Stanley, Kendrick or Bender?
At this point, I say Kendrick and let's run the damn ball. Let's shorten some games and keep our D off of the field.
Stanley just doesn't have the arm.
Bender has the arm, and I'd be interested to let him start again. But, my preference for a run-first offense leaves me wanting Kendrick to step up and be the man.
This has been Beaty's greatest downfall above all others, his inability to stick with an offensive coordinator and an offensive system. Pick which version of the spread offense you want to run and stick with it. I don't care if it's the air raid, spread option, or any other variation of the spread. Just pick one, go through the growing pains of it and recruit players for that system and develop it.
If KU wants to be an air raid offense, Bender needs to be the QB. If KU wants to run a spread option, then Kendrick should be the starter. Carter Stanley isn't a starter and I've believed that since I first saw him on the field. He is an ideal back up QB which is an important role when you have an OLine as bad as KU does because the back up will play.
I Would have to agree with you and say Kendrick. - There is no way in hell I want Bender let him deliver the team. - he has a high pass completion rating to the defensive side then his own targets - a lot of terribly thrown balls. - -Stanley may not be much better but he sure is a lot tougher and can run better. - - Bender is like he has feet of stone just another wasted Scholarship
But like you I want to see Kendrick work more true dual option. - Can't hurt we will be no worse off then we are now - so ya let's give him his shot.- -ROCK CHALK ALL DAY LONG BABY
I am hoping it is Kendrick. First of all that means in the eyes of the coaches he is better than the other two who we know can not get the job done. If one of the other two win the job then that is going to be very disappointing. I agree with @Texas-Hawk-10 that the QB position has been Beaty's biggest downfall. In this day and age it is amazing to me that KU can not find a competent QB.
Kendrick, RUN THE OPTION! The option is designed for teams with weak offensive lines and good running
backs and a running QB.
@kjayhawks The option doesn't work well at all with a weak OLine for the same reason any other offensive system doesn't work with a bad OLine, the QB has no time to make the proper reads.
What KU could do to help out this OLine is a trick Mike Leach used at Texas Tech when he was transitioning them from a run first offense to his air raid. He widened the splits between the OLinemen. What that did was increase the distance the DLine had to go to get to the QB which did give the QB more time to read the defense and make the right read.
If Beaty wants to help this OLine out next season, that's what he does and makes the OLine have 3'-4' gaps between players instead of 1' gaps which is normal.
Woodrow said:
"In this day and age it is amazing to me that KU can not find a competent QB."
I know you aren't familiar with me, but I promise I'm not "that" guy. Having said that, it would be way more amazing to me if KU actually DID find a competent QB. Who would want to come to KU to play football? It'd have to be someone with ties to the area/University. Either that, or they just luck into a good QB that was flying under the radar.
@nuleafjhawk KU won't find a competent QB because you can count on one hand the number of competent QB's that have come here.
The key at QB for a school like KU is the QB coach. Can he find a unrefined QB who isn't developed enough for the major schools to be interested in, and then refine those skills and make that QB into that competent QB to carry a program.
The other path is the Todd Reesing path and find someone who has all the intangibles already, but is off in a measurable category like height that the bigger schools focus on when deciding which QB's to offer and recruit.
@Texas-Hawk-10 So, your increased splits .. you relate that to pass blocking, correct? To stretch the edge by that margin?
@Texas-Hawk-10 TexHawk: Do you remember the UCLA game at Memorial Stadium when KU used a spread offensive line? I don't remember the year, but probably the late 90's. I do remember the absolute slaughter that resulted from whatever blocking scheme we tried that day. It was horrific. The UCLA linemen poured through our oline unblocked all day. Perhaps Terry Allen was our coach then. As poorly as our team has played the last several years, that game stands in my mind as the all-time low. Anyone else remember that game? Hey, thanks to everyone for talking football here.
@HighEliteMajor Yes, it's a pass blocking scheme to make the DE's have further to go to get to the QB by an extra step or two which gives the QB an extra second or so to read the defense and make the right read. I know what you're preferred offensive system is and I still don't see it working at Kansas. The triple option is a very difficult system and much more complicated than the spread is. There's very few HS's that run it and very few coaches who know it well enough to run it successfully at the college level.
The spread offense is a very simple offense with the option being the most complicated version of it, because any version of the option is the most difficult to run in college football. There's only a handful of base plays in the spread offense and the effectiveness of it comes from it's ability to exploit any defensive system.
@stoptheflop I don't recall that specific game, but if it was during the late 90's, I believe that was a period of time when UCLA was consistently in the conversation of being a national title contender so it really wouldn't be surprising if that's accurate based on what KU was at the time.
Widening the splits like that isn't a tactic used to beat an Oklahoma or other top program, but it's done to take advantage of the middle of the pack and bad teams like Leach did until Tech started getting the players to fit Leach's system and develop their OLine so they didn't have to take the wide splits.
The only time KU played UCLA in the 90s was in 1995 at the Aloha Bowl and KU won 51-30. Largest margin of victory in the series was 32-7 by UCLA in 1954. Here is the complete record ↗. UCLA won in 2001 41-17 in Lawrence and this might be the game you remembered but by no means one of the worse games by KU as we know all too well...and yes, Terry Allen was the coach.
@Texas-Hawk-10 I agree on the triple option. Not a real option for Kansas (no pun intended).
I asked the question largely because it shows a bit of a flaw in your thinking here. You need skilled linemen, who are athletes, to adequately cover the space necessary.
So you know, blocking in the flexbone -- which I advocate -- is easier to teach with lower skilled players than pass blocking is for lower skilled players. When you talk about "complex", there are certain physical things that linemen get exposed at when pass blocking. On the other hand, the risk of being exposed is reduced in a scheme such as the flexbone. Learning flexbone blocking takes some brains, and importantly, lower tier linemen can be successful because the blocking schemes utilize angles to very high degree, as well as quick trapping (again, angles).
Don't get me wrong. I like larger splits in some circumstances. And your citation to Mike Leach is a very good one. I think it would be a disaster for Kansas. Tighter splits permit more help and scheming on the line. The wider the splits, the more blockers are on their own.
Also, many, many high schools run the flexbone. It seems like the easy solution to forward progress.
One thing the spread requires, that we can't seem to acquire, is a skilled QB. That's the deal killer. That has proven to be the elusive piece we can't seem to land. So without that, the spread is moot.
@Texas-Hawk-10 I’m not saying our lines good enough to run any offense, just saying to it got its start in football to help teams that didn’t have great lines.
nuleafjhawk said:
Woodrow said:
"In this day and age it is amazing to me that KU can not find a competent QB."
I know you aren't familiar with me, but I promise I'm not "that" guy. Having said that, it would be way more amazing to me if KU actually DID find a competent QB. Who would want to come to KU to play football? It'd have to be someone with ties to the area/University. Either that, or they just luck into a good QB that was flying under the radar.
I mean they have a kid in Legeandre (sp) committed right now for the 19 class who has offers from Bama and FSU. I understand it’s a long ways from over in terms of football recruiting , but it shows that getting one that has potential is there.
As is being discussed in this thread our OL has been dreadful and this year they are lacking in numbers so it’s hard to pin it all on the QB, but they obviously must be better at that position to start making progress.
@HighEliteMajor Your assumptions about the complexity of the spread is not accurate at all, especially in regards to the OLine. Run blocking is always more difficult to execute than pass blocking is, always has been and always will be. The reason being is that in run blocking, the OLine has to have the strength to open up the running lane for that particular play which means the OLineman has to be stronger than the guy he is blocking.
In pass blocking, OLinemen don't even attempt to move down field because of the risk of an illegal man down field penalty. Because of that, in pass blocking the goal is to not give up ground which is always much easier than trying to gain ground. Even if you don't hold your ground, forcing the DLinemen to go outside and having to loop around to get to the QB gives the QB enough time to find his receiver.
@Texas-Hawk-10 Yes, I have an understanding of what pass blocking is trying to accomplish. Thank you for the primer though.
I'm not suggesting the spread offense is complex. I don't see where I said that. The issue is having a QB that can execute, which is my criticism of the spread at KU, which is the overarching point here. We can't run it effectively.
