I'm not a big Xs and Os guy

[SWC75]

There are posters on this board who are. Some of them are or were coaches.

I keep reading we need a coach who is going to run an exciting, innovative offense liker we see at Oregon or Baylor. Some have said we've got the type of players who would do well in their kind of offense.

Lester ran an offense with a combination of passes, rather basic runs and the option. McDonald was in love with bubble screens.

What is the difference between what Oregon and Baylor do and what we've seen the last couple of years? Do they run the same stuff with better talent? Are they running plays we've never seen or just a different mix of plays we have seen? Is the scheme better or it just the individual play-calling? Are Oregon and Baylor running different offense than ours or are they just running it better with better players?

 

[Czar]

There are posters on this board who are. Some of them are or were coaches.

I keep reading we need a coach who is going to run an exciting, innovative offense liker we see at Oregon or Baylor. Some have said we've got the type of players who would do well in their kind of offense.

Lester ran an offense with a combination of passes, rather basic runs and the option. McDonald was in love with bubble screens.

What is the difference between what Oregon and Baylor do and what we've seen the last couple of years? Do they run the same stuff with better talent? Are they running plays we've never seen or just a different mix of plays we have seen? Is the scheme better or it just the individual play-calling? Are Oregon and Baylor running different offense than ours or are they just running it better with better players?

For one, we rarely ever ran a zone read, and when we did it never seemed a focal point. Lester boxed in the offense and you rarely if ever saw more than 3 WR on the field for a play. No spreading out at all. We also never really added much of a vertical game. And I'm talking 3-4 guys going on streaks. I also rarely see us run the same plays from different looks. One of the big positives of the Baylor and Oregon offenses is that the playbook has a lot of formations, but the same dozen or so plays in each one. It's easy and simple to learn, while the variety of formations completely mess with college defenses.

 

[Millhouse]

we tried lining up like a single back spread team and quickly morphing into a 2 back power team hoping to overwhelm defenders in the box. those teams keep defense honest with vertical passing

oregon and baylor eliminate defenders outside the box and keep defenses honest with horizontal passing while still taking plenty of shots downfield

lester's offense might've worked with better blockers, a percy harvin like h back and a moose QB that allows you to be a power spread team. aka florida or ohio state. but i think it's much easier for us to just line up with wide splits and not have to take on so many defenders

whoever coaches our offense next, i really hope he understands when and why to throw the bubble screen. we get it wrong in extreme directions everytime

 

[Crusty]

As Lester said it was "multiple". Which I think was the problem. We had some zone read, triple option, and lot of play action.

For the first half of the season, our primary formation was a double wing with one back. That is the same formation that Navy and GT run.Their back is lined up directly behind the QB whereas ours was generally to the side. What did we run our of those formations? We put a WB (HB) in motion to run a loop behind the back to be able to be the pitch man in an option play. We either handed off to the back (just like a line plunge in the Triple Option) or the QB ran an option to the motion side.

Looked like a triple option to me.

As the season progressed we got away from that formation, until Dungey got hurt again. Personally, I think Lester was searching for something that worked and he never really found it.