Locked due to no posts in 60 days. Report 1st post if need unlocked A question...

[blackshirts99]

One of the reasons why I want to see Bama play Oregon so bad this year or even Baylor if (baylor can run the table) I want to see Bama's defense along with their pro style offense vs the Ducks. I want to see what it looks like. We might get our answer.

I really wanted to see it last year...I'm pretty sure Bama would lose.

 

[blackshirts99]

One of the reasons why I want to see Bama play Oregon so bad this year or even Baylor if (baylor can run the table) I want to see Bama's defense along with their pro style offense vs the Ducks. I want to see what it looks like. We might get our answer.

However, Stanford did shut down the Oregon offense last year, so it would definitely be interesting to see.

 

[BakNthday]

Clearly, innovations in offensive strategies (not to mention rule-changes), etc. has out-paced defenses. Will they catch up? Not sure. So, my answer is that a team ought do have a damn good D coordinator if you want a chance to succeed.

 

[Bo Pelinis Gum]

I am a defense first guy so I have thought about this a lot as well. I think if you hang your hat on fast pace offense then you are by default admitting you will have an average defense at best. Your best bet at that point is to be a ball hawking defense. You also can't have a QB that is mistake prone.

Go back and look at the past 20 or so national title winners and the closest I can come up with as an offensive focused team is Auburn and that was more because they played a team that played less defense than they did. Florida, USC, Texas, all the sec teams could flat out play defense save Auburn. Some of these teams had powerful offenses but they were most definitely not offense first teams.

Just my opinion and take it for what it's worth. I am little odd though because I want to see Armstrong, Abdullah, cross and newby run the ball 50 times a game. Chew some clock and help the defense by letting them rest and make adjustments.

You make some good points, I will argue that USC and Florida, USC in particular were probably better offensively than defensively but were so good overall it's tough to say what their strong suit was.

With the personel you need to pound the rock, you must also have outstanding o lines and RB's, which I think we have, but we still haven't been able to run with 7+ in the box. And we haven't really given teams enough to respect the pass either.

I agree though, if your chewing up clock and yards, it's a great blueprint to at least keeping it close enough to win.

 

[Bo Pelinis Gum]

One of the reasons why I want to see Bama play Oregon so bad this year or even Baylor if (baylor can run the table) I want to see Bama's defense along with their pro style offense vs the Ducks. I want to see what it looks like. We might get our answer.

I think Oregons offense is better than aTm, and I think their defense is at least as good. But really it seems Manziel is the achiles heel, not necessarily the offense of aTm.

I as well would love to see that match up. I think Bama would fare better against Baylor, but it still would be a fun game to watch.

 

[speers90]

You make some good points, I will argue that USC and Florida, USC in particular were probably better offensively than defensively but were so good overall it's tough to say what their strong suit was.

With the personel you need to pound the rock, you must also have outstanding o lines and RB's, which I think we have, but we still haven't been able to run with 7+ in the box. And we haven't really given teams enough to respect the pass either.

I agree though, if your chewing up clock and yards, it's a great blueprint to at least keeping it close enough to win.

I guess I was basing it purely off of which side of the ball had more guys drafted and or made an impact in the NFL. And it could just be my defensive bias, but it seems like all of those teams (maybe even Auburn) placed more defensive guys in the league than their respective offenses.

In fact, that would be a good project for me to follow up on. Not sure it really tells the whole story, but it might be a good starting point.

 

[speers90]

I think Oregons offense is better than aTm, and I think their defense is at least as good. But really it seems Manziel is the achiles heel, not necessarily the offense of aTm.

I as well would love to see that match up. I think Bama would fare better against Baylor, but it still would be a fun game to watch.

I agree, I think it is manzel's ability to play sandlot ball that gives defenses fits. I haven't watched Oregon enough but to me they seem like they run a very structured offense. Explosive but structured. Plus I will take Saban with a month to prepare his defense against anybody in college football!

 

[IMfanFORnu]

I posted this in the Scott Frost thread, but want to read other peoples thoughts on it..

A question I was pondering before I finally went to sleep last night is this..

With the way offenses are going, fast paced, no huddle, basically putting the defense out there to match up the best they can. AND the addition now of penalties that also give the offense some advantage... does it make sense to have more of a defensive minded coach or an offensive minded coach. Even mighty Nick Saban has no answer other than better players over the likes of aTm and their version of a hyper offense. The overall attitude that may drip down on the team is different between the two different minded coaches. The offensive guy might be more inclinded to take risks i.e. go for it in a questionable situation vs the defensive minded coach who punts always to get the D back on the field and hope to flip field position. Now thats not always the case, but you usually notice differences. Kind of like Oregons fake punt on their 45 that nearly scored a TD in the first quarter against UCLA. Pelini punts that 99.999999% of the time. I think I can count on one hand how many fakes weve seen in the last 6 years. Not saying I want more fakes, but when gameplanning against us, its an aspect I dont think they even have to really worry about.

Thats just one example of differences, but thinking in the age of huge advantages to the offense, does an offensive minded coach make a difference?

NO

It makes ZERO difference for the Head Coach, because a good HC hires the coaches/coordinators he needs to run whatever system or philosophy the HC believes will be the most successful.

The smartest HC is the one who hires the smartest coordinators.

 

[redarmy]

NO

It makes ZERO difference for the Head Coach, because a good HC hires the coaches/coordinators he needs to run whatever system or philosophy the HC believes will be the most successful.

The smartest HC is the one who hires the smartest coordinators.

Bobby Bowden and Jimmy Johnson agree with you. So do I.

 

[RedRum]

I think there is still room for a different type of offense, one that doesn't go no-huddle and spread the field. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

I also think that defenses are going to catch up to these fast-paced offenses soon. At that point, we'll be asking if it's better to get a defensive minded coach that understands the new schemes designed to stop these offenses.

With the Eagles running this in the NFL, the process likely gets sped up as those guys will figure out the strategy.