JoeyLabasForPresident
Well-Known Member
Belichick?
Nathan Stanley
- Thread starter JoeyLabasForPresident
- Start date
It's been brought up a ton, but if Stanley improves his accuracy on deep balls, then that alone could make everything look a lot better. Iowa wasn't able to get WR's open downfield at will, but they were able to get guys open downfield on occasion and Stanley missed them sometimes. And of course there was the ISM deep ball that was on target and it bounces off his facemask and gets intercepted. It's not that he isn't capable of completing those throws, because he has. But if the success rate improved, it would make everything about the offense look better and people would perhaps view the offense in a different light.
As mentioned, he has a far better grasp of the play book and the position in general. Reading the defense and recognizing when a play is breaking down. While we need depth on the Ol, they have more experience. The wr's need to step up and get some.
I'm a big fan of the two te set (we have some good ones) especially when playing a 3-4. That set can be used to soften a D when needed.
I am confident in TY and IKM and now it looks like we have a little bit more depth in that room. (We still need to bring in the future at that spot).
I think overall the O improves and that will give Stanley a good opportunity to improve (numbers) as well.
We need a stout d that doesn't need much time in the learning curve, to keep us in games. We can't improve by 3-5 points per game on O and turn around and give up 3-5 more on D.
I'm a big fan of the two te set (we have some good ones) especially when playing a 3-4. That set can be used to soften a D when needed.
I am confident in TY and IKM and now it looks like we have a little bit more depth in that room. (We still need to bring in the future at that spot).
I think overall the O improves and that will give Stanley a good opportunity to improve (numbers) as well.
We need a stout d that doesn't need much time in the learning curve, to keep us in games. We can't improve by 3-5 points per game on O and turn around and give up 3-5 more on D.
You bet, deep pass success, 'throwing the bomb' on early down run playaction will eventually back up both safeties and then you have much less running into an 8 man front. Then you motion a tightend away from the LOS and you move out a LBkr and you have a 6 man defensive front to run into.
Football is a chess game which for many knowing fans makes it a really interesting game to watch, a psychological game as much as physical sometimes. And I give the odds in favor of the hawk offense if they can run into 6 and 7 man lines.
So I expect to see BF early in the year taking some mid to deep shots on first down play action and if it is successful work the passing game and even a delayed run game off of that success.
That's why the two te set works well when going up against a 3+4. Because unless they come way up towards the line and leave little protection over the top, (you have to be able to pop the top and make them respect that) are going to have to cover them with lbs. Now you have a 3-2. If you double the NT for a second then release having a ol take on another lb, you can run very well out of that set as well. Because a te should be able to block a lb.
Fryowa
Administrator
A couple things here...
1. Only Nebraska and Wisconsin run a 3-4 in the Big Ten, and Wisconsin's is more of a hybrid. Nebraska hasn't played it yet (Frost switched this year), and unless he makes it adaptable he's going to fail miserably. The 3-4 doesn't catch on in the B1G because it isn't effective. There are a million reasons why, but in general it puts more eggs in one basket (which is bad). If it works you look like a genius, but when it doesn't it goes wrong fast. Indiana and Maryland are the most recent ones to try it and they finally said F it.
2. You never see a true 3-4 against 7 down lineman (2 TE set). It'd be suicide and any P5 staff would know better. That's why Wisconsin is so effective, because they switch to an under front against two tight ends. And they don't just steal a LB or S, it's a tackle (at that point it's essentially a 4-3 base).
3. Not meaning to be disrespectful, it's just that the argument of 2 TE sets being effective against a 3-4 is moot because you'll never see it. It's effectiveness lies in stretching the secondary thin, not overwhelming the DL.
It's not going to matter, somebody has to cover the TE's. Dl? No. So either a lb a cb or safety does.
If you have wr who can get down field, they are not going to let them get past or behind the safeties.. It creates a huge mismatch somewhere in the D.
Almost every pro team runs this play, with either the rb becoming a receiver and a te becoming an offset blocker or both te on the line.
This is why Wadley and the te saw so much action. Yes because they were our play makers and could catch the ball, but because you can run multiple plays out of that set.
However when you are playing a 3-4 team, getting them to switch their defense to more of a 4-3 is an advantage. Don't you think?
If you have wr who can get down field, they are not going to let them get past or behind the safeties.. It creates a huge mismatch somewhere in the D.
Almost every pro team runs this play, with either the rb becoming a receiver and a te becoming an offset blocker or both te on the line.
This is why Wadley and the te saw so much action. Yes because they were our play makers and could catch the ball, but because you can run multiple plays out of that set.
However when you are playing a 3-4 team, getting them to switch their defense to more of a 4-3 is an advantage. Don't you think?
Bingo. The 2 TE sets really work against most any 3/4 alignments if you are stacking them on the same side of the line as well unbalancing it.
A favorite play that I'd like to see more of is having the two TEs lined up on same side one off set but not far off in the slot. And then have them both run down the seem about 10 yards apart with the WR on that side running a slant underneath it. That puts the safety on that side in a precarious position and the QB just needs to read him on where to throw it.
kameltoez102
Well-Known Member
Two big things for me is 1) will he tuck the ball on occasion and at least show a threat to run 2) will he throw the ball away instead of taking a sack.
One of the improvements I see is will he be able to read that defense and see a busted play and throw it away and avoid the loss.
I have also been wanting the coaching staff to develop some run pass QB option plays on 3rd down and more than 5 yards. Roll Stanley out of the pocket and allow him to make the choice to throw or run. I think he is athletic enough to make some plays. Maybe not 45 yard break away runs but if he is able to convert a few runs on third down and keep the defense on the field and prolong some drives it only helps.
I have been coaching my son's football team for the last few years and they just started some off-season camps which I help coach at and I am getting the fever. Can't wait to see some GOOD football coming from the Hawks this year
One of the improvements I see is will he be able to read that defense and see a busted play and throw it away and avoid the loss.
I have also been wanting the coaching staff to develop some run pass QB option plays on 3rd down and more than 5 yards. Roll Stanley out of the pocket and allow him to make the choice to throw or run. I think he is athletic enough to make some plays. Maybe not 45 yard break away runs but if he is able to convert a few runs on third down and keep the defense on the field and prolong some drives it only helps.
I have been coaching my son's football team for the last few years and they just started some off-season camps which I help coach at and I am getting the fever. Can't wait to see some GOOD football coming from the Hawks this year
I may be in the minority, but I DON'T want Stanley to become a scrambler. Not because I think scrambling is overrated or unnecessary, but I don't think that fits his game as much as being a legitimate running threat.
One of the most impressive things I saw from him this past season is that he never stopped looking downfield during a play, even as the pocket broke down around him. He showed average mobility, but that which we did see is much more akin to Big Ben, in that he's hard to bring down in the pocket. If he can keep that up and we can continue to improve in pass protection, especially with Wirfs and Jackson on the outside, I think that could create some opportunities for some "scramble drill" type of plays, as Stanley keeps his eyes downfield and looks for an opening in the defense. While our WRs are certainly still a concern, nobody stays covered forever, and I would argue Brandon Smith's jump ball ability, as well as ISM's flashes catching difficult throws show a possibility for some of this.
One of the most impressive things I saw from him this past season is that he never stopped looking downfield during a play, even as the pocket broke down around him. He showed average mobility, but that which we did see is much more akin to Big Ben, in that he's hard to bring down in the pocket. If he can keep that up and we can continue to improve in pass protection, especially with Wirfs and Jackson on the outside, I think that could create some opportunities for some "scramble drill" type of plays, as Stanley keeps his eyes downfield and looks for an opening in the defense. While our WRs are certainly still a concern, nobody stays covered forever, and I would argue Brandon Smith's jump ball ability, as well as ISM's flashes catching difficult throws show a possibility for some of this.
ArvadaHawk
Well-Known Member
i say bingo. stanley keeps looking down field and has the arm to get it almost anywhere.
Big Ben is a great comparison. You can step in any direction as necessary to take advantage of space, but only tuck if you see ______ amount of open space. Because it's going to close fast. If a play breaks down and you need 4, plus 2-3 for the drop back, you had better see 10 plus of open field. It keeps them from getting dinged as bad, moves the chains and frustrates the heck out of a D.
On first down, you don't need to get it all, but it's still about seeing angles and holes and not getting pounded.
Last edited:
JoeyLabasForPresident
Well-Known Member
Watching Big Ben run is something I look forward to every off season. Not a Steelers fan, but I'm always amazed by how slow, lumbering, and awkward someone can look on TV while still picking up yards.
Hawkeyes5
Well-Known Member
This alone would force defenses to play a 2 deep zone and thus giving our tight ends gaps that even Tim Tebow could complete. The threat of the deep ball is a huge part of opening up so much more of our offense. I completely agree with this post.....not that it matters
Ree4
Well-Known Member
Reminds me of watching Tom Brady. I can't believe an athlete is that slow. Hell I'm out of shape and would torch him in a 40, 5.28? Ben is a burner compared to Tom
