Is the transfer portal affecting offensive schemes?

This is an interesting thought.

You buy that?  What about at Georgia, where two high profile transfers with different skill sets transferred last season?

In the abstract, I can see how it would make sense to some extent to do so.  On the other hand, when there are so many quarterbacks resorting to the portal, how necessary is it to simply what a program has been using?


Filed under Strategery And Mechanics, Transfers Are For Coaches.

8 responses to “Is the transfer portal affecting offensive schemes?

  1. TN Dawg

    I’m still unsure why so many quarterbacks sign at schools where there is a significant chance they won’t play right away.

    You can get drafted out of Purdue just as easily as out of Michigan.

    Liked by 3 people

  2. uga97

    Seems one of the main reasons a transfer QB is brought in to begin with (besides immediate playing time & a path to the NFL), is having the ability & skills to quickly pickup & execute a more complex playbook over the younger QBs. Hence the inherent necessity of the program to pull in a QB transfer. Simplifying the system seems contrary but perhaps Connelly has some data to see if this is a larger trend.


  3. miltondawg

    I buy that to some extent. As the spread offenses with fewer reads and fewer progressions became more common in college, the ability of QBs with arms but not NFL ability to read defenses, pass from the pocket under pressure, and quickly move through progressions became common. Justin Fields is a good example. His scouting from respected sources says that he is not nearly where he needs to be development-wise for the NFL, yet he was one of the most prolific passers in college in his first season in Columbus.

    If I had to put a reason on that (simpler offensive schemes that fit a variety of QBs versus pro-style offenses that require development), I would point to the growing sentiment that winning now is preferable to developing over a period of a few years. If you have other pieces, picking up a competent QB from the portal can be the difference more than just about any other position group.


  4. classiccitycanine

    I buy the simplification argument but I think it’s primarily a response to the proliferation of the spread offense, especially at the high school level. The transfer portal just adds gasoline to that fire. I think the idea is to run a system with a shorter learning curve so that newcomers (freshman or transfers) can start producing quickly. Since the spread is both simple and very popular, it makes sense to run that offense. Gone are the days when QBs sat for a few years before playing and that’s probably a good thing for programs and players. One of the flaws of Kirby’s manball offense was that it was totally unfamiliar to Eason, Fromm, and Fields. Those guys all played better in spread situations when given the chance but we insisted they learn our system instead of running something with a shorter learning curve. I’m glad that Monken seems to have a more friendly QB system.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Jack Klompus

    It makes a lot of sense if you can’t recruit and keep top recruits. OSU had nobody in the pipeline and got lucky that they were able to hand the keys to someone like Fields.

    If Kirby/Monken can get Daniels into a high draft round then the pipeline of QBs will continue to flow through UGA and the transfers will likely diminish. Why not go to a school where you know they’ll prep you for the NFL vs going to OSU or the like? It’s going to be us and Bama competing for 5* QBs for a long time to come. If Daniels and Griff succeed we’ll be in great shape long-term.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. W Cobb Dawg

    If being a QB development pipeline for the nfl has been one of our goals we’ve done a lousy job of it. Stafford’s the exception, but the nfl was gonna fawn over his arm no matter where he played college ball.

    A complicated offense in college is futile. QBs can change at the drop of a hat, whether its the portal or injury. If your entire season’s success depends on one QB absorbing a complicated offense, you’re likely screwed.
    A talented team like UGA should be whipping most opponents on athleticism and solid coaching, not out-scheming weaker opponents. Any QB with solid fundamentals should be a plug and play against all but our top 2 or 3 opponents.

    Having said all that, someone like Monken should do terrific. He gets WRs open and aggressively attacks defenses.

    Liked by 2 people

    • miltondawg

      To be fair, I don’t know of a lot of college teams that have been a pipeline for QBs at the NFL level. Few teams can be successful at that repeatedly as there are only 32 of those jobs available and even fewer in any given year. And the college game just doesn’t translate well to the NFL for most college quarterbacks at a minimum in the short term (even, in some cases, the most heralded college quarterbacks like Tua). Oklahoma is probably the closest to a true pipeline to the NFL with Baker, Kyler, Jalen Hurts (jury still out at the NFL level), Landry Jones (who started some but overall was underwhelming), and Sam Bradford (who had promise and showed some talent at that level but was plagued with injuries).