That's certainly a fair argument. I suppose it comes down in some ways to personal preference -- that's usually the dividing factor in offensive taste regardless. Bi-product of the cult-like level of attachment that offensive coaches develop with the schemes to which they align with.kad02002 said:Don't get me wrong, I love the air raid and it's history, I love the run and shoot, it's all good stuff even if I don't think it's the best here. But you are basically saying that what is essentially generic spread at this point is innovative while a two offset back shotgun option offense is not. Repackaging is innovation. Briles and his extreme splits and stacks - cool. How is that more innovative? 4 verts? Yes, it's cool how good the Air Raid guys got at it, but my freshman football team was running that in 1998. A spread offensive coach saying that he also wants to run? Wow...that's 75% of the teams in the country.killa22 said:Running what essentially is a combination of conventional 21 I Run Game (Inside Zone, Outside Zone, Duo, and Power) out of an unconventional two back set is definitely not innovative. Perhaps the marriage of that to triple option elements could be? But then again that's nothing hugely novel. At that point you might just want to go all in and take the service academy route -- never win a conf championship but be a total pain in the ass to the rest of the conference (like AFA in the MWC).kad02002 said:Conclusory statements? Yes.killa22 said:Forefront of innovation? Nope.kad02002 said:I have only watched it briefly and listened to a little clip of him explaining it. I think it fills some criteria that would work at Cal. It looks like a strong identity (as opposed to a multiple offense, which I am always wary of at this level), and a unique identity - shotgun with two backs offset to one side. This creates some very interesting run game/option flexibility, with both the triple and lead options available to the strong side, QB lead with two lead blockers in that direction, plus easy to go backside with a lead blocker. The gun element with 2-3 receivers also means that you shouldn't be pigeon-holed in recruiting as an under center option team might be.NYCGOBEARS said:What's your opinion of his offense?kad02002 said:
Brennan Marion. Unique run-based offense and a young guy with Bay Area connections.
This would also fit Garbers' skill set in the short term, and get back to taking advantage of the Bay Area, which has consistently produced top level running backs.
I don't like if he is 100% firm on being up tempo all of the time. I can't know that. I don't think this meshes with what Wilcox does. However, the potential of the run game element has me excited.
Long story short, Baldwin's offense tried to run, but I did not see how it had a systematic approach to doing so. An offense like this does. It is at the forefront of innovation and would be unique to defend, which are both enticing for a program like Cal's.
I'll probably look more later and see if I can pick up anything else. For what it's worth, I was also impressed with how he teaches in the short clip I watched.
Unique to defend? Probably, but not in the way you think it is.
Hard pass.
Explanations? No.
Mind reader? Apparently.
Do tell, what is an innovative offense?
That dudes stuff is what you would call creative repackaging, at best.
Innovative to me, by comparison would be say Tedford's adaptation of spread concepts, particularly the screen game to pro-set personnel groupings and formations back in the early 2000's.
Or, on a different spectrum, Art Briles use of extreme splits and 10 personnel groupings with mauler sized OL to run the ball on light boxes and then attack with play action downfield utilizing run and shoot principles with vertical choice reads.
Likewise, the Air Raid Six Concept (Verticals) -- as adapted by Dykes and Holgerson at TTU then popularized throughout all of HS football, the entire Big 12, and then seen live this year destroy our defense (by USC). That was another huge innovative leap.
Im Air Raid partial -- but if you view the 1.0 version of that scheme with Mumme and Leach as the evolution of the west coast, adapted to the spread, then the 2.0 version is really what has happened over the last six-seven years as Dykes, Holgerson, Kingsbury, Harrell etc. have adapted the offense to RPOS, Play Action, Zone and Gap Runs, Screen Game, Screen-Pass Option elements etc.
Innovative would thereby also be the Run and Shoot 2.0 as run recently by Hawaii -- adapting QB run and RPO elements married to the core Run and Shoot Passing Game -- major weakness therein in my eyes is the inability of that scheme to contend with drop 8 using only 4 out in a pattern.
Innovation would also be the prevalence of Four Strong route concepts and rule breakers as used by Kingsbury and then copied verbatim by Joe Brady and employed at LSU.
I could go on in further detail on a specific concept by concept basis. But in my eyes, that W&M stuff is not what I would classify as innovative or uniquely difficult to defend. That's just repackaged 21 -- throw numbers in the box, be assignment sound, and have contingency assignments to counter. If your personnel matchup you can win -- I am not threatened by any pass game that could arise from that set.
Even Wilcox would just alternate between living in Man Free or potentially pattern match 3 mixing in run blitzes. That **** would get shut down quick.
Contending with rule breaking, space eating pass concepts that adjust on the fly to what you are doing -- while also having to contain the QB as a run threat and throwing sufficient numbers at the box to stop the rb, while also having to throw numbers and pass rush diversity at the QB to disrupt timing, while also having to cover down to stop the screen game, and also having to mix up presnap depth at DB to eliminate the quick game.
That's a much bigger challenge for any DC.
Put another way: you criticized this guy's offense as "creative repackaging," and proceeded to describe a bunch of creative repackaging, which you labeled as "innovative."
It's all semantics. Ignoring any "innovative" argument, let me put it this way. I haven't seen any other major college doing what this guy is doing in the way he is doing it. It appears to be based on sound principles. Schematically, it also appears to be a good fit for Cal's talent base.
All offenses are basically creatively repackaging of things that have been done before. But the problem I have with W&M stuff is that there is no real run-pass conflict created, nor is that conflict necessarily made in true space. My criticism would divulge from my belief from a defensive standpoint that I could easily stop it.
I get that the general consensus of this fan base is to now attempt to play small ball -- largely in part to the bad aftertaste left w/ Sonny's all offense approach.
I do believe that we need to be able to have an effective passing game that sets up the run rather than the other way around -- this is a largely a contrarian view here, but that's the way I would do it. Id rather build my constraint package around the pass game than attempt to built a constraint passing game around the run.
Repackaging, as you noted is innovation, but the specific application herein exemplified by W&M truly is just 21 I run game mixed with option elements run from the gun -- there is little to no spatial difference achieved relative to the other schematic instances cited above.
The idea of reading and attacking coverage on the fly is infinitely more innovative than that, by itself.
).
