Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

Again, I'm not understanding what a "risky" offense is.  Army and its option attack would be using a risky offense by going air-raid between game 3 and game 4.  But no one does that.  You have your offense and you practice it until it's automatic.  A Mike Leach offense is no more risky than a Barry Alvarez offense. 

Here, let me see if I can provide an example of what you're trying to say.
Alabama threw a lot more in 2018 than in 2017.  Makes sense, they had a better passer at QB, going from Hurts to Tua.  Tagovailoa threw the ball 100 more times than Hurts did just the year before.  And you can even think back further - Saban wanting to minimize risk (perceived risk), throwing the ball some, but relying on 2 good RBs, a great OL, and his special defenses every year to win rings.

You guys are saying pre-Tua Saban had a less risky offense.  And thus, with Tua, he opened his offense up with more passing, so it became riskier.  <<<<  Please correct me if I'm wrong here.

If I'm right, then I still disagree.
Alabama passed more because Tua was a much better passer.  Hurts only threw 1 INT in 2018!  OMG how safe!  How risk-adverse!  Then why in the holy hell would Bama throw 100 additional times the next season?  Answer:  because they could, because it was worth it, and because it expanded the advantage they already had vs everyone on their schedule.

No, Bama didn't stand pat.  Yes, they threw more INTs in 2018.  But their offense was on jet fuel. 
Look:
2017 Hurts
0.4 INT Rate
60.4% completion rate
8.2 yards per attempt
150.2 rating

2017 Offense overall
6.6 yards per play
37.1 points per game
--------------------
2018 Tagovailoa
1.7 INT Rate (omg, 4x more than in 2017)
69.0% completion rate
11.2 yards per attempt
199.4 rating

2018 Offense overall
7.8 yards per play
45.6 points per game


Obviously, there's plenty of noise in these numbers.  But, Alabama had every incentive to stand pat - to avoid risk, as you say.  But there was incentive to pass more.  NOT run a riskier offense, but to simply pass more, with a better QB.
The additional turnovers (only 6 INT) was well worth the better completion percentage, massive improvement in yards per attempt, and an all-time great QB rating.

Doing what they did wasn't risky, it was smart.  They had an advantage over everyone on their schedule doing what they had done every year on offense under Saban, but they saw a way to extend that advantage and did so.

Right, but Saban had gone 89-9 the previous 7 seasons with what many here are labeling a "less risky" offense.  And everyone to a man would say "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."  

You'd have to be a crazy person to change to a riskier offense.


And what I'm saying is that Saban didn't do that.  He allowed more passing AND it wasn't any riskier.  

Right, but Saban had gone 89-9 the previous 7 seasons with what many here are labeling a "less risky" offense.  And everyone to a man would say "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." 

You'd have to be a crazy person to change to a riskier offense.


And what I'm saying is that Saban didn't do that.  He allowed more passing AND it wasn't any riskier. 

right, but a huge reason why it wasn't any riskier is because he had the most efficient qb in the history of cfb making those reads/throws. put in the average qb, or even just a good qb, and it's probably quite a bit riskier.

that's not to say there isn't a big benefit of taking those risks.

also, it's a bit of a misnomer to call saban conservative offensively. when the game is on the line, he's pretty aggressive. he only goes into a shell once the game is out of reach and he can shorten game and go home with a w. which lends credence to risky vs less risky offenses, btw. but saban teams hold most of the passing records for both bama and lsu (until this year, which i'm guessing burrow owns most of them now). bama's passing record books are basically all saban qb's, and lsu's top 5 were mostly saban qb's.