Why every team should install its offense in three days (and other political theories on coaching offense)

Dana Holgorsen, West Virginia’s new offensive coordinator and head coach in waiting, has frequently said that his entire record breaking offense can be installed “in three days.” And, now that his three days of spring practice are up, he said on day four his team will simply “start over,” and will run through this install period three or four times during the spring. Wait, what? Hasn’t Holgorsen been a part of record breaking offenses for more than a decade, including the last three (at Houston and then Oklahoma State) as head orchestrator? Doesn’t saying you can install your entire top tier Division-I men’s college football offense in three lousy days seem a little bit like, I don’t know, bullshit?

Entire offense, three days -- power through

It does, but only because “complexity” is too often accepted as an end in and of itself and because we undervalue gains from specialization. As Holgorsen says, “no one” in his offense will play more than one position; he doesn’t even want someone to play both “inside and outside receiver.” The idea is a simple one: with limited practice time and, to be honest, limited skills, kids need to focus on a few things and to get better at them — the jack of all trades is incredibly overrated. While Urban Meyer’s Florida offense thrived for a time with Tebow and his omnipositional teammate, Percy Harvin, I’d argue that this reliance on a “Percy Position” — a guy that can play most every skill position on offense — eventually does more harm than good. I’m all for getting the ball to playmakers in different ways, but I am not — and neither is Holgorsen — a fan of doing it to the detriment of repetitions and becoming a master at your given position. It’s nature versus nurture on the football practice field, and I side with nurture.

Put another way, if your offense is well designed you don’t need to move a guy around to get him the ball. As one of Holgorsen’s assistants at West Virginia explains:

“Wes Welker at Texas Tech caught over 100 balls two years in a row and he played ‘H,” Dawson said. Michael Crabtree caught over 100 (at Texas Tech) and he play ‘Z.’ I had two receivers back to back that caught over 100 and that played ‘X.’ Then I had a guy catch 119 that played ‘Y.’

“It just depends on where that guy lines up,” Dawson continued. “The ball finds the play makers. Regardless of where you line them up. The ball finds the play makers. That is just the way it works out.”

If you’re looking for the guiding principle here, it is not one specific to football. Instead, it is (at least) as old as the opening of the Wealth of Nations:

The greatest improvement in the productive powers of labour, and the greater part of the skill, dexterity, and judgment with which it is any where directed, or applied, seem to have been the effects of the division of labour.


. . . To take an example, therefore, from a very trifling manufacture; but one in which the division of labour has been very often taken notice of, the trade of the pin-maker; a workman not educated to this business (which the division of labour has rendered a distinct trade), nor acquainted with the use of the machinery employed in it (to the invention of which the same division of labour has probably given occasion), could scarce, perhaps, with his utmost industry, make one pin in a day, and certainly could not make twenty. But in the way in which this business is now carried on, not only the whole work is a peculiar trade, but it is divided into a number of branches, of which the greater part are likewise peculiar trades. One man draws out the wire, another straights it, a third cuts it, a fourth points it, a fifth grinds it at the top for receiving the head; to make the head requires two or three distinct operations; to put it on, is a peculiar business, to whiten the pins is another; it is even a trade by itself to put them into the paper; and the important business of making a pin is, in this manner, divided into about eighteen distinct operations, which, in some manufactories, are all performed by distinct hands, though in others the same man will sometimes perform two or three of them. I have seen a small manufactory of this kind where ten men only were employed, and where some of them consequently performed two or three distinct operations. But though they were very poor, and therefore but indifferently accommodated with the necessary machinery, they could, when they exerted themselves, make among them about twelve pounds of pins in a day. There are in a pound upwards of four thousand pins of a middling size. Those ten persons, therefore, could make among them upwards of forty-eight thousand pins in a day. Each person, therefore, making a tenth part of forty-eight thousand pins, might be considered as making four thousand eight hundred pins in a day. But if they had all wrought separately and independently, and without any of them having been educated to this peculiar business, they certainly could not each of them have made twenty, perhaps not one pin in a day; that is, certainly, not the two hundred and fortieth, perhaps not the four thousand eight hundredth part of what they are at present capable of performing, in consequence of a proper division and combination of their different operations.

Smith is making a number of points about the advantages of a division of labor (not all of them relevant to this discussion), but one of them is that you can simply be better at your job if all you focus on is drawing out the wire over and over again than if your job is to make the entire pin, start to finish, every day.

The application to installing a football offense is this: focus on a few things, specialize players, and repeat the process over and over again. The first step is, whatever your offense is, to assign players to roles that fit them and have them develop those skills from one practice to the next, over the course of many months and years. The second step is to not make their job more difficult by changing their roles by moving them around or by installing too much offense — hence the three day rule.

I’ve used Holgorsen and his Airraid roots as the backdrop because these ideas were developed by Hal Mumme and Mike Leach, but they apply to every offense. After assigning players to their positions (RB, H-Back, Y, X, Z, etc) you install no more than a handful of plays each day, so that, for that day, the player’s job is obvious: learn your two or three assignments and do them over, and over, and over again. This is key for the receivers but even more for the offensive line — as you’ll see from the charts below the goal is to install only a couple of blocking schemes, both for runs and pass protection, each day, and then to repeat the process over and over again.

Below is an example of the installation process for someone using the Airraid offense. Note that this can differ but this will give the ballpark. (Since the Airraid guys use only one protection scheme and a couple of formations I haven’t included those here.)

Airraid Installation

Install Airraid in Three Days
Day 1
RunsBase
Quick PassesHitchSlantFade/out
Dropback PassesMeshFour VerticalsShallow
Screens/SpecialsQuick screens
Day 2
RunsZoneToss
Quick PassesHitchSlantFade/OutY-Stick
Dropback PassesMeshAll-CurlShakesCurl/Wheel
Screens/SpecialsWR/Jailbreak screen
Day 3
RunsPowerDraw
Quick PassesHitchY-CornerY-StickSlant
Dropback PassesMeshFour VerticalsY-Sail/FloodY-Cross
Screens/SpecialsRB ScreenBootlegs

A few themes should emerge. One, broken down this way, a player’s job should be much easier, thus maximizing the “indy” or individual time (let’s cover the two or three assignments) and then the rest of the day is spent doing this job over and over again, and the player can even benefit from watching your teammates do it too. Second, the you can drive home the “hang our hat on it” plays by carrying one or two things over for every day. For Mike Leach’s Airraid, that was the mesh play, but for Dana Holgorsen it might be four verticals or something else. This is the other great part about this framework: once you have it, it’s easy enough to move a few pieces around and get the plan in place for a given year if talent shifts your focus.

But let’s say you’re not a dyed-in-the-wool Airraider: how would you apply this framework to a pro-style offense? Note that I use “pro-style” instead of actual professional offense, as you’ll notice a lot of similarities to above given the limited number of plays and variations versus an enormous 800 play NFL playbook.

Pro-Style Offense Installation

Install Pro-Style Offense in Three Days
Day 1
FormationsAce (One-back, one TE, three WRs balanced set)Doubles (2x2 WRs)
ProtectionsFull-Slide Protection (six-man, seven man)
RunsInside ZoneOutside Zone
Quick PassesHitchSlantFade/Out
Dropback PassesFour VerticalsSmashSpeed OutSkinny post/flat
Screens/SpecialsWR quick screensBubble screens
Day 2
FormationsTrey (One-back, one TE, three WR with two WRs and the TE to one side)Trips (4 WR set, three to one side)Pro Set with splitbacks (with and without TE)I-Formation (with and without TE)
ProtectionsHalf-Slide (six-man and seven-man)
RunsPowerCounter-Trey
Quick PassesHitchSlantFade/OutStick
Dropback PassesFour VerticalsSnagShallowAll-Curl
Screens/SpecialsWR/Jailbreak screenRB/TE slow screens
Day 3
FormationsNo-backsPower (Two TEs)All others
ProtectionsBOB (Big-on-big, Back-on-backer, man-to-man), seven manHalf-slide (six-man, five-man)
RunsDrawTrap(Speed Option, if applicable)(Zone reads, if applicable)
Quick PassesHitch/SlantFade/OutStickSame with backside WR signaling "choice" route
Dropback Passes (Work off of play-action)Four VerticalsFloodY-CrossNCAA (Post/Dig/Underneath)
Screens/SpecialsDouble ScreenBootlegs(Additional "option" time, if applicable)

Note how the formations build up to match the other plays: Day 1 only involves “balanced” sets, while Day 2 includes “unbalanced” trips and trey formations, with Day 3 being more focused on play-action — concepts not really present in the Airraid. But the theory is the same: the entire offense goes in in three days, and you could theoretically scrimmage on Day 4. You wouldn’t of course, you’d go right back to teaching and maximizing the repetitions.

But both of these installation plans are for pass-first offenses built around dropback passes, and they don’t leave much time for other wrinkles. The below chart remedies that, as it is a rough sample of the same three-day installation for a run-first spread option team, a la Oregon or Auburn. The increased emphasis on option plays takes time away from the passing game, as quicks and dropback passes give way to a focus on option concepts and sprint out passes.

Spread to Run Installation

Three Day Installation for Run-First Spread
Day 1
FormationsDoubles (Four WR, 2x2)Ace (1 RB, 1 TE/H-Back, 3 WR, Balanced Set)
ProtectionsFull six-man slide
RunsInside ZoneOutside Zone
PassesHitchSlantFade/OutFour Verticals
Option PeriodZone ReadZone Read with BubbleSpeed Option (Zone Blocking)
Screens/SpecialsBubble ScreenWR Quick Screens
Day 2
FormationsTrey (1 RB, 1 TE/H-Back, 3 WR, three to a side)Trips (4 WR, three to a side)
ProtectionsHalf-slide (six-man)Half-slide (seven man)
RunsPowerCounter-Trey
PassesQuicks (Hitch, Slant, Fade)Four VerticalsCurl/FlatSmash
Option PeriodZone Read (Off "Power" blocking)Inverted Veer (With "Power" blocking)Shovel read (with "Power" or "Counter" blocking)
Screens/SpecialsWR/Jailbreak screenRB Slow Screen
Day 3
FormationsNo-backs2 RB splitbacksPistol
ProtectionsSprint outPlay-action (half-slide)Bootleg (Guard pull)
RunsDrawQuick Trap
Passes (Dropback and play-action)ShallowSnagFloodNCAA (Post/Dig)
Option PeriodVeer/diveMidline Zone Read
Screens/SpecialsSprintouts and bootlegs (same pass concepts as above)

The key to the option periods above is that, as noted in the chart, the blocking schemes all carry over from the base plays: zones, power, counter, and so on. The new teaching is primarily for the quarterbacks and runningbacks, not the offensive line. But, as with everything, the entire thing goes in within three days, with carryover from day to day for the most important concepts, and the focus is on teaching.

A final thought on motions, shifts and so forth: I don’t show them in the above as I don’t see them as properly part of the initial installation of an offense. I think the first three days and maybe even all of, say, a spring practice, can go without motion. Such motions and shifts come in later, to add the apparent complexity to an offense that isn’t actually there for the players. That stuff is easily taught once the players are taught their assignments. In Leach’s words, at that point you aren’t teaching him a new assignment, you’re just teaching him a new place to stand.

A word of caution to anyone who wants to adopt this approach, however, given the fraught nature of our political discourse: Underlying this approach is a kind of political value judgment — despite my quote of Adam Smith above, this framework for an offense assumes a belief that the best offenses are somewhat Marxist in their desire to “spread the wealth.” In lieu of deciding upon one or two guys who will roam the field like old school capitalist robber barrons, dominating the receiving and rushing industries equally, the attempt is to assign roles ahead of time and to let them flourish in, and only in, the one place we’ve told him to stand: production comes from each according to his ability; and the ball goes to each according to his need.

Yet, maybe that’s not true. Maybe Smith is the patron saint of this approach. Instead of tying your success solely to predetermined bureaucratic favorites — Percy Positions chosen by the Party — we have something more meritocratic, more capitalist: Wherever you line the guys up, the ball will find the playmakers.

Additional Reading:
- Small school Airraid installation
- Hal Mumme’s Airraid Practice Plan
- Bill Walsh on Gameplanning
- Wild Bunch Installation and New Information. Read both.
- Oklahoma State offensive and defensive spring practice schedules.
- Observations from viewing Oklahoma State’s spring practice.

  • Pingback: Adam Smith, ftw | Get The Picture

  • Pingback: Why every team should install its offense in three days | Y'all Sports

  • Mr.Murder

    Thought Ace was double tight with one back?

    To install three wide it starts with teaching the two man concepts, from my perspective, and running complimentary backfield routes. When you go to a three receiver side the number three replaces the back on the route for WCO stuff and does a crease/mofo read for vertical items to attack the seam.

    So we start with the sprint and smash then go verts, by then the players have an understanding the crease read from four verts. The third target has seen the backs on sprint options and begins to replace the player with similar routes on horizontal planes(swing replaced by bubble, options or choice checks).

  • Charlestowne

    I think the analogy can hold true if your market, aka QB, can can distribute the wealth with equal efficiency to all parties. If some wealth distribution methods become favored through non-efficient drivers, then the system ultimately returns to a Percey-esque state of haves and have-nots. Every market will have some disparity in wealth as not all market participants are created equal. However, care will be needed to make sure that some participants don’t cheat the system (read: QB locks in on one target for the season). If this were to happen, then the market losses is efficiencies and jobs will be shipped off-shore (turnovers) as other nations become more competitive in the global market place. ( I hope I didn’t take this too far)

  • Greg D

    Awesome stuff. I’ve printed this out and will be giving it more thought for putting together our installation package for the fall…

  • Pingback: Why Every College Football Team Should Install Its Offense In Three Days – Route1Radio.com

  • Paul Cooper

    The other thing to note is that for Leach and I assume Holgorson balance is about all 5 ball handling positions getting a share of the ball (and yardage). Now that doesn’t mean that Leach will instruct his QB to ignore a favorable matchup or coverage simply maintain a strict ‘fair’ quota but tracking touches/yards does help make coaches check against predictability and make them react as the D adjusts one position having outsize success. It’s also good for post game analysis – touches: X 10, H 8, Y 4, Z 1 – why? Where they rotating coverage to Z to take out of the game, therby leaving X singled up? Or QB favoring reads to his left for some reason (left handed, X & H most explosive receivers, etc) ignoring opportunities on the other side.

    For us that means we’d like to see X, H, Y, Z all gain 50 yards, and F 70 yards, and since we run a little Option and Zone read the QB 30 yards.

  • Anonymous

    I disagree with the idea that ” this reliance on a “Percy Position” — a guy that can play most every skill position on offense — eventually does more harm than good.” And for two reasons, primarily, why such an approach is bad is not properly explained.

    Rather than offer the desired statistically based and logical reasons, this blog post uses a heavy dose of platitudes like ” if your offense is well-designed you don’t need to move a guy around to get him the ball.”

    Huh?

    That’s simply, and with all due respect to this excellent post, not logical. What happens if that offense meets a defense that succeeds in stopping it? Does that then mean the formations and plays were not well designed? Does that mean an offense playing a defense with weaker personnel was well designed because it scored 50 points?

    No.

    I would argue that a well-designed offense is one where a player can be “moved around” to counter a defense. In other words, flexibility in system design allows more ways to counter a defensive scheme. What you’re advocating is a narrow rigidity that always is foiled by “the right defense” given the situation of an even spread of talent.

  • Anonymous

    Zennie: I disagree, as the above post explains. “Moving a guy around” alone is not enough. The idea is that if a defense wants to “take away” a guy because he’s enough of a threat, the “well designed” offense should have other answers to different parts of the field without needing to move him around. Indeed, if a receiver demands double/roll coverage to his side, you might be working against yourself to move him and bring the defense’s emphasis elsewhere to someplace you can’t predict.

    Now, look, as I said in the post this can all be caveated if you have a guy who is so much better than everyone else. If you have a high school team and you’ve got Marcus Dupree or some NFL ready guy, might as well find a way to get him the ball, even if there is some “moving him around.” But I think the better approach is to use that as a later adjustment — i.e. you focus on having everyone learn their position so that Marcus Dupree can be the best RB he can be, and if turns out he’s better at catching screens than everyone else too, then fine, but better to do it that way than to have him only achieve 60% of his skills at RB while working at another 40% as a wide receiver, and so on.

  • Anonymous

    Ace depends on terminology; it can be two-tight or one-tight with three wide. The point of the way I have it set up above is that Day 1 everything is taught from “balanced” 2×2 sets, whether with TEs or WRs. If you want to base with 2 TEs that’s fine too. Day 2 and Day 3 focus on unbalanced or trips sets and sets with two backs, respectively.

  • Pingback: daily 04/05/2011 « Cshonea’s Blog

  • Japerry18

    Dykes and Franklin (two more from the Mumme/Leach tree) installed their offense at Louisiana Tech they talked a lot about how simple it was and how quickly it would be installed.
    But they’ve also done a lot of position shifting. The guy leading the pack for QB this year spent time at WR last season, and there have been some back-and-forth between WR and RB.

  • Pingback: Install the Offense Quickly » Stathead » Blog Archive

  • LA Coach

    I think this article is the peferct example of the problem of coaches looking up a level (ie, high school coaches looking at college coaches for too many ideas). While I agree that specialization is better, it only works when you have 85 players and are able to specialize so much. The average high school coach typically has only 1 or 2 real playmakers on offense and needs to use them as “Percy” to move them around. Personally, I usually don’t move my best WR into the backfield at all, but I will have them move around from #1 outside receiver, to slot, to #1 on trips, to single WR on the backside depending on the defense. With RB’s I usually keep them in the backfield and will have them run routes from there, although if I my TB is the fastest kid on the team, I will line him up X and teach him to run fly and post routes to spread the defense.
    In addition, watching the NFL, they move players around all the time. I remember watching a Patriots game where Welker lined up at RB, ran an iso fake as the lead blocker, and then ran up the seam for a TD.

  • Mr.Murder

    Thanks, coach Brown.

    So ACE is balanced no matter the grouping call. This is consistent with teaching two man route concepts first. Especially the idea of dual routes. This allows players to better grasp how top move in concert so they can create openings in coverage, how to get there and best catch the ball while keeping defenders away from it.

  • Anonymous

    Took a while for me sit down and address your response. The issue I have with it, is that the idea of NOT moving a player from position to position as a part of the design of the offense, is that it takes away the ability to exploit an obvious mismatch.

    The classic example is placing the flanker at the fullback position in an “I”, then sending him in motion to the weakside, and running a circle pattern because you know your going to get coverage from the inside backer. And if the outside backer blitzes, you slide the guard to pick him up. Five steps, no-hitch-step, throw – watch the YAC count up.

    If you agree that in economics, the most efficient approach is not to assign the expenditure of money for a social program – to permit the most flexibility – why take that away in offensive design? It inhibits the number of ways you can respond to a defensive approach.

    As to your observation that the defense will do “something you can’t predict,” that’s impossible. There are only a finite number of responses to anything an offense can do; it’s the job of the coaches to predict those responses.

    And remember, the advantage of the Dallas Cowboys Multiple Offense was that it forced defenders to call simple coverages to adjust – not complicated ones.

    The problem with offenses today is they’re too rigid. That is, there’s no offense that has the variations of receiver shifting that were seen by the Cowboys running backs as a routine.

    If I were to design an offense, that would be (and is) the first approach – to have shifting receiver formation from 3 by 1 and 4 by 1 sets. But we expand the thinking to have the receiver go from the 3-side or 1-side to the backfield, while, say, bringing the tight end out to the split-end’s position at the 1-side.

    Too often, 99 percent of the time, passing offenses are sitting ducks for the exotic zone blitzes of today. It’s just disgusting to see

    The classic example is placing the flanker at the fullback position in an “I”, then sending him in motion to the weakside, and running a circle pattern because you know your going to get coverage from the inside backer. And if the outside backer blitzes, you slide the guard to pick him up. Five steps, no-hitch-step, throw – watch the YAC count up.

    If you agree that in economics, the most efficient approach is not to assign the expenditure of money for a social program – to permit the most flexibility – why take that away in offensive design? It inhibits the number of ways you can respond to a defensive approach.

    As to your observation that the defense will do “something you can’t predict,” that’s impossible. There are only a finite number of responses to anything an offense can do; it’s the job of the coaches to predict those responses.

    And remember, the advantage of the Dallas Cowboys Multiple Offense was that it forced defenders to call simple coverages to adjust – not complicated ones.

    The problem with offenses today is they’re too rigid. That is, there’s no offense that has the variations of receiver shifting that were seen by the Cowboys running backs as a routine.

    If I were to design an offense, that would be (and is) the first approach – to have shifting receiver formation from 3 by 1 and 4 by 1 sets. But we expand the thinking to have the receiver go from the 3-side or 1-side to the backfield, while, say, bringing the tight end out to the split-end’s position at the 1-side.

    Too often, 99 percent of the time, passing offenses are sitting ducks for the exotic zone blitzes of today. It’s just disgusting to see

    The classic example is placing the flanker at the fullback position in an “I”, then sending him in motion to the weakside, and running a circle pattern because you know your going to get coverage from the inside backer. And if the outside backer blitzes, you slide the guard to pick him up. Five steps, no-hitch-step, throw – watch the YAC count up.

    If you agree that in economics, the most efficient approach is not to assign the expenditure of money for a social program – to permit the most flexibility – why take that away in offensive design? It inhibits the number of ways you can respond to a defensive approach.

