My concern from the start about DeBoer never really had anything to do with his coaching ability. It had to do with compatibility. Can a west coast finesse approach translate to the SEC? I felt it was a potential mismatch, in terms of Alabama's talent and in terms of Alabama's competition. There's no doubt DeBoer could have a lot of success in the Pac-12, he did. He could do well in the Big 12 as well I'm sure. But, there is the question of can his style offense perform at a championship level within the SEC? To me the answer is a bit muddy, in part because he's doing it with an absolutely loaded team: https://247sports.com/season/2025-football/collegeteamtalentcomposite/
Will he encounter more success once he adapts the team more to his approach, or will it gradually stray from being able to compete at a top level in the SEC? I think the answer is that he can succeed, but he probably needs to adapt more to the SEC than the roster needs to adapt to him. This might sound like I'm trying to throw him under the bus, but in fact part of what I'm doing is trying to defend people like Grubb and Ty, who are trying to run DeBoer's system, and I think under enormous strain in doing so. For the record, I don't think Grubb or DeBoer needs to be fired, but I'm going to delve into the areas that I think they need to adapt.
Let's get Grubb out of the way. I said before he was hired what the offense would look like, and it's not really Grubb's doing, it's DeBoer's doing. DeBoer consistently uses the running backs around 35% of the time (even with Sheridan as OC). It varies slightly, on the broadcast they said they pass 70% of the time, that's not quite accurate, but it would be pretty accurate to say his offenses rely on the quarterback about two thirds of the time. I posted this stat prior to the season, it applies to this season, it's a tendency he has yet to break. As far as Grubb goes, while he's a disciple of DeBoer, he's not actually as rigid in his approach. For instance the year before DeBoer was the head coach at Fresno State (he retained Grubb), Grubb actually broke these tendencies. Fresno St. was hardly a great running team, but they were ranked 69th in rushing and averaged 4.9 per rush, with a nearly even run/pass average. The following year, with the same lead rusher, those numbers/ranks fell to the 108th ranked rushing team and an average of 3.4 per rush. That's the DeBoer effect, not the Grubb effect.
So, how does this look over the course of his career as a head coach?
2019: 69 rank, 4.9 avg (Grubb as OC before DeBoer was coach): Fresno State
2020: 108, 3.4: Fresno State
2021: 91, 4.1: Fresno State
2022: 69, 4.7: Washington
2023: 108, 4.3 (second leading rusher was a receiver): Washington
2024: 47, 4.6 (leading rusher was a quarterback): Alabama
2025 103, 3.7: Alabama
A few take aways, last years numbers were heavily skewed due to Milroe's running numbers. Those are generally scrambles though, not indicative of a "running game" in the traditional sense. This masked the low running back use and otherwise lack of a running game. The other thing to note is the downward trend.
You might not care about how the offense gets their yards, and that's relatable, but I am of the opinion this system relies too much on the QB and in doing so puts too much pressure on the QB. I'm not saying Milroe was a great QB, but I think this system did more to expose his flaws than a team that could run the ball effectively would for instance. Likewise, I believe Ty is being put in an extremely difficult position, playing teams that don't have to respect the run and he often has to try to do too much.
This system is not without it's advantages though. By relying heavily on the QB, I think you can limit the amount of things an offense has to do well in order to win. In doing this, it can raise the floor of the offense. The issue it it also ultimately lowers the ceiling. It asks so much of the quarterback, that it creates a fatal flaw. You stop the QB, affect him, you have a very high chance of success. These teams are just not built to win any other way.
This gets into the question I posed when DeBoer was hired. What is he like without Penix? Penix was a 5th and 6th year senior when he played for DeBoer at Washington, he was also a first round draft pick who has started several games in the NFL. This can't be your expected level of quarterback talent/experience. Here are the splits:
DeBoer with Penix: 25-3
DeBoer without Penix: 31-13 (Haener, Milroe, Simpson)
That's a 89% winning percentage vs a 70% winning percentage.
That's pretty noticeable. Mind you, 70% isn't that bad. True, but Brian Kelly had a 70% winning percentage at LSU and he got fired.
It's not just wins and losses though,the offense was ranked 10th on average with Penix, but only 27th without him. DeBoer wasn't hired to have the 27th ranked offense (Alabama is 26th this year, so in keeping with the trend).
I don't think Ty is the real problem here, I don't think Grubb is the real problem here, I think the system has a really serious flaw built into it. The good news though is that it can be changed. Some adjustments to the staff, some changes in approach, I think they can address the issues by bringing in people that know how to develop and utilize a more balanced offense. Part of what we saw in SECCG was the fish out of water approach of a system that never runs the ball well still trying to run the ball against a team playing the pass.
If real meaningful changes are made, if this issue is addressed I think there's a lot of potential here. The defense is performing well, it's outperformed the offense the past two seasons, which is surprisingly given he was hired as an offensive guru. The passing game to me isn't really the issue either. They just need to bring in the expertise to fix the running game, and I am making the unequivocal argument that it's not really a talent issue, it's a system issue that follows DeBoer. The system can adapt and I for one hope it does.
Will he encounter more success once he adapts the team more to his approach, or will it gradually stray from being able to compete at a top level in the SEC? I think the answer is that he can succeed, but he probably needs to adapt more to the SEC than the roster needs to adapt to him. This might sound like I'm trying to throw him under the bus, but in fact part of what I'm doing is trying to defend people like Grubb and Ty, who are trying to run DeBoer's system, and I think under enormous strain in doing so. For the record, I don't think Grubb or DeBoer needs to be fired, but I'm going to delve into the areas that I think they need to adapt.
Let's get Grubb out of the way. I said before he was hired what the offense would look like, and it's not really Grubb's doing, it's DeBoer's doing. DeBoer consistently uses the running backs around 35% of the time (even with Sheridan as OC). It varies slightly, on the broadcast they said they pass 70% of the time, that's not quite accurate, but it would be pretty accurate to say his offenses rely on the quarterback about two thirds of the time. I posted this stat prior to the season, it applies to this season, it's a tendency he has yet to break. As far as Grubb goes, while he's a disciple of DeBoer, he's not actually as rigid in his approach. For instance the year before DeBoer was the head coach at Fresno State (he retained Grubb), Grubb actually broke these tendencies. Fresno St. was hardly a great running team, but they were ranked 69th in rushing and averaged 4.9 per rush, with a nearly even run/pass average. The following year, with the same lead rusher, those numbers/ranks fell to the 108th ranked rushing team and an average of 3.4 per rush. That's the DeBoer effect, not the Grubb effect.
So, how does this look over the course of his career as a head coach?
2019: 69 rank, 4.9 avg (Grubb as OC before DeBoer was coach): Fresno State
2020: 108, 3.4: Fresno State
2021: 91, 4.1: Fresno State
2022: 69, 4.7: Washington
2023: 108, 4.3 (second leading rusher was a receiver): Washington
2024: 47, 4.6 (leading rusher was a quarterback): Alabama
2025 103, 3.7: Alabama
A few take aways, last years numbers were heavily skewed due to Milroe's running numbers. Those are generally scrambles though, not indicative of a "running game" in the traditional sense. This masked the low running back use and otherwise lack of a running game. The other thing to note is the downward trend.
You might not care about how the offense gets their yards, and that's relatable, but I am of the opinion this system relies too much on the QB and in doing so puts too much pressure on the QB. I'm not saying Milroe was a great QB, but I think this system did more to expose his flaws than a team that could run the ball effectively would for instance. Likewise, I believe Ty is being put in an extremely difficult position, playing teams that don't have to respect the run and he often has to try to do too much.
This system is not without it's advantages though. By relying heavily on the QB, I think you can limit the amount of things an offense has to do well in order to win. In doing this, it can raise the floor of the offense. The issue it it also ultimately lowers the ceiling. It asks so much of the quarterback, that it creates a fatal flaw. You stop the QB, affect him, you have a very high chance of success. These teams are just not built to win any other way.
This gets into the question I posed when DeBoer was hired. What is he like without Penix? Penix was a 5th and 6th year senior when he played for DeBoer at Washington, he was also a first round draft pick who has started several games in the NFL. This can't be your expected level of quarterback talent/experience. Here are the splits:
DeBoer with Penix: 25-3
DeBoer without Penix: 31-13 (Haener, Milroe, Simpson)
That's a 89% winning percentage vs a 70% winning percentage.
That's pretty noticeable. Mind you, 70% isn't that bad. True, but Brian Kelly had a 70% winning percentage at LSU and he got fired.
It's not just wins and losses though,the offense was ranked 10th on average with Penix, but only 27th without him. DeBoer wasn't hired to have the 27th ranked offense (Alabama is 26th this year, so in keeping with the trend).
I don't think Ty is the real problem here, I don't think Grubb is the real problem here, I think the system has a really serious flaw built into it. The good news though is that it can be changed. Some adjustments to the staff, some changes in approach, I think they can address the issues by bringing in people that know how to develop and utilize a more balanced offense. Part of what we saw in SECCG was the fish out of water approach of a system that never runs the ball well still trying to run the ball against a team playing the pass.
If real meaningful changes are made, if this issue is addressed I think there's a lot of potential here. The defense is performing well, it's outperformed the offense the past two seasons, which is surprisingly given he was hired as an offensive guru. The passing game to me isn't really the issue either. They just need to bring in the expertise to fix the running game, and I am making the unequivocal argument that it's not really a talent issue, it's a system issue that follows DeBoer. The system can adapt and I for one hope it does.
Last edited:
