🏈 Next Year's Offense

[Guest]

It's known that Saban/McElwain are going to play to the strength of the personnel when it come to our offensive scheme. With the losses of players mandatory for a power running game evident, what will be the identity of our offense? Where do you see the strengths and weaknesses of the offense? What do you expect to see from the O this upcoming season? RTR.

 

[TerryP]

Good questions.

I'll wait 'til after NSD to form an opinion, after spring camp to voice one.

How's that? :shock:

 

[alagator]

I will be a little more speculative.

Or, at least, hopeful.

To establish a foundation. I truly enjoy the run game. I think you have to run the ball (and conversely stop the opponents run game) consistently to win games - not to mention championships. But I do not necessarily believe than your entire offense needs to be predicated on 'imposing your will on your opponents' by beating them over the head with a hammer between the tackles 35-to-45 times a game - every game.

I hope we will be successful in attracting one or two or even THREE more explosive wide receivers in the next few weeks that will allow us to field some real threats on the corners and open up our offense a little more. By doing so, we might be able to enhance our ability to 'impose our will' by not having to ask a younger and less experienced offensive line beat-down on eight man fronts. I hope we will at loooooooooooooooong last field a truly explosive offense - thus joining the rest of the top tier programs across the nation.

(We need not have to sacrifice a good-to-great defense to achieve this by the way - and in fact a more explosive and higher scoring offense might actually make playing defense EASIER for us in that while we may see more total possessions our opponents would have to become more one dimensional to either milk the clock to limit our chances or abandon the run to try to keep up with our 'Jones'.)

I have heard (or read) some comments directly from Saban that give me encouragement. Have heard him mention that at times at LSU he had such talented 'playmakers' on the edge that they would sometimes cover up when the offense was struggling to 'impose its will' with the power run game and often made that 'imposing' easier by thinning out the ranks the opponent could employ against the run game. And then see the success of the run game limit the number and type of coverages the opponents could apply to stop the pass game. I hope our recruiting efforts are successful in luring those type playmakers to campus - because outside one obvious example they are just not there presently. Given we will have a new and inexperienced starting QB, he will need all the help he can get.

I guess we need to find a way to employ more spread offense principles into our package, even if we do not go wholesale to that system. A system which afterall will not work in the SEC. :wink:

 

[Guest]

I remember the Clayton/Duper duo at LSU that gave us a miserable afternoon when CNS was at LSU.

How well we do in rebuilding the OL and how we do recruiting receivers will tell the tale on what our offense looks like next year, hence Terry's decision to wait until sfter recruiting and spring practice.

I've never been shy about predicting (hence I've had egg on my face a lot of times) so I'll step out on that limb.

Case 1) The OL comes together, but we whiff on big time receiving prospects: McElroy will become JPW II and the offense will look like this year's.

Case 2) The OL is a problem, but we get some receivers: Star Jackson might be the guy, and we'll throw a good bit more.

Case 3) The OL comes together and we get some receivers: we throw well because the defense has to be concerned about the run, and we run well because the receivers are good enough to keep the defense from putting 8 in the box. We will be very good, capable of both big plays and ball control.

Case 4) The OL struggles and we don't get the receivers: worst case scenario, the offense will be very conservative and we'll play to our defense and kicking game.

 

[alagator]

Case 4) The OL struggles and we don't get the receivers: worst case scenario, the offense will be very conservative and we'll play to our defense and kicking game.

Or, in other words, the offensive system UA has fielded save maybe three or four years for the last two-plus decades?

Do we not demand a productive and explosive offense or are we just incapable of recruiting to and coaching up the same? This problem has been a neverending saga it seems. Take away Homer Smith (Version 1.1 and not 2.1) and 'Case 4' is the same story - chapter and verse.

And while EVERYONE chirps in with 'Well it worked for Stallings in 1992' might I remind everyone that it took the greatest defense EVER in college history (in my and many others opinions) to make that theory work at the championship level. And I might add it did not work too well for even Stallings, at the championship level at least, since he won only one SEC title in his seven years employing this strategy (which is only slightly better than our 'none in the last nine years drought'). So, unless we repeat that one year defensive effort again soon (and how often does the 'best ever' roll around?), we can forget winning titles anytime soon with this approach. So, at some point in time we need to both 'try' to join modern day offensive theory and actually 'succeed' in that effort.

This is not intended as a criticism of Saban - I actually think he is trying to move us a little beyond the 1960s offensive mindset our fan base desires. But there has to be institutional (read 'fan base') resistance and hindrance to our making progress.

 

[TerryP]

For now, I'll go with Case #3 that joe puts out there.

I've got concerns with '09. But, where I rank them and where others do are probably two different scenario's.

 

[Guest]

I guess it was a silly question considering how far we are away from knowing who we'll sign and so forth.

But, I'd like to see an offense similar to alagator's post. I love running the ball. If you have good defense and can run the ball effectively, IMO, you have a good shot at winning any game you play. With that said, there is no doubt we need more playmakers on the field to spread opposing defenses out.

The offensive line will take a step back. I hope it's not to the extreme that some see it to be. We'll miss Coffee's downhill running, but will be able to spread defenses out with Ingram/Richardson's playmaking ability. My gut tells me Upchurch won't be back so who steps up in his place?

McElroy's role will be similar to JPW's, except I think we can count on GMac to connect on downfield throws more consistently. Hopefully we can get some threats to step up at the WR position. Either Maze/Hanks/McCoy or (possibly) Patterson/Randle. Any chance we put the ball in Arenas hand every now and again?

 

[Guest]

As far as replacing Coffee goes, we all know about Richardson and what he will bring. Matchett has much the same skill set as Coffee. I really liked the way he hit the hole as a high school player. I think he will be a big contributor, especially if Upchurch is not available.

 

[Guest]

As much as I liked the seniors leaving, the guys we have coming in now are more talented, period. How that transfers to the field, only time will tell. Another year under Saban won't hurt. A big thing on offense will be leadership, too. I hope we have someone step up the same way JPW/Smith/Caldwell did this year.

 

[jdpas29]

case 3 is the most likely.

GMAc is definitely NOT JPW2

 

[Guest]

Or, in other words, the offensive system UA has fielded save maybe three or four years for the last two-plus decades?

Please no. Just look at the top teams and what they do.

 

[Guest]

The ultra conservative, play to your defense style, as I stated, would only occur if we were unable to uppgrade ourselves at the receiver positions and the new OL is a mess. I think case 4 is the least likely of the scenarios I presented.

 

[alagator]

The ultra conservative, play to your defense style, as I stated, would only occur if we were unable to uppgrade ourselves at the receiver positions and the new OL is a mess. I think case 4 is the least likely of the scenarios I presented.

I know. It is just that, as I stated, I have seen that scenario play out faaaaaaaar too often in the all the days since I left the UA campus in the early 1980s. And if that is what you see year-after-year-after-year it is what you begin to expect year-after-year-after-year. Sadly.

And you know, it really should not take nearly thirty years for a program like Alabama to learn how to play offense at a more productive level than what we have been given, save two or four brief years out of the last 25.

 

[UAgrad93]

I like the sound of case 3. The OL will look a little rough in the A Day game this Spring but they will come around this fall. I believe we get a couple of playmakers to go along with Julio in this class and Trent , Preyear, and others move into the stable to continue or power running game. McElroy runs the show at QB and our D is better than this past season.

 

[imported_porkchop]

IMHO, I think you have to look back at Saban's teams to get a historical perspective on what you might see next season on offense.

Obviously we're speculating quite a bit because we're filling holes with relatively untested or unknown players, but what I would expect to see is ...

(1) Saban's power running game- That's been a trademark of his and I don't see it changing. Having to replace slots on the line will hurt some, but hopefully the more they play the better they will gel over the course of the season.

(2) RB Rotation- Par for the course under Saban. I expect we'll see Upchurch, Ingram and Richardson (assuming he signs with us) in a rotation.

(3) Julio and the passing game- McElroy is assumed by many to be the starter next year. Assuming he performs well and wins the job outright I suspect we'll see a lot of what we saw this season. Meaning that McElroy will be looked upon as more of a manager than a gunslinger. Saban knows he has a weapon in Julio Jones and I expect we're going to see a lot of passes going his way next season.

Saban is a coach that (atleast offensively) isn't going to outscheme you, in the sense that he's going West Coast or Spread attack. He's a coach that out-talents you. Saban is a recruiting machine who in his best situations will beat you with superior talent and strong defense. The offenses are generally pretty straight forward in terms of scheme. I expect the offensive scheme to be similar to this season. A lot of play action passing combined with a power rushing attack. It's possible we may see more isolation with Julio in the passing game.

 

[alagator]

Saban is a coach that (atleast offensively) isn't going to outscheme you, in the sense that he's going West Coast or Spread attack. He's a coach that out-talents you. Saban is a recruiting machine who in his best situations will beat you with superior talent and strong defense. The offenses are generally pretty straight forward in terms of scheme. I expect the offensive scheme to be similar to this season. A lot of play action passing combined with a power rushing attack. It's possible we may see more isolation with Julio in the passing game.

Fine and dandy. Until you run up against a team with talent at least as good as yours - where 'outscheming' your opponent might be the difference between winning and loosing. (Not to mention when you face a team with superior talent who executes well too.)

I am not saying that we need to adopt the offense du jour. Just that at some point in this century (we still have 91 years to catch up), we need to at least try and succeed in developing an offensive identity beyond 'imposing our will with 30 runs between the tackles' and having a QB whose best feature is 'managing' a game and playing to protect our defense and trying to keep the game close until the fourth quarter.

Having a larger number of better players is great. But while 'schemes' do not win games, a lack of 'schemes' can sure hinder that goal.

I LOVE watching a great defense play, and love that we more often than not have at least a good-to-very-good defense. But, there is a great portion of the game where our defense is on the sideline and we actually have possession of the ball. I see no reason why we cannot have at least a 'very good' offense that forces our opponent to defend not only excellent talent but challenging and diverse and explosive schemes as well. 'Better talent' can make any scheme more difficult and 'better schemes' can help make average talent 'good' and good talent 'very good' and very good talent 'great.'

Honestly, I think we have a lot of fans, and some very influential ones at that, that feel 'Alabama Football' (aka - a reputation for strong defense) is actually threatened if we someone actually dominate a game with our offense. Much like many UA 'fans' fell threatened if the basketball team is competitive at the national level out of some fear it will diminish the reputation of the football program.

Regarding Jones. I expect we will see his in-conference numbers come much harder next year. While I expect his work ethic will allow him to show much improvement, the many talented DCs in this league will force him to do exactly what Saban is known to do - or play 'left handed.' NOT saying his play will diminish, only that SEC coaches will now have a year of tape on him and have a whole year to 'scheme' against him. Will only be compounded if he is our only real outside threat. Getting Randle is the KEY to next season in my opinion.

 

[imported_porkchop]

Fine and dandy. Until you run up against a team with talent at least as good as yours - where 'outscheming' your opponent might be the difference between winning and loosing. (Not to mention when you face a team with superior talent who executes well too.)

I am not saying that we need to adopt the offense du jour. Just that at some point in this century (we still have 91 years to catch up), we need to at least try and succeed in developing an offensive identity beyond 'imposing our will with 30 runs between the tackles' and having a QB whose best feature is 'managing' a game and playing to protect our defense and trying to keep the game close until the fourth quarter.

I know exactly where you're coming from here on this because we've had the same discussion regarding Coach Stallings. I think there's a big difference between Stallings and Saban though. Saban is conservative, but he looks like Jack Pardee compared to Stallings' offensive imagination. :lol:

Saban is what he is though in the end. He's a guy that is going to recruit, motivate, then rely on that talent to win. I'm not saying that he's incapable of evolving his gameplan or trying something new, but that's just generally been his style, for better or worse. Mark Gottfried took a lot of heat when he said it but he was right about one thing, "you coach what you know". Coaches are like that. They're creatures of habit that tend to fall back on what they know. Saban has a way of doing things and Urban Meyer has another way. People talk about a good coach altering his style to fit the talent on hand. While that gets thrown out there a lot, I don't find it to be true most of the time. Coaches coach what they know and they make the talent on hand adapt to it. Sure, minor, cosmetic changes always occur but rarely does a team/coach alter their entire identity. Coach Bryant going to the wishbone is a good example of just that, but it's not the norm.

But I agree with you in that it's all fine and good until you run up against another road grater with equal talent and coaching. Then your road gets tougher. But having said that, you kinda have to pick your poison too. Do you want a coach that recruit high talent levels, motivate them, and have them fundamentally, or do you prefer to roll with a gimmick, or something unconventional because your short-term likelyhood of success might be greater? I guess the choice would be, do you want Nick Saban or would you prefer Mike Leach?

(and when I say "you" I just mean us fans in general)

 

[It Takes Eleven]

Saban is a coach that (atleast offensively) isn't going to outscheme you, in the sense that he's going West Coast or Spread attack. He's a coach that out-talents you. Saban is a recruiting machine who in his best situations will beat you with superior talent and strong defense. The offenses are generally pretty straight forward in terms of scheme. I expect the offensive scheme to be similar to this season. A lot of play action passing combined with a power rushing attack. It's possible we may see more isolation with Julio in the passing game.

Fine and dandy. Until you run up against a team with talent at least as good as yours - where 'outscheming' your opponent might be the difference between winning and loosing. (Not to mention when you face a team with superior talent who executes well too.)

I am not saying that we need to adopt the offense du jour. Just that at some point in this century (we still have 91 years to catch up), we need to at least try and succeed in developing an offensive identity beyond 'imposing our will with 30 runs between the tackles' and having a QB whose best feature is 'managing' a game and playing to protect our defense and trying to keep the game close until the fourth quarter.

Having a larger number of better players is great. But while 'schemes' do not win games, a lack of 'schemes' can sure hinder that goal.

I LOVE watching a great defense play, and love that we more often than not have at least a good-to-very-good defense. But, there is a great portion of the game where our defense is on the sideline and we actually have possession of the ball. I see no reason why we cannot have at least a 'very good' offense that forces our opponent to defend not only excellent talent but challenging and diverse and explosive schemes as well. 'Better talent' can make any scheme more difficult and 'better schemes' can help make average talent 'good' and good talent 'very good' and very good talent 'great.'

Honestly, I think we have a lot of fans, and some very influential ones at that, that feel 'Alabama Football' (aka - a reputation for strong defense) is actually threatened if we someone actually dominate a game with our offense. Much like many UA 'fans' fell threatened if the basketball team is competitive at the national level out of some fear it will diminish the reputation of the football program.

Regarding Jones. I expect we will see his in-conference numbers come much harder next year. While I expect his work ethic will allow him to show much improvement, the many talented DCs in this league will force him to do exactly what Saban is known to do - or play 'left handed.' NOT saying his play will diminish, only that SEC coaches will now have a year of tape on him and have a whole year to 'scheme' against him. Will only be compounded if he is our only real outside threat. Getting Randle is the KEY to next season in my opinion.

Like you said, personnel will drive much of what we do, and it's taken time. We've gone from Shula's final year averaging 22.9 points per game (68th nationally) to 27.1 (64th) in 2007 to 30.1 (35th) this year. Based on 2008 averages, another three points gets us in the top 25, six has us about 15th. If Julio gets some help (Randle), we could certainly average 35 points or more a game.

I see your point, but looking at what our '09 opponents put up per game this year, we go up against few proven powerhouse offensive teams:

VaTech - 22.1 ppg (90th)
FL Int'l - 24.7 (66)
North TX - 20.0 (102)
Arkansas - 21.9 (91)
Kentucky - 22.6 (87)
Ole Miss - 32.1 (28)
South Carolina - 20.8 (96)
Tennessee - 17.3 (111)
LSU - 30.9 (30)
Miss. State - 15.3 (116)
UT-Chatt. - N/A
aubrun - 17.3 (111)
Florida - 43.6 (4th)

I expect most of these guys' output to increase, but we will still likely go into ten of these thirteen games knowing that if we don't make mistakes and control the clock, we win. A low risk, low reward game plan is a reasonable path to victory and won't help our points per game average, but I'm okay with it.


RTR,

Tim

 

[Guest]

As we get further into the Saban era we aren't goingto encounter many folks with equal or greater talent, esppecially when you add in equally well coached (take that hat man). When you have dangerous receivers left and right, a stout offensive line and a QB who can make all the throws, you are basically unstoppable. If they load up up front you can beat them on one side or the other throwing. If they back out the safeties to help out with pass defense the road grater just pushes on downfield. Someone posted earlier in this thread that the offensive line might struggle early but would come together by mid season, and I think that is on target, unless a lot of people are wrong about the talent level we will have there once this year's recruiting class gets to campus. The combination of a strong runnung game and more than one downfield receiving threat will make us as explosive as anyone.

 

[TerryP]

Saban is what he is though in the end. He's a guy that is going to recruit, motivate, then rely on that talent to win. I'm not saying that he's incapable of evolving his gameplan or trying something new, but that's just generally been his style, for better or worse. Mark Gottfried took a lot of heat when he said it but he was right about one thing, "you coach what you know". Coaches are like that. They're creatures of habit that tend to fall back on what they know. Saban has a way of doing things and Urban Meyer has another way. People talk about a good coach altering his style to fit the talent on hand. While that gets thrown out there a lot, I don't find it to be true most of the time. Coaches coach what they know and they make the talent on hand adapt to it. Sure, minor, cosmetic changes always occur but rarely does a team/coach alter their entire identity. Coach Bryant going to the wishbone is a good example of just that, but it's not the norm.

But I agree with you in that it's all fine and good until you run up against another road grater with equal talent and coaching. Then your road gets tougher. But having said that, you kinda have to pick your poison too. Do you want a coach that recruit high talent levels, motivate them, and have them fundamentally, or do you prefer to roll with a gimmick, or something unconventional because your short-term likelyhood of success might be greater? I guess the choice would be, do you want Nick Saban or would you prefer Mike Leach?

(and when I say "you" I just mean us fans in general)

Just as a thought, sharing mine that is, to put in this conversation.

When I look at SC, I don't see a team that is winning on a "scheme." It's as basic of a offensive set as our is.

The differences come in the people manning the positions.

I've seen many a expert make a reference to Saban's recruiting these last two years in terms of "he's recruiting USC talent in Alabama." I don't have a problem with that, in fact I like the comparison.

I don't look at UF and see a "scheme driven offense" even though they are using a formation that isn't your basic Pro-set. They were putting the ball in play-makers hands and allowing those players to do what they do best.

When I look at this past year, considering how productive we were with running the ball, if we had been able to increase our productivity in the passing game by adding another 4-5 plays a game (those explosive plays Saban like to refer to them as...15+ yards) we'd be considered one of the toughest football teams (offensively) in the nation.

I see that area of the game coming...we just don't have the necessary ingredients (IE: players) in our rotation yet.