Started By
Message

Offense wins games, Defense wins championships

Posted on 1/12/16 at 11:32 am
Posted by Mirthomatic
Member since Feb 2013
4113 posts
Posted on 1/12/16 at 11:32 am
After last night, can we officially retire this saying? When a Nick Saban Alabama team wins an NC despite giving up 40 points and 550 yards, I think it's safe to say that the old formula just doesn't always hold, and that the game is different these days.
Posted by agalloch
Portland, OR
Member since Jun 2015
1647 posts
Posted on 1/12/16 at 11:43 am to
I think talent wins championships more than anything else. Clemson is a really fricking good team, but it still didn't matter because Bama had an unused 5 star they just chucked out there (Howard) they couldn't account for. Only Bama and to a lesser extent tOSU have that privilege.
This post was edited on 1/12/16 at 11:44 am
Posted by cardboardboxer
Member since Apr 2012
34330 posts
Posted on 1/12/16 at 12:18 pm to
quote:

I think talent wins championships more than anything else


I was coming in this thread to post that.

It drives me NUTS when (mostly older) Aggies say something like "we used to be so good at defense, why don't we just do that again?" Like we can just decide one day to be good at defense and it happens.

Every team in football that is really good at defense recruits like crazy. Hell RC was good at defense because at the point he took over we had first pick in the state thanks to a down Texas. The second Mack Brown came around RC's defense lost its NFL talent through no fault (or merit) of his own. Mack Brown is also why Fran's defenses sucked, and why the Wrecking Crew died.

To be good at defense is to be part of the college football upper caste that can get highly recruited five stars to come every year without going full Ole Miss. Most of the time you can spot a five star DL in Junior High, as they have a freak combo of talent and ability. There simply isn't a harder position to recruit.

In fact the whole reason why college football has become so offensive focused isn't because of new rules or new schemes. Most of it had been done before. It became offensive focused because more teams than ever want a piece of the limelight, and there isn't enough of that elite defensive talent to go around. There are plenty of offensive guys that get passed up, or can stay on the field with that elite defensive talent in the right system. Hence we see programs like Baylor making the best of it.

Same thing with "why can't we run the ball more?" or "why don't we get short yardage runs when we need them?" That too requires elite talent that only a few programs in the country have access to.
Posted by CGSC Lobotomy
Member since Sep 2011
79892 posts
Posted on 1/12/16 at 12:27 pm to
What Slocum also did was put his best athletes on the defensive side of the ball.

In a way, we tried to do that last season with Brandon Williams (5 star running back) at cornerback.
Posted by cardboardboxer
Member since Apr 2012
34330 posts
Posted on 1/12/16 at 12:39 pm to
quote:

What Slocum also did was put his best athletes on the defensive side of the ball.



Which again comes down to how attractive you are to recruits. ESPECIALLY in today's recruiting world.

Nick Saban has the cache to tell a five star WR that he will play LB for him and still get that five star to sign. If Sumlin told one of those ego-maniac five star offensive recruits they were going on defense then he simply wouldn't sign with us. And if we just did it after he signed he would bitch about it on social media ensuring we don't get future elite WRs. The RC system is broken, never again to be repaired (unless we ever have a Nick Saban).

Brandon Williams is a rare case of forced humility. He was a five star RB but with the worst offer list you have ever seen a five star have. He couldn't make it somehow at OU and then had to transfer here. Then he couldn't get the starting job here and had to ride the pine. Converting to defense was his last hope of playing in the NFL, a dream I am sure the 18 year old him thought was a slam dunk.

We can't wait around for these kids like Kyler to go through a humility gauntlet just so they will be the team players we need them to be senior year. Hell a kid like Kyler simply won't stick around to take that medicine. The grass is always greener.

The solution is simple: either we pay elite players to come to A&M in position like Ole Miss or we lower our expectations. I think the last couple of years showed us our ceiling in the SEC when neither our coaching nor our talent is best in the league.
This post was edited on 1/12/16 at 12:41 pm
Posted by Agforlife
Somewhere in the Brazos Valley
Member since Nov 2012
20102 posts
Posted on 1/12/16 at 12:45 pm to
quote:

. I think the last couple of years showed us our ceiling in the SEC when neither our coaching nor our talent is best in the league.





I have said this countless times and in many ways only to be told I was daft, hopefully more are becoming truly aware and are willing to go the distance because it won't be pretty building a consistent and capable winner.
Posted by cardboardboxer
Member since Apr 2012
34330 posts
Posted on 1/12/16 at 12:49 pm to
quote:

I have said this countless times and in many ways only to be told I was daft, hopefully more are becoming truly aware and are willing to go the distance because it won't be pretty building a consistent and capable winner.



Too many BMAs thought "build a new stadium and they will come."

No...they come because you give them bags of money. They go to Ole Miss (who has a WAY worse stadium) because of bags of money.

Posted by agalloch
Portland, OR
Member since Jun 2015
1647 posts
Posted on 1/12/16 at 12:51 pm to
I have exactly 0 moral barriers to us paying players more. I honestly see no downside.
Posted by Tridentds
Sugar Land
Member since Aug 2011
20290 posts
Posted on 1/12/16 at 3:43 pm to
Posted by tmc94
Member since Sep 2012
11559 posts
Posted on 1/12/16 at 11:25 pm to
quote:

I think it's safe to say that the old formula just doesn't always hold, and that the game is different these days.

don't think the game is a bit different. It's just a stupid cliche.

Bill Walsh, Mike Shanahan, Joe Gibbs - offensive coaches. Spurrier, Bowden, Urban - offensive.

You can't really go back beyond modern times because most coaches were not side specific til the mid 60 to early 70s.

But there have always been offensive coaches winning. You just can't win with a shitty defense. You also can't win with a shitty offense. See 21-0.
Posted by WestCoastAg
Member since Oct 2012
144961 posts
Posted on 1/12/16 at 11:31 pm to
precisely
Posted by DBU
Member since Mar 2014
19059 posts
Posted on 1/13/16 at 10:27 am to
quote:

don't think the game is a bit different. It's just a stupid cliche.

Bill Walsh, Mike Shanahan, Joe Gibbs - offensive coaches. Spurrier, Bowden, Urban - offensive.

You can't really go back beyond modern times because most coaches were not side specific til the mid 60 to early 70s.

But there have always been offensive coaches winning. You just can't win with a shitty defense. You also can't win with a shitty offense. See 21-0.


Precisely.
Posted by Mirthomatic
Member since Feb 2013
4113 posts
Posted on 1/13/16 at 10:47 am to
I would agree that the saying has always been an overgeneralization, but I would say it is less true now than ever before.

It used to be that Run the Ball, Shorten the Game, Play Great Defense was a viable strategy. I'd argue that's no longer the case. The passing game has advanced too much, and there have been too many changes to rules and interpretations to rules that favor the offense.

It's not just offensive coaches winning with offense. Now a coach like Nick Saban, a HC known for his defense perhaps as much as any in history, now even HE is winning championships by outscoring the opponent.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow SECRant for SEC Football News
Follow us on Twitter and Facebook to get the latest updates on SEC Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitter