Quality of SEC offensive execution

[USCNowAndForever]

Watching some past SEC games, it is interesting to me how often SEC teams fail to execute offensive plays correctly.

Examples:

2009 SEC Championship game

-Mark Ingram runs the ball to the right down on the goal line with Terrence Cody lead blocking. Cody barely makes the block and flies into the endzone and almost falls flat on his face.

-Tebow has Hernandez wide open behind the defense in the upper right corner of the endzone, and yet Tebow tries to throw more of a bullet pass and it is intercepted by Javier Arenas.

2012 USC-LSU game

-I have covered this one several times on here before, but USC's TEs fail to execute the Mesh play correctly.

2012 USC-UF game

-I have also covered this one several times on here before. USC's two right receivers run into each other while trying to run a Seam/In route combination.

2012 SEC Championship game

-UGA's running back fails to pass protect correctly, which leads to a Bama linebacker tipping Aaron Murray's pass.

These are just a few examples.

No one is perfect, but considering how well the SEC is known for football, not to mention the quality of coaching, how is this sort of stuff so commonplace in the SEC? Perhaps SEC teams tend to be so good at defense that there is no incentive for them to be better at offense?

Keep in mind that these sort of errors are usually not because of something the defense did, but rather they are execution errors where the offense beat themselves, especially with USC's TEs and WRs not running plays correctly.

[brat]

I don't find it odd, at all.

Consider how many plays an average or good team may execute during a game. We'll just throw out a number...55.

Now, you have to have 11 people to not only execute their job on each play in a well operated, cohesive fashion. Even then, to make it near perfect, you hope that not only do they, individually, do what they are expected to do, but that the defensive layer either doesn't defeat someone by physical strength, speed, or a combination. Additionally, you also have to throw out the possibility of one or more defensive players "sniff out" the play ahead of time by anticipation of what is about to be run and disrupting the offensive timing, making the play appear to be poorly run. You have to also consider a play that is run well with the exception of one or more player deciding to freelancing it, such as a RB deciding to reverse his field on a play before waiting to see how his intended blocking was going to do, or a QB taking off on a run instead of letting a pass play fully develop.

Since the SEC is known for its defenses, for the most part, and most teams have their best athletes on that side of the ball, makes one think that the good "D" offsets an average or good "O" more times than not. The old saying that "defense wins championships" is just as strong as the baseball bedrock of "good pitching beats good hitting".

[b381l]

22 players flying around......easy to understand how not every play is run exactly according to plan.

[Flameout12]

Avg. play is what? 3-5 secs? 3-5 secs to make split second decisions and try to make one's body do what their brains are thinking as fast as they can.

Go look at how many mistakes NFL players make...not an easy game to perfect.

[cockybusiness2]

Hind sight is 20/20

[cockypanther]

Dumb thread?

You can say that about any football conference, offense and defense.

[gamecock88]

Did you watch any other plays other than those few? SEC O vs SEC D, mistakes are bound to happen. Very few offenses look sharp vs SEC defenses. The only one that comes to mind would be Oregon and they still struggled at times vs Auburn and a not so great D, relative to the others you've listed.

[CockLurker]

Hall of what? thread.

[Cocks and Canes]

This post doesn't even merit a response because when you look through the OP's history he is at best a miserable fan who thinks he can do a much better job than our coaches and at worst a tater. Just one example:

http://www.cockytalk.com/showthread....54#post3565354

But I'll respond anyway.

09 SEC Championship:

-Terrance Cody was a nose tackle, it's not really surprising that he missed a block against the team that won the national title that year

-Tebow threw a bad pass? Holy shit, that's something I've never seen before.

2012 USC-LSU:

Our TEs were by far our most effective players that game, I guess you don't remember Justice's long catch and Adams' late catch over the middle that set up our final TD.

2012 USC-UF:

Our entire offense didn't show up to this game

2012 SEC Championship:

Last play of the game, hurrying to the line, and a backup running back misses a blocking assignment? That entire sequence was a cluster**** because UGA panicked, not because of any deficiency among SEC offenses.


I get the feeling this thread was created by someone who is jealous of the SEC's success and buys into the myth that the only reason SEC defense are good is because the offenses are bad, despite SEC teams routinely dominating teams from other conferences on both sides of the ball.

