In defense of a "predictable" offense

#1
Ohio Vol

Ohio Vol

Inquisitor of Offense
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
3,057
Likes
128
#1
I've been reading for a while about how UT supposedly won't have any success as long as there is a "predictable" or "repetitive" offense.

I'll present one team as evidence to the contrary: Nebraska.

Nebraska went something like 40 straight years running the same offense; they appeared in a bowl game pretty much every year, were competitive on a conference and on a national level every year, and were a feared team to play against every year.

I have a copy of the Nebraska playbook sitting at home from 1995. If I wanted to memorize the whole thing, it would probably take a day or two. And that would include everything and ignore the fact that the entire playbook wasn't used at any point.

When a team would face Nebraska, they would have all the information in hand about situational playcalling and tendencies, and it would go out the window after three possessions. You knew the iso was coming, you knew the double option was coming, and you knew the trap was coming. You knew it would be like facing a marginally more-advanced high school offense. It didn't matter.

Having an offense that's predictable or basic or redundant has absolutely no bearing on how successful you are as a football team. How able you are to run your offensive scheme is. If UT decides to run the single wing and has success with it, what difference does it make if it's considered "outdated"?
 
#2
#2
People need to get off of the "predictability" trip. An offense doesn't have to use tons of gadget plays to stump a defense if it just executes the plays the way they should be ran. It doesn't hurt to throw in some trickery every now and again, but it isn't necessary.
 
#3
#3
Ohio Vol said:
I've been reading for a while about how UT supposedly won't have any success as long as there is a "predictable" or "repetitive" offense.

I'll present one team as evidence to the contrary: Nebraska.

Nebraska went something like 40 straight years running the same offense; they appeared in a bowl game pretty much every year, were competitive on a conference and on a national level every year, and were a feared team to play against every year.

I have a copy of the Nebraska playbook sitting at home from 1995. If I wanted to memorize the whole thing, it would probably take a day or two. And that would include everything and ignore the fact that the entire playbook wasn't used at any point.

When a team would face Nebraska, they would have all the information in hand about situational playcalling and tendencies, and it would go out the window after three possessions. You knew the iso was coming, you knew the double option was coming, and you knew the trap was coming. You knew it would be like facing a marginally more-advanced high school offense. It didn't matter.

Having an offense that's predictable or basic or redundant has absolutely no bearing on how successful you are as a football team. How able you are to run your offensive scheme is. If UT decides to run the single wing and has success with it, what difference does it make if it's considered "outdated"?
Click to expand...

The thing is, even if you know the option is coming, it is unpredictable by design. A well executed option is nearly impossible to stop (see: Air Force)
 
#4
#4
Ohio Vol said:
I've been reading for a while about how UT supposedly won't have any success as long as there is a "predictable" or "repetitive" offense.

I'll present one team as evidence to the contrary: Nebraska.

Nebraska went something like 40 straight years running the same offense; they appeared in a bowl game pretty much every year, were competitive on a conference and on a national level every year, and were a feared team to play against every year.

I have a copy of the Nebraska playbook sitting at home from 1995. If I wanted to memorize the whole thing, it would probably take a day or two. And that would include everything and ignore the fact that the entire playbook wasn't used at any point.

When a team would face Nebraska, they would have all the information in hand about situational playcalling and tendencies, and it would go out the window after three possessions. You knew the iso was coming, you knew the double option was coming, and you knew the trap was coming. You knew it would be like facing a marginally more-advanced high school offense. It didn't matter.

Having an offense that's predictable or basic or redundant has absolutely no bearing on how successful you are as a football team. How able you are to run your offensive scheme is. If UT decides to run the single wing and has success with it, what difference does it make if it's considered "outdated"?
Click to expand...


Well-spoken. In more modern times, one need only look at the "predictable" power running game of Wisconsin...the "predictable" two back set that Auburn used so well in '04...or the "predictable" option offense that USAF has been using since Fisher DeBerry first walked on campus.

The key word here being "execution".

Here's hoping the Vols, coaches and players, finally get it.

Go Vols.
 
#5
#5
Ohio Vol said:
I've been reading for a while about how UT supposedly won't have any success as long as there is a "predictable" or "repetitive" offense.

I'll present one team as evidence to the contrary: Nebraska.

Nebraska went something like 40 straight years running the same offense; they appeared in a bowl game pretty much every year, were competitive on a conference and on a national level every year, and were a feared team to play against every year.

I have a copy of the Nebraska playbook sitting at home from 1995. If I wanted to memorize the whole thing, it would probably take a day or two. And that would include everything and ignore the fact that the entire playbook wasn't used at any point.

When a team would face Nebraska, they would have all the information in hand about situational playcalling and tendencies, and it would go out the window after three possessions. You knew the iso was coming, you knew the double option was coming, and you knew the trap was coming. You knew it would be like facing a marginally more-advanced high school offense. It didn't matter.

Having an offense that's predictable or basic or redundant has absolutely no bearing on how successful you are as a football team. How able you are to run your offensive scheme is. If UT decides to run the single wing and has success with it, what difference does it make if it's considered "outdated"?
Click to expand...

Here Here!...as long as that predictability doesn't include draw plays on 3rd and 30. :)
 
#6
#6
And let's not forget the predictability of the Gators last year. Who didn't know on those 3rd and 4th downs that Tebow was keeping it? Yet, couldn't stop it. So certainly 'predictable' doesn't equate to lack of success.
 
#7
#7
This post is outdated about 30 years. The option works because you're forcing a player to make a decision. It doesn't work when the opposing team doesn't respect your receivers, brings the safety(ies) up and does away with the "option". There is no decision to make - LB/DE kill the QB and safety takes RB. It's why guys like Neb., OU and AL stopped running it. Athleticism of defensive squads have killed it. It's great for guys like AF and Navy who need to control the clock, but superior athletic teams (with decent coaching) tend to wipe the floor with them. Predictability is fine when teams are massively overmatched, but doesn't work with SEC style squads.
 
#8
#8
BigPapaVol said:
This post is outdated about 30 years. The option works because you're forcing a player to make a decision. It doesn't work when the opposing team doesn't respect your receivers, brings the safety(ies) up and does away with the "option". There is no decision to make - LB/DE kill the QB and safety takes RB. It's why guys like Neb., OU and AL stopped running it. Athleticism of defensive squads have killed it. It's great for guys like AF and Navy who need to control the clock, but superior athletic teams (with decent coaching) tend to wipe the floor with them. Predictability is fine when teams are massively overmatched, but doesn't work with SEC style squads.
Click to expand...

Nebraska did away with the option because pressure from boosters and other prominent individuals led to Frank Solich getting canned; he was replaced by Bill Callahan who promptly led them to the first year out of a bowl game in over 40 seasons. That was quite the glorious time for schools like Kansas to undo that many years of futility.

Who's afraid of Nebraska now? They won't line up and run you over, since Callahan would prefer that they try to pick their way downfield through the air. When Callahan has anywhere close to the success that Osborne or even Solich had at Nebraska, MAYBE I'll consider the option "obsolete".

As for Navy, they do more with less than anyone else in the country, and that includes numerous D-1AA schools. Look up who wears navy and gold...I don't think you'll find a single player on there who was any higher than about the #300 prospect at his position coming out of high school. Even Vanderbilt, Arkansas State, and Idaho have a higher caliber of player than Navy does. And yet Navy, overmatched against literally every opponent that they face (including 1-AA UMass), finds a way to be highly competitive even with an offense that lacks a written playbook.
 
#9
#9
Its hard to recruit a QB to run an option when most players dream of playing in the NFL. If your a major Div 1 school like Nebraska it can be a problem.

I think the underlying theme that made teams like Nebraska successful with a predictable offense was superior conditioning. Nebraska was bigger and stronger then most of the teams they played.

They didnt have to have a top 5 recruiting program either. Most of their players became strong in Nebraska's conditioning program.
 
#10
#10
BigPapaVol said:
This post is outdated about 30 years. The option works because you're forcing a player to make a decision. It doesn't work when the opposing team doesn't respect your receivers, brings the safety(ies) up and does away with the "option". There is no decision to make - LB/DE kill the QB and safety takes RB. It's why guys like Neb., OU and AL stopped running it. Athleticism of defensive squads have killed it. It's great for guys like AF and Navy who need to control the clock, but superior athletic teams (with decent coaching) tend to wipe the floor with them. Predictability is fine when teams are massively overmatched, but doesn't work with SEC style squads.
Click to expand...
Look at Nebraska's record in the '80s against Florida State, Oklahoma, and Miami. The Nebraska run in the mid '90s had more to do with them upgrading the quality of athlete they put on the field, especially defensively, than it did with anything they did schematically.
 
#11
#11
Ohio Vol said:
I've been reading for a while about how UT supposedly won't have any success as long as there is a "predictable" or "repetitive" offense.

I'll present one team as evidence to the contrary: Nebraska.

Nebraska went something like 40 straight years running the same offense; they appeared in a bowl game pretty much every year, were competitive on a conference and on a national level every year, and were a feared team to play against every year.

I have a copy of the Nebraska playbook sitting at home from 1995. If I wanted to memorize the whole thing, it would probably take a day or two. And that would include everything and ignore the fact that the entire playbook wasn't used at any point.

When a team would face Nebraska, they would have all the information in hand about situational playcalling and tendencies, and it would go out the window after three possessions. You knew the iso was coming, you knew the double option was coming, and you knew the trap was coming. You knew it would be like facing a marginally more-advanced high school offense. It didn't matter.

Having an offense that's predictable or basic or redundant has absolutely no bearing on how successful you are as a football team. How able you are to run your offensive scheme is. If UT decides to run the single wing and has success with it, what difference does it make if it's considered "outdated"?
Click to expand...

Spot on! The problem with UTs "predictible" offense is it hasnt been exactly over powering in the last few years. We dont play smashmouth along the OL like we once did. In the 90s, it was very predictable to see the UT OL take charge of a game midway thru the 3rd quarter.

Teams KNEW UT was going to run...and they did... we havent played like that in a long time.
 
#12
#12
emainvol said:
The thing is, even if you know the option is coming, it is unpredictable by design. A well executed option is nearly impossible to stop (see: Air Force)
Click to expand...

An option attack is not unpredictable, and it's not nearly impossible to stop (especially with a team like Air Force running it). What an option attack does accomplish is to force the defense to be disciplined and to tackle well. The fact that UT did neither of those things well last year is why Air Force ran all over our defense in that game.
 
#14
#14
hatvol96 said:
Look at Nebraska's record in the '80s against Florida State, Oklahoma, and Miami. The Nebraska run in the mid '90s had more to do with them upgrading the quality of athlete they put on the field, especially defensively, than it did with anything they did schematically.
Click to expand...

orangeblooded_2 said:
Spot on! The problem with UTs "predictible" offense is it hasnt been exactly over powering in the last few years. We dont play smashmouth along the OL like we once did. In the 90s, it was very predictable to see the UT OL take charge of a game midway thru the 3rd quarter.

Teams KNEW UT was going to run...and they did... we havent played like that in a long time.
Click to expand...
:thumbsup: scheme is for teams that don't have players. if you have great players that execute (ala a Tommy Frazier, Peyton Manning etc...), then it doesn't matter what scheme you run.

where it became a problem for both TN and NE was the attempt to keep doing the same things over and over again expecting similar or better results with the personnel they had on hand, that just wasn't of the same quality up front on both sides of the ball.
 
#16
#16
If this is the same argument. Wait a min. The option is far from what UT has ran in the past. There is less to none predictability in option.
Depending on how the D lines up or reacts the QB has several option to change the play if not by side of field then depth of field.

Where there is 1st and 10, 2nd and 15, 3rd and 20 running between the tackles. No change, its coming, same spot.

Nebraska had veer, dive, speed. and pass running out of mostly the same sets 0,1, 2, and 3 back sets. Our sets changed if we ran pass fullback was gone you know it was going to be a pass. If it was run, fullback in and wide receiver was lined up closer.

History also shows from 99 on it didn't work.

Sanders never used the sets correctly to hide or mask the offense to keep a defense honest. He got in to a predictable trend in calling plays. If you are a pitching youd give up several home runs with a full count. So this isnt about they type of offense being used but how its used.


AirForce's triple option wing-bone I think its called. Keeps a defense honest on all accounts. You have to account for the run and pass at all times. Not so good to the type of zone Defense Chavis runs. Its designed to chunk away at the field and, when running zoneD you just help them out.
 
#17
#17
I think there is some validity to the criticism that Randy Sanders had a tendency to tip his hand a little based on formation. He also had a tendency to get married to certain sets almost on a whim. One drive we'd be an I-formation offense with a TE and then on the next drive we'd come out in the shotgun repeatedly.
 
#18
#18
jakez4ut said:
:thumbsup: scheme is for teams that don't have players. if you have great players that execute (ala a Tommy Frazier, Peyton Manning etc...), then it doesn't matter what scheme you run.

where it became a problem for both TN and NE was the attempt to keep doing the same things over and over again expecting similar or better results with the personnel they had on hand, that just wasn't of the same quality up front on both sides of the ball.
Click to expand...

A very concise and accurate summary. Teams without talent rely on scheme to beat teams that have it.
 
#19
#19
First thing I think of when you talk Nebraska in the 90's was how physical they were. Strength and conditioning and well-coached were their trademark.

If they were running a different offense I think it would have worked. How often did Nebraska linemen miss a block?
 
#20
#20
emainvol said:
The thing is, even if you know the option is coming, it is unpredictable by design. A well executed option is nearly impossible to stop (see: Air Force)
Click to expand...

If you know the option is coming and you are playing against Air Force, and you can't stop it, you have serious problems.
 
#21
#21
The four times (off the top of my head, anyway) that a Chavis defense has defended an option team it hasn't been pretty.

1997 (Nebraska) -- 42 points
1998 (Syracuse) -- 33 points
1999 (Nebraska) -- 31, I think, although it seemed like 60
2006 (Air Force) -- 30 points
 
#23
#23
Ohio Vol said:
The four times (off the top of my head, anyway) that a Chavis defense has defended an option team it hasn't been pretty.

1997 (Nebraska) -- 42 points
1998 (Syracuse) -- 33 points
1999 (Nebraska) -- 31, I think, although it seemed like 60
2006 (Air Force) -- 30 points
Click to expand...

Syracuse was not an option team. They may have run an option once or twice during the game, but they were definitely not an option team. However, you can add getting torched by Kansas State in the 2001 Cotton Bowl (at the end of the 2000 season) to your list.
 
#25
#25
Vol423 said:
Syracuse was not an option team.
Click to expand...

They probably weren't the prototypical option offense in that they were pretty diverse with Donovan McNabb at QB, but they did run a ton of freeze option.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top