Not to make this thread a referendum on the spread did anyone take note of Tebow today, passing Walker for most career SEC touchdowns? Now explain to me how Florida is a justification of this Franklin/Malz spread offense we are trying to run? Florida is a power running ball control team, period.
Can we please, once and for all, quite using Florida as justification that the kind of offense we are wasting time with will work in this league, it is apples and oranges plains and simple.
__________________ "I thought Auburn was good, but certainly not great on offense. Next season [2010], the Tigers need to be better on short yardage and they need to be able to run the ball and take time off the clock when it's called for." - Phillip Marshall, AuburnUndercover.com
Hrm, maybe I am not crazy after all.
What you're neglecting to mention is that most of our run plays are very basic (there are several thrown in that take longer to develop, admittedly yes) and when run from the shotgun are not normally effective. In order to be effective, simple plays have to be run very quickly with, as you say, "cute" stuff thrown in. The hurry-up, quick pace is not just something tacked on to his strategy. It's the entire philosophy of the offense.
It does require a high rate of successful execution, because otherwise you run into what we did today with several no gain plays. Every kind of offense has it's downside. This is the downside here. A more conventional ball-control offense has the downside of far FAR fewer explosive plays. Just because this particular downside irks you more particularly than everyone else doesn't mean it doesn't work, in this league or otherwise. It just means that you personally don't like it. When the players execute properly, it's beaten two of the better defenses (UT and UM) in this league.
However, I can't say you're completely wrong; you might end up being right. But right now, I see no reason to say that you're definitely right. We'll see, but it's not time to start calling for heads, especially after a big win.
Edit: I wanted to highlight this part of PM's game summary: "Auburn scored more points in the third quarter than any team had scored on Ole Miss in any game all season." That says something.
What you're neglecting to mention is that most of our run plays are very basic (there are several thrown in that take longer to develop, admittedly yes) and when run from the shotgun are not normally effective. In order to be effective, simple plays have to be run very quickly with, as you say, "cute" stuff thrown in. The hurry-up, quick pace is not just something tacked on to his strategy. It's the entire philosophy of the offense.
Most of our runs are overly complex and rely more on scheme and misdirection than putting a hat on a hat and fighting for the line of scrimmage. And yes, the hurry up and make a mistake/penalty thing is a key part of the offense but in this league of talented and prepared teasm it doesn't give the benefit it does out in the WAC. Teams are too prepared, too talented to be gimmicked consistently. IN the end, whatever 'benifit' we get from the high pace, if any at all, we lose two fold by consistently putting the defense on the field tired or in situations where all we need is an offense to consume a few minutes of clock.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lynx34
It does require a high rate of successful execution, because otherwise you run into what we did today with several no gain plays. Every kind of offense has it's downside. This is the downside here. A more conventional ball-control offense has the downside of far FAR fewer explosive plays. Just because this particular downside irks you more particularly than everyone else doesn't mean it doesn't work, in this league or otherwise. It just means that you personally don't like it. When the players execute properly, it's beaten two of the better defenses (UT and UM) in this league.
Last year and this year the glaring obvious reality is that the number of no gain or even short loss plays is staggering. I think this stems directly from the 'you cannot consistently gimmick a good defense thing above. And yes, a more traditional offense has less explosive plays but we have seen this season clearly that good teams stop big plays and this spread offense is jack crap without big play. You live my the big play, you die by the big play. Week in and week out in this league you will not make enough consistent big plays to win. Sure, you can do the UGA thing and look great for a few weeks then get inexplicable creamed then look great and then get creamed and so on and so on. Becuase of the pressure this offense puts on the defense (our defense that is) with the fast pace there is no room for missing big plays and big plays are just too easy for good teams to take away.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lynx34
However, I can't say you're completely wrong; you might end up being right. But right now, I see no reason to say that you're definitely right. We'll see, but it's not time to start calling for heads, especially after a big win.
Edit: I wanted to highlight this part of PM's game summary: "Auburn scored more points in the third quarter than any team had scored on Ole Miss in any game all season." That says something.
I am not calling for heads, though I would love to bash Malz in the head for his play calling these last few weeks and especially for his complete ineptitude today in even running off more than a minute of clock in any one of the half dozen late game possessions. I said Chizek should force Malz to normalize and dial back to gimmicks and cuteness and focus more on power running spread as it was touted before the season started. If by year end Malz cannot do this effectively then he is clearly not right for this league or this team.
If Malz can deliver a Florida like power running 'spread' then go ahead, but if he insists on this WAC spread go-go-go all we need is one big play to make up for the last 10 bad play crap then he has to go. And the super fast pace crap - Chizek needs to put a stop to that right here and now, it does far more harm than good and only the #@$! teams cannot keep up anyways.
__________________ "I thought Auburn was good, but certainly not great on offense. Next season [2010], the Tigers need to be better on short yardage and they need to be able to run the ball and take time off the clock when it's called for." - Phillip Marshall, AuburnUndercover.com
Hrm, maybe I am not crazy after all.
You make a lot of good points. I respect your position. It makes sense. But I still feel like when it comes down to it, you're basing your position on the arbitrary argument that the SEC is somehow special or impervious. Yes it's good, and yes it's been the most competitive conference recently, but go back 10 years, and it's not the case. But I won't get into that because that'll get us way off topic.
SEC defenses aren't perfect. Everyone gets tired. See: second half of UT game. Before you bring up today and our scoreless 4th quarter, I think that had more to do with the fact that since we were trying to run every play, we didn't get the balance needed to get first downs. But if you look at our first TD. RIght before it, Houston Nutt was finally able to substitute and put in 11 new guys just to get in fresh players. The result? Wide open Darvin Adams.
The reason why our previous three opponents didn't get winded was because we never got rolling in the first place. This scheme has a definite snowball effect. When good things happen, more good things will happen and when bad things happen, more bad things will happen. It all relies on good execution, more so than other schemes.
I would agree with you that we should run less slow developing runs. They should still be implemented because when they work, holy crap, it's awesome. But I think our OL is good enough that we can trust them to make the lanes on their own without all the misdirection every time.
I disagree that good teams are able to take away the big play. Again, look at the UT game. Monte Kiffin is a premier defensive coordinator. They got wrecked anyway. The previous three games were all on us, with maybe the exception of LSU where their defense is worth half a crap. Do you really think Arkansas and Kentucky have defenses that good? No, we just executed poorly.
But like I said we should go with it for a few years. I mean, Todd is an average SEC QB at best; if Rollison develops like we hope he will, imagine what he could do. He might even be able to do something on those speed options that Todd always has to pitch right away, as just one example. DOn't tell me you're not asking for heads, I've seen you say we should fire Malzahn in at least 3 different threads today. Also as a sidenote, Tulsa is in C-USA, not the WAC. You make a good debate, but that really made you sound ill informed.
I think you have got to hold off on this kind of talk about CGM. I see a ton of potential for having a really explosive offense. Let him get a couple of recruiting classes in so that he has the type players he needs to run exactly what he wants and then if he is not successful you can call for his job. For now, you can criticize the play calls with a 21 point lead, sure. You can criticize the run plays taking too long to develop, but that's about it. Give the guy a chance. You gotta admit, 6 of 9 games have been pretty exciting.
You make a lot of good points. I respect your position. It makes sense. But I still feel like when it comes down to it, you're basing your position on the arbitrary argument that the SEC is somehow special or impervious. Yes it's good, and yes it's been the most competitive conference recently, but go back 10 years, and it's not the case. But I won't get into that because that'll get us way off topic.
SEC defenses aren't perfect. Everyone gets tired. See: second half of UT game. Before you bring up today and our scoreless 4th quarter, I think that had more to do with the fact that since we were trying to run every play, we didn't get the balance needed to get first downs. But if you look at our first TD. RIght before it, Houston Nutt was finally able to substitute and put in 11 new guys just to get in fresh players. The result? Wide open Darvin Adams.
Outside of 3rd tier teams the whole 'tired' defense thing has not materialized in nearly two full seasons with the spread. And at best, even if it is for real the 'tired' equally, or worse, affects our own defense especially against good teams where you are not going to have the other key element of a spread, a big lead to make the opposing team one dimensional.
