And it is not, "do you have a medical degree?"
Coach Prince keeps saying they reevaluated the offense, and matched this offense to this personnel. That does not make sense.
I am not completely opposed to running some Pistol. I am not even opposed to having it be a base formation. It creates some advantage for bruising downhill runners, like BSU has. However, just because you line up your QB 3 1/2 to 4 yards deep and put a single back behind him, doesn't mean you are running the "Pistol" as Chris Ault did it for years. I was at 2 Nevada games in Reno, and one in Boise with Kaepernick running that offense. They had motion, they had wrinkles, they had fly sweeps, they had play action. What BSU ran in Seattle was no more like the real "pistol" than my Optimist team a few years ago ran the "spread" like Tebow did at Florida. The only similarity was a shotgun snap to a QB who mostly ran somewhere with it, and occasionally, surprisingly passed.
Nevada also had an awesome athlete at QB. So, to condense my question after that preface....Other than bruising running backs, what personnel do you think "fits" the pistol?
Southwick has a little mobility, but obviously there were no designed runs for him. Nobody thought (ever) he was going to keep it on the read/option and run for a 60 yard touchdown. (or even a 10 yard gain). The linebackers were able to just sit in their gaps and let things come to them. The O-line and Ajayi/Baltazar actually did quite a good job for the most part, considering the linebackers really didn't have to adjust or think much, just stay in their gaps, and make a play.
Our receivers are fast, but don't really get separation. Coach Petersen was totally on that one.
Anyway, can't quite figure out why they have to run bland, vanilla plays, no matter what formation they line up in. My Optimist team could have run all of the plays that BSU ran Saturday night. (I think others have identified 4 as the correct number). UW certainly had no trouble defending it.