🏈 Next Year's Offense

[imported_porkchop]

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.

I watch USC play and think to myself that they might very well possess the most basic offensive package and play set that I can remember seeing in college football. Their play selection seems fairly conservative IMHO, but they just execute it well. They play throw and catch so well because they have the best talent out there. They have one of the top players in the country at almost every position on the field.

That seems like the philosophy Saban utilizes as well. Recruit the best talent and lean on that talent.

 

[alagator]

I watch USC play and think to myself that they might very well possess the most basic offensive package and play set that I can remember seeing in college football. Their play selection seems fairly conservative IMHO, but they just execute it well. They play throw and catch so well because they have the best talent out there. They have one of the top players in the country at almost every position on the field.

That seems like the philosophy Saban utilizes as well. Recruit the best talent and lean on that talent.

And a team with 'one of the top players in the country at almost every position on the field' has gone how long now competing in annually a less competitive conference without going undefeated or winning a national championship running that 'most basic offensive package?'

Just sayin'.

Can you imagine how much more difficult it would be to scheme and play against a team with 'one of the top players in the country at almost every position on the field' if they combined that talent with a few wrinkles here and there out of the norm?

Too risky you say? Too much of a chance to make a mistake? Well, better players usually can do more things more better ( :shock: ), so I say any risk is worth the potential for even greater payoffs in points and yards. Would argue too that these wrinkles would make the USC basic package even MORE effective. Opponents would have to spend a little more prep time on more plays and formations and the in-game mental stress would likely cause defenses to miss a pre-snap alignment assignment and/or misread a post-snap key.

 

[UAgrad93]

Porkchop and Terry, you guys are dead on. Saban is going to get the ingredients(players) that will allow us to get those "explosive" plays in the passing game.
Alagator, if we are getting the best at each position on the field then "our" basic offense won't need any "wrinkles" added to be a explosive offense. Be patient. I see Coach McElwain using our talents and getting the most from them. If McElroy can prove to be more efficient in the passing game than what JPW was, then look for Saban to let it loose !!

 

[Guest]

I like what everyone is saying. I'd like to add an explosive element to the offense too. Alagator, just curious to what kind of wrinkles you'd like to see in the future?

 

[TerryP]

And a team with 'one of the top players in the country at almost every position on the field' has gone how long now competing in annually a less competitive conference without going undefeated or winning a national championship running that 'most basic offensive package?'

Just sayin'.

.

OK, let's take the conference equation out, put them in the Big12 or the SEC.

Seeing an average of what, 1 loss per year gets you what in this conference?

I have no qualms, at all, saying that type of team would dominate the SEC just like SC has the Pac 10.

I'll echo what wheezy just said. What are you calling "wrinkles?"

 

[imported_porkchop]

I watch USC play and think to myself that they might very well possess the most basic offensive package and play set that I can remember seeing in college football. Their play selection seems fairly conservative IMHO, but they just execute it well. They play throw and catch so well because they have the best talent out there. They have one of the top players in the country at almost every position on the field.

That seems like the philosophy Saban utilizes as well. Recruit the best talent and lean on that talent.

And a team with 'one of the top players in the country at almost every position on the field' has gone how long now competing in annually a less competitive conference without going undefeated or winning a national championship running that 'most basic offensive package?'

Just sayin'.

Can you imagine how much more difficult it would be to scheme and play against a team with 'one of the top players in the country at almost every position on the field' if they combined that talent with a few wrinkles here and there out of the norm?

Too risky you say? Too much of a chance to make a mistake? Well, better players usually can do more things more better ( :shock: ), so I say any risk is worth the potential for even greater payoffs in points and yards. Would argue too that these wrinkles would make the USC basic package even MORE effective. Opponents would have to spend a little more prep time on more plays and formations and the in-game mental stress would likely cause defenses to miss a pre-snap alignment assignment and/or misread a post-snap key.

:lol: Alagator, I think your kid got on under your handle.

Look, you know why USC isn't playing for a national championship this year, but I'm not sure what that hasd to do with what we're talking about? USC missed out because they did what they seem to do every year. They rolled into another stadium and thought that their name alone would ensure victory. If it's not Stanford, they're tanking against Oregon State.

Their talent level isn't debateble and the scheme has nothing at all to do with why they lost that game. They lost because one team showed up ready to play and one team didn't, until it was too late. It's not like USC hasn't done that before either.


Interesting thread. From asking about what next year's offense will look like to the USC talent level and scheme all in 2 pages.

 

[Guest]

Personally, I like the idea of a few "wrinkles". Roll em out in the spring game, then show them in the opener versus Podunk College of Cosmetology and Auto Repair. They are on film, and some poor defensive coach has to spend time on how his team recognizes and defends the play. We don't even have to use them again. That corner who might be flying up on run support on a sweep remembers the film where the back threw down the field, the pursuit slows a little because we have a reverse with the same action, etc. Show those gadgets, but don't rely on them.

 

[Crimson Hawk]

Great discussion. Some very knowledgeable people are saying that Greg McElroy has the staff's full confidence & if so, I expect to see more of a short passing game than before simply because I feel that is more of a strength for GMac AND it will possibly give the O-line a little more time to develop. I really expected to see more of the short passing from CJM last year, but it never happened, for the obvious reasons. If we can sign Patterson, I expect him to make a tremendous impact early on.......from the slot. I believe he and Peek could really make the short passing game work, & in the process take a lot of pressure off a young offensive line while it solidifies, & help free up Julio. JMO.