Started By
Message
A question and a prediction - Offensive philosophy cycles and coaching staffs
Posted on 3/12/24 at 4:40 pm
Posted on 3/12/24 at 4:40 pm
Are we at/near the end of the spread offense cycle? Typically there are offensive cycles that are on the fringe prior to their popularization and implementation by better teams. Smaller teams will adopt them to give themselves schematic advantages against more talented teams that don’t see the offense very often. But after a while you see something like Sam Bam, Johnny Football and Kiffin, the 4 Horseman etc. and everybody slides over.
So does the vintage smash mouth ball start to make a return now that Michigan just had the most boring 15-0 on earth? Or is there an in between, say something similar to the mid 2010 Clemson teams?
As a side note, I also predict for the next few years you’ll also start to see, unless significant regulations happen, groups of “above average” coaches will prefer being great coordinators over being a HC. A lot of super staffs will develop on certain teams akin to 2015 Alabama. And as a result, there will be no middle class so to speak of in college football. Youre either complete dog shite or the best of the best.
So does the vintage smash mouth ball start to make a return now that Michigan just had the most boring 15-0 on earth? Or is there an in between, say something similar to the mid 2010 Clemson teams?
As a side note, I also predict for the next few years you’ll also start to see, unless significant regulations happen, groups of “above average” coaches will prefer being great coordinators over being a HC. A lot of super staffs will develop on certain teams akin to 2015 Alabama. And as a result, there will be no middle class so to speak of in college football. Youre either complete dog shite or the best of the best.
7
Posted on 3/12/24 at 4:47 pm to Vulcan Materials
quote:
Are we at/near the end of the spread offense cycle?
I don't know, but I really appreciate the fact that you are trying to start a conversation actually related to sports.
Posted on 3/12/24 at 4:56 pm to Vulcan Materials
I haven’t heard the word “spread” in a long time. There are so many variations now. If the game gets too boring, they’ll change the rules like they always do.
Posted on 3/12/24 at 5:11 pm to Vulcan Materials
quote:
So does the vintage smash mouth ball start to make a return now that Michigan just had the most boring 15-0 on earth?
I think we should see the 2023 Michigan national title as any aberration without some sort of trend. 2023 was a weird year: the most talented rosters were all changing QBs; the best QBs were mostly transfers on teams in a rebuild or simply not up to the top tier in overall roster. It likely helped that Michigan only had to face one quality QB the entire year and it wasn't until the CFPCG and that QB had a less talented roster than any other team in the top 6. I imagine an FSU team with comparable talent to an SEC school plus the presumptive Heisman winner before he broke his leg could have really been a difficult match for Michigan. They almost lost to Alabama when their QB threw for less than 120 yards after all.
2023 Michigan was the worst offense by metrics to lead a team to a national title since 2002 Ohio State. At a macro level, I think this was a fluke but that is in no way taking anything away from the Michigan players.
This post was edited on 3/12/24 at 5:16 pm
Posted on 3/12/24 at 5:19 pm to Vulcan Materials
Michigan was one of the biggest anomalies in college football history. I wouldn’t look at their type of play ever being the blue print for national champion ever again.
They played practically nobody. And when I mean nobody. I mean nobody. They beat a 10 win penn state by 9 points. Penn state got smoked by ole Miss and beat nobody in the regular season. They beat a good but not great Ohio state team who lost by 2 scores to mizzou.
They played probably Alabama’s worst team in a decade bc Kirby decided to psych himself out in Atlanta, Again. And then played one of the least talented blue chip rated national title contenders in Washington in the title game.
This was the least compelling championship team in years. Probably the last 2 decades. 98 Tennesee and Michigan 2 most non compelling championship teams in the the last 3 decades I’d say.
They played practically nobody. And when I mean nobody. I mean nobody. They beat a 10 win penn state by 9 points. Penn state got smoked by ole Miss and beat nobody in the regular season. They beat a good but not great Ohio state team who lost by 2 scores to mizzou.
They played probably Alabama’s worst team in a decade bc Kirby decided to psych himself out in Atlanta, Again. And then played one of the least talented blue chip rated national title contenders in Washington in the title game.
This was the least compelling championship team in years. Probably the last 2 decades. 98 Tennesee and Michigan 2 most non compelling championship teams in the the last 3 decades I’d say.
Posted on 3/12/24 at 5:32 pm to FireDanMullen
quote:
Michigan was one of the biggest anomalies in college football history
Also worth noting that we're on the tail-end of the COVID regulatory slug that has been making it's way through CFB rosters.
This Michigan team had 14 seniors, 13 fifth-year seniors, and 3 sixth-year seniors, further adding to it's anomalous nature.
Posted on 3/12/24 at 5:36 pm to paperwasp
quote:
Also worth noting that we're on the tail-end of the COVID regulatory slug that has been making it's way through CFB rosters. This Michigan team had 14 seniors, 13 fifth-year seniors, and 3 sixth-year seniors, further adding to it's anomalous nature.
Absolutely. This is a variable that hasn’t been discussed enough.
