What Offense/Defense do we run?

[CRScyclone]

Could someone provide a detailed description of what type of Offence and Defense the Cyclone football team is currently running? Or provide a link to one that has already been completed? I would like to learn more about the cyclones playbook and other teams that are currently running a system that we are trying to get to.

Thanks.

 

[Tedcyclone]

Could someone provide a detailed description of what type of Offence and Defense the Cyclone football team is currently running? Or provide a link to one that has already been completed? I would like to learn more about the cyclones playbook and other teams that are currently running a system that we are trying to get to.

Thanks.

well offense has pretty much been a zone read offense... similar to oregon - the speed. i wish we utilized a full back with it, and switched it up, but we dont.

defense has been pretty standard as far as how they line up.. 4 dlineman, 3 line backers, 2 safeties, and a corner.. so 4-3 base... however d cord has been more apt to switch it up to match team wer are playing.. went 3 down lineman vs Missou this year which worked out perfectly. Nickle, 4-3, and Burnam has shown ability to change per game.

 

[LonoClone]

well offense has pretty much been a zone read offense... similar to oregon - the speed. i wish we utilized a full back with it, and switched it up, but we dont.

defense has been pretty standard as far as how they line up.. 4 dlineman, 3 line backers, 2 safeties, and a corner.. so 4-3 base... however d cord has been more apt to switch it up to match team wer are playing.. went 3 down lineman vs Missou this year which worked out perfectly. Nickle, 4-3, and Burnam has shown ability to change per game.

well, that explains why we gave up so many points. Our D was only playing with 10 guys!

 

[d4nim4l]

Offense: Shotgun-based spread that is primarily run first (so not air raid). Has some characteristics of a power game by using a TE in an H-back role that can run and block. Typically a three wide receiver set.

Defense: Primarily 4-3 but exhibits characteristics of a 4-2-5 Nickel base when facing spread teams. Ter'ran Benton fills the hybrid LB/CB role.

 

[jay moe]

I would say we are a base 4-3 defense and we are a shotgun multiple set spread offense.

 

[clonedude]

Could someone provide a detailed description of what type of Offence and Defense the Cyclone football team is currently running? Or provide a link to one that has already been completed? I would like to learn more about the cyclones playbook and other teams that are currently running a system that we are trying to get to.

Thanks.

Defense is easy... a 4-3. But in certain passing situations, we will go to more of a 4-2-5.

Offense... I'm not sure what we do? I have not seen another team like us. Sure there are other teams that run a no-huddle "spread" offense, but most are MUCH more diverse than ours. Our offense is way too vanilla for my liking. Which is why I also find it difficult to understand why it supposedly takes several years for players to fully grasp it?

We don't run any misdirection whatsoever. Also, our QB runs the zone option read on virtually every running play, but only has two options... hand it off... or keep it... and that's it. If you watch Oregon at all, their QB has about 4 options. He can hand it off to the RB up the middle, then he also usually has a scat back slot WR type guy that has gone in motion and now is running with the QB that he can pitch it to, or he can keep it himself, and finally I've also seen Oregon pass out of this kind of play as well.

Auburn's offense is a lot more complex than ours as well IMO. I really don't think our offense would be that hard to stop. We don't even make the DE's play honest football. We don't take advantage over the middle when LB's blitz us either. You rarely see our offense fake out the defense. It's pretty vanilla really. The most vanilla you could be for the offensive system we run. I sure hope it becomes more complex. I want to see what guys like Nealy, West, and Lampkin can do with the ball in their hands in space.... and not just on WR screens either. Some reverses, and option pitches too!

 

[AIBClone]

In the OU game, we didnt run a defense.

 

[mtowncyclone]

i think we should run a version of oregon's offense. a veer zone read spread offense, with a fast tempo. running the offense in practice against our d would condition them to face the uptempo offenses we'll face. but before that we need to get better players:twitcy:

 

[Tre4ISU]

We do things very differently than Oregon. Running wise we run some read option but typically we will read DE's where Oregon runs a lot of midline stuff isolating interior lineman. You need a little more talent in the backfield to do what they do, IMO. We run some straight running plays, which I see us going more to depending on talent. AA was probably a stronger runner than passer so I think we had to lean that way more. We also didn't have the quick, prototypical get to throw the short passes as an extension of the running game like I think we would like to do. Hopefully, Nealy, Gary, West, etc. help us out there. As far as a comparison, I think we would like to be a little more like a Miami or the current (not RichRod) West Virginia team where your QB is there to pass and the RB's do multiple things and there are a bunch of different skillsets at both RB and receiver.

