Schematic Advantage, Ralph, Bill O'Brien, and for some reason Silicon Valley

[RickStromFan]

This is where the pissin matches over trend of the program etc goes. Depends on how far back ya wanna go doesn’t it? We had a lot more inconsistency than I had expected. One or two disappointing seasons followed by darn good ones.

I see you are in favor of continuing the debate on the past.

lol there's no debate. Way more often were we a 7-win team than a 9-10 win team. It was more like 1 or 2 really good seasons followed by several disappointing ones.

 

[RickStromFan]

No it’s the mark of a good team you will face. Anyone that doesn’t spend extra time vs Clemson for example just doesn’t want to win. There is a point where it can become counter productive but that is true of most preparation.

edit: NVM - this is the wrong thread

 

[RickStromFan]

You are confused cheese---ask Strom for clarity of thought! :>) ND, ugag, and Clemson were confused as well.

LOL - none of those teams appeared to be very confused on the field against us.

 

[ncjacket79]

No one is saying they’re exactly the same. But there are similarities that make it easier to prepare for than our old offense. If that’s not the case why did so many teams spend so much time in the off-season preparing for it? Notre Dame hired a special consultant just to prepare for it.

If you haven’t seen it before it was a big problem. After a while though it was more of simply reminding guys of the principles of defending it, just like any other offense. Just look at our record over the last 5 years against divisional opponents. It pretty much reverted to who had the better players and who had a better day, just like any other offensive scheme.

But my point to all of this is no matter what offense you run it comes down to players and execution. The difference I see in how people react to this debate is whether you think that kind of schematic “advantage” is the only was we can be successful or whether you believe we can win playing differently. I happen to believe we can get enough good players to win using a more conventional style. We did before Paul and I don’t know why we can’t after his retirement.

 

[UgaBlows]

How many of the posts you are tired of seeing are a reply / answer to another poster’s direct statement or question?

I get being tired of a debate. What I don’t get on board with is a tolerance for one side of a debate but not another.

There is a strong *be positive or stfu* vibe on this forum.

Well thats kinda the way it should bewe’re talking about a football team that

So be positive or stfu?

sounds good, lets all try and be positive about the new and old coaching regimes.

 

[smokey_wasp]

If you haven’t seen it before it was a big problem. After a while though it was more of simply reminding guys of the principles of defending it, just like any other offense. Just look at our record over the last 5 years against divisional opponents. It pretty much reverted to who had the better players and who had a better day, just like any other offensive scheme.

But my point to all of this is no matter what offense you run it comes down to players and execution. The difference I see in how people react to this debate is whether you think that kind of schematic “advantage” is the only was we can be successful or whether you believe we can win playing differently. I happen to believe we can get enough good players to win using a more conventional style. We did before Paul and I don’t know why we can’t after his retirement.

I have come to believe that the schematic advantage meme was overblown and it probably only existed the first two years, or against opponents who had never seen it, or against bad teams we should beat anyway. The reason CPJ was able to win with less talent is because he is a good coach whose teams executed and played better than the sum of their parts. You can win with any offense, if you're good enough at teaching it and getting your players to execute it. You mentioned Cutcliffe, and he is an example of a coach who is very similar in what he achieves relative to talent, but doing it within a conventional scheme.

We've got to get over our obsession with scheme.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

If you haven’t seen it before it was a big problem. After a while though it was more of simply reminding guys of the principles of defending it, just like any other offense. Just look at our record over the last 5 years against divisional opponents. It pretty much reverted to who had the better players and who had a better day, just like any other offensive scheme.

But my point to all of this is no matter what offense you run it comes down to players and execution. The difference I see in how people react to this debate is whether you think that kind of schematic “advantage” is the only was we can be successful or whether you believe we can win playing differently. I happen to believe we can get enough good players to win using a more conventional style. We did before Paul and I don’t know why we can’t after his retirement.

I agree, you can’t have bad players and be good.

 

[Techster]

I have come to believe that the schematic advantage meme was overblown and it probably only existed the first two years, or against opponents who had never seen it, or against bad teams we should beat anyway. The reason CPJ was able to win with less talent is because he is a good coach whose teams executed and played better than the sum of their parts. You can win with any offense, if you're good enough at teaching it and getting your players to execute it. You mentioned Cutcliffe, and he is an example of a coach who is very similar in what he achieves relative to talent, but doing it within a conventional scheme.

We've got to get over our obsession with scheme.

CPJ's record against P5 teams has been posted in several places. I think he was slightly above .500? I think it's like any other offense, when you have good players (2008, 2009, 2014) scheme looks better. When you don't, you better have a good day. CPJ beat teams he shouldn't have, and he lost to teams he shouldn't have. In the end, it's just as you're alluding to: Scheme is sometimes overrated. Coaching matters a lot, but talent matters a lot as well.

I keep seeing that we'll be "another college offense". What exactly is a "college offense" these days? I think there's so much "stealing" and "borrowing" that goes on that every offense is unique if you know what to look for. For instance, we ran some Air Raid schemes during the scrimmage, we ran RPO, and we ran zone read plays. There's a risk that we become a jack of all trades and a master of none, but there's a bigger risk that the other side having to prep for things we might not emphasize that week because we're attacking their defensive scheme or certain areas of their defense due to a weakness. There's very few "pure" schemes being run...CPJ just happened to be one of them.

 

[takethepoints]

You mentioned Cutcliffe, and he is an example of a coach who is very similar in what he achieves relative to talent, but doing it within a conventional scheme.

We've got to get over our obsession with scheme.

A. Having an incredibly easy schedule helps. As I keep saying, we have to schedule for wins. Look at 2020. I don't know who was to blame for that monstrosity, but we have got to stop scheduling multiple teams that have a real good chance to whip us. Puke has taken the art of scheduling to a level we would do well to copy.

B. " We've got to get over our obsession with scheme." Hence becoming just about the only fanbase in Christendom that doesn't. I can see why people get tired of the controversies over the change in O systems, but this kind of kerfuffle is bog-standard for football fans at all levels. It'll probably get worse before it gets better. Winning more (see A above) would help, but only some.

 

[smokey_wasp]

A. Having an incredibly easy schedule helps. As I keep saying, we have to schedule for wins. Look at 2020. I don't know who was to blame for that monstrosity, but we have got to stop scheduling multiple teams that have a real good chance to whip us. Puke has taken the art of scheduling to a level we would do well to copy.

B. " We've got to get over our obsession with scheme." Hence becoming just about the only fanbase in Christendom that doesn't. I can see why people get tired of the controversies over the change in O systems, but this kind of kerfuffle is bog-standard for football fans at all levels. It'll probably get worse before it gets better. Winning more (see A above) would help, but only some.

Agree on scheduling. Our previous AD's have done us no favors there.

 

[GoldZ]

LOL - none of those teams appeared to be very confused on the field against us.

Looks like extra practice paid off, huh? Wonder why they felt it was necessary, in spite of obvious talent advantage. Logic 101 tells us we had a scheme advantage and it was beyond the first 2 years---ask CGC's Missy St. D.

 

[RickStromFan]

Looks like extra practice paid off, huh? Wonder why they felt it was necessary, in spite of obvious talent advantage. Logic 101 tells us we had a scheme advantage and it was beyond the first 2 years---ask CGC's Missy St. D.

lol - logic says that if it would've been an advantage, we should've won. Since it made Duke, et al focus even more on defeating us...with success...that's a pretty lousy definition of the word "advantage".

PS: Duke and Pitt didn't have an "obvious talent advantage" nor did Minnesota.

 

[ATL1]

I saw a different offense when Graham was on the field than when LJ was on the field. I’m sure they ran the same plays but it just looked different.

@Ibeeballin describes the Offense as Baylorish.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

As far as scheme goes and our past success and lack of it, we have to be able to execute not only our base offense but also the adjustments off of it. That’s why people called Coach Johnson the Chessmaster, he knew how to counter any defensive attack. But, he’s no chess master if the guys can’t execute the adjustments. So it’s really a combination of the coach’s skill plus the skills of the players. Coach Johnston always had the skill to make the call, the guys didn’t always have the skill to pull it off. Some of that was due to less than desired recruiting but a whole lot of it was due to bad luck as well.

 

[takethepoints]

As far as scheme goes and our past success and lack of it, we have to be able to execute not only our base offense but also the adjustments off of it. That’s why people called Coach Johnson the Chessmaster, he knew how to counter any defensive attack. But, he’s no chess master if the guys can’t execute the adjustments. So it’s really a combination of the coach’s skill plus the skills of the players. Coach Johnston always had the skill to make the call, the guys didn’t always have the skill to pull it off. Some of that was due to less than desired recruiting but a whole lot of it was due to bad luck as well.

Eggsackley. People here often mentioned how Paul would complain about missed assignments. Usually, if they didn't like the O, this was put this down to a) he's a curmudgeon or b) he can't coach the players up. The real reason is that the scheme requires really exact execution of multiple blocking schemes for the same play. That's why his practices weren't "fun" for the offense; they were essentially tutorial sessions with a lot of repetitious drill. This is also the reason why we usually did a lot better when the team had good talent and was experienced. And, yes, losing good players we had successfully recruited made a big difference, especially in the last two years.

I think this will be less the case as we go forward. Shotgun spread teams depend, as our coaches have repeatedly said, on getting good athletes in one-on-one situations and letting them do their thing. If they deliver on the athletes, then the scheme will work. It always has.

If.

 

[RickStromFan]

Eggsackley. People here often mentioned how Paul would complain about missed assignments. Usually, if they didn't like the O, this was put this down to a) he's a curmudgeon or b) he can't coach the players up. The real reason is that the scheme requires really exact execution of multiple blocking schemes for the same play. That's why his practices weren't "fun" for the offense; they were essentially tutorial sessions with a lot of repetitious drill. This is also the reason why we usually did a lot better when the team had good talent and was experienced. And, yes, losing good players we had successfully recruited made a big difference, especially in the last two years.

I see this all the time and it's applicable to every single offensive or defensive scheme in football. All teams will usually do a lot better when they have talent that is both good and experienced on either side of the ball.
A solid scheme minimizes the impact of a lack of either. The fact that the last 2 national championships were won with inexperienced freshman QBs (at least for a half for 'Bama lol) would indicate that those are solid offensive schemes that give those teams an advantage. It didn't matter how much practice you put up - those teams still moved the ball, esp. in 2nd & long situations.

 

[takethepoints]

I see this all the time and it's applicable to every single offensive or defensive scheme in football. All teams will usually do a lot better when they have talent that is both good and experienced on either side of the ball.
A solid scheme minimizes the impact of a lack of either. The fact that the last 2 national championships were won with inexperienced freshman QBs (at least for a half for 'Bama lol) would indicate that those are solid offensive schemes that give those teams an advantage. It didn't matter how much practice you put up - those teams still moved the ball, esp. in 2nd & long situations.

If you mean that everybody practices, then you're right. If you mean that the spread option doesn't take more practice on what is necessary to make plays work, you're wrong. But then you never really understood how the offense worked.

But don't worry! Shotgun offenses are much simpler.

 

[RickStromFan]

If you mean that everybody practices, then you're right. If you mean that the spread option doesn't take more practice on what is necessary to make plays work, you're wrong. But then you never really understood how the offense worked.

But don't worry! Shotgun offenses are much simpler.

I totally understood how the offense worked. Unfortunately, so did half our schedule almost every year...and more than that a few times. After the first couple of seasons, it provided no advantage whatsoever.

It's that attitude - that PJ's offense was smarter and better than everyone else and 'you just don't understand it' - that's coming to the forefront in so many pro-PJ responses. Every single time, the pro-PJ guy makes it personal and puts themselves on a little pedestal and at the end of the day, a personal insult is always the first sign of a lost debate.

If the game is checkers, it's asinine to try to play chess.

 

[takethepoints]

I totally understood how the offense worked. Unfortunately, so did half our schedule almost every year...and more than that a few times. After the first couple of seasons, it provided no advantage whatsoever.

It's that attitude - that PJ's offense was smarter and better than everyone else and 'you just don't understand it' - that's coming to the forefront in so many pro-PJ responses. Every single time, the pro-PJ guy makes it personal and puts themselves on a little pedestal and at the end of the day, a personal insult is always the first sign of a lost debate.

If the game is checkers, it's asinine to try to play chess.

Oh, Jeebus. Now can't even banter with you. Ok, I'll keep that in mind going forward.

As to not understanding the spread option, here's an example. I call to your attention the multiple times you have said that the offense had become a series of "QB keepers". I reminded you twice that there was only one QB keep play in the whole offense that we saw a lot of last year: the QB power sweep that Tobias ran effectively in the USF, VT, and UNC games. In those games we really were a "QB keeper" offense, largely because Paul didn't think Tobias had the full package down pat. In the rest of the games, what you were seeing was - usually - the inside veer where opposing Ds were trying to forbid the pitch. This is an old D strategy with the spread option: make the QB run and try to run down his tank. Everybody here who looked at a Longest Day game film knows this was what was going on.

Now actually, I suspect that you know this is what was happening, but you thought the "QB keeper" meme was more effective in opposing the spread option and, not coincidently, Paul. But, of course, all I have to go on is what you say and that shows a misunderstanding of what the O was up to.

Well, enough. I'll stop responding to your posts on this. On other matters, not so much.

 

[RickStromFan]

Oh, Jeebus. Now can't even banter with you. Ok, I'll keep that in mind going forward.

As to not understanding the spread option, here's an example. I call to your attention the multiple times you have said that the offense had become a series of "QB keepers". I reminded you twice that there was only one QB keep play in the whole offense that we saw a lot of last year: the QB power sweep that Tobias ran effectively in the USF, VT, and UNC games. In those games we really were a "QB keeper" offense, largely because Paul didn't think Tobias had the full package down pat. In the rest of the games, what you were seeing was - usually - the inside veer where opposing Ds were trying to forbid the pitch. This is an old D strategy with the spread option: make the QB run and try to run down his tank. Everybody here who looked at a Longest Day game film knows this was what was going on.

Now actually, I suspect that you know this is what was happening, but you thought the "QB keeper" meme was more effective in opposing the spread option and, not coincidently, Paul. But, of course, all I have to go on is what you say and that shows a misunderstanding of what the O was up to.

Well, enough. I'll stop responding to your posts on this. On other matters, not so much.

"meme more effective in opposing the spread option"? LOL - what in God's name are you talking about? What meme am I missing?

I don't care what pretty colors and elitist terms you'd like to associate to it but when the QB has 30+ runs/game, please stop trying to sell this as any sort of "schematic advantage" by an alleged "offensive genius". We literally could barely complete passes of any length the past 2 years. PJ himself lamented this in several post-game radio interviews. A near-complete inability to complete a forward pass in the year 2018 is a disadvantage no matter how it's sliced.

And you can banter with me - just stay on-topic and stop trying to make this some personal attack on my fandom or football intellect that were made at the other whiny site echo chamber. If I point out Duke's recent dominance and deciphering of the Scheme, you may not like that but it's not a personal insult of you. I know it's hard because, literally, every. single. time. in a PJ debate, the pro-PJ, pro-TO poster ends up first resorting to attacking the poster rather than responding to the debate at hand. Frankly, it gets old but I got used to it on that whiny other site that boots out anyone who didn't worship PJ and his offense. I've never seen such strange sycophancy before.

Look, You think it gave us some sort of great advantage. I don't. Regardless of either of those opinions, it's gone. Time to move on.