I'm a big fan of Kiffin's offensive scheme overall. The spacing, tempo, RPOs, and the way it puts defenders in conflict are terrific, particularly with a QB like Leavitt who's a legitimate running threat. But I think there's a significant flaw in his philosophy that cost us dearly against Alabama and has shown up throughout the season: For an offense that's so multiple in its play concepts, it's remarkably one-dimensional in its reliance on shotgun.

We're almost exclusively in shotgun regardless of the situation, even in obvious short yardage and inside the 10, where the field is condensed and much of the spread's spacing advantage disappears.

Earlier this season, Kiffin explained his philosophy in this interview (sorry for the Facebook reel link, it's where I stumbled on it). He specifically addressed fans wondering why we'd snap the ball five yards deep when we only need a yard. His explanation was essentially that shotgun gets the ball to the RB immediately, whereas under center, the QB has to turn around and deliver it several yards behind him.

I think Kiffin's logic here is fundamentally flawed. He's conflating how quickly the RB receives the football with how quickly the RB can actually reach the line of scrimmage. Those are two very different things, especially when you only need six inches or a yard. A QB sneak can attack the line almost instantly. A quick-hitting fullback dive can have a runner moving downhill before he even receives the ball, hitting the hole with forward momentum. Compare that to a back starting five yards deep who receives the ball flat-footed and has to accelerate toward the line while defenders are already attacking downhill.

I largely agree with Kiffin's philosophy on normal downs, where spacing and the threat of multiple plays stress a defense. But why not more regularly mix in some under-center formations and heavier personnel packages (12/13 personnel, extra offensive linemen, etc.), particularly in obvious short-yardage running situations and goal-to-go situations inside the 10? We already have some of these looks in the playbook, but they're rarely utilized. Run power, sneak it, use a lead blocker, or even play-action off those looks. I'm not suggesting abandoning the spread, just having another way to attack defenses when the situation calls for it.

Saturday against Alabama illustrated the problem perfectly. We moved the ball effectively much of the game but repeatedly stalled deep in their territory. Ironically, our only touchdown came on a five-yard run out of the I-formation (with 2 tightends), which I believe was our only play from under center in the game. Then late in the game, when I saw we came up just short on the second down, I turned to my son and said "Here comes the direct snap to the RB in shotgun." Alabama certainly seemed to know it was coming too and blew the play up in a critical spot that seemed to open the floodgates. Not only are we running obvious short-yardage plays from a formation that I believe puts us at a disadvantage, but we're also becoming incredibly predictable in our play selection. That's a bad combination.

Being multiple shouldn't just mean running a dozen different plays from shotgun. It should mean being able to fundamentally change how you attack a defense when the situation calls for it. I believe in Kiffin and think he'll get it figured out and adapt. But I must admit, his explanation in that interview above where he "educates" the fans on why he thinks snapping it in shotgun formation when we need a single yard is smart was really alarming to me.