But you are not seeing the whole picture. Sometimes statistics do not tell the whole story.
You could be right, but the picture that you paint is incomplete...
Execution vs. Playcalling
- Thread starter tidefanblake
- Start date
You could be right, but the picture that you paint is incomplete...
I can't speak for what happened in Tampa. I was not a Tampa fan until Jon arrived (he is a friend of the famiy). By then (2002), Shula was long gone. Perhaps someone that follows the Bucs could discuss that.
But Shula's struggles (if they were his fault) in Tampa have nothing to do with his situation at Alabama...
Here's a C&P from a post I ran across this afternoon...good summary...
What should our philosophy be? What do others run that you like or don't like? Do we have an execution problem, a personnel problem or a strategy problem? Is there really a problem?
First, let me say that I like what we run. I am an I formation, play action brick head. I like it because I think, if you are committed to the run and can do it, you will win the games you are supposed to and put yourself in a position to win those you shouldn't. Track meet football looks great sometimes. But if you look at the offense Texas runs where everything starts out of the gun, you get results like last night. OSU wasn't doing anything different than we do, except they have better people and they executed.
The offense we run is not modern. It's a derivative of the old Don Coriel, Earnie Zampese, Joe Gibbs, Norv Turner offenses. You run a timing passing game, run up the middle and use play action to stretch the field. It's ball control with a deep strike element. Miami (the Hurricanes) still runs the same thing. Has it outlived it's value? Maybe. But I am still of the opinion that if you have the people to execute it, it is the most powerful offense to play winning football. Especially in big games.
I will grant that I too am frustrated at the lack of touchdowns. We seem to always move well between the 20's, but stall after that. Is the problem again, a lack of execution, playcalling or philosophy? Todd Blackledge said last night that Spurrier has always believed in getting more aggressive in the red zone as opposed to many coaches who get more conservative for fear of blowing a scoring opportunity. Shula, playing short handed for so long might be guilty of some of this. Or it might be a problem of not spreading the field out enough to get the match ups we need to score down there. But three blown opportunities in two weeks amount to a toe out of bounds and two fumbles. So it could be execution.
The reason I hate spread football is what happened to Clemson yesterday. They jumped on BC and couldn't put them away. The game slowed down in the second half, got more physical and they lost to a team they should have beaten. You can't play to your defense if you are bent on quick posessions and a finesse offense. Adding more posessions to the game and not having the ability to control the clock will wear your defense out even if you are scoring. In addition, the toughness of a defense is a direct reflection of what they face in practice each day. Finesse offensive teams give up more points and are usually weak at the point of attack in the middle. The PAC 10, WAC, Mountain West problem. I think to win big with a that philosophy you have to have overwhelming talent. If you look through the national champions list over the past two decades, a few teams that run a shotgun based offense have gotten over the hump, but not the vast majority.
I am a big fan of Homer Smith's. But, I will never forget the experience in Auburn in 89. To me, we couldn't get it done that day because we simply got out muscled from playing finesse football. Maybe I am scarred from that event. It is interesting that in 94, Stallings severely limited what he could do for just this reason. In one case, it caused us to fall way behind UGA and then he had to cut Barker and Homer loose and we came back. In the case of Auburn, we jumped up on them and then put it in a deep freeze and nearly lost. So, like many Bama fans I still don't know what to make of our brief flirtation with this type of football. The record is mixed.
Fran ran a finesse offense despite what he portrayed. His teams were very poor at straight ahead running if they weren't trapping or running the draw. His defenses were softer as a result. The OK game he convinced himself we had to play from the shotgun and then we got back into it after we went right at them. There are a number of reasons we lost to Auburn that year, but I think his trick offense just broke down that day and there was nothing to do that could salvage it.
Auburn is an interesting study. They are running, it seems to me, a derivative of Homer Smith's old offense. There is a good deal of misdirection, big emphasis of backs and TE's catching passes, etc. They do run the ball well. But it will be interesting to see what happens when they man up against LSU and some others who can physically match them. But again, Auburn's success might be a matter of continuity of people and execution, not philosophy.
I like what LSU does. What Fisher runs isn't really different from what Les Miles was doing at OK state and isn't hugely different from what we run in basic philosophy. The pass routes and methodology are the same.
In summation, don't know where this is going, but I think the offensive debate is complicated because what you do there affects the entire set up of your team and how you manage a game. Simply reducing it to "change the offense" doesn't tell us anything. So let's talk - in a civilized manner.
What should our philosophy be? What do others run that you like or don't like? Do we have an execution problem, a personnel problem or a strategy problem? Is there really a problem?
First, let me say that I like what we run. I am an I formation, play action brick head. I like it because I think, if you are committed to the run and can do it, you will win the games you are supposed to and put yourself in a position to win those you shouldn't. Track meet football looks great sometimes. But if you look at the offense Texas runs where everything starts out of the gun, you get results like last night. OSU wasn't doing anything different than we do, except they have better people and they executed.
The offense we run is not modern. It's a derivative of the old Don Coriel, Earnie Zampese, Joe Gibbs, Norv Turner offenses. You run a timing passing game, run up the middle and use play action to stretch the field. It's ball control with a deep strike element. Miami (the Hurricanes) still runs the same thing. Has it outlived it's value? Maybe. But I am still of the opinion that if you have the people to execute it, it is the most powerful offense to play winning football. Especially in big games.
I will grant that I too am frustrated at the lack of touchdowns. We seem to always move well between the 20's, but stall after that. Is the problem again, a lack of execution, playcalling or philosophy? Todd Blackledge said last night that Spurrier has always believed in getting more aggressive in the red zone as opposed to many coaches who get more conservative for fear of blowing a scoring opportunity. Shula, playing short handed for so long might be guilty of some of this. Or it might be a problem of not spreading the field out enough to get the match ups we need to score down there. But three blown opportunities in two weeks amount to a toe out of bounds and two fumbles. So it could be execution.
The reason I hate spread football is what happened to Clemson yesterday. They jumped on BC and couldn't put them away. The game slowed down in the second half, got more physical and they lost to a team they should have beaten. You can't play to your defense if you are bent on quick posessions and a finesse offense. Adding more posessions to the game and not having the ability to control the clock will wear your defense out even if you are scoring. In addition, the toughness of a defense is a direct reflection of what they face in practice each day. Finesse offensive teams give up more points and are usually weak at the point of attack in the middle. The PAC 10, WAC, Mountain West problem. I think to win big with a that philosophy you have to have overwhelming talent. If you look through the national champions list over the past two decades, a few teams that run a shotgun based offense have gotten over the hump, but not the vast majority.
I am a big fan of Homer Smith's. But, I will never forget the experience in Auburn in 89. To me, we couldn't get it done that day because we simply got out muscled from playing finesse football. Maybe I am scarred from that event. It is interesting that in 94, Stallings severely limited what he could do for just this reason. In one case, it caused us to fall way behind UGA and then he had to cut Barker and Homer loose and we came back. In the case of Auburn, we jumped up on them and then put it in a deep freeze and nearly lost. So, like many Bama fans I still don't know what to make of our brief flirtation with this type of football. The record is mixed.
Fran ran a finesse offense despite what he portrayed. His teams were very poor at straight ahead running if they weren't trapping or running the draw. His defenses were softer as a result. The OK game he convinced himself we had to play from the shotgun and then we got back into it after we went right at them. There are a number of reasons we lost to Auburn that year, but I think his trick offense just broke down that day and there was nothing to do that could salvage it.
Auburn is an interesting study. They are running, it seems to me, a derivative of Homer Smith's old offense. There is a good deal of misdirection, big emphasis of backs and TE's catching passes, etc. They do run the ball well. But it will be interesting to see what happens when they man up against LSU and some others who can physically match them. But again, Auburn's success might be a matter of continuity of people and execution, not philosophy.
I like what LSU does. What Fisher runs isn't really different from what Les Miles was doing at OK state and isn't hugely different from what we run in basic philosophy. The pass routes and methodology are the same.
In summation, don't know where this is going, but I think the offensive debate is complicated because what you do there affects the entire set up of your team and how you manage a game. Simply reducing it to "change the offense" doesn't tell us anything. So let's talk - in a civilized manner.
True. I DO think the turnovers cost us some points, but Vandy might have also kept some of their drives going enabling them to score, barring their turnovers. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that even without turnovers, Alabama has got to make some adjustments offensively. Plays are too predictable and our offensive line still has alot of room for improvement. For instance, our final scoring drive was ended on a QB sack that forced a long field goal for Tiffin. These plus territory situations have to get better. We should be able to score at will against Vandy. Just my two cents.
Predictable my butt. Again someone just repeating finebaum
Duck,
You listed all these schools that run a better offense. That may be true that they scored more points but only one of those teams finished higher in the polls than we did last year.
Duck,
You listed all these schools that run a better offense. That may be true that they scored more points but only one of those teams finished higher in the polls than we did last year.
Just because we have great defenses to help us win games means we shouldn't question the offense?:conf2:
Re: Here's a C&P from a post I ran across this afternoon...good summary...
YES, YES and HELL YES!!! IMO, TP is dead on!
Your defense will NOT be physical if you do NOT practice against a physical offense!
Let us look at a couple of perceived prolific offenses and what they have done or are doing:
YES, YES and HELL YES!!! IMO, TP is dead on!
Your defense will NOT be physical if you do NOT practice against a physical offense!
Let us look at a couple of perceived prolific offenses and what they have done or are doing:
- What about Coach Spurrier? Is this offensive mastermind suddenly suffering from retrograde amnesia??? USC has only scored 15 points in two games this season. Is it the system? Is it execution? Is it a lack of talent?
- What about Coach Mike Leach at Texas Tech? One of the most prolific offenses in the country. Could only score but 10 points against our defense in the cotton bowl.
- What about Coach Urban Meyer? Has a reputation of having one of the best offensive minds in the country. Could only score three points against us last year.
- What about coach June Jones? Again, one of the most prolific offenses in the country but could only score 17 points on a defense which lost 7 starters. Hawaii had almost everyone back and had plenty of time to practice for their "super bowl".
Re: Here's a C&P from a post I ran across this afternoon...good summary...
Personally, I was a huge fan of Franchione's offense at Bama. When it was announced he had left, (no joke) the first thing that popped into my head was that we wouldn't be running the sprint draw anymore. That play was so effective every time we ran it. The 2002 LSU game comes to mind...with 2 minutes to play in the first half and 80 yards to go we run the ball 5 times and score, with the majority of the runs being sprint draws. In my opinion our offensive scheme for running the ball in 2001 and 2002 was brilliant. Very rarely did we just run right at people. Remember Arkansas putting everybody at the line with 0 safties on the first play of the game in 2002, and Shaud going right up the middle for an 80 yard TD? Overpursuit. I was just a huge fan of our mixture of shotgun, option, and efficient passing that we ran under Fran. You didn't know what was coming from one play to the next.
As far as what we are running now, I agree that our philosophy is right on. I-Formation football...pound the ball, and set up the pass with the run. But it's also an offense that requires superior athletes at every position to succeed in my opinion. Wake Forest runs an offense that has a ton of misdirection because they are not good enough to beat you straight up due to a lack of depth and good players in general. What we run now has almost no misdirection, and strangely enough for a pro offense, very few audibles in 3 years. So what we are doing is hoping we can beat people straight up. It doesn't matter if the opposing team has 8 in the box. We are going to run right up the gut...at least that seems what the philosophy has been. Also, while we do have short routes in the offense, it also seems many of the routes that are run are more than 10 yards, and very often we throw with only DJ Hall, Keith Brown, and the tight end running routes. It seems that other than a designed WR screen to Keith Brown here and there, VERY few of the passes that are thrown are easy passes.
Compare Alabama's passing game to Auburn's passing game and what you'll find is a good number of "easy" passes for Brandon Cox. Bootlegs, rollouts, and just straight drop back passing. But they mix it up. He'll bootleg to the left and dump it off to their tight end for an 8 yard gain, or to a wide open Courtney Taylor and allow him to make some yards after the catch. They'll move the pocket on roll outs and allow Brandon Cox to make some throws on the run. And then they'll just have a conventional play action pass. The timing of the play calling is superior...and they run screens very well. Most of their passes are controlled passes...very makeable throws for Cox where the reciever has plenty of room to work. Accurate, efficient passes.
The problem I see with our passing game is that we seem hellbent on throwing down the field. Our QB's have been forced to make outstanding throws instead of having to make just a "pretty good" throw to a reciever that is open because the play was well-designed, not because the reciever makes a great individual play to GET open. Under Franchione how many times did a reciever have to make a dive for the ball or make a catch in tight coverage just to get 12 yards? The plays were designed so that decent recievers like Triandos Luke, Dre Fulgham, Sam Collins, and co. would be OPEN. They were good recievers, but not really recievers that are going to beat you one on one. Misdirection and clever play design allowed for Tyler Watts to consistently hit easy 10-13 yard passes, and from time to time a deep ball via the fake option or play action pass. How many times has Keith Brown been wide open, streaking down the sideline, only to be overthrown from 2004-current? It seemed like Pennington missed him at least 6 times in 2004 alone. The deep ball is important, but when the success of an offense DEPENDS on hitting these deep passes, it's just not a well designed offense. Think about it...the 44 yard catch by DJ Hall against Tennessee, the long TD passes in the UF game, the long run by KD against Ole Miss, Keith Brown breaking a tackle and going for a 55 yrd TD against SC, and later a 40 yard bomb to Keith Brown in the smae game, the great catch by Prothro against USM....it just seems that whenever we score points against decent defenses it's due to a great individual play from a reciever, not because the play was well designed, but because they just made a great play.
The only drive I can recall in two years against a decent defense where I was like, "Wow, that was a really good drive" was in the 1st half last year against LSU, when we went right down the field and got DJ Hall for the TD in the redzone.
I think the philosophy is fine...but it's the same philosophy that 80% of the teams in college football have. Run the ball to set up the pass. That's fine and dandy...but it's not a well designed offense. There is no creativity, little to no movement before the snap, low percentage passes, predictable running out of predictable running formations, no audibles...basically exactly what an offense should not be against good defenses from the SEC.
The most frustrating thing about this situation is that the best example of what Alabama SHOULD be offensively is in the same state. Auburn runs the ball to set up the pass...but they do it with style. A new gameplan for each team, trick plays sprinkled in from time to time, a physical downhill running game, misdirection passes, mixing in the FB and TE in the passing game, high percentage passes, bootlegs, roll outs, screens, a quick hitting running game that takes little time for the plays to develop.
Yes, what they do offensively and what we do offensively are essentially to run the ball to set up the pass...they just have better timing with their playcalling, better overall offensive design, and better playcalling, PERIOD. They hired a guy that had won the award for best offensive coordinator in the country at UCLA after having an unproven offensive coordinator squander the talents of Ronnie Brown and Cadillac Williams in 2003...and look what happened. Consecutive years of 32 points a game, going on three. They hired a proven playcaller, and it's payed dividends.
Personally, I was a huge fan of Franchione's offense at Bama. When it was announced he had left, (no joke) the first thing that popped into my head was that we wouldn't be running the sprint draw anymore. That play was so effective every time we ran it. The 2002 LSU game comes to mind...with 2 minutes to play in the first half and 80 yards to go we run the ball 5 times and score, with the majority of the runs being sprint draws. In my opinion our offensive scheme for running the ball in 2001 and 2002 was brilliant. Very rarely did we just run right at people. Remember Arkansas putting everybody at the line with 0 safties on the first play of the game in 2002, and Shaud going right up the middle for an 80 yard TD? Overpursuit. I was just a huge fan of our mixture of shotgun, option, and efficient passing that we ran under Fran. You didn't know what was coming from one play to the next.
As far as what we are running now, I agree that our philosophy is right on. I-Formation football...pound the ball, and set up the pass with the run. But it's also an offense that requires superior athletes at every position to succeed in my opinion. Wake Forest runs an offense that has a ton of misdirection because they are not good enough to beat you straight up due to a lack of depth and good players in general. What we run now has almost no misdirection, and strangely enough for a pro offense, very few audibles in 3 years. So what we are doing is hoping we can beat people straight up. It doesn't matter if the opposing team has 8 in the box. We are going to run right up the gut...at least that seems what the philosophy has been. Also, while we do have short routes in the offense, it also seems many of the routes that are run are more than 10 yards, and very often we throw with only DJ Hall, Keith Brown, and the tight end running routes. It seems that other than a designed WR screen to Keith Brown here and there, VERY few of the passes that are thrown are easy passes.
Compare Alabama's passing game to Auburn's passing game and what you'll find is a good number of "easy" passes for Brandon Cox. Bootlegs, rollouts, and just straight drop back passing. But they mix it up. He'll bootleg to the left and dump it off to their tight end for an 8 yard gain, or to a wide open Courtney Taylor and allow him to make some yards after the catch. They'll move the pocket on roll outs and allow Brandon Cox to make some throws on the run. And then they'll just have a conventional play action pass. The timing of the play calling is superior...and they run screens very well. Most of their passes are controlled passes...very makeable throws for Cox where the reciever has plenty of room to work. Accurate, efficient passes.
The problem I see with our passing game is that we seem hellbent on throwing down the field. Our QB's have been forced to make outstanding throws instead of having to make just a "pretty good" throw to a reciever that is open because the play was well-designed, not because the reciever makes a great individual play to GET open. Under Franchione how many times did a reciever have to make a dive for the ball or make a catch in tight coverage just to get 12 yards? The plays were designed so that decent recievers like Triandos Luke, Dre Fulgham, Sam Collins, and co. would be OPEN. They were good recievers, but not really recievers that are going to beat you one on one. Misdirection and clever play design allowed for Tyler Watts to consistently hit easy 10-13 yard passes, and from time to time a deep ball via the fake option or play action pass. How many times has Keith Brown been wide open, streaking down the sideline, only to be overthrown from 2004-current? It seemed like Pennington missed him at least 6 times in 2004 alone. The deep ball is important, but when the success of an offense DEPENDS on hitting these deep passes, it's just not a well designed offense. Think about it...the 44 yard catch by DJ Hall against Tennessee, the long TD passes in the UF game, the long run by KD against Ole Miss, Keith Brown breaking a tackle and going for a 55 yrd TD against SC, and later a 40 yard bomb to Keith Brown in the smae game, the great catch by Prothro against USM....it just seems that whenever we score points against decent defenses it's due to a great individual play from a reciever, not because the play was well designed, but because they just made a great play.
The only drive I can recall in two years against a decent defense where I was like, "Wow, that was a really good drive" was in the 1st half last year against LSU, when we went right down the field and got DJ Hall for the TD in the redzone.
I think the philosophy is fine...but it's the same philosophy that 80% of the teams in college football have. Run the ball to set up the pass. That's fine and dandy...but it's not a well designed offense. There is no creativity, little to no movement before the snap, low percentage passes, predictable running out of predictable running formations, no audibles...basically exactly what an offense should not be against good defenses from the SEC.
The most frustrating thing about this situation is that the best example of what Alabama SHOULD be offensively is in the same state. Auburn runs the ball to set up the pass...but they do it with style. A new gameplan for each team, trick plays sprinkled in from time to time, a physical downhill running game, misdirection passes, mixing in the FB and TE in the passing game, high percentage passes, bootlegs, roll outs, screens, a quick hitting running game that takes little time for the plays to develop.
Yes, what they do offensively and what we do offensively are essentially to run the ball to set up the pass...they just have better timing with their playcalling, better overall offensive design, and better playcalling, PERIOD. They hired a guy that had won the award for best offensive coordinator in the country at UCLA after having an unproven offensive coordinator squander the talents of Ronnie Brown and Cadillac Williams in 2003...and look what happened. Consecutive years of 32 points a game, going on three. They hired a proven playcaller, and it's payed dividends.
I don't see anything specifically wrong with the play calling, What I see is execution mistakes. I don't agree with immediately going to the backups, We have our best players on the field, they are going to have to work through their problems and do it quickly. One more week to work it out before the real SEC season starts.
I'll say this, We were in trouble late and when Brown went down we had an athalete like Nakita Stovar to come in and make a big play, 2 years ago that doesn't happen and we lose. Things are getting better.
I'll say this, We were in trouble late and when Brown went down we had an athalete like Nakita Stovar to come in and make a big play, 2 years ago that doesn't happen and we lose. Things are getting better.
Yea, but we should have done more with their turnovers. We got decent field position on 1 of them.
Re: Here's a C&P from a post I ran across this afternoon...good summary...
Are you reffering to Al Borges? I thought he was at Indiana, not UCLA. And he was basically fired due to lack of productivity, not winning any awards. Of course I could be wrong.
Are you reffering to Al Borges? I thought he was at Indiana, not UCLA. And he was basically fired due to lack of productivity, not winning any awards. Of course I could be wrong.
Re: Here's a C&P from a post I ran across this afternoon...good summary...
He was a finalist for the Broyles Assistant Coach of the Year at UCLA in 1997 and 1998, and was the Offensive Coordinator of the Year in 1997. He was the offensive coordinator at Indiana from 2002-2003...where, yes, the production was subpar at best...but let's face it...it's Indiana. Trying to run a pro-style/west coast offense at a place like Indiana is probably not going to work if you don't have even decent players.
He was a finalist for the Broyles Assistant Coach of the Year at UCLA in 1997 and 1998, and was the Offensive Coordinator of the Year in 1997. He was the offensive coordinator at Indiana from 2002-2003...where, yes, the production was subpar at best...but let's face it...it's Indiana. Trying to run a pro-style/west coast offense at a place like Indiana is probably not going to work if you don't have even decent players.
Yeah, and what did we do with that field position? We drove it down to the goaline and gave the ball right back to them.
Re: Here's a C&P from a post I ran across this afternoon...good summary...
Great post NativeTider!!!
Great post NativeTider!!!
Just a quick thought...I wonder what happened to the playcalling when we were inside the 20. Seemed to me we were being ultra-conservative. We were moving the ball great between the 20s. Why the sudden slowdown?
ROLL TIDE ROLL!!!:BigA:
ROLL TIDE ROLL!!!:BigA:
Funny. No disrespect of anything, just was wondering why we could move the ball for a while, then it was like we hit a brick wall.:BigA:
Radio Announcer: Go ahead caller you're on the air.
Caller: Good morning guys! I just wanted to call and say that I suffer from "premature frustration" and just well, you know... wanted to get your thoughts. I'll hang up and listen.
Caller: Good morning guys! I just wanted to call and say that I suffer from "premature frustration" and just well, you know... wanted to get your thoughts. I'll hang up and listen.
New Posts
-
Joke thread - including cartoons, memes, and misc - Part IX- Latest: crimsonaudio
-
-
-
-
Trending content
Latest threads
-
ESPN: Seminoles 'feel the urgency,' says WR Robinson- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: Virginia's Elliott: Pribula starting QB entering c...
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: NC State coach: QB Bailey could be country's best
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
-
ESPN: Miami's Mensah: Ward, Beck factored into transfer
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: ACC title game tiebreaker rewards 'body of work'
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0