    As to your observation that the defense will do “something you can’t predict,” that’s impossible. There are only a finite number of responses to anything an offense can do; it’s the job of the coaches to predict those responses.

    And remember, the advantage of the Dallas Cowboys Multiple Offense was that it forced defenders to call simple coverages to adjust – not complicated ones.

    The problem with offenses today is they’re too rigid. That is, there’s no offense that has the variations of receiver shifting that were seen by the Cowboys running backs as a routine.

    If I were to design an offense, that would be (and is) the first approach – to have shifting receiver formation from 3 by 1 and 4 by 1 sets. But we expand the thinking to have the receiver go from the 3-side or 1-side to the backfield, while, say, bringing the tight end out to the split-end’s position at the 1-side.

    Too often, 99 percent of the time, passing offenses are sitting ducks for the exotic zone blitzes of today. It’s just disgusting to see.

  • Ebr502002

    Well done my friend!
     

  • Lorance02

    Wow. You took the words right out of my mouth ‘LA Coach.’ As soon as Chris mentioned Wes Welker in his post I *immediately* thought about the play you just mentioned. Belichick is notorious for emphasizing flexibility in regards to personnel. It’s a strategy that has paid off quite well; specifically in regards to masking the negative effect of injuries. I’m specifically thinking of Mike Vrabel moving to inside linebacker (and TE!) and Troy Brown at Nickel. 

    I also know that Belichick is good friends with Urban Meyer and the two often meet in the offseason — within that context, the evolution of the “Percy Position” might make at bit more sense.

  • Pingback: wvuheisman.com - Bustin’ Out: Geno Smith

  • Mr.Murder

    The target count remains intact from your ace(3 wide) set and that is of importance. Then you have concepts at play. This accelerates installation of concepts that apply to any formation used.

    What intrigues me at this time is formations and playcalls related to sequencing. Bill Walsh mentioned this in Building A Champion, only briefly. More detail on this would be appreciated, have to go back through his book, it lacks an index to find the specific page.

    Have begun to see a way of sequencing plays as it relates to running no huddle offense, and a seperate sequence for situations relating to field placement. Plan on scripting one of those two for use in game situations(get a situation on a boundary placement, select a play from the list that corresponds to grouping).

    That way your game planning remains intact but the QB is the one who helps implement the call. It becomes his in doing so.

    Now that everyone has core offense to run from similar systems, what sequences seem to make the most use for you? Would make a great article here in and of itself.

    More on that from another thread here, at the time this topic is a story….

  • Mr.Murder

    Most of the Cowboys multiple shifts involved the O line standing up and then going to their stance. The shift is rarely used nowadays. Last I recall was in the ’02 AFC title game, that season oakland would do it on the final snap of the game if they were winning and the QB was taking a knee.

    Anyways Landry used the shift to hide his setbacks when they were down so he could rotate near/far/split variations and end up catching which backers would peek over the line to find their assigned set backs.

    It muddied matchups and recognition for the defense. Gave them a better idea of the under rotation so they could anticipate banjo/roll coverage shells on top of that or isolate alley defenders in conflict with crossers and players to the flat, etc.

    Now teams have everyone in two point stance. Blockers so they can pass set and disguise run or pass on zone blocking. Backs so they can see to pick up in protection and adjust on the go. Teams still use multiple sets, a lot of WCO teams do that with no intention of running a play from said form until the second half. They get great ideas of who is assigned those players on a reset and of course the D is much more likely to stay vanilla on less familiar forms or shifts, often use that later into a game.

  • Pingback: Football Strategy 101: Louisiana State vs. West Virginia | Cloud Computing Expert|Virtualization Expert|Global Outsourcing Expert|Marco Giunta

  • Pingback: Dana Holgorsen Offense and What Brandon Doman Can Learn | The Deep Post

  • Pingback: 5 Install Football Sites | Eye Watch Everything

  • Pingback: Checklists, Rituals and Practice | Dan John

  • Pingback: '12 JUCO WR Cordarrelle Patterson (UT signee) - Page 482 - VolNation

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/JNJLR2MEVCWZOLKVS5TWR3TI4M ALICIA

    if redistribution fails, then the outcome is deserved.  the hardship for the team would be if compensation took place in the form of cheating

  • Pingback: Neal Brown Press Conference

  • Pingback: College Football 2013/14, Preview Week 5 am Samstag | Sideline Reporter