[MillerTime843]

Obviously the OP has never played football......

[OldPat]

Originally Posted by Cocks and Canes

This post doesn't even merit a response because when you look through the OP's history he is at best a miserable fan who thinks he can do a much better job than our coaches and at worst a tater. Just one example:

http://www.cockytalk.com/showthread....54#post3565354

But I'll respond anyway.

09 SEC Championship:

-Terrance Cody was a nose tackle, it's not really surprising that he missed a block against the team that won the national title that year

-Tebow threw a bad pass? Holy shit, that's something I've never seen before.

2012 USC-LSU:

Our TEs were by far our most effective players that game, I guess you don't remember Justice's long catch and Adams' late catch over the middle that set up our final TD.

2012 USC-UF:

Our entire offense didn't show up to this game

2012 SEC Championship:

Last play of the game, hurrying to the line, and a backup running back misses a blocking assignment? That entire sequence was a cluster**** because UGA panicked, not because of any deficiency among SEC offenses.


I get the feeling this thread was created by someone who is jealous of the SEC's success and buys into the myth that the only reason SEC defense are good is because the offenses are bad, despite SEC teams routinely dominating teams from other conferences on both sides of the ball.

May I summarize your thoughts? The OP's bird don't fly.

[ElectricCock]

stupid thread

edit: Really stupid thread. I can't believe I did this, but I just read all 36 of OP's posts on this site... wow is all I have to say, dude complains in every post or says how he would have done it better etc etc etc... We should definitely hire him as our next coach, the sooner the better

My guess is he was a 3rd string TE in high school cuz all he talks about is this 1 TE mesh play against LSU

[GamecockSuperFan]

alright.

[Acockolypse Now]

WAT?

[Cocktober Surprise]

Look, OP, I wipe my ass everyday and do a pretty good job, IMO. But that doesn't mean every once in a while I don't press too hard and a finger pokes through...

Not terribly sure what you sought to point out with this thread.

[USCNowAndForever]

Originally Posted by brat

I don't find it odd, at all.

Consider how many plays an average or good team may execute during a game. We'll just throw out a number...55.

Now, you have to have 11 people to not only execute their job on each play in a well operated, cohesive fashion. Even then, to make it near perfect, you hope that not only do they, individually, do what they are expected to do, but that the defensive layer either doesn't defeat someone by physical strength, speed, or a combination. Additionally, you also have to throw out the possibility of one or more defensive players "sniff out" the play ahead of time by anticipation of what is about to be run and disrupting the offensive timing, making the play appear to be poorly run. You have to also consider a play that is run well with the exception of one or more player deciding to freelancing it, such as a RB deciding to reverse his field on a play before waiting to see how his intended blocking was going to do, or a QB taking off on a run instead of letting a pass play fully develop.

Since the SEC is known for its defenses, for the most part, and most teams have their best athletes on that side of the ball, makes one think that the good "D" offsets an average or good "O" more times than not. The old saying that "defense wins championships" is just as strong as the baseball bedrock of "good pitching beats good hitting".

First, let me say your reply was one of the more well-thought out responses on here. I appreciate your reply.

Based off of what you wrote, it looks like you have coached football at some, or at least have a good understanding of football.

Concerning the part in bold, those are all valid points, but most, if not all, of the plays I mentioned were cases of the offense beating themselves, not cases of the defense outplaying the offense.

The point about freelancing is a good one, but if you have any experience coaching, you will know that it is the responsibility of the coaches to make sure each player understands their job, and is able to do their job.

If players continue to freelance, either they still don't understand their job or they are intentionally going against what they have been taught. If it's the former, the coaches are not doing their jobs as teachers. If it is the latter, the players should be disciplined accordingly.

When you have complicated playbooks, and try to incorporate many different concepts into your offense, you reduce the amount of teaching time per play, and the amount of practice reps per play.

