I keep reading the laments about not going under center for goal line and I don't see it if we are going to be in the gun the rest of the time. Now, I do believe that under center should be in the toolbox, but if it is ONLY used in goal line situations they will just blitz the A-gaps. One advantage of being in the gun is you can still zone-read (extra playside blocker as backside DE is not blocked). Under center takes that option away. How many times has a QB walked into the endzone because the DE crashed on a goal line zone read 'pull' (not necessarily ISU lately
).
K-State is phenomenal out of the gun in short yardage and even lowly KU led the B12 in rushing a couple years ago out of the diamond formation. With the right QB (Lanning?) for short yardage situations and a 'keeper' with 1-2 lead blockers out of the diamond or flank it would seem that an argument could be made to stay in the gun vs under center. In that formation Lanning essentially becomes the tailback in a Power-I. He gets the ball in the same spot as he would if it is handed to him and it allows an extra offensive player to be outside the box, thereby taking a defender out of the box as well. I really like the idea of Lanning in those short-yardage situations as ALL options are open; whether at the goal line or not.
). K-State is phenomenal out of the gun in short yardage and even lowly KU led the B12 in rushing a couple years ago out of the diamond formation. With the right QB (Lanning?) for short yardage situations and a 'keeper' with 1-2 lead blockers out of the diamond or flank it would seem that an argument could be made to stay in the gun vs under center. In that formation Lanning essentially becomes the tailback in a Power-I. He gets the ball in the same spot as he would if it is handed to him and it allows an extra offensive player to be outside the box, thereby taking a defender out of the box as well. I really like the idea of Lanning in those short-yardage situations as ALL options are open; whether at the goal line or not.
