The Clawfense: Complicated? Yes. Cure-all? Maybe.

by Joel on Aug 5, 2008 11:30 AM EDT in Tennessee Volunteer Football Comment 16 comments

Complicated_chessboard_medium
Photo by fdecomite

Now that practice has started and the media is permitted to ask questions of players instead of tight-lipped coaches, hints of what the Clawfense will look like are beginning to emerge. As I guessed as an EDSBS Visiting Lecturer, it is apparently a spready-type, West Coast-ish (emphasis on the "-ish") thing. It's also apparently quite complex. Josh McNeil calls it "really complicated," Brandon Warren says "he's never seen anything like [it]," and Gerald Jones thinks it's "a whole lot harder than Cutcliffe's offense." How much of the complexity has to do with The Incredible Flipping O-Line, we don't yet know, but I suspect that that's only a small part of it.

Frankly, I have mixed feelings about the fact that it appears to be so complex. If it's over the players' heads, it could be disastrous, like playing chess with checkers. Even if it's merely difficult for the players to grasp, there could be a steep and long learning curve, which could signal serious trouble considering our early, front-loaded schedule. However, the coaches must be trusted to give the players only what they can handle, and I think our current players are smart enough to handle most everything thrown at them and to catch on quickly and in time for the season.

Assuming the Clawfense is complex without being overwhelming, Vol fans have to be excited about the possibilities. The Incredible Flipping O-Line should create mismatches in the trenches as well as at the skill positions. That's new. The flexibility of being able to "run four different plays out of one formation" certainly sounds like a cure for predictability, the second-leading cause of death for offenses. That's new. And if the article that suggests that the Clawfense will feature some razzle-dazzle with players inserted into skill positions they don't typically play," then it will at the very least be exciting. What we've missed the most over the past handful of seasons are a couple of truly dynamic and consistent playmakers. It's looking like we not only have those now, but that we have the system to best use them to our advantage.

0 recs | Comment 16 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

QB4 X QK5/KR6/K3 check!

Love the picture.

by Hooper on Aug 5, 2008 12:52 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Me, too

Alas, it is green, and not orange.

Go Vols!

by Joel on Aug 5, 2008 1:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I spent perhaps a bit too much time trying to find

a news article online. It was an article I read during the time I spent learning about the Single Wing; the article was about a high school coaches clinic where S-W coaches explained their systems and how they worked.

One of the most fascinating reads was a coach whose kids only learned about 3 or 4 plays. The trick was that the kids could be moved around to create as many different formations as you could dream of. (For example, a receiver might know a hook, slant, post and flare, but might line up anywhere on either side of the field.) By mixing and matching assignments, they generated hundreds of different plays; the coding system made it relatively easy to let the QB call the play in the huddle and remember who was going where. It wasn’t a case of remembering what each position did so much as remember what each person did.

The line calls were similar. Rather than being based on left-right movement, they were based on strongside-weakside movement. They had a single digit number for each gap and an identifier for the run or pass. With that, the linemen had about 8 different plays they’d run (with the mirror images for flipped formations). Memorize that, and you’ve got it. The coaches would teach the QB the plays they wanted, and he was only responsible for calling plays he felt comfortable with.

It’s a concept that the tech world might refer to as “distributed intelligence”. Rather than have one person remember everything, each person remembers a fragment and everybody trusts the synthesis.

I don’t know if that’s the kind of thing that Clawson is up to, but it sounds like it could very well be. That’s a system that would be very amentable to flipping lines (actually, that’d be easier than having a right vs. left in this case). The playcalling language is different, and you have to play some tricks to disguise the audible calls – particularly for a no-huddle. But if you can get that down, then merely adding 1 passing route to 1 receiver can create hundreds of new plays.

We’ll find out. I’m optimistic, but it’s like the one wise thing that Mike Tyson ever said: “Everybody has a plan until he gets hit.”

How long? (Checks Joel’s cool clock.) Too long…

by Hooper on Aug 5, 2008 1:10 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

This Powerpoint might interest you

http://www.topgunqbacademy.com/PDFsVideo/mwco.ppt

It compares Bill Walsh’s WCO, Norm Chow’s BYU/USC offense, and the Sid Gilman/Joe Gibbs Multiple WCO formations. I’m really hoping this is like the Joe Gibbs system vs. the Bill Walsh system. The Multiple WCO sounds kind of like what you’re talking about where there’s little memorization, reliance on the synthesis, etc. Chow’s also works somewhat like that, but I don’t think the Clawfense will be like the Chow system from what I’ve heard so far.

Joel is right to be concerned if what Clawson is doing from a formations and language standpoint is more like a Bill Walsh WCO that Willingham/Callahan etc. have tried to run, as those have been demonstrated to be too complicated for college kids to grasp.