Defense is pretty basic. Some 4-3 with the occasional nickel. We did see Wally deploy a 3 man front in the Mizzou game which was really effective. The problem there becomes that we don't have big D-ends. You need a little bigger D-ends to consistently pull that off. I see the defense as being very flexible to personnel and the team we are playing.

 

[Tre4ISU]

Defense is easy... a 4-3. But in certain passing situations, we will go to more of a 4-2-5.

Offense... I'm not sure what we do? I have not seen another team like us. Sure there are other teams that run a no-huddle "spread" offense, but most are MUCH more diverse than ours. Our offense is way too vanilla for my liking. Which is why I also find it difficult to understand why it supposedly takes several years for players to fully grasp it?

We don't run any misdirection whatsoever. Also, our QB runs the zone option read on virtually every running play, but only has two options... hand it off... or keep it... and that's it. If you watch Oregon at all, their QB has about 4 options. He can hand it off to the RB up the middle, then he also usually has a scat back slot WR type guy that has gone in motion and now is running with the QB that he can pitch it to, or he can keep it himself, and finally I've also seen Oregon pass out of this kind of play as well.

Auburn's offense is a lot more complex than ours as well IMO. I really don't think our offense would be that hard to stop. We don't even make the DE's play honest football. We don't take advantage over the middle when LB's blitz us either. You rarely see our offense fake out the defense. It's pretty vanilla really. The most vanilla you could be for the offensive system we run. I sure hope it becomes more complex. I want to see what guys like Nealy, West, and Lampkin can do with the ball in their hands in space.... and not just on WR screens either. Some reverses, and option pitches too!

So you like chocolate I take it?

In Herman's defense, he didn't have the WR personnel to be like Oregon. Auburns offense is also not much more complicated than ours. I do wish we used more motion and a little more misdirection but if we could execute what we have been doing it would be fine.

 

[Ace000087]

So you like chocolate I take it?

In Herman's defense, he didn't have the WR personnel to be like Oregon. Auburns offense is also not much more complicated than ours. I do wish we used more motion and a little more misdirection but if we could execute what we have been doing it would be fine.

Iowa State has the exact same offensive playbook as Rice (Herman). ISU just ran the ball more out of the zone read since it suited our teams strenghts better. It's not a long shot to think ISU could be more pass happy, but the play book also has a lot of QB running plays and play action.

 

[CyKrog]

In the OU game, we didnt run a defense.

or an offense!

 

[jsmith86]

or an offense!

But our kicking game was amazing....errr....make that our punting game.

 

[jsmith86]

As far as a detailed description, let me give this a try. Run ARob, Run AA, Pass to Franklin.


On defense, I don't care what we do as long as it stops the other team from scoring. What I would like to see though is a return to the turnover and scoring defense that we had back in 05.

 

[Tedcyclone]

well, that explains why we gave up so many points. Our D was only playing with 10 guys!

good one.. thanks.

 

[besserheimerphat]

Auburn's offense is a lot more complex than ours as well IMO.

According to Gus Malzahn, it is simple. Four running plays and six passing plays. From Rivals:

Malzahn had no coaching tree pedigree, so he learned by watching high school coaches, particularly Arkansas legend Barry Lunney Sr. As a third-year coach at Hughes High School, Malzahn had between 200 and 300 plays. Lunney advised him to pick three or four, get them to where the players could run them perfectly, and then add another play in year four. "That's some of the best advice I've ever got," Malzahn said. "After that I went back to basic football. Even though today everybody thinks we have a lot of plays, we really don't have that many. But we try to use window dressing, unusual formations and pace." How basic is Auburn's offense today? Malzahn said it has only about four base run concepts and six base pass concepts, with wrinkles off each one.

Deconstructing the BCS Championship: The night the spread ruled the world - Dr. Saturday - NCAAF  - Yahoo! Sports

This is a good article that describes both Oregon's and Auburn's philosophies, along with some diagrams and cutups.