About our offensive system

[RF2044]

It was always the problem. He'd be coaching with one foot out the door, just waiting for the phone call.

Nebraska's record so far this year probably has him in bit of a depression. But it's balanced out by Oregon's. His other foot would be happy enough going back there for that head job.

My issue with Frost was never that he'd leave at the earliest opportunity [which was certainly not a non-inconsequential factor], but that he wasn't necessarily an offensive innovator on the level that we needed to overhaul the program. Frost was the guy who followed a guy who followed a guy at Oregon. Sure, they had success while he was there, but I'm just not sure if it was attributable to Frost and his coaching acumen or if he was just able to maintain what they already had. Plus, the lack of head coaching experience wasn't something I wanted to see, after the previous staff train wreck.

We needed an infusion of new thinking here--again, nothing against Frost, I'm just not sure that he would have brought that the way Babers was clearly able to.

 

[Millhouse]

My issue with Frost was never that he'd leave at the earliest opportunity [which was certainly not a non-inconsequential factor], but that he wasn't necessarily an offensive innovator on the level that we needed to overhaul the program. Frost was the guy who followed a guy who followed a guy at Oregon. Sure, they had success while he was there, but I'm just not sure if it was attributable to Frost and his coaching acumen or if he was just able to maintain what they already had. Plus, the lack of head coaching experience wasn't something I wanted to see, after the previous staff train wreck.

We needed an infusion of new thinking here--again, nothing against Frost, I'm just not sure that he would have brought that the way Babers was clearly able to.

you could say the same thing about babers. the innovators are always the weird ones - briles might fall in that bucket now that we know what went on at baylor. the normal football guys who see the light and copy the innovators do even better. babers and frost had more conventional experience and got exposed to the new offense later and converted - they're both going to be great

 

[RF2044]

you could say the same thing about babers. the innovators are always the weird ones. the normal football guys who see the light and copy the innovators do even better. babers and frost had more conventional experience and got exposed to the new offense later and converted - they're both going to be great

I don't think that's remotely accurate, because Babers had a proven track record of implementing his system at two different schools.

It doesn't matter that Babers wasn't the original mad scientist who came up with the system, if that's what you're reacting to. But he assimilated it and was able to install it / innovate it effectively. Twice [now going on three times]. You can't say the same thing about Frost, and you sure can't say it about Ash.

 

[Chip]

My issue with Frost was never that he'd leave at the earliest opportunity [which was certainly not a non-inconsequential factor], but that he wasn't necessarily an offensive innovator on the level that we needed to overhaul the program. Frost was the guy who followed a guy who followed a guy at Oregon. Sure, they had success while he was there, but I'm just not sure if it was attributable to Frost and his coaching acumen or if he was just able to maintain what they already had. Plus, the lack of head coaching experience wasn't something I wanted to see, after the previous staff train wreck.

We needed an infusion of new thinking here--again, nothing against Frost, I'm just not sure that he would have brought that the way Babers was clearly able to.

I always will take experience as HC over not having it, if you think all else is equal (two guys who have innovative, fast pace, attacking offenses). So I was always thrilled with where we landed.

I know that Frost was not shy about the Nebraska factor during the interview process. UCF figured they had nothing to lose. Wasn't going to work for us.

We all agree on Ash. Promoting a DC to a first time HC role in our Domed Burgh ( Bud ruining my morning) is a proven recipe for non-success. Hard to fathom how he was even on the list. I'm sure it can work other places, but given our recent post-P history, it shouldn't even be on the radar at SU.

 

[RF2044]

I always will take experience as HC over not having it, if you think all else is equal (two guys who have innovative, fast pace, attacking offenses). So I was always thrilled with where we landed.

I know that Frost was not shy about the Nebraska factor during the interview process. UCF figured they had nothing to lose. Wasn't going to work for us.

We all agree on Ash. Promoting a DC to a first time HC role in our Domed Burgh ( Bud ruining my morning) is a proven recipe for non-success. Hard to fathom how he was even on the list. I'm sure it can work other places, but given our recent post-P history, it shouldn't even be on the radar at SU.

Indirectly, we should be thankful that the ACC shared revenues put us in a different spot, where we didn't have to underpay and hope to strike gold for unproven coordinators any more. If Coyle / the athletic department had botched the latest hire, I don't think I'm being melodramatic when I suggest that the program might not have been able to recover from it.

We were in a really bad spot, and needed to make a good hire. We made a great hire.

 

[Moontan]

Odd to see something somewhat positive about SU from Thamel. Not sure if reference to SU's "practice bubble" was intended as a dig. Has he seen the IPF?

 

[SUskibum]

i think that stat is meaningful to identify coaches who don't get it. scoring fast is not something to worry about.

Man, sometimes you just stay stuff that makes me spit my beer all over the place.

Thank you.

 

[nzm136]

i think that stat is meaningful to identify coaches who don't get it. scoring TDs fast is good. punting fast is bad. meaningful stats point out ways you can improve. scoring fast is not something to worry about.

That's only true if you're talking about a team that consistently scores (see my first stat). As of right after the UConn game, our offense did a better job of consistently scoring last year than this year. That said, I firmly believe that it takes 2 years to move from an option offense to a pass first offense, so I am far from throwing in the towel. I do, however, believe that much of the enthusiasm displayed in the article (and many of your posts) is irrational.

 

[TheCusian]

That's only true if you're talking about a team that consistently scores (see my first stat). As of right after the UConn game, our offense did a better job of consistently scoring last year than this year. That said, I firmly believe that it takes 2 years to move from an option offense to a pass first offense, so I am far from throwing in the towel. I do, however, believe that much of the enthusiasm displayed in the article (and many of your posts) is irrational.

Oh dear.

 

[Orangepace]

That's only true if you're talking about a team that consistently scores (see my first stat). As of right after the UConn game, our offense did a better job of consistently scoring last year than this year. That said, I firmly believe that it takes 2 years to move from an option offense to a pass first offense, so I am far from throwing in the towel. I do, however, believe that much of the enthusiasm displayed in the article (and many of your posts) is irrational.

First, so sample size does not get taken into account? You're comparing 12 games against 4.
Second, this team through the first 4 games was absolutely better in the 1st halves vs. 2nd halves. So you're underestimating the ceiling of this offense. I don't even have to look at the stats really, because just watching the games you can tell that this offense is not only explosive, but very effective when run appropriately.

 

[TheCusian]

First, so sample size does not get taken into account? You're comparing 12 games against 4.
Second, this team through the first 4 games was absolutely better in the 1st halves vs. 2nd halves. So you're underestimating the ceiling of this offense. I don't even have to look at the stats really, because just watching the games you can tell that this offense is not only explosive, but very effective when run appropriately.

Yep. It's more likely that the yards and possessions will equal more points than not. It's been a statistical anomaly so far.

Best bet in the world: yards/possessions will lead to better points per game and better YPP.

 

[baggerbob]

I don't think that's remotely accurate, because Babers had a proven track record of implementing his system at two different schools.

It doesn't matter that Babers wasn't the original mad scientist who came up with the system, if that's what you're reacting to. But he assimilated it and was able to install it / innovate it effectively. Twice [now going on three times]. You can't say the same thing about Frost, and you sure can't say it about Ash.

Babers also has all that other experience of 31 years to add different wrinkles to Briles system.

 

[longtimefan]

there will always be addazios in the northeast. the rest of the country might get smart about this stuff but the people we recruit against will be stupid for a long time and will always have to deal with the elements where we won't

but we should've been doing this for the last 11 to 25 years

we should build a statue for the AD whose name i can't remember that was here for 20 minutes

Even if, as reported, Babers was not his first choice?

 

[nzm136]

First, so sample size does not get taken into account? You're comparing 12 games against 4.
Second, this team through the first 4 games was absolutely better in the 1st halves vs. 2nd halves. So you're underestimating the ceiling of this offense. I don't even have to look at the stats really, because just watching the games you can tell that this offense is not only explosive, but very effective when run appropriately.

1. A) We don't live in a lab. You have to use the information that we have. So far that doesn't show that the offense is better than last year's in this metric.
B) I haven't crunched the numbers, but I doubt that they improved against Wake, ND, and VT.
C) The 12 games last year works against your argument. I don't know why you brought that up.

2. I haven't said anything about the ceiling. I'm just going by what we've seen, not what I hope we see (unlike many of the posters here).

3. I explicitly said that it takes 2 years to switch from an option offense to a pass first offense. To put things in perspective, Babers said it takes 1.5 years. I'm actually more forgiving than he is.

 

[nzm136]

Yep. It's more likely that the yards and possessions will equal more points than not. It's been a statistical anomaly so far.

Best bet in the world: yards/possessions will lead to better points per game and better YPP.

This is true, but it is far less reliable than you seem to think it is. There's literally an entire defensive philosophy built around blowing up this stat. In fact, there are multiple "bend but don't break" schemes that are pretty commonly used. Actual points per drive cuts the BS. You don't get credit for almost scoring, so tracking that is almost worthwhile.

 

[nzm136]

Huh?

1. The offense dictates that practice be run at top speed, sure. But why is this a bad thing? More reps for the D.

2. Recruiting? Really? How so? Top 2 recruits: one is a QB, one is a LB.

1) it's a bad thing because the high speed means that individual players don't get their mistakes corrected. There is less called out attention. I can't tell you for sure if that's a good trade or a bad one for a defense (and neither can you). But I can say that most good defensive coaches don't practice that way.

2) You're extrapolating part of one recruiting class at one school over an entire year. That's insane. Given that there are a number of generally athletic high school football players that could play a number of positions, I don't get why me saying that an offensive coach might put a disproportionally large number of these players on offense is controversial. I really don't.

 

[TheCusian]

1) it's a bad thing because the high speed means that individual players don't get their mistakes corrected. There is less called out attention. I can't tell you for sure if that's a good trade or a bad one for a defense (and neither can you). But I can say that most good defensive coaches don't practice that way.

2) You're extrapolating part of one recruiting class at one school over an entire year. That's insane. Given that there are a number of generally athletic high school football players that could play a number of positions, I don't get why me saying that an offensive coach might put a disproportionally large number of these players on offense is controversial. I really don't.

1. They correct them over film sessions. They get corrected during practice as well. Multiple reps for 1-3 deep. Not an issue. Plus they take 3x the reps.

2. You're suggesting that an offensive coach would do that with no proof that he does that.

 

[SWC75]

So far this offense produces lots of yards but not a lot of points. There are 128 FBS teams. The median team is this ranked 64th. There's a two way tie for 63rd at 30.4 points per game. It's an era when an average team scores 30 points in an average game. We haven't scored more than 33 points and are averaging 26.4, 81st. That's less than we scored under Shafer last year, ((27.3, 77th). I think the lack of an effective running game is the difference and it could be the difference today.

 

[SUskibum]

So far this offense produces lots of yards but not a lot of points. There are 128 FBS teams. The median team is this ranked 64th. There's a two way tie for 63rd at 30.4 points per game. It's an era when an average team scores 30 points in an average game. We haven't scored more than 33 points and are averaging 26.4, 81st. That's less than we scored under Shafer last year, ((27.3, 77th). I think the lack of an effective running game is the difference and it could be the difference today.

Actually I am pretty sure the difference is the OT points, defensive scores, and special teams scores.

If you compared OFFENSIVE points per game, I bet this years team is ahead of last years team, even with a harder schedule.

 

[RF2044]

Actually I am pretty sure the difference is the OT points, defensive scores, and special teams scores.

If you compared OFFENSIVE points per game, I bet this years team is ahead of last years team, even with a harder schedule.

Very astute.

 

[SWC75]

Actually I am pretty sure the difference is the OT points, defensive scores, and special teams scores.

If you compared OFFENSIVE points per game, I bet this years team is ahead of last years team, even with a harder schedule.

Through 7 1/2 games, (15 halves) we've had 10 rushing TDs and 14 passing TDs with 8 field goals. Through 24 halves, (12 games) that would be 16 rushing TDs and 22 passing TDs with 13 field goals. Last year it was 15 rushing TDs, 19 passing and 16 field goals, so the offense is doing mildly better, although Murphy is decidedly worse.. But it's hardly been a sea change.

 

[TheCusian]

Through 7 1/2 games, (15 halves) we've had 10 rushing TDs and 14 passing TDs with 8 field goals. Through 24 halves, (12 games) that would be 16 rushing TDs and 22 passing TDs with 13 field goals. Last year it was 15 rushing TDs, 19 passing and 16 field goals, so the offense is doing mildly better, although Murphy is decidedly worse.. But it's hardly been a sea change.

Points will come. Inefficiency will give way next season.