Tell me why I shouldn't expect... | Page 3 | Syracusefan.com

Tell me why I shouldn't expect...

You're guessing at what the offense will be based on the "12 personnel"? As a really knowledgable poster said on this board (too lazy to find it) - you can run out of it heavy (your nightmare apparently), split your TE out wide for a mismatch, run motion and get into spread principles quickly.

Watch the Eagles. They run tons of 12 personnel, and have made Sanchez look like a pro-bowler. It helps to have McCoy and Ertz - but it's all relative. Custis, Dunkelberger, Phillips, Parris, Fredricks, etc. might be enough.

What I'm hoping for is something similar to what Marrone was running with Lemon; not in actual x's and o's - but in philosophy. Simple in execution and diagnosing things at the line or in play - but hard to stop.

It helps to have Chip Kelly. I'm nitpicking here because work, but up until recently, McCoy was having a "down" year relative to his ability. Ertz is almost non-existent in that offense, which surprises me because he has so much talent.
 
I share your frustration but we don't need to fill the Dome air with footballs to score points.

Running a wide open offense should mean feign able to run and pass.

I love watching a team spread the field and run.

I honestly don't give a flying $&k how we gain more yards and score more, I just want to see us do it.
The thing is, I don't believe we'll actually see a balanced offense that can do everything until we commit to the passing game. We just won't. Coaches will default to the running game. Leach is the only exception here. Without that commitment to throwing the ball all over the damn place we'll skew run, and the balance will never come.

The purpose of verbally committing to passing is to differentiate the program in the mind of QB recruits. The Dome gets us halfway there, or should in theory. Talking about establishing a passing identity is the other half. We've had really bad QB play for a staggering amount of time while the rest of college football seems to have QBs that are just better than ours. We can fix that by being more appealing to them. We become more appealing by talking about being more appealing (enough of this crap about "multiple" offenses) and stating that the plan is to put the ball in the air. Here's the thing - we don't even have to commit to it that much! 2012 is a perfect case study. Season begins with Nassib throwing for like 400 yards a game, Pugh gets healthy, and we default back to being more of a running team, but it all works because the threat of the pass hangs over everything, and when we needed to go back to it on the road against Mizzou, we could, and lo and behold, we snag a highly rated QB out of Texas. Nobody really remembers how much we were running at the end of that season, we just remember it was our best offense in forever and Nassib destroyed all the season passing records. Short of rewriting the record book, we could have an offense like that every season, but it's not going to happen if the default mindset is balance. Doesn't differentiate us enough, we wouldn't get the talent we all think we're deficient in now, and I'm tired of trying to buy the line that our staff is both a) better at identifying under the radar talent as everyone else and b) better at developing that talent. Enough. We've lied to ourselves about that for 15 years.

You know what lie I think actually works? A coach that comes out of the gate loudly and widely saying "Hey, does everyone realize we're the only P5 school that plays in a Dome? This is the perfect place for a passing offense. Here's what we're going to do - we're going to spread it out, run a lot of 3 and 4 wide, and our QBs are going to get used to icing their arms after the game. Hey kid, want to be a part of that?" And then you actually do that for a few games, because you know eventually that you're going to end up running the ball a lot more than what you said sounds like, because 1) meatheads are gonna meathead and 2) nobody wants to get burned by your passing game, so your running game has opened up a whole lot.

The way we do it now, everything is too hard and there are just slim margins for error. We do nothing to help ourselves to score. It can be fixed, but it's not going to be fixed by someone with balance in mind. Balance ends up being the result of committing to the pass for us, crap offense is the result of aiming for balance. We've seen it for 15 years. There's a trend here.
 
It helps to have Chip Kelly. I'm nitpicking here because work, but up until recently, McCoy was having a "down" year relative to his ability. Ertz is almost non-existent in that offense, which surprises me because he has so much talent.

For sure. Chip's system is great because they have a dozen ways to attack you. The line was really banged up in the beginning of the year. Made running tough. But still lead the the league in yards/points.
 
Agree 100%, across the board. I used to bang the drum of the offense having to be a wide open air assault, to capitalize on having perfect conditions in the Dome for half the schedule.

But after years of general offensive futility, I'm at the point where I just want us to run something and run it well. At this point, I couldn't care less WHAT we run--just score some @#$ points and make it exciting.
Just wrote a big post about this in this thread, but we're not going to get that offense that just works without committing to passing. We won't get the talent without doing that, and we won't get the schematic advantages we need.
 
The thing is, I don't believe we'll actually see a balanced offense that can do everything until we commit to the passing game. We just won't. Coaches will default to the running game. Leach is the only exception here. Without that commitment to throwing the ball all over the damn place we'll skew run, and the balance will never come.

The purpose of verbally committing to passing is to differentiate the program in the mind of QB recruits. The Dome gets us halfway there, or should in theory. Talking about establishing a passing identity is the other half. We've had really bad QB play for a staggering amount of time while the rest of college football seems to have QBs that are just better than ours. We can fix that by being more appealing to them. We become more appealing by talking about being more appealing (enough of this crap about "multiple" offenses) and stating that the plan is to put the ball in the air. Here's the thing - we don't even have to commit to it that much! 2012 is a perfect case study. Season begins with Nassib throwing for like 400 yards a game, Pugh gets healthy, and we default back to being more of a running team, but it all works because the threat of the pass hangs over everything, and when we needed to go back to it on the road against Mizzou, we could, and lo and behold, we snag a highly rated QB out of Texas. Nobody really remembers how much we were running at the end of that season, we just remember it was our best offense in forever and Nassib destroyed all the season passing records. Short of rewriting the record book, we could have an offense like that every season, but it's not going to happen if the default mindset is balance. Doesn't differentiate us enough, we wouldn't get the talent we all think we're deficient in now, and I'm tired of trying to buy the line that our staff is both a) better at identifying under the radar talent as everyone else and b) better at developing that talent. Enough. We've lied to ourselves about that for 15 years.

You know what lie I think actually works? A coach that comes out of the gate loudly and widely saying "Hey, does everyone realize we're the only P5 school that plays in a Dome? This is the perfect place for a passing offense. Here's what we're going to do - we're going to spread it out, run a lot of 3 and 4 wide, and our QBs are going to get used to icing their arms after the game. Hey kid, want to be a part of that?" And then you actually do that for a few games, because you know eventually that you're going to end up running the ball a lot more than what you said sounds like, because 1) meatheads are gonna meathead and 2) nobody wants to get burned by your passing game, so your running game has opened up a whole lot.

The way we do it now, everything is too hard and there are just slim margins for error. We do nothing to help ourselves to score. It can be fixed, but it's not going to be fixed by someone with balance in mind. Balance ends up being the result of committing to the pass for us, crap offense is the result of aiming for balance. We've seen it for 15 years. There's a trend here.

Lester has passed way more than he has run the ball. Part of that is being behind a lot, but I think his bent is to pass it first.
 
Agree 100%, across the board. I used to bang the drum of the offense having to be a wide open air assault, to capitalize on having perfect conditions in the Dome for half the schedule.

But after years of general offensive futility, I'm at the point where I just want us to run something and run it well. At this point, I couldn't care less WHAT we run--just score some @#$ points and make it exciting.
one more thing about i don't care what we run as long as it works

this is the type of thinking that leads defensive coordinator head coaches to throw at the wall

this is the approach we've been taking since Gerg, actually before Gerg

west coast with perry patterson
pistol hopscotch
browning everyone in the backfield
spence bubble screen
white knuckle shuffle
no huddle packaged play
whatever 2013 was
1/2 a season of no huddle spread, 1/2 a season of NOTMYOFFENSE
12 personnel

good defensive head coaches know what they want to do on offense and hire accordingly. like stoops
 
Lester has passed way more than he has run the ball. Part of that is being behind a lot, but I think his bent is to pass it first.
TheCusian what was your opinion of Greg Robinson? Should he have be given a 4th year? I honestly don't get the defending of Scott Shafer/Tim Lester you seem to do. I think your a good poster, but man this staff has done nothing to show it is capable of being anything better than mediocre.

Scott Shafer in the last two games. Punted on 4th and inches in a situation with nothing to lose and then pooched punt from the 30 YARD line in the last game of the season with NOTHING to lose. Blind faith is the only reason I can reasonably see for thinking Scott Shafer/Tim Lester can turn this around.

When people have called out our OL and its coach Joe Adam you have defended the guy. Even though he has never coached OL before and our OL was horrible. Yet we should be more patient? Why? If somebody sucks you replace them. This is the stuff I can't put my hand on. You are a good poster as I said but defending these things are just frustrating. However, I realize and appreciate balance. We need people on both sides of the aisle just to have different opinions.
 
serious understatement there

if you're going to replace WR with TE, the TE better be really good. If you have a WR in a TE's body, great, have him do it all.

i think it's a giant gamble. look at Stanford. Ertz, Fleener and Luck made the offense good. This year, their offense is bad and they're scrambling to patch something together.

It makes sense for a nobody like Lester to roll the dice on being the tight end offense guy to differentiate himself from the pack but it doesn't make much sense for us.

Such a great post and that's not even counting all the NFL OL they had on those teams. I think college defenses can be attacked down the seams because in the quest for speed, you have smaller LB's and safeties, but how do you get those opportunities- through the right scheme.

If you are going to talk about a scheme, then you do what good coaches do and last weekend I saw two good examples of a formation/play designed for a specific result. The 1st was Ole Miss going for a 4th and 1 with a 270 lb TE at QB running the read option dive (don't even know if it was a true read but they ran that motion) where the play wasn't even blocked well, but still picked up the 1st down with ease because this kid just plowed through the line.

The 2nd was GB putting Cobb next to Rodgers in the shotgun and catching NE in a zone blitz where Nincovich had to try and pick him up out of the backfield on a wheel route. GB cleared that side of the field with their other WR's and it was an easy throw for a 20 yd gain.

Can Lester create these opportunities? This is what he'll need to figure out to score consistently against ACC teams.
 
one more thing about i don't care what we run as long as it works

this is the type of thinking that leads defensive coordinator head coaches to throw at the wall

this is the approach we've been taking since Gerg, actually before Gerg

west coast with perry patterson
pistol hopscotch
browning everyone in the backfield
spence bubble screen
white knuckle shuffle
no huddle packaged play
whatever 2013 was
1/2 a season of no huddle spread, 1/2 a season of NOTMYOFFENSE
12 personnel

good defensive head coaches know what they want to do on offense and hire accordingly. like stoops

I assure you that no opinion I express on a message board will have any impact on what happens on the football field.

But honestly--I don't care what we run anymore. I'm tired of the ineptitude. I'm tired of not being able to score points. I'm tired of the games being tediously boring because our offense sucks. I'm tired of getting embarrassed playing against peer programs like Pitt and BC and getting run off the field, when those teams aren't that much better than us.

When I isay that I don't care what we run, I mean that genuinely. As you know, I used to bang the drum about air raid--bitched about it for years. Now? Run the wishbone for all I care. The key is for the staff to COMMIT to something and actually build toward it. That means having the right coaches in place, committing to the right system, recruiting the right players, etc.

The problem as I see it is that we had a bunch of generally poor coaches who didn't have a clue about offense. That isn't true of Marrone, and he had some personnel limitations during his time here, but he only put together one solid season of offensive performance--which was coincidentally our ONLY solid season of offensive play in more than a decade. And you know what? It was fun as hell to see us score points. Even though we lost to USC, I felt like we could compete with them because we could move the ball. That Missouri game [after the first quarter] was a blast to watch. As was us blowing the doors off of WVU in the bowl.

Shafer doesn't seem to have a clue what kind of offense he wants to run, which is strange because he used to be a QB. He's a windsock. What I don't care about is what that ends up being, just so long as they commit and put the coaches in place to make it work.
 
I assure you that no opinion I express on a message board will have any impact on what happens on the football field.

But honestly--I don't care what we run anymore. I'm tired of the ineptitude. I'm tired of not being able to score points. I'm tired of the games being tediously boring because our offense sucks. I'm tired of getting embarrassed playing against peer programs like Pitt and BC and getting run off the field, when those teams aren't that much better than us.

When I isay that I don't care what we run, I mean that genuinely. As you know, I used to bang the drum about air raid--bitched about it for years. Now? Run the wishbone for all I care. The key is for the staff to COMMIT to something and actually build toward it. That means having the right coaches in place, committing to the right system, recruiting the right players, etc.

