http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WJW-Ka3-AX0 http://youtu.be/7bNvIronhy8
Quote:
The concept. The basic concept is old school option: Leave a playside defender unblocked and send two runners (the quarterback and a runningback) to the playside. By leaving certain defenders unblocked, the offense should gain an advantage in numbers on the other guys: by optioning off one of the most dangerous defenders, the remaining blockers are free to engage in double teams or to directly block the linebackers or force players (like a safety filling the alley). This is one reason why the play is so desirable as compared with the traditional zone read, which has the quarterback reading a backside player — the zone read is a good play, but all it is simply a traditional zone play to one side with an improved bootleg (because it’s a read rather than a call in the huddle) on the backside.
http://smartfootball.com/wp-content/...vertedveer.gif
Quote:
So that’s the advantage the linemen gain; it’s the same one as can be found on a traditional veer play. The other benefit here — and the reason spread teams like it so much — is that it meshes with their personnel. When the veer was originally drawn up, the “dive back” was usually the kind of guy you expected for that role: a surprisingly fast but still hulking fullback or inside runner. Many if not most “spread” runningbacks, by contrast, are smaller, speedier guys, whereas quarterbacks, while they still come in all shapes in sizes, have been getting bigger — just think of Tim Tebow and Cam Newton. Given Percy Harvin and Tim Tebow in the backfield, I’d rather have Harvin run to the outside while the quarterback runs to the inside: hence the name, the “inverted veer.” (The play is often called “Dash” for obvious reasons.) But that’s all theory; now let’s look at how to block the play.
Blocking schemes. The first few times I saw this play run I saw it used with a modified form of the kind of blocking that would be used for “power,” which is how TCU ran it and how it is drawn in the diagram above. Undoubtedly, this is a major reason why teams like Ohio State under Jim Tressel liked the play: Power-O (or “Dave” in Ohio State’s lexion) was their favorite run play, and a spread offense, quarterback centric scheme that used the “Power” blocking scheme equals about ten minutes of practice installation and instant success.
http://youtu.be/FOMZY91dRzk
Quote:
In the traditional two-back “power” scheme, shown in the NFL playbook diagram below, the frontside of the line “down” blocks while the backside guard pulls and leads into the alley. The playside defensive end is kicked out by the fullback, thus opening the path for the runner and lead blocker.
http://smartfootball.com/wp-content/...er_pro_yea.jpg
Quote:
When the inverted veer is run with power blocking, everything stays the same, except that the playside defensive end is “blocked” with the read, as shown in the diagram below
http://smartfootball.com/wp-content/...veer-power.png
Quote:
This was Gus Malzahn’s preferred way to run the scheme last year, and it makes sense. The offense has to be careful with its formations in the event of an “overhang” player (imagine if there was a linebacker aligned outside of the defensive end to be read), but overall the numbers work out well: The playside linemen should be able to create a seal of the backside, the pulling guard will take the playside linebacker, and the defensive end will never be right. Moreover, as teams got better at this they learned that a key coaching point for the quarterback was to slide to the playside as he “meshed” with the runner. This means that, once the quarterback makes his decision, the defensive end should have committed. If the handoff takes place too far inside, a slow playing defensive end might be able to get back outside for the runner. All in all it’s a good way to run the play.
Increasingly, however, I’ve been thinking that it’s simpler to just run this play with normal zone blocking, and potentially even outside zone blocking. A major reason is that fronts have become increasingly unpredictable, and one of the big benefits of zone schemes is that the blocking rules should allow every blocker to “find work.” Moreover, the way most outside zone is taught, the runningback “reads” the defensive end: If he gets reached or slants inside, the runner looks to stretch the play to the outside; if he doesn’t get reached and works outside, it is a cutback. (Though as Alex Gibbs likes to point out, a cutback on outside zone is often a run straight upfield from a point outside where the tight-end originally lined up.) On the inverted veer, the read is literally a read, and the handoff to the runner can be treated like a bounce on the stretch while the quarterback’s keep can be treated like a cut up or cut back (hat tip).
http://smartfootball.com/wp-content/...erted-veer.png
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHl8TrK3ZQg&feature=player_embedded
read the entire write up, but simply put, no, this play isnt in this game, if it was it probably wouldnt be ran correctly anyway