"Florida didnt win their first SEC title until 1991 and now they think they invented football."
-Ron Zook

by rustytanton on Aug 5, 2008 3:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks!

I’ll take a look at that when I get home shortly, and I’ll comment on your first part if I can think of anything worth saying.

As to the second part, I agree with what you said. I’m not worried about the system being to hard to grasp, though, considering the success he’s had before UT. I am worried (as I believe Joel is) that it might be too hard to grasp by the time we play UCLA.

As always, the NFL systems can work in the NFL because the coaches have the time avaiable to teach the players these intricate playbooks. Also, college and the draft have served to help filter out those who can’t learn that well. So, as you infer, importing the NFL books into college doesn’t always work.

One thought though: if Clawson’s stuff is like Chow’s stuff, does that mean the UCLA defense might incidentally be more prepared for our offense than we anticipate?

by Hooper on Aug 5, 2008 4:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Single wing system with Nunes?

I’ve greatly enjoyed your thoughts on the possibility of the Single Wing system for UT. One question that keeps coming to mind, that a friend of mine asked me was why is UT recruiting QB’s that do not seem to fit this system?

Now, I do understand that the importance of the QB isn’t nearly as high as other skill positions, but I find it interesting that the type of QB that is being recruited appears to be more of a drop back passer than anything else.

What are your throughts?

by marc_ash on Aug 5, 2008 1:49 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Welcome!

Welcome to RTT, Marc, and thanks for sticking the links in the comment threads over at GVX.

I’ll defer to hooper, who’s the resident single wing expert, but my recollection is that Clawson will tweak his scheme and develop a system to suit personnel rather than the other way around. So perhaps he’s just doing it this year b/c Crompton’s more mobile than some others we’ve had.

And to be honest, hooper’s doing fantastic work, but I think he’d probably concede that we’re all just guessing right now. We might not see the single wing all season. Or the west coast-ish, spready thing. It might look just like last year. Hope not, but, you know.

Go Vols!

by Joel on Aug 5, 2008 2:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

As Joel said, all my thoughts are speculation.

And I’m not speculating that Clawson will run the Single Wing.

It’s just that I saw some of the concepts from that system in play during the spring scrimmage. I think it’s better to say that Clawson might be drawing from the S-W, particularly: increased athleticism in the backfield (e.g. the tailback and spinning fullback); wingback blocking schemes (blocker close to the end); power blocking schemes from the linemen; and more misdirection in the play action.

There are teams that use more pro-style QBs in similar, wingish/spreadish offenses (Auburn may be one this year) than how Florida, Arkansas and West Virginia have operated. Usually they’re simply called “Spread” offenses rather than Wing offenses of “Spread Option” offenses. Having a pro-style QB gives tremendous advantages as well: reduced injury risk, a more accurate passing game, more complex routes, and a better chance for audibles (think Peyton Manning). Like Joel said, Clawson appears to tailor the offense to the players, so what we see from Crompton will likely not be what we see from Nunes.

With Nunes (and assuming I’m actually onto something with all of this), I’d expect a strong power running game and a Peyton Hllis-type guy in the backfield on occasion with several 3 or 4 WR sets. The best passers are still the pro-style guys, and they want to play somehwere htat will develop them in to NFL talent. Even a lot of scramblers would prefer pro-heavy training, even if only for the reduced injury risk (think McNabb). And with many schools switching to scramblers, the pro-styles will be easier to recruit.

We’ll know more after UCLA. But I think we won’t see the whole package until Florida. Then we can find out how much of my speculation was on target and how much was totally off-base.

And like Joel said, thanks for commenting. I hadn’t thought about Nunes until you mentioned him. That’ll give me something to mull over.

by Hooper on Aug 5, 2008 2:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Joel,

Good stuff. Thanks for the welcome, and no problem with posting the links. I don’t post links to other sites often, unless it’s quality.

I agree, I think the personel will fit the system at UT. But what has kept me wondering is the diversity of talent coming to Knoxville. It is difficult for me to put a finger on what the new system will entail. That being said, even if we were to get a sense of what the talent can do, we saw how infrequently the “G-Gun” was used last season (despite its success in limited action).

The possibilities are endless, and the LSU/Arky game showed that. I found myself watching the video you posted from that game over and over again (rewinding the film like I was in the coaches film room). This system works…if we can nail down the concepts.

by marc_ash on Aug 5, 2008 2:37 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Glad the video was helpful.

I fell in man-love with Hillis when putting that together. I was actually looking at that about the time of the NFL draft and saw Hillis go to the Broncos (my NFL team). Fun times, there.

by Hooper on Aug 5, 2008 2:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

For a bit of good news on this topic:

GVX reported that Clawson is pleased with the progress.

