08-11-2015, 04:30 PM
Garvin, a successful running game also depends on a little variety.
Forget the overloaded OL (in those "power" formations Stanford plunges a RB into the strong side what? . . . about 95% of the time?); just think about the number of times Stanford lines up in a more standard set (2 WRs, 1 or 2 TEs, and 1 or 2 RBs), and then Hogan takes the snap, stands up for a moment, and then turns back and gives the ball to the RB for a plunge between the tackles. I'd say that overloaded line running play and the other one constitute about 65-70% of the runs under this regime. Throw in the Wildcat, and the number probably hits 80%. That is not particularly impressive . . . at least to this fan.Â
Of course, the above figures are just what my gut tells me - I haven't even attempted any play by play breakdown (nor could you, unless you're willing to spend endless hours watching game tapes . . . which I am not).
Bottom line:Â use C-Mac like Darrin and Glyn = very good; use C-Mac like Toby or Gaffney = very bad.
Forget the overloaded OL (in those "power" formations Stanford plunges a RB into the strong side what? . . . about 95% of the time?); just think about the number of times Stanford lines up in a more standard set (2 WRs, 1 or 2 TEs, and 1 or 2 RBs), and then Hogan takes the snap, stands up for a moment, and then turns back and gives the ball to the RB for a plunge between the tackles. I'd say that overloaded line running play and the other one constitute about 65-70% of the runs under this regime. Throw in the Wildcat, and the number probably hits 80%. That is not particularly impressive . . . at least to this fan.Â
Of course, the above figures are just what my gut tells me - I haven't even attempted any play by play breakdown (nor could you, unless you're willing to spend endless hours watching game tapes . . . which I am not).
Bottom line:Â use C-Mac like Darrin and Glyn = very good; use C-Mac like Toby or Gaffney = very bad.