This was one of the worst national champions in several decades that beat practically nobody in the grand scheme of things.
Posted on 3/12/24 at 7:07 pm to FireDanMullen
quote:
This was one of the worst national champions in several decades that beat practically nobody in the grand scheme of things.
lotta valid points made ITT...
will say that michigan looked fast.. skill positions obviously, but they looked seriously quick with great overall team speed.. remember thinking "frick they fast." while watching the playoffs
Posted on 3/12/24 at 8:42 pm to Vulcan Materials
I honestly don't know what you would call the Lane Kiffin offense at this point as it has evolved. It's very balanced. I guess it is the spread still but doesn't look as much like the classic spread. I love it. Can't wait to see how our new defense adds to this dynamic.
This post was edited on 3/12/24 at 8:43 pm
Posted on 3/12/24 at 8:56 pm to Diego Ricardo
quote:
It likely helped that Michigan only had to face one quality QB the entire year and it wasn't until the CFPCG and that QB had a less talented roster than any other team in the top 6. I imagine an FSU team with comparable talent to an SEC school plus the presumptive Heisman winner before he broke his leg could have really been a difficult match for Michigan. They almost lost to Alabama when their QB threw for less than 120 yards after all.
Nothing against Bama. They beat Georgia. They deserved to be in the CFP.
But still arguably the worst Bama team in a decade. A rested Georgia team with Bowers and McConkey smoke Michigan by 2 scores. This was one of the worst national champion teams in a long time.
Bama still won in Atlanta. No excuses. I’m just stating an opinion. Michigan played no one and barely beat Bama’s worst team in a decade. They also implemented a blitz scheme that every team did against Bama that made Milroe not play well against. . Georgia didn’t for some reason. And it was one of the main reasons they lost that game.
Posted on 3/12/24 at 8:56 pm to Vulcan Materials
I don’t doubt that sometime in the future a team will demonstrate a new spin on offense or defense, have a lot of success with it, and other teams will emulate them.
But, I don’t think Michigan will be that team. They were a one year anomaly, a blip on the radar.
With that said, I do think many coaches are trending back towards more of a ball control approach on offense with a bigger emphasis on defense. But not because of Michigan. Because of Georgia.
But, I don’t think Michigan will be that team. They were a one year anomaly, a blip on the radar.
With that said, I do think many coaches are trending back towards more of a ball control approach on offense with a bigger emphasis on defense. But not because of Michigan. Because of Georgia.
Posted on 3/12/24 at 9:10 pm to Vulcan Materials
Honestly, I think we're going to see the majority of national champions come from teams that have the ability to both line up and play smash mouth on offense and to spread things out and attack through the air.
I don't think the teams that win titles will be one dimensional offensively very often. If you look at teams that won national titles before Michigan, they had the ability to smash opponents and to pass on them. UGA in 2022 and 2021 could do both. Bama in 2020. LSU in 2019. Clemson in 2018. Bama in 2017. And before that. They all had extremely good to great OL's, prolific passing offense and great RB's.
I don't think offenses that rely solely on a single approach are going to win titles very often. It's one of the reasons I don't think Tennessee will win under Heupel. He runs his offense. The teams that win titles run whatever offense will work against the defense they face. If you can't adjust to what the defense does, a good defense that shuts down you offensive approach cannot be overcome.
You can't have just one approach if you want to win a title in today's college football. Similarly your defense can't be designed to only stop one thing.
I don't think the teams that win titles will be one dimensional offensively very often. If you look at teams that won national titles before Michigan, they had the ability to smash opponents and to pass on them. UGA in 2022 and 2021 could do both. Bama in 2020. LSU in 2019. Clemson in 2018. Bama in 2017. And before that. They all had extremely good to great OL's, prolific passing offense and great RB's.
I don't think offenses that rely solely on a single approach are going to win titles very often. It's one of the reasons I don't think Tennessee will win under Heupel. He runs his offense. The teams that win titles run whatever offense will work against the defense they face. If you can't adjust to what the defense does, a good defense that shuts down you offensive approach cannot be overcome.
You can't have just one approach if you want to win a title in today's college football. Similarly your defense can't be designed to only stop one thing.
Posted on 3/12/24 at 9:12 pm to paperwasp
quote:
This Michigan team had 14 seniors, 13 fifth-year seniors, and 3 sixth-year seniors, further adding to it's anomalous nature.
A big reason I respect them is that they did it the way everyone was supposed to had been doing it but really haven't been doing it due to NIL and TP. So, hats off
Posted on 3/12/24 at 9:22 pm to captdalton
quote:
With that said, I do think many coaches are trending back towards more of a ball control approach on offense with a bigger emphasis on defense. But not because of Michigan. Because of Georgia.
Georgia isn't really a ball control offense (or not just a ball control offense).
UGA plays a wide open offense that often runs tempo early in games. But when UGA gets a lead, they absolutely switch to ball control. While UGA ends up with a pretty balanced run/pass ratio at the end of the day (33 pass to 36 run this past year), they're more like a 60/40 pass to run ratio in the first half and 30/70 in the second half when they're icing games.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News