- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
If UGA flames out in their first game, does that sour a potential run-heavy offense?
Posted on 12/10/21 at 7:17 am
Posted on 12/10/21 at 7:17 am
The LSU fanbase has literally just recovered from a decade of Stockholm Syndrome at the hands of Les Miles trying to tell us all that a run-heavy offense would still work in the modern CFB era. 2019 was a legitimate symbolic breaking of those mental shackles, especially when compared to the ultimate failure that was 2011 (primarily due to the run-heavy offense that ultimately failed when it was needed most).
It seems that Denbrock is the guy for OC and he runs a very run-heavy offense. It's not quite a dinosaur offense like what Miles ran, but it's much closer in philosophy to what UGA runs. The run sets up everything, including the passing game. The one variable of UGA that has kept it back has been its offense, and everyone thought that 2021 was a return to running....until the SEC title game.
There appears to be a philosophical split in CFB where lesser teams are relying on more on running games (becoming more of the "gimmick offense" label of years past) while the top teams are pass-first (OSU, Alabama, etc.) while still having a reliable running game. That's where teams like Cincinnati (or even my beloved Baylor Bears) can take advantage of the paradigm flipping. But when facing elite competition, is it the best strategy (and if we're aiming for titles, this is what matters most)?
The biggest issue with even the best run-heavy system is that it presents severe handicaps on making up ground in games. If you get down, the hole gets exponentially larger with any increase in the scoring gap. The reason is that the efficiency in a rushing offense is based off (1) running (obviously) but, more importantly (2) efficiencies created in the passing game created by the run. This is where you get your chunk plays that (some could argue artificially) increase the efficiency of the offense.
Running to create passing opportunities is a major schematic disadvantage compared to passing to creating running opportunities. There is never a time in a game where a team HAS to run with a modern offense. There are times when a team HAS to pass. If you use the run to create your passing offense, then your passing offense becomes inefficient when you can't run (either via defensive scheme or the in-game necessities of the score). If you use your passing game to create your major rushing opportunities, you can always go back to relying on your passing game to matriculate the ball down the field.
It seems that Denbrock is the guy for OC and he runs a very run-heavy offense. It's not quite a dinosaur offense like what Miles ran, but it's much closer in philosophy to what UGA runs. The run sets up everything, including the passing game. The one variable of UGA that has kept it back has been its offense, and everyone thought that 2021 was a return to running....until the SEC title game.
There appears to be a philosophical split in CFB where lesser teams are relying on more on running games (becoming more of the "gimmick offense" label of years past) while the top teams are pass-first (OSU, Alabama, etc.) while still having a reliable running game. That's where teams like Cincinnati (or even my beloved Baylor Bears) can take advantage of the paradigm flipping. But when facing elite competition, is it the best strategy (and if we're aiming for titles, this is what matters most)?
The biggest issue with even the best run-heavy system is that it presents severe handicaps on making up ground in games. If you get down, the hole gets exponentially larger with any increase in the scoring gap. The reason is that the efficiency in a rushing offense is based off (1) running (obviously) but, more importantly (2) efficiencies created in the passing game created by the run. This is where you get your chunk plays that (some could argue artificially) increase the efficiency of the offense.
Running to create passing opportunities is a major schematic disadvantage compared to passing to creating running opportunities. There is never a time in a game where a team HAS to run with a modern offense. There are times when a team HAS to pass. If you use the run to create your passing offense, then your passing offense becomes inefficient when you can't run (either via defensive scheme or the in-game necessities of the score). If you use your passing game to create your major rushing opportunities, you can always go back to relying on your passing game to matriculate the ball down the field.
Posted on 12/10/21 at 7:19 am to SlowFlowPro
Someone just posted the guy is under 48 years old. FWIW.
Posted on 12/10/21 at 7:20 am to SlowFlowPro
Why would Georgia losing to Michigan be any sort of rebuke of a physical, run first offense? Have you watched Michigan? I mean, imo if anything a Georgia loss would show if you have the right development plan in place and can dominate the LOS that you can win with lesser players.
This post was edited on 12/10/21 at 7:22 am
Posted on 12/10/21 at 7:23 am to SlowFlowPro
No, I sours playing a 188 lb walk on at QB
Posted on 12/10/21 at 7:23 am to tigre704
quote:
Why would Georgia losing to Michigan be any sort of rebuke of a physical, run first offense?
Because UGA was supposed to be that dude and win everything this year.
quote:
Have you watched Michigan?
In the game they lost, they had to pass to win that game against a really terrible MSU pass defense. They did not win.
They also didn't play in the SEC. Yeah they beat OSU, but that was a failure of OSU's defense. Again, the problem with a run heavy scheme is when you get down. They didn't have the problem against OSU b/c of OSU's defense. When they had to go blow for blow via passing this year they lost.
Posted on 12/10/21 at 7:28 am to SlowFlowPro
They'll get to the championship game then get curb-stomped by Alabama...again.
Posted on 12/10/21 at 7:34 am to SlowFlowPro
I blame UGA’s issues on JT Daniels being hurt and Kirby Smart being stubborn af
Posted on 12/10/21 at 7:37 am to DBG
quote:
and Kirby Smart being stubborn af
Well Kelly isn't exactly dynamic lately
His teams haven't been on the cutting edge of offense for over a decade
Posted on 12/10/21 at 7:38 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
If UGA flames out in their first game, does that sour a potential run-heavy offense?
I'd see it more as they were HIGHLY overrated (as they are most seasons) because they simply dont play anyone.
Posted on 12/10/21 at 7:44 am to PureBlood
quote:
I'd see it more as they were HIGHLY overrated (as they are most seasons) because they simply dont play anyone.
You could make that claim against Bama for sure, but they seem to show up for the big games unlike UGA...
Posted on 12/10/21 at 7:44 am to SlowFlowPro
If UGA flames out it’s because their QB is not an SEC caliber guy. Anyone can look good when you have a generational defense and the best OL in the country to go with very good RBs. Their problem isn’t that they run first; it’s that they can’t pass if they need to.
Posted on 12/10/21 at 7:45 am to SlowFlowPro
So are you anti kelly now? You seemed really high on him when the news first broke but you have been posting anti threads every day recently
Posted on 12/10/21 at 7:47 am to SlowFlowPro
Kelly would really dampen my interest if he goes to a run heavy attack. I think it's a waste of talent. The greatest offense LSU ever had was the one with 60 touchdown passes.
If you can get the skill position players like LSU you don't run that 3 yards and a cloud of dust BS. I really hope any tendencies to run things that way were left at ND where skill position players are harder to come by.
If you can get the skill position players like LSU you don't run that 3 yards and a cloud of dust BS. I really hope any tendencies to run things that way were left at ND where skill position players are harder to come by.
Posted on 12/10/21 at 7:47 am to BeeFense5
quote:
So are you anti kelly now?
Naw. Not at all.
I just fear that it's going to take a few years for him to realize that his run heavy preference isn't going to cut it.
He may not hire Denbrock, but if he does, he's signaling.
Posted on 12/10/21 at 7:48 am to SlowFlowPro
Doesn’t make a difference and Georgia isn’t flaming out against the MeatChickens
Posted on 12/10/21 at 7:49 am to tiggerthetooth
The obsession some of you have with the passing game led us to what we witnessed the last two years with O. No running game whatsoever because it was almost like he was scared of developing the running game. You need an offense that can do both. Being afraid of running the ball will bring us right back to where we are.
Posted on 12/10/21 at 7:49 am to tiggerthetooth
quote:
Kelly would really dampen my interest if he goes to a run heavy attack. I think it's a waste of talent. The greatest offense LSU ever had was the one with 60 touchdown passes.
If you can get the skill position players like LSU you don't run that 3 yards and a cloud of dust BS. I really hope any tendencies to run things that way were left at ND where skill position players are harder to come by.
Yeah Kelly making a move to LSU to get titles made me think he was making more self analysis than what talent he can recruit. Some of that hope will be dampened if he's just repeating what he did at ND and hoping slightly better WRs and DBs will magically make the difference.
Posted on 12/10/21 at 7:52 am to BeeFense5
quote:
The obsession some of you have with the passing game led us to what we witnessed the last two years with O. No running game whatsoever because it was almost like he was scared of developing the running game. You need an offense that can do both. Being afraid of running the ball will bring us right back to where we are.
No one is afraid of running the ball. There's a lot of play styles that include a prominent passing attack and you saw one and somehow conclude that's the only one and now we have to go back to chunky fat boy football? As stated, a great passing attack opens up the run game if you spread the field.
I think it's funny how some LSU fans, even after watching the passing evolution of all of football from HS to NFL, still cling to the mid-2000s smash football with a defense.
Its like you love watching paint dry.
This post was edited on 12/10/21 at 7:53 am
Posted on 12/10/21 at 7:53 am to BeeFense5
quote:
The obsession some of you have with the passing game led us to what we witnessed the last two years with O. No running game whatsoever
That is because the "Joe Brady offense" was really bad at scheming the run game. Even in 2019 it was meh until CEH just started working magic.
Orgeron is just an idiot and lacked the basic intelligence to understand what was going on. He just wanted "da Joe Brady offense"
quote:
You need an offense that can do both.
No shite. Did you not read my OP? This is about how to create the best total offense, which relies on the running game.
Modern football uses the pass the set up the run. It's the more logical progression than the traditional "run to set up the pass" mentality.
You can always pass the ball (unless you're in NE-BUF conditions from Sunday night)
You can't always run the ball (with good man coverage, you can put more defensive hats in the box)
Given this, which aspect is more logical to use as the basis to help the other?
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News