QB's in Babers system...

[KaiserUEO]

i needed to include short arms because i am constantly battling food and every beard i grow eventually gets whittled down to various moosedouches

i'll never have short arms though. "You baby gorilla... why don't you work a zoo and stop bothering people?"

my mental image of the guy that hates this offense next year is a distended hard belly, a moustache and two alligator arms crossed in front of him resting on the beachball

tell those guys to stick to 3 yards, a cloud of dust...and baseball...

 

[TheCusian]

white knuckling leaves you susceptible to losses to bad teams. the math works the same for them. playing fast will make the offense better. it might amplify the difference between us and FSU but we're not likely to ever beat them anyway. it'll help us beat up on teams like us. if people are concerned about keeping it close, a 59-30 loss feels closer than a 29-0 loss. think in terms of percentage of total points scored if that 59 looks so ugly. babers improves offenses so much that it's all worth it and it'll be more fun to boot

I think kids who play football good will want to play for a team that scores a lot. We've been making the case that we're on the rise to every recruiting class... But now we'll have 40 pt games to back it up (and maybe a premiere place to play games in the NE).

 

[Cheriehoop]

A question that may be dumb.(my normal type) I am excited about the high octane offense that Coach Babers offers but I also liked the aggressive, attacking defense that SU liked to play too. Is there a reason why high energy schemes can't be employed on both sides of the ball? Does playing the new "fast" on offense assume that since the defense will also be generating more plays, they really can't attack as much because they would tire more? Maybe I just don't totally understand. Personally, containment defense to me is boring. Is the goal for us to be fast on offense, tiring opponent's defense then slowing up opponent's offenses and opportunities to score? Does anyone think that maybe with time, after recruiting sufficient depth and conditioning - that Coach Babers could one day institute a hyper aggressive, attacking defense also? Or would that be counter productive with our offense?

 

[reedny]

Ok, i agree with the math on a given loss margin (constant) being smaller as more total points (variable) are scored. So a 90-60 loss isn't as bad percentage-wise as 30-zip. Ok. Still .. if you lose by 4+ touchdowns, it's not much of a consolation that it was a "high scoring" game, even for those of us without a moosedouche.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

A question that may be dumb.(my normal type) I am excited about the high octane offense that Coach Babers offers but I also liked the aggressive, attacking defense that SU liked to play too. Is there a reason why high energy schemes can't be employed on both sides of the ball? Does playing the new "fast" on offense assume that since the defense will also be generating more plays, they really can't attack as much because they would tire more? Maybe I just don't totally understand. Personally, containment defense to me is boring. Is the goal for us to be fast on offense, tiring opponent's defense then slowing up opponent's offenses and opportunities to score? Does anyone think that maybe with time, after recruiting sufficient depth and conditioning - that Coach Babers could one day institute a hyper aggressive, attacking defense also? Or would that be counter productive with our offense?

That's been something I've kicked around too. I think the idea is that if you attack on defense, it's expected you'll leave some vulnerabilities. So if you have a high scoring offense, and you expect teams to have to score to keep up with you, rather than attack via pressure you attack via turnovers.

 

[TheCusian]

That's been something I've kicked around too. I think the idea is that if you attack on defense, it's expected you'll leave some vulnerabilities. So if you have a high scoring offense, and you expect teams to have to score to keep up with you, rather than attack via pressure you attack via turnovers.

The Tampa 2 will force teams to be patient and find holes in the coverage - which can be hard if your QB sucks and/or you're freaking out because you're down 14 in the first Q.

I think the offense scoring so fast and aggressively puts a kind of pressure on the opposing offenses that is really underrated.

 

[SU68]

If someone can point me to a site that has the detailed year to year information for FCS teams, I'd be happy to.

This is a good resource. [/FONT]

College Football Data Warehouse

 

[LeMoyneCuse]

Lol. First of all, none of those characteristics in red applies to me. Second, yes UT was good -- sure. So are Clemson and F-State. What's your point? Third, playing slower means we lose by a smaller margin unless, using up-tempo, we're scoring just about every possession. Otherwise, the loss margin (with slower tempo) would be reduced since the opponent has fewer possessions. Indeed, BG's loss margin to UT was 29 points because, although they were playing fast, they weren't scoring every time and weren't defending well. And fourth, you have a minuscule chance to win if you give up 59 points to anybody.

This offense is about trade offs. The promise is lots of yards, lots of points, little time of possession. That gives the opposing offense more time on the field.

You can't really have it both ways, where explosive plays are the norm on offense, and the defense registers 3 and out after 3 and out. This isn't the easy setting of Madden.

 

[Millhouse]

tell those guys to stick to 3 yards, a cloud of dust...and baseball...

 

[OttoinGrotto]

I think the offense scoring so fast and aggressively puts a kind of pressure on the opposing offenses that is really underrated.

I agree 100%. Coaches talk about shortening the game with ball control, but I believe you can shorten the game by demoralizing the opponent into believing they can't score enough to catch up with you.

 

[HtownOrange]

This offense is about trade offs. The promise is lots of yards, lots of points, little time of possession. That gives the opposing offense more time on the field.

You can't really have it both ways, where explosive plays are the norm on offense, and the defense registers 3 and out after 3 and out. This isn't the easy setting of Madden.

Do we have an analysis of the Time of Possession? Babers' running game seemed to improve as well as the passing game (success breeds success). I'm sure ToP is slanted to the opposition, but with the type of defensive players Babers likes, as noted in a previous post, the defense may be improving, too, especially over the long term.

 

[HtownOrange]

I agree 100%. Coaches talk about shortening the game with ball control, but I believe you can shorten the game by demoralizing the opponent into believing they can't score enough to catch up with you.

That is how Steve Spurrier built UF - thrashing body bag teams by high scores, most of the middle of the road teams did not prepare for the Gators correctly and he was exposed by the elite teams until he recruited elite players. Only when he recruited the elite players was he able to beat the top teams regularly.

 

[DownTheField]

If Baylor or Oregon ran the same system as Texas or Alabama or USC they would never be able to get any players that would otherwise go to those programs and they would never beat them using the same system with worse players. Those two teams were able to use an innovative offense and lesser players to win, and in turn started getting better recruits. Baylor almost made the playoffs in 2014 and their classes in the previous 5 years were ranked 40, 47, 43, 30, and 34 (according to the R word). This past year was the first year they had a top 20 class.

Players > system if every team is running the same system but if that was the case teams like Baylor and Oregon would still be terrible.

Thank you to the OP for an interesting set of statistics. It caused me to look at the two years at Bowling Green under Dave Clawson and the two years under his successor Dino Babers. The operative years are 2012-2015.

Year Points Scored (National Rank) Points Against (National Rank) Final Record

2012 23 (94th) 17 (10th) 8-5

2013 34 (28th) 16 (5th) 10-4

2014 30 (57th) 33 (108th) 8-6

2015 42 (6th) 29 (84th) 10-4

Interestingly, Clawson had the same amount of wins as Babers in this sample without running a hurry up and without sacrificing defensive efficiency. Of their respective 10-win seasons 2013 is actually more statistically impressive than 2015. On a side note, I wonder how badly WFU fans were salivating for Clawson coming off of that 2013 season? He's gone 6-18 in his two seasons since while coaching a P5 school (what may work in the MAC may not work in the ACC).

Simply put, I continue to fail to see the correlation between winning % (what I care about) and increased offensive output due to a hurry-up tempo. Sure, increased tempo (pace of play) leads to increased plays per game which leads to more yards per game and points per game. However, it also leads to more defensive snaps per game which leads to more yards per game and points per game surrendered.

I don't doubt that we will produce more yards and points but what I can't understand is why people think that Babers system itself will lead to more wins which seems to be the prevailing thought.

After watching this program and college football for many years I firmly believe that Players>System (by alot) at the P5 level and until we get better players all over the field our struggles to get to 6 wins will continue no matter what system is run on offense/defense. I guess that's my main point. Offensively focused teams can win games,defensively focused teams can win games, fast teams can win games, slow teams can win games, etc. but ultimately the team with the best talent and balance on both sides of the ball will win championships and play "meaningful" (Coyle term) bowl games at the end of the year.

All of this is not a slight on Babers as I want really bad for him to succeed on behalf of the program. As a season ticket holder for decades (through good and bad) I am starved for good football back in CNY and getting sick of the revolving door of football coaches since Coach P. I just guess my faith only applies to my religion and I'll just have to see it work before I'll understand how it will bring us back from depths to which we have fallen.

 

[SUFaninNJ]

i needed to include short arms because i am constantly battling food and every beard i grow eventually gets whittled down to various moosedouches

i'll never have short arms though. "You baby gorilla... why don't you work a zoo and stop bothering people?"

my mental image of the guy that hates this offense next year is a distended hard belly, a moustache and two alligator arms crossed in front of him resting on the beachball

 

[TheCusian]

I agree 100%. Coaches talk about shortening the game with ball control, but I believe you can shorten the game by demoralizing the opponent into believing they can't score enough to catch up with you.

And just when they get a touch of hope in the 2nd half, their backup dual threat freshman QB throws a pick because he's pressing.

 

[IthacaBarrel]

If Baylor or Oregon ran the same system as Texas or Alabama or USC they would never be able to get any players that would otherwise go to those programs and they would never beat them using the same system with worse players. Those two teams were able to use an innovative offense and lesser players to win, and in turn started getting better recruits. Baylor almost made the playoffs in 2014 and their classes in the previous 5 years were ranked 40, 47, 43, 30, and 34 (according to the R word). This past year was the first year they had a top 20 class.

Players > system if every team is running the same system but if that was the case teams like Baylor and Oregon would still be terrible.

Agree 100% and the only way Syracuse ever stands a chance of competing with the factories is through scheme and innovation and recruiting to the level at Baylor had the past 4-5 years because to me that is about the peak. Top 35 classes with great scheme and great coaching, that is as good as it will ever get.

 

[RF2044]

If Baylor or Oregon ran the same system as Texas or Alabama or USC they would never be able to get any players that would otherwise go to those programs and they would never beat them using the same system with worse players. Those two teams were able to use an innovative offense and lesser players to win, and in turn started getting better recruits. Baylor almost made the playoffs in 2014 and their classes in the previous 5 years were ranked 40, 47, 43, 30, and 34 (according to the R word). This past year was the first year they had a top 20 class.

Players > system if every team is running the same system but if that was the case teams like Baylor and Oregon would still be terrible.

Agree 100% and the only way Syracuse ever stands a chance of competing with the factories is through scheme and innovation and recruiting to the level at Baylor had the past 4-5 years because to me that is about the peak. Top 35 classes with great scheme and great coaching, that is as good as it will ever get.

Agree 1000% with both of you. This system is the ticket to us leveling the playing field against the elites. Implementing an innovative offensive system worked before in a different era, and helped us to recruit extremely talented players. Babers will do the same thing again in the modern era.

About freaking time we embraced modern offensive play.

 

[storange]

Agree 100% and the only way Syracuse ever stands a chance of competing with the factories is through scheme and innovation and recruiting to the level at Baylor had the past 4-5 years because to me that is about the peak. Top 35 classes with great scheme and great coaching, that is as good as it will ever get.

I agree, That's the formula.

 

[Millhouse]

Agree 100% and the only way Syracuse ever stands a chance of competing with the factories is through scheme and innovation and recruiting to the level at Baylor had the past 4-5 years because to me that is about the peak. Top 35 classes with great scheme and great coaching, that is as good as it will ever get.

yep, and keep hiring coaches babers age. by the time they're ready to hang it up, there'll need to be a new innovation anyway. other schools will want a young coach, let them have them.