Quick thoughts on integrating the Spread Option and the I-Formation. It might not appear on the surface to be rocket science, but there can be some considerations that if not dealt with properly would show play-calling tendencies due to the limitations of each formation. One consideration is that the Spread and the I-Formation are not simply different formations, they are different offensive philosophies. Plays that work from the spread don't necessarily work from the I.

Can the integration be done well? Certainly. Is it easy? This question really depends on the position being considered. Take WR: the route trees for X and Y receivers become more complex, because the keys are not what they are accustomed to. Tebow's footwork is also important, and I think he can master the footwork with Loeffler as his tutor -but it is not a strength. In its favor, there are Wishbone-like play sequences that can be run effectively from the I-formation that will integrate well with some motion we run. This should negate some of the play-calling tendencies that might hamper the effectiveness of the integration. As offensive innovators, it's certainly well within the competencies of this staff to integrate some effective I.

What I'm concerned about more than anything is the modification of line calls and assignments, which are completely different. We had difficulty in some line calls with our OL personnel packages early in the season last year. Our challenges didn't simply stem from an individual player mis-assignment, nor merely spacing and alignment. The issue was also incorrect line calls by a first-year center. Now that our personnel have seen considerably more of what we are going to encounter from defenses (both live and in the film room), those calls have proven to be more consistent. Defenses that adjusted to key on Tebow isolation plays can now be countered quite effectively.

But now we add in calls that apply essentially to a different set of schematic concepts. If the OL calls can be worked out effectively on the plays that are run from these sets, we can be effective in the I-Formation plays we run. I still tend to think we run less of it than some are expecting. The head-fake from Meyer during last August camp, where news of I-Form. repetitions were coming fro multiple leaks/eyewitnesses added up to a handful of goalline plays during the season.

Over the last several years, I've learned not to try to read Meyer's public statements, but rather to rely more on what folks connected to the program are saying, and his basic philosophy. It's just the kind of coach that he is. Those who quote Meyer to the effect that "there is no offense" are only partially correct, as he was only being partly transparent in that statement. Perhaps there is no "offense" but there is most defintely an approach, a philosophy. You can be sure that this philosophy is not going to be abandoned until it proves ineffective against defensive adjustments that are sure to come as a result of the coaching "arms race."

What I'm hearing is that they think I-Formation quick hitters could be an added weapon and give recruits something to think about -combatting the unrelenting negative recruiting using the supposed inadequecies of the "scheme." One reason is the improved "hands" of their RB's (particularly one RB). It is perhaps obvious, but "hands" and timing are more critical in the I-Form than in the spread. In my opinion, the spread is (philosophically) more about space and positioning than timing. The converse applies to the I-Form. Increased reps may indicate a confidence in this area that was lacking last year. On the other hand, it may all simply be Meyer Talk. We'll soon see.

Thanks for reading my blog. I invite your comment.