Rich Rod Offense

[noeynox]

Fairfield, i agree with the first part of you're post. Probably prefer the ratio be 300/150, but generally i agree. With the second part, UConn has been to slow to adapt to the fact that recent rule changes have been made that make passing the ball easier.

 

[TouchdownHusky]

Stop. You are going to be accused of wanting to run Mouse Davis version of the run and shoot.

It's cold and windy. We must be a power running team. It is the proven way to win here.

Darn. We had been in agreement on quite a few things. The cold and windy stuff is minimal. We don't have to be a power running team (besides being a figment of nostalgia, UConn would have to be able to recruit the best 11 players on the field to consistently win with that approach). It may be the proven way to win here if 7-5 or 8-4 is considered the gold standard. Just a quick look back at the last 10 quarters of this season, showed that with a moxy QB and a few quality receivers that UConn could actually score with some frequency. As for defense, they'll usually look better when the offense is putting points up on the board. Much better than having the defense and special teams scoring more TDs than the offense.

 

[ZooCougar]

Stop. You are going to be accused of wanting to run Mouse Davis version of the run and shoot.

It's cold and windy. We must be a power running team. It is the proven way to win here.

The truth is, the best years for us is when we were more balanced. We need an offense that creates space and can attack all parts of the field. That includes running the ball a fair bit.

 

[noeynox]

The truth is, the best years for us is when we were more balanced. We need an offense that creates space and can attack all parts of the field. That includes running the ball a fair bit.

I'm not in disagreement. I just don't want an offense that rushes for 165yds, and passes for 160. That is what it felt like on our way to the Fiesta Bowl. When we fell behind early and were forced to pass, we looked like a fish out of water. Was OK better? Without a doubt.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

I'm not in disagreement. I just don't want an offense that rushes for 165yds, and passes for 160. That is what it felt like on our way to the Fiesta Bowl. When we fell behind early and were forced to pass, we looked like a fish out of water. Was OK better? Without a doubt.

I absolutely don't want that either. I also believe that softening up a defense through the air to allow for the physical running game an easier path to push around the defense is a beneficial strategy. I don't want to be inept in any facet of the game (hell, I don't even want to be average), I also don't want to have an offense that is not capable of moving the chains, taking six, seven, eight minutes off the clock, ending up putting the ball in the end zone. There are too many offenses today that cannot score without the big play. It is nice to have the big play in your arsenal (and the threat hanging over the opposing defense's head at all times) but if this is the only way you can put the ball in the end zone eventually you will be in trouble.

 

[FAIRTIDES]

And it eludes Michigan State and UCF and Alabama and Stanford.

But Baylor and Arizona score a lot of points!!! Yipee.

We have neither lineage, fan base or conference affiliation to compare with Michigan State, BAMA or Stanford. If the goal is to impress for the next round of CR, it will be necessary to not only win, but to draw fannies and eye balls. Baylor is fun to watch. Texas A & M is fun to watch. RR's West Virginia teams were fun to watch. All the offense-favorable rule changes cater to fans who will no longer sit through a three-hour slog, played between the forties.

I still believe that defense and a running game win. But, reality is that it's not just football that "drives the bus." It's football as a compelling product that fulfills the needs of a highly competitive entertainment market. Defense and running might win, but exciting offense sells tickets, draws TV viewers and provides an environment that's interesting to recruits. And, it can also win.

 

[sdhusky]

We have neither lineage, fan base or conference affiliation to compare with Michigan State, BAMA or Stanford. If the goal is to impress for the next round of CR, it will be necessary to not only win, but to draw fannies and eye balls. Baylor is fun to watch. Texas A & M is fun to watch. RR's West Virginia teams were fun to watch. All the offense-favorable rule changes cater to fans who will no longer sit through a three-hour slog, played between the forties.

I still believe that defense and a running game win. But, reality is that it's not just football that "drives the bus." It's football as a compelling product that fulfills the needs of a highly competitive entertainment market. Defense and running might win, but exciting offense sells tickets, draws TV viewers and provides an environment that's interesting to recruits. And, it can also win.

I agree. If we brought in someone like that I would be fine with it.

But we didn't and to suggest that's the only way to win is flat out wrong.

 

[BG79]

Why is having an exciting offense AND a great defense mutually exclusive? The best thing the offense can do for a good D is put points on the board and do it fast. It forces the other team to lose their playcalling balance and become more predictable and succumb to sacks, interceptions and other turnovers. Diaco's statement of wanting an offense to resemble what he hated to prepare against made me feel extremely optimistic about the future. I feel currently the rules favor fast paced offenses that don't let the defense substitute and I hope we implement something like that.

 

[noeynox]

I agree. If we brought in someone like that I would be fine with it.

But we didn't and to suggest that's the only way to win is flat out wrong.

We dont know what type of offensive scheme Diaco has in mind. We do know he brought an OC, from a mac school, and mac schools like to fhrow the ball. At CMU, Dan Lefevre comes to mind.

 

[sdhusky]

We dont know what type of offensive scheme Diaco has in mind. We do know he brought an OC, from a mac school, and mac schools like to fhrow the ball. At CMU, Dan Lefevre comes to mind.

Good point. Kelly does throw it around a great deal but he also spread the field to open up running lanes.

I have no problem if BD adopts that kind of offense.

 

[BlueMAB]

Once again, UConn's problem wasn't that we didn't throw the ball enough. Our problem is that we can't throw the ball well. Consider that and the fact PGDL ruined a solid running game, and you have one of the worst offenses in the country. However, take a look at the pass attempts in the charts below. Our offense hasn't sucked the last few years because we don't throw the ball enough, it sucks because we throw too many interceptions, too few completions, and can't run the ball for $#!t. We don't have the speed to stretch the field, nor the o-line to protect the QB long enough to get guys down there anyway. Now CC may be a good QB for us, but does he have the arm to throw the long ball? That's an obvious area for improvement.

Our offense isn't too one dimensional, it's no dimensional. We can't do anything right. For years TDH and a few others have beaten, buried, exhumed, and beaten this horse some more.

I don't want Edsall's offense back, I want an offense that is balanced, but it's not "great insight" to simply say we should take advantage of the rules and throw the ball more. It ignores the fact we have thrown the ball more, and the offense has literally gone backwards.

http://www.ncaa.com/stats/football/fbs/current/team/465/p3

Rank Team G Pass Att Pass
1 Florida St. 13 407 178.29
2 Baylor 13 448 172.46
3 Louisville 13 439 171.93
4 Texas A&M 13 489 169.90
5 Oregon 13 405 164.91
6 LSU 13 326



Rank Team G Pass Att Pass
101 TCU 12 419 114.62
102 Idaho 12 424 113.25
103 UConn 12 439 112.49
104 Texas St. 12 300 112.10
105 Eastern Mich. 12 336 111.82
106 Purdue 12 426 111.75
107 Syracuse 13 405 111.02

 

[noeynox]

Once again, UConn's problem wasn't that we didn't throw the ball enough. Our problem is that we can't throw the ball well. Consider that and the fact PGDL ruined a solid running game, and you have one of the worst offenses in the country. However, take a look at the pass attempts in the charts below. Our offense hasn't sucked the last few years because we don't throw the ball enough, it sucks because we throw too many interceptions, too few completions, and can't run the ball for $#!t. We don't have the speed to stretch the field, nor the o-line to protect the QB long enough to get guys down there anyway. Now CC may be a good QB for us, but does he have the arm to throw the long ball? That's an obvious area for improvement.

Our offense isn't too one dimensional, it's no dimensional. We can't do anything right. For years TDH and a few others have beaten, buried, exhumed, and beaten this horse some more.

