September 4, 2005
Flag on the Play - Big Gang of Several Edition
I think a couple of blogs (this one over here & this other one over here) are in for a pretty rough week.
Both have spent the better part of the off-season trumpeting a new breed of offenses. 'Gang of Six' this and 'Big Six' that. After watching Utah struggle and Boise State get drilled despite predictions otherwise... Lucy, you got some 'splainin' to do.
And - to a large degree - I think some of the backlash may be justified. For the several months, they've put forth the notion that the clipboard rules. Period. At times it become so persistent that they sounded like Hervé Villechaize hopping up & down with his, "the plane, the plane", but it was "the scheme, the scheme" instead.
This flies directly in the face of what I believe about football - adjustments, athleticism, and action are generally what win football games. To suggest that a system can take a mid-level team to the mountain top is an insult to the mountain top.
The 2004 Utah Utes have been held up as an example and that's certainly not what happened with Utah last year. I think Utah would be offended at the suggestion. Yes, the offense was fun to watch, but Bear Bryant was calling shovel passes back in the 70's and early 80s. Red Hickey was using the shotgun in 1960 and teams have been refining the spread offense ever since. Just ask Charlie Ward how he liked going from a struggling backup to a Heisman Trophy & National Championship winner.
Utah was a well-coached, well prepared team that made very good in-game adjustments and just so happened to send six starters to the NFL. Putting the right system in place to mesh with your talent is a pretty damn successful strategy - whether it's a spread offense, 46 defense, or the wishbone. So, maybe it wasn't just the scheme, huh?
The reality of the 'Large Collection of at least Four but perhaps Five or possibly Six' is that despite all the gee-whiz offensive plans, football is still a game of adjustments, athleticism, and action. The Georgia-Boise State game was a perfect example of it (and the UGA fans are giving as good as they got in the comments).
Georgia game planned for Boise State and made defensive adjustments almost series to series to keep Boise State off guard. And Boise State couldn't adjust to Georgia's speed and athleticism. Turnover after turnover (after turnover) were created by Georgia's superior athletes being faster to fill gaps, beating Boise St off the line, jumping on routes, etc. And finally, Georgia simply executed their game plan. The Bulldogs offense was as prepared and focused as it's been in a long time. The D definitely stepped up to they hype about the Broncos teaching the SEC a thing or two proved it to be just that - hype.
The take-away from this should be pretty simple: Schemes and systems can swing the balance between two more evenly matched teams, but football is football. Great teams beat good teams, good teams beat average teams, average teams beat poor teams, and so it goes.
Update: Heismanpundit posts his 'I was kinda wrong, a little, sorta' response.
College Football Resource Blog posts his 'Mea Culpa'.
Comments:
GDawg34 said:
posted on September 4, 2005 5:04 PM — 66.188.73.72 — link — abuse?
Good stuff Kev. They badmouthed our team (UGA) and our conference (SEC) all preseason. They were flat out wrong... horribly wrong. And they've yet to come out from hiding and admit it. Glad to see we weren't the only ones to notice... or call them on the BS.
Orson Swindle said:
posted on September 4, 2005 9:10 PM — 70.109.15.67 — link — abuse?
And no credit given whatsoever to the defensive side of the ball. NONE. The current wisdom--athleticism trumping scheme--also ignores UGA's solid gameplanning for Boise. They had a scheme, too, and it beat Boise's.
No grand theories. No bullshit. Just a sound game plan, execution, and good athletes.
posted on September 5, 2005 7:44 AM — link — abuse?Kevin Donahue said:
Am I misrepresenting it? Are the links presented not descriptive enough? All off-season we've heard how it was these advanced offensive schemes that set your six schools above the rest.
Clearly, we hold two completely opposite views. You love the clipboard and I (and I think at least a couple others) believe that football is still a game of adjustments, athleticism, and putting it into action on the field.
NYCBOISEFAN said:
posted on September 5, 2005 11:10 AM — 152.163.100.139 — link — abuse?
Props to UGA. They were prepared for Boise, end of story. However, Boise was prepared for a duel. We knew UGA would be able to score. We counted on our offense to play a style similar to the last three years - establish the run, throw in a lot of misdirection, some trick plays etc. The problem was we came to the duel with a gun full of blanks. Our QB made some horrible early decisions, those first two picks were not made by any talent disparity, they were gifts plain and simple. That and his first fumble deep in Georgia territory set the tone for the game. Our defense held up early especially up front, but the combination of the early turnovers, the atmosphere etc, all came together and created a QB meltdown of collasal proportions.
A lot of folks gave Boise State no credit when they hung with Louisville in The Liberty Bowl. Despite being out gained 2-1 in yardage it was the turnovers that kept Boise in the game. Same here, the stats taking the turnovers out of the equation don't reflect a 48-13 blowout. Simply put Boise State could not get their offense going with their QB having a mental meltdown. For our backup QB to have to play over a half a game was downright embarrassing.
