A counterpoint concerning UCLA's offensive identity
by Underbruin on Sep 26, 2011 9:02 PM PDT
Email
Print
Hi tasser et al, hope you've been well. Warning - this is fairly long. Sorry.
This is a post in response to Tasser10's analysis regarding UCLA's predisposition to the run.
I disagree with the belief that Neuheisel's run game is because he believes the defense is good. I think it's because he sees the defense is bad. A passing offense is high-variance relative to a running offense. Even a weak passing game, when examining yards-per-attempt, tends to be more effective than a strong running game in a vacuum. UCLA's awful, AWFUL passing game last year still averaged 5.3 yards per attempt (one of the worst in the country). But that would be considered an excellent yards-per-carry rushing game. This year, the 2nd-worst YPA nationally is 4.8 - that would be equivalent to a top-40 rushing attack (Texas is 37th at 4.82 YPC, for reference). The variance introduced by failed passes, though, is overly damaging given the nature of football's offense (3 tries to gain 10 yards, or failure).
That variance is, I think, a greater issue for this UCLA team because of how bad the defense is. With a good defense, a failed offensive possession has a certain relatively low expected value for the other team, because a score is still unlikely. With a bad defense, that same failed possession has a fairly high expected value for the other team, for the opposite reason. By focusing on a strong running attack, Neuheisel is lowering the chance of failed possessions early in a drive. You force the opposing offense to be more likely to have to put together a drive (where even good offenses can misfire).
Even the best passing offense can stall over the course of one game because of variance. Remember UCLA/Stanford last year? Andrew Luck was 11/24 for 151 yards against the not-so-vaunted Bruins D. And they didn't go into a shell because they were way ahead - the score was 13-0 at the half, and Stanford didn't score again until less than a minute remained in the 3rd quarter. They played at least 3 quarters with a less-than 2 TD lead, so they weren't just scrapping the passing O entirely. The Cardinal just didn't have a particularly good game, even with the best passing QB in the country.
To otherwise illustrate this fact, allow me a thought exercise: what is the most common suggestion when facing a good opposing offense, and giving up points is considered somewhat of an accepted premise? To 'run the ball, play field-position, and keep it out of their hands as much as possible,' is it not? Well, when your defense isn't very good, every opposing offense must be treated as if it is a good offense, because that's how they will perform against you. Unless your own offense is itself very good and can win shootouts, you're unlikely to match them score-for-score in an offensive game. Your best hope is to shorten the quarters, keep the opposition out of rhythm, and try to wear down the opposing defense.
The struggles against Texas fall mostly on Rick's decision to play Kevin Prince, in my opinion. The team moved the ball against the Longhorns. They gained 215 yards in 2 quarters of work (the 2nd and 3rd, before the game was totally out of reach). Their struggles in the 4th quarter (35 yards on 3 possessions) weren't due to running the ball. This is UCLA's plays from that quarter:
3rd and 8 at UCLA 49 Richard Brehaut pass incomplete.
1st and 10 at TEX 29 Richard Brehaut sacked by Emmanuel Acho for a loss of 2 yards to the Texas 31.
2nd and 12 at TEX 31 Jordon James rush for 3 yards to the Texas 28.
3rd and 9 at TEX 28 Richard Brehaut pass incomplete.
4th and 9 at TEX 28 Richard Brehaut pass complete to Joseph Fauria for 25 yards, fumbled, recovered by Texas at the Texas 3.
1st and 10 at UCLA 41 Johnathan Franklin rush for no gain to the UCLA 41.
2nd and 10 at UCLA 41 Richard Brehaut pass complete to Nelson Rosario for 5 yards to the UCLA 46.
3rd and 5 at UCLA 46 Richard Brehaut pass complete to Ricky Marvray for 4 yards to the 50 yard line.
4th and 1 at UCLA 50 Johnathan Franklin rush for no gain to the 50 yard line.
1st and 10 at UCLA 26 Richard Brehaut pass incomplete to Joseph Fauria.
2nd and 10 at UCLA 26 Richard Brehaut pass incomplete.
3rd and 10 at UCLA 26 Richard Brehaut pass incomplete.
That's 12 offensive plays. 3 runs. 9 passes. And basically all of their offense in the quarter came on a play when they lost the ball (Fauria's fumble after a 25-yd completion).
UCLA's offense wasn't *great* against Texas by any means, but during Brehaut's meaningful game time they played basically dead-even (giving up 21 points, scoring 20) despite being down three touchdowns. During that time UCLA ran the ball 23 times, and threw the ball 10 times. In the 1st and 4th quarter they ran 11 times and threw 16. If we're looking at just the 1st quarter, it was a 7 pass / 9 run split - still relatively pass-heavy compared to the 2nd/3rd quarters. That's obviously not the entire picture (it's a 4-quarter game last I checked), but it's still instructive, I think.