For example, look at some offensive play diagrams from a UF spring clinic:

http://fastandfuriousfootball.com/wp...a%20Clinic.pdf

Of course, that is not all of UF's playbook at the time. And just that is a lot to learn for players. Also, considering the amount of time D1A coaches have to work with players during the year, how are they going to properly execute all those plays from the link above, let alone the rest of UF's playbook?

http://brophyfootball.blogspot.com/2...all-to-be.html

"Basically all they do is run an increasing amount of IZ tied to key screens and two or threee man games on the flanks. When they want to get down the field they run Verticals, Sail, and Y-Cross. What makes them go though is speed and efficiency. Not only does LaTech play fast but they do so with very few mistakes. An offense that does not make mistakes is a difficult one to stop."

http://brophyfootball.blogspot.com/2...fficiency.html

"With the exception of the offensive line, his personnel has changed every year. The constant variables has required him to quickly assess what his players are capable of doing (even if there isn't a logical constraint within the package). Like Alex Gibbs, Tony (and Mazzone) would've come to an awakening of removing plays that resulted in negative yardage or inconsistent production. The following are the basic questions that would push an offense into a cycle of perpetual momentum against an opponent.

1. If this is what we're going to become on offense, what don’t we need to keep?
2. What works? What has the highest efficiency? minimize negative yardage plays
3. Should always be about getting more numbers at the point of attack (this could be double wing, wing-t, or spread) in an isolated area (outside the hash / on the hash / between the tackles).
4. How fast can you run key screen? This HAS to a one of the easiest plays to execute and doesn’t require you to block anyone
5. Focus on plays that require the least amount of processing. Front option / MOF read can be toyed with by defensive movement. Deciphering the defense will only slow your offense down.
6. The more efficient the concept the faster you can play without adjusting. You'll see Tony not running much across the middle of the field, which would require a quarterback to get a clear understanding of what he is seeing (to throw Dig/Post/Shallow where a Rat would be). This is why he’s running power, key, rodeo/lasso – it’s against very limited looks (1/3 of the field) and can work against whatever the defense could be in.
7. The more efficient at converting downs translates to more scoring opportunities
8. Gaining positive yards puts you in manageable situations to sustain drives. You miss every shot you don’t take – the more volleys you can make the greater the odds you can score.
9. The more scores (and the threat of rapid scoring), the more one-dimensional your opponent will become.
10. The faster you play, the less a defense can adjust / change
11. The more static a defensive look, the more efficient your concepts become
12. Protection – what do you need? If you aren’t getting blitzes, you will only get 5 man pressures. If you get 6 man pressures it can be an immediate hot throw. This means you don’t need to involve an inconsistent back in protection….everything is 5 man protection now
13. If you only work in 5 man protection, then there are no adjustments needed from empty to 3-back, increasing the versatility of the offense through simplicity."

Is it better to run many plays poorly, or few plays excellently?

[USCNowAndForever]

Originally Posted by Flameout12

Avg. play is what? 3-5 secs? 3-5 secs to make split second decisions and try to make one's body do what their brains are thinking as fast as they can.

Go look at how many mistakes NFL players make...not an easy game to perfect.

You make a great point, and that is exactly why offenses should be simple, not complicated. If you only have a limited amount of time to process what is going on, muscle memory plays a very important role. How do you increase muscle memory/familiarity with a movement task or series of movement tasks? With more properly executed practice and game reps.

Do you really need 20 different ways to attack Cover 3?

Would it not be more efficient to have 2-3 concepts that can attack any coverage that the defense presents, and allows the players to adjust accordingly? E.g. if I see man coverage, I keep running, but if I see zone coverage, I find the weak spots between zones and settle in them.

Go look at NFL playbooks and see how complicated they are. Even with the amount of time they have, it is a wonder that they are able to get lined up properly (which is a challenge sometimes), let alone run offensive plays considering how big the playbooks are. And I am not talking about the reference playbooks that have virtually any play a coach could plan on running, I am talking about the playbooks that the offensive staff decides to use for a given season.

[USCNowAndForever]

Originally Posted by gamecock88

Did you watch any other plays other than those few? SEC O vs SEC D, mistakes are bound to happen. Very few offenses look sharp vs SEC defenses. The only one that comes to mind would be Oregon and they still struggled at times vs Auburn and a not so great D, relative to the others you've listed.

Yes, I did watch other plays.

