Quality of SEC offensive execution

[treys1986]

Da fuq?

[USCNowAndForever]

Originally Posted by 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

If you have a problem with my posts, why don't you offer some specific, detailed criticisms instead of just posting general criticisms?

If you disagree, then explain why you disagree.

I was not a 3rd string TE in high school.

I talk about other plays, but the main reason I talk about the mesh play from the 2012 USC-LSU game so often is because it is an example of our receivers not knowing how to correctly run their routes several games into the season. Many people on here seem to think our coaches are great, or at least try to defend them despite the continued issues with the offense. Receivers running into each other, and then one receiver not settling when LSU was playing zone coverage, are the responsibility of the coaches.

[crowcutta]

florida game, the play i see early on is where connor shaw is sacked in the first quarter with ace as the lone receiver on the right side. mike davis comes out of the backfield over the middle running an out and runs into ace sanders over the middle. maybe ace doesnt get enough depth on his crossing or in route, but im inclined to blame the true freshman in the backfield in that instance.

i wouldnt say its just an sec thing, and its not like someone couldnt point out instances of defensive mistakes from the same games where the offensive lack of execution is being pinpointed.

[robgusc76]

Man, I had no idea that SEC players were the only ones who made mistakes. So if they would have practiced the play, they would not have made that mistake that far into the season? Am I supposed to believe that every play, by the middle of the season should be perfect?

You've got 18 year olds playing football in front of 100,000 people, and you expect them to be perfect every play? Your expectations are outrageous. Also, isnt it possible that one of the two got the wrong play call? OR is that out of the realm of possibility? Nxt time South Carolina is looking for an offensive coordinator, you should apply, its obvious you are the greatest wikipedia coach ever.

[USCNowAndForever]

Originally Posted by 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.

Go watch some film of John Jenkins' Houston teams and see if their receivers constantly ran sloppy routes.

If what you claim about USC receivers' routes being sloppy is true, then surely Jenkins' receivers will be running sloppy routes too, correct?

There are certain aspects of Spurrier and his offense that I like. As you mentioned, his play-calling instinct is excellent.

That said, the problem with him being Peyton Manning on the sideline is that is inefficient. Mike Leach taught his QBs how to read the defense and call plays. Many times, Leach would just signal the formation.

I think Spurrier acting as the field general on the sideline has contributed to some of our lining up, play-calling, and communication issues during his tenure at USC.

Even Leach and Holgorsen's offenses are too complicated to me. You mentioned Leach and Holgorsen's personnel. They both worked with inferior talent and still got outstanding offensive results. The problem with Air Raid teams is that they have never had great defenses to accompany the offense. Some of that is due to the style of play, but some of it is due to talent, as well as coaching. When Leach hired Ruffin McNeil as his defensive coordinator, Texas Tech's defense got better in McNeil's first season as defensive coordinator. I would argue that USC's personnel is better suited to run the Leach Air Raid than some of Leach's Texas Tech teams were.

Left outside receiver: This is your deep threat receiver in the Air Raid

-USC: Damiere Byrd

Left inside receiver: This is your shifty possession receiver in the Air Raid

-USC: Nick Jones

Right inside receiver: This can be either your big, physical receiver, or a receiver/tight end hybrid in the Air Raid

-USC: Kwinton Smith/Rory Anderson

Right outside receiver: This is your most athletic and best overall receiver in the Air Raid

-USC: Bruce Ellington

Running back: This is one of your best athletes, if not your best athlete in the Air Raid. They should be able to run the ball, pass protect, and run pass routes.

Quarterback: An Air Raid quarterback must be able to make consistently good decisions before and after the snap, as well as pass the football accurately

-USC: Dylan Thompson

We also have a good defense, and have had one for several years now.

All that said, I still prefer Tony Franklin's Air Raid right now over Leach's, but I still think Leach's approach can work, especially if it is backed by a great defense.

Tony Franklin's offense at Louisiana Tech last season was probably about as simple as you can make a D1A offense, and it showed in their offensive stats. Of course, they were playing against WAC defenses, but the point is, Franklin put his players in a better position to succeed by making their jobs easier, not more difficult, which is all the more crucial considering how quickly plays happen.

First this:

Originally Posted by GamecockSuperFan

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.

Then this:

Originally Posted by GamecockSuperFan

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.

