Bruins Nation: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
Around SBN: Tobias Harris signs with Tennessee

Sunday CFB Thoughts: "Spread" Seduction/Pining For Quick Fixes

After watching some non Bruin football games, wanted to share with you all some random college football thoughts/observations on this Sunday. I usually don’t get to do that because during most of the season I try to keep all my focus on all matters related to UCLA football and basketball.

So with that note, I wonder if Brian Dohn will contact his Leach sources this week to mention in his football notes how UCLA missed out on the coach from Texas Tech. Don’t get me wrong here. I like Leach a lot. I agree with many others that he is one of the sharpest minds in the game today. However, just like we can’t lose perspective when Leach is pulling off memorable wins (although they are kind of few and far given the OOC schedule TT routinely plays and how they have not been to pull off major wins on the road), we can’t dismiss him either after Tech’s routine blowout losses against superior opponents every year. The fact of the matter is what Leach has done in Lubbock is remarkable. However, at the same time for those pining for quick fixes by hiring a “genius” coach, they can’t lose sight of the perspective that it’s not a sure fire bet that a “spread offense” is the cure to all ills of a sagging program.

The spread offense is seductive. It’s pretty and when it works it’s mesmerizing. Yet, the biggest drawback from a spread offense is the intense pressure it puts on a team’s defense. It will be interesting what major conference Leach ends up in should he chose to jump. If he decides to jump on a program like Tennessee or Washington, he will attract offensive talents, but will that offensive philosophy be conducive to attracting blue chip defensive talents in the long run considering the pressure it puts on defense? Also, it has taken Leach 9 years to finally put together a 10 win season in Lubbock, despite playing a weak OOC schedule year in and year out. Just something to think about.

Speaking of “spread” and systems, I wanted to make note of something re. Boise State. Chris Peterson is having another spectacular season. Boise State is 11-0.  Unless they stumble against Fresno State next weekend, they are most likely headed towards a BCS bowl game. No doubt Peterson is going to be on the top-5 list of ADs from all major programs around the country (will that include Notre DameYIKES!) this December. Yet, I am not totally sold on Peterson. It wasn’t Peterson who built Boise State to what it is today. It was Dan Hawkins, who made Boise State a factor in college football. Take a look at the coaching records at Boise State (the link doesn’t include the numbers from this season). Peterson no doubt has built an incredible record of 34-3 (counting this year’s record). However, Dan Hawkins had a record of 53-11, which was a major step up from Dirk Koeter’s 26-10. Koeter’s record wasn’t too shabby because it represented a rebuilding effort from the tenures of Tom Mason and Houston Nutt. Look what happed with Koetter and Hawkins when they took their Boise State resume somewhere else. Koetter got fired from ASU and right now Hawkins in his third year is still struggling at ASU. Hawkins who really installed the creative spread offense in Boise posted a 2-10 record in his first year at CU, which represented a bottoming out after Barnett was let go with a 7-6 season from previous year. Hawkins improved to 6-7 this past year and in his third season is still struggling w a 5-6 (2-5) record in Boulder.

I am bringing up these numbers because based on those data points, I am not so sure whether Chris Peterson is a sure fire successful bet for a big time program.  I think the odds are that he will be successful if he ends up somewhere like Washington or Oregon. However, given the track record of his Boise State predecessors in Arizona State and Colorado (programs with decent recruiting pull), I don’t think he represents a slam dunk hire for any struggling program which is looking for a quick fix.

Speaking of spread systems and quick fix, the game that I watched a lot of yesterday was the one between OSU and Michigan. Michigan is having basically a UCLA season in the cold Midwest. They are playing with a third string QB who simply doesn’t have the arm strength to air it out. The Wolverines fought their rear ends off staying within 7 points at the half, before it all collapsed for them in the second half (which reminded me of the games against Oregon State, Cal, and Arizona).  I was talking to Dave from MaizenBrew via gchat during that game a lot. It was funny. At one point during first half, Sheridan (Michigan’s QB) tried a quick WR screen, which the Buckeyes stuffed up for a minimal game. It drove Dave bonkers. However, from my pov, when Rodriguez gets his athletes in place in two years, that play would probably go for huge yardage with a good QB and fast receivers. Dave’s reaction reminded me of lot what of us have been going through when Craft throws those slants to Embree, Austin for 1-3 yard gain.

I think Rodriguez will turn it around in Ann Arbor. It will take him 2-3 years. But the question I have is whether the spread philosophy will work in the Big-10 for the long run. I think the system puts so much pressure on defense, it could lead to questions in the minds of big time defensive recruits on whether they would want to play in a program which would require to spend more than their fare share of time on the field. Perhaps I am wrong on this point. And I would be very interested in seeing the data points on time of possession re. Leach’s offense from his last few years in Lubbock.

Lastly, I wanted to end this with the following observations on Kyle Whittingham, the head coach of Utah Utes:

I really hate turning this blog into a Fire Whittingham campaign and I promise that all my posts will not be related to that cause. However I think that's the most prudent subject we must discuss at this stage, because Utah football is in a tailspin currently.

The week leading up to the TCU game, after the Boise State loss, I stated how that was the most crucial point in Whittingham's career. During the Ron McBride days, a loss like Boise State would have set the season into the tank and if Whittingham could get the team to bounce back, then maybe it was premature to write him off. Utah did bounce back, but it only prolonged the inevitable because 5 days after their TCU win, they were embarrassed by Wyoming. Now after starting the season with a 4-2 record, the Utes have lost 2 straight and have limped to a 4-4 record. Tanking the season, which had become so common under McBride, has returned and in much uglier fashion -- as the Utes have been constantly owned in all of their losses this season. […]

Whittingham's problem the past two seasons has always been Utah's inability to defeat the teams they should. That's eerily similar to how they played under McBride. Last season it was Colorado State, San Diego State and New Mexico, three losses that should have had been wins. This season, it's Wyoming, New Mexico and who else? Well, I guess we'll see, but really good coaches do not lose games they should win on a regular basis.

That was from our friends at Block U on October 22nd of 2006 in Whittingham’s second season after taking over for Urban Meyer. I only point that out is because despite all the consternation, Whittingham just completed an undefeated 12-0 season in Utah by destroying BYU. And people call us at BN bunch of "impatient haters"? ;-) No seriously, congrats to our friends at Block U. They have had a remarkable season.

Just something to keep in mind when we are experiencing tough losses in Neuheisel’s second year at UCLA.

I am sharing all these thoughts up to make a simple point. There are lots of good coaches around college football. However, no one is perfect. Everyone has their flaws and issues and no one really represents a sure fire quick fix. What is important for a program is to make sure it hires the right coach with a credible track in coaching, who fits the personality of the program and culture around it. We have gone over CRN’s issues time and time again. Yes, he has an imperfect record when it comes to issues of the field and his certain recruiting decisions. However, what we believe is we got someone last year, who is as good as anyone when it comes to game day coaching, and has the right mindset, which fits the big picture and long term vision of what we have for UCLA football. It will take time and there will be more tough moments along the way. However, that doesn’t mean we are going to lose perspective, and pining for a quick fix.

Onward.

GO BRUINS.

0 recs  |  Comment 29 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

one thing about Leach

don’t forget that he has to fight Texas, Oklahoma, etc for all those top defensive prospects in that area. It’s fairly easy to convince top offensive guys to play for him b/c of the system, but a lot of the defensive guys will go play for Mack Brown or Stoops, who have traditions of great defense. I think in Washington, which has a great recruiting hotbed in Seattle and not much competition, that he could rack up the defensive recruits.

Same with LA; if he was here, there are plenty of prospects between us and SC to make a top defense.

by bucknellbruin on Nov 23, 2008 11:24 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Good point

Leach will definitely have a better recruiting pool to work with if he were to end up at UDub. But keep in mind he won’t have that turf to himself. Bellotti I am going to assume is a formidable presence in the Pacific Northwest plus Riley if he sticks around will only become a bigger presence in Corvalis.