What I said was that pass blocking is more difficult for a certain type of player. That is what I said. And it is much easier to teach lower skilled linemen to run block. You can run block with undersized linemen (presumably those less desirable in recruiting) by the use of angles, pulling, trapping, etc. Further, by use of those techniques, you aren't trying to move anyone backwards. In fact, with traps, you let DLs loose and block from the side in most cases. You ignore that.
Coming from a former offensive line coach:
Run Blocking is much harder to execute, but it is much more forgiving. It is inherently harder to have your 6 or 7 guys all execute a block for a play to happen correctly. Especially when you think about trying to communicate on the line from one side to the other about who is blocking who. However, a defender can still make a bad read or a poor tackle. It also mitigates risk by giving the ball to a player that is very unlikely to turn the ball over or lose much yardage. Overall, running the ball is safer, but harder to execute well.
Pass Blocking is easier to execute, but also comes with greater risk. (I.e. QB Pressure causes turnovers). It is easier for a lot of reasons, but the main one is that the offensive player has the advantage at the beginning. They don't have to move the defender, they just have to stay in their way.
To me, your QB determines what you do more than your line. If your QB can't throw, then your line being able to pass block well is pointless.
We need to be a team that takes care of the ball and runs the clock down. We need to be the team looking to get special teams TDs and advantages through means other than outscoring our opponent. We will never win the track meet style of game.
@Kcmatt7 Your last two paragraphs are why I'm such a big advocate of the flex bone.
What needs to be considered is the type of run blocking. Remember, with pulling, trapping, angles, you don't have to move a defender. The type of run blocking I'm talking about is more about gaining stalemates, and creating seals. If you can avoid losing ground, e.g., getting blown up, pushed into a running lane, you win. Much of run blocking is getting in the way. Great example is getting to the second level on a linebacker. If you find a side, seal, then the RB does the rest. Further, there is many times very little a lineman can do if a DL is intent on going to certain spot inside, such as slanting, for example. You use the DL's momentum to let him block himself.
I would also say that on any given play, you don't need 6 or 7 guys executing even fairly well. The point of attack and next level get you four yards. The backside is largely irrelevant when the ball gets to the line quickly (like the flexbone). Much of the time a backside tackle is releasing downfield to find a DB.
You are very right .. winning the track meet that has become the Big 12 is a losing proposition. Why fight it?
@HighEliteMajor So you want to be a run based offense because it takes pressure off the QB to perform and it shortens the games which gives opponents fewer possessions. That's the rationale behind wanting the flexbone.
Somebody else had that logic as well and that was Charlie Weis. KU had a solid running game, but couldn't pass and was almost always playing from behind which meant KU then had to pass the ball to try and comeback.
The bottom line is that as long as Clint Bowen is the defensive coordinator at Kansas, the defense is going to give up 35+ points and usually 40+ points per game even against the middle of the road teams. KU winning those games isn't going to happen with a run first offense.
Looking at the blue prints Oklahoma State and Baylor made for how to go from cellar teams to B12 contenders also reveals they used variations of the spread offense to get there. The spread is a system capable of putting up the big point totals KU is going to have to score to have any chance of regularly contending with and beating the average and bad teams in the league.
If the B12 wasn't a league where you needed to score 40+ on regular basis to win, I'd love to be a run based offense because I played OLine mh entire football career and run blocking is much more fun than pass blocking, but KU isn't in a league where a traditional run based offense will lead to anything good long term.
Even as old as old school can get Bill Snyder evolved his system into a spread offense because his traditional option offense stopped working in the B12.
I do have to agree, there is a reason the Flexbone is all but dead. Yet the spread option run game is alive and well, and even made it's way into the NFL. It is simply a better system.
@Texas-Hawk-10 This is not a discussion on what is the better offense. There is no doubt that a spread is a much better offense for CFB. I would not even consider running the flexbone but for our dire circumstances. To dismiss it, though, given the clear evidence we have from a power 5 school is irrational. Further, the flexbone offers the unique preparation challenge that a basic solid running game does not. This puts the defense at a big disadvantage with one week to prepare. Focusing on the flexbone give a much better chance at eating the clock than does a "strong running game." Apples and oranges, really. Finally, I see no answer to why the use of the spread has failed miserably at KU -- lack of competent quarterback play.
HighEliteMajor said:
@Texas-Hawk-10 This is not a discussion on what is the better offense. There is no doubt that a spread is a much better offense for CFB. I would not even consider running the flexbone but for our dire circumstances. To dismiss it, though, given the clear evidence we have from a power 5 school is irrational. Further, the flexbone offers the unique preparation challenge that a basic solid running game does not. This puts the defense at a big disadvantage with one week to prepare. Focusing on the flexbone give a much better chance at eating the clock than does a "strong running game." Apples and oranges, really. Finally, I see no answer to why the use of the spread has failed miserably at KU -- lack of competent quarterback play.
This has been a big part of Snyder's edge in Manhattan. The different angle of attack approach.
@BShark Here's the difference between KSU and KU and why KSU can get away with not having a QB who can pass to save his life and still be competitive, DEFENSE. KState has one and KU doesn't. You can get away with scoring 28-31 ppg when you have a defense that can hold even high powered offenses below their averages.
KU does not have that. KU is in the boat of needing an offense that can score 40+ a game because the defense is so terrible and usually gives up 40-50 ppg. KU needs an offense that's capable of outscoring teams in a shootout and the flexbone and other run based offenses are not that.
KU is bad.
K-State is not.
The overall quality of the programs is enormously different. KSU has solid line play on both sides of the ball. KU does not. KSU has solid players throughout the two deep. KU has holes in the two deep, sometimes at starting positions.
KSU has a strong walk on program. KU does not.
KU football is, right now, one of the five worst programs in D1, not just in terms of overall talent, but in terms of overall program quality, from depth, roster development, talent, walk on program - you name it, KU football is probably in the bottom 20 in the nation, and certainly bottom 5 among power 5 schools.
Some of that is on Beaty to be sure. But some of that runs deeper than Beaty. Charlie Weis literally hollowed out the program. He DESTROYED relationships in the Kansas City area that still have not been rebuilt at high schools like Rockhurst, Olathe North, Blue Springs South, Blue Valley, etc. The "pile of crap" comment was made by Weis, but it should have been condemned by KU Athletics. It was not. That created a rift that has not been bridged, and other programs have taken advantage of that fact.
Regardless of where KU football goes from here, the relationship needs a complete reset within the Kansas City metropolitan area among the football programs there.
@Texas-Hawk-10 I like how you "think" you know, despite indisputable evidence to the contrary. How you are so definitive. Again, despite solid, power 5 evidence to the contrary (Georgia Tech). Good grief.
Playing slowly helps your defense.
@HighEliteMajor Your ignorance is shining brightly right now when you keep citing using a flexbone offense while dismissing the triple option, yet you keep using Georgia Tech and the academy schools as your examples of flexbone offenses. Those schools all run the triple option which you previously dismissed as an offense for KU so keep claiming you know football when your lack of knowledge is shining big and bright right now.
KU already has two blue prints within their own conference of bottom feeders winning league titles and establishing consistent winning seasons with spread offenses.
But keep telling everyone that what sort of works in the ACC, Georgia Tech is below .500 over the past 3 years, will work for a B12 team while what has proven to work in the B12 at multiple schools won't work at another B12 school.
@Texas-Hawk-10 I truly love when someone like you references my "ignorance". Enjoyable. I'll just be nice and see if you have it within yourself, ever, to backtrack. "Ignorance" is a harsh word. Free your mind.
I take it you did see the win totals, right? Good grief (again). And you do understand that suggesting the flexbone is to get to respectability, right? As I've said. And you still ignore the lack of a QB. You just won't answer it. I know why.
You do realize that most flexbone offenses incorporate a triple option element, right? It's part -- a part -- of a flexbone offense. And you do understand the use of the wing in the flexbone vs. a pure, OU/NU style triple option? It's a common error that folks make, referring to the flexbone as the "triple-option." Way too simplistic. Well, nonetheless ...
"Paul Johnson is amused by the description of his offense as "the triple option." "The triple option is one play. We run it maybe twenty percent of the time," he remarked in a recent interview. "It would be like calling the I-formation the "sprint draw" offense!""