As for SEC quality, bar none a cut above the rest of the nation in terms of number of quality defenses and the depth of those defenses. Yes, you might make them tired and softer as a result but in terms of facing 4 to 6 top quality defense through the season the chances are you will not be able to significantly gimmick or tire your way through that many games.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lynx34
The reason why our previous three opponents didn't get winded was because we never got rolling in the first place. This scheme has a definite snowball effect. When good things happen, more good things will happen and when bad things happen, more bad things will happen. It all relies on good execution, more so than other schemes.
Exactly, the spread potency is just not reliable week in and week out when you are facing quality opponents. Heck, even good teams have a couple off days in a season and when that happens with a spread team you got a double whamy from your own tired defense and their no tired defense and your off offense and you have no low gear to go to to grind back in to form. This is why it looks amazing much of the time but always falls short of delivering in big games or for the whole season. Furthermore, the amount of gimmick/scheme based execution gets harder and harder to pull off as the year goes on and film on you piles up - teams know what is coming plain and simple and as the opponents get tougher as the season ticks on it just makes for mid to end of season collapses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lynx34
I would agree with you that we should run less slow developing runs. They should still be implemented because when they work, holy crap, it's awesome. But I think our OL is good enough that we can trust them to make the lanes on their own without all the misdirection every time.
The problem here is reliability. If you lined up and got to run all yoru plays for a game or half at once then that theory would be great (the if this one flops the next one may not theory). But in real football each no gain increases the chance of another and so on and so on and so on. By contrast, a solid three yards and a cloud of dust consistently puts your offense in a better position on the next down to do better than the previous down, in other words small successes lead to bigger successes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lynx34
I disagree that good teams are able to take away the big play. Again, look at the UT game. Monte Kiffin is a premier defensive coordinator. They got wrecked anyway. The previous three games were all on us, with maybe the exception of LSU where their defense is worth half a crap. Do you really think Arkansas and Kentucky have defenses that good? No, we just executed poorly.
An even decent defense can always take away one offensive facet, and a good defense can very consistently take away the big plays and make you work down the field. As for Monty - a pro coach, not a college coach. He may or may not have success but as a long time Tampa area resident I can tell you without question that his Tampa 2 system is a terrible fit for college. For one it is very much different than what most players are used too, it is all about gap control and a strong linebacker presence. So many quality defensive players came through Tampa over the years and never got in to the lineup because they just where not heady enough to handle the defensive scheme. Now, I can allready see him going to much more blitzing than ever he did here and that makes them open to big plays, but again, that is a result of the weakness of the Tampa 2 scheme in college with less experienced and mature players not the inability to take away the big play schematically. Monte Kiffen in college is much like Spurrier in the pros - right guy in wrong place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lynx34
But like I said we should go with it for a few years. I mean, Todd is an average SEC QB at best; if Rollison develops like we hope he will, imagine what he could do. He might even be able to do something on those speed options that Todd always has to pitch right away, as just one example. Don't tell me you're not asking for heads, I've seen you say we should fire Malzahn in at least 3 different threads today. Also as a sidenote, Tulsa is in C-USA, not the WAC. You make a good debate, but that really made you sound ill informed.
2 years or 5 years the result will be the same and I point to history for proof. No SEC team has ever taken a this leagues title without a solid, ball control offense. Certainly there are variations in formations and style, but every single SEC champ over the years can be first and foremost described as a ball control team. Also, look to the high flying SEC offensive teams and see how inconsistent they are, UGA, TEN (though more traditional high flying than spread), Kentucky, Arkansas and some other such 2nd tier teams. The big boys - Florida, LSU, and Bama are ball control power running teams with varying degrees of vertical assaults but ALL are power running ball control teams first. Even Meyer acknowledged this after his first year in the conference and as you probably recall he reworked his offense accordingly after that first season seeing the depth and speed of the defense you face in the conference week in and week out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lynx34
Tulsa is in C-USA, not the WAC. You make a good debate, but that really made you sound ill informed.
