🏈 Offense in '15 comparison's to Offense in '92. AKA "The new offenses of today."

[TerryP]

College football is circular, right?

We've talked about how traditional strong holds do have down seasons, but tend to return to the top. We've seen—well, some of us—the wishbone usher out pro-style attacks and vice versa. Now, we're seeing how different read options offenses have made their way back into the game.

Lately, I've seen a lot of discussions comparing the '15 offense to other years. Some of those comments have pointed back to the 1992 team how much they relied on the running game. Comments like "offenses have changed" rear their head time and time again.

There's something to consider here. These drastic changes we've seen on offense the last few years were going on in '92 as well. Take a minute and think back; or look it up.

Do you remember the hash marks being moved? It changed the field, completely, for the Quarterback position. And, it led to the success we saw out of some offenses ... like Spurrier's.

'92 was the point that offensive style was just beginning to get a foothold. '15, we're seeing this hurry-up style in more than one program.

I'm not trying to throw cliche's out there about forgetting history, what happens when you do, etc.

I am saying I think it's a good idea for some to pause a second and remember you can win, and win big, running the football.

 

[2Stater]

Sounds like a good plan for us this year. We certainly have the weapons and apparently the O line to make holes for them. We just need a QB that can recognize when the LB's cheat up to stack the box, and execute the the pass to burn them when they do.

 

[Destiny's Child]

College football is circular, right?

We've talked about how traditional strong holds do have down seasons, but tend to return to the top. We've seen—well, some of us—the wishbone usher out pro-style attacks and vice versa. Now, we're seeing how different read options offenses have made their way back into the game.

Lately, I've seen a lot of discussions comparing the '15 offense to other years. Some of those comments have pointed back to the 1992 team how much they relied on the running game. Comments like "offenses have changed" rear their head time and time again.

There's something to consider here. These drastic changes we've seen on offense the last few years were going on in '92 as well. Take a minute and think back; or look it up.

Do you remember the hash marks being moved? It changed the field, completely, for the Quarterback position. And, it led to the success we saw out of some offenses ... like Spurrier's.

'92 was the point that offensive style was just beginning to get a foothold. '15, we're seeing this hurry-up style in more than one program.

I'm not trying to throw cliche's out there about forgetting history, what happens when you do, etc.

I am saying I think it's a good idea for some to pause a second and remember you can win, and win big, running the football.

I agree 100 percent! This is what I have been saying. This isn't the first time that the offenses has been ahead of defenses, that a rule change gave the offenses an advantage or a new scheme seemed unstoppable. The wishbone and the west coast offenses were all game changers in there days. Spurriers fun and gun looked unstoppable too.

The defense always catches up somewhat, somehow and I think we have a good one.

Running the ball isn't a fad, blocked well and run hard it is possible to gain 3,4 yards a carry which will net a first down every three runs. This controls the clock and wears down a defense. I know that this sounds mind numbingly simple but it would work. Now throw in we have a big offensive line, two awesome backs and if we do run some sort hunh element in there too we could really wear some folks out.

Throwing the ball all over the field isn't the only way to win. Nice post Terry!

 

[bamafan4ever]

How is this for a cliché? Defense wins championships! As long as you have a good enough defense and by all accounts we do, any method you can score is acceptable.

 

[UAgrad93]

Good post and it hits the nail on the head. When Dan Marino was coming out of HS, his school was running shotgun with 4 and 5 wide. He goes to Pitt and it is pro style. Even Coach Bryant was slinging it around the yard in the mid 60's. The wishbone and veer changed his thinking. Think back to your own HS. At mine, the coach ran the wishbone in the mid and late 70's. In the early 80's, the move was to the split back veer. With a new HC, he transitioned from the veer to a pro style offense. This was when I happened along. I was a TE/SE as a sophomore. He called me into his office after practice around mid season and told me that I was making the move to QB. Our QB at the time was our leading rusher and he was cat quick. I wasn't cat quick! I immediately protested!! He explained that we were going to be a pro style/ shotgun team with 3-5 WRs. I made him promise me that I didn't have to run. He agreed. I immediately set school records in offense and the passing game. No surprise since we were throwing it all over the yard! After I finished, they went more ground and pound I and power I. 25+ years later, they are spread. It all comes and goes in cycles.

 

[Bammerboy321]

Too young to remember all of that, but from a younger person's perspective who read about all the stories of Miami and their "air raid" offense with Gino Torreta, I do see the similarities. All in all, I still believe the best way to slow down the HUNH is T.O.P. Many people say T.O.P is an overrated stat, and to a certain extent, it is; however, if your offense is on the field controlling the clock the majority of the game, (and this sounds cliche) you're keeping your defense off the field with fresh legs, as well as wearing out their defense. What makes T.O.P an overrated stat IMO is teams who do not capitalize on scoring positions when presented and the defense plays like garbage. Here's what I'm trying to get at: Alabama is up 21-6 against Ohio State. With Alabama up by that margin, I would hope for them to run Henry a hell of a lot more than start becoming pass heavy and risk interceptions. Ohio State showed that they could move the ball on Alabama, they just couldn't capitalize early on and settled for FG's. So, with that, start playing a bit more conservative, then occasionally, take some shots down field. 'Bama should still play the same style of football they have won with since the tradition first started.

 

[BigCrimson]

There's no doubt you can still win by running the football. Heck, Auburn proved that a few years ago when they were running the ball seemingly 70%+ a game. However, to do it you have to do it one of two ways. The first and obvious one is have a dominating offensive line. If your team has a dominating offensive line it is hell for other teams to stop your running game. The second is formation. Auburn does a good job of this. They create running lanes by simply forcing the defense into formations that lend to natural running lanes. Running the ball still can win games.

 

[Elderfalsedemigod]

Fundamentals are still fundamentals. Strategically the goal remains the same. Have at least 1 more point on the scoreboard than your opponent. All the rest is tactics. Tactics win/lose battles. Strategy wins/loses wars.

All of the above is "cliched" to some extent. The thing about cliches is they are rooted in some truth.

Bottom line, yes if your defense is "good enough" and your fundamentals are sound, you can win with a strong running attack.

 

[Destiny's Child]

I can say without a doubt that kiffin can get creative with formations and we can run it 65 or 70% of the time and score enough to win. Our defense is gonna get us extra possessions and our special teams is going to make the other team drive it a long way to score. If our offense, can keep from giving them the ball, can run it hard, come away with points of some sort on 50% of our drives.. we will win 10 or more games again, maybe go all the way.

 

[Elderfalsedemigod]

I will also say this, "old school" said to run the ball effectively and often to open up opportunities in the passing game.

It seems in recent years the "new school" say to pass the ball early and often to open up opportunities in the running game.

I am a fan of the old school way.

I love to see the pound, pound, pound "oh fuck play action he's going deep" attack.

I have no empirical evidence to show that my preference is better, I just think it is better. I also believe it is a bit more demoralizing for opposing defenses when they are battered and bruised and tired from that running game and they look up and see the ball sailing over their heads

 

[UAgrad93]

When I coached HS ball, the last team I worked with was a run based spread option style. We ran it 85% of the time. Every film that was out on us showed heavy pass with some 3 step. Little play action was shown from gun and none was shown when we shifted to the I. We get into week 7 and the HC/OC asked my opinion about going I and play action off the iso to a deep post. As it stood, we were winless so what the hell!! That Friday night, we win the toss and elect to receive. The HC has psyched himself up to call it. We bobble the kick and end up on our own 22 yd line. Now coach is second guessing himself. He wanted better field position before taking the shot. He looked at me and I told him straight up, "you have already told these kids the first play. Run that bitch!" 78 yards later, the rout was on!!! A good play action game is the result of a killer ground attack. I hate to say this but look at the Barn.