CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: Mdot21 on December 09, 2020, 12:43:27 AM
-
Of the two, who will be the better head coach if they were to land at a helmet team like say Florida State or Texas or Michigan.
-
I've been surprised by Fickell. He's been better than I anticipated. The last couple years they've been good, but their record was probably better than their team. But this year they are flat out good.
-
Campbell is Harbaugh; he'll get you ten wins, but he won't beat your rival or win you a conference title. So I'd take a flyer on Fickell.
-
Probably Fickell. Maybe neither.
-
Lance Leipold.
-
Lance Leipold.
I'm a believer. The bigwigs don't seem to want him but I thought Sparty should have gone all in. Not sure how long Illinois will roll with Lovie but they could be a spot too.
-
Of the two, I'd take Fickell. That said, I'm not sure either coach is interested in coaching outside the Midwest.
I think Campbell is a very solid coach, but he's found success by playing defense in a conference that doesn't. I don't think he'd elevate a program to the top of a defensive-minded conference.
-
Campbell is Harbaugh; he'll get you ten wins, but he won't beat your rival or win you a conference title. So I'd take a flyer on Fickell.
So Campbell has your party pictures and you're rather pithy about it but that's just like your opinion,man and not a very professional one
-
Harbaugh not going anywhere.
But, if you want solid recruiting, solid player development, a consistent identity on offense and defense, a team that plays hard every week, and a team that rarely beats itself, there are many choices better than the existing head coach.
-
I can see Campbell inquiring about FSU/UM not sure about UT as they're in the same conference.His stock may never be higher so if he has a hankering to move now may be the time as these are all Bluebloods.Same for Fickell As IH 15 said they both might like be comfortable where they are at
-
Harbaugh not going anywhere.
IMO he's not,as the situation is like Texas - big buy out and not a slam dunk hire out there
-
I can see Campbell inquiring about FSU/UM not sure about UT as they're in the same conference.His stock may never be higher so if he has a hankering to move now may be the time as these are all Bluebloods.Same for Fickell As IH 15 said they both might like be comfortable where they are at
Campbell supposedly turned down FSU last year. I agree that he wouldn't move within the conference. The only three jobs I feel confident he'd take are Ohio State, Notre Dame, and Michigan.
-
IMO he's not,as the situation is like Texas - big buy out and not a slam dunk hire out there
Big buyout? Tom has one of those. Jim doesn’t.
-
I'm not sure how I feel about Fickell. I loved him as a player and as an assistant at tOSU and he is doing amazing things with the Bearcats but his interim HC year in Columbus was an unmitigated disaster. He took a team that went 12-1 under Tressel the year before (only loss on the road to a very good UW team) and 12-0 the next year under Meyer and he went 6-7 with them.
So the question is:
Did he suck as HC in Columbus because he just wasn't quite ready or because being HC at a major helmet program is just not his thing?
That is the risk TX, FSU, or M would be taking by hiring him. If it was just because he wasn't quite ready then it looks like he IS ready now and he'd be a great hire. If it was because being a HC at a major helmet program is just not his thing then whoever hires him will be looking for a new HC again in a few years.
-
I was in the same boat on Fickell, but in retrospect it's tough to see anyone succeeding that year. He got thrust into the role after spring practice, Jim Bollman was his OC, and Joe Bauserman was his qb. Not exactly a recipe for success.
-
I was in the same boat on Fickell, but in retrospect it's tough to see anyone succeeding that year. He got thrust into the role after spring practice, Jim Bollman was his OC, and Joe Bauserman was his qb. Not exactly a recipe for success.
You are probably right but you could be wrong and that is the risk TX/M/FSU would be taking.
-
I'm a believer. The bigwigs don't seem to want him but I thought Sparty should have gone all in. Not sure how long Illinois will roll with Lovie but they could be a spot too.
I liked him too
-
I'm not sure how I feel about Fickell. I loved him as a player and as an assistant at tOSU and he is doing amazing things with the Bearcats but his interim HC year in Columbus was an unmitigated disaster. He took a team that went 12-1 under Tressel the year before (only loss on the road to a very good UW team) and 12-0 the next year under Meyer and he went 6-7 with them.
So the question is:
Did he suck as HC in Columbus because he just wasn't quite ready or because being HC at a major helmet program is just not his thing?
That is the risk TX, FSU, or M would be taking by hiring him. If it was just because he wasn't quite ready then it looks like he IS ready now and he'd be a great hire. If it was because being a HC at a major helmet program is just not his thing then whoever hires him will be looking for a new HC again in a few years.
Are you forgetting the suspended players? The major negative recruiting he inherited? The negative culture and press?
-
I'm no Fickell apologist for his season at OSU, it was downright disastrous. He was a deer in the headlights, he was trying to be Jim Tressel instead of himself. I've made the analogy on more than one occasion that he got to take his drivers exam in a Ferrari, and he wrapped it around a tree.
That said, I think that he has shown enough to demonstrate monumental growth as a coach since then. He has learned from two legends, but he doesn't try to imitate either. He puts his own spin on it, and it is working.
Coaching at a big city school in a G5 is somewhat analogous to coaching at a helmet in the P5. Big city schools like Houston, Cincinnati, Memphis, etc have a tremendous advantage over their directional school conference mates in both recruiting and exposure. You get a competent coach at one of those programs, and they'll have it humming pretty quickly.
-
I was in the same boat on Fickell, but in retrospect it's tough to see anyone succeeding that year. He got thrust into the role after spring practice, Jim Bollman was his OC, and Joe Bauserman was his qb. Not exactly a recipe for success.
Ya Pryor was suppose to stick around but he bolted also ahead of the tatoo sheriff.So even with a decent squad the team focus just wasn't there and UFM was the attention getter they needed
-
Big buyout? Tom has one of those. Jim doesn’t.
They'd still have to pony up 7.5 mil and pay the new guy a nice chunk if they part ways - that doiesn't sit well with Regents/trustees.Prolly going to leave JH right there and see if he can earn his keep.What Texas & Michigan did throwing gobs of cash uncontested with no incentive attached may be the blueprint for future negotiations if Admns care or are paying attention
-
They'd still have to pony up 7.5 mil and pay the new guy a nice chunk if they part ways - that doiesn't sit well with Regents/trustees.Prolly going to leave JH right there and see if he can earn his keep.What Texas & Michigan did throwing gobs of cash uncontested with no incentive attached may be the blueprint for future negotiations if Admns care or are paying attention
I mean, whenever they fire someone, there's a buyout to pay. Everyone does it, over and over. Texas and Michigan are not unique or unusual. OSU has likely done the same thing, they're just not bad enough for it to matter and have had no real firings in two decades.
Michigan has actually done the unusual thing which is to let the contract wind down. That $7.5 is a steal in modern terms. Now, they can let next year be a mess recruiting-wise and probably team-wise as a lame duck, but that $7.5 is a bargain in these terms. He's 44th nationally in buyout among publicly available contracts. There are only six P5 guys behind him.
-
I was in the same boat on Fickell, but in retrospect it's tough to see anyone succeeding that year. He got thrust into the role after spring practice, Jim Bollman was his OC, and Joe Bauserman was his qb. Not exactly a recipe for success.
He was put in a really tough position as an interim, and he was a lame duck because there was no way he was going to get that job permanently. Lame duck coaches typically don't get the team playing hard for them week in week out- my guess is everyone figures what's the point- he's not going to be here next year so who cares.
You'd have to be crazy to hold that interim 6-7 record and that season with all that turmoil and drama going on around the program against him. There were a lot of reasons for that 6-7 record, it wasn't like it was all on Fickell.
-
Lance Leipold.
35-32 in the MAC with a 5-7, 2-10, and 6-6 season doesn't exactly scream great coach.....hard pass.
-
I mean, whenever they fire someone, there's a buyout to pay. Everyone does it, over and over. Texas and Michigan are not unique or unusual. OSU has likely done the same thing, they're just not bad enough for it to matter and have had no real firings in two decades.
Michigan has actually done the unusual thing which is to let the contract wind down. That $7.5 is a steal in modern terms. Now, they can let next year be a mess recruiting-wise and probably team-wise as a lame duck, but that $7.5 is a bargain in these terms. He's 44th nationally in buyout among publicly available contracts. There are only six P5 guys behind him.
Yeah, if they were going to get rid of him, time is now. That is one of the cheapest buyouts for a major head coach with a fat contract that I can ever remember.
-
Campbell is Harbaugh; he'll get you ten wins, but he won't beat your rival or win you a conference title. So I'd take a flyer on Fickell.
I don't think you can equate the two.
Campbell is coaching at a program that struggles to crack the top 75 in recruiting year in year out. Harbaugh is coaching at a program that can recruit top 10 classes even when they suck.
Coaching at Iowa State is a hell of a lot harder than coaching at Michigan.
Also: Campbell develops his players. Brock Purdy is a way better QB than any Harbaugh has developed at Michigan, and Breece Hall is a way better RB than any Harbaugh has developed at Michigan.
Recruiting is so important- but so is actually developing players. Harbaugh doesn't develop players. See: DPJ, Charbonnet, or any QB that has ever played for Harbaugh at Michigan.
-
35-32 in the MAC with a 5-7, 2-10, and 6-6 season doesn't exactly scream great coach.....hard pass.
Dood... it's f'ing Buffalo. He did win his division a couple of years ago, and look at all those national championships at UW-Whitewater. The guy can coach.
4-0 this season.
-
I don't think you can equate the two.
Campbell is coaching at a program that struggles to crack the top 75 in recruiting year in year out. Harbaugh is coaching at a program that can recruit top 10 classes even when they suck.
Coaching at Iowa State is a hell of a lot harder than coaching at Michigan.
Also: Campbell develops his players. Brock Purdy is a way better QB than any Harbaugh has developed at Michigan, and Breece Hall is a way better RB than any Harbaugh has developed at Michigan.
Recruiting is so important- but so is actually developing players. Harbaugh doesn't develop players. See: DPJ, Charbonnet, or any QB that has ever played for Harbaugh at Michigan.
So here's the thing, I think he has a bad loss problem.
Like, his teams have a habit of dud games, a little like Tress did at points, but more often. He has in Ames and did at Toledo. And you get away with that at a historically bad program. At a good one, it becomes an issue (see Herman, Tom).
-
35-32 in the MAC with a 5-7, 2-10, and 6-6 season doesn't exactly scream great coach.....hard pass.
I mean, that's the issue with MAC coaches. If they go somewhere crappy, they leave as soon as they get good.
So you either have a slow start, or you get plucked up after 2-3 years. Shoot, Campbell lasted four. And that was in part because he missed a bowl after losing to 4-7 Akron.
-
So here's the thing, I think he has a bad loss problem.
Like, his teams have a habit of dud games, a little like Tress did at points, but more often. He has in Ames and did at Toledo. And you get away with that at a historically bad program. At a good one, it becomes an issue (see Herman, Tom).
Also see Carroll, Pete. That dude would have had at least two more NC's if not for near-annual ridiculous "WTF" losses to teams that had no business even competing with his Trojan machine.
-
Urban had a lot of WTF losses too. Probably more so than Tressel.
-
I mean, that's the issue with MAC coaches. If they go somewhere crappy, they leave as soon as they get good.
So you either have a slow start, or you get plucked up after 2-3 years. Shoot, Campbell lasted four. And that was in part because he missed a bowl after losing to 4-7 Akron.
On the road by two,They beat the Eventual MAC champs BG and also lost to Missouri and Florida,FWIW
-
Urban had a lot of WTF losses too. Probably more so than Tressel.
Well ya Iowa and Purdue - happens.After upsetting Ohio State Brohm turned around and lost to MSU
-
Also see Carroll, Pete. That dude would have had at least two more NC's if not for near-annual ridiculous "WTF" losses to teams that had no business even competing with his Trojan machine.
The one year Harbaugh's Stanford team beat USC as like a 4 TD dog or sumsuch.Back when he was fiery and caustic
-
So here's the thing, I think he has a bad loss problem.
Like, his teams have a habit of dud games, a little like Tress did at points, but more often. He has in Ames and did at Toledo. And you get away with that at a historically bad program. At a good one, it becomes an issue (see Herman, Tom).
If you're talking Campbell this has been discussed, he arrived in Toledo in 2009 prior to that the Rockets had 2,5-7 seasons and 1,3-9 Season and his 1st yr as an assistant they were 5-7 - a team he did not recruit..But 3 yrs later as HC he went 9-4,7-5,9-4 so improvement and lost to teams with multiple championships.So beating Baylor ,Texas,Oklahoma,TCU doesn't count guess Aranda,Herman,Riley,Patterson should be sent packing.A quick draft check 2009-2016,that's 8 yrs the Rockets had nobody picked in the NFL draft.Love to see what this guy could do at FSU/Ore/USC/UCLA.Give him a decent base contract the rest incentives
-
Well ya Iowa and Purdue - happens
Virginia Tech, MSU with a backup QB, a few clunkers at Florida, etc.
Tress mostly lost to teams that were at the tippy top of CFB.
-
The one year Harbaugh's Stanford team beat USC as like a 4 TD dog or sumsuch.Back when he was fiery and caustic
That Harbaugh is long gone. Now he’s just a middle aged spaced out weirdo on meds.
-
Urban had a lot of WTF losses too. Probably more so than Tressel.
Urban was 170-26 at Utah, FL, and OSU and 11-3 in bowl games with 3 MNC’s. Yeah, I’ll take that all day long if it comes with some WTF losses.
-
On the road by two,They beat the Eventual MAC champs BG and also lost to Missouri and Florida,FWIW
That's true. They beat that BG team and had two pretty explainable losses.
And Akron kept the from bowling.
-
If you're talking Campbell this has been discussed, he arrived in Toledo in 2009 prior to that the Rockets had 2,5-7 seasons and 1,3-9 Season and his 1st yr as an assistant they were 5-7 - a team he did not recruit..But 3 yrs later as HC he went 9-4,7-5,9-4 so improvement and lost to teams with multiple championships.So beating Baylor ,Texas,Oklahoma,TCU doesn't count guess Aranda,Herman,Riley,Patterson should be sent packing.A quick draft check 2009-2016,that's 8 yrs the Rockets had nobody picked in the NFL draft.Love to see what this guy could do at FSU/Ore/USC/UCLA.Give him a decent base contract the rest incentives
Yes. He wins some games against better teams and has some slip-ups. And slip-ups sometimes don't get fixed when you get to the big time, and then you're Tom Herman. (I didn't say anything about the teams he beat)
You're right that he lost to teams with multiple championships. Michigan is used to that. (I honestly think he's a very good coach and could well be super at all those spots. But I'd be unsurprised if he runs into those issues)
-
Also see Carroll, Pete. That dude would have had at least two more NC's if not for near-annual ridiculous "WTF" losses to teams that had no business even competing with his Trojan machine.
Went 34-5 after the Vince game. Lost to Oregon State, 7-6 UCLA, bad Stanford, good Oregon, OrSU again.
-
Urban was 170-26 at Utah, FL, and OSU and 11-3 in bowl games with 3 MNC’s. Yeah, I’ll take that all day long if it comes with some WTF losses.
Well yeah, it is awesome because he will win you a NC or two, but also frustrating because "what could have been?" Nothing you can do about the Clemson losses, but those unexpected losses cost him at least three at bats in the Playoffs, where you'd think he'd have won at least one more.
-
Well yeah, it is awesome because he will win you a NC or two, but also frustrating because "what could have been?" Nothing you can do about the Clemson losses, but those unexpected losses cost him at least three at bats in the Playoffs, where you'd think he'd have won at least one more.
The UF tenure was about as good as you could expect. OSU was almost as good, but a little short at the top.
Yes a title is great. But you had at worst the third best program in the land across six seasons. And those produced the one run, 31-0 and four non-playoff or title game trips. Twice MSU denied them, once Iowa, once Purdue.
-
Yes. He wins some games against better teams and has some slip-ups. And slip-ups sometimes don't get fixed when you get to the big time, and then you're Tom Herman. (I didn't say anything about the teams he beat)
You're right that he lost to teams with multiple championships. Michigan is used to that. (I honestly think he's a very good coach and could well be super at all those spots. But I'd be unsurprised if he runs into those issues)
Who would you pick then?Fickel?just hasn't played the level of compitition - 2nd tier perhaps,has done well.Everyone else I can think of is a stretch or at least unproven.So Campbell IMO has at least as much pedigree/portfolio as anyone else.Obviously an up and comer is out there good luck finding them
-
This thread is making me laugh! You’re talking about legendary coaches like urban Meyer as if they’re doofuses.
What Michigan needs is very simple. A coach that can give them an offensive and defensive identity, solid recruiting, and hard play every weekend. There are dozens of coached out there that do that consistently better than Harbaugh ever has, at Michigan.
Hell- there at least 4 or 5 in the Big that would do better with that brand and resources.
-
It's kind of crazy to think that going into the OSU game in 2018, Michigan was favored to win and head to the playoffs.
-
But then this happened.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkjrreRIb1w&ab_channel=BigTenNetwork
-
What Michigan needs is very simple. A coach that can give them an offensive and defensive identity, solid recruiting, and hard play every weekend. There are dozens of coached out there that do that consistently better than Harbaugh ever has, at Michigan.
Agree with this bolded part 100%. They have had zero identity on offense under Harbaugh, and on defense he's not that involved, he hires his DC and lets him run the show. Which is fine. But Don Brown's defenses- which started out very good- have been in decline. Brown's first year, in total defense they were ranked #4 in 2016, #1 in 2017, and #3 in 2018. There were a couple of embarrassing losses (PSU- 2017 or OSU-2018) but for his first 3 years- it was hard to argue with his results. I don't know what's happened- I suspect it has a lot to do with them losing Greg Mattison and Chris Partridge combined with some teams just catching on to Brown's schemes- but his defenses started really declining in 2019- falling to #25 in total defense- and now they've fallen off the face of the earth in 2020 to #96 in total defense. Whatever identity they had on defense- they've lost it completely- and they honestly really have never had one on offense at all ever since Harbaugh has been there. I think on offense- Harbaugh is just way behind the times and meddles too much. And on defense I think what you're seeing is they are sorely lacking the recruiting chops of someone like Partridge to bring in top players on defense- and they are sorely lacking the coaching/development chops of someone like Mattison who just built really good to sometimes even elite defensive lines year after year.
Michigan can recruit itself in a lot of ways. It's one of those helmet schools that can get itself into any living room and in almost any hat dance. A good coach with some good recruiters on staff will be able to pull in talent, no problem.
They 100% need systems on offense and defense that give the team an identify and puts the players they do recruit in the best position to win. They 100% need a different culture which gets guys to play harder and they 100% need new position coaches that actually know how to develop the players they get. JayBaugh is the RB's coach. This is a joke. They literally didn't have a QB coach in 2016 or 2017. They literally didn't have a WR's coach in 2017 or 2018. They literally do not have a safeties coach in 2020.
I'd like to see Michigan hire an offensive coach that actually plays a 21st century game and could bring a modern, explosive passing attack to Ann Arbor. Michigan's offensive record books are a joke. They've NEVER had players put up huge numbers at QB or RB. Ever. Just look at the single season records for passing yards, pass TD or rush yards, rush TD's. It's a pathetic joke.
-
What does it mean to have "identity on offense"?
Let's imagine some team has a potent offense statistically but they sort of mix in a lot of different plays, they run the ball and pass differently, they don't use one standard kind of offense that would confer any "identity"? Is that a bad thing?
Imagine some offense with terrific balance in talent and play calling and no indentity.
-
Good point CD,I would guess that the identity would be to keep them guessing
-
What does it mean to have "identity on offense"?
Let's imagine some team has a potent offense statistically but they sort of mix in a lot of different plays, they run the ball and pass differently, they don't use one standard kind of offense that would confer any "identity"? Is that a bad thing?
Imagine some offense with terrific balance in talent and play calling and no indentity.
Why do you need to imagine? Give an example?
That is the point.
-
What does it mean to have "identity on offense"?
Let's imagine some team has a potent offense statistically but they sort of mix in a lot of different plays, they run the ball and pass differently, they don't use one standard kind of offense that would confer any "identity"? Is that a bad thing?
Imagine some offense with terrific balance in talent and play calling and no indentity.
Identity:
(https://i.imgur.com/dlXTasv.png)
-
Identity:
(https://i.imgur.com/dlXTasv.png)
Unmistakable!
Alabama, OSU, Clemson, for example are running spread to power. Spread the field, look to run first with primarily inside and outside zone concepts, many RPOs, With the ability to successfully go with two tight ends and the quarterback under center for power. These are very very hard to defend.
-
All CD is saying why is that a good thing.Today Bama has an air attack that makes Mike Leach envious - 5 years ago it was defense and the running game.Being too predictable isn't a good thing,ya have to be flexible and adapt.Having the identity of winner is the end result one is after however the means
-
I don't think there is some necessity to have "identity" on offense. Teams may have one of course and that may be fine, but I don't view it as a necessity.
I'd rather have an offense that was balanced in terms of scheme and talent than one with some "identity".
-
Yeah, you have to be able to adjust your "system" to the roster that you inherit, otherwise you get a RichRod-esque type rebuild.
How would Cryst do if he inherited a team that was built by Mike Leach?
-
Yeah, you have to be able to adjust your "system" to the roster that you inherit, otherwise you get a RichRod-esque type rebuild.
How would Cryst do if he inherited a team that was built by Mike Leach?
Very poorly for a while, until he established his identity.
-
I think you’re missing the point. Having balance in the ability to attack multiple different ways from base formations is in fact… An identity.
The real issue is, have you run it enough and do your players understand it enough so that they can execute it flawlessly without too much thought process. That is an identity.
-
Very poorly for a while, until he established his identity.
Mild disagree. His background is West Coast offense. You give him that set of receivers and a good QB, he makes it work short term. Maybe not great, but I bet competent.
-
I personally don't care about having identity versus simply having a generally effective offense. It strikes me that having ANY "identity" narrows your choices and makes you easier to defend, unless said "identity" is "they have no identity, you can't predict what they are going to do.".
And I could be wrong of course, maybe Michigan needs an identity on offense. Maybe they need a better offense.
-
I think you’re missing the point. Having balance in the ability to attack multiple different ways from base formations is in fact… An identity.
The real issue is, have you run it enough and do your players understand it enough so that they can execute it flawlessly without too much thought process. That is an identity.
To a degree that's true, but it's a relatively small part of the picture.
Good talent and execution are king. You can have a discordant identity and those two things can carry it through. System is a sort of cohesion, though it lightly touches on execution and a good bit on identity. A few years back I watched a pretty decent offense that didn't really have a great identity. It just had a bunch of NFL receivers who played well and a decent OL, and it was pretty good.
Since Michigan is what brought it up, that school makes a fascinating case. When Jimmy arrived, he had identity, WCO passing, downhill running. But they've really only had one good not special tailback and not much in the way of good QBs. Each year of issues brings some new offensive idea, some new OC, and of course you don't get an identity. You lack beastly (and sometimes even good) players and you keep chasing every fad.
Shoot, UW has minimal receivers, so-so QBs, builds great OLs and finds very good tailbacks, and WCO with downhill running works just fine. Michigan ain't had the QBs or RBs (or to a degree quality OLs in terms of play) to make the magic happen. (Michigan is also weird because it fielded a run of offenses that were often efficient, not explosive, got boosted in advanced metrics by facing good defenses, a good side convo if we want to have it, and were better at converting drives into points than gaining yards. to 2017, that offense was awful)
-
The reason you have to have an "identity" is that you simply can't teach everything. Football is a game of execution, and there are only so many concepts a player can hold in his head and be capable of executing without thought. This is especially true in college where you don't have NFL-level skills and have limited practice time. Mike Leach only teaches his receivers to run routes from one side of the formation--he'd rather limit his formation but have players who can execute without thought. But it's even true in the NFL--you have offenses that their run plays will almost entirely center around specific blocking schemes, so they don't have to have their OL doing one thing on one play and something completely different on the next.
Your identity is the group of blocking schemes / plays / concepts that you can execute automatically.
That doesn't mean that "having an identity" means you have to look like Wisconsin or like an Air Raid offense. It doesn't mean you have to be primarily run or primarily pass.
What it *should* mean is that you either tailor your offensive identity to your talent, or you recruit the talent necessary for your preferred identity, but either way you get there the two need to match. Paul Chryst couldn't run his offense with Mike Leach's roster, and vice versa. Too many coaches try to have an "identity" with rosters incapable of matching that identity.
-
The reason you have to have an "identity" is that you simply can't teach everything. Football is a game of execution, and there are only so many concepts a player can hold in his head and be capable of executing without thought. This is especially true in college where you don't have NFL-level skills and have limited practice time. Mike Leach only teaches his receivers to run routes from one side of the formation--he'd rather limit his formation but have players who can execute without thought. But it's even true in the NFL--you have offenses that their run plays will almost entirely center around specific blocking schemes, so they don't have to have their OL doing one thing on one play and something completely different on the next.
Your identity is the group of blocking schemes / plays / concepts that you can execute automatically.
That doesn't mean that "having an identity" means you have to look like Wisconsin or like an Air Raid offense. It doesn't mean you have to be primarily run or primarily pass.
What it *should* mean is that you either tailor your offensive identity to your talent, or you recruit the talent necessary for your preferred identity, but either way you get there the two need to match. Paul Chryst couldn't run his offense with Mike Leach's roster, and vice versa. Too many coaches try to have an "identity" with rosters incapable of matching that identity.
Finally. Someone gets it.
continuity adds to it too. If you can have the same base identity for numerous seasons- you can teach it to starters and back ups, evolve it, and most importantly- RECRUIT to it.
and then, the ultimate achievement- tailor it to your talent without changing it. See Cardale Jones v Alabama.
-
Finally. Someone gets it.
continuity adds to it too. If you can have the same base identity for numerous seasons- you can teach it to starters and back ups, evolve it,
I didn't think you believed in this. Good job, man!
-
I didn’t think.....
FIFY.
-
The reason you have to have an "identity" is that you simply can't teach everything. Football is a game of execution, and there are only so many concepts a player can hold in his head and be capable of executing without thought. This is especially true in college where you don't have NFL-level skills and have limited practice time. Mike Leach only teaches his receivers to run routes from one side of the formation--he'd rather limit his formation but have players who can execute without thought. But it's even true in the NFL--you have offenses that their run plays will almost entirely center around specific blocking schemes, so they don't have to have their OL doing one thing on one play and something completely different on the next.
Your identity is the group of blocking schemes / plays / concepts that you can execute automatically.
So I think this is partially true, but it can be a bit more cloudy.
We would argue Wisconsin has generally maintained the same identity since the 90s, with maybe a three-game detour when Anderson tried to spice in a little spread stuff. But that identity has oft seen subtle shifts in the plays/concepts. In 2010, UW was a inside zone/power/pin-and-pull team. Now they run power in a way that looks like counter, lots more counter. When they had Jonathan Taylor, they worked in more outside zone, something they used int he 90s but rarely under Chryst.
Sometimes I think identity is as much a spirit as anything else. A style you build to. The Leach Air Raid is a rather rigid on, but some are not. (It also helps when you're either good or at least seem like you have an aim. Kentucky is worse than Michigan, but you knew their identity. I think some years, Michigan has trended toward and identity, just not one that people wanted when it wasn't effective. A lot of the best offenses get their identity because they're just crushing folks, so we see their distilled from)
-
Good points.
I believe both ends of the spectrum, even for something as simple as run/pass ratio, are signs of great coaching. If a team can consistently win by doing the same thing forever, that's amazing. That's Tom Osborne, once he switched to the option.
But if you can pass the ball 55% of the time one year and win and then only pass it 40% of the time another year and win, that's also quite amazing. And probably more rare.
-
So I think this is partially true, but it can be a bit more cloudy.
We would argue Wisconsin has generally maintained the same identity since the 90s, with maybe a three-game detour when Anderson tried to spice in a little spread stuff. But that identity has oft seen subtle shifts in the plays/concepts. In 2010, UW was a inside zone/power/pin-and-pull team. Now they run power in a way that looks like counter, lots more counter. When they had Jonathan Taylor, they worked in more outside zone, something they used int he 90s but rarely under Chryst.
Sometimes I think identity is as much a spirit as anything else. A style you build to. The Leach Air Raid is a rather rigid on, but some are not. (It also helps when you're either good or at least seem like you have an aim. Kentucky is worse than Michigan, but you knew their identity. I think some years, Michigan has trended toward and identity, just not one that people wanted when it wasn't effective. A lot of the best offenses get their identity because they're just crushing folks, so we see their distilled from)
You can massage the system to your talent. Wisconsin is different when they have a good QB. It doesn't mean they go air raid, but they're more capable and willing to open it up. When you have an RB that is more suited between the tackles, you don't run him on a bunch of sweeps. When you have an RB that is better in space, you make use of that instead.
Sometimes it might be as simple as bringing in a new OC or a new OL coach that wants to teach certain concepts in different ways than the predecessors, or has different ideas about what does and doesn't work. As long as they have the right talent for what they're trying to do, changing identity in that way doesn't mean you don't have an identity.
Jeff Brohm is an example of someone who is struggling between what he wants and what his players can execute. He wanted Sindelar to be his QB. Big guy, strong arm, can rifle it 40 yards downfield on a string. But you can't throw 40 yards downfield when you don't have great WRs to get open and don't have the OL to keep your QB vertical, so he kept going back to Blough. Blough didn't have the arm, but he could evade the rush and extend the play. Now we're getting the WR talent and the OL is improving [but still below average], but now he's having trouble getting the QB who can make the throws that he wants.
Now, part of it might be just a lack of talent. But these guys are all FBS athletes, and increasingly as he gets more good recruits, these are guys who had better-than-MAC offers. He's just having trouble trying to figure out what identity fits his players, instead of trying to get players shoehorned into his preferred identity.
-
Good points.
I believe both ends of the spectrum, even for something as simple as run/pass ratio, are signs of great coaching. If a team can consistently win by doing the same thing forever, that's amazing. That's Tom Osborne, once he switched to the option.
But if you can pass the ball 55% of the time one year and win and then only pass it 40% of the time another year and win, that's also quite amazing. And probably more rare.
I will agree, but also point out that Devaney named Osborne offensive coordinator for the 1969 season. Osborne immediately overhauled the offense, switching to a balanced attack operated from the I formation. The revamped offense sparked the 1970 Cornhuskers to the first national title in program history.
from 1969 to 1997 Osborne's offense had different identities, but always had an identity. And all of those offenses were successful.
Obviously, his offense was shut down a few times by great defenses vs the Sooners or a Florida team playing in a bowl game, but over the entire season the offense was successful.
Some guys just know how to coach offense.