Author
Topic: You're the OC/HC of any program you want - what offense are you using?
(Read 8929 times)

OrangeAfroMan · « **Reply #42 on:** June 05, 2020, 01:08:57 PM »

Quote from: bwarbiany on June 05, 2020, 12:46:34 PM

And I've argued many times WHY this doesn't make sense. If a strategy introduces higher variance, it can be a negative in a sport where one loss a season makes your road to the CFP difficult, and two losses in a season are almost assured to exclude you.

For a school like Purdue, a high-variance offense that has "higher highs" but also "lower lows" might lead to a situation where it nets you 2-3 additional wins per year over a low-variance offense, but also then loses you a game you should win because it's just not clicking.

For a team like Alabama or OSU which is legitimately expected to be better talent-wise than at least 11 of their regular-season opponents, they don't have a 2-3 game upside from a high-variance offense, but they definitely still have the downside.

When you have the talent you want an offense that minimizes turnovers and three-and-outs / stalled drives. You want to stay ahead of down-and-distance, trust your talent, and wear down the opponent over 4 quarters. IMHO that is incompatible with pass-heavy spread attacks.

-------------------------------

One caveat... It's my bias / prior belief that variance is higher in these offenses. I don't have empirical evidence of this. So my argument is based on a premise that I think makes logical sense, but could be completely wrong.

Yeah, you'd need to show that a "high-variance" offense even exists, when you may simply be mislabeling ineffective offenses, lol.

CWSooner · « **Reply #43 on:** June 05, 2020, 01:24:26 PM »

OAM, you seem to be positing that there is some magic-bullet offense that is good no matter whether your talent is rich or poor, no matter what kinds of defense you will face, and whether you have a good depth of talent or not.

But the reality is that some offensive schemes are better against some defenses than other offensive schemes are against those same defenses, and those other offensive schemes may be better than the original offensive schemes against different defenses.

Also, you seem to be saying that getting better at one phase of offense doesn't mean that you likely are going to get worse at another phase. Passing teams tend to have different types of guys on the OL than running teams do, for example. The guys who are best at pass-blocking are not necessarily the guys who are best at run-blocking. Run-heavy teams may not have enough skilled receivers to shift into a 4-wideouts formation. Pass-heavy spread teams may not have the personnel to line up and eat clock to close out the game.

There's no free lunch.

To me, what Bwarb argued makes perfect sense. A Purdue is more willing to run a riskier offense than Ohio State is because it has to do that to have a reasonable chance to beat Ohio State.

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #44 on:** June 05, 2020, 01:30:16 PM »

Quote from: OrangeAfroMan on June 05, 2020, 01:07:18 PM

I get all that, we've discussed that before.
But if there's something that outmanned teams do in order to 'sneak' closer to upset victories, then if the favored programs do those same things, it will always negate any advantage sought out by the underdog.

There you go. Your use of the term "always" suggests you completely missed the variance point of my argument.

I've used the 2018 Purdue upset of Ohio State, where they won in a 49-20 rout, as an example of this. Ohio State was running a high-variance spread offense.

Ohio State slightly outgained Purdue.
Ohio State had more first downs than Purdue.
Ohio State had a higher 3rd down conversion rate than Purdue.
Ohio State slightly edged Purdue in TOP.
Ohio State ran 98 offensive plays to Purdue's 72.

Ohio State couldn't run the ball against Purdue's weak defense. They averaged 3 ypc, and only ran the ball 25 times against 73 pass attempts.

So what was the difference? For all that offensive success, they bogged down in the red zone and then were only 2/3 on their FG attempts. Purdue hit on big plays, so despite having a worse offense against a better defense, they got lucky when it mattered.

It's like boxing. If you're outmatched, you need to throw some haymakers and pray they connect, because if you fight a technical battle against a technician, they'll slowly wear you down.

In this case, both the outmanned and the favorite were throwing haymakers, except it was only the outmanned fighter that was landing them.

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #45 on:** June 05, 2020, 01:31:54 PM »

Quote from: CWSooner on June 05, 2020, 01:24:26 PM

To me, what Bwarb argued makes perfect sense. A Purdue is more willing to run a riskier offense than Ohio State is because it has to do that to have a reasonable chance to beat Ohio State.

And hopefully my last post (crossed in the mail) points out the corollary to that...

That Ohio State running a riskier offense ALSO increases the chance that Purdue beats Ohio State.

OrangeAfroMan · « **Reply #46 on:** June 05, 2020, 01:46:12 PM »

I'm not understanding 2 things here:
1 - high variance offense.....what's the variance? What does that mean?
2 - how was OSU's offense "risky"? It's the offense they practice every day. It's the one the HC installed on purpose.

CWS, saying I'm suggesting there's a magic bullet offense is missing what I'm saying. Maybe I'm putting it poorly.
We all know that (let's just grab 2 programs) - when New Mexico plays Oklahoma, if NM does what OU does, they lose every time. If the coaches at NM just did the same thing as OU, they'd be fired, because anyone could just do the same things as your opponents and lose. They need to do something different. No, NM may never be on the same level as OU, but if winning is the goal, NM is going to take measures and do things to gain little advantages here and there.

All I'm saying is if OU did the same measures and things, their inherent advantage would remain unchanged. They'd keep NM at arm's length. Type of offense is one of those measures/things.

OrangeAfroMan · « **Reply #47 on:** June 05, 2020, 01:47:14 PM »

I don't think a 1-game upset of PU over OSU is meaningful here. Sample size.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #48 on:** June 05, 2020, 01:59:09 PM »

A team with elite talent should be able to run a plain Jane offense, as noted many times, and beat 9 teams on their schedule consistently, with very very few upsets. Run the ball effectively and mix in a few passes.

A Purdue or Georgia Tech may well do better over time with a "gimmicky" offense that is riskier. I thought the Johnson offensive scheme at Tech was exactly what they needed. Tech is going to suffer with the new approach. Tech was able to upset UGA a few times despite an enormous talent disparity.

And at times they got blown out as well.

OrangeAfroMan · « **Reply #49 on:** June 05, 2020, 02:05:31 PM »

I'm afraid the term "risky offense" may not be an actual thing. And how do we define a "gimmicky" offense? One that gives you an advantage? A rare one? One that's hard to prepare for? All of these seem like a good idea for an elite program to employ.

I'm not sure I buy any offense that you're practicing everyday as being risky or gimmicky. ?

Cincydawg · « **Reply #50 on:** June 05, 2020, 02:11:21 PM »

The Tech offense was risky, obviously. Any "Air Raid" offense is risky. An offense predicted on handing the ball off to a tailback and throwing the occasional pass is not as risky.

Brutus Buckeye · « **Reply #51 on:** June 05, 2020, 02:31:07 PM »

Quote from: OrangeAfroMan on June 05, 2020, 01:47:14 PM

I don't think a 1-game upset of PU over OSU is meaningful here. Sample size.

Purdue is like 5-8 vs OSU since 2000, with a lot of close losses. That's MUCH better than anyone else in the Big Ten during that timeframe.

OrangeAfroMan · « **Reply #52 on:** June 05, 2020, 02:35:15 PM »

Why is it risky?
Air raid teams trade the lower risk of turnovers and lower average yardage for the slightly higher risk of turnovers and almost universal higher average yardage of short passing to replace running the ball.

I understand I literally just used the word risk, but if it's a net positive, then the risk is annulled, is it not? Those air raid offenses have lower INT rates than traditional passing games, and would argue less risk is involved.

I guess I'm focusing on the net risk/reward and benefit......if it's a net plus, then the better program doing it makes sense.

OrangeAfroMan · « **Reply #53 on:** June 05, 2020, 02:36:02 PM »

Quote from: Brutus Buckeye on June 05, 2020, 02:31:07 PM

Purdue is like 5-8 vs OSU since 2000, with a lot of close losses. That's MUCH better than anyone else in the Big Ten during that timeframe.

Well if it's offense is "risky," then this is a data point FOR risky offenses.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #54 on:** June 05, 2020, 02:40:17 PM »

If you don't think the Paul Johnson is offense is riskier than a standard offense, well, I'll just disagree. Same with any gimmick offense.

High risk, high reward. That is why we see them at programs that can't recruit.

OrangeAfroMan · « **Reply #55 on:** June 05, 2020, 03:17:07 PM »

Yeah, "just because I think so" isn't persuasive.

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

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.

Topic: You're the OC/HC of any program you want - what offense are you using?

OrangeAfroMan

Re: You're the OC/HC of any program you want - what offense are you using?

CWSooner

Re: You're the OC/HC of any program you want - what offense are you using?

betarhoalphadelta

Re: You're the OC/HC of any program you want - what offense are you using?

betarhoalphadelta

Re: You're the OC/HC of any program you want - what offense are you using?

OrangeAfroMan

Re: You're the OC/HC of any program you want - what offense are you using?

OrangeAfroMan

Re: You're the OC/HC of any program you want - what offense are you using?

Cincydawg

Re: You're the OC/HC of any program you want - what offense are you using?

OrangeAfroMan

Re: You're the OC/HC of any program you want - what offense are you using?

Cincydawg

Re: You're the OC/HC of any program you want - what offense are you using?

Brutus Buckeye

Re: You're the OC/HC of any program you want - what offense are you using?

OrangeAfroMan

Re: You're the OC/HC of any program you want - what offense are you using?

OrangeAfroMan

Re: You're the OC/HC of any program you want - what offense are you using?

Cincydawg

Re: You're the OC/HC of any program you want - what offense are you using?

OrangeAfroMan

Re: You're the OC/HC of any program you want - what offense are you using?