UCLA's offense really isn't the problem this season, at least to date (future gains not guaranteed, ask your advisor for a prospectus, yadda yadda yadda). They rank 27th in rush yards per attempt (28th in total rush yards per game), and are a mediocre-but-acceptable 55th in passer rating (that number jumps to 40th if we remove Prince from the equation). They rank 24th in the country in yards-per-play.
Running the ball more tends to lessen the defense's importance, not increase it. Which, this season, is a very, very necessary thing.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of BruinsNation's (BN) editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of BN's editors.
24 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
You over-analyze a bit
RN made the decision to go to the pistol in 2010, a year after we had a pretty bad running game and a decent passing game. Even our defense was not horrid. That in itself refutes your post.
Even if you are right, it still is not a good sign of what he thinks about this team. Our rushing was good last year too. Where did it get us?
Finally, I never said that Rick thinks the defense is good, I said that his strategy needs a good defense to work properly. It is an NFL mindset that is very conservative and screams of playing not to lose
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
Responses
I believe Rick’s decision to go to the Pistol had more to do with his desire to run the modern variant of the wishbone offense, the preferred attack of his mentor, the recently-passed Homer Smith. He seems to feel, as Smith felt, that a strong running attack is an extremely valuable offensive weapon, and worth sacrificing some of the passing game for it. The decision to go to the Pistol was one of debatable wisdom. If Rick was ‘wrong’ then and ‘right’ now, it doesn’t refute the concept above. It simply suggests he made a bad decision and is attempting to make the best of it – which is what I think is the case.
I agree that it’s not a good sign about the team. It’s a very, VERY worrying sign. I would agree with that concern. This post was not to suggest that I think the team is headed in the right direction, or in the wrong direction, with regards to wins and losses – it was mostly agnostic in a predictive sense. It was designed to analyze the decisions made in the offensive playcalling, which I think are relatively defensible.
The overall team play, coupled with certain personnel decisions, has been extremely disappointing to date.
More from UB at 'Bruin Analysis'
I largely agree
CRN made that statement like it was his intention from game 1.
I think it has more to do with our defense stinking it up over the first four games. It can barely stop SJSU and OSU. In response he is doing whatever he can to control the damage.
First is something One of the announcers in the Houston game mentioned. Stop a good offense by keeping them off the field. Ive been thinking about this trying to figure out why that works. I’ve come up with:
- Allows defense to rest since they are always more exhausted then the offense.
- Slows things down. With young team, new DC, and teams running the no huddle our players are missing things. Plus, in between possessions they can work out the communication, missed gaps, etc.
- Equalizes the shootout. Football is always a shootout but controlling the ball reduces the opposing teams opportunity to score. We score once a quarter, they score once a quarter. Keeps us in the game.
Second, CRN still has something up his butt about RB. Why does he let KP loose passes and he throws INT’s. Only to put in RB with no picks, better pocket presence, and then turn to the run game. It’s like CRN’s whole offensive game plan was about KP and that’s over so now it’s about Jetski.
Which does make sense. He’s arguably the best player, has had success before, and RB numbers from last year aren’t spectacular. Fine, were now a run team.
Still, something seems off. CRN says RB needs to improve his efficiency? Convert 3rd downs? Be a better runner?
He does all that pretty well. He just needs the practice reps to improve. I don’t know maybe it’s just his way of improving the QB and in the meantime turning to our biggest strength: the run game.
Decisions
RN has said one of the reasons Prince got the nod was he made better decisions. If RN made better decisions in regards to the QB situation we would be 3-1, or maybe 4-0, and his poor decisions might end up costing him his job. He should have the same trust in RB that he had for Prince, and it might save his job!
That's funny
The whole Prince debacle has been haunting me for years now. I just don’t get it.
I’m at the point where I think Prince is his long-lost son or Prince’s family is wealthy and paying RN to start him…
by robotchampion on Sep 28, 2011 10:11 AM PDT up reply actions
Can Someone Do A Search For Our Defensive Identity?
OK, so what is our defensive identity? Really.
Bend AND Break?
Whichever way you view RN’s stated identity, it seems that the analysis leads to the same thing — we are playing to minimize the damage our D can do to OUR team.
Do we have an identifiable identity — one that can be explained in the same way you guys have explained the O?
sjh
I'd rather just forget about him entirely
Besides, we know he can play good defense. At least, when it’s a court of law. Basketball courts, on the other hand…
More from UB at 'Bruin Analysis'
Is 'soft' an identity?
More from UB at 'Bruin Analysis'
I agree with under.
Running the ball is the best protection against your own weak defense.
IIRC Prothro had a slightly different perspective. If you had a quick strike offense, like four minutes or less to score a TD, he preferred a bend but don’t break defense to go with it. You would think it would be the opposite, but he wanted the other team to take more time to score in that situation.
Sort of a philosophy question, theory of relativity kind of thing, right? The answer is surely in Prothro’s game briefcase which he never opened and never divulged and probably was buried with him along with a deck of bridge cards.
GO BRUINS!
