Started By
Message
OC Discussion Thread
Posted on 12/1/13 at 10:41 pm
Posted on 12/1/13 at 10:41 pm
Post all updates, etc in this thread. 
5
Posted on 12/1/13 at 11:02 pm to gatordmb89
Muschamp NEEDS to give Kerwin Bell a call.
Either that or promote Joker.
Either that or promote Joker.
Posted on 12/1/13 at 11:16 pm to boXerrumble
So it sounds like we are going to go to an up-tempo, spread. Wyoming HC that just resigned is getting a lot of attention as is the USC OC.
I really hope we tried to get Norvell from ASU.
I really hope we tried to get Norvell from ASU.
Posted on 12/1/13 at 11:23 pm to boXerrumble
UF will need to be turned down by several to go after Bell or promote Joker.
Posted on 12/1/13 at 11:24 pm to BasedGator
Based on what WM has told HS recruits, it seems like it.
Posted on 12/2/13 at 12:33 am to gatordmb89
Our coach may be finally growing up. If true, not only could it be good for the hire, but it may lead to Boom getting out of his way and turning into the coach I think he has the potential to be.
Posted on 12/2/13 at 5:49 am to BasedGator
quote:Dave Christensen. My concern with him is Gary Pinkle mentored him for 16 years. Pinkle probably knows Christensen's tendencies inside-out.
Wyoming HC that just resigned
quote:Clay Helton. I think this would be a good hire. He'll most-likely be looking for a job soon (I doubt USC keeps Coach O as HC)
USC OC
quote:Would be good as well
Mike Norvell from ASU
Posted on 12/2/13 at 7:34 am to The Nino
My guess is the fans will be blind sided. So far the media had put out Kiffin and Helton.
SC guys are more than likely "smoke screens".
SC guys are more than likely "smoke screens".
Posted on 12/2/13 at 8:31 am to gatordmb89
quote:
My guess is the fans will be blind sided. So far the media had put out Kiffin and Helton.
SC guys are more than likely "smoke screens".
I can not see Kiffin working for Muschamp.
Edit: Vol game week would be very interesting.
This post was edited on 12/2/13 at 8:32 am
Posted on 12/2/13 at 9:39 am to BloodSweat&Beers
Uptempo spread? Sure sure. I know this is going to take some thinking and crunching ideas...but I will try.
An uptempo spread offense has a very negative result on your defense JUST BECAUSE of its concept. You take very little time off clock and have defense on field longer. Muschamp just got through building a powerful defense and if you think he is going to get into 44-34 shootouts...I have land just south of Marco Island to sell ya.
You don't need to take my word for it...just check some of these fast tempo style offenses and they ALL lack stout defenses. AU had great offense this year but played pattycake schedule and ended up 11-1 (SAME AS UF LAST YEAR).
You want excitement? Go to the carnival or state fair...you want powerful hard nose defense and a powerful offense? Stayed tuned. Bama, Girls School, LSU (which didn't have the defense this year)UGA (ditto for defense...but passing game and RB superb)...etc etc are examples of teams that don't have to rely on fast paced fluffy offenses with core concept based on avoiding contact.
Boom isn't going to wreck his defense to sell his team to the fans. Again...don't take my word for it..check the defensive stats of true spread uptempo teams and how many points they give up. Even with decimated defense and offense we kept the girls school within our area code because of defense.
An uptempo spread offense has a very negative result on your defense JUST BECAUSE of its concept. You take very little time off clock and have defense on field longer. Muschamp just got through building a powerful defense and if you think he is going to get into 44-34 shootouts...I have land just south of Marco Island to sell ya.
You don't need to take my word for it...just check some of these fast tempo style offenses and they ALL lack stout defenses. AU had great offense this year but played pattycake schedule and ended up 11-1 (SAME AS UF LAST YEAR).
You want excitement? Go to the carnival or state fair...you want powerful hard nose defense and a powerful offense? Stayed tuned. Bama, Girls School, LSU (which didn't have the defense this year)UGA (ditto for defense...but passing game and RB superb)...etc etc are examples of teams that don't have to rely on fast paced fluffy offenses with core concept based on avoiding contact.
Boom isn't going to wreck his defense to sell his team to the fans. Again...don't take my word for it..check the defensive stats of true spread uptempo teams and how many points they give up. Even with decimated defense and offense we kept the girls school within our area code because of defense.
Posted on 12/2/13 at 10:53 am to reel_gator8
quote:
An uptempo spread offense has a very negative result on your defense JUST BECAUSE of its concept. You take very little time off clock and have defense on field longer. Muschamp just got through building a powerful defense and if you think he is going to get into 44-34 shootouts...I have land just south of Marco Island to sell ya.
You know else has had a negative result on our defense?--the same awful offense we've put out for the last 3 years. I would welcome shootouts. If teams get behind or have to pass to keep up, we've recruited quite well in the secondary. We may not shut people out, but at this point I just want to win again.
Posted on 12/2/13 at 1:15 pm to Jorts R Us
quote:
You know else has had a negative result on our defense?--the same awful offense we've put out for the last 3 years.
BINGO..............you know what kind of offense we need? One that scores around 28 pts per game minimum. What would our record have been had we done that? Even the games we gave up more than 28 would have been different had we been able to put up at least 28. Spread, power, fast break, clock control, who cares, just get 28 on the board and let the defense do it's thing.
Posted on 12/2/13 at 1:22 pm to UFMatt
quote:
Spread, power, fast break, clock control, who cares, just get 28 on the board and let the defense do it's thing.
this
Posted on 12/2/13 at 2:40 pm to reel_gator8
We don't necessarily need an uptempo offense. We need an effective offense. Whether it's HUNH or a more conservative variation of the spread (like the one Mizzou has run this season), I don't care.
The ball-control, pro-style offense hasn't worked under Muschamp, and isn't going to work with our personnel. We have a poor OL and a QB who is born to play the spread.
The main objective of the game is to score more than the opponent. If we sacrifice a little bit of defense in order to drastically improve our offense, so be it. And, either way, we won our '06 championship mainly because of our defense, and that was with the spread. The idea that having a fast-paced offense precludes you from fielding a solid defense is a logical fallacy.
The ball-control, pro-style offense hasn't worked under Muschamp, and isn't going to work with our personnel. We have a poor OL and a QB who is born to play the spread.
The main objective of the game is to score more than the opponent. If we sacrifice a little bit of defense in order to drastically improve our offense, so be it. And, either way, we won our '06 championship mainly because of our defense, and that was with the spread. The idea that having a fast-paced offense precludes you from fielding a solid defense is a logical fallacy.
This post was edited on 12/2/13 at 2:42 pm
Posted on 12/2/13 at 4:11 pm to gatordmb89
Tony Franklin?
Posted on 12/2/13 at 4:31 pm to Bacciagaloop
I haven't seen his name anywhere really. Does he have ties to Muschamp somehow.
Posted on 12/2/13 at 4:53 pm to Jorts R Us
quote:
You know else has had a negative result on our defense?--the same awful offense we've put out for the last 3 years. I would welcome shootouts. If teams get behind or have to pass to keep up, we've recruited quite well in the secondary. We may not shut people out, but at this point I just want to win again.
Well our offense was a negative mainly because of inability to score points and make teams abandon their gameplans...something almost EVERY defense wants. But you better check stats and get back with me...look at the number of snaps and time of possession of our games up til 3rd string qb had to be inserted as starter. Whats those stats did was allow us not to be beat by wider margins...but still of course we didn't win games either.
No one in their right mind would have watched our games and said our offense was efficient and fun to watch...theres not enough alcohol in my bar to do that. But I also looked at big picture and knew several things 1) Driskel was a first year starter last year and split reps all the way to the opening gun of the season...hard to get desired results that way and for the most part we protected him by playing very carefully and avoid 3rd and longs by running the ball more. 2) 2013 we had the roof collapse on us and I just cant help but wonder how we would have done if Driskel, C. Green and Moore and Humphries hadnt either season ending or game missing injuries? Matt Jones not available for the SCUM game..etc etc.
Posted on 12/2/13 at 5:10 pm to roadGator
they coached at AU together... he also coached at Kentucky... apparently his Air Raid offense at Cal is like a top notch offense.
Posted on 12/2/13 at 5:26 pm to Bacciagaloop
I don't believe you'll see us go from pro-style to air raid so based on that I wouldn't think so anyway.
Posted on 12/2/13 at 5:58 pm to Bacciagaloop
quote:As an Auburn fan, I don't advise going the Tony Franklin route. True, our staff didn't give him much of a chance and our players didn't buy in 100%, but he isn't a SEC quality OC. His style was very undisciplined while he was here and his OL scheme would get destroyed vs. SEC DLs
they coached at AU together... he also coached at Kentucky... apparently his Air Raid offense at Cal is like a top notch offense.
Page 1 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News