Absolutely. I'm not saying that you want explosive platys only or that you should rely on them. I'm saying they aren't inherently negative. The negative it the inability to move the ball the rest of the time.The opposite of your point though, is being able to move the ball consistently. That should be the goal instead as it puts way more pressure on the other team, both on offense (getting impatient) and defense (getting worn out). That's exactly what Clemson did to us...
Alabama is the exception though right? We have been able to have sustained success through a very specific formula. Look at other teams that win championships or come close. They almost all have great to elite QB play and passing games.I was looking into numbers and what I found actually was Alabama had most of their success with relatively average quarterback play and a great running game. When Alabama aired things out the results became less consistent. Now that's not the only factor, but it is a factor.
I'm a big Saints fan, and I've used this example before, but Brees is a great QB. He wins a lot of games with his arm, but there are games he loses with them to. I pointed this out elsewhere, but for instance Blake Sims against Ohio State throws 3 picks. He had a good game throwing the ball, 237 yards and 2 TDs, but those 3 INTs were killer. So there's a live by the sword die by the sword aspect to airing it out. Running plays have less that can go wrong really. Furthermore though, if you can sustain a great running game, the stuff you do in the air becomes a bonus. The running game can just take the other team out of the game completely though, if they don't have the ball they can't score.
Alabama won championships on Mark Ingrams Heisman season, Derrick Henry's Heisman season, along with Trent Richardson and Eddie Lacy's best seasons. I'd argue it isn't good QB play that's the problem, it's just that the more you rely on QB play the more little things that can go wrong. Three of the best seasons we've seen from Alabama quarterbacks in the Saban era didn't result in championship for example (AJ's senior year, GMac's senior year and Blake's senior year).
And, this still doesn't say that inefficient QB play leads to success it just says that a balanced offenses that limits risk does.
I do think the formula is different in college than the NFL because of the talent gap between teams. QBs role and therefore the passing games role can be diminished but even then it can be limited when facing teams that recruit at a close enough level and have elite or high level QB play.
In the NFL you almost never see a team win a Super Bowl or have sustained success on the back of a strong running game and mediocre passing game anymore. The teams with sustained success do it on the back of QB play.
Also, I didn't mean to take a stance against ever running the ball or anything (at least not in college). I'm all aboard the run the ball train especially when you are lacking elite QB play. I was really trying to ask the question "Are there some inherent inefficiencies in a QB that gets the majority of his yards running the ball as opposed to throwing?" Basically, are all QB yards created equal? and I would bet they aren't.
Last edited: