There is one primary problem with our offense

[IthacaBarrel]

Last year our O coaching was as bad as i have ever seen with only one exception. The nightmare season led by Pariani? The use of players, Play calling, Time outs there wasnt one thing positive to take away from last year on the O side. I know, it was our lack of talent. BS, it was our lack of coaching talent. Give last years talent to Kevin Rogers and i bet things are much better. Give last years talent to George D and i bet we are much better. I really dont care who you plug in as an OC almost anyone would have had better results. Our O coaching last year was simply pathetic. Play calling was insane, why because the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Statistically, we have been worse than last year, sevral times the past 8-9 years... Get some skill guys, scoore points and the "play calling" that everybody seems to harp on will look a lot better. Kevin Rogers was just hired at Temple as the qb coach, I have a feeling that Kevin's best years may be past him. Love the guy and his family, coached his son for a bit but people just clamoring for new offensive coaches are ridiculous. The only coaches job who is safter than Hackett's is Shafers. HE IS NOT GOING ANYWHERE unless he choses too most likley, Marrone loves the kid, for the last time Marrone LOVES THE KID. It's not even worth talking about. I think Marrone's analysis is 100% spot on, some bigger plays will open things up, Sales will help a lot. I don't know what you were watching but I didn't see any difference makers at rb, qb or wr last year, but it's all Hackett's playcalling?

 

[SoBristol]

I'm not saying this is what happened but a couple of things that may have played as part in a couple of your beefs. 1st...the pace may have been slow because Marrone wanted to shorten the game to help a young defense. Right or wrong that is my best guess. 2nd...Nassib can run but him getting hurt would have hurt the offense a heck of a lot more than him helping it running more. It might might just be me but I think it might have been Marrone just out/over thinking himself. He sees the big picture and may of thought he had to do those two things.

As for one back, Gulley was getting more pt until he got hurt vs Toledo but I do agree that Bailey should have had more passes, maybe they thought it was more important to have him stay for pass protection and due to his height, if he did leak out he was hard to see. More planned screens or swings or lining him up on the outside would have been nice to see more often.

For both points (QB running & using Bailey in the slot), the issue was one of depth/talent.

QB -- we had no second QB who could run. If Nassib got hurt, the drop off to Loeb or Kinder was big. Marrone's best bet (given what he had) was to limit Nassib's running and give him all the snaps. This year -- Broyld might be that second guy.

RB -- not much behind Bailey, after Gulley was hurt. It wasn't due to Bailey's height -- he caught a lot of passes in his career. Could have used Smith for pass protection (if he had been worked in earlier) and used Bailey as a wing-back.

Depth issue comes back to choices made by the coaches. A different HC might have seen we were paper thin at skill positions and recruited JUCO help at RB and QB. It was an obvious need. A different HC might have used Smith more in the first half of the season, using Bailey as a receiver more often.

The actual choice was to use Kobena and Graham in the slot, with Bailey as the "superback". You can see the logic (Kobena and Graham brought speed), but having a second real good RB would have given the OC more options.

 

[SmilinBob]

The lack of depth has been a huge throne in Marrones side and hopefully for the first time maybe we won't have that issue in 2012 even though I'm not so sure that SU has that much depth at rb or qb (Have yet to see the young guns in actual action yet so I hope I'm wrong). I'm pretty content with Gully/Moore and Smith right now but I'd love to see someone step up and compete with them.

I agree those guys in the slot would have created more room for Bailey and since the receivers didn't stretch or couldn't put a lot of players in the same basic areas. I like Smith coming out of the backfield to get a pass or two, if he has decent hands... he has some nice size to punish some db's and I'm not at practice so I can't see how Smith did vs the d so I can't judge the staff on that but hindsight does seem to tell us that he did deserve more reps.

 

[SoBristol]

The lack of depth has been a huge throne in Marrones side and hopefully for the first time maybe we won't have that issue in 2012 even though I'm not so sure that SU has that much depth at rb or qb (Have yet to see the young guns in actual action yet so I hope I'm wrong). I'm pretty content with Gully/Moore and Smith right now but I'd love to see someone step up and compete with them.

I agree those guys in the slot would have created more room for Bailey and since the receivers didn't stretch or couldn't put a lot of players in the same basic areas. I like Smith coming out of the backfield to get a pass or two, if he has decent hands... he has some nice size to punish some db's and I'm not at practice so I can't see how Smith did vs the d so I can't judge the staff on that but hindsight does seem to tell us that he did deserve more reps.

At this point in Marrone's career, we have depth. Consider that there are 6 promising candidates for the two open spots in the OL; one of these is a JUCO senior. We have 2 veteran TEs with good size, but also 3 underclassmen. We have a record-holding WR (Lemon) and two others who have started or played a lot (Sales & West), with 3 or 4 underclassmen who are here in the Spring. We have 3 RBs who have played, plus 2 true frosh who might contribute early. The situation is less clear for the second QB (Broyld will be here in the Spring and he can run the ball), the back-up center, and FB -- but that is a short list and candidates will likely emerge.

It looks like above-average depth. The question is whether the coaching staff will change its approach now that it has some depth.

 

[Chip]

This was an interesting post. It's rare that I get to be the brief one in a thread. But here are my couple thoughts:

1) I won't pretend to know enough about the offense to suggest ways to fix it, but varying tempo and playing using players in an appropriate fashion seem like two things that jump off the page. The tempo thing is obvious. The using players correctly thing was strange to me -- remember when the first half of the 2010 season we weren't seeing bailey touch the ball >7-8 times a game and the reason given was 'we can't have an injury behind carter'? Huh? Remember the 'let's go to adam harris' era on short yardage? Remember the 'Marcus Sales doesn't practice hard enough' era before Sales finally started playing and began recording 5 catches a game? Remember all the times we saw Dorian Graham and his inconsistent hands running poor imitations of slant patterns this year? Add those to the absolutely puzzling disappearance of Bailey from the passing game for long stretches and you have a lot of strange decisions on offense.

2) 'Multiple' is stupid. There, I said it. I'm sure some football coach will come to my house give me a four-hour film session study on how wonderful multiplicity is and then beat my brains out for suggesting it was an empty phrase, but I still believe this is true. What offense should we run? Don't know, don't care so long as it puts up yards and points. But spending all your time on 'volume' as DM put it, inherently means you're spending far less time on perfecting the things you actually do well.

I'm not a football coach, but changing up the tempo and a change in offensive philosophy of some sort seem to be absolute musts for this team this season.

Personnel decisions are what worried me the most. Little things. Like using Kobena in a handful of productive plays against WVU, but never again. Was it because he was hurt in that game, yet still returned kicks? TEs in the flat against WVU, remember that again? Maybe Millhouse is right, only works against WVU because they don't have TEs so they don't know how to stop them.

Completing a few deep passes that we've been missing on would be a huge help for this offense, it's obvious. It will make Hackett look a lot better. Sounds like Marrone is looking at going back to things that work, and not relaying on overcomplication of gameplans. At least that's one thing I got from the Rahme article. If we get 100% focused Sales, 100% healthy Lemon, be able to work in Kobena and West (who have some experience) and maybe even get some contributions from Hale and Foster (who have little to no experience) this offense should have enough weapons to be productive. Great? Not necessarily, but certainly much more productive.

 

[GoSU96]

Statistically, we have been worse than last year, sevral times the past 8-9 years... Get some skill guys, scoore points and the "play calling" that everybody seems to harp on will look a lot better. Kevin Rogers was just hired at Temple as the qb coach, I have a feeling that Kevin's best years may be past him. Love the guy and his family, coached his son for a bit but people just clamoring for new offensive coaches are ridiculous. The only coaches job who is safter than Hackett's is Shafers. HE IS NOT GOING ANYWHERE unless he choses too most likley, Marrone loves the kid, for the last time Marrone LOVES THE KID. It's not even worth talking about. I think Marrone's analysis is 100% spot on, some bigger plays will open things up, Sales will help a lot. I don't know what you were watching but I didn't see any difference makers at rb, qb or wr last year, but it's all Hackett's playcalling?

Last year,

Highest per game total offense average since 2004, highest points per game since 2003, same yds per game passing as the mad bomber season of 2007 (4th highest in school history).

Even with the problems with the run game this was the most efficient offense going back to the early 2000's. The problem is just as Marrone has stated, lack of explosive plays. Two or three more big chunk plays a game and you are looking at 400 yds per game. Not huge 40 yd gains, but three more 15yd plays.

 

[SmilinBob]

At this point in Marrone's career, we have depth. Consider that there are 6 promising candidates for the two open spots in the OL; one of these is a JUCO senior. We have 2 veteran TEs with good size, but also 3 underclassmen. We have a record-holding WR (Lemon) and two others who have started or played a lot (Sales & West), with 3 or 4 underclassmen who are here in the Spring. We have 3 RBs who have played, plus 2 true frosh who might contribute early. The situation is less clear for the second QB (Broyld will be here in the Spring and he can run the ball), the back-up center, and FB -- but that is a short list and candidates will likely emerge.

