October 8, 2005
How Mike Leach redefined Big XII football
Blair Kerkhoff takes a look at how Texas Tech football coach Mike Leach has "transformed" the Big XII, influencing the offenses at three of the conferences' programs:
The most influential person in Big 12 football wasn't around when the league started and hasn't been involved in a conference - or even a division - championship.But he helped change the way football is played at two of the league's traditional powers _one directly, the other indirectly - and is steadily climbing the ranks with his own program.
Texas Tech coach Mike Leach spent only one season at Oklahoma, but it was enough time as offensive coordinator to introduce the foundation of the spread offense, which helped carry the Sooners to the 2000 national championship. Oklahoma's title came in Leach's first year at Tech.
As Oklahoma continued its dominance over the last few years, Nebraska slipped to a point where it hasn't won a division title since 1999. The response? Fire the caretaker of the option and hire a coach with a more modern outlook on offense.
While I don't necessarily subscribe to everything that Kerkhoff has to say on Leach as the mystical prophet of the forward pass, it is an interesting side note that Leach has had a hand directly or indirectly at reshaping the offenses at Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Texas Tech. OU's success in the spread attack during the last five years was more the impetus for the change at NU, but that offense is directly rooted in the work Leach did.
Comments:
Gene Larew said:
posted on October 9, 2005 7:51 PM — 24.253.211.201 — link — abuse?
Oklahoma has moved away from the Leach offense, beginning as soon as he left after the 99 season.
When Mark Mangino took over in 2000 he added a stronger run component to the offense, not only in scheme and personnel, but in play calling also.
Josh Heupel had far more to do with OU winning that NC. Leach just supplied the passing game.
Its very hard to play defense with Leach's offense, it leaves the defense on the field far too much. He doesn't have the ability to run clock.
The Leach offense has wide line splits, that's how it protects the QB from all out blitzing defenses. But those same splits with the olinemen in a two point stance are the same reason he can't run the ball when he needs to run the ball.
This is why OU has slowly moved away from what Leach does.
And if you notice, Leach's offense is pitiful vrs OU. In five meetings, he's scored 13 pts three times, 14 another, and in one game when it didn't matter he put up 28 after the game was decided. Bob Stoops knows something about that offense.
Gameday Guru said:
posted on October 10, 2005 11:02 AM — 12.43.234.14 — link — abuse?
I've heard a lot of great points made for both arguements. I've also heard a lot senseless points. Leach has definately had somewhat of an impact with his style of offense. If you take a look at Nebraska, Oklahoma and Tech's programs you'll see 3 programs that were not playing up to their respective history, with the exception of Tech who had never been a real threat to dominate the Texas based programs anyway. OU and Nebraska have histories of being fast, run based programs. Relying on team quickness and speed with big boys in the trenches. The Oklahoma National Championship team is actually quite different than the OU Championship teams of the past. Leach definately brought a new and effective style to all these programs. His spread offense enables teams to be effective by throwing shorter, high percentage passes in running situations. Leach's offense isn't based on the deep ball for big plays, but rather his receivers ability to gain yards after the catch. His offense creates mismatches with LB's that can't cover that type of speed. OU's defense has had success against Tech largely in part to 2 key reasons. The first, being that they saw that offense in practice every day. The second, is because of outstanding team speed on OU's defense, primarily with the LB's. I am not a huge fan of leach's offense, however, if you can recruit the types of players to run it effectively it does create problems for teams that can't match the speed defensively. Personaly, I believe the concept of Leach's offense was more out of necessity than from some new form of football brilliance. Common sense tells you that your odds of completing a 5 yard pass with quick receivers is greater than running for 5 yards against a bigger more physical defensive line. Rather than be forced into throwing the ball based on situations you are forced into during the course of a game, why not develop your offense behind a passing game that replaces your run game and ultimately opens up running plays by keeping the defense aware of a constant short pass threat.
Tech Ringer said:
posted on October 10, 2005 12:40 PM — 68.98.252.211 — link — abuse?
Gameday Guru says:
"...why not develop your offense behind a passing game that replaces your run game and ultimately opens up running plays by keeping the defense aware of a constant short pass threat."Tech Ringer says:
This is exactly what our offense has done. Scare the defense into passing and throw in a running play when appropriate.Success has varied throughout these past 5 years (with this offense) but overall our team has done nothing but increased each season.
Gene Larew said:
posted on October 10, 2005 4:05 PM — 24.253.211.201 — link — abuse?