Also, it will be interesting to see how Michigan’s defense perform in next few years should they get their spread offense clicking on all cylinders. I guess what will work for Leach and Rodriguez is to point at Urban Meyer’s success in Florida, where he has implemented a successful spread offense with a formidable defense.

by Nestor on Nov 23, 2008 12:35 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

One thing re. the BCS

Unless something crazy happens with the computers and/or poll voters in the next 2 weeks, Boise St will not go to a BCS Bowl. With a win next week, Boise St will finish high enough in the final BCS ranking to qualify under the non-BCS conference champion clause, but the BCS selection criteria only allow one team per season to qualify in this way. Utah has completed its season, winning the MWC and currently holds a higher position in the BCS than does Boise St, which is the criteria for choosing which qualifying team gets the automatic bid.

Boise St could, in theory play in a BCS game as an at-large invitee. This is a highly unlikely event, due to the competition for the (3) remaining at-large spots; after the SEC title game loser and Texas/Oklahoma presumably get places, the remaining bid will likely go to USC (if Oregon State and SC win out), or Ohio State (if SC wins the Pac-10, or loses to us and Notre Dame).

by bruinhoo on Nov 23, 2008 12:57 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Interesting

Wasn’t aware of that.

by Nestor on Nov 23, 2008 1:02 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Part of the compromise in allowing non-BCS conference teams in...

was the limit of one team/year coming in through this exception.

3. The champion of Conference USA, the Mid-American Conference, the Mountain West Conference, the Sun Belt Conference or the Western Athletic Conference will earn an automatic berth in a BCS bowl game if either:
  A. Such team is ranked in the top 12 of the final BCS Standings, or,
  B. Such team is ranked in the top 16 of the final BCS Standings and its ranking in the final BCS Standings is higher than that of a champion of a conference that has an annual automatic berth in one of the BCS bowls.

No more than one such team from Conference USA, the Mid-American Conference, the Mountain West Conference, the Sun Belt Conference, and the Western Athletic Conference shall earn an automatic berth in any year. (Note: a second team may be eligible for at-large eligibility as noted below.) If two or more teams from those conferences satisfy the provisions for an automatic berth, then the team with the highest finish in the final BCS Standings will receive the automatic berth, and the remaining team or teams will be considered for at-large selection if it meets the criteria

This provision is typically not an issue, as even a single non-BCS team finishing in the top 12/16 has been more of an exception than a rule (2002 Utah, 2006 Boise St). This season is an anomaly in that 3 non-BCS conference champions may finish in the top-16, and would be eligible for automatic bids without the above limitation.

- Utah has locked up a spot in the BCS (12-0, #7 in last week’s BCS, with a chance of jumping TT for #6 this week)
- Boise State (11-0, #9 in last week’s BCS) would qualify under 3(a) or (b) with a win next week, but for the one team rule. As it stands, they would need to leapfrog Utah (and Penn St, + possibly Texas Tech in the process) to gain a BCS spot.
- Ball State (11-0, #17 in last week’s BCS) will likely rise into the top-16 in tonight’s BCS update. Wiht a win this week, they would finish 12-0, and would have a solid chance of qualifying under 3(b) if not for the one team rule (as the ACC champion will not finish in the top-16).

by bruinhoo on Nov 23, 2008 1:33 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Utah was undefeated in 2004

And that was before they made it easier for non-BCS teams to get in. The rule was Top 6, with no provision for being ahead of BCS teams.

by SuperBruinMan on Nov 23, 2008 2:34 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

2004 Utah... right

I guess my memories of Alex Smith really have become repressed (when, oh when, will the 49ers get a QB?).

by bruinhoo on Nov 24, 2008 12:19 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

yep

it’s a bummer, but there’s little to no chance BSU gets a bid. Although, it’ll be up to the bowls to pick between SC, OSU, and BSU, and maybe the Fiesta Bowl would want Boise again. That worked out for them last time…

by bucknellbruin on Nov 23, 2008 1:30 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

the real point

Don’t forget that Oklahoma and Texas also run the spread — they just do it with far more talent on both sides of the ball. When Leach was the OC at Oklahoma, his offense clearly didn’t hurt the Sooner defense, and they went 13-0 for their only championship using his system. And I wouldn’t hold his OOC schedule against him, considering the competition he must face in conference, and his admirable success in bowl games.