It looks like above-average depth. The question is whether the coaching staff will change its approach now that it has some depth.

But as you and I well know the injury bug could slap that depth into a hold your breath and keep guys healthy theme. Hopefully some of the speed the defense has been getting will now start going to the wr or at worst have a guy like Kobena step up and give us those 30+ plays or better yet, breakaway TD's. It will be very interesting breaking down Broyld and Hunt in the spring and hopefully Loeb will be even more ready to compete at game speed and give us a nice competition backup wise.

I think the ol line will be fine and as for the tightends if the receivers pick it up it'll help with with the young guys development big time along with the running game if they can play action. God I can't wait for spring ball.

 

[Millhouse]

Last year,

Highest per game total offense average since 2004, highest points per game since 2003, same yds per game passing as the mad bomber season of 2007 (4th highest in school history).

Even with the problems with the run game this was the most efficient offense going back to the early 2000's. The problem is just as Marrone has stated, lack of explosive plays. Two or three more big chunk plays a game and you are looking at 400 yds per game. Not huge 40 yd gains, but three more 15yd plays.

this isn't snark, i swear. i just think it's helpful to put 400 in context - good for 46th in the country

considering where we are, that's a pretty good goal for this year. applying the "would you take it" rule - yes, I would, happily.

it's easy to get sucked into that though. outside the tails of the offensive distribution, 45 yards moves you a long way. 3 more 15 yard plays is harder than it sounds I think

i think the offense will take a leap in 2013. marrone might not be sean payton but he doesn't need to be

 

[OttoinGrotto]

i just think it's helpful to put 400 in context - good for 46th in the country

Big part of the issue for the fan base is that they seem surprised by how other offenses actually can and do function these days, so that context gets lost. See all of the posts after the bowl games.

This is why I was blowing my brains out early on last season when people were ecstatic that we were averaging 27 points a game or whatever. That doesn't even put you in the Top 50!

 

[kcsu]

Statistically, we have been worse than last year, sevral times the past 8-9 years... Get some skill guys, scoore points and the "play calling" that everybody seems to harp on will look a lot better. Kevin Rogers was just hired at Temple as the qb coach, I have a feeling that Kevin's best years may be past him. Love the guy and his family, coached his son for a bit but people just clamoring for new offensive coaches are ridiculous. The only coaches job who is safter than Hackett's is Shafers. HE IS NOT GOING ANYWHERE unless he choses too most likley, Marrone loves the kid, for the last time Marrone LOVES THE KID. It's not even worth talking about. I think Marrone's analysis is 100% spot on, some bigger plays will open things up, Sales will help a lot. I don't know what you were watching but I didn't see any difference makers at rb, qb or wr last year, but it's all Hackett's playcalling?

What i was watching IB was predictable play calling. I was watching miss use of personel. Sure we were light in the talent department but the use of AAM, Smith, and Baily was horrible. Slant patterns to Foster, End arounds to Provo. Not playing West or Foster against press coverage when Chew couldnt get off the line. Constantly running Baily off tackle on First down putting Nassib in the hole. Not using a change of pace, rolling pocket, or the shot gun enough. Not a single series or wild cat formation for Kinder. Playing for field goals vs wins. In my opinion our collapse had as much to do with poor coaching as it did with a lack of talent.

 

[Millhouse]

playcalling effectiveness is really hard to measure but some people leap from that to thinking it's not important. no one makes such a leap when it comes to character or desire.

the rob spence year - now that was bad playcalling - a play that should just be used to keep defenses honest became the staple. it's rare that it's so obvious.

it's not that crazy to surmise that play calling still stinks because the offense still stinks. it's just not something that makes for good conversation.

4th down decisions are interesting to talk about to me, but it's not like i think it's more important than hitting real hard. it's just that there's not as much to say about hitting real hard

 

[billsin01]

If we get 100% focused Sales, 100% healthy Lemon, be able to work in Kobena and West (who have some experience) and maybe even get some contributions from Hale and Foster (who have little to no experience) this offense should have enough weapons to be productive. Great? Not necessarily, but certainly much more productive.