It’s not a guarantee that they’ll be ready, but a positive report is still a good thing.

by Hooper on Aug 6, 2008 12:04 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I think...

the single wing bodes well for the athletes on this team. One of the things that I’ve had discussion with one of my buddies about is how the single wing would benefit the team as a whole, and not just the “O”.

The offensive units that UT has fielded during the Clausen, Ainge, Clausen eras we not able to move the ball very well. A weak running game made for a lot of 3 and outs and third downs that required long yardage for a first down. Many will look at this as damaging for the offense, but it was even more damaging for the defense.

The amount of time Chavis’ defense has had to spend on the field has been tremendous. Teams would historically own TOP and rushing yardage. Long drawn out drives by UT’s opponents have killed them over recent years. I’m sure if I took a look at the rushing yards for and against over the past few years, it wouldn’t be a pretty picture.

Fortunately, implementing a Wing-Spread-ISH system (I love the “ish” by the way) will produce a system that SHOULD A. Swing TOP in UT’s favore B. Give UT an advantage in the running game (see A) and C. Should provide a HUGE advantage for the defense, as they will have more time to rest during long drives (again, see A).

After all, that’s what it appeared was the case in the LSU/AK game.

by marc_ash on Aug 6, 2008 10:04 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I agree wholeheartedly.

I’ve long believed that the one thing an offense must be able to do is to consistently gain 3-4 yards on a rushing play. The Sanders offense didn’t have that, and Cutcliffe’s most recent offenses basically abandoned the short yardage rush for a short yardage pass. We don’t have much detail on the Clawson offense, but I am almost certain that he plans on reviving the power run. That would give all of those advantages you pointed out.

Do you remember the Bears-Saints NFC Championship game? As everybody knows, the Bears really didn’t have a trustworthy option at QB. But they had one drive (in the 3rd quarter, I believe) where they went most of the length of the field for a TD – only rushing the ball. Most of those rushes were up the middle. After a few plays, everybody knew what the Bears were doing, but the Saints were unable to stop it. I think that drive won the game for them and was a lot more valuable than the touchdown alone. They proved that they could score without a QB, and that they could keep Brees off the field.

I hope to see much of the same from UT.

by Hooper on Aug 6, 2008 10:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

rushing the ball at will

No doubt, hooper, it is a beautiful thing to be able to run the ball without any deception and still gain yards. To be able to essentially tell the opposing defense, “hey, we’re gonna run this time” and know that they can’t stop you.

All Volunteer fans love the youtube clip with Clint Stoerner stumbling and fumbling. But what I like the most about it is the subsequent drive where we make no secret of the fact that Travis Henry will be running the ball every play. See Travis run. See Travis score.

So, philosophically, I have no disagreement with your penchant for the good old fashioned run. However, I do think that the ability to do that has a lot to do with personnel. We gave it to Travis 5 times in a row on that drive (“so strong…falls forward all the time”) is because Travis was a stud. He was going to get the yards. I think you could have the greatest scheme in the world, but if you don’t have a true horse, you’re not going to be able to run it down the throats of the opposing defense.

So, in sum, I guess I’m saying you can only do that with the right personnel. Has Arian Foster shown himself to be a guy that is good enough (ala Henry) to anchor a “run it straight at you” type of offense? I like Foster a good deal, but I’m not a hundred percent persuaded. I think there may have been valid reason that Cutcliffe was incessantly opting for bubble screens on 3rd and 4.

by kidbourbon on Aug 6, 2008 7:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

With pretty much everything you just said. I absolutely love what happened after the stumble/fumble, too, and I think Foster’s a different kind of runner.

Still, I’m hopeful that we can, with an increased focus on the running game, including run-blocking, rush almost at will.

Go Vols!

by Joel on Aug 6, 2008 8:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well said.

Cutcliffe has proven to be a very capable offense coach. He did wonders with UT in his first run, then made Ole Miss a strong program, then resurrected the UT offense after Sanders left. He’s earned the benefit of the doubt, for sure; I can’t deny that he had reasons for passes on short yardage.

I will admit, though, that I tend to think that the success of a power running game comes more from the linemen than the running back. (I’m a Denver Broncos fan; it’s a lesson we’ve had for over a decade now.) We have a terrific starting line (though I really hope no injuries occur) with a lot of experience. Even though they are learning a new system, they’re very familiar with each other. I’m hoping that they can learn a power system in short order.

But yes, that Travis Henry series was fantastic, especially at the goal line when the defense was all bunched up at the line. Having the talent does make a difference.

by Hooper on Aug 6, 2008 10:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs