Cincy Offense - could the simplicity work for the Gophers? - Pitt Board

[Clyde Tester]

A friend of mine sent me the following link to a post on the Pitt football message board (my friend is a Cincy fan). After reading the OP and the subsequent discussion, it made me compare the quality of the discussion to what we typically see here at the GH.

http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=141&f=2455&t=5221750

Admittedly I've only been on this board since just before this season (though I've been Gopher fan much longer), but I haven't ever seen a post like this one here on this board. Not only is the depth and detail of information tremendous, but the discussion that follows is generally intelligent and informative.

This post isn't meant to rip on us here at the GH - far from it. I guess my hope though is that we can strive for our posts and dialogue to be as informative and interesting as this one on the Pitt board was. Now obviously breaking down schemes and strategies isn't everyone's bag - heck, I know I couldn't do it as I don't have the baseline of knowledge required to do so. But I'd sure like to read more things like this!

Anyway, it's worth a read for sure. So how does the Gopher offensive scheme compare to that of Cincy? More complicated? Why does theirs seem so "easy" to execute? Could the Gophers diagram their plays in a similar fashion to give Weber (or whoever) more simple reads?

Is the OP correct that Cincy's success is due to simplicity? Is that too simple?

Also - tangent - is the Gopher scout board worth visiting? How is it a different place than the GH? (PM me if necessary)

 

[gophmeister]

I like the gopher scout board. The rival board is overrun by herky jerkies and badjerks.

 

[Ole]

A friend of mine sent me the following link to a post on the Pitt football message board (my friend is a Cincy fan). After reading the OP and the subsequent discussion, it made me compare the quality of the discussion to what we typically see here at the GH.

http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=141&f=2455&t=5221750

Admittedly I've only been on this board since just before this season (though I've been Gopher fan much longer), but I haven't ever seen a post like this one here on this board. Not only is the depth and detail of information tremendous, but the discussion that follows is generally intelligent and informative.

This post isn't meant to rip on us here at the GH - far from it. I guess my hope though is that we can strive for our posts and dialogue to be as informative and interesting as this one on the Pitt board was. Now obviously breaking down schemes and strategies isn't everyone's bag - heck, I know I couldn't do it as I don't have the baseline of knowledge required to do so. But I'd sure like to read more things like this!

Anyway, it's worth a read for sure. So how does the Gopher offensive scheme compare to that of Cincy? More complicated? Why does theirs seem so "easy" to execute? Could the Gophers diagram their plays in a similar fashion to give Weber (or whoever) more simple reads?

Is the OP correct that Cincy's success is due to simplicity? Is that too simple?

Also - tangent - is the Gopher scout board worth visiting? How is it a different place than the GH? (PM me if necessary)

I would hope Fisch is currently holed up simplifying the offense and specifically the reads like this post diagrams. I may be wrong, but I believe not only does the QB have reads, the receivers in our offense, much like the NFL have reads as well and may have multiple routes to run dependent on the coverage shown. Ex: If a Cb is forcing you inside, run a flag, if he's running you outside, run a comeback, if he's over the top run an in route, etc.

IMO the youth, and inexperience of the receivers is the main issue holding back our passing offense. While the Oline issues continue to plague us, it has been clear all season that the receivers and Weber just haven't been on the same page.

Many of the badly missed passes(not all, Weber needs to be better) it seems have been the result of an In where it should have been a Post, or a Seam when it was a Curl, etc.
Having the receivers run one route and the QB reading the saftey is very simple and basic football. And it works. However, NFL offenses (which Fisch is familiar with)demand the multiple reads that I believe we've seen. Decker was able to execute these reads and Weber was on the same page. Passing game looked ok. Decker goes down, young receivers struggle, passing game is poor.

 

[Gophers09]

"Is the OP correct that Cincy's success is due to simplicity? Is that too simple?"

Simplicity and play makers - that's the answer to me.