The ultimate point in my mind about football coaching, particularly on offense, is creativity and a willingness to adapt. Right now the only successful programs running traditional, NFL style offenses are lopsided with talent, like USC and LSU. Even Ohio St. runs a spread. If Tech ran Steve Sarkisian’s system they’d be .500 at best right now. And ND, for all its talent, has stagnated under its NFL-style coaching staff.

We’re never going to have a lopsided talent advantage with our admissions policy, which means we won’t consistently be able to beat NFL-modeled programs at their own game. Coach Neu seems like a bright and open mind. But I wince when I read that Al Borges would’ve been a leading candidate had Chow been unavailable, and I wince every time I hear dusty cliches like “punting is winning” and “field position” (which can turn on the slightest mistake, and is therefore unreliable).

I have hope for CRN. But I want to see evidence that he’s isn’t the kind of coach who, for all his abilities, will be stuck in familiar ways that the game will pass by.

by bluebland on Nov 23, 2008 2:18 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Mike Leach Has Made Me A Red Raider Fan

I’ve said it over and over, I wanted Mike Leach but we hired the right coach. CRN is the right fit for us and I would not trade him for Leach, or anyone else.

But, in fairness to Leach, I don’t think anyone would have beat Oklahoma last night — not even some of the pro teams. It was one of the most perfect performances, in every aspect of the game, that I’ve ever seen a team, in any sport, play.

The word “dominant” is thrown around way too easily in sports. Last night, Oklahoma was dominant.

Stoops had said, repeatedly that because Leach had coached under him, he knew the TT offense AND how to stop it. Guess that was true.

No only did Oklahoma’s D seem to know exactly what to do on every play, but also their O was unbelievable. This is a far better TT D than Leach has had over the years. They came in to the game with much better stat’s than last year. They were simply destroyed.

Oklahoma just ripped their hearts out.

If Oklahoma can play like that for the remainder of the season, they’ll be in and win the National Championship game.

BTW — This game, makes clear that the “time of possession” statistic is often meaningless. TT actually had the ball for one minute longer than did Oklahoma. Why? Because Ok scored so quickly.

I researched this stat and TT last year. Often, TT had the ball far less than their opponents — because they scored very quickly and often. Yes, their D was on the field more time, but what was the O to do, drag it out?

And, this was another game where one could not blame an O for the poor performance of a D. TT’s D, at the beginning of the game, just got blown out. No excuses, blown out.

I really wanted TT to win — but I really admire Ok after this game. They really brought it.

What makes this even more amazing is that TT plays in this year’s best college conference and that they beat 2 top 10 teams — Texas and Oklahoma State.

On another topic, I really enjoyed the fact that Oregon State was able to pull off that last minute win. For obvious reasons, I hope they make it to the Rose Bowl. And, the team that is 9 deep at every position and the greatest team in college football history? Holiday Bowl?

sjh

by Class of 66 on Nov 23, 2008 5:48 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

the only way

USC goes to the Holiday Bowl is if we or ND beat them. Otherwise they will almost certainly get an at-large BCS invite (and it would be a minor travesty of east coast bias if they didn’t).

by bluebland on Nov 23, 2008 6:01 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

One win out of two should be enough.

IMO, if USC beats us or beats Notre Dame, they get an at-large BCS bid.

As I see the BCS picture, whichever of Oklahoma/Texas that does not make the Big XII title game gets an at-large bid, as does the loser of the SEC title game (unless Florida loses twice). Along with Utah’s automatic bid, one at-large spot remains. If Oregon State takes the Pac-10 automatic Rose Bowl bid, the leading at-large contenders would be USC and Ohio State.

