(11-15-2021 11:50 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: (11-15-2021 10:17 AM)Intellectual_Brutality Wrote: By the way, we've generally blamed Bloom's stubbornness re: "pound the rock" as the major cause of poor performance.
But in this last game my sense was the playcalling was just fine, and execution was the problem. If Pitre doesn't fumble in the red zone, if we make a FG...
Agree or disagree?
The play calling was better.
It's impossible to not note to the above though that if we're throwing 50 times a game, every game since the start of the season... (the same, aggressive play calling) that these fumbles AND the interceptions happen less frequently... if for no other reason but that we would likely bench, reduce playing time, or increase practice time for the players who had these tendencies (if they are tendencies).
Play calling is execution. Play calling is calling the play that you can execute well enough to pick up the necessary yardage. Generally speaking, on first down, any play that picks up 5 yards is a good call, on second down, any play that picks up half the yardage you need for a first down is a good call, and on third down, any play that picks up a first down is a good call. Within that structure, you need some calls that manipulate the defense so that other calls will work. For example, in Hat's triple, he had to throw the ball far downfield occasionally to keep the safeties from jumping the option.
So if you are looking at, say, third and 5, the inventory of plays that you have to choose from are those that have a reasonable chance to pick up 5 yards, against the defense that you expect. If you don't get the defense you expected, then you have to improvise. The point is that the better you execute, the more plays you will have that give you a shot to pick up 5 yards, and the more varied and creative your offense can be. So play calling is dependent upon execution.
One thing I like about RUOwls's passing game is that his approach really emphasizes execution, and that opens the playbook to a lot more options. On third and 5, if you stress a defender properly, you get your 5 yards, plus the chance of a breakaway touchdown. Hat's option was build on basically the same theory, only in the running game. In Mike Leach's book, there is a summary of a fascinating discussion that he had with Barry Switzer, where they agreed that the Wishbone and the Air Raid were basically the same offensive philosophy. You create space and you get the ball to a back or receiver in that space. As a rugby coach, that is the basis for all rugby offense, so that's probably why I like those concepts so much.
That gets us back to scheme. And scheme works better if it fits what your talent can execute. Forcing athletes into a system that does not fit them (square pegs into round holes) obviously reduces their ability to execute. So you end up running more plays that are poorly executed because your players lack the ability to execute. That's not to say they are bad players, more that the scheme doesn't fit what they do well.
Bloomgren's "pound the rock" Stanford offense requires big, strong, athletic linemen who can pancake defenders and protect passers, a stud running back or two, and a big, strong pocket passer.
1) We can get big linemen, but the ones we get don't seem to be particularly strong or athletic; we can also get smaller, athletic linemen, so a system that fits those kinds of linemen would be better. I heard a comment repeated from Baylor's OC Jeff Grimes during the game against OU the other day. He has previously been an o-line coach at Auburn, LSU, Virginia Tech, and BYU. He said this was the best o-line he has ever had--not as big as any of those others, but more athletic so he can do more with them. I don't think we can get Baylor quality o-linemen, but I do think we would do well to move in that direction. I still like Fred's approach of recruiting lots of d-linemen (who tend to be smaller, quicker, and more athletic) and moving some of them to offense. Fred was also trying to find a dominant d-lineman, and figuring that more numbers gave him a better chance, but that unfortunately never happened. Ken also recruited smaller and more athletic linemen for the flexbone, and he had several moves back and forth to the other side of the ball, both ways.
2) We can get plenty of decent running backs, as well as receivers (both WR and TE), but not the dominant one. So a scheme that moves the ball around to a lot of different ball-carriers (like Flexbone, Air Raid, Run-and-Shoot, or RUOwls's West Coast passing offense) seems to make more sense.
3) We have struck out repeatedly for the big, strong-armed pocket passer. I still think that my be the hardest piece of the "pound the rock" puzzle to find. What we can get there is the outstanding HS QB, probably more runner than passer (at least not a pocket passer), that the P5s tell him, "Come here and we will make you a safety," but he really wants a shot at QB. Best case, we get another Bert Emanuel; worst case, we get a safety who can start for a P5.
So you design a scheme that your athletes can execute, you practice execution, execution, execution, and then when you are looking at third and 5 on game day, you have a lot more choices, and that makes play calling less predictable and more effective.
Suppose we design a scheme around a small but quick and athletic o-line, spreading the ball around to a number of RBs, TEs, and WRs, and a running QB who can throw and distribute the ball among them (basically a basketball point guard). That's not "pound the rock," nowhere close. It's probably somewhere between what Dinger and Fred did and Hat's triple.