The problem as I see it is that we had a bunch of generally poor coaches who didn't have a clue about offense. That isn't true of Marrone, and he had some personnel limitations during his time here, but he only put together one solid season of offensive performance--which was coincidentally our ONLY solid season of offensive play in more than a decade. And you know what? It was fun as hell to see us score points. Even though we lost to USC, I felt like we could compete with them because we could move the ball. That Missouri game [after the first quarter] was a blast to watch. As was us blowing the doors off of WVU in the bowl.

Shafer doesn't seem to have a clue what kind of offense he wants to run. What I don't care about is what that ends up being, just so long as they commit and put the coaches in place to make it work.
of course, i didn't mean that your opinion matters. i'm saying it's a problem when head coaches have that opinion
 
of course, i didn't mean that your opinion matters. i'm saying it's a problem when head coaches have that opinion

See above--Shafer is a windsock.
 
i always wondered what their offense was like when he played. good luck tracking that down

That's a great point. If you aren't capable as a leader in any venture [business, sports, whatever], then you need to hire solid talent around you to make up for that deficiency / deliver sustainable performance. If Shafer isn't an offensive mastermind, then he needs to hire an OC that is to make up for that deficiency [and I'm not criticizing Shafer for not being one--nobody is good at all things]. But when you hire mediocre or subpar people, then the results will be mediocre.

And that's the trap that Shafer finds himself in.

I seriously hope that I am underestimating Lester, and that he proves me 100% wrong. I just don't expect that to happen; what I expect is more of the same next year.
 
we still have people thinking that the answer is for us to go heavy on tight ends and fullbacks and try to play smashmouth, grind it out football.

Strawman alert!


Who is saying that?
 
serious understatement there

if you're going to replace WR with TE, the TE better be really good. If you have a WR in a TE's body, great, have him do it all.

i think it's a giant gamble. look at Stanford. Ertz, Fleener and Luck made the offense good. This year, their offense is bad and they're scrambling to patch something together.

It makes sense for a nobody like Lester to roll the dice on being the tight end offense guy to differentiate himself from the pack but it doesn't make much sense for us.

Jesus, two years ago they made it work with Beckett Wales and David Stevens. They didn't base out of it, but the two TE package was a substantial part of the offense.

Why is the default thinking that they are going to run the Stanford offense? What in Lester's background lends itself to that conclusion?
 
Help us IPF... you're our only hope
images
 
I'll say it again: Normally, yards gained will translate to points better than any other stat. I don't know why we're rooting for one over the other. Points are better than yards - but I'd take the 1st half of the year in yards over the last two games (no yards, no points) in a heartbeat.
Not better than red zone efficiency.
 
Not better than red zone efficiency.

Sure it is. You could be 100% in redzone efficiency, if you don't get there that often it doesn't matter.

It all matters.
 
Not better than red zone efficiency.

Well of course.

Yardage assumes (expect in our case this year) more Red Zone chances. So even if your efficiency is average, you'd score more points. It's extremely rare to be as good as we were moving the ball (early in the season) and have such a poor red zone offense.

If you are poor at the moving the ball (yardage), and have limited Red Zone chances but your efficiency is great. You still might only average 14pts.

Give me yardage with more chances at success and at getting better in the red zone - than an anemic offense that only gives you 2-3 chances to score.
 
Jesus, two years ago they made it work with Beckett Wales and David Stevens. They didn't base out of it, but the two TE package was a substantial part of the offense.

Why is the default thinking that they are going to run the Stanford offense? What in Lester's background lends itself to that conclusion?
He ran 2/3 of the time his last year at Elmhurst, which was his best year. He has changed the recruitng. Those are two bread crumbs.
 
Jesus, two years ago they made it work with Beckett Wales and David Stevens. They didn't base out of it, but the two TE package was a substantial part of the offense.

Why is the default thinking that they are going to run the Stanford offense? What in Lester's background lends itself to that conclusion?
nothing in lester's background lends itself to anything. which is why we should hire someone else. he talked about 12 personnel and being hard to identify.

i brought up stanford to show how hard it can be to maintain a TE centric offense
 

Forum statistics

Threads
170,355
Messages
4,886,688
Members
5,996
Latest member
meierscreek

Online statistics

Members online
17
Guests online
700
Total visitors
717


...
Top Bottom