You can’t teach an old Boom new tricks.

If you had “Will Muschamp won’t stick with his new offensive scheme once adversity hits” in the 2018 SEC season’s predictions pool, collect your winnings.

Some of the issue came with the new emphasis on RPOs this season, which gives Jake Bentley the opportunity to run the ball or throw it if the defense gives him a better passing look.

Those could lead to more lopsided run and pass ratios (South Carolina threw it almost 50 times against Georgia) so Muschamp said the Gamecocks will be more cognizant moving forward about calling run plays.

“You’re calling a run, and based on a look, you’re throwing the football. We had some affective gains the other night throwing the football,” Muschamp said. “But you need to be able to call it and haul it at times and just run the football and know you want to hand the ball off regardless of what the look gives you.”

Yeah, never mind taking what a defense gives you, or that your best players on offense are your top three receivers and quarterback, just run the damned ball because… well, just because you can.  You’re welcome, defensive coordinators left on SC’s schedule.

Today’s question:  which is more futile, being Boom’s offensive coordinator or the genius’ defensive coordinator?  It’s a tough call, methinks.

42 Comments

Filed under Agent Muschamp Goes Boom, Strategery And Mechanics

42 responses to “You can’t teach an old Boom new tricks.

  1. 81Dog

    “Affective” gains? Is English Boom’s first language (my guess is Rage is his first language)? SC Rivals probably needs to quit relying on spellcheck and learn how to edit.

    Hey, grammar and spelling used to matter. Especially in “journalism” jobs. Cvest le guerre.

    Like

  2. Maybe his hurry-up offense worked so well in the spring because his defense sucks.

    B-Mac needs to get out of Columbia as soon as possible because there’s no way Boom is going to let him do what he wants.

    Like

    • Doug

      My thoughts exactly. When McClendon first jumped to South Carolina I was worried for him because I figured Boom would flame out in a hurry and get fired. Now my bigger worry is that Muschamp stays and simply drives BMac insane with his thickheadedness.

      Like

      • Argondawg

        BMac is a good coach but I always felt like Muschamp hired him because of his very solid recruiting chops. Muschamp knows that anything between 8-10 wins makes him a hero at S.C. He can do that if he maintains continuity because the east is no juggernaut. He could have gone looking for a hot shot OC but his track record in that department is not great.

        Like

        • BMac is a good coach but I always felt like Muschamp hired him because of his very solid recruiting chops.

          In fairness – if you don’t have very good recruiting chops, Kirby ain’t keeping you around either. See Tracy Rocker and high profile DL misses in the 2016 and 2017 recruiting classes for reference.

          Like

      • Comin' Down The Track

        … or makes it impossible for him to ever get another job.

        Like

  3. David K

    Imagine if the two paired up.

    Like

  4. Jack Burton

    Remember when we held Notre Dame to around 50 yards rushing and Brian Kelly said something similar? They ran for 300+ in something like 7 games last year.

    It’s incredible how much Kirby & Mel’s gameplan can mess with opposing coaches.

    Like

  5. Hogbody Spradlin

    This RPO stuff is fine, BUT LET’S NOT GET CARRIED AWAY HERE!

    Like

  6. Huntindawg

    Don’t we do the same thing? I’m by no means an x’s an o’s guru, but don’t you sometimes run a certain play because it sets up another play later in the game? Or like us, just to wear down the opposing defense?

    Like

  7. Macallanlover

    If your run/pass ratio was out of proportion, and you didn’t light up the scoreboard (10 points in “real time”), you had better look at the personnel. not the system. Bentley either misread the decision, or they didn’t execute the passing game well. Since something similar happened with ND against the same defensive scheme, perhaps UGA’s defense presents some unique challenges to read (please let this be true.)

    Liked by 1 person

    • Biggus Rickus

      Notre Dame had 34 non-sack carries. They threw the ball because they couldn’t gain anything on the ground, not because of reads. And if South Carolina had gone run first against Georgia, it might have been 41-0 instead of 41-10 going to the fourth.

      Like

      • Comin' Down The Track

        I agree, and it was glaringly obvious that they were foolishly (because they deeply wish-believed, and still do according to the comments I’ve seen from them since the game, they had closed the talent gap significantly) trying to use the pass to set up the run (like we did, rather ironically, as it happens). Then, all of a sudden, they were down two scores and three possessions and scrapped that whole plan with a quickness.

        Like

  8. Derek

    First, it’s hard to RPO from an empty set which is what they (stupidly) ran the first series.

    Second, you have to run the ball when the other team is trying to take that away if you want to be a physical football team. If you’re not that, you’re not going to be very good.

    Third, second place in the east is up for grabs for any team that can play a winning brand of football which is defined by stopping the run and running the ball.

    Like

  9. ChiliDawg

    Read a comment from one of their players in the wake of last Saturday’s game. He felt like they should have kept running the ball because they would have worn us down and we would have gotten tired.

    Call me crazy, but I think they could have run the ball on every play and we would have not gotten tired before them. That’s kinda the benefit of rotating guys in on defense almost every snap.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Russ

      Exactly. Tucker has the defensive substitutions down pat. The first year, it was a little dicey getting players on and off the field, but now we do a very good job of it, and it results in fresh players in the fourth quarter (not that we’ve played a four quarter game yet). South Carolina could have run the ball all day and it wouldn’t have made any difference.

