Started By
Message
Offense Fix
Posted on 11/17/14 at 11:28 am
Posted on 11/17/14 at 11:28 am
We all know the defense needs to be scrapped and started over fresh. But the offense while performing decent for the most part has been bleh and awful in some games as well. Looking back at the different offenses Sumlin has put together the main factor is some tempo. I think we will see our offense morph into more of a pro style offense in uptempo mode going forward. Do you think this is doable with our personnel and would it work?
3
Posted on 11/17/14 at 11:32 am to AgBQ00
quote:
I think we will see our offense morph into more of a pro style offense
why?
Posted on 11/17/14 at 11:39 am to tmc94
Just looking at Sumlin offenses dating all the way back to A&M after he took over for babers the common denominator is an aspect of tempo. Now this part is a guess on my part but he may see the need of the defense facing a more pro style attack in practice to succeed in conference so why not keep the advantages he loves with tempo but adapt to a more physical style offense.
Posted on 11/17/14 at 11:49 am to AgBQ00
We're still a top 10 offense. There's no way we're going to completely change our entire offensive philosophy based on a few moderate offensive performances.
Posted on 11/17/14 at 11:52 am to Projectpat
We changed alot about the offense as the year went on to try and help the defense. But like i said i am just spit balling and think we may see some schematic changes going forward. And i could be completely wrong as well. Mainly just put this out there for discussions sake.
Posted on 11/17/14 at 11:59 am to Projectpat
quote:
We're still a top 10 offense. There's no way we're going to completely change our entire offensive philosophy based on a few moderate offensive performances.
26th in YPG
23rd in PPG
Something is not working right. There needs to be some changes when you have this much talent and this is what you are known for.
Posted on 11/17/14 at 12:03 pm to AgBQ00
ok, well, a few things...
1) Pro Style term was coined back in the 70/80s when most teams ran the same offense in the NFL. Today, that isn't really true. Many different offenses are run so the term is somewhat generic. I'm going to assume you are talking 90s Cowboys with 21 personnel as a base
2) Sumlin is pretty head strong. He doesn't much care what other people think and based on my understanding honestly doesn't believe what you stated about needing a kind of offense to develop a defense. In fact he rejects it out of hand (for good or bad). He has a vision and he sells it every day
3) the current roster is not well stocked to run 21 personnel. We have no real fullback or TE. We'll have a hybrid TE in Jordan Davis next year but not a true inline guy (Cam Clear was that guy). We could certainly adapt, but those offenses are rarely great without elite players at those positions.
4) We aren't recruiting to it now so there is no evidence we are moving the offense at all. I think Sumlin will adapt to his personnel. It's his way. But he picks that personnel. If he's able to get a kid like Kaden Smith in 2016, I think we'd see more 11 personnel packages. But I don't think he's going to shoehorn the current roster into a new offense
A lot of Ags have heartburn about this offense and they project a change with no real basis (other than want). Many said we'd never run it when Sumlin was hired. He likes it because
- it's incredible simplicity. It makes it a great college system because you are limited in practice time and there is such roster turnover year to year
- it's easy to recruit to. Things like OL can be fairly interchangeable which is important and allows you to recruit the best (mostly OT). WRs while they look for certain skill sets, are much easier to switch positions to get your best personnel. With 1 TB, 1 FB, 1 TE, 2 WRs, there are so many different kinds of players they aren't very interchangeable on the fly. You are redesigning an offense to do it
There is no magic elixir of an offense. No one way to do things. You can hear Sumlin talk about this. You build a system, recruit to that system, and honestly the good ones make it work. What you don't do is change systems constantly. We've had some rough patches this year, no doubt. But we've also broke in 2 new QBs, quite a few WRs, and our OL had a disappointing year. That's a recipe for disaster in any system.
1) Pro Style term was coined back in the 70/80s when most teams ran the same offense in the NFL. Today, that isn't really true. Many different offenses are run so the term is somewhat generic. I'm going to assume you are talking 90s Cowboys with 21 personnel as a base
2) Sumlin is pretty head strong. He doesn't much care what other people think and based on my understanding honestly doesn't believe what you stated about needing a kind of offense to develop a defense. In fact he rejects it out of hand (for good or bad). He has a vision and he sells it every day
3) the current roster is not well stocked to run 21 personnel. We have no real fullback or TE. We'll have a hybrid TE in Jordan Davis next year but not a true inline guy (Cam Clear was that guy). We could certainly adapt, but those offenses are rarely great without elite players at those positions.