Yeah, a big part of the reason I don't think "talent" is a legit excuse is because I think we have enough talent to move the ball more consistently. I think it's a perfectly acceptable thing to say "we need more and better talent" or to say "we could really use a few play-makers" or "any offense runs much better with play-makers." But to point at talent and say, "we just need rocket ismail and randy moss at WR, five Orlando Paces on the OL, John Elway, Jim Brown and Tony Gonzales" (yes I realize this is an exaggeration) doesn't hold any water. We have players that can perform better offensively.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Yeah, a big part of the reason I don't think "talent" is a legit excuse is because I think we have enough talent to move the ball more consistently. I think it's a perfectly acceptable thing to say "we need more and better talent" or to say "we could really use a few play-makers" or "any offense runs much better with play-makers." But to point at talent and say, "we just need rocket ismail and randy moss at WR, five Orlando Paces on the OL, John Elway, Jim Brown and Tony Gonzales" (yes I realize this is an exaggeration) doesn't hold any water. We have players that can perform better offensively.

That has been a huge frustration and why I put a lot on the system. The question you have to ask yourself is whether given the talent at hand the offense performed as well as it could have. I don't think it did, and if I think about why it starts with the limitations the system imposes on the talent.

What I don't know is just how much better the offense could have performed, but I see zero logical reason to believe that the performance of the offense last season was anywhere near as good as it could have been, given the talent that was there.

 

[Scooch]

this isn't snark, i swear. i just think it's helpful to put 400 in context - good for 46th in the country

considering where we are, that's a pretty good goal for this year. applying the "would you take it" rule - yes, I would, happily.

it's easy to get sucked into that though. outside the tails of the offensive distribution, 45 yards moves you a long way. 3 more 15 yard plays is harder than it sounds I think

i think the offense will take a leap in 2013. marrone might not be sean payton but he doesn't need to be

Exactly.

Our offense has just been so bad, for so long, that too many people have lost all sense of context and perspective. Obviously we're not going to go from 90th to 10th in a year. But 46th would be a HUGE leap.

And I agree, 3 more 15 yard passes a game sounds so simple. And yet if someone were to propose the opposite -- all the defense needs to do is hold the opposition for 45 yards less each game -- well, it would seem pretty damn difficult, no?

 

[javadoc]

That has been a huge frustration and why I put a lot on the system. The question you have to ask yourself is whether given the talent at hand the offense performed as well as it could have. I don't think it did, and if I think about why it starts with the limitations the system imposes on the talent.

What I don't know is just how much better the offense could have performed, but I see zero logical reason to believe that the performance of the offense last season was anywhere near as good as it could have been, given the talent that was there.

So what would you have done differently? The statistics Go listed show that we are getting back to the level we were at when coach P departed. I'm sorry, I don't see the talent on offense to expect anything more yet. If we are getting as much out of this group as Deleone was getting near the end of his tenure, I am content.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

So what would you have done differently?

You're kidding me, right? Did you honestly not read the post that I began this thread with?

 

[Scooch]

So what would you have done differently? The statistics Go listed show that we are getting back to the level we were at when coach P departed. I'm sorry, I don't see the talent on offense to expect anything more yet. If we are getting as much out of this group as Deleone was getting near the end of his tenure, I am content.

The problem is that in just those 7 years college offenses have gotten more and more explosive. So just getting back to our 2003/2004 levels still puts us way behind.

In 2004 there were 4 teams averaging over 500 yards/game, and another 28 averaging over 400 yards/game. Syracuse was at 355. Fast forward to 2011 and there were 6 teams averaging over 500 yards/game, and another 40 averaging over 400 yards/game. Syracuse was at 348.

We basically were back to P/D levels last year, in terms of yards per game. Which means we're getting worse.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

The problem is that in just those 7 years college offenses have gotten more and more explosive.

We're in the highest scoring era in college football, and we're the only BCS program that has a dome, and we have fans content with the product on offense.

Wow. Just, wow.

 

[Scooch]

We're in the highest scoring era in college football, and we're the only BCS program that has a dome, and we have fans content with the product on offense.

Wow. Just, wow.

To be fair, I don't think anyone is really content with our O.

What mads me a little nuts though is the idea that surfaced last season that somehow we had to choose whether we were going to have a good O or a good D. As if having both is not possible.

 

[Millhouse]

The problem is that in just those 7 years college offenses have gotten more and more explosive. So just getting back to our 2003/2004 levels still puts us way behind.

In 2004 there were 4 teams averaging over 500 yards/game, and another 28 averaging over 400 yards/game. Syracuse was at 355. Fast forward to 2011 and there were 6 teams averaging over 500 yards/game, and another 40 averaging over 400 yards/game. Syracuse was at 348.

We basically were back to P/D levels last year, in terms of yards per game. Which means we're getting worse.

your typical SU fan probably enjoys the NFL more than your typical SEC or Big 10 fan. everyone has a limit on how much football they can watch in a weekend, so SU fans are probably less aware of changes in the college football landscape because games involving syracuse make up a much greater percentage of the college games they watch.

you'd know better than me if this is at all correct

if your frame of reference is SU teams from the past and current NFL teams, 400 sounds like a lot

(I'm not saying GoSU96 is a typical fan, i'm sure he watches a ton of non-SU college games)

 

[Scooch]

your typical SU fan probably enjoys the NFL more than your typical SEC or Big 10 fan. everyone has a limit on how much football they can watch in a weekend, so SU fans are probably less aware of changes in the college football landscape because games involving syracuse make up a much greater percentage of the college games they watch.

you'd know better than me if this is at all correct

if your frame of reference is SU teams from the past and current NFL teams, 400 sounds like a lot

(I'm not saying GoSU96 is a typical fan, i'm sure he watches a ton of non-SU college games)

It's also safe to say that the typical SU fan has watched a lot less SU games in the past few years.

 

[Millhouse]

So what would you have done differently? The statistics Go listed show that we are getting back to the level we were at when coach P departed. I'm sorry, I don't see the talent on offense to expect anything more yet. If we are getting as much out of this group as Deleone was getting near the end of his tenure, I am content.

Otto thinks Nassib is good and that we don't throw enough. That's the difference. To that, I just throw up my hands.

 

[javadoc]

You're kidding me, right? Did you honestly not read the post that I began this thread with?

Of course I did. It was a great way to start the thread, and I share some of those concerns, as much as I defend Marrone and the current staff. The bunch formations in particular make me scratch my head a bit, and I believe Marrone himself said that they are looking into that in the offseason, studying what other programs are doing to "attack the whole field" or some such locution.

But I see your concerns as more of an issue going forward. I simply do not believe that last year could have been much different, even in theory, given personnel and injury status. In general we could not "attack the field" 20+ yards out, because our QB simply can't hit guys deep, and I do not believe that can be fixed. If another QB isn't ready to go this year then it is a failure of the staff to get someone ready in year four who can "attack the whole field." Maybe they shouldn't have recruited NYS QB's almost exclusively, guys who are going to need a lot of work to get ready given the state of HS football in NY.

And as much as it may "wow" you, I am content with what they got out of the offense this year. It will get better with time, through both coaching decisions and talent. But it's mostly about the talent. I say "wow" at how much blood you seem to think can be squeezed from this stone.

 

[kcsu]

Two major problems are our scheme and coaching. If Temple can win, Air force can win, Toledo and other MAC teams can put points on the board if ---ing Rhode Island ,Colgate, and Tulane can score points so should we. Talent is not our sole issue we have an O that is built for days gone by and an OC who is learning on the job from a head coach who is learning on the job.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Of course I did. It was a great way to start the thread, and I share some of those concerns, as much as I defend Marrone and the current staff. The bunch formations in particular make me scratch my head a bit, and I believe Marrone himself said that they are looking into that in the offseason, studying what other programs are doing to "attack the whole field" or some such locution.

But I see your concerns as more of an issue going forward. I simply do not believe that last year could have been much different, even in theory, given personnel and injury status. In general we could not "attack the field" 20+ yards out, because our QB simply can't hit guys deep, and I do not believe that can be fixed. If another QB isn't ready to go this year then it is a failure of the staff to get someone ready in year four who can "attack the whole field." Maybe they shouldn't have recruited NYS QB's almost exclusively, guys who are going to need a lot of work to get ready given the state of HS football in NY.

And as much as it may "wow" you, I am content with what they got out of the offense this year. It will get better with time, through both coaching decisions and talent. But it's mostly about the talent. I say "wow" at how much blood you seem to think can be squeezed from this stone.

That's a fair response, I guess we just see the limits of the talent differently. I do think that picking up the pace would have improved our offense dramatically last season. The tempo we played at never put our offense in a position to run a play against a defense on its heels that is more likely to make a mistake, or blow a coverage. I have a hard time seeing how Nassib's inaccuracy on deep balls means we had to play so slow. I also tend to believe that we horribly under used Ant as a pass catching threat. Again, just using the one example, Nassib's bad on deep balls, but he can complete a good percentage of passes to Ant in the flat. My frustration comes because I think there are choices the staff could have made that would have helped the offense out a lot, and they made other choices. I don't have perfect knowledge of the situation though so I could very well be wrong, but I'm not certain of that because I also don't trust the staff fully, especially on that side of the ball, and well, the production on offense was so poor.

For some reason, either the staff struggles to the get the backups game ready, or the backups struggle to get themselves game ready. Its been going on for three seasons now. I think that really needs to change if we hope to see the offense move forward.