"Fans of Georgia Tech football know two things about Paul Johnson's "flexbone" option attack: One, it racks up gaggles of yards and points and two, it is consistently underrated by SEC-centric analysts and the football-watching public. But how much of what is said and written about the Georgia Tech offense is anything close to accurate?"
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1296563-seven-myths-about-paul-johnsons-georgia-tech-offense ↗
Other articles referencing the flexbone. Including one from the "flexbone academy" about Georgia Tech -
https://flexboneassociationacademy.com/2013/11/29/georgia-tech-offense-death-by-1000-cuts/ ↗
And one with Army/Navy -
@HighEliteMajor It's a triple option offense no matter what you, Paul Johnson, or anybody else wants to claim it is. It's also an offense that requires a much more skilled QB than you claim because the QB is having to make multiple reads at the snap about which way the play is going, who the keys are to determine a handoff or not, who the pitch key is, and then after the snap, reading what those two defenders do to determine whether or not to hand off the ball, then to determine whether or not to pitch the ball if the QB doesn't hand off on the initial read.
That obviously sounds much more simple than telling a QB to focus on half the field and throw the mid depth route in a zone, the deep route in man, or to the flat on blitz.
@Texas-Hawk-10 Of course it has a triple option component. A component. Just like the head coach at Georgia Tech coach said. But he's wrong too, according to you. There is a large difference, just like he said.
Again, the same question which you avoid. Where's the QB at Kansas -- I mean, since it's so easy to make the throws? It's now bordering on pathetic, your avoidance of now your lead point. How easy it is to make the throws.
The thing is .. and let this sink in .. the physical gifts and traits that make a good spread QB are much more finite and limited in this world than the gifts and traits of a flexbone QB. There are just more of that type of athlete available, that can operate under the flexbone. You'll find many of them playing safety, corner, wr, and rb.
But I know you know more than .. well .. anybody.
@HighEliteMajor The flexbone is the base formation Paul Johnson runs the triple option out of. The flexbone is a formation that has 3 backs in the backfield. OU, Nebraska, KSU in the 90's all ran the same offense Paul Johnson is now. The only difference is they used an "I" formation to run the triple option out of. When a team runs a triple option play 75-80% of the time like Georgia Tech does, that is their offensive system.
The evolution of the triple option is moving towards running it out of the shotgun in an inverted wishbone formation where there's a back on each side of the QB and one deep back.
It's still a harder offense to execute than a spread passing system because the QB still has to make all the reads presnap to identify the keys whereas the spread, you can send a guy in motion and the defense shows whether they're in man or zone and a coach on the sidelines can adjust the play accordingly taking the presnap decision making away from a QB.
@Texas-Hawk-10 So now you’re giving more lessons. No, son. They did not run the same offense. You are just lost. The flexbone uses the basic set up of the old double wing. You need to stop. Continuing to talk is not a magical cure.
@HighEliteMajor Keep being wrong. When a QB snaps the ball and the ability to handoff to a fullback/H-back, pitch to a tailback, or keep the ball himself, that's a triple option regardless of what formation a team lines up in. That's the play Georgia Tech runs about 75-80% of their plays.
You can keep thinking a flexbone is an offensive system instead of a formation and that Paul Johnson didn't do anything other adapt his offense from Tom Osborne, Bud Wilkinson, and others who ran the triple option a generation ago to a different base formation.
@Texas-Hawk-10 This is very simple. The flexbone, as I said, is akin to the double wing. Look at the two. An element of a flexbone offense is the triple option. The double wing ran a triple option -- FB read-option, then QB-wing option. Same as the flexbone. That's easy. Certainly, the folks you referenced ran the triple option. Look at the old wishbone formation. It is the wishbone "triple option" which formed much of the basis for the triple option portion of the flexbone. A lot of the same principles. This is educational clarity. All offenses build on the past. You are trying to extricate yourself from a hole and it ain't happening.
@Texas-Hawk-10 @HighEliteMajor
I politely suggest you two agree to disagree and move on since it looks like there will not be an agreement before Late Night and we really do not want football to interfere with basketball, right?. :smile:
Anybody remember when KC ran the old wing t for part of a year? It worked very well for about 3 games.