Let's face facts, for Boise State to compete with UGA they would have needed to bring their "A" game and they didn't. Most media types felt that Shockley would struggle and that this being game 1 of the season favored Boise despite that the game was in Athens. In fact, just the opposite held true as the UGA coaching staff had all summer to prepare for Boise State and it was clearly evident that they did their homework and the players were ready. They also protected Shockley in order for him to succeed. Congrats to The Bulldogs. I just hope they are that good.
posted on September 5, 2005 3:40 PM — link — abuse?
Well said, NYC. Very classy. I have a tendency to question those who say that turnovers are not caused by defensive pressure ("they were gifts"). UGA created pressure and that pressure led to poor reads, rushing the throw, perception of a rush/urgency, and several other factors that led to turnovers. Unless there is just an absolute technical meltdown (ie throwing a duck), defensive pressure is always a contributing factor.
Heismanpundit said:
posted on September 5, 2005 7:06 PM — 66.229.207.162 — link — abuse?
You misrepresent by boiling down my arguments to their base denominator. I never said that scheme was the only important thing in college football, only that it is often the deciding factor in games, especially in recent years. I singled out those six teams not because I thought that they would go undefeated for perpetuity, but because their offensive prowess allowed them all to overachieve, despite varying talent levels and different levels of competition. This was never to say that athleticism, action, whatever nebulous terms you want to use, are not important. It was only to give us a guideline as to what to expect when watching a football game. What I learned from the experience is that not a whole lot of people really watch the game closely. Instead, since they are watching their team, they keep their eye on what the football is doing, but not on how it got there. A lot of people see different things when they watch the game and, frankly, don't have the background to understand. The reason I believed Boise would beat UGA is that I thought Boise's style of play would overcome UGA's talent advantage. Turns out it didn't. That doesn't mean the style of play argument is invalid, only that I misapplied it to this game. If Boise had scored 21 points off of turnovers and had beaten UGA 21-19, it still would not have proven my point, which is why I am still dissatisfied with the outcome of the game, since Zabransky's turnovers really changed the dynamic. And if you watched that game, please don't tell me that at least two of the first three of Zabransky's turnovers weren't unforced. They were. The guy had a complete meltdown. Finally, this notion that Utah didn't succeed because of Meyer's scheme is just defying reality. The fact that people can now say that with a straight face is a testament to how much respect that offense brought to the Utes.
Heismanpundit said:
posted on September 6, 2005 3:21 AM — 66.229.207.162 — link — abuse?
I've tried to respond twice at length, but I then lose connection with your site and had to start over.
My point was that you boil down my argument to the lowest common demoninator. I never said scheme was the only important thing, just that it plays a big part these days.
And lots of turnovers are gifts. Ask the 1998 Tennessee squad.
posted on September 6, 2005 10:18 AM — link — abuse?
HP - I think your posts and comments have enlightened a lot of people this week, just maybe not in the way you might have intended.
Peacedog said:
posted on September 6, 2005 10:38 AM — 68.208.93.189 — link — abuse?
"My point was that you boil down my argument to the lowest common demoninator. I never said scheme was the only important thing, just that it plays a big part these days."
No, but a point you seem to repeat is "Boise's scheme will overcome Georgia's talent". This game was never about Boise's scheme versus Georgia's talent.
It was about a number of things - talent and scheme were just two of them. And it was about both things for *both* *teams*. You never seemed inclined to discuss Georgia's scheme(s). You ignored the Boise defensive scheme (I've skimmed and occasionally scrutizined what I think is the majority of your body of work here; I'f I've missed something in that, my apologies).
You're going to take it on the chin - not entirely unfairly; come on half of your comments praising Georgia came off as backhanded and your "I was wrong" post seems a tad indigant - and you've made some good points in the past. However, you have under sold Georgia's effort a little bit e (just like many Georgia fans are overselling it - to be expected). Boise never seriously threatened (outside of the Flowers muff) until the game was out of hand. Turnovers were a part of that. Georgia was the better team though. It's own first half miscues (the fumble, some critical dropped passes that killed drives) luckily didn't matter.
You are hung up on some things while you seemingly ignore others. You praise these schemes for their complexity - but somethimes complexity is a bad thing. Complexity can be the enemy of execution, which is a touch more important. You don't have to meet a complex, "high tech" offensive scheme with a complex, "high tech" defensive scheme.
Schemes are in part about subterfudge. And subtergudge is not really about complexity, though this is a tool it can employ (after all, one can flash complexity, or "fancy" if you will, and do something very basic but do it very well. VaTech did it on Sunday a couple of times).
Peacedog said:
posted on September 6, 2005 11:15 AM — 68.208.93.189 — link — abuse?
I don't want to pile on HP, but some things a man has to say. I think the rush to procliam certain offensive geniuses has overlooked some important points and possibly come at the expense of all the poor defensive geniuses. But, it's all good.
Curiously, Dawgs could win big this weekend (I'm not saying we will) and we could still possibly not know enough about the team. This weekend is a complete mystery to me. Delphi won't even return my calls (and the Oracle and I our tight. We were even lovers once).