So
you are saying that Rick has given up on trying to improve our defense?
I appreciate all you guys commenting and discussing this. But I think you are all completely sidestepping the issues.
1. does this type of offense take advantage of the talent on the team?
2. is this a permanent strategy or temporary?
3. will this type of offense allow UCLA to be consistently successful in the Pac-12?
I am not optimistic.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
Given up? No.
Do I think he’s pessimistic about it after 4 games of weak performance? Yes. Does that frustrate me? Yes. But if the team’s defense IS going to be bad, I’d rather the coaches recognize that fact and consider it in their playcalls.
To your questions:
1) Well, yes, I think it does. The best players on the team by a huge margin, in my opinion, are the team’s running backs. Do I think the Bruins could be more creative in the types of runs they call? Yes. Should they be more creative in how and when they choose to pass? Absolutely. But this is an offensive line that is much better at run blocking than pass blocking, and I’m more comfortable entrusting the game to Franklin and Coleman (not to mention Jones, James, and Barr) than anybody else.
2) I have no idea. I’d hope temporary to a degree, but the team certainly seems stacked at RB relative to its WR talent going forwards. The presumptive QB of the future, Hundley, was recruited for his legs as much as his arm (though I’d argue his head is more important than either of them). I’d like to see a little bit more balance, but I really don’t have a problem if the UCLA offense remains run-heavy for the next couple of years. Brett Hundley, Malcolm Jones and Jordon James running a read-option sounds pretty solid to me, to be honest.
3) Yes. The leading offense in the country right now is Georgia Tech, who run an extremely ground-heavy game (one of my favorites to watch, I might add) and are averaging 630 YPG while doing it. They throw the ball 12 times a game, and run it 55. Oregon is about 60/40 run/pass. They were more like 65/35 last year so it’s not a small sample fluke – that’s more run-oriented than UCLA was. Any offense can be successful in the Pac-12 if run properly. Big if, that.
I’m decidedly concerned with the general seeming malaise around the program, and the incomprehensibly-awful defense. The offense, while frustrating at times, just really isn’t that bad. There are a lot of things that need to be fixed before focusing on the offense. I’m not suggesting that one can’t examine and analyze the Bruin O just because it’s ‘not as bad’ as other parts of the team. But if you were to tell me before the season began “UCLA will average 410 yards per game of offense,” I would consider it a huge step in the right direction compared to last year. I would also believe the Bruins might be a fairly good team, because there were moderately high expectations for the defense that have not so far been met (to put it extremely mildly).
More from UB at 'Bruin Analysis'
You certainly make good points
We’ll have to disagree on the use of the talent on the team.
Your point about Georgia Tech is a fine one, however Paul Johnson has been running that offense for a long, long time. Same with Chip Kelly at Oregon. Neuheisel is a QB coach who I do not think is anywhere near that kind of knowledge to implement this offense. Why not stick to what you know and do it well, and allow the defense to catch up? What, will our running backs suddenly become useless?
The offense isn’t bad, it’s unnecessarily imbalanced, and taking it through a learning curve while simultaneously our defense stinks is not smart, IMHO.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
I think yours are quite valid as well
Noted regarding the talent. Fair enough. I don’t begrudge that position at all.
Very true about the coaches running their run-heavy offenses with experience coaching them. I honestly believe Rick has, ever since his days with Smith, simply always wanted to run a triple option and decided the Pistol was his chance to do so. We think of him as a great QBs coach, but his best successes at both Colorado and Washing were with running QBs as well. His best year with the Buffs came with Kordell Stewart at the helm, and his greatest success with the Huskies had Marques Tuiasosopo under center. Both players averaged double-digit carries per game (Tui had something like 14/gm his junior year). I think you and I both agree that it was probably a bad decision to switch. It may cost Rick his job.
More from UB at 'Bruin Analysis'
To clarify...
Think I screwed up the formatting. Last two sentences should be after a new line – they’re in reference to the Pistol.
More from UB at 'Bruin Analysis'
In an alternate universe
the Bizarro Bruins are seeing what might have happened if Kevin Prince had never been injured…
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
My answers to your 3 ...
questions.
1) Not hardly!
2)Hope it’s temporary…but looks permanent(Do "works in progress take this long???)
3)Maybe against (I do mean MAYBE!) against WSU…everyone else…I doubt it.
by GogetemBruins on Sep 27, 2011 3:03 PM PDT up reply actions
This is one of the most thoughtful threads I have read is some time.
I hesitate to speculate about football principally because I never played a down.
But the dichotomy expressed in the thread about the talent quotient intrigues me. There is an assumption our is a talented team. That assumption is fueled by how highly recruited some of our players are and puffery from UCLA good news press flacks. But I gotta tell you, sitting here at 2 and 2 with no wins against a quality team, I have not seen the results of any talent upsurge.
The big caveat is I never played high school or college football, so my doubts must be viewed with caution.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bruins Nation
Related FanShots on Bruins Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
