Option football in the pro's

[dressedcheeseside]

The thing that bothers me about it is the rhetoric against option football on the recruiting trail. "It won't get you ready for the NFL" and similar statements. The truth is, if you have the skills and the physicality, the system your college team runs matters little.

It doesn't help that the best Bback we ever had washed out of the NFL and blamed his original misfortunes on his college offense. Also, that guy was recruited by the previous coach and no Bbacks since have done much if anything in the NFL.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

It doesn't help that the best Bback we ever had washed out of the NFL and blamed his original misfortunes on his college offense. Also, that guy was recruited by the previous coach and no Bbacks since have done much if anything in the NFL.

I don't know if anyone else feels this way but I became pretty disillusioned with Dwyer, his poor work ethic after he left Tech, his weight gain, his trashing of Tech and his personal problems. I have to compartmentalize him in my brain -the wonderful plays at Tech versus the person. Had to do the same with O.J. Simpson.

 

[Skeptic]

I don't know if anyone else feels this way but I became pretty disillusioned with Dwyer, his poor work ethic after he left Tech, his weight gain, his trashing of Tech and his personal problems. I have to compartmentalize him in my brain -the wonderful plays at Tech versus the person. Had to do the same with O.J. Simpson.

My big problem came when he excused his weight gain by saying Johnson wanted him heavier than 230 when sometime before the season Johnson said he wanted him at 225. I get it if he didn't like the offense, particularly if he felt it did not prepare him for pass blocking, but to condemn a system that got him 1,300 yards rushing a season is really disingenuous. Besides which if one still has those tapes from 08-09 you can see he couldn't run block very well either. If nothing else we still have that memory of the 60-yard burst down the sideline against Ga. in '08. That and the Roddy Jones 65-yarder later are in my mind the two biggest running plays since Johnson has been at Tech.

 

[Legal Jacket]

I think it would be difficult to run a successful offense out of the flexbone at the pro level. A few reasons:

1) The players on the edge are much bigger and faster in the pros than they are in college. Typically, when we have problems running our offense, it's because the other team has fantastic DEs and OLBs. That affects us in two ways. First, they are much harder to cut and are more likely to get off a block and make a play. Second, even when we do seal the edge and get the ball outside, the DBs will more quickly recover. In other words, I think you'd see a lot more QB/AB runs for a loss (like you did, for example, when we've played the really good LSU, clemson, Iowa, uga defenses). Even when they broke free, I think the gains would be more like 8-10 yards, as opposed to 20-30 (or greater). Can you imagine us trying to option off of JJ Watt?

2) Defenses would have an easier time covering WRs one on one. There could still be mismatches, esp w a stud WR like Calvin, but the 30-40 yard bomb would be harder to pull off with most of the great NFL DBs.

3) The teams with elite interior DL would also be tough to run the BB on. There are a lot more of those guys in the NFL than what we see in the ACC. Most of the team we have a great offensive game, it starts with being able to control the interior, which sets up the ABs. If we are going against someone like Ndamukong, its going to be a near impossibility to penetrate with the BB.

In theory I think the offense would still work, I just don't think it would be at or near the top unless we had great fits at most of the positions. We'd need at least one elite WR, someone like Russell Wilson (who actually has an accurate arm) as opposed to a Tebow (who doesn't), and ABs who had enough meat on their bones to take on guys when cut blocks aren't working (e.g. LeSean McCoy or CJ Spiller - 200 lb guys with speed). BB to me is actually the lesser important of the positions at the pro level (or at least the easier to fill). While you could easily go with a beast mode, I'd actually rather save the money to spend on ABs and get one of the tweener RB/FB types that don't get a lot of PT.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

I think it would be difficult to run a successful offense out of the flexbone at the pro level. A few reasons:

1) The players on the edge are much bigger and faster in the pros than they are in college. Typically, when we have problems running our offense, it's because the other team has fantastic DEs and OLBs. That affects us in two ways. First, they are much harder to cut and are more likely to get off a block and make a play. Second, even when we do seal the edge and get the ball outside, the DBs will more quickly recover. In other words, I think you'd see a lot more QB/AB runs for a loss (like you did, for example, when we've played the really good LSU, clemson, Iowa, uga defenses). Even when they broke free, I think the gains would be more like 8-10 yards, as opposed to 20-30 (or greater). Can you imagine us trying to option off of JJ Watt?

2) Defenses would have an easier time covering WRs one on one. There could still be mismatches, esp w a stud WR like Calvin, but the 30-40 yard bomb would be harder to pull off with most of the great NFL DBs.

3) The teams with elite interior DL would also be tough to run the BB on. There are a lot more of those guys in the NFL than what we see in the ACC. Most of the team we have a great offensive game, it starts with being able to control the interior, which sets up the ABs. If we are going against someone like Ndamukong, its going to be a near impossibility to penetrate with the BB.

In theory I think the offense would still work, I just don't think it would be at or near the top unless we had great fits at most of the positions. We'd need at least one elite WR, someone like Russell Wilson (who actually has an accurate arm) as opposed to a Tebow (who doesn't), and ABs who had enough meat on their bones to take on guys when cut blocks aren't working (e.g. LeSean McCoy or CJ Spiller - 200 lb guys with speed). BB to me is actually the lesser important of the positions at the pro level (or at least the easier to fill). While you could easily go with a beast mode, I'd actually rather save the money to spend on ABs and get one of the tweener RB/FB types that don't get a lot of PT.

I think it is hard to compare the pro game and the college game. All I can analyze with any confidence at all is how well Tech's system is doing relative to other top programs in college ball. When I extrapolate to the pros I am trying to imagine not only how it would do against better defenses but what it would do with better offensive players (something Tech is not able to reel in at quite the same rate of a Clemson, LSU, Alabama, FSU etc.). So in relative terms, yeah, when Tech's offense was not as good as it was last year we had some tough games against LSU and Iowa. I would love to be able to have a rematch against those same teams in the past with last year's offense.

But let's assume that Tech's offense is going to have games in which is struggles. A lot of NFL teams have a game here or there where their offense struggles. That tells us nothing about whether the scheme is effective or not.

Suggesting that better defenders in the NFL would make Tech's offense more difficult to operate is a theory with out any hard data to help us. The best that we have to go by is how well college level offensive players do against college level defensive players when Tech is running this scheme. The result is that Tech is pretty much in the neighborhood of a top ten offense, averaging 37.9 points a game. And that is without the top notch offensive talent at every position that some factory schools get. For what it is worth 2/3 of NFL teams average fewer than 25 points a game.

So let's assume Tech's offense would not score as prolifically due to NFL defenses being stouter. But let's also assume that with better overall offensive players the offense would still be strong in relative terms. Where would it put a team running the triple option in the pros if they had a top ten offense? Now the plot thickens because if that same top ten offense has a good defense then being able to burn clock becomes a strategic advantage. Can you imagine having an NFL defense that plays an entire game well rested because their offense is using clock?

 

[Yjacket82]

I think it is hard to compare the pro game and the college game. All I can analyze with any confidence at all is how well Tech's system is doing relative to other top programs in college ball. When I extrapolate to the pros I am trying to imagine not only how it would do against better defenses but what it would do with better offensive players (something Tech is not able to reel in at quite the same rate of a Clemson, LSU, Alabama, FSU etc.). So in relative terms, yeah, when Tech's offense was not as good as it was last year we had some tough games against LSU and Iowa. I would love to be able to have a rematch against those same teams in the past with last year's offense.

But let's assume that Tech's offense is going to have games in which is struggles. A lot of NFL teams have a game here or there where their offense struggles. That tells us nothing about whether the scheme is effective or not.

Suggesting that better defenders in the NFL would make Tech's offense more difficult to operate is a theory with out any hard data to help us. The best that we have to go by is how well college level offensive players do against college level defensive players when Tech is running this scheme. The result is that Tech is pretty much in the neighborhood of a top ten offense, averaging 37.9 points a game. And that is without the top notch offensive talent at every position that some factory schools get. For what it is worth 2/3 of NFL teams average fewer than 25 points a game.

So let's assume Tech's offense would not score as prolifically due to NFL defenses being stouter. But let's also assume that with better overall offensive players the offense would still be strong in relative terms. Where would it put a team running the triple option in the pros if they had a top ten offense? Now the plot thickens because if that same top ten offense has a good defense then being able to burn clock becomes a strategic advantage. Can you imagine having an NFL defense that plays an entire game well rested because their offense is using clock?

I agree and if you are the Jacksonville Jaguars, are you just going to continue losing forever? I don't imagine the Patriots trying this. This is for a perennial loser that would like to win 6 to 7 games. What have they really got to lose?

 

[Legal Jacket]

I think it is hard to compare the pro game and the college game. All I can analyze with any confidence at all is how well Tech's system is doing relative to other top programs in college ball. When I extrapolate to the pros I am trying to imagine not only how it would do against better defenses but what it would do with better offensive players (something Tech is not able to reel in at quite the same rate of a Clemson, LSU, Alabama, FSU etc.). So in relative terms, yeah, when Tech's offense was not as good as it was last year we had some tough games against LSU and Iowa. I would love to be able to have a rematch against those same teams in the past with last year's offense.

But let's assume that Tech's offense is going to have games in which is struggles. A lot of NFL teams have a game here or there where their offense struggles. That tells us nothing about whether the scheme is effective or not.

Suggesting that better defenders in the NFL would make Tech's offense more difficult to operate is a theory with out any hard data to help us. The best that we have to go by is how well college level offensive players do against college level defensive players when Tech is running this scheme. The result is that Tech is pretty much in the neighborhood of a top ten offense, averaging 37.9 points a game. And that is without the top notch offensive talent at every position that some factory schools get. For what it is worth 2/3 of NFL teams average fewer than 25 points a game.

So let's assume Tech's offense would not score as prolifically due to NFL defenses being stouter. But let's also assume that with better overall offensive players the offense would still be strong in relative terms. Where would it put a team running the triple option in the pros if they had a top ten offense? Now the plot thickens because if that same top ten offense has a good defense then being able to burn clock becomes a strategic advantage. Can you imagine having an NFL defense that plays an entire game well rested because their offense is using clock?

I was trying to consider that in my analysis. I think the difference, particularly in our offense, of better players on offense and defense gives the advantage to the defense. Cut blocks lose effectiveness when the other guys are talented enough to get around them. So, no matter the skill level, I think the offense would have to use more standup blocking techniques. The easiest way to put it is I don't think the quality of AB blocking would be that much more improved in the NFL, whereas compare the quality of OLB and DEs we face in the ACC with what would be seen in the NFL. I just don't think the blocking improves as much as the defense does.

 

[AE 87]

I was trying to consider that in my analysis. I think the difference, particularly in our offense, of better players on offense and defense gives the advantage to the defense. Cut blocks lose effectiveness when the other guys are talented enough to get around them. So, no matter the skill level, I think the offense would have to use more standup blocking techniques. The easiest way to put it is I don't think the quality of AB blocking would be that much more improved in the NFL, whereas compare the quality of OLB and DEs we face in the ACC with what would be seen in the NFL. I just don't think the blocking improves as much as the defense does.

I think you made that point well.

However, I'm not sure that there's any reason to think that you couldn't get a comparable upgrade in talent from GT to the NFL that we've seen from GS to Navy and from Navy to GT, even at A-Back. Also, our A-Backs don't have to cut-block. Some of our best perimeter blocking last year came from Dennis Andrews and Synjyn (as A-Back) drive blocking on the perimeter.

I think we also have to remember that everything is faster in the pro-game, including the backs with the ball. It may be harder to block on the perimeter, but they won't have to block as long.

Every time CPJ has taken his offense to a new level of talent, there have been experts who have used reasons similar, if not the same, as yours for why it wouldn't work at the new level. Each time, those experts were proven wrong. Now, that doesn't mean that you're wrong. However, I think it should be reason for caution in being too certain. For example, it wasn't just that better defenses caused the scheme problem, as your earlier post suggested. It was that better defenses could out play our line in 2008 and 2009, especially when JN had the bum ankles behind in the bowl games.

Also, we have to keep in mind that at the NFL level, there's more draft equity. An NFL team wouldn't have to convince someone to take some calculus. There will be high talent guys that fit the scheme who would get more playing time for an option team than for a pro-set. And almost everybody on offense would play.

Also, I think that your points 2 and 3 from your earlier post just miss the mark. With respect to wide receivers, man-coverage is tough, but the upgrade to NFL talent on both sides seems to me to be a wash. However, the scheme advantage often forces defenses to bring a DB or more into run support. That means that they become susceptible to a receiver, perhaps an A-Back coming out of the slot, being completely uncovered. With respect to the B-Back runs up the middle and the interior DL play, I'm not sure I understand your point. GT has been successful in getting the B-Back established against some of the best interior DL in the country. There's nothing about the scheme, imo, for one to think that upgrading on both OL and DL would give the advantage to the DL. Like I said, I just don't get it.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

I think it would be difficult to run a successful offense out of the flexbone at the pro level. A few reasons:

1) The players on the edge are much bigger and faster in the pros than they are in college. Typically, when we have problems running our offense, it's because the other team has fantastic DEs and OLBs. That affects us in two ways. First, they are much harder to cut and are more likely to get off a block and make a play. Second, even when we do seal the edge and get the ball outside, the DBs will more quickly recover. In other words, I think you'd see a lot more QB/AB runs for a loss (like you did, for example, when we've played the really good LSU, clemson, Iowa, uga defenses). Even when they broke free, I think the gains would be more like 8-10 yards, as opposed to 20-30 (or greater). Can you imagine us trying to option off of JJ Watt?

2) Defenses would have an easier time covering WRs one on one. There could still be mismatches, esp w a stud WR like Calvin, but the 30-40 yard bomb would be harder to pull off with most of the great NFL DBs.

3) The teams with elite interior DL would also be tough to run the BB on. There are a lot more of those guys in the NFL than what we see in the ACC. Most of the team we have a great offensive game, it starts with being able to control the interior, which sets up the ABs. If we are going against someone like Ndamukong, its going to be a near impossibility to penetrate with the BB.

In theory I think the offense would still work, I just don't think it would be at or near the top unless we had great fits at most of the positions. We'd need at least one elite WR, someone like Russell Wilson (who actually has an accurate arm) as opposed to a Tebow (who doesn't), and ABs who had enough meat on their bones to take on guys when cut blocks aren't working (e.g. LeSean McCoy or CJ Spiller - 200 lb guys with speed). BB to me is actually the lesser important of the positions at the pro level (or at least the easier to fill). While you could easily go with a beast mode, I'd actually rather save the money to spend on ABs and get one of the tweener RB/FB types that don't get a lot of PT.

1. How did other style offenses fare against these same elite DE/OLB/defenses?
2. Will those elite NFL DBs talents covering WRs tight be a bit wasted when the O runs 80% of the time? How many of the great cover corners are feared in run support also?
3. Aaron Donald was every bit as good as Suh...yet our Bbacks got yards vs Pitt. (Donald dominated some of our Oline...Shaq played him pretty even IMO when they faced off though). So how is talent at the next level not relative?

Smh. If WE propagate the misconceptions and stereo types....I guess I should find no fault when outsiders do it too. It must be a miracle from God alone that our WRs have been succeeding in the pros.....or maybe that's just one of the misconceptions already disproven.

 

[Skeptic]

...
Suggesting that better defenders in the NFL would make Tech's offense more difficult to operate is a theory with out any hard data to help us. The best that we have to go by is how well college level offensive players do against college level defensive players when Tech is running this scheme. The result is that Tech is pretty much in the neighborhood of a top ten offense, averaging 37.9 points a game. And that is without the top notch offensive talent at every position that some factory schools get. For what it is worth 2/3 of NFL teams average fewer than 25 points a game. ...

So let's assume Tech's offense would not score as prolifically due to NFL defenses being stouter. But let's also assume that with better overall offensive players the offense would still be strong in relative terms.

The "better defenders argument is the same one used when Johnson was hired at Tech; that his offense would not work because the defenses were faster and quicker than what he had coached against, and he would get his come-uppance. (My mother's term that is entirely disused today, too bad.) We know how that turned out. Because it ignores the obvious, that as defenders get bigger, stronger, quicker, so does the offense. Evolution doesn't just occur on one side of the ball or the other. Players are players. That being said, the coach who expects to make a living on it in the pros better have a bunch of QBs who don't expect to make a living on it too long.

 

[takethepoints]

This is an old argument. It is true that pro Ds are better then in college, but I don't think comparative talent at different levels is reason enough to think that the O wouldn't work as you move up the ladder. Right now the extant pro style O plays to the advantage of the pro Ds. If you pack everybody in the LOS and come full tilt against pro style O's, you will succeed. Full Stop. That's the main reason why an option O would work; defending it takes a different set of skills, ones that are hard to acquire.

But the present Ds are probably a good reason why option Os haven't been adopted. Imho, it has nothing much to do with comparative talent and a lot to do with pro D players wanting to extend their playing time. Reacting to an option O, especially if you have to do it week after week, would probably lower the shelf life of D players faster then those on O. Pro D players hate cut blocks, for instance, and, as you age, it is a lot easier to go in a straight line then to stunt or fend off a trap or double-team. Those of you with a IE background will know of the bank wiring room experiment. I think there would be tremendous pressure through the informal linkages between the players to change the rules to negate option blocking, rule changes that many of the owners would back.

Not that this will stop someone from trying option football in the near future or that it would be successful in the long run, of course.

 

[Nook Su Kow]

Why switch to a run 1st offense when the NFL is officiated to chuck it around 35-40 times a game. Sneeze on a receiver 5 yards past LOS it's a flag.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

With respect to wide receivers, man-coverage is tough, but the upgrade to NFL talent on both sides seems to me to be a wash. However, the scheme advantage often forces defenses to bring a DB or more into run support. That means that they become susceptible to a receiver, perhaps an A-Back coming out of the slot, being completely uncovered.

Exactly.

 

[Legal Jacket]

I think you made that point well.

However, I'm not sure that there's any reason to think that you couldn't get a comparable upgrade in talent from GT to the NFL that we've seen from GS to Navy and from Navy to GT, even at A-Back. Also, our A-Backs don't have to cut-block. Some of our best perimeter blocking last year came from Dennis Andrews and Synjyn (as A-Back) drive blocking on the perimeter.

I think we also have to remember that everything is faster in the pro-game, including the backs with the ball. It may be harder to block on the perimeter, but they won't have to block as long.

Every time CPJ has taken his offense to a new level of talent, there have been experts who have used reasons similar, if not the same, as yours for why it wouldn't work at the new level. Each time, those experts were proven wrong. Now, that doesn't mean that you're wrong. However, I think it should be reason for caution in being too certain. For example, it wasn't just that better defenses caused the scheme problem, as your earlier post suggested. It was that better defenses could out play our line in 2008 and 2009, especially when JN had the bum ankles behind in the bowl games.

Also, we have to keep in mind that at the NFL level, there's more draft equity. An NFL team wouldn't have to convince someone to take some calculus. There will be high talent guys that fit the scheme who would get more playing time for an option team than for a pro-set. And almost everybody on offense would play.

Also, I think that your points 2 and 3 from your earlier post just miss the mark. With respect to wide receivers, man-coverage is tough, but the upgrade to NFL talent on both sides seems to me to be a wash. However, the scheme advantage often forces defenses to bring a DB or more into run support. That means that they become susceptible to a receiver, perhaps an A-Back coming out of the slot, being completely uncovered. With respect to the B-Back runs up the middle and the interior DL play, I'm not sure I understand your point. GT has been successful in getting the B-Back established against some of the best interior DL in the country. There's nothing about the scheme, imo, for one to think that upgrading on both OL and DL would give the advantage to the DL. Like I said, I just don't get it.

Most of the way I was feeling (and I recognize there is room to disagree) is that there are a lot more "elite" level defensive players in the NFL than there are in college. What I'm really getting at is I think there is a lot more potential that the defensive players could flat out outplay the blockers because of their sheer talent. I just don't see the offense being as successful at stopping players like Robert Mathis, Lavonte David, Von Miller, Justin Houston, Terrell Suggs, Clay Matthews, etc. I just don't know how you would be able to block them consistently to seal the edge.

Same thing with the inside guys. Sure, we've played against some of the elite interior linemen in college - but my recollection is that those were typically against clemson, uga, fsu, and maybe the music city bowl two years ago (may be missing some, like lsu in 2008). I don't remember many, if any, games where I thought we dominated the interior against a truly terrific D Line. Even last year against Clemson our BBs went for 24 carries and 102 yards, which is pretty pedestrian for our offense. 50 carries for 250 total yards was ok, but not great, especially considering that 163 yards came on 4 broken plays. You take out those four broken plays and we averaged under 2 yards a carry the rest of the game.

Guys like Suh, McCoy, Dareus, Williams, Donald, Ngata would be ridiculously tough up the middle. Again, I feel like the defensive talent at the pro level is relatively more elite than the blocking talent - especially since NFL blocking tends to favor more giant immovable objects, than quick guys who can get downfield like what our O requires.

It's nothing against the offense - its just the step up from NCAA football to NFL football is larger on the defensive side than it is on the offensive side, imo. I just don't think the gains in blocking the edge or up the middle by pro offensive players comes close to the gains on the defensive side by having more defensive talent consolidated among significantly fewer teams.

 

[Legal Jacket]

1. How did other style offenses fare against these same elite DE/OLB/defenses?
2. Will those elite NFL DBs talents covering WRs tight be a bit wasted when the O runs 80% of the time? How many of the great cover corners are feared in run support also?
3. Aaron Donald was every bit as good as Suh...yet our Bbacks got yards vs Pitt. (Donald dominated some of our Oline...Shaq played him pretty even IMO when they faced off though). So how is talent at the next level not relative?

Smh. If WE propagate the misconceptions and stereo types....I guess I should find no fault when outsiders do it too. It must be a miracle from God alone that our WRs have been succeeding in the pros.....or maybe that's just one of the misconceptions already disproven.

1. That's irrelevant. My point is our base offense doesn't have a solution when there is an elite front seven, not that a great defense can shutdown an offense, regardless of style. Put differently - how would YOU scheme a response to the situation where we are getting our butts kicked in the front 7? Our offense is based to a much greater extent on us being able to dominate their front seven than other offenses that are designed to test DBs or OLB in coverage.

If the D is taking the BB option out of consideration and is also sealing the edge, we have to go to something else to move the ball. Look, I love our offense. I think its great and I think it really works. Maybe we would improve enough in the passing game at the next level to where we would be able to run slants and other quick hit passes to keep the D honest.

2. The corners are also largely irrelevant (though they will be much tougher to block). The safeties are the problem. There aren't nearly as many to the house runs in the pros as there are in college; the main reason for that is that the DBs speed at the pro level is ridiculous. Even when we hit on an option and had an opening on the edge I think it would close a lot more quickly than usual. Cutting 25 yard gains to 10-15 yard gains would make it a lot more difficult to quickly march downfield.

3. The Pitt game in 2013 was not that impressive of an offensive game. We scored 21 points and had only 276 yards rushing on 53 attempts. That's exactly my point. Our BBs combined for 26 carries and 127 yards - which would be fine if we were also passing for another 300 yards on top of that. Vad ran 17 times for 44 yards. At the pro level I don't think you'd have your ABs running for 90 yards on 6 carries.

Pitt was the same team that gave up 27 points to New Mexico, 55 points to Duke, 24 points to Old Dominion, 41 to Miami, 27 to Bowling Green, etc. So using them as an example - especially where they really only had Donald as a better than average player on defense - kinda proves my point. Imagine what we'd have done against them if you added an elite OLB.

 

[Legal Jacket]

The "better defenders argument is the same one used when Johnson was hired at Tech; that his offense would not work because the defenses were faster and quicker than what he had coached against, and he would get his come-uppance. (My mother's term that is entirely disused today, too bad.) We know how that turned out. Because it ignores the obvious, that as defenders get bigger, stronger, quicker, so does the offense. Evolution doesn't just occur on one side of the ball or the other. Players are players. That being said, the coach who expects to make a living on it in the pros better have a bunch of QBs who don't expect to make a living on it too long.

Navy was already playing the same teams Tech was playing, so that actually cuts the other way (CPJ has better players at Tech than he does at Navy, while playing a lot of the same teams).

Compare the increase in blocking ability (particularly using OUR style of blocking) with who would play OL or AB for us in the pros (e.g. Spiller and McCoy), with the beastial OLBs and DEs you find on nearly every team in the pro game. It's not close. WRs just don't get that much better at blocking in the pros (although I agree they do to a certain extent) and the ABs certainly wouldn't get better. In fact, I think their effectiveness would drastically go down as the edge defensive players would be exponentially more adept at getting off cut blocks. That's the key thing to me - I don't see ABs being able to consistently cut block stud LBs and DBs at the next level.

 

[AE 87]

Most of the way I was feeling (and I recognize there is room to disagree) is that there are a lot more "elite" level defensive players in the NFL than there are in college. What I'm really getting at is I think there is a lot more potential that the defensive players could flat out outplay the blockers because of their sheer talent. I just don't see the offense being as successful at stopping players like Robert Mathis, Lavonte David, Von Miller, Justin Houston, Terrell Suggs, Clay Matthews, etc. I just don't know how you would be able to block them consistently to seal the edge.

Same thing with the inside guys. Sure, we've played against some of the elite interior linemen in college - but my recollection is that those were typically against clemson, uga, fsu, and maybe the music city bowl two years ago (may be missing some, like lsu in 2008). I don't remember many, if any, games where I thought we dominated the interior against a truly terrific D Line. Even last year against Clemson our BBs went for 24 carries and 102 yards, which is pretty pedestrian for our offense. 50 carries for 250 total yards was ok, but not great, especially considering that 163 yards came on 4 broken plays. You take out those four broken plays and we averaged under 2 yards a carry the rest of the game.

Guys like Suh, McCoy, Dareus, Williams, Donald, Ngata would be ridiculously tough up the middle. Again, I feel like the defensive talent at the pro level is relatively more elite than the blocking talent - especially since NFL blocking tends to favor more giant immovable objects, than quick guys who can get downfield like what our O requires.

It's nothing against the offense - its just the step up from NCAA football to NFL football is larger on the defensive side than it is on the offensive side, imo. I just don't think the gains in blocking the edge or up the middle by pro offensive players comes close to the gains on the defensive side by having more defensive talent consolidated among significantly fewer teams.

I understood what you were saying about the step up in D talent. I'm not sure, but I accept the premise for our discussion.

I disagree with your argument in two main ways.

First, I think you misuse the evidence from GT against elite Ds as if it's just a matter of the D and not the differential between the O and the D. We did better against better DL in 2014 than in 2009 because, in part, we had a better OL. Your analysis doesn't account for the amount of talent for run blocking OL available at the next level.

Second, your analysis suggests that our scheme is less able to adjust to greater D talent at the next level than other schemes. Yet the data at every other level shows that our scheme is the best against better talent on D.

 

[Legal Jacket]

I understood what you were saying about the step up in D talent. I'm not sure, but I accept the premise for our discussion.

I disagree with your argument in two main ways.

First, I think you misuse the evidence from GT against elite Ds as if it's just a matter of the D and not the differential between the O and the D. We did better against better DL in 2014 than in 2009 because, in part, we had a better OL. Your analysis doesn't account for the amount of talent for run blocking OL available at the next level.

Second, your analysis suggests that our scheme is less able to adjust to greater D talent at the next level than other schemes. Yet the data at every other level shows that our scheme is the best against better talent on D.

On the first point - I just think we reach a ceiling quicker on the undersized linemen who are fast. I think we are getting pretty close to that ceiling - especially with our line from last year. There are certainly bigger and faster linemen in the pros, but not as many as you would want to see to offset the number of defensive guys who are bigger and faster. I think one of the reasons you see more pass heavy offenses in the NFL is that its much easier to assemble a group of fat, slow, immovable mountains than it is to assemble a group of fast, but still strong, OL that can block downfield. Even if you can get guys more in the 310-330 lb range, which I think is what you'd have to find, I think the conditioning to do what we do would start taxing them too, so you'd have to have a backup set of OL to switch out (as opposed to keeping your fat, immovable objects in the whole game since they don't have to move). It would get more expensive for a team to sign decent linemen - especially since guys who are big but also somewhat fast are a rarity to begin with.

In short - I don't think the gain in OL talent, especially for what we want to do, comes close to the increase in what you see on the defensive side going from college to pros.

On the second point - I think our scheme would be weaker at the pro level because the positions I feel that are the strongest, relatively, in the pros are exactly the positions that we have the biggest trouble against. May that's true of all offenses, but stacking our line with a bunch of guys who are slightly undersized, because we need them to block downfield in our run game, has caused fits even at the college level in our pass blocking, and therefore our passing game. That would only get worse at the next level.

And let me be clear - I'm not saying it wouldn't work at all. I'm just saying I wouldn't expect it to put up 40 points a game. I wouldn't be surprised if you could field an average NFL offense with pretty good players. I would just have a hard time seeing a team able to afford enough quality players to make our offense work.

 

[Yjacket82]

1. That's irrelevant. My point is our base offense doesn't have a solution when there is an elite front seven, not that a great defense can shutdown an offense, regardless of style. Put differently - how would YOU scheme a response to the situation where we are getting our butts kicked in the front 7? Our offense is based to a much greater extent on us being able to dominate their front seven than other offenses that are designed to test DBs or OLB in coverage.

If the D is taking the BB option out of consideration and is also sealing the edge, we have to go to something else to move the ball. Look, I love our offense. I think its great and I think it really works. Maybe we would improve enough in the passing game at the next level to where we would be able to run slants and other quick hit passes to keep the D honest.

2. The corners are also largely irrelevant (though they will be much tougher to block). The safeties are the problem. There aren't nearly as many to the house runs in the pros as there are in college; the main reason for that is that the DBs speed at the pro level is ridiculous. Even when we hit on an option and had an opening on the edge I think it would close a lot more quickly than usual. Cutting 25 yard gains to 10-15 yard gains would make it a lot more difficult to quickly march downfield.

3. The Pitt game in 2013 was not that impressive of an offensive game. We scored 21 points and had only 276 yards rushing on 53 attempts. That's exactly my point. Our BBs combined for 26 carries and 127 yards - which would be fine if we were also passing for another 300 yards on top of that. Vad ran 17 times for 44 yards. At the pro level I don't think you'd have your ABs running for 90 yards on 6 carries.

Pitt was the same team that gave up 27 points to New Mexico, 55 points to Duke, 24 points to Old Dominion, 41 to Miami, 27 to Bowling Green, etc. So using them as an example - especially where they really only had Donald as a better than average player on defense - kinda proves my point. Imagine what we'd have done against them if you added an elite OLB.

Do you believe a current doormat team in a small market that cannot win consistently could be more effective trying flexbone? Win 4 games instead of 1? I believe if it is ever tried, this will be the scenario. It will not be a case of the Packers trying it. So then the question becomes: does a team that really stinks at all the things you talk about in a pro offense, achieve a bit more success using this offense. Maybe make a wide card spot every 4-5 years vs. never.

 

[GTRX7]

I can't go with you on this one Legal Jacket. Like others, I don't at all get why you think there are so many more great D players than O in the NFL. As others have pointed out, for every benefit you have pointed out about why Ds are better in the NFL than in college, I just can't fathom why you conclude that wouldn't be balanced by better O players. Yes, NFL D guys would be better at defeating blocks, but the guys who make the NFL on O do so because they are exceptionally great at blocking. We have unquestionably seen that running ability and blocking ability is not equal between all players, and in the NFL you would be able to get the best of the best to go up against the D. At Tech, we have amazingly done what we have done without elite talent (in fact worse talent than many of the factories we face). Can interior lineman tackle B-backs better? Yes. Are NFL backs quicker, faster, stronger, and harder to take down than college backs? Also yes. Are secondary players better in coverage and better able to defeat blocks? Yes. Are receivers in the NFL better and would A-backs that made an NFL roster in an option scheme be better at blocking? Also yes.

I also feel myself discounting much of what you say when you analyze our stats and say things like, "those stats would have looked bad if you ignore our 4 biggest runs" or "in this game, our stats only looked good because our A-backs had a big game, which wouldn't happen in the NFL." That seems to suggest an ignorance of how our offense works. The big play is often a big part of our offense. The more a defense sells out to create negative plays, the more they also open themselves up to huge runs. We also call the offense depending on what the D is giving. It is not a coincidence that the A-backs may have a big game where the QB and BBs are limited, that is how or offense works.