I don't want Edsall's offense back, I want an offense that is balanced, but it's not "great insight" to simply say we should take advantage of the rules and throw the ball more. It ignores the fact we have thrown the ball more, and the offense has literally gone backwards.

http://www.ncaa.com/stats/football/fbs/current/team/465/p3

Rank Team G Pass Att Pass
1 Florida St. 13 407 178.29
2 Baylor 13 448 172.46
3 Louisville 13 439 171.93
4 Texas A&M 13 489 169.90
5 Oregon 13 405 164.91
6 LSU 13 326



RankTeamGPass AttPass
101TCU12419114.62
102Idaho12424113.25
103UConn12439112.49
104Texas St.12300112.10
105Eastern Mich.12336111.82
106Purdue12426111.75
107Syracuse13405111.02

Numbers like that for us are skewed because we had games we were so far behind we started throwing the ball with reckless abandon to try and catch up. UCF and Cincinnati games come to mind. In year two PGDL was basically run up the gut on first down, run up the gut on 2nd down, pass attempt on 3rd and 7. If you read the thread the overwhelming majority favor a balanced offense. It may not be great insight, but for far too long, through either coaching or recruiting, UConn has made the passing game look way too dificult. How do MAC teams recruit 300ok yd passers and 1000k yd receivers with such regularity, and we just had Geremy Davis become our first 1000k yd receiver in the FBS era? That doesn't even make sense. Our approach to offense has been way to slow to adapt.

I bet we see a marked improvement regardless of the base offense we run.

 

[BlueMAB]

Not buying the argument that the numbers are skewed. We ran the ball less than we threw it, period. We were behind so often because we couldn't run or throw the ball well, not because we weren't a diverse offense. Saracuse threw less than we did and with less success and they beat another P5 team in a bowl game.

 

[TouchdownHusky]

We have neither lineage, fan base or conference affiliation to compare with Michigan State, BAMA or Stanford. If the goal is to impress for the next round of CR, it will be necessary to not only win, but to draw fannies and eye balls. Baylor is fun to watch. Texas A & M is fun to watch. RR's West Virginia teams were fun to watch. All the offense-favorable rule changes cater to fans who will no longer sit through a three-hour slog, played between the forties.

I still believe that defense and a running game win. But, reality is that it's not just football that "drives the bus." It's football as a compelling product that fulfills the needs of a highly competitive entertainment market. Defense and running might win, but exciting offense sells tickets, draws TV viewers and provides an environment that's interesting to recruits. And, it can also win.

That's what I'm talking about. Terrific insight. Great post.

 

[noeynox]

How'd that ball control Alabama offense do last night against Oklahoma's aerial attack? Just kidding. But even big, bad, Bama had difficulty covering athletes in space. The few times OKU tried to run the option Bamas speed blew it up for negative yardage. And the pass interference call against Bama on the last real OKU, drive? Football has changed. We need to adapt.

 

[TouchdownHusky]

Why is having an exciting offense AND a great defense mutually exclusive? The best thing the offense can do for a good D is put points on the board and do it fast. It forces the other team to lose their playcalling balance and become more predictable and succumb to sacks, interceptions and other turnovers. Diaco's statement of wanting an offense to resemble what he hated to prepare against made me feel extremely optimistic about the future. I feel currently the rules favor fast paced offenses that don't let the defense substitute and I hope we implement something like that.

Another terrific post. Like it or not, UConn is gonna have to enter the era of modern college football. Today's game ain't your grandfather's football. Heck the bad news for Oklahoma is they gave up 31 points on defense (terrible right?), the good news is the put up 45 points on the scoreboard to win. Not your 14-10 epic struggles of the 1960 Green Bay Packers, but just another example of how the college game is played today. Exciting not just to fans, but to the eyes of potential recruits - now and a few years down the line.

 

[TouchdownHusky]

How'd that ball control Alabama offense do last night against Oklahoma's aerial attack? Just kidding. But even big, bad, Bama had difficulty covering athletes in space. The few times OKU tried to run the option Bamas speed blew it up for negative yardage. And the pass interference call against Bama on the last real OKU, drive? Football has changed. We need to adapt.

Woop, there it is! Woop, there it is! noeynox, you couldn't be more correct. The fans from "the land of steady habits" are going to have to step out of character. There's a whole HUGE part of this country that is successfully doing things in the modern era - football being just one of them. Time to join the rest of the country.

 

[noeynox]

The way OU threw the ball had BAMA fans REALLY Frustrated. Boomer sooner.

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsport...-female-bama-fan-goes-wwe-on-male-sooner-fan/