The art of making lemonade out of lemons

Found this of interest:

Sounds like ball control and efficiency are the keys to making the most out of what you’ve got, if you’re not a recruiting powerhouse.  Certainly, there’s more than one way to skin those particular cats, but if you were going to pick an offensive scheme that was best for running clock and keeping your defense off the field, what would you choose?

19 Comments

Filed under Stats Geek!, Strategery And Mechanics

19 responses to “The art of making lemonade out of lemons

  1. Reading those stats tell me that field position is a lot more important than ToP (while that’s important as well). Many of the stats quoted point more to starting field position than anything. Turnover differential, kick returns, and starting FP differential lead to higher offensive efficiency because the field is tilted against the defense.

    Just my $.02. Since tech sucks on defense and special teams, it’s really difficult for them to put the offense into advantageous position. Therefore, the Genius has to make up for it with ToP and 4th down attempts.

    Like

  2. Derek

    Holy shit! Winning football is about running the ball, stopping the run and field position (special teams)? Who knew?

    And the whole time I thought STATS! was the key. Does Mike Leach know about this?

    Like

  3. Normaltown Mike

    “Sounds like ball control and efficiency are the keys to making the most out of what you’ve got”

    Oh yeah!

    Like

  4. Hodgie

    Triple fits this bill nicely.

    Like

  5. Uglydawg

    PJ’s offense has an Inherent strength and an inherent weakness. The “genius” is apparent when,
    1. The opposing team is mediocre.
    2. The opposing team has less than a week to prepare.
    3. The opposing team’s coaches have never seen the offense (since HS
    anyway) and don’t know how to prepare. (consider UT’s one point win
    over GT in Knoxville after having the whole off season to prepare..how
    bad was that UT defense?
    4. It is not a conference game and CPJ has ACC refs.
    5. Other coaches aren’t bumping into GT recruiters very often on the trail, because they go after a different skill set.
    6. CJP has lots of seniors on the offense because none of them leave early.
    This really is a big deal..seniors give seasoning and stability. Four years of
    running the same four plays brings proficiency.

    The weakness is apparent when
    1. The opposing team is good.
    2. CMR is the opposing coach and the game is in ATL.
    3. The opposing team has a few extra days to prepare.
    4. The opposing team has an “R” linebacker.
    5. Tech gets behind and needs to play catch-up.
    6 Tech has a key QB injury or he goes off the rails

    Like

  6. TomReagan

    Limiting possessions, winning the hidden yard aspects of the game, good defense, and capitalizing on turnovers.

    The old saws really do have some value.

    Like

    • Otto

      Agreed, and the team did that last year. Look at the hidden yard for 3 at the end of the Rose. South Carolina multiple 5min drives which is limiting possessions. UGA tried to limit possessions against OU but what do you do tell the RBs to take a knee after 15 yards?

      I have posted in the past Smart built this team to be like the early Saban Bama teams LOOONG drives not just winning time of possession but leaving the offense on the field for 4+ minutes at a time. My gut which I obviously can’t confirm believes Kiffin’s quicker strike offense annoyed Smart as his defense had to defend more possession. If Lane takes long to score against Clemson, Smart has to defend possibly 2 fewer drives.

      Like

      • Russ

        “UGA tried to limit possessions against OU but what do you do tell the RBs to take a knee after 15 yards?”

        LOL! True dat! I was hoping we could keep the ball away from them, but it was hard to complain about multiple 75+ yard TD runs.

        Like

    • Otto

      I was pulling for Auburn but this was a work of art if you love old school football:

      Like

      • Russ

        I kind of prefer this example.

        Like

        • bulldogbry

          Man, when Douglas broke off that long run, I loved how the sidelines went nuts. You kind of knew the game was over.

          Like

        • Otto

          I was there for that game, and yes I am one of the more anti-Bobo posters here and he had a fine day. I actually went to that game with another in the Fire Bobo we were pleasantly surprised. Possibly the best game he ever called.

          Like

        • Uglydawg

          The best part of that video starts at the 2:41 mark with a close up of SOS with his patented smug look replaced by misery. But there was still almost a half minute left on the clock. I wish CMR would have called time out, made SOS return to his sideline, and then lined up and ran another play or two and then kicked a FG. It would have been tasteless though, an CMR didn’t do “tasteless”. But if anyone deserved it, SOS did.

          Like

  7. noseanmorono

    Essentially the offense they are describing could be any offensive formation, but the philosophy is run-heavy and between the tackles to keep the clock running. Seems that the flexbone that’s been used at GaSou, GT, Navy, Air Force, and Army are all that, but it’s employed with these bottom 25 recruiting classes because they are generally not going to get the “meat” offensive lineman and tight ends to run a single-back attack for a running game or even a standard I-form of power run football.

    While I hate Tech, I respect Johnson from his philosophy of offense. He broke down the flexbone once to show that, when the A back has motioned back, the resulting formation is the I formation, but the motion and ensuing action keeps the defense from committing and allows for the cut blocking (which is the preferred techniques with undersized linemen, even at the service academies) to take care of the rest. It was interesting how you can take the same play and make minor tweaks to exploit defensive weaknesses. The downside is, when going up against a stout defense that can blow off the ball and can get backfield disruption enough, or if you have a huge nose that plugs up the interior to take away the dive, you’re screwed regardless of adjustments.

    Aside from the little guys, though, I’m reminded of the 1990’s Nebraska teams and how well the flexbone worked for them. Johnson’ challenge nowadays is that the type of quarterback needed to make it work is opting for more pro-style offenses since the dual-threat QB is so highly valued right now, and when the RPO began to trickle into the NFL, pro-style offenses at the college level are using these guys that might have been resigned to play for spread-only programs like AU, Oregon, and the Service Academies. He had Nesbitt as his best QB and JR Revere when he was at Southern, both had big, physical builds and didn’t ind taking the Dive. When you consider the dive in the flexbone could involve the option of the QB giving the ball to the 0 or keeping and diving to the 2 or 4 gap based on what the DTs present, it’s hard to handle. Smaller QBs are less successful with this, and you can even see the difference at Auburn and Florida between the success that Newton and Tebow enjoyed versus those that came after them.

    Like

    • Nebraska didn’t run a flexbone. They ran the I with big, powerful NFL-quality offensive linemen, one of the best option QBs of all-time, and a woman-beating TB who ran with the same degree of violence.

      The real reason Nebraska won a bunch in the ’90s was their defense was nasty. Osborne got tired of being beaten by FSU, Miami, and others with an NFL-quality defense. He decided to join them, and they started winning big.

      Like

  8. old dawg

    I remember back in the 70’s when Tech led the planet in rushing…GT was putting 4 and 500 yards on opponents…just smoking them…they went to Clemson and faced one of Frank Howard’s teams and lost…

    After the game somebody asked Coach Howard how he beat the Jackets…he said “the trouble with Tech’s wishbone offense was it don’t always score when you wish it would.”

    As I look around…most any offense struggles with that same problem… 😉

    Like

  9. I use to rally “ball control” years ago at DS under RIcht. Scoring in 30 seconds is great fun, but not if you cant control the field immediately after.

    As for the question – option runs and short passes.

    Like

  10. Tony Barnfart

    Everybody laughs at this worry, but I damn sure hope we can find comparable production from whoever replaces Cameron Nizialek

    Like