      Like

      • Sanford222view

        During the broadcast Gary even commented on how Georgia has the defensive subs ready the play prior so they are ready to get in the game and be set even if the offense doesn’t substitute on that play. I am guessing they have some drill in practice that works on this and conditioning at the same time where personnel groups are rotating every play on defense.

        Like

        • Macallanlover

          Saw Kirby use that at Bama the last two years he was there. Had entire unit ready to sprint on the field, had not seen anyone do that before. It helps to have the players available for that type system, but still requires some top level organization and communication.

          Like

  10. Go Dawgs!

    This is why he failed at Florida. He failed to stick with an offense longer than a three year old drinking coffee and Red Bull sticks with CSPAN. Will, I sincerely hope you weren’t one of the fools who believed your team was going to beat Georgia. Georgia is simply better than your team. Our defense stoned much, much better offenses than yours last season and most of those Dawgs are back this year. You’ve still got a good team, though, and I’d say it’s the second best in the East. Don’t scrap an entire year of planning because you got thumped by a better football team. Don’t go back to cro magnon football again. It got you fired at Florida. It’ll do the same at South Carolina.

    Like

    • Mike Cooley

      Ah but that’s just it. They did think they were going to beat us. I know we have all read the comments from their players after the game that the Senator post here. But if you saw the actual interviews with them it was a revelation when it comes to Gamecock delusion. They were in total disbelief. You could see it in their eyes and hear it in the way they answered the questions. And you could tell they are still clinging to the idea that they are “this close”. It’s really fascinating in a way. What is it about that place that makes people impervious to reality and creates such a blind spot?

      Like

  11. The new O never made sense, as SCU has limited depth on D and especially on the DL. If they have a few 3 and outs, their D will be totally gassed by the 2nd quarter. Sure enough, their D was toast and gave up early in the second half against us.

    Like

    • Biggus Rickus

      They chewed some clock in the first half with their new offense. They weren’t exhausted by Georgia. Georgia’s just better than them and outplayed them out of halftime.

      Like

  12. JCDawg83

    Chickens are still in love with Muschamp ,they say he needs a few more years to overcome the mess Spurrier left him. This is the exact same thing they said about Spurrier in year three, he needed a few more years to overcome the mess Holtz left. I’m noticing a pattern here.

    Like

    • ChiliDawg

      Spurrier led them to top 10 finishes. They apparently forget that fact when groaning about the “mess” Spurrier left for Muschamp.

      Like

      • Comin' Down The Track

        The pattern is simple in that winning at USC, Jr. requires the same thing as winning at UT… getting the top talent from Georgia. That ain’t happening for them for the foreseeable future. Combine that with the fact that the Chickens have a 49 year-old ACC Championship and a tainted Heisman in their “trophy case;” and that’s a recipe for continued flailing.

        Like

        • Macallanlover

          Spurrier told me just after getting the SC job, and before the first season, that his top priority was penetrating the Atlanta HS market. Funny thing, the top impact player he had from Georgia was Connor Shaw; the very best players he signed were Lattimore and Clowney who both came from SC. Those three were the reason for those strong SC teams. Odd that he wasn’t able to get many kids from Florida where his recruiting inroads and reputation should have allowed more success.

          Liked by 1 person

  13. 92 grad

    TFW you lose your conference opener and realize you Don’t have the roster to execute your game Plan.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. Biggen

    I think you have to be able to run the ball in this conference some. You just have to. They threw for 47 times and only ran it for 19 times. To me, that won’t win you many games in the SEC.

    The problem is USC lacks both the road graders on the line and the TBs to really get it done against “effective” teams.

    I don’t think there really is a fix for them. They don’t get enough canon shots to matter in the end and will continue to play for 2nd/3rd/4th in the Easy for the foreseeable future.

    Like

  15. Nah, the genius wins this one hands down. Nobody wants to go play defense for GT knowing that they are going to get cut blocked every single day in practice. The defensive coordinator there is trying to make chicken salad out of chicken feathers.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. AusDawg85

    The RPO is COMMUNISM!

    Like

  17. DawgFlan

    It sounds like he is trying to emulate UGA. Mix-in tempo and RPOs while committing to the run over the course of the game. Sounds reasonable to me. But what doesn’t sound reasonable is any implication that doing so would have resulted in a different result last Saturday.

    We couldn’t out-Bama Bama when we had 65 scholarship above average athletes vs. their 85 elite, and SC won’t be able to out-UGA UGA for the foreseeable future. The MacGyver-esque rosters with 3-6 great skill players, and then two sticks of bubble gum and a calculator on the OL/DL, they are all fighting for 2nd in their divisions.

    Like

  18. stoopnagle

    Boom needs to stay the course and not overreact to the Georgia game. Accept that UGA is way ahead on the talent side, but that you’ve got enough tools to have a good year: a competent quarterback, an outstanding wideout, and enough players on defense to compete well with most of the teams left on your schedule.

    Like