An Offensive Philosophy Change

[dinosaurbbq]

You've missed the point. I'm not saying we should go back to running the freeze option or "ground and pound". I'm saying that winning with what you've got brings in the recruits. Then you can do what you really want to do. Running a system that doesn't work with the guys's you've got seems the harder row to hoe. it might work but I agree with the point made above that posters like Millhouse would be the loudest complainers while you lose so you can win later.

Yes, I did. I took your post too literally to mean that we should go back to that type of a system and abandon a spread system. You and I agree that we need a system that can win games now with the personnel we have so that we become more attractive to recruits. I believe we can do that while keeping a spread mentality by incorporating vertical passing routes and a power run game like Lester appeared to favor last week. I hope he can preside successfully over the transition, win us a lot of games, and then open up the system even more and/or just be more successful with it due to an infusion of additional talent.

 

[dinosaurbbq]

[QUOTE="Anyway, impressive scene. Briles could stay there and be king of the town for life, wonder if he will.[/QUOTE]

Baylor has invested a lot of capital in that program recently due to Briles' success. I'd have to think they'll pay him enough and just keep raising it up to be competitive with any other program that wants him. Baylor knows he's the reason, he's the shining star that has made that program successful. Unless he gets a call from the NFL, I'd think he stays there. Its important to remember that the guy was born in 1955. He's nearly 60 years old. He has brought in what most consider to be a "new fangled" system (Its been over 40 years now since Lavell Edwards developed it at BYU in the 70's) that is innovative and fantastic to watch, but he's not a young guy. I can't imagine starting over with a new job, new program, new place to live at that age and I can't imagine he would want to either.

 

[dinosaurbbq]

Also, I wonder how much having McDonald on the field might help him and the team? I've always found that experience is so valuable and helps you refocus or realize things that you may have not thought off once you've changed positions. The game might slow down for him a bit as well now that he isn't running the show.

I think it would be awesome for him to take the opportunity to focus on WR coaching and recruiting and make both stronger for this program and learn a lot more about many aspects of the system he wanted to install. I'd even support him getting another chance here at SU to run that system in the future once he's figured it out.

 

[dinosaurbbq]

I said this 1/1/13, and I'd cut Shafer loose today to do it, Phil Montgomery, $2.25M to start.

NYS isn't Texas, got it. But he knows what it's like to have to recruit to and compete as a private school. He has seen how it was done.

There are legions of disciples of the Air Raid spread offense being trained as we speak at places like Baylor, Oregon, Washington State, Texas Tech, and WVU and still more that run variations of the spread, like Arizona, Ole Miss, Indiana, and Texas aTm. I like HCSS and would like to keep him here. I would love to have someone like Phil Montgomery as SU's OC. Yes, I know Phil Mongomery is not likely to leave Baylor as OC and come to be SU's OC. I don't know that Phil Montgomery can come to SU and win as a HC. In most cases, it takes a few years to install a spread Air Raid if Baylor and WVU are any guidance. Can Phil get kids to come to SU to run it? I don't know and I think he might have some trouble with that being from Texas and so far from home. What I think we would do better with is a younger guy who isn't an OC yet but who has run, worked with and knows the Air Raid spread offense inside and out for years as a QB or WR coach in Baylor's system or Oregon's system or WVU's system where it worked well and give that kid a promotion to OC. GMD doesn't qualify, as he obviously didn't come from a team that ran the air raid spread well. Ideally, you'd need a couple of those guys from the same school who are buddies and who "get it". Maybe offer the QB coach the OC job and WR coach the passing attack coordinator job.

I think there is a better chance of retaining that OC longer term. If you bring in Montgomery as HC and he does well and runs that offense to its capability here, he's the next coach to go to an SEC opening or to leave to get back to a program closer to home in Texas. He's also taking his offensive coaches with him to install that system at that new school. If you bring in a couple younger guys, have them install the offense and teach it to other offensive coaches, you've got a system and not a coach who leaves.

 

[phil77]

Mike Norvell would be interesting but I am sure he wouldn't come here to be the OC...

 

[Chip]

Tebow was once a generation talent. I wouldn't compare him to anything we have. I just think it limits us. I mean it limited us trying to kneel before one half. I think under center is something we should have in the toolbox at a minimum. Until we can score like 2008 Florida we should have this conservative approach available.

It's somewhere in the toolbox. We went under center on one of the red zone debacles against Villanova on at least first and second down. Then there was the obvious Hunt sneak in the Louisville game.

 

[anomander]

I was watching some of the replay last night of Baylor - TCU. Baylor has really built something down there with that program, new stadium, energy. I like how they put the students on the sideline, like Pitt hoops. Just looked like a great atmosphere. I think it really does give them some legs to compete with Texas, aTm, OU. Plenty of good talent in the leftovers, and the past few years has shown that the Longhorns don't always get it right with their talent evaluations.

Anyway, impressive scene. Briles could stay there and be king of the town for life, wonder if he will.

Baylor isn't exactly settling for leftovers anymore. They have had some serious talent at the skill positions. They have had numerous top 100 wr's over the past few years. I believe Bishop Sankey was a 5 star rb as well (even though he transferred in from Washington). Guys like KD Cannon who is their best receiver was also one of the best wr's in the country last year. They have wide outs lining up to play in that system. They have also been signing a bunch of 4 stars on both sides of the ball.

 

[SWC75]

We went four and eight with a one year guy running a bubble screen offense run by a guy coaching high school now

Let's not pretend like that his make do offense was some great success out of the gate. The offense sucked for three years.

But we didn't "grow into" Rob Spences' offense. Marrone got rid of him and we were very different when we got going into 2012. My reference was to the Coach Mac Era when we did tailor the offense to the available talent and it worked.

 

[SWC75]

Yes, I did. I took your post too literally to mean that we should go back to that type of a system and abandon a spread system. You and I agree that we need a system that can win games now with the personnel we have so that we become more attractive to recruits. I believe we can do that while keeping a spread mentality by incorporating vertical passing routes and a power run game like Lester appeared to favor last week. I hope he can preside successfully over the transition, win us a lot of games, and then open up the system even more and/or just be more successful with it due to an infusion of additional talent.

I think our personnel is transitoning to a more dynamic passing game anyway so the issue may be moot.

 

[kcsu]

Are you referring to Joel Mariness who used to call SU games back in the day?

Who can ever forget his basketball calls. Up the invisible ladder

 

[SoBristol]

But we didn't "grow into" Rob Spences' offense. Marrone got rid of him and we were very different when we got going into 2012. My reference was to the Coach Mac Era when we did tailor the offense to the available talent and it worked.

Marrone cut Spence, took over the offense himself, played a conservative run-first offense in 2010 and won with defense. It wasn't pretty but he made us respectable. Then, Hackett developed his schemes (taking heavy heat in 2011) and went hurry-up in August before the 2012 season, with a senior QB and two senior WRs.

Coach Mac Era -- he might have tailored the offense to the available talent in his first handful of seasons (break-even seasons for the most part, stodgy on offense), but he also had improved the skill position talent with the recruiting classes in 1984 and 1985. QB, WR, RB and TE. The "available talent" on offense in the break-out years was the result of successes in recruiting.

 

[Millhouse]

But we didn't "grow into" Rob Spences' offense. Marrone got rid of him and we were very different when we got going into 2012. My reference was to the Coach Mac Era when we did tailor the offense to the available talent and it worked.

I wasn't arguing with you there. I was just pointing out to gosu96 that marrone's first year was a losing season like briles's

briles built an offense that has thrived with nick florence and bryce petty. marrone white knuckled and built up to pretty good offensive year and bolted with a lousy offense left behind.

briles 4 years of .500 with an identity and stability is better than marrone's. no shame in that, briles is great.

 

[Scooch]

I don't know why people keep referencing the 80s and 90s. The game and landscape of college football is ENTIRELY different today. There is nothing predictive or instructive about what DeLeone or Mac did in 1987 or what DeLeone and Pasqualoni did in 1994.

In fact I think continuing to look back like this is part of the problem.

 

[orange79]

Who can ever forget his basketball calls. Up the invisible ladder

Dirty, but good!

 

[Millhouse]

I don't know why people keep referencing the 80s and 90s. The game and landscape of college football is ENTIRELY different today. There is nothing predictive or instructive about what DeLeone or Mac did in 1987 or what DeLeone and Pasqualoni did in 1994.

In fact I think continuing to look back like this is part of the problem.

people watching their NFL teams plus sunday night, monday night, thursday night. not much time left for non Syracuse college football. it's all people have to go on.

 

[IthacaBarrel]

I don't know why people keep referencing the 80s and 90s. The game and landscape of college football is ENTIRELY different today. There is nothing predictive or instructive about what DeLeone or Mac did in 1987 or what DeLeone and Pasqualoni did in 1994.

In fact I think continuing to look back like this is part of the problem.

Agreed. Army use to be good at football too.

 

[SoBristol]

I don't know why people keep referencing the 80s and 90s. The game and landscape of college football is ENTIRELY different today. There is nothing predictive or instructive about what DeLeone or Mac did in 1987 or what DeLeone and Pasqualoni did in 1994.

In fact I think continuing to look back like this is part of the problem.

I suppose the landscape is different, but football is not ENTIRELY different. NE football is a lot less relevant in general; upstate NY is more in a decline; speed is more a factor in spread offenses.

What might be similar (or at least somewhat instructive) is how various programs rise and fall. Not just SU in its history, but examples from programs somewhat akin to SU. I don't know that Baylor or Oregon or Mississippi State (all with many different recruiting regions and financial factors) are any more instructive than looking to our own history.

 

[Chip]

I don't know why people keep referencing the 80s and 90s. The game and landscape of college football is ENTIRELY different today. There is nothing predictive or instructive about what DeLeone or Mac did in 1987 or what DeLeone and Pasqualoni did in 1994.

In fact I think continuing to look back like this is part of the problem.

Well, in SWC's defense, he'd like to go back and little further and return us to the 2 RB set (which one is going to get the ball and which way is he going to go? No one will ever know).

He has more space time continuum than an I-Matt internet poll.

 

[Millhouse]

I suppose the landscape is different, but football is not ENTIRELY different. NE football is a lot less relevant in general; upstate NY is more in a decline; speed is more a factor in spread offenses.

What might be similar (or at least somewhat instructive) is how various programs rise and fall. Not just SU in its history, but examples from programs somewhat akin to SU. I don't know that Baylor or Oregon or Mississippi State (all with many different recruiting regions and financial factors) are any more instructive than looking to our own history.

i think this is bonkers

it's much more useful to look at how teams are succeeding now than to look at how we succeeded then. strategy is important and it evolves

 

[SWC75]

I don't know why people keep referencing the 80s and 90s. The game and landscape of college football is ENTIRELY different today. There is nothing predictive or instructive about what DeLeone or Mac did in 1987 or what DeLeone and Pasqualoni did in 1994.

In fact I think continuing to look back like this is part of the problem.

I was just citing an example of tailoring strategy to talent to get wins and then recruit with the wins. That has nothing to do with whether it was the 80's or 90's nor now.

The "that was another era" thing is used too often to counter an argument it has nothing to do with. I get it all the time with the debate over how long it takes to rebuild a program like Syracuse and how patient we should be. It doesn't matter that it's another era unless it's an era where its' easier for Syracuse to rebuild, which this is not.

 

[Scooch]

I suppose the landscape is different, but football is not ENTIRELY different. NE football is a lot less relevant in general; upstate NY is more in a decline; speed is more a factor in spread offenses.

What might be similar (or at least somewhat instructive) is how various programs rise and fall. Not just SU in its history, but examples from programs somewhat akin to SU. I don't know that Baylor or Oregon or Mississippi State (all with many different recruiting regions and financial factors) are any more instructive than looking to our own history.

I simply disagree.

The recruiting landscape in 2014 bears no resemblance to what it did in 1985 or 1995. More programs recruit "nationally", there is much more competition in our 5-hour recruiting radius, and technology has made quietly landing "diamonds in the rough" much more difficult.

The disparity in funding between SU and the large, public schools that make up the majority of P5 programs has grown considerably.

SU's success in the 80s and 90s was very much in part due to how innovative we were in recruiting (African-American QBs that most other programs wanted to play other positions, turning DBs to LBs and LBs to DLmen to increase team speed, raiding Florida well before most northeast teams, etc) and in our scheme (freeze option, etc). My concern since the late days of the Pasqualoni era right on through today is that we have been chasing trends, not innovating.

I've always likened SU to a small market MLB team. We're the A's compared to the Florida States and Alabamas being the Yankees and Dodgers. Small market teams thrive by being nimble, innovative and ahead of the curve. I can't say that SU has been any of those for a long time.

We're not going to get better looking back. We gotta look ahead.

 

[IthacaBarrel]

I simply disagree.

The recruiting landscape in 2014 bears no resemblance to what it did in 1985 or 1995. More programs recruit "nationally", there is much more competition in our 5-hour recruiting radius, and technology has made quietly landing "diamonds in the rough" much more difficult.

The disparity in funding between SU and the large, public schools that make up the majority of P5 programs has grown considerably.

SU's success in the 80s and 90s was very much in part due to how innovative we were in recruiting (African-American QBs that most other programs wanted to play other positions, turning DBs to LBs and LBs to DLmen to increase team speed, raiding Florida well before most northeast teams, etc) and in our scheme (freeze option, etc). My concern since the late days of the Pasqualoni era right on through today is that we have been chasing trends, not innovating.

I've always likened SU to a small market MLB team. We're the A's compared to the Florida States and Alabamas being the Yankees and Dodgers. Small market teams thrive by being nimble, innovative and ahead of the curve. I can't say that SU has been any of those for a long time.

We're not going to get better looking back. We gotta look ahead.

Being ahead of the curve would have been hiring Chip Kelly from UNH about 7 years as our OC

 

[RF2044]

I simply disagree.

The recruiting landscape in 2014 bears no resemblance to what it did in 1985 or 1995. More programs recruit "nationally", there is much more competition in our 5-hour recruiting radius, and technology has made quietly landing "diamonds in the rough" much more difficult.

The disparity in funding between SU and the large, public schools that make up the majority of P5 programs has grown considerably.

SU's success in the 80s and 90s was very much in part due to how innovative we were in recruiting (African-American QBs that most other programs wanted to play other positions, turning DBs to LBs and LBs to DLmen to increase team speed, raiding Florida well before most northeast teams, etc) and in our scheme (freeze option, etc). My concern since the late days of the Pasqualoni era right on through today is that we have been chasing trends, not innovating.

I've always likened SU to a small market MLB team. We're the A's compared to the Florida States and Alabamas being the Yankees and Dodgers. Small market teams thrive by being nimble, innovative and ahead of the curve. I can't say that SU has been any of those for a long time.

We're not going to get better looking back. We gotta look ahead.

Great post.

 

[Millhouse]

I simply disagree.

The recruiting landscape in 2014 bears no resemblance to what it did in 1985 or 1995. More programs recruit "nationally", there is much more competition in our 5-hour recruiting radius, and technology has made quietly landing "diamonds in the rough" much more difficult.

The disparity in funding between SU and the large, public schools that make up the majority of P5 programs has grown considerably.

SU's success in the 80s and 90s was very much in part due to how innovative we were in recruiting (African-American QBs that most other programs wanted to play other positions, turning DBs to LBs and LBs to DLmen to increase team speed, raiding Florida well before most northeast teams, etc) and in our scheme (freeze option, etc). My concern since the late days of the Pasqualoni era right on through today is that we have been chasing trends, not innovating.

I've always likened SU to a small market MLB team. We're the A's compared to the Florida States and Alabamas being the Yankees and Dodgers. Small market teams thrive by being nimble, innovative and ahead of the curve. I can't say that SU has been any of those for a long time.

We're not going to get better looking back. We gotta look ahead.

the low hanging fruit in the 80s was idiotic football racism not letting black guys throw the ball. I'm proud of SU for plucking it.

thankfully, football coaches are so stupid, low hanging fruit can persist for years.

15 years ago, spread was the low hanging fruit everywhere

15 years later it's still still low hanging fruit in the northeast.

 

[reedny]

middle of the pack in 30+ and 40+ yard plays this year

terrible last year but i blame that more on hunt

well I haven't analyzed the numbers, but from casual observation, pretty sure the last few games have pushed up the average. And yes, we were absolutely horrible last year in the vertical passing game. But really, the book has been out on this for some time -- crowd the box with 7 or 8 guys and dare us to throw over top.