I wasn't trying to be accurate in saying WAC I was trying to be descriptive as we all know the image of a all offense no defense team I mean in terms of the WAC. And keep in mind, Tulsa was in the WAC before it reorganized losing a number of schools so I think my point was well made in spirit if not in textbook accuracy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scleeb
I think you have got to hold off on this kind of talk about CGM. I see a ton of potential for having a really explosive offense. Let him get a couple of recruiting classes in so that he has the type players he needs to run exactly what he wants and then if he is not successful you can call for his job. For now, you can criticize the play calls with a 21 point lead, sure. You can criticize the run plays taking too long to develop, but that's about it. Give the guy a chance. You gotta admit, 6 of 9 games have been pretty exciting.
Again, I am not saying fire him I am saying tell him to refocus his offense on ball control and power running and give him the rest of the season to prove he can. I think he is a smart guy, and if he gets over himself and recognizes that week in and week out in this league he is going to be facing someone at least as smart as him if not smarter and his scheming is not going to amount to much much of the time then he could do fine.
And I think the time is now to make this call because if this next recruiting class is wasted on small speedy little spread players we will be stuck in the second/third tier of the conference for 2 to 5 more years no matter what changes they make in scheme or staff. Consider MacCalleb, what a great talent - but he last what, 1 1/2 SEC games before he was beat out of effectiveness and eventually off the field. If this next class is a bunch of speedy types this time next year we will not even have the Tate's to pull us through when the fancy smancy stuff is going nowhere. Without Tate's power running (when done) and Smith's power out of the backfield on short passes this spread would be seriously devoid of real successes as those big plays would not be open. Even with them we are seeing teams those big plays away or at least severely curtail them. Let me elaborate on what I mean here - Tate can suceed without Fanin's and MacCalleb's outside game but MacCalleb and Fanin will get nowhere without Tate's power. You cannot get the corner on SEC teams down after down or week after week, especially not without a serious inside game.
__________________ "I thought Auburn was good, but certainly not great on offense. Next season [2010], the Tigers need to be better on short yardage and they need to be able to run the ball and take time off the clock when it's called for." - Phillip Marshall, AuburnUndercover.com
Hrm, maybe I am not crazy after all.
IMHO, with the exception of time-of-possession, there is not much room to complain about AU's offensive production this year, all things considered.
Complain if you want........me, I am just going to enjoy this team and this season.
WAR EAGLE
__________________ "Believe me on this. Please. I have descended into college football's Grand Canyon. I have stood in its Alps. I have gazed at its ocean sunset. I have attended a game at Jordan-Hare Stadium in Auburn, Ala. And I've been changed forever. " BUD POLIQUIN
Again you make solid points across the board and I'm not going to take the time to address them all, partly because I'll agree to at least parts of just about all of them. I'll totally admit this system has it's flaws. But the weaknesses to ball control offenses are still there. Low numbers, low points, more risk in a game by game basis (less risk on a play by play basis), in my opinion, to lose a lead since the leads are typically only 2 possessions at most, occasionally 3 (between two quality teams, since you're limiting my arguments to good vs. good, I'll do the same), but that's rare. In any game, with any offense, it's hard to run out the clock. The defense is more motivated to get the ball back and they all know you're going to run. Heck, it took a "cute" play today with an end around by Stallworth to get a first down on the final possession.
At the end of the day, it's just that you're more comfortable with the weaknesses of a ball control offense, and I'm more comfortable with big plays with higher inherent risk on a play by play basis. My biggest issue with ball control are that if you do turn the ball over, that's often a much bigger factor against you than if you have a spread offense to be able to score quickly to counter whatever your opponent did with the ball on the other side. I know you'll say the defense will likely be more rested so they'll be more likely to make the stop, but if we had depth on defense, it wouldn't matter, because we would be able to rotate more.
I also don't like that too often, ball control comes down to converting third and 4s. To me, a 3rd and 4 is harder to call a play for then a 3rd and 9. When in rhythm, our offense never even sees a third down, and if it does, it'll be on a 3rd and 1 or 2. So the difference is that the average yards to go on 3rd is about the same, but there's more extremes with our current scheme. I'm okay with that, but then again, I'm a big fan of aggressive playcalling.
So, we're at a difference in opinion, but I don't think one style is inherently better. There aren't enough years of data to support that as spreads (or spread-like elements) have just started to be brought into this league. You bring up that no SEC champion has run a balanced or pass-heavy spread. This is mostly because no one's tried, with the exception of Hal Mumme at UK, but that's UK, so I hardly think that counts.
I also don't get where you see that we're recruiting small guys. Here's a breakdown of the height/weight of our offensive commits this year:
OL Shon Coleman 6-7, 285
OL Ed Christian 6-5, 280
WR Antonio Goodwin 6-2, 170
WR Jeremy Richardson 6-4, 220
ATH D.J. Howard 6-0, 195
OL Chad Slade 6-6, 316
and for kicks,
RB Michael Dyer 5-8, 201
I don't actually know if Howard is being recruited for defense or not, but I listed him anyway. Either way, the only 'small' guy is Goodwin. The lineman are all big and will gain another 10-15 pounds in weight training. Richardson is huge for a wideout. Dyer is almost perfect RB size. So I don't see how that argument plays in. I don't think a switch out of Malzahn's system will require as big of a personnel change as say, Franklin's would. Or to switch in, for that matter. It's already working fairly well, we just need more bodies and a better QB wouldn't hurt either; that should only take one, MAYBE two more years. We should be stacked at WR and RB next year, and we only lose one OL in McCain.
But back to the bulk of the matter. Honestly, I don't think you like the system because it doesn't mesh with your philosophy of how an offense should be run. I get that, that's fine. But you don't have to post it in every thread. Sounds like a broken record and your original point, which is completely valid, by the way, gets lost. I do commend you on starting this thread though, it's been a lot of fun. I'm perfectly happy to keep this going. Gives me an easy way to burn time.
here are the SEC Offensive stats for 2009 to date:
Scoring Offense
1. Florida 35.3 ppg spread type of offense
2. Arkansas 32.0 spread type of offense
3. Auburn 31.8 spread
Alabama 31.8 Power I
5. Ole Miss 30.1 Power I
6. Tennessee 28.9 Power I
7. Georgia 7 22 11 20 1 0 1 189 27.0 Power I
8. Miss. State 8 25 12 23 0 0 1 211 26.4 Spread
9. Kentucky 7 24 5 22 0 0 1 183 26.1 A mixture
10. LSU 7 20 10 17 1 0 0 169 24.1 Power I
11. South Carolina 8 21 12 20 0 0 1 184 23.0 completely lost on offense
12. Vanderbilt 8 15 9 14 0 0 1 133 16.6 ????
TOTAL OFFENSE
1. Florida 457.0 ypg
2. Auburn 430.9
3. Arkansas 416.4
4. Alabama 410.0
5. Ole Miss 392.1
6. Tennessee 385.3
7. Miss. State 371.1
8. South Carolina 366.4
9. Kentucky 337.3
10. Georgia 334.7
11. Vanderbilt 323.0
12. LSU 306.6
notice the top three and the bottom two (minus Vandy) and the type of offenses run by these teams.
Those stats, though only a momentary snapshot and inclusive of games against mid and bottom tier opponents (i.e. take out AUs non conf stats and see where they would be), pretty much show what I am saying. FL is a non spread spread (in other words they are a spread in formation but power I in spirit) and with the exception of ARK you got not a single team at the top that is nto a ball control, power running focused team.
Now expand it beyond stats, to simply 'theory' or 'identity'. Florida is a power running team, Bama is a power running team, LSU is a power running team, ARK is a spread team. Now who do we want to be? FL, AL, LSU or ARK?
__________________ "I thought Auburn was good, but certainly not great on offense. Next season [2010], the Tigers need to be better on short yardage and they need to be able to run the ball and take time off the clock when it's called for." - Phillip Marshall, AuburnUndercover.com
Hrm, maybe I am not crazy after all.
On the spread...
"Believe me on this. Please. I have descended into college football's Grand Canyon. I have stood in its Alps. I have gazed at its ocean sunset. I have attended a game at Jordan-Hare Stadium in Auburn, Ala. And I've been changed forever. " BUD POLIQUIN
Linear Mode