It is a short passing game that depends on YAC, but what OU ran into was defenses playing a three deep zone and rushing as few as 2 dlinemen, then dropping everyone else into the short zones. That was effective vrs OU in the later parts of the 2000 season.
The only way to counter that was with a run game or a downfield passing game. And Leach's offense today goes downfield more than what he did at OU in 1999.
I also think Leach has been fortunate to get his QB's all the way through the season without injury. OU ran into some all out blitz schemes that got the QB beatup badly. Even with the line splits, it doesn't protect the QB as much as a good run game.
In 2001, KSU put all 11 defenders within 5 yds of the LOS and blitzed one more defender than there were blockers. They gambled on allowing the deep ball and gave up 3 TD's on deep passes, but they also broke Nate Hybl's collar bone that day and almost ruined OU's season.
I would much prefer a balanced offense that offers better QB protection and that can attack a defense in more ways than just the pass.
Big Tom said:
posted on October 10, 2005 5:59 PM — 69.148.223.34 — link — abuse?
It is a travisty what happened at the Cotton Bowl this past weekend, For me and my close friends.
And to have this weekend coming, I will look forward to watching USC go down to Notre Dame. Now all this means is Texas will be Number 1. Now that means coach Leach FINALLY Gets to eat Bevo burgers at some point in the near future. If the Redraiders need the reciept, call the OU Sooners we have have Bevo for Dinner 5 times in the past 6 Years, unfortunatly we are on a diet this year. GET EM RAIDERS>Gene Larew said:
posted on October 10, 2005 7:45 PM — 24.253.211.201 — link — abuse?
I guess it depends on what you think is " best " when it comes to offense.
Tech scores more points. But the goal of football is not to score a bunch of points, its to score more points than your opponents and win the game.
If Tech scores 40 per game but 5 teams they play score 45 on them, and if the offense gets in the way of playing good defense then its not the " best " offense. The " best " offense is the one that wins games against all teams.
GO BIG RED said:
posted on October 11, 2005 12:44 AM — 216.170.21.254 — link — abuse?
The NFL has had more to do with Nebraska's change than Leach has. Almost every NFL team runs the west coast offense. Its a balanced attack, not a pass heavy unconventional offense. If you have great players it doesnt matter what scheme you run. Nebraska wasnt down because it was running the option offense it was because recruiting was down. From 1993-1997 Nebraska was 60-3 running the option offense. Thats when everyone was on the fun and gun bandwagon. The 95 Huskers won the title running the option and the very next year Florida won it with the fun and gun. It isnt scheme its players. Everyone thinks that what ever scheme is popular that year is the reason why teams win. USC isnt winning all these titles because of the west coast offense. Its because they have great players.
Gameday Guru said:
posted on October 11, 2005 1:26 PM — 12.43.234.14 — link — abuse?
First of all I think Leach has done an outstanding job. Sorry Gene, but you need to study up on your football stategies. You said -"defenses playing a three deep zone and rushing as few as 2 dlinemen, then dropping everyone else into the short zones" and "The only way to counter that was with a run game or a downfield passing game." No one in their right mind counters a defense with 9 defenders in pass coverage(3-deep) with a downfield passing game. Where the heck do you plan on throwing the ball downfield that isn't going to be double or triple teamed? If any team consistantly drops 8 - 9 defenders into pass coverage they are creating a running game for even the weakest running games. As far as scoring a "bunch" of points, well that is the goal of every offense in the country. If your team is giving up more than your scoring that is more than likely a "defensive" problem, wouldn't you think.
Gameday Guru said:
posted on October 11, 2005 1:38 PM — 12.43.234.14 — link — abuse?
I agree it is the players not the scheme that make a program successful. However, not all schools are capable of recruiting equally. If everyone did recruit equally, the talent would be the same all over the country and the best scheme would ultimately decide the winners. Coaching philosophies and schemes do play a huge role in a team success or demise. If Tech can't recruit the OL and RB's that a UT can recruit then you have to make a few adjustments to stay competitive against the UT's of the world. A good program is one where the players in the program are recruited to "fit" the schemes. I believe Leach has dine an outstanding job of bringing in kids that mesh well with his system. His players have been successful in his system where they probable wouldn't have done as well in another system.
Gene Larew said:
posted on October 11, 2005 8:29 PM — 24.253.211.201 — link — abuse?
Well Guru, I thought the same about you.
You say OU defends Leach's offense due to the fast LB's ....... well guess what ... there's only one LB on the field when OU plays Tech. They are in dime almost exclusively.
I was going to be nice to you and overlook that, but since you questioned me ....... there it is.
And yes, defenses were rushing 2 dlinemen. Not every down, some times they rushed 3 or 4 and occaisionally they would blitz. But the primary defense was dropping everyone into coverage. That happened in the 2000 OU game with Arkansas St, Texas A&M, and Oklahoma State. I saw several times that Ok State only rushed one dlinemen.
Maybe you need to learn some more football Guru, cause your outta your league in this regard.
Gene Larew said:
posted on October 11, 2005 8:36 PM — 24.253.211.201 — link — abuse?
And and about throwing downfield, yes that is exactly how you stretch that defense. Its very obvious, if you watch Leach's team play, he takes shots downfield often. Not because he plans on completing those balls as much as he needs to back the safetys out of the short zones so he can throw his short passing game. He has no choice but to do that.
And yes, the Leach offense does make it hard to play defense. I can't believe I'm even having to explain this since your such a Guru. He leaves the defense on the field too much, throwing 60 to 70 passes a game lenghens the game and creates many more possessions. He can't get control of a game because he cant' run clock with his offense. Just when the defense needs a rest, Leach will throw three INC's that take 20 seconds off the clock and the defense is right back out on the field. Mike Stoops was glad to see Leach move during OU's 1999 season.
Having no running game makes it very difficult to play defense. This elementary stuff Guru.
TechBoi said:
posted on October 12, 2005 12:32 PM — 129.118.113.232 — link — abuse?
Maybe I am just reading your post wrong Gene, but just because the Raider's offense doesn't hold the ball as long as the other team (in reference to the game clock) doesn't mean that they don't give their defense a rest. If you have been to a Tech game (and I have been to quite a few) you would know that our games last a bit longer than other games because we stop the clock more often. The only instances where they don't let their defense rest is when they score in less than a minute and the opposing team can't score. You don't see that very often against big 12 teams. It's pretty even. I definitely agree though that it is hard to control the clock with a pass heavy offense. However, there are more aspects of a football game that the teams can control (and ultimately control the football game) than just the clock. Just my 2 2/3 cents ;o)
commonsense said:
posted on October 13, 2005 3:53 PM — 12.34.237.202 — link — abuse?
When Tech is completing those short passes the clock obviously keeps running. But more important than how long Tech's defense is off the field, is how long they force the opposing defense to stay on the field. In that aspect, Tech does control the clock and the other team's defense continually tire down for that last play, which Tech plans so perfectly to win the game (when not putting 80 points on the board.) Throwing an interception and then forcing a fumble in order to get a first down? That's pure text book!
lateralgs said:
posted on October 13, 2005 8:46 PM — 64.185.16.249 — link — abuse?
It is a fallacy, oft-quoted, that the Tech offense cannot "run clock." Can they score quickly? Certainly. However, if one looks at actual numbers instead of simply spouting the same crap that everyone else does, one would see that over the course of ALL of last year, Tech's opponents averaged only 46-seconds more T.O.P. than Tech. Big deal.
More importantly, look at the number of plays, and scores by quarter. Tech almost always has more offensive plays than the opponent. And in scores by quarter, last year Tech was about even in the first quarter, similar in the second, but almost double the scores of its opponents in the 3rd and 4th quarters. It is worth noting, however, this has not been apparent in Tech's first two conference games this year.
Tech's offense does NOT control what Tech's defense accomplishes on the field.
Someone mentioned OU's success against Tech. They, and someone else, are right, taken together: Players win games. If Tech ever gets the talent on defense that they crave, fuhgeddaboudit. It'll be lights-out.
NCRedRaider said:
posted on October 15, 2005 10:14 PM — 68.187.188.239 — link — abuse?
Hello! Are you believers NOW! TTU may not beat Texas (but we may)but we have proven that our athletic program has elevated itself to the top of the Big 12 and the country. Football AP #13,
Basketball AP #15. How many other schools are in the the top 5 nationally of graduating their players? Guns Up! Go Tech!
Please note that all comments are subject to the Fanblogs Comment Policy.
thebanq said:
posted on October 9, 2005 12:28 PM — 207.91.15.165 — link — abuse?IMO the big 12 "shift" to the leach method has done nothing for the league, im not seeing the leach philosophy being employed by the entire league, as an avid SEC fan i believe the big 12 is killing the BCS (not that it wasnt doomed to begin with) case in point would be the big 12's (oklahoma's) performance in the last two BCS championship games, bottom line is defense wins championships, you can throw the ball around all you want, but in the end a good defense will carry the day