Some of football's most revolutionary offenses were happy accidents. Bill Walsh's West Coast system came out necessity when his big armed QB went down and he needed to adapt for a weaker but more accurate Ken Anderson. Rich Rodriquez's read option spread came about after a QB and Running back screwed up an exchange in practice while he was coaching at Glenville State. I don't think Addazio planned to create a new offense when he came to BC, but maybe our circumstances and the early results are reason to keep doing what he's doing.
Addazio's ideal offense
Addazio has been pretty forthright that BC is not currently running the offense he would want. His ideal is something similar to what he had at Florida with some Chip Kelly influences. It would be a run-first, uptempo spread with a mobile QB.
What is running this season
When Addazio took over he realized forcing his desired scheme on a roster that wasn't recruited for it would cause some unnecessary pain. So instead he and Ryan Day took elements of their offense and molded it a bit with BC's current roster and added some power running, jumbo packages that Stanford put in under Jim Harbaugh. While BC is not lighting up the scoreboard, there is certainly more efficiency than we ever saw under Spaz. It is working well enough considering it was only designed as a transitional offense.
The future
Next season BC will have a more mobile QB, hopefully a few more playmakers and an improving offensive line. We should start looking like Florida did when Addazio ran their offense. It will be our own but many of the concepts will be like fellow ACC spread teams FSU, Clemson, UNC, Louisville, and Wake Forest. Those shared concepts with half the conference are my concern. BC won't be unique in the future making it easier to prepare and easier to gameplan against.
The case for keeping the hybrid
In any sport there is an advantage to being different. Think of the problems caused by Triple Option teams like Georgia Tech. Their opponents are not used to playing them and that can make up for talent differences or other weaknesses. I bet Georgia Tech's unique scheme gives them at least one extra win a seasons. This year BC's differences are creating some of the same problems. When we go into our big packages and/or unbalanced line, teams have to decide how to defend it. It creates mismatches. And even once teams have seen it, we've started adding wrinkles (play action, straight drop backs, late releasing players). If BC were to keep playing this style there are many more wrinkles to add that would keep our opponents guessing. Having a dual threat QB will also create new opportunities in this offense. Think of how effective naked bootlegs will be with a QB who can run if needed.
But being unconventional isn't the only reason to keep an offense. I think we can recruit to it. BC has always been able to find, recruit and develop big offensive lineman. Our trackrecord with Tight Ends is underrated, but I think we've done better with Tight Ends/H-backs/Fullbacks than we've done with elite WR recruits. I would also argue that our history of recruiting and finding running backs is good. The one area on offense where we haven't brought in a lot of elite talent nor sent any to the NFL is Wide Receiver. These playmakers -- who may be a bit undersized but have plenty of speed -- are the key to Addazio's ideal offense. Speed is also a big deal at Oregon. I am not trying to say we can never do something or perpetuate regional or racial biases but where do you think BC can recruit elite players: Tight Ends or WRs?
I also like mixing the Stanford Offense with the Spread because it doesn't make BC one dimensional. If recruited well and practiced well, we should be able to grind it out or get into pass-happy shootouts.
The Future
The offense hasn't been revolutionary enough for any to take notice or probably even get people in the Yawkey Football Offices thinking differently. Maybe next year if we struggle, Day or Addazio might say, "let's break out some of that power stuff we used last year" or "I think our unbalanced line would work against this team." I hope our finish to this year is strong enough that they realize what they have. Who cares if it is new or a mix as long as we can make it work?
Posts
12 comments:
No question we have improved drastically, by some measures going from 90th in offensive efficiency to 56th (interestingly, by the same measure Ga. Tech ranks 13th). Still, I wonder what the ceiling will be in this model. Will it eventually give BC a top-25 offense? I think our best chance might be to continue with the transition.
Was the loss to CU really all that exciting?
We lost a winnable game against a very, very overrated squad.
We lost to Clemson 24-14. NCSU lost to Clemson 26-14. Clemson gets a bad attitude against lesser competition. I would not read much into our "respectable" loss.
We gave up almost 500 yards to Clemson
BC is 12/14 in the ACC in total offense. Not good
BC is 13/14 in the ACC in total defense. Not good
Yes, BC 2013 is way better than BC 2012 and headed in the right direction. Thank God. However, We really have no idea how the remaining ACC games will shake out. Should be fun to watch. We will beat NmSt but we could go 2--4 or 5-1 in the second half if the season.
.
I like the numbers trotted out by "mod34b". They can make an Irishman sober on St. Paddy's Day.
Losing close games to FSU and Clemson will be worth it if Daz can turn those games into recruiting victories for his next class of Freshman. And from what I can see of him, he seems to be able to sell the program much better than his predecessor. Go Dazzle 'em, Daz!!
Winning on the road in a trap game (Thursday) is never easy. Clemson did that against a team (NC State) that viewed them as their bowl game. Stop with the transitive property crap. In this case, you can read a bit into a good loss.
And then you (9:26) completely contradict yourself in the next paragraph.
In college ball, the home and road splits are huge. These are 20 year old kids.
Chatting with the good Padre Bill Neenan, SJ, yesterday and we were laughing about this blog (yes, he's a reader!) We were 2-10 last year and now folks are upset we didn't pull the road upset against Clemson. More proof, as if we needed it, that St. Augustine's ancient dictum about human nature is accurate: "Our hearts are restless." We're never, ever satisfied.
Also, to answer Mod34's question "was the loss to CU really all that exciting?" Well, I had fun watching it. And it got lots of people talking. Army and FSU games were mostly fun to watch, too. If the telos of college football is entertainment, then I think we're getting there.
On another note, anyone watch the Frontline doc on concussions last week? Not sure we'll even be having these discussions 20 years from now. Time to start investing in soccer :)
Daz asked the question " how many teams have a 230 lb. back with 4.5 speed". The offense may be designed because of AW's talents and Rettig's limitations. How few throws over the middle or downfield have occurred? A mobile QB may add something but more output is not assured. Accurate passing by Foley, Peterson and Ryan produced the desired offensive results. None of the above had NFL caliber wide outs. A lack of a high skilled receiver won't preclude success. The power I and the flanker screen seem to be the basis of this offense as Tedesco reported in August. 2. Next year will necessitate adjustments with AW gone. The team may have more overall quickness. The depth at rb should not be an issue with Willis, Rouse, Kimball and the freshmen. The o-line should be good with three starters returning. Dudek and Swiggert can play slot. Three of your pass catchers have size ( Miller, Cremmin and Callinan) and Evans, Jackson and Barksdale can provide quickness. Tight end depth shouldn't be an issue. The defense will have all the d-backs returning, along with much of the d-line ( Mihaelik. Absmebad, Wujiak, Appiah and Gutapel). Replacing KPL will be tough but Daniels and Keys are back.3 Remember that the D only allowed 17 to mighty Clemson on their home field. The D has been effective. 4.The optimum outcome for the ACC is for Clemson to go undefeated, win 12 and take the Atlantic. Miami to win 12 and take the coastal. The winner of that game is 13 and 0. If Bama, Oregon , Ucla and Osu. lose one game the ACC champ is in the title game.
Ned, can you sit down with M34b and have a nice little chat? Your last was a positive thoughtful post, as opposed to him. Never half full. Always half empty. Terrible way to live.
Ned, can you sit down with M34b and have a nice little chat? Your last was a positive thoughtful post, as opposed to him. Never half full. Always half empty. Terrible way to live.
CBS Sports has posted a projected BCS standing for all 125 FBS teams. The BCS is a blend of polls and computer rankings.
Here is how the ACC shakes out (BCS rank noted))
1. Clemson (3)
2. FSU (4)
3. Mia (13)
4. VT (18)
5, MD (40)
6. Pitt 43
7. GT (49)
8. BC (50)
9. Syr (55)
10. Duke (58)
11 UVa (71)
12. Wake (73)
13. NCSU (79)
14 UNC (85)
Not bad. maybe BC can climb to a top 30 team?
And, amdg1540, sure the game was enjoyable to watch because BC was competitive. I was talking about the seeming enjoyment BC Nation is drawing from a 'respectable loss.' In other words, I think people are drawing too much hope from a loss.
As for philosophers of football, I prefer Charles Shulz to St. Augustine (what did he know about football???)
We are all playing to role of Charlie Brown about to kick the ball (become bowl eligibile) hoping Lucy (luck/fate) will not snatch away our hopes (once again).
BC certainly has a good chance of becoming bowl eligible. But right now games against NCSU, SYR, and MD are 50/50 propositions.
Let's use the sum of probabilities
approach to the remaining 6 games
Opponent (chance of winning)
1. UNC .5
2. VT .3
3. NMSU .8
4. NCSU .5
5. MD .5
6. SYR .5
TOTAL = 3.1 wins. We will go BOWLING!
Myles Willis was a quarterback in HS. A pretty good one down in Georgia. You can look it up.
Post a Comment