What's new
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

Running it out of the gun

Do you like the shotgun based approach?


  • Total voters
    89
  • Poll closed .

SBG

Administrator
Club Member
Junta Member
Given that we only just finished game 1, what is everyone's assessment of our new offensive scheme?

Some here are suggesting that we played a vanilla offense so we would have a better shot against WVU. However, if there is one defense that is used to this formation then that'd be WVU. Hopefully that was the plan and we bring out a lot of different formations and plays, even that dreaded WR sweep everyone loved last year :lol:

While I like the change in schemes, it's frustrating to have 3 different offenses in the past 3 years. I'd prefer some consistency, but as long as we keep winning then I don't really have a leg to stand on. I'm just an armchair quarterback afterall.

I just don't know how this will fare in Big 12 play. Our strength last year was when we could run the ball and utilize the PA pass. While that worked well against CSU, I'm not so sure against a fast defensive line and LB corp. If Cody was evasive as Pat White then this would suit him very well, but he's not. I'd also like to see what Scott could really do with a proper lead block.

For those that were at the practices did you see any other formations?
 
I haven't decided yet after one game but I don't see it being a running game that can average 250 per game.We broke some nice runs but,it just seems to take to long to get past the first wave and too many times they ru a guy around the end and tackle the runner from behind after 2 yds.

I'm concernd that good teams especially texas,will stack the box and just stuff it,putting cu in 2nd and 3rd and longs,not what we want.

But we'll see.
 
Not sure yet. It seems like we had two plays in the running game and not much of an outside running game. I think with guys like Stewart we need to get them in space on the edge. We also need to get the center to quarterback exchange at 100%...too many dropped snaps for my liking. We can't give the other team points because of bad snaps
 
I'd also like to see what Scott could really do with a proper lead block.

I would like to see this too, and I would guess Scott is more used to running out of the I. We did have 150 yards rushing so theres not much to complain about I just hope that translates when we see better defenses.
 
This definately needs more time to see....the line could use some more time to gel as Valdez has been saying, but I did find it a bit concerning especially since we should have very much steamrolled their d-line...hopefully things get better and holes open up, or else I will be one guy screaming for a power I with our running backs and o-line
 
Too early to tell.

The offense has been described as a timed event, where momentary windows of opportunity pop open in a manner that's coordinated with the RB's arrival.

It appeared ineffective at times. The awkward shotgun snaps, followed by awkward handoffs undermined the designed timing of the play. In the second half, when it was on (against an untalented, inexperienced and tired CSU defense) it looked really good.

It may be a matter of minor timing and synchronization at game speed for the running game to really take off. Hope so.
 
Also keep in mind that this is a very popular offense these days. Many of our opponents will be running the same thing. If our defense can practice against it every day, that'll make them better prepared when they see it in a game.
 
Also keep in mind that this is a very popular offense these days. Many of our opponents will be running the same thing. If our defense can practice against it every day, that'll make them better prepared when they see it in a game.

I believe that works two ways...
 
Troo.

But add in a wrinkle here and there, and we can keep opposing defenses honest. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

I'm thinking back to AFA with Beau Morgan running the wishbone. No other team in the country ran it, and despite ample videotape on the scheme, most teams were challenged to defend it. Meanwhile the Air Force defense saw roughly the same offenses week after week, even though their own first team didn't run them.
 
My theory is that Hawk just wanted to perfect that and the no hudle, so he went exclusively there for CSU. It would be funny if we played Eastern Washinton exclusively from under center. Confuse WVU a little, and force to game plan for two different offenses.
 
I'm thinking back to AFA with Beau Morgan running the wishbone. No other team in the country ran it, and despite ample videotape on the scheme, most teams were challenged to defend it. Meanwhile the Air Force defense saw roughly the same offenses week after week, even though their own first team didn't run them.

I was gonna say the same thing, that one of the problems opposing teams had when playing AF was preparing for the triple option.
 
My theory is that Hawk just wanted to perfect that and the no hudle, so he went exclusively there for CSU. It would be funny if we played Eastern Washinton exclusively from under center. Confuse WVU a little, and force to game plan for two different offenses.

Doubt it. All of the drills and practices that we have seen have been run out of the shotgun, no?

I'm willing to give it time, but one play that sticks in my mind is a handoff that DS got and some dude came off the end and just pummeled him for a loss. He had no chance and was lucky he didn't fumble. That sort of thing doesn't really happen in a traditional formation with a lead blocker.
 
Doubt it. All of the drills and practices that we have seen have been run out of the shotgun, no?

I'm willing to give it time, but one play that sticks in my mind is a handoff that DS got and some dude came off the end and just pummeled him for a loss. He had no chance and was lucky he didn't fumble. That sort of thing doesn't really happen in a traditional formation with a lead blocker.

I think I saw that play and I remember seeing a bunch of things broken about it. I think DS didn't expect to get the ball on that play, and the guy that got him came in completely unblocked, which makes me think someone blew their blocking assignment. And running plays out of the shotgun usually have a lead blocker as well, but its either the other running back in a twin RB shotgun, or the tight end in a single back shotgun.
 
..... I'm willing to give it time, but one play that sticks in my mind is a handoff that DS got and some dude came off the end and just pummeled him for a loss. He had no chance and was lucky he didn't fumble. That sort of thing doesn't really happen in a traditional formation with a lead blocker.

I've seen that type of defensive play against the traditional I formation. It's not uncommon for a DC to have the de or olb crash like that.

In the spread/shot gun formation the play to counter that is the zone-read. If the qb sees the de/olb crashing in, he keeps the ball and hits the edge. I saw Cody run that 1 time against the lammies, but it was very effective. I think they should have the qb run that play 3-4 times a game; Cody won't put up Pat White-like numbers, but if he can gain 4-6 yards each time, the defense will have to adjust. That means the handoffs to the rb will have a greater chance for success.
 
Not a big fan of the spread, but as long as it gets the job done.
 
I've seen that type of defensive play against the traditional I formation. It's not uncommon for a DC to have the de or olb crash like that.

In the spread/shot gun formation the play to counter that is the zone-read. If the qb sees the de/olb crashing in, he keeps the ball and hits the edge. I saw Cody run that 1 time against the lammies, but it was very effective. I think they should have the qb run that play 3-4 times a game; Cody won't put up Pat White-like numbers, but if he can gain 4-6 yards each time, the defense will have to adjust. That means the handoffs to the rb will have a greater chance for success.

Any zone read we run should probably be a run-pass read, where cody keeps it and looks to throw instead of taking off. It'll look like a play action.
 
To early... I think we need some time to gel on the 'execution' of the spread for a few weeks.

Its really all about creating a mismatch and I think they can do that with the spread.
 
I am glad to see I am not the only one who has reservations with the new running schemes.

I don't know why. It just didn't seem to click or me. It was doing better in the 4th quarter, but want to see our run game dominate in the 1st quarter as well.
 
The poll closes this upcoming Monday. I'll probably do this poll later in the season to see how everyone's response has changed.
 
I didn't see any spread by CU on Sunday. Did I miss something?

Seems like there was almost always 3WRs and 2 backs or 3WRs, a back and a TE. Often the FB or TE lined up as a lead blocker.

As for running out of the shotgun, I'm not sure how much it affects the running game. Sure it doesn't look like the running game we're all used to, but I just don't see that it's inherently inferior. I've heard some say that it causes hesitation in the RB and he doesn't hit the hole as quickly, but why is that necessarily the case. The RB is still hitting the line from 5 yds back-he just has the ball in his hands earlier. Ironically, it would seem that the shotgun really harms the play action because it makes it harder to fake the handoff.

Anyway, the no huddle is the most important part of the "new" offense and it has nothing to do with the spread or the shotgun. CU could run a power I with no huddle--assuming everyone got the play from the sidelines or an audible. The no huddle means that the D is stuck with the same 11 players for as long as the offense dictates, and that's a good thing.
 
Agreed they need to mix up the shotgun with more I-formation where we can toss the ball outside to our RBs and utilize their speed. It's hard to do that out of the gun all the time. Variety-the spice of life.
 
Also, speedy stewart seems taylor made for this offense where as scott would be better out of the I-formation.

Some swing passes to the rb's would be good to see.

I want to wait until we play WV,fsu amd see how it goes...
 
I didn't see any spread by CU on Sunday. Did I miss something?

Seems like there was almost always 3WRs and 2 backs or 3WRs, a back and a TE. Often the FB or TE lined up as a lead blocker.

As for running out of the shotgun, I'm not sure how much it affects the running game. Sure it doesn't look like the running game we're all used to, but I just don't see that it's inherently inferior. I've heard some say that it causes hesitation in the RB and he doesn't hit the hole as quickly, but why is that necessarily the case. The RB is still hitting the line from 5 yds back-he just has the ball in his hands earlier. Ironically, it would seem that the shotgun really harms the play action because it makes it harder to fake the handoff.

Anyway, the no huddle is the most important part of the "new" offense and it has nothing to do with the spread or the shotgun. CU could run a power I with no huddle--assuming everyone got the play from the sidelines or an audible. The no huddle means that the D is stuck with the same 11 players for as long as the offense dictates, and that's a good thing.

I'm with NYC. I didn't really see any plays that we hadn't run last year. I didn't see a "new" scheme just a whole lot better execution of the same general scheme we had last year. What was noticable was the change in the offensive tempo by doing the no huddle. The CU O was clicking off plays much quicker than the lammie O and it showed in how the lammie D played in the 4th. I think the increase in tempo was also the reason for a lot of CU's penalties (false starts, etc.) and I think they will get much better by games 2 & 3.
 
Any zone read we run should probably be a run-pass read, where cody keeps it and looks to throw instead of taking off. It'll look like a play action.

One thing to consider is the o-line. If it's a run/pass read option (from a zone read with the qb keeping it) the o-line can't cross the LOS, else it's a penalty. Hence, it shouldn't be run as a run/pass read every time.

There should be designed running plays where the qb reads the de/olb (crashing in) and keeps the ball - by design, the guard or tackle "scraps" and then goes forward to seal the inside backer (or safety, whoever is there). The qb running from the zone-read will set up the play action pass, or a run/pass read option play.
 
Back
Top