If the second quote above is true, then the first quote above cannot be true in this case. Reading the defense and adjusting to each coverage with a specific route requires a lot of practice time. Consequently, if SEC teams see more coverages against the defenses they face (by the way, coverage disguises and rolls are not unique to the SEC; the Big 12 has some interesting defenses too), then they are going to have to practice more route adjustments on each play. If you have a lot of plays, that means you are going to have less practice reps per play. Less practice reps per play means less muscle memory of the tasks required for each play, and less confidence in executing each play.

Originally Posted by GamecockSuperFan

Which is what everyone is doing now.

Is that necessarily true? Is that what Tony Franklin is doing? Is that what Urban Meyer is doing? Is that what Gus Malzahn is doing?

"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...all-to-be.html

"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."

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

Both of the points listed above would make sense in designing an offense to attack the type of defenses you described above.

Originally Posted by GamecockSuperFan

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.

Learning a few concepts and executing them excellently is a better approach than a giant playbook though, is it not?

It absolutely is the coaches' job, and that was one of the main things I talked about at the end of the OP.

When you have plenty of talent on offense, and have a great defensive coordinator and defensive talent, there is less incentive to get better and be more efficient on offense.

Coaches making their criticisms of players personal, constantly switching quarterbacks, running a receiver drill with 1 player running the drill and the other 9 receivers standing around watching, etc, is not putting the players in a position to succeed. It is not great coaching. It might be sufficient coaching, it might even be good coaching, especially if you have talented offensive players, but it is not great coaching.

[USCNowAndForever]

Originally Posted by GamecockSuperFan

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..

It is instinctive, which is exactly why it is so crucial to make sure players get enough practice with each play in the offense.

It wasn't just a case of not putting enough spin on the ball, or overthrowing it somewhat, he threw the complete opposite throw of what was needed for that situation. He threw the pass straight to the defense.

Originally Posted by GamecockSuperFan

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.

That was really not a mechanics issue, but rather it was throwing the wrong type of pass. Tebow is more than capable of throwing good passes.

It is true that you cannot be perfect all the time, but when you are playing SEC defenses, the margin for error is so small that you really cannot afford to mess up on more than just a few plays. Watch a selection of SEC games over the past 5 seasons. First, watch the play overall to figure out which play it is (e.g. Power, Counter Trey, etc), then go through and watch each player. There are constant execution errors. What it really looks like is offensive coordinators are just installing needlessly complicated offenses, and saying "Just do the best you can, if one or two people don't get the playcall, or don't execute properly, we will still bust a good play from time to time".

Let me emphasize one more time, because most people in this thread have either missed it or ignored it: 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 makes an execution error almost entirely, or entirely, independent of anything that the defense does.

Originally Posted by GamecockSuperFan

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.

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

Of course, that would not have been all of UF's playbook at the time. Just that is a lot to learn for players. 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?

Also, their terminology is not efficient.

Instead of having formation names with tags added onto them (e.g. Gun Doubles, Gun Trey, etc), why not just give each formation a one word name?

For example, all of your formations could be animals (e.g. Tiger, Dolphin, etc).

[USCNowAndForever]

Originally Posted by qcgamecock

This is not an SEC thing this is a human thing, we make mistakes and if you put 22 of us on a field they will make them together. If we find a sports team that executes close to perfection the become Champions and even they are human and make execution errors, see the Super Bowl, NCAA Tourney, heck any sporting event and you will see.... That is like asking how di Michael Jordan ever miss a shot or dunk or free throw or throw the ball away or lose a game... Oh yeah most of them are under 20 year old as well, pressure will make you do strange things and lose your mind!

The closer you are to perfection, the more you dominate. How many teams in the SEC have dominated consistently at a level that Michael Jordan's Bulls did? John Wooden's UCLA Bruins? Bear Bryant's Crimson Tide? Jimmie Johnson and the #48 Lowe's team? Bill Walsh's 49ers?

The only team that has came close is Alabama. And I would argue that they have been taking advantage of a weak SEC West, and a weak SEC overall. Ole Miss, MSU, Auburn, and Arkansas have all been down the last 4 seasons (Of course Auburn in 2010 was an exception, but even then, Bama had a huge lead on Auburn in the Iron Bowl and ended up getting outscored). LSU has been good, but they certainly have not dominated. Tennessee, which is Alabama's permanent SEC East opponent, has been down the last 4 seasons. Florida has been average at best since 2009. Georgia has been good. South Carolina has been good the last 4 years. Vanderbilt and Kentucky have not presented much of a threat the last 4 years.