Concerning what you said about SEC O vs SEC D, here is what I wrote in the OP: "Keep in mind that these sort of errors are usually not because of something the defense did, but rather they are execution errors where the offense beat themselves, especially with USC's TEs and WRs not running plays correctly. "

I am not talking about plays where the offense was defeated because of something the defense did. I am talking about plays where the offense defeated themselves. Hernandez was wide open behind the defense, and yet Tebow throws a bullet pass instead of lofting it over the defenders. Do you think he would have done that if he had more practice with that play rather than trying to so many different formations, plays, and adjustments?

In the Oregon-Auburn game, Chip Kelly had put in some new formations and plays, and Darren Thomas struggled to run them properly. Would he have made that many mistakes if they had just stuck with their base offense? Why suddenly change up your offense and go away from what got you to the national championship game in the first place?

Oregon makes many offensive mistakes themselves. Just like SEC teams, they try to do too much on offense. Less practice and game reps per concept usually equals mediocre execution.

If it is possible to get better, why not try to get better? Why just sit there and say "Well, our defense and field goal kicker does a good job of bailing us out, so we don't really need a good offense."

Or in the case of Oregon, why just sit there and say "They score plenty of points as it is." Every year under Chip Kelly they choked in at least one game. What if their offense was better?

[GamecockSuperFan]

What we run isn't overly complicated. As far as passing concepts, most teams are all running most of the same stuff now. Everyone has cover 1, cover 2, cover 3, cover 4, zone blitz, man to man beaters implemented into their offense. I get what your saying about simplicity but no coach in america has 20 different ways of beating cover 3 like your saying. I mean..there's only a few route concepts to go about beating a certain coverage. Mike Leach, Hologorsen, a lot of the Air raid guys had a lot of success passing the ball off just a few different concepts but that's them and that's their personnel and the style of ball they wanted to implement.

We are no different. We implemented different spread option stuff and made it our staple run. We practiced it over and over and over and we got good at it. I've looked over all those Spurrier playbooks in the past. Even the ones from Duke. It's not overly complicated stuff. It just requires the WR's to be able to read the defense and adjust on the fly, but be on the same page with the QB. Which is what everyone is doing now. This is probably part of the reason why you think the routes aren't being ran crisply enough. They are reading the coverages on the fly, and in a day where defenses (especially in the SEC) disguise and roll coverages so well, it can be challenging. Spurrier was definitely influenced by a lot of the Run n shoot stuff that offenses were running in the late 80's - early 90's. What makes Spurriers offense go, is simply his FEEL for the game, and that he's a very instinctive play-caller. He combines certain concepts in one to prevent defenders from pattern reading the routes. He'll show one look, then show a very similar look but have the WR's route breaking the opposite direction. On a good day he has a way of keeping the run and pass very balanced and keeping a defense on it's heels. Theres about 10-12 different passing concepts he uses during a game all designed to beat the coverage he sees. If the defense re-adjusts pre-snap, so will he. He's Peyton manning on the sideline basically. Or maybe Peyton Manning is Steve Spurrier. Either way I guess I get the point of the thread now, but it still boils down to the players doing what's asked of them and executing. If that means learning a giant playbook or learning just a few concepts, that's what it is. At the end of the day a coaches job is to put his players in position to excel the best way he thinks is possible and it's still up to the players to execute that plan.

[GamecockSuperFan]

Originally Posted by USCNowAndForever

Yes, I did watch other plays.

Hernandez was wide open behind the defense, and yet Tebow throws a bullet pass instead of lofting it over the defenders. Do you think he would have done that if he had more practice with that play rather than trying to so many different formations, plays, and adjustments?

I don't think it matters how many times he would've practiced that play. When your in a game, its instinctive. He just threw the ball and didn't throw it the way he wanted to. It happens..

I mean shoot he practiced his throwing mechanics forever and ever and he still throws the same way? So I don't really get your logic there.. practicing that play in practice more wasn't going to prevent him from throwing a bullet over a lob. That's just how he threw it under those circumstances. You can't be perfect all the time.

Urbans Meyers offense at Florida wasn't made up of a ton of different formations, plays, and adjustments in the first place. It was a spread to run offense that was pretty basic at it's core. It was successful because of execution and because they had guys like Tebow and harvin running the show. The more you talk about football, the less it sounds like you really know what your talking about. More like an NCAA videogame armchair quarterback... just sayin.