this tweet from ESPN is interesting - I've heard over and over about how "simple" the Malzahn offense is but I'd love to hear your explanation and contrast to what Loeffler tries to do.
How Auburn ran the same packaged plays over and over against Alabama, by @CollegeAndMag: http://t.co/uX7GsBhHt4 pic.twitter.com/RBPfMKJc03— SB Nation CFB (@SBNationCFB) December 4, 2013
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
I've always wondered about Malzahn's offense as well. I think it's natural to look at the success at Auburn and wonder why Lefty wasn't successful there.
They run the same plays over and over again and have counters/trick plays when the defense stacks the box. I remember Cam Newton saying that he didn't call plays, he just said a number in the huddle.
The way it's been explained to me is that Malzahn's offense is relatively easy to install and effective but not effective when playing against a great defense (It'll get to a bowl game but not the NC...but I guess that's been proven wrong after this weekend).
Also, I've heard recruits are turned off by his offense because it does a poor job of preparing kids for the NFL.
We shall see. I have a feeling about Mizzou though. Their defense is pretty lights out. Reminds me of ours in some ways. Plus I am a little jealous of their black uniforms. #AllMaroonEverything 2014
Mizzou is a better team than Auburn, IMO.
This will be settled in 3 days.
"Malzahn's offense is relatively easy to install and effective but not effective when playing against a great defense"
Isn't this kind of specious reasoning, though? Aren't all offenses "not effective when playing against a great defense?"
In general, if I'm trying to evaluate an offensive system, I'm more concerned with how consistently it executes against most defenses than I am the rare times I encounter a "great defense" right?
Without having the time to watch a great deal of film, I will give you my high end take, with the caveat that lengthy film study may prove me wrong.
Based on watching the Alabama game live and reading this review, Auburn's offense strove to accomplish the same goal that Loeffler tried to achieve in the kickoff classic, ie using the option as a base offense in order to take Alabama out of their designer blitz packages. As we discussed in the preseason, as much as Alabama is lauded for having elite talent at every position, it just isn't true. Alabama uses smoke and mirrors like blitzes, gap fits, late shifts, and hidden coverage more than any team in the country, and because Saban uses an NFL-style detailed approach, it covers up the weakness of some of his players at different positions. We noted the success that LSU, Texas A&M, and Georgia had using read option looks that took Alabama out of their scheme and forced them to play base, and when that happened, those teams could push the Tide DL around.
As we all remember, the Hokies had some success with that running scheme, but could not compliment it with any kind of effective passing game to move the sticks on 3rd and manageable situations. Logan Thomas also missed some reads that could have generated even more big plays, especially on the true zone read where the back dives opposite of the QB instead of to the same side. Auburn had much more success.
And why? Well, that isn't really a big mystery. Auburn ran this as their base offense all season rather than a one-off trick against a superior opponent. By the time the Tigers played Alabama, Marshall had experience with the reads, and he was much more fluid and natural than Thomas ever could have hoped to be. He also had the speed to threaten the edge, which forced the defense to hesitate when Mason got the football.
I have written a piece evaluating Loeffler for the 2013 season, but I have been sitting on it and editing it since Sunday, trying to make sure I have the right story. I think he did a good job with what he had, but I also saw some red flags which worry me. Once it is refined properly, I will ask Joe to post it.
As always French, upon reading it, and then watching the Hokie play - I will be like:
Can't wait to read that piece! Hoping to sit down and study some of your articles one day. Might be when I retire, but hey holding onto hope is sometimes the only way to get through the day!
I feel like one thing VT can do well is recruit mobile QBs. I almost feel like the Auburn offense is the right offense for a school who thinks they will have a mobile QB 75% of the time with the other 25% them having a stud in pocket passer who is better than the mobile QBs on the roster. With SL on staff, I don't see why we couldn't incorporate more of these plays since he has good experience with them. It seems like the offense we're going back to the future with is what we had before with a mobile QB... this worked well but it seems like the weak spot was always dealing with the blitz... run blitz, pass blitz.... bring the house and we got pummeled... maybe a better OL would fix that I don't know. Anyway I don't see why we can't keep some of these veer and QB read plays in the book especially if they 1) allow the mobile QB to show some wheels, 2) keep the blitz off the QB and RBs, and 3) make the D defend the whole horizontal and vertical instead of a v with an occasional WR screen thrown in for DB meet OT meet DE in space type of fun.
Probably reasons why this is not viable, but I feel like we're going back to the future, but that past had serious flaws in it and we've got the guy to incorporate some misdirection to rebuild it all Steve Austin (Lee Majors) like.
small guy voice: what ya think dad? my idea is good right? LOL
A turkey leg for the Lee Majors reference.
Given the choice, I would rather not run an offense that required a Mobile QB to be successful. I always felt that was the biggest problem with our offense for the last decade - too much reliant on a mobile QB making something out of nothing for big plays. I don't think that's a recipe for success.
For absolutely no reason whatsover, I envision our post-Logan offense looking a whole lot like Iowa's. I'm no French, but it's my impression that they still employ a zone-blocking scheme, but they have a real power run game. They use the TEs in the passing game, they move the ball. I've always felt our fans think that is you zone block, it means you need to be a "fancy offense" and can't play power ball. I think this is incorrect and I think Iowa proves it. Again, I could be completely wrong both in the direction of this offense and what Iowa is doing.
I think QB mobility should be a bonus, not a requirment for our offenses moving forward.
It still just blows my mind that Auburn is in contention for the BCS championship game this year. I mean, is Malzahn that great of a coach to turn the offense around this much from last year, and he is covering up for a lack of talent? Or did the coaching staff last year really squander a very talented team with the inability to coach and execute a gameplan that meshes with the players' strengths? The answer probably lies somewhere in between, but I'm hoping it was more of the former