? 2. what is a Tavarus Dove? 3. we're starting a RS-Frosh at center? at least we're getting good coverage in the fishwrap- thanx Chris!
|
|
|
Post by PAmedic on Sept 1, 2005 6:49:57 GMT -5
According to Chris, Hamilton will be the starting RB. LU opts for Hamilton at running backother good u/d here re: the OL, DBs and TE positions. Figured I'd just post it here so its easier, though the link is above to Chris' story as well.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Lang on Sept 1, 2005 19:27:59 GMT -5
A couple of quick depth chart updates that will be in the Saturday preview:
LG: Chris Luck starts ahead of Stone. He'll move back to TE for UConn once Inge can start. Inge will play some Saturday.
SS: Shane Lancaster moves ahead of Pat thingyerson on the depth chart.
RCB: Chris Green starts for Josh Wallace.
|
|
aLUmnus
Full Member
old school LU
Posts: 192
|
Post by aLUmnus on Sept 2, 2005 12:24:39 GMT -5
Hah! Pat thingyerson.
|
|
|
Post by Sly Fox on Sept 2, 2005 12:32:47 GMT -5
Thanks again for the heads up, Chris.
Is it Saturday yet?
|
|
|
Post by V88 on Sept 3, 2005 10:49:39 GMT -5
While Zach Terrell can run as well as throw, don't look for too many plays designed for him to run this week. If he plays it will be under center in a more conventional offense. Zach never took a snap under center in highschool. Everything was out of the shotgun, so the coaches are still trying to get him comfortable under center. Because of his speed and athleticism you might also see him return a few punts.
|
|
|
Post by Sly Fox on Sept 3, 2005 11:23:48 GMT -5
Thanks for the insight, V88. System QBs, no matter how athletic they may be, often have a tought transition to pro-style offenses. But eventually the staff will begin playcalling to take maximum advantage of their skills.
|
|