If USC goes 1-1 to end the regular season, we are left with 10-2 Ohio State and 10-2 USC as the most likely choices for the final BCS bowl bid (11-1 Texas Tech might be considered, but the BCS rules make putting 3 teams from one conference in the BCS nearly impossible. 12-0 Boise State would have a higher ranking than either SC or tOSU, but I don’t see a bowl passing up either of those traveling fan bases). At-large BCS bowl bids are not determined by any particular formula but for certain minimum standards, #3/4 ranked non-conference champion (must get an at-large), and the non-BCS champion provision (Utah/Boise St rule) A particular BCS game could pick either team, but would likely be influenced by USC’s 35-3 September drubbing of Ohio State.

by bruinhoo on Nov 23, 2008 6:52 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

hoo

you should combine your notes and any additional thoughts in a FanPost. It will be helpful for us. I know I myself just learned a lot reading from your takes.

by Nestor on Nov 23, 2008 6:57 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

That's all true

but I think a BCS bowl will pick 10-2 OSU over 10-2 USC if it comes down to that. For one thing, SC may not even be eligible for an at large if they lose to either team, seeing as both the Irish and our Bruins are mediocre. SC would have to remain in the top 12 and I don’t see that happening with another loss.
Plus the Fiesta and BSU have a history together (although I doubt they would pick the Broncos). I just think Ohio State will be virtually guaranteed the last at large spot if SC stumbles.

Also, people would rather see OSU play right now. SC is a pretty boring team with a great defense and marginal offense, while OSU runs the trendy spread and has IMO one of the 4 or 5 most exciting guys in the country at QB in Terrelle Pryor.

by bucknellbruin on Nov 23, 2008 10:09 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Good points, but hard to determine what the bowls will be thinking

not to mention the BCS computers + voters. With it’s current #5 ranking, I do believe that USC can afford to lose one game (even to UCLA or Notre Dame) and remain at-large eligible (top-14).

The question of which team would hypothetically be chosen could fairly go either way, and I believe that a good case can be made for OSU (or BSU, for that matter). The OSU team of today, with Pryor starting, and Beanie Wells healthy is not the team that lost in LA, and could make for a more exciting game than SC. However, the narrative facing the bowl picking OSU will be how it picked them over a team that beat them by 32 points, not “wow, look at that kid Pryor”.

by bruinhoo on Nov 24, 2008 12:07 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I disagree with your premise about the effect the spread offense has on Texas Tech's defense

Nestor, you posit: "The spread offense is seductive. It’s pretty and when it works it’s mesmerizing. Yet, the biggest drawback from a spread offense is the intense pressure it puts on a team’s defense. " You are not the first to make the assumption that an offense that runs the spread ultimately hurts the defense, and I don’t see the logic. I think the assumption is that a spread offense either scores so quickly or has a three and out and somehow gets the defense on the field too quickly.

I haven’t looked beyond this year, but there are a couple of stats that seem to demonstrate that your assumption is not well taken. Just a few examples. This year, Texas Tech averages 30:43 in time of possession, so its offense is on the field more than its defense. (30:43 puts TT at number 43 out of 119 or 120 schools.) To put that TOP in perspective, UCLA’s TOP this year is 30:28. More interesting, the team leading the NCAA in scoring at 52.6 per game (Oklahoma) has a TOP of 29:38. (I would have thought their TOP would be much more than half the game.) Anyway, Oklahoma’s defense has to spend more time on the field than its offense, but its defense is only giving up 23.4 points a game. justsc’s defense is allowing only 8.3 points a game, but its offense is on the field only 30:21 per game. Navy, which runs about every time, has an average TOP of 31:15 a game, which is 28th.

Most of the teams are around 30 minutes TOP a game. I just don’t see a correlation between the amount of time a defense has to be on the field and the spread (or any other kind of offense.)

by Fox 71 on Nov 23, 2008 6:16 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Not sure what you are exactly trying to argue

All I am suggesting is that the style of offense Tech runs puts a lot of pressure on their defense. And their records show that they have a very mediocre defense, which turned out to be an achilles heel from them last Saturday.

If they had an offense, which could play some ball control, perhaps it would have given them a chance to work the clock, and keep that explosive Oklahoma offense off the field. All, I am saying is that we need a balance in a successful program. Leach practices the extreme philosophy in his spread offense, in which he doesn’t care at all what his defense is subjected to. He calls his offense without much regard to playing the clock.

It works a lot against overwhelming majority of college teams, but he gets burned when he plays teams with equal or better offensive talents. Not a coincidence that despite being at Tech for 9 years, he hasn’t had any major wins against elite teams on the road, that can go up and own on his vanilla defense with ease.

And I don’t get why would you compare the numbers between CRN’s first year UCLA team with Leach’s 9th year program at Texas Tech at its peak. That’s just silly.

by Nestor on Nov 23, 2008 6:24 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Correct me if I'm wrong Fox,

but my guess is that you’re saying that TTU’s offense is on the field as long as their defense, and averages more time on the field.

But while that’s true, it misses the point of the argument Nestor’s making; one which, as you said Fox, has been made a lot. When an offense scores as quickly as Tech’s does, especially in a no huddle hurry up mode, the D gets much less rest between series’. Therefore, the other teams score quicker as well since the Tech defense is tired, and both defenses end up getting worn down by the end of the game. It then comes down to who has the better conditioning and the most depth; something TTU is not likely to have as long as it competes with Oklahoma and Texas for recruits.

So while the D may not be on the field for very long, it gets very little rest between drives. Therefore, they have the tendency of giving up big plays as well. It’s a two-way road. A spread offense sacrifices defense, and there’s really no way around it. The only exception is an offense like Florida or West Virginia; equally spreading the field, but using runs instead of passes. This gets the offense shorter gains, and generally longer drives, and keeps the defense off the field. That’s why Florida and West Virginia (WVU isn’t great offensively this year, of course) have had defenses that can hold their own against their explosive offenses these last few years.

by bucknellbruin on Nov 23, 2008 10:16 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

My point is that there is no correlation between what a team's offense does and what its defense does

Nestor is not the only person to posit that running a spread hurts the defense. I can’t remember who made that same argument a while back (maybe it was Rye), but one aspect of the argument was that having a spread offense that threw the ball a lot made it difficult for the defense to practice against a power running team. Another argument has to do with the notion that throwing the ball a lot results in the clock stopping a lot, or a lot of three-and-outs, meaning that the defense is on the field more and thus gets tired. I can’t speak to the first argument (or more accurately I’m too lazy to do the research to address it.) The second argument, however, doesn’t seem to be supported by the numbers.

First, another number from the Tech OU game. Tech actually had the ball longer than OU: 30:30 to 29:30. For a passing team, that should mean maybe four more plays or at least three more. Actually, the Sooners ran one more play than the Red Raiders – 78 to 77.

Second, defensive fatigue cannot be cited as a reason that Tech got bombed. Presumably the Tech defense was totally rested before OU’s first series. But OU’s first series was a ten play, 73 yard drive for a TD that took 3:35. After resting at half time, the Tech defense gave up a field goal after having OU start at Tech’s 34 yard line. The Drive Log also shows some interesting numbers. After OU got its first TD, Tech kept the ball for 1:57, ran five plays and punted. OU then had the ball for 4 plays and 2:01 and punted. A net “rest gain” of four seconds to OU’s defense. But then the roof fell in. OU’s next possession – 1:13, 6 plays and a TD. Tech keeps the ball 8 plays and 2:08, turns it over on downs, and OU takes 1:17 to go 5 plays and 85 yards for a TD. Next possession – Tech turns it over on downs after keepint it for 1:21, and OU then goes 55 yards in five plays for a TD, taking 1:46 to do so.

You can look at the drive chart and the play by play yourselves. I may be wrong, but I cannot conclude from these numbers that Coach Leach’s pass-oriented offense caused his defense to be so fatigued they couldn’t play. In fact, I recall this same sort of argument coming up last year in a discussion of (I think) our game with Wazzou. There were several posts saying the poor showing by our defense was the result of their having to be on the field so much, but the numbers showed that argument to be invalid. I think the same applies here.

There is merit I think to the argument that a pass-oriented offense can lead to turnovers on your end of the field which can result in easy TD’s for the other side. That happened to Tech, of course, against OU and against other teams. But that does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the spread offense and lots of passing means that your defense gets worn down. I think it just means that your defense is likely to give up TD’s when the other side only has to go a short distance.

My look at these numbers is unscientific. My unscientific point is that if there is a correlation between the type of offense that’s run and the effect of that offense on the defense, it should be visible in the numbers and it isn’t. Tech had the ball more than OU, and each ran almost exactly the same number of plays. OU’s offense just ran them better. OU’s offense leads the country in scoring, and they do that by scoring a lot of points against everyone, not just against a spread offense team. (And I still think it’s interesting that OU averages 52 points a game, but it’s offense is on the field less than 30 minutes a game.)