[USCNowAndForever]

Originally Posted by qcgamecock

So the TE's running into each other has nothing to do with the defense but then you say one ran a route meant for man to man not the zone? Sounds like one player making a mistake in a pressure situation. It is not how good you are when you execute but how good you are when you are bad, no matter how good you are you will be bad because there are 11 humans on the field every play.

One TE ran their route correctly and settled, the other kept running.

Below is the play in question; start the video around the 21:26 mark.

Originally Posted by qcgamecock

In one sentence it is execution in another it is one of 11 people on the field making a mistake, he did not block him correctly, that is not execution that is one of 11 players not blocking their assignment correctly.

If you are referring to what I think you are referring to, when I say "the offense failed to execute", I am still talking about an individual player, or how many ever players failed to execute on the play in question.

Originally Posted by qcgamecock

So everyone executed the play correctly but Tebow made a bad split second decision, nothing to do with execution and more to do with him reading the coverage wrong.

I never said everyone executed the play correctly. I said Hernandez was wide open behind the defense and Tebow threw a bad pass. Do you think Tebow decided to throw a bullet, or do you think he meant to throw a lob and threw a bullet instead?

Originally Posted by qcgamecock

calling plays are not really affected by what the defense does. WHAT?
I would have already revoked your card but this statement solidifies it!

I should have separated that from getting lined up. My apologies. Calling plays is definitely affected by what the defense does. However, I will say that some offensive approaches are less concerned with what the defense does and more concerned with how the offense operates.

"They teach concepts, so all that is needed is each position receive its 'play' from the sideline via signals with five coaches signalling one position (inside receivers, outside receivers, Oline, Back, QB). They signal (often times yelling it as well) the formation right after a play ends, then begin the process of just queuing their position on the next play. This delivers the info extremely quick when they are in "attack". One thing I would also encourage is using a hyper speed like Blake Anderson, where a series of plays is already scripted/known, so there is nothing to signal or tell a player (1st play is ___, 2nd play is____, 3rd play is _____).

It is interesting to note where this is coming from and how it becomes such an irritation to many old school thinkers. So much has been done over the years to reduce the risk on offense through established reads, formationing, personnel groupings. This works, but eventually all defenses will catch up with the trend. It got so, particularly in the last decade that defenses could be compartmentalized into special classifications (goal line, 1st down, nickel, 3rd and short, etc) because by and large offenses were painting themselves into these situational corners. In a given situation, you could just run down a tendency list and check off all the concepts that would not apply to your down and distance (based on personnel, then by formation, etc). For as much thought and planning went into those offenses, it just became a shell game, a target based on probability for defenses. Coaches became known for being academic, card-counting project managers moreso than teaching football. While this all still matters, the current trend is pushing offensive production (and tradition) to challenge this way of life. I'll also note that no-huddle is nothing new, I recall getting quick counted from a no-huddle wing-t offense in the 80's. What we are seeing from Tech and TAMU is the efficiency to operate at this pace (and to do so means carrying very little into a game).

Back in 2005 - 2007, many of the air raid teams of Holgerson, Franklin, and Brewer would attempt to combat situational-driven defenses through freeze-check. This allowed the coordinator to eliminate the huddle and find the most logical play call based on what the defense was showing. We have seen this mature to the point of dual-play combinations (slow screen + 5-step pass / fast screen + run) since 2007 where you can freeze check and still make the right call even if you don't get the look you expect. These offenses would run at NASCAR tempo as an opportunist tactic. In the past few seasons, teams are operating at this tempo (and faster) for the entire game with the premise of taking as many shots at the end zone as possible and eliminate lulls in the game where an opponent has the opportunity to reset their "situational awareness". This creates a two-fold dynamic; your offense is capable of burying an opponent in a point deficit and you can eliminate the notion that your opponent could exact that same philosophy on you (reference the Texas A&M game against Louisiana Tech). So for an offense, as long as you prevent negative yardage plays and can consistently execute, rushing through a series only helps the offense. The faster the offense operates, the less effective a defense premised to defend personnel, down and distance, hash, and formation is. When a defense is left in this type of environment, stunting and blitzing become ineffectual - teeing off on known offensive probabilities no longer is available. "

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

La Tech was 9-3 and they play a crappy schedule but you think they execute better than a Spurrier coached GAMECOCK squad. Talk to me after Mr. Dykes has a season in the pac 10 with cal, your execution example had 35 more penalties than the HBC!

Out of their 3 losses, they never lost a game by more than 9 points. They played Texas A&M down to the wire.

I already addressed their schedule in this thread.

How many of those penalties were committed by the offense?

They were number 1 in scoring offense at 51.5 points per game. They were number 2 in points per play at .581. They were 15th in rushing yards per attempt at 5.2 yards per attempt (Only 2 SEC teams were better: Alabama at 9th and Texas A&M at 2nd). Yes, they played an inferior schedule, but you don't put up those kind of stats by having receivers running into each other while trying to run crossing routes. (Please correct me if Louisiana Tech ever had that happen during the season).

While playing in both of the aforementioned offenses we made mistakes in execution but they were hardly ever the problem, it was a decision made after the error that caused us hardship. This is the same reason when we execute properly it was a decision made based on the defense disrupting that play that caused hardship, trying to force a throw, trying to make something out of nothing...being human.

What?

I bet you could find as many great plays with broke down execution from the same personnel, the play is a starter blueprint, but we all know the 50% blueprint will have plenty of changes, the 100% blueprint will have more and the finished product will represent the 100% blueprints very closely but we will have to provide asbuilt drawings because even the greatest plans or plays are only as good as the personnel put together to complete them!

I agree with that. The mesh play against LSU resulted in a first down, but that's not the point. Great coaches don't hold people accountable only when the outcome of a play is bad, they hold them accountable on every play, regardless of the outcome.

You either run the crossing routes on the mesh play correctly or you don't. If you have players running into each other at the mesh point, that is the offensive players not running their routes correctly. That is an execution error.

Go talk to coaches at Coach Huey.com, which is a football coaching forum, and ask them why they don't use the mesh play. Unless you are going to run at as the centerpiece of your offense, it takes too much practice time to master. You can't just throw mesh into your playbook and run it a few times in practice and expect it to be ran well. The way that play turned out, that's what it *looked* like Spurrier did.

To blame a coach for the Tebow throw is just insane, to blame him for TE's running into each other is pretty crazy since they both have eyes to see each other as well as read the defense and to take away the credit of a great play from the LB that did not get to the QB but got his fingertips on the ball is a huge assumption on your part.

If Florida's offense was complicated, and limited the amount of reps per play that the offensive players got, then it is not insane to blame the Tebow throw on the coaches.

If they have eyes to see, why did they run into each other? Maybe because football is a fast game and requires quick movement performance. There is not much time process what is going on, so actions have to be automatic. How do those actions become automatic? By getting more practice reps.

Here is the video of Aaron Murray's tipped pass:

The play in question starts at 2:14:31



"Fundamentals of RB Pass Protection


1. Scan the Defense.
Check. The RB scanned the defense and knew who to block.


2. Step with Inside Foot First.
Check.The RB stepped first with his inside foot to get inside leverage and to get his body turned correctly.


3. Close Space Quickly.
Big mistake here. Both the RB and the LB started off 5 yards from the LOS (line of scrimmage), so theoretically they should meet halfway—at or near the LOS. Instead of expanding the pocket to give room for the QB to throw, the pocket is condensed.


4. Punch.
Even with the mistake of the RB not closing the space quickly, he can still do his job and block his man if he punches him at all. Instead, the defender takes off at the 11-yard line and continues in the air relatively unimpeded and tips the ball at the 13-yard line.


5. Expand the Pocket.
After the punch, the RB should continue to force the defender outside to expand the pocket. The RB "opens up the gate" and lets the pass rusher get upfield vertically instead of widening him. On a drop-back pass that takes longer to develop, the RB would need to keep his feet working to widen the rusher and expand the pocket."

Source: http://coachhoover.blogspot.com/2012...onship-rb.html

Last but not least, if the auburn coach took your advice and benched Cam Newton for free lancing then we would have won that game and coulda woulda shoulda....

You make a good point about Cam Newton. That said, letting Cam Newton freelance is one thing. Letting a left guard freelance is another.

While running both offenses I had to make split second decisions and reads on the defense when I got to the line as well as after the snap. Do you not think you have to make split decisions in the pro set offense, read the defense, read the coverage, read the safeties and LB's once the ball is snapped.......

I know you have to do all of that in the pro-style offense, which is exactly why I said I am not a fan of the pro-style offense.

[USCNowAndForever]

Originally Posted by gsmith4776

Second, you argue that sec offenses are bad at execution. To me, this is a result of great sec defense and not so much incapable offense.

So that's why UGA's running back failed to block the linebacker correctly?

Fundamentals of RB Pass Protection


1. Scan the Defense.
Check. The RB scanned the defense and knew who to block.


2. Step with Inside Foot First.
Check.The RB stepped first with his inside foot to get inside leverage and to get his body turned correctly.


3. Close Space Quickly.
Big mistake here. Both the RB and the LB started off 5 yards from the LOS (line of scrimmage), so theoretically they should meet halfway—at or near the LOS. Instead of expanding the pocket to give room for the QB to throw, the pocket is condensed.


4. Punch.
Even with the mistake of the RB not closing the space quickly, he can still do his job and block his man if he punches him at all. Instead, the defender takes off at the 11-yard line and continues in the air relatively unimpeded and tips the ball at the 13-yard line.


5. Expand the Pocket.
After the punch, the RB should continue to force the defender outside to expand the pocket. The RB "opens up the gate" and lets the pass rusher get upfield vertically instead of widening him. On a drop-back pass that takes longer to develop, the RB would need to keep his feet working to widen the rusher and expand the pocket.

http://coachhoover.blogspot.com/2012...onship-rb.html

That is fundamentals. The running back knew who to block, but he failed to execute the fundamentals of his assignment on that play correctly.

Yet this, according to u, has nothing to do with beast athletes playing d in an elite conference with some of the best coaches in all levels of football-FAIL

You are putting words in my mouth. I never said that.

SEC defenses make plenty of plays by themselves; they don't need any help from receivers running into each other, players who have no business playing on offense messing up blocks, and running backs not blocking linebackers in pass protection properly. That stuff is correctable.

[Gamecockboyo]

[qcgamecock]

You make a good point about Cam Newton. That said, letting Cam Newton freelance is one thing. Letting a left guard freelance is another.

I know you have to do all of that in the pro-style offense, which is exactly why I said I am not a fan of the pro-style offense.[/quote]
I'm curious, what of those things mentioned do you not have to do in the offense you would run?

You put to much blame on the coach for a players decisions, the coach put you in the position to succeed and that is his job, if you make the wrong throw it is much more your fault then his! If you do not catch it or fumble it or miss the kick or the snap goes through his hands...are these the coaches fault? You are preaching that a more simple offense and more reps in that offense will destroy any defense and prevent mistakes in execution.

While reps in anything will certainly pave the way for success reps alone are but a small piece of the puzzle. Reps in the offense will have little to do with talent, heart, or a player that makes the right decision in a pressure situation. The best way for me to say this is Phil Jackson in no way simplified offense for Michael Jordan to succeed nor Kobe, Bill in no way simplified the offense for Brady to succeed and both were willing to adapt both their personnel and system to the personnel available that day. I have thrown the corner fade 1000's of times but unless it is in front of 1000's with the game on the line, a LB rushing into tear my head off, a DE breathing down my neck from the blind side, a safety in position... coaching and reps are only going to help me still throw that ball much less throw it on target so much.

The point I made a bout the option and pro set has nothing to do with you not being a fan, it has to do with one being a complicated offense and one being a much more simple offense concerning routes and assignments but the difference in the amount of reads for any given play with both offenses is very little.

They also do not differ in the way reacting to the defense, play calling, individual match ups, talent and the ability to ad lib when the play breaks down were as much a part of the success as executing since the defensive 11 would win and alter at least one of those matchups on any given play or as we have discussed far be it one of my 11 makes a mistake since as 18-22 year old kids playing in front of thousands they are prone to do. In fact my coach in both offenses taught us and put us through reps to practice when the play broke down as much as they taught me what I should learn on my own and that is my job on any given play.

I have read up on Mr. Franklins offensive system and it appears to be a great tool for coaches but not one person involved in putting it together has won crap, it is like saying Dan Marino should give Joe Montana QB advice. For you to assume based on a few plays that it is the offensive playbook and the coaches at South Carolina should look into this system is beyond my comprehension.

[USCNowAndForever]

Originally Posted by qcgamecock

I'm curious, what of those things mentioned do you not have to do in the offense you would run?

I have already posted it several times in this thread, but I will post it again:

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.

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

The pro-style offense clearly conflicts with this philosophy.

One of the main things that the TF offense limited last year was complicated progression reads. Rather than trying to read through 4 to 5 different potential receivers on a given pass play, the QB only had to read 1/3 of the field.

Another feature of the pro-style offense that is not required in the TF offense is multiple pass protections. No 5, 6, 7, and 8 man pass protections. They have one pass protection: 5 man. This allows the running back to get more reps in practice with the passing game and running game, and it eliminates needing to make adjustments based on formations. It also allows the offensive line to get really good at 5 man pass protection rather than trying to master 4 or more different pass protections.

You put to much blame on the coach for a players decisions, the coach put you in the position to succeed and that is his job, if you make the wrong throw it is much more your fault then his!

You keep talking about decisions. I am talking about motor performance (e.g. running a crossing route on the Mesh play).

The coaches are not putting players in a position to succeed when they have a giant playbook.

They are not putting the offensive line in a position to succeed when they ask them to learn 4 or more pass protections.

They are not putting the offense in a position to succeed when they install Shotgun, Pistol, I Formation, and Singleback with multiple formation sets of those base formations. Each requires a different type of snap, as well as different backfield mechanics by the quarterback and skill players. That reduces the amount of snaps that your center gets with each type of snap. That reduces the amount of reps that your quarterback gets with each type of backfield action.

If you do not catch it or fumble it or miss the kick or the snap goes through his hands...are these the coaches fault? You are preaching that a more simple offense and more reps in that offense will destroy any defense and prevent mistakes in execution.

It depends on how often those mistakes occur.

I never said that a more simple offense and more reps in that offense will destroy any defense and prevent mistakes in execution.

What it should do is reduce offensive execution errors.

SEC defenses don't need any help from a nose tackle playing fullback messing up a block, or a running back failing to block a linebacker properly in pass protection.

First, from a defense’s perspective, there are different formations and then there are just different formations. When you change the strength of a formation — i.e. tight-end left or right, or tight-end and wing to one side or another, or a tight-end to both sides — or you increase or decrease the number of split receivers, and so on, you’ve changed the formation. When you line up in the same structural set — three receivers to one side, one being a tight-end — but you try all kinds of little wrinkles to it, you’ve probably just made it more confusing for your guys, particularly with respect to your pass and run blocking schemes. Sometimes you don’t want a new formation because you want to know where the defense is so you can block them. Second, when you do things like switch your receivers or move guys around, even if they have the same assignment (and in Schottenheimer’s system their assignment often changes), they have to learn a new technique: Running a comeback route on the left or right side is similar, but the techniques are different as the receiver has to push off a different foot and use different techniques. As Bill Walsh said, there is no magic rule in football that says you have to run each play to the left and right sides.
If this idea — not running concepts to both sides and leaving receivers where they are — sounds crazy, consider three datapoints:

• In Mike Leach’s book, Swing Your Sword (my review here), he said that he evolved his offense in that direction after meeting with Baltimore Colts great Raymond Berry, who said he ran all of his routes from the same side, and that Jimmy Orr and John Mackey did the same, and Unitas and those three always practiced everything the same way. The concept worked for them (and for Leach).
• If it sounds crazy for receivers, remember that (most) every team does the same thing for their offensive line. Unless there is some kind of unbalanced formation, the left tackle always lines up on the left, the right guard on the right, and so on. This is despite the fact that, like receivers and tight-ends, these guys have strengths and weaknesses and presumably you could get ye olde “matchup advantage” by moving them around, but most coaches don’t, and for good reason.
• Lastly, if the Raymond Berry/Mike Leach example doesn’t move you because the old NFL and the college game are supposedly so different from todays NFL, Moore did it with the Colts for close to a decade, and when he had Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne you could count the snaps on one hand where they didn’t line up on their respective sides over the course of several seasons.

http://smartfootball.com/gameplannin...k-jets-offense

While reps in anything will certainly pave the way for success reps alone are but a small piece of the puzzle. Reps in the offense will have little to do with talent, heart, or a player that makes the right decision in a pressure situation. The best way for me to say this is Phil Jackson in no way simplified offense for Michael Jordan to succeed nor Kobe, Bill in no way simplified the offense for Brady to succeed and both were willing to adapt both their personnel and system to the personnel available that day.

Saying that reps are a small piece of the puzzle does not discount the importance of making sure the offense is able to run each play excellently. I agree that reps have little to do with talent and heart. That said, reps do have something to do with decision making. If you are overloaded with a complicated offense, you are going to be less likely to make the right decision, especially in a pressure situation.

Talent and heart are variables that coaches do not have much control over. What they do have control over is the complexity of their offense, and how efficiently they run their practices. Why not put your players in a position to succeed by maximizing reps per play and then see what happens with talent and heart?

I have thrown the corner fade 1000's of times but unless it is in front of 1000's with the game on the line, a LB rushing into tear my head off, a DE breathing down my neck from the blind side, a safety in position... coaching and reps are only going to help me still throw that ball much less throw it on target so much.

With as much as one-on-one leverage is worked by Tony Franklin and as talented as his receivers are, these become extremely high percentage throws.

Source: http://brophyfootball.blogspot.com/2012/10/boned.html

In the Texas A&M game, Louisiana Tech's QB hit wide receiver David Patton for a touchdown on the fade at least once, if not more than once.

The point I made a bout the option and pro set has nothing to do with you not being a fan, it has to do with one being a complicated offense and one being a much more simple offense concerning routes and assignments but the difference in the amount of reads for any given play with both offenses is very little.

The difference between the triple option offense and the pro-style offense is that the triple option offense often requires the QB to make up to 3 decisions in rapid succession (e.g. Inside Veer).

They also do not differ in the way reacting to the defense, play calling, individual match ups, talent and the ability to ad lib when the play breaks down

They do differ in the way they react to the defense, the playcalling method, individual matchups, personnel, and free-styling.

I have read up on Mr. Franklins offensive system and it appears to be a great tool for coaches but not one person involved in putting it together has won crap, it is like saying Dan Marino should give Joe Montana QB advice. For you to assume based on a few plays that it is the offensive playbook and the coaches at South Carolina should look into this system is beyond my comprehension.

Have the Air Raid offenses ever had great defensive coordinators and defensive personnel to go with them?

I never said in this thread that South Carolina should use this playbook, and I never said that they should look into the TF offense. I emphasized that earlier in this thread.

What I am advocating is the same type of philosophy that TF used last season at Louisiana Tech, which is simplicity and unorthodoxy. It is the same philosophy that Tom Moore used with the Colts' offense that won a super bowl. They also had one of the best NFL offenses almost every season of Tom Moore's tenure there.

[qcgamecock]

I never said in this thread that South Carolina should use this playbook, and I never said that they should look into the TF offense. I emphasized that earlier in this thread.

What I am advocating is the same type of philosophy that TF used last season at Louisiana Tech, which is simplicity and unorthodoxy. It is the same philosophy that Tom Moore used with the Colts' offense that won a super bowl. They also had one of the best NFL offenses almost every season of Tom Moore's tenure there.[/quote]

Do you read what you write or what I write, I said "For you to assume based on a few plays that it is the offensive playbook and the coaches at South Carolina should look into this system is beyond my comprehension"
When you read this and what you write above do you scratch your head? I read that you contradict yourself in everyway!

[GamecockSuperFan]

OH MY GOD WHEN WILL THIS END. I was just quoted 20 times and didn't read a single one. Your also forgetting that part of the reason that those Air Raid teams weren't good on defense is because the offense was scoring at will, leaving the defense out there for long periods of time against teams that would simply slow the game down by running the ball and controlling the clock.

but it's obvious no matter what anyone posts in this thread, you are going to come up with a long detailed response disagreeing with them or coming up with a "No, not really. this is how it's done" response. Get over yourself man lol there's more than one way to come up with a solution for many things.

I think your on adderall and typing up super long detailed posts between pressing pause on your xbox controller in Ncaa13. Probably running some form of the air raid with Louisiana Tech and getting super pissed at the tv when you throw an interception.

[GamecockSuperFan]

Didn't Franklin coach at Auburn? In the SEC? Oh yeah he did.

After the first six games, Auburn ranked 104th in total offense out of all FBS teams.

Auburn head coach Tuberville fired Franklin, citing a lack of offensive production from Franklin's spread offense, and noting Auburn's diminishing rank in most of the offensive categories in the FBS. At that time, the team had a 4-2 record. Auburn went on to win only one of the final six games, finishing with a 5–7 record. Some saw this as proof that even though Franklin was able to use his offense in lesser conferences and against lesser defenses, in the SEC where defense reigns, his version of the spread could not work.


But wait it HAD to be the defenses coaches fault right? I mean it couldn't possibly have been his fault why his offense didn't work in the SEC? Or maybe he didn't have the players he wanted in place? but I thought his system could be ran with anyone as long as they were coached up on how to do things correctly and practiced, practiced, practiced? Nope must have been all Tuberville's fault.

[gsmith4776]

Here is a question to consider when talking execution, proper technique, etc... Could it be that the constant beating u take from elite defenses causes u to mentally check out from time to time? Miss a block, play sloppy, etc.. Getting jammed at the line and thrown off ur route , making it physically impossible to run a tight route, timing route, what have u, no matter how simple or complicated the offense is?
I see what u are saying about reps, simplified offenses, making it easier to make the right desision. But I would argue that it's the physical plays made by the defense prior to and after those "sloppy" plays( for lack of better words) that causes mistakes. Even with the teams u mention and just about every other team , when faced against a great defense they seem to get thrown off their game. See la tech against a&m, au against Oregon, us against Clemson, Texas tech against Oklahoma or Texas, and on and on....
I also think talent has everything to do with it. Leach sucked at wsu last season. Why was that? We have far better execution now than years past...again talent ( really noticeable at qb).
Bottom line is I think you are arguing points, and making valid points, but leaving out so many variables from not just an x and o standpoint but a physical and mental standpoint as well.

[sandstorm2001]

I don't understand why you keep harping on Mount Cody being put in on Offense. Did you see how many TD's Bama got with him on the field? You think Saban kept doing it because it never worked?

When will Legendary coaches like Steve Spurrier and Nick Saban get to attend the USCNowAndForever coaching clinic?

[carolinafan81]

Does anybody else notice every play he trying pass on is name of ncaa play r a madden play....mmmmm....


Posted from Cockytalk.com App for Android

[USCNowAndForever]

Originally Posted by qcgamecock

Do you read what you write or what I write, I said "For you to assume based on a few plays that it is the offensive playbook and the coaches at South Carolina should look into this system is beyond my comprehension"
When you read this and what you write above do you scratch your head? I read that you contradict yourself in everyway!

What?

[USCNowAndForever]

Originally Posted by GamecockSuperFan

OH MY GOD WHEN WILL THIS END. I was just quoted 20 times and didn't read a single one. Your also forgetting that part of the reason that those Air Raid teams weren't good on defense is because the offense was scoring at will, leaving the defense out there for long periods of time against teams that would simply slow the game down by running the ball and controlling the clock.

During multiple seasons of Mike Leach's tenure at Texas Tech, their average time of possession was almost 30 minutes. Other seasons, it was closer to 20 minutes. If you can control the ball at least half of the game, you are doing ok.

From 2003-2009, Texas Tech's opponents averaged around 10 more rushing attempts than passing attempts. In 2008, opponents averaged around 5 more rushing attempts than passing attempts. In 2009, opponents attempted almost the same number of passes and runs.

Originally Posted by GamecockSuperFan

but it's obvious no matter what anyone posts in this thread, you are going to come up with a long detailed response disagreeing with them or coming up with a "No, not really. this is how it's done" response. Get over yourself man lol there's more than one way to come up with a solution for many things.

When people keep misrepresenting my position, use personal attacks, and keep talking about decision making when I am talking about physical tasks like route running, I am going to keep typing long, detailed responses.

There is definitely more than one way to come up with a solution for many things, but is having a complicated offense, being impatient with your quarterbacks, throwing players in the "dog house", etc, really the best solution? That seems to be the norm in the SEC from what I have seen. I know it's been the case at South Carolina. You can argue all you want about our success the last 3 seasons, but the fact is, our offense has been mediocre every season under Spurrier. We could have been so much better. If you look at all the games in Spurrier's 8 seasons here that we were in and had a chance to win, we could have had several SEC and national championship trophies by now.

But no. How dare we question an offensive genius and a living legend.

Originally Posted by GamecockSuperFan

I think your on adderall and typing up super long detailed posts between pressing pause on your xbox controller in Ncaa13. Probably running some form of the air raid with Louisiana Tech and getting super pissed at the tv when you throw an interception.

I am not on adderall. If anything, I have issues with OCD. I don't have an Xbox. I also don't have NCAA 13.