4) We aren't recruiting to it now so there is no evidence we are moving the offense at all. I think Sumlin will adapt to his personnel. It's his way. But he picks that personnel. If he's able to get a kid like Kaden Smith in 2016, I think we'd see more 11 personnel packages. But I don't think he's going to shoehorn the current roster into a new offense
A lot of Ags have heartburn about this offense and they project a change with no real basis (other than want). Many said we'd never run it when Sumlin was hired. He likes it because
- it's incredible simplicity. It makes it a great college system because you are limited in practice time and there is such roster turnover year to year
- it's easy to recruit to. Things like OL can be fairly interchangeable which is important and allows you to recruit the best (mostly OT). WRs while they look for certain skill sets, are much easier to switch positions to get your best personnel. With 1 TB, 1 FB, 1 TE, 2 WRs, there are so many different kinds of players they aren't very interchangeable on the fly. You are redesigning an offense to do it
There is no magic elixir of an offense. No one way to do things. You can hear Sumlin talk about this. You build a system, recruit to that system, and honestly the good ones make it work. What you don't do is change systems constantly. We've had some rough patches this year, no doubt. But we've also broke in 2 new QBs, quite a few WRs, and our OL had a disappointing year. That's a recipe for disaster in any system.
Posted on 11/17/14 at 12:12 pm to tmc94
I was thinking more single back single tight end sets zone blocking run scheme than the 90's offense you were describing. Still a simple concept.
Posted on 11/17/14 at 12:14 pm to AgBQ00
There is no way we are changing offensive scheme. Only way I would think we see a drastic change is if we land a mega RB prospect combined with injuries or attrition at QB. Neither appears to be happening
I don't have a problem with our offense, it's been more than good enough to win the last two weeks. There are individual play calls I question but not the scheme. Allen is still a true freshman with three starts under his belt.
The defense...
I don't have a problem with our offense, it's been more than good enough to win the last two weeks. There are individual play calls I question but not the scheme. Allen is still a true freshman with three starts under his belt.
The defense...
Posted on 11/17/14 at 1:40 pm to AgBQ00
I can't name 1 of the top 4 WRs who I'd prefer to sideline in favor of Clear.
We're staffed to run a 10 or 20, that's really it.
The offensive set is NOT the problem. Aside from the Missouri game, we have not had problems punching it in when we need short yardage in the redzone. Our problem has been OL, coaching, and youth at QB. WRs generally speaking haven't been the main issue, and putting in a TE is not going to help us significantly if we can't stop a 4 man rush consistently already.
We're staffed to run a 10 or 20, that's really it.
The offensive set is NOT the problem. Aside from the Missouri game, we have not had problems punching it in when we need short yardage in the redzone. Our problem has been OL, coaching, and youth at QB. WRs generally speaking haven't been the main issue, and putting in a TE is not going to help us significantly if we can't stop a 4 man rush consistently already.
Posted on 11/17/14 at 2:01 pm to tmc94
Great post tmc yet again. So many Ags want to shift back towards the old style of defense over offense, but if anything this season shows me we need to go all in on offense.
The kind of talent it would take to have an elite SEC defense would take YEARS to build via recruiting. And that is only if we get access to that kind of defensive recruit for that long of time- if Texas or someone else local gets elite while we are building it will all be flushed down the tubes. We simply don't have the margin of error to ever be a defensive minded team again. Or, let me say, until we win a few modern national titles we don't have the margin of error to be a defensive first team.
Unlike offensive, defense is obivously WAY more about talent than coaching (or otherwise Snyder would have ruined our best player). I don't see an A&M stockpiling that kind of D talent in my lifetime, at least not without a lot of success on the field caused by a great offense.
Meanwhile on offense we have rebuilt the thing TWICE this year alone and we still lead the SEC in many categories. Unlike on D it is easier to mask deficiencies in talent and expect good results without years of coaching. We need to jump up the food chain quickly, and offense is still our ticket. The real question for me this offseason is not if we are going to focus on defense at the expense of offense as that won't happen until Sumlin is gone. The real question is:
At what point does being a good recruiter not make up for being a poor coach?
From the start Sumlin put a priority on good recruiters, and it brought us a great result last February. But now we are at a point where it doesn't matter how good of a recruiter a Snyder is and his crappy coaching hurts more on the recruiting trail.
Or look at WRs- they are terrible. Dropped balls everywhere. I think I could coach them better. But we can't make a change at that position because our best recruiter coaches WRs. I mean, that is a problem. Can't Beaty have some job that doesn't actually coach? Of course the answer is no because any job like that would be a demotion for him and his career. But the Catch 22 created in that position is a microcosm of the recruiter vs coaching issue that is at the core of where we go from here.
The kind of talent it would take to have an elite SEC defense would take YEARS to build via recruiting. And that is only if we get access to that kind of defensive recruit for that long of time- if Texas or someone else local gets elite while we are building it will all be flushed down the tubes. We simply don't have the margin of error to ever be a defensive minded team again. Or, let me say, until we win a few modern national titles we don't have the margin of error to be a defensive first team.
Unlike offensive, defense is obivously WAY more about talent than coaching (or otherwise Snyder would have ruined our best player). I don't see an A&M stockpiling that kind of D talent in my lifetime, at least not without a lot of success on the field caused by a great offense.
Meanwhile on offense we have rebuilt the thing TWICE this year alone and we still lead the SEC in many categories. Unlike on D it is easier to mask deficiencies in talent and expect good results without years of coaching. We need to jump up the food chain quickly, and offense is still our ticket. The real question for me this offseason is not if we are going to focus on defense at the expense of offense as that won't happen until Sumlin is gone. The real question is:
At what point does being a good recruiter not make up for being a poor coach?
From the start Sumlin put a priority on good recruiters, and it brought us a great result last February. But now we are at a point where it doesn't matter how good of a recruiter a Snyder is and his crappy coaching hurts more on the recruiting trail.
Or look at WRs- they are terrible. Dropped balls everywhere. I think I could coach them better. But we can't make a change at that position because our best recruiter coaches WRs. I mean, that is a problem. Can't Beaty have some job that doesn't actually coach? Of course the answer is no because any job like that would be a demotion for him and his career. But the Catch 22 created in that position is a microcosm of the recruiter vs coaching issue that is at the core of where we go from here.
This post was edited on 11/17/14 at 2:07 pm
Posted on 11/17/14 at 2:40 pm to ShaneTheLegLechler
quote:
Only way I would think we see a drastic change is if we land a mega RB prospect
SoSo Jamabo?
Posted on 11/17/14 at 2:42 pm to cardboardboxer
I'm not sure how dropped balls are a coaching problem at the WR level. How do you teach someone to catch a ball better? Keep your elbows in and catch it with your body? After that, other than just drills, what fancy tips are the coaches going to use to stop the drops?'
I think its more at the QB and equipment manager level. Someone ain't splurging on the gloves.
Half kidding.
I think its more at the QB and equipment manager level. Someone ain't splurging on the gloves.
Half kidding.
Posted on 11/17/14 at 3:04 pm to cokebottleag
quote:
How do you teach someone to catch a ball better?
I don't know, I was kidding I could do better. Seems like it is a practice makes perfect thing.
Posted on 11/17/14 at 3:06 pm to CGSC Lobotomy
I'm talking like Peterson Gurley Richardson level
Posted on 11/17/14 at 3:14 pm to cardboardboxer
quote:
Seems like it is a practice makes perfect thing.
Think you are right on this. Part of our problem is we keep recruiting guys that didn't play WR in high school so they honestly haven't had a lot of practice. When you convert a guy, you can project he will catch well, but how the frick can you really know such a thing til he does it?
Some of them just need more time to develop tbh. It can be tough when you are learning all the nuances at once to really concentrate on catching. Swope had dropsies early on (and I think it was a lot of the same reasons)
Posted on 11/17/14 at 4:24 pm to tmc94
quote:
Part of our problem is we keep recruiting guys that didn't play WR in high school so they honestly haven't had a lot of practice.
I would go with that, but it seems our converted WRs are doing much better.
Take for example Pope vs RSJ. Pope was projected to be a CB for many of the teams recruiting him. But on the field today he is our second most reliable receiver to Kennedy. Meanwhile RSJ, a star WR who was a big get at that position, can't be trusted to catch a cold.
Honestly I think the WR play is a clear case that it takes more than talent to play football, it also takes a will to win and do whatever to be a winner. That is why Speedy is my favorite Aggie right now even as a freshman, because he has shown both sides of that coin.
Posted on 11/17/14 at 4:26 pm to cardboardboxer
RSJ played QB in HS
Posted on 11/17/14 at 5:37 pm to ShaneTheLegLechler
Ah, that explains the transition pains. Thank you.
They all need more practice then. Screw that "skip the bowl" idea on the Zoo.
They all need more practice then. Screw that "skip the bowl" idea on the Zoo.
This post was edited on 11/17/14 at 5:38 pm
Posted on 11/17/14 at 8:13 pm to cardboardboxer
quote:
Take for example Pope vs RSJ. Pope was projected to be a CB for many of the teams recruiting him. But on the field today he is our second most reliable receiver to Kennedy. Meanwhile RSJ, a star WR who was a big get at that position, can't be trusted to catch a cold.
the #2 WR in the SEC would like a word with you.
Page 1 of 1
Latest Texas A&M News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News