augustabuzz
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 3,412
I thought it was Auburn's stealing the FSU signals that got them the lead.
Hal Mumme interview talks about CPJ
- Thread starter Novajacket
- Start date
Bigb
Jolly Good Fellow
- Messages
- 395
No offense is good when you have under 3 minutes and need to score. The vast majority of teams lose those games. That's what makes upset special.
nodawgs
Jolly Good Fellow
- Messages
- 366
Disagree. Offenses that are used to throwing the ball are going to be more successful in those situations. Their line is going to be better at pass blocking, they are used to up tempo, their qb will have had all game to get in a rhythm, and they are in their comfort zone. We have been awful on game winning drives for 6 years. Also, defenses give the shorter routes in prevent. We, by admission, don't have a variety of short routes. We are always trying to heave it deep into a prevent defense.
Squints
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 1,259
I'd love to see some data to back this up. You hear it all the time and I guess it makes sense but all you hear is anecdotal evidence.
- Messages
- 11,728
I'll see if I can dig up the article, but I believe Football Outsiders looked at the idea of balance. If you're an Alabama and have top 10 classes, you're better being balanced. If you're not, you're better being unbalanced.
dressedcheeseside
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 14,251
The real question is which style of offense, extreme or balanced, is more likely to win with lesser athletes?
dressedcheeseside
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 14,251
The same can be said about extreme passing O's when you have a late lead you're trying to protect.
- Messages
- 2,156
Yes. Florida under Meyer was heavy run - probably more like 70/30. Oregon and WVU (under Rich Rod) have come close to winning titles. Ohio State this year was close.
I'm thinking Texas with Vince Young was heavy run oriented ... and maybe with McCoy too but probably not as much.
Curious as to Alabama's ratio?
- Messages
- 11,728
54.24% in 2013 (http://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/stat/rushing-play-pct). 61% last year.
Rodney Kent
Ramblin' Wreck
- Messages
- 558
- Location
- McDonough, GA
I can only give as assessment by the volume of games I have watched over the years. I have followed college football for 68 years and have observed this phenomenom with teams. A balanced attacked seems to be the best if you have the horses for it. A system using more passing than rushing appears to favor a team with less quantity of the better athletes in their fold. A team with an abundance of great linemen and good backs often win big with the rushing approach. At one time, the Big Ten was dominant with the big linemen and running game.
However, this was also in an era when the South did not recruit black players and the great backs were going north to play football. Some of the Southern teams had great teams with great passing attacks during that time.
This next item has been debated many times. A good team that relies mostly on a passing attack will often get beaten by a team relies heavily on the rush against them. The oddity also exists that a superior team who uses the rush extensively often gets beaten by a good passing team. The debate centers around everyday practice at the schools. Some say that the practices have nothing to do with this because the scout squad runs the system of the opposing team. However, the oddity has continued ever since I started following college football. It still appears that a team that uses the passing extensively will often get beaten by a good rushing team, and vice versa.
The other caveat is that a team that relies to heavily on passing will not win national championships, while a team that relies to heavily on the run will not win national championships. It is generally the well balanced team that is the big winner, but a team that does not have the talent to have a balanced attack must also make a huge effort to establish some effective system of rushing or passing to counter that weakness. This is normally where an extremely smart coach earns his money by adapting his system to his talent and getting the most out of it in an effort to have some simblance of both types of attack.
I admired Bobby Dodd for his genius in adaptation, and I admire a present coach in his genius to use this approach, Peterson of Boise State and now Washington State.
However, this was also in an era when the South did not recruit black players and the great backs were going north to play football. Some of the Southern teams had great teams with great passing attacks during that time.
This next item has been debated many times. A good team that relies mostly on a passing attack will often get beaten by a team relies heavily on the rush against them. The oddity also exists that a superior team who uses the rush extensively often gets beaten by a good passing team. The debate centers around everyday practice at the schools. Some say that the practices have nothing to do with this because the scout squad runs the system of the opposing team. However, the oddity has continued ever since I started following college football. It still appears that a team that uses the passing extensively will often get beaten by a good rushing team, and vice versa.
The other caveat is that a team that relies to heavily on passing will not win national championships, while a team that relies to heavily on the run will not win national championships. It is generally the well balanced team that is the big winner, but a team that does not have the talent to have a balanced attack must also make a huge effort to establish some effective system of rushing or passing to counter that weakness. This is normally where an extremely smart coach earns his money by adapting his system to his talent and getting the most out of it in an effort to have some simblance of both types of attack.
I admired Bobby Dodd for his genius in adaptation, and I admire a present coach in his genius to use this approach, Peterson of Boise State and now Washington State.