Heismanpundit said:
posted on September 6, 2005 2:19 PM — 128.125.205.130 — link — abuse?
Look, it's all about having rational expectations going into a game. What are we able to measure and so compare between two teams? You can measure talent and you can measure effectiveness of system. You can not measure ahead of time whether a team will execute, whether they will turn the ball over, whether they will fold under pressure. Those are all conjectures and unknowables. So, my goal was to assume that, all things being equal, the complexity of the scheme could overcome the talent advantage. This does not mean that other things aren't important, only that they are unknowable before a game. No one KNEW that Zabranksy would have six turnovers and no one KNEW Shockley would have that kind of game. If I DID know, I would not have picked Boise. My whole thing is about creating an understanding of the relationship between two opponents and finding the deciding factor between the two, assuming all the unknowables will be equal. As you saw, when the unknowables get out of kilter, it blows up any ability to make rational predictions based on the knowables. Comprende?
posted on September 6, 2005 3:20 PM — link — abuse?
Comprende?
No. None of us comprende, which is why everyone's lining up to take a swing at your Gang of Six.A lot of people see different things when they watch the game and, frankly, don't have the background to understand.
And I don't think, as you suggested, that it's as simple as saying that you have a higher understanding of the game.
Eric S. said:
posted on September 6, 2005 6:44 PM — 24.99.142.243 — link — abuse?
And, HP, you were WRONG. Jeez...What is all this scheme vs. athleticism stuff? Georgia hit harder, ran faster, jumped higher, coached better, made fewer mistakes and basically took a second tier conference team to the proverbial woodshed. When fans get stoked because their team almost beat Louisville in the Liberty Bowl?!....PLEASE. BSU fans don't make excuses...you got beat by a far superior team who played their 3rd stringers the last quarter of the game...You people talk ad nauseum about your technically superior offensive schemes and blame the rout on the inexplicable meltdown of the "Heisman candidate" QB...he made all those turnovers because guys like Greg Blue were knocking him back to Idaho without the assistance of a jet. He sat in the locker room during the second half cringing on a gurney with an IV drip and cold packs to relieve the pain and anguish of the multiple raps to the head and body he received from those simpleton southern boys and their prehistoric game plan. Jeez...don't make excuses, you got hammered and it could have been a hell of a lot worse.
Timmy said:
posted on September 6, 2005 11:41 PM — 24.117.90.113 — link — abuse?
You know what the best thing about BSU is? Their fans. They will find every possible way to justify this loss after talking smack all summer. I live in Boise and I can tell you no one would wear BSU shirts around five years ago. BSU's fans are a disposable band wagon bunch. I guarantee that in three weeks when BSU realizes that they are 0-3 heading in to league play, that there won't be so many BSU shirts around town. BSU should thank Georgia for not running up the score like Hawkins does.
posted on September 8, 2005 5:44 PM — 69.73.42.221 — link — abuse?
As for the scheme turning Utah around...
I have watched Utah football carefully for the last 8 years, I think I have a good understanding of what lead to the break out year they had.
I left Florida to attend the University of Utah in '98. Unfamiliar with Utah, but instilled with a love of football, I went to the games and was surprised. My first surprise was that they showed more talent than I expected. The second was that the play calling under McBride was horrable. The third was that the fans thought McBride was a great coach.
So here Utah was, a good team that was showing potential, able to beat a good team on a good day, and lose to a bad team on a bad day. McBride built the wood stack and poored the gasoline on top. His emotion driven philosophy was unable to light the spark.
Finally in 2004 McBride left Utah, disappointing many of their fans. Urban Meyer came in and brought a new offensive approach to Utah. The offense increased interest and excitement at Utah, it is not what made them transition to a powerhouse.
Utah had the talent and the inferstructure of a great team, but not the disipline and confidence. This, more than the playbook, is what Urban Meyer brought to Utah.
Schemes are exciting. A little luck never hurts. Talent is very important. Disipline and confidence are the foundation dynasties are built on.
posted on September 8, 2005 5:51 PM — 69.73.42.221 — link — abuse?
A hem, as for the BSU Georgia Game...
I was surprised that Boise State fell as hard as they did. I have never seen Boise State fall on their face that hard in a big game before.
Georgia Shut Down their unstopable offense, and Boise had nothing else. Once the hard times hit Boise State experienced an emotional implosion and was done early.
Athletic team vs a fancy scheme?
I'll take the one with discipline and making better adjustments.
This week that was Georgia.
Pete Holiday said:
posted on September 4, 2005 11:13 AM — 12.223.245.245 — link — abuse?Sometimes people so strongly want to believe things that they seem undeniably true.
Lots of people want to believe that the SEC is a doomed and on it's way out. Unfortunately for HP and CFR, that's just not true.
Of course, the flaw in their argument was pretty apparent: could a Jr. High team running the spread beat a top 10 team even if all that team did was run the football every single play?