I think people have romanticized the death march far more than they should. The idea of the death march is to take advantage of a tired defense at the end of the game when you have a lead. People here act like we need death marches in the first quarter and that just isn't a recipe for great success.
The issue is that the death march is inherent reliance on plays that are just barely getting it done. That means if one play goes wrong, a false start, a defender making a great play to beat a block, a missed read, then you find yourself in a situation where those plays that you rely on so much aren't going to get it done. That is why it needs to be thought of as something to take advantage of a tired defense, not try and cause it, because if you can reliably dominate on the offensive line where having death marches early in the game is consistent, then you don't need to wear down the opponent, because you're already beating them when they are fresh.
Death marches are for situations where taking 7 to get 3 is as good or better as taking 3 to get 7 (minutes/points btw). Those situations are few and far between though. IMO gearing an offense around death marches is like gearing an offense in basketball around the mid range jump shot. Sure, it's a nice tool to have, but you don't base your offense around it. Sure, do it well enough and you can win some games, especially if you have a defense that is smothering. But it just isn't a good offensive game plan.
For example look at yesterday. We had 3 drives totaling 32 plays and 17+ minutes that ended in a total of 9 points. That isn't good. Sure, we got away with it because our defense scored a TD, only allowed 18 total points, and our ST's got us another 3, but we greatly outplayed kentucky in all 3 phases, and yet with 4 minutes to go in the game they were an onside kick away from having a chance to tie it. That's what death march football gets you if you can't get it in the endzone. And this was against a team that is now 110th in the country in rushing defense and our yards per rush was pretty much the same as they average giving up anyways. If we had a defense and ST that could reliably hold teams to under 20 then a death march still would be perfect. But we've never had that under Johnson.
For next year I think Jordan will be the starter game one because Johnson is going to go with consistency in a first game against power 5 competition, and also means he is very likely to be the starter the next two years regardless. People point to the VT game, but I look at that game in a different light. Jordan played well, but he also had the advantage of VT preparing for Thomas. Things are different when teams are preparing only for you, for examples I think VT was caught off guard by the midline where Jordan got his big game but most teams will be preparing for it more next year. You even saw that happen in the second half when Jordan picked up just 17 yards on 13 carries. As far as the game goes, we scored 10 points off drives starting in field goal range, and another 7 with a home run from the bback spot, that we probably won't have next year. He did his part, but he got a lot more help than I think he'll usually get as well.
I think we'll be okay with him, probably still bowling, but I think there is a fairly low ceiling on the program the next two years if he is the QB, unless the defense makes huge strides.
