i think I can talk myself into giving Shafer more time

[CuseOnly]

Our defense is predicated on speed, stopping the run and playing fast without thinking too much. It lends itself perfectly to younger players, make your read and go, don't think. I don't think that youth will be an issue at all, hopefully full of tick and vinegar to get after our opponents.

When those younger players mature, watch out. They will just make those reads faster and get there faster...Boom!

 

[retro44]

A good Colon cleanse might help too

 

[reedny]

I think that's to be determined. Hasn't been a whole lot of "read" on the field with Hunt at the helm. At least I hope not, otherwise he's really, really bad at making reads.

Well let's see what he's got. My impression is that the new offense has made it easier for him to make reads and call the play that will work against the defense. If he runs spread/option, then he'll have to make a read to do that ... and he's been able to do that in the past. He'll also have to go through his checks downfield (that's probably where the problems are you're referring to). But I think we'll see Hunt progress from where he was 2 years ago, rather than last season. He's not perfect, but he's big, he's mobile, he's experienced, he has a strong arm and I think he's really the least of my worries going into this year.

I'm more concerned about whether our 2 inexperienced safeties are going to bite and give up big plays, whether our thinned-out D line will hold up against the run and get pressure (especially with freshmen being rotated in), whether our OL will play consistent with their experience level and get enough push to establish the running game (especially in the red zone), and whether our receivers will be able to get some separation and make some catches.

 

[Scooch]

My quibble with the original post is that somehow Shafer was led to believe recruiting is an awful activity, per Marrone, a.k.a. Droopy Dawg.

Shafer's been in the game a lonnnnnng time. He knows full well what recruiting is all about.

 

[TheCusian]

My quibble with the original post is that somehow Shafer was led to believe recruiting is an awful activity, per Marrone, a.k.a. Droopy Dawg.

Shafer's been in the game a lonnnnnng time. He knows full well what recruiting is all about.

Yep. I think the McDonald move wasn't out of a fear of his own inability to recruit (Shafer's track record is fine) or Marrone's. I think he knew the talent level had to raise and tried to get the best recruiter he knew and then hope he'd be good enough to be OC. Clearly that failed.

 

[Finwad32]

I think we'll be an offense with more firepower this year, hitting more explosive plays. Furthermore, I believe we'll be able to sustain significantly more drives. These two things, macro viewpoint ofcourse, will lead to a significant increase in offensive production.

We will win more games, the offense will be more productive.

Therefore, this coaching staff will continue to grow and develop. I just hope, that the key members of this staff stay together.

 

[Millhouse]

My quibble with the original post is that somehow Shafer was led to believe recruiting is an awful activity, per Marrone, a.k.a. Droopy Dawg.

Shafer's been in the game a lonnnnnng time. He knows full well what recruiting is all about.

people can be convinced that it's harder to recruit here than at michigan or stanford.

 

[Scooch]

people can be convinced that it's harder to recruit here than at michigan or stanford.

It is.

What about at the MAC schools he recruited for?

 

[Millhouse]

I think we'll be an offense with more firepower this year, hitting more explosive plays. Furthermore, I believe we'll be able to sustain significantly more drives. These two things, macro viewpoint ofcourse, will lead to a significant increase in offensive production.

We will win more games, the offense will be more productive.

Therefore, this coaching staff will continue to grow and develop. I just hope, that the key members of this staff stay together.

don't know if you've seen any of the bill connelly five factors stuff but explosive plays are everything in college football. people think that has to be mean track stars but i disagree with those people

coaches love to talk turnover battle but explosiveness correlates even better with winning

big plays prevent you from shooting yourself in the foot in subsequent plays.

 

[Alsacs]

Millhouse since your good with numbers based on SS's history coaching defense how would a top 60 offense do in a typical SS defensive season, a top 50 offense etc.

If we have an offense in the 60s we should 6 games.

 

[Scooch]

don't know if you've seen any of the bill connelly five factors stuff but explosive plays are everything in college football. people think that has to be mean track stars but i disagree with those people

coaches love to talk turnover battle but explosiveness correlates even better with winning

big plays prevent you from shooting yourself in the foot in subsequent plays.

Everyone who watched SU football in the 90s nods their head in agreement.

 

[TheCusian]

don't know if you've seen any of the bill connelly five factors stuff but explosive plays are everything in college football. people think that has to be mean track stars but i disagree with those people

coaches love to talk turnover battle but explosiveness correlates even better with winning

big plays prevent you from shooting yourself in the foot in subsequent plays.

Those are awesome articles. I think that's why the gamble on the Xback is a good one. Also - with a giant grain of salt - Z Franklin was talking about the offense, saying that it forces you to play you assignment, know the defense (the why's and the how's) - or it's a TD. That the thing they noticed this year was more big plays from the offense. (The grain of salt being - is our D not good?)

 

[Millhouse]

Millhouse since your good with numbers based on SS's history coaching defense how would a top 60 offense do in a typical SS defensive season, a top 50 offense etc.

If we have an offense in the 60s we should 6 games.

5.44 = average shafer yards per play defense (average of each year's average actually)

Last year, BC was 61st in offense with 5.69 yards per play

so average offense with average shafer defense means you have .25 yards ypp margin

multiply that by however many plays, means you average around 20 yards more per game.

i gotta figure that puts you at 7 or 8 wins on average? obviously averages can get screwy if you get 1000 yards against maryland and turn it over inside their 10 yard line 20 times.

shafer's defenses have not been as consistent as people think per play and i don't blame him for that - i think that's just part of the deal in college football (which is why i want an offensive head coach eventually)

i don't have much hope for an average offense or a typical shafer defense.

 

[Millhouse]

Those are awesome articles. I think that's why the gamble on the Xback is a good one. Also - with a giant grain of salt - Z Franklin was talking about the offense, saying that it forces you to play you assignment, know the defense (the why's and the how's) - or it's a TD. That the thing they noticed this year was more big plays from the offense. (The grain of salt being - is our D not good?)

i expect a bunch of trick plays in hopes of big plays. it's a cubit thing and we saw it last year too. i don't like that in college (don't waste your time on plays you can't run often)

 

[TheCusian]

i expect a bunch of trick plays in hopes of big plays. it's a cubit thing and we saw it last year too. i don't like that in college (don't waste your time on plays you can't run often)

I don't think so. But we'll see.

 

[ImperialOrange]

it should be obvious that this is total speculation but there's my disclaimer

marrone was a miserable guy who hated recruiting and probably belly ached a lot about how hard it was. shafer might've believed everything marrone said about it, why wouldn't he?

so he hires mcdonald as a hail mary recruiting whiz. obviously a mistake.

so whether or not lester is the right guy at offensive coordinator, shafer can at least tell coyle that he knows the type of offense he wants to run multiple pro-style hybrid blah blah and that his original mistake is not one that will be repeated. you fire a guy for errors that will keep happening

this year might stink because of the defense but you'd have to be stupid if that's the reason you fire shafer. we're going to have down years on defense once in a while, they're the exception

coyle likes multiple offenses, maybe he doesn't need to see that much this year. 5 wins, a competently crappy offense that isn't unusual in its crappiness. shafer can make mcdonald (and marrone) the fall guys and it's somewhat believable

 

[TheCusian]

i expect a bunch of trick plays in hopes of big plays. it's a cubit thing and we saw it last year too. i don't like that in college (don't waste your time on plays you can't run often)

Here's why.

1. The Elmhurst tapes don't show that at all. Normal amount of trick plays.
2. Last year was about desperation. No time for full install. Had to add "hacks" to Mcit's mess.
3. By all accounts (interviews + base O in scrimmages) - the Xback wasn't a trick play - but a piece you move around to gain tactical advantages
4. You're letting your coaching tree bias influence your opinion

 

[GoSU96]

don't know if you've seen any of the bill connelly five factors stuff but explosive plays are everything in college football. people think that has to be mean track stars but i disagree with those people

coaches love to talk turnover battle but explosiveness correlates even better with winning

big plays prevent you from shooting yourself in the foot in subsequent plays.

Losing the TO battle can lose you games, but explosive plays are winning plays.

You know who believes that and built his program around that idea?

 

[Millhouse]

Losing the TO battle can lose you games, but explosive plays are winning plays.

You know who believes that and built his program around that idea?

everyone?

some offenses are better than others for having those opportunities.

for instance, some coaches spend 4 drives pounding their head into a wall to spring a play action only to ritualistically pull out their 4 inch eyebrows when the ball falls incomplete

other coaches prefer offenses where the potential is there every play

 

[reedny]

i expect a bunch of trick plays in hopes of big plays. it's a cubit thing and we saw it last year too. i don't like that in college (don't waste your time on plays you can't run often)

But didn't you tout a "hook-and-lateral" (i.e., trick play) article in a different thread, which stated essentially that running a trick play (rugby-style/hook and lateral type play) only 2 or 3 times a game creates explosive plays, which correlate better with winning than TO's? I doubt Kelly thinks these plays are a waste of time.

http://www.footballstudyhall.com/20...ing-rugby-to-football-an-interview-with-coach

 

[Alsacs]

5.44 = average shafer yards per play defense (average of each year's average actually)

Last year, BC was 61st in offense with 5.69 yards per play

so average offense with average shafer defense means you have .25 yards ypp margin

multiply that by however many plays, means you average around 20 yards more per game.

i gotta figure that puts you at 7 or 8 wins on average? obviously averages can get screwy if you get 1000 yards against maryland and turn it over inside their 10 yard line 20 times.

shafer's defenses have not been as consistent as people think per play and i don't blame him for that - i think that's just part of the deal in college football (which is why i want an offensive head coach eventually)

i don't have much hope for an average offense or a typical shafer defense.

I agree with this. I don't think our D has been elite but I give SS credit for doing a solid job and compared to our offense the D has looked really good.
My point was that I can give SS a break if the D struggles as long as we see real improvement on offense and if we had a consistent offense to go with SS history it should lead to 7-9 wins per year. If not we are praying for 6-6 each year which sucks.

 

[SWC75]

Something to keep in mind: There are 125 teams in FBS but only 64 in the "power" conferences. Throw in Notre Dame and BYU and you've got 66 such teams. That's 53% of the division. You can finish in the middle of the pack int eh 125 team division but that doesn't make you a middle of the pack power conference team. A team that was 50-60 in across the board in the statistical rankings probably wouldn't make it to 6-6 in a power conference. You'd have to actually be good at something.

 

[Millhouse]

But didn't you tout a "hook-and-lateral" (i.e., trick play) article in a different thread, which stated essentially that running a trick play (rugby-style/hook and lateral type play) only 2 or 3 times a game creates explosive plays, which correlate better with winning than TO's? I doubt Kelly thinks these plays are a waste of time.

http://www.footballstudyhall.com/20...ing-rugby-to-football-an-interview-with-coach

i shared the link but i don't like backwards pitches. too many fumbles

 

[PhatOrange]

But didn't you tout a "hook-and-lateral" (i.e., trick play) article in a different thread, which stated essentially that running a trick play (rugby-style/hook and lateral type play) only 2 or 3 times a game creates explosive plays, which correlate better with winning than TO's? I doubt Kelly thinks these plays are a waste of time.

http://www.footballstudyhall.com/20...ing-rugby-to-football-an-interview-with-coach

good article.

"But there's more. Not only do quarterbacks have post-snap run-pass options, but so do receivers and running backs. For instance, say Pulaski runs a jet sweep with an H-back/slot receiver type as the base play. Kelley and his offensive staff identify a pure athlete with decent throwing ability who is also a good receiver, put him in the slot, and then give him a run-pass option when he gets the ball. The line protects the receiver like he's the quarterback; after he gets the ball, he reads the unblocked outside linebacker with the option to run it on the base jet sweep, throw a bubble screen, or throw to another receiver on a go-route. This puts the play-side corner in a bad situation, defending against multiple horizontal and vertical threats to his side of the field. But leaving the outside linebacker unblocked also allows the line to add a double team elsewhere."

 

[orangefog]

Something to keep in mind: There are 125 teams in FBS but only 64 in the "power" conferences. Throw in Notre Dame and BYU and you've got 66 such teams. That's 53% of the division. You can finish in the middle of the pack int eh 125 team division but that doesn't make you a middle of the pack power conference team. A team that was 50-60 in across the board in the statistical rankings probably wouldn't make it to 6-6 in a power conference. You'd have to actually be good at something.

But, the fact that the P5 teams play a majority of their games against P5 teams and vice versa, doesn't that skew the numbers and make them, in a way, even out, meaning that if you finish middle of the pack is truly finishing middle of the pack?