Another way to look at this is to take a look at Coach Johnson of Georgia Tech. As I recall, his offensive approach is the same as Coach Leach’s – run a spread offense, but run the ball just about every time instead of pass it. This year Georgia Tech is 4th in the country in rushing yards (third in rushing yards per game.)

by Fox 71 on Nov 24, 2008 5:59 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Oops - posted too soon - need to complete the Georgia Tech thought

Even with all that rushing, their time of possession is only 30:21 per game which is actually less than Texas Tech’s TOP per game. In short, it looks like the type of offense does not really have a direct correlation to the amount of time the defense spends on the field.

Maybe I’m looking at these numbers the wrong way, and if that’s so I’m sure someone will point it out. But as of now, I don’t think the premise has been established that Coach Leach’s spread offense has an adverse effect on his defense.

by Fox 71 on Nov 24, 2008 6:02 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I Agree With My Fellow Geezer

Fox and I have been making the same point, in different contexts, for the past few years. We started with an empirical analysis to de-bunk the myth that our D’s failures were directly attributed to our weak O’s failures. The numbers and drive charts did not support the “fatigue” argument.

I think Fox does a very good job, in this last set of posts, of laying out a position I join.

Let me take it in another direction. To win a football game, a team needs to outscore an opponent.

If I could design the perfect team, I’d want an offense that is on the field one play on each possession and scores a touchdown. I want the certainty of a touchdown, and if I could get it on the first play of each possession I’d take it. Even, if that means that it brings the D back on the field.

I want a D that is on the field for no longer than 4 plays each time the other side has the ball — the result being that we get the ball back.

Our O scores on the next play. The D holds for 4, our O scores — you get the idea.

One thing that is always overlooked in the “fatigue” scenario is that the D need not be on the field for more than 4 plays — EVER — if it can give up less than 10 yards during those plays.

Said another way, the D can always control its own destiny by playing well, no matter how poorly it’s O plays. Is there anyone who really thinks it too much to ask that the D play 4 good plays in one series (and most always only 3 because if a D holds there will be a punt)?

In my ultimate scenario, we would win by an overwhelming score BUT the “time of possession” would look like the other team had the ball 4 times as long as we did.

In that sense, the focus on “time of possession” is meaningless.

Oklahoma made that clear in the game with TT. And, TT made that clear in games it has won over the past years.

I do not want to go back and search all of my game day posts this year, but I have deliberately put up time of possession in games where we were getting beat to show that we in fact had the edge in time of possession. There is one game where we were behind at half but had controlled the ball (and not scored) gaining us a more than 2:1 time of possession advantage.

Since TOP does not determine who wins the game, I just don’t see it as being all that important.

sjh

by Class of 66 on Nov 24, 2008 6:31 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

We are talking past each other

I wasn’t making the argument that TOP is the key factor in the outcome of a game. All I was saying that ability to ball control helps a team when it is trying to go up against another team with superior and explosive offense. It is how Bill Parcells was able to beat Bill Walsh during those classic Niners/Giants matchup. It’s a strategy CRN and Chow have been trying to deploy against teams with more explosive offenses. Although we haven’t had a lot of success given the play at our QB.

As I have said my post wasn’t to undercut Leach. He is a great coach. I just happen to think offenses with heavy spread elements that also features credible running game provides a coach with more options.

Also, Paul Johnson doesn’t really run a “spread offense.” He ran the option at Navy (and is now doing the same at Ga Tech) with elements of spread.

Anyways …

by Nestor on Nov 25, 2008 4:43 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Got It and Agree

TT has both a running attack this year and a defense. Neither did well against OU, but they are the reason TT is in the top 10.

sjh

by Class of 66 on Nov 25, 2008 8:24 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

You just had to bring that post up, didn't you?

Not my finest hour. I really should have a 24 hour cooling period after a loss before posting on Block U. Thankfully, I haven’t had to post after any loss this season.

But you’re right, two years ago, hell, a season and a half ago, Whittingham was on the hot seat. He was doing decent things, but it just seemed like Utah was falling behind BYU. I think 2007 was when I realized Whittingham was a great coach. After the Utes lost to UNLV (a week after beating UCLA), they bounced back and won 20 of 21. A pretty remarkable run, if you think about it.

The more aged JazzyUte has realized it’s important to give a coach four years. Two years ago, Whittingham was coming off a 8-5 season and a heart breaking loss to BYU. Not bad, but compared to Urban Meyer, not great, either. Two years later, and it’s 12-0 and the BCS. Had Chris Hill listened to me, Utah probably would have fired Whittingham and God knows who’d be coaching here.

by JazzyUte on Nov 24, 2008 12:30 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

And now that we've thoroughly beaten a non-issue to death, another CFB subject

What national championship game would be the most interesting? Right now, I think OU versus Florida would be a great game to watch (but obviously a great game to watch with the volume off.) Sure, Alabama is undefeated, but I tend to doze off when I watch them. Maybe BB2000 can give us some local flavor on that. If Florida beats Alabama, as I expect will happen, then who does that put in the NC game?

by Fox 71 on Nov 24, 2008 7:49 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

if i'm gonna be honest

the GAME i’d want to see would be Florida – USC….but since it’d be for the national title i wouldn’t want SC in it. But just for a matchup of any top 10 teams, i’d love to see that. Florida makes their name off their unstoppable offense and unrivaled speed. SC’s defense, as we all know (as much as it sucks to admit), is really good. And FAST. That would be a really, really intriguing matchup for me.

However, for the national title, I’ll go with either Oklahoma—Florida or Texas Tech—Florida. OU-UF because they’re playing the best right now, and TTU-UF because i want to see Leach’s offense against a top SEC defense. The second one is probably not too likely, but i’d love to see it.

If there aren’t any more upsets, and UF beats Bama, then it’ll be Big12 South champ vs Florida. But if Missouri beats the Big12 South champ, then all hell breaks lose. Cases could be made for the two other Big 12 South teams, Penn State, SC, and even Utah. I would put Utah in, because they’re undefeated, or PSU, since they won their conference. But it will probably be Texas or Oklahoma – whoever doesn’t get the B12 south tiebreaker.

One thing about the BCS… it sure is fun to debate about

by bucknellbruin on Nov 24, 2008 9:47 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

And all the debate

is further proof we need a playoff.

Yeah, I know, that was a 2 inch putt there.

greg in denver - UCLA guy for life

by gbruin on Nov 24, 2008 3:10 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to Bruins Nation, an unofficial daily online scrap book covering the greatest collegiate athletic program in the nation. GO BRUINS.
Start posting about the Bruins »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Morrell_small
Wildcat and the UCLA Running Game
Ucla_small
Everyone needs to calm down about Ben Ball
Trojanssuck_small
An Angel in the Defensive Backfield
Small
UCLA at Washington State: A memory
13-9_ucla_baby____036_small
Videos from Washington/UCLA Football Game!

Recent FanPosts

Small
My two game season starts tonight
Small
Have You Been Watching Darren?
2603_1028618641249_1398823305_30086007_6195771_n_small
Trying to Keep the Mojo Going
Bruinsnation_small
Ben Ball Roundup: Gameday Notes
Brad_pitt_as_achilles_small
SI Poll: They Like Us, They Really Like Us ... sort of ...
Bruinsnation_small
Colorado Interviewing Karl Dorrell To Be Their Next Head Coach?
Images_small
Bruins Find Bats As Blue-Gold World Series Game 2 Goes To The Blues
Small
"Carroll and Kiffin and Sark"
Bruinsnation_small
A Note Re. Evoking CHP (Con Artist/Sleazebag) To Criticize Howland

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

SPONSORS


Managers

094_small Ajax

Bruinsnation_small Nestor

Menelaus2_small Menelaus

Arron_afflalo1_small Tydides

Brad_pitt_as_achilles_small Achilles

Small Meriones

Telemachus_small Telemachus

Small Odysseus

Blue_bellerophon_small Bellerophon

Authors

Images_small Ryan Rosenblatt

Official Partner of CBS Sports