My opinion, for the record, is we don't concentrate enough on diversifying our attack. We don't utilize many positions like we could, such as the WR position. We also don't diversify our blocking schemes enough, the guys have the mental capacity to handle more/tweaks to what we do without getting away from our core. Our offense is extremely effective when it works, like any offense.
I think our offense is also less resilient than other offenses to stuff like penalties, and plays for negative yards. Stats can't show this or they can but it would be one hell of a study, but we all see when we get behind the chains it feels like no hope, our ability to convert a 2nd and 15 seems to be far worse than teams who have different schemes. Now all offenses dont' do well in these scenarios, for sure, i mean you are behind the chains. So duh! But IMO our offense is less capable of coming back to move the chains from these scenarios than a Clemson would be etc. To me, this is a function of scheme. Not personnel. The scheme has a distinct advantage, but also just as big of a distinct disadvantage. Where some other schemes have a semi advantage, but not as big a disadvantage either. In other words our spread is much larger from my veiwpoint.
I believe a way to cure this is to do what we do, but diversify a bit more. Part of that is a better and more complex passing attack that uses more of the route tree and 3-4 WR sets. Part of that is a better screen game (a QBs best friend). How many times do we see the D just tee off on our OL in rushing the QB, and we have no hope to block??? What is better to neutralize an aggressive pass rusher than a good screen game? This fits GREAT to what we do. We rarely use it. We have two types of screens....it can be more...we can run WR bubble screens, BB and AB screens we have seen in spots, but we need to run more versions of it. Finally I would like to see a true TE instead of a WR tight to the line. We can do this too...and not change the scheme much, and add a over the middle passing attack with a 6-6 person not 5-7. This again, helps the QB and passing game to be MORE effective when you need it.
Am I looking for 50/50 pass and run yards. Nope. Am I saying change the scheme, nope. I am saying we can ADD A TON to the current scheme to diversify it, not get away from what we do, and be even THAT much more effective. I also believe it will help against recovering from penalties and negative plays more than we can now.
And the best part is we can do all this from our same formations. Almost every thing I suggest above, does not require a new formation. It requires different personnel packages, and someone who is good in the passing game to sit down with paul and design a better passing attack. Checks to the TE. Checks to the slot, x,y,z route combos and rubs. A slant game we can check to when the d is in an alignment we can exploit...none of this requires us to do anything different other than to have that play in the satchel....
Other ideas:
- everyone in modern football signals plays in. Can teams steal them? Yes, but 95% of the teams don't have this problem because they are well conceived. If it was so easy to steal then why does the NFL use em and belichik had to tape em? Its not easy to steal. So that is a bad excuse. I like this concept as it allows for use to hurryup.
- Use hurryup on first downs and good gains. It neutralizes the defense in personnel, playcalling and ability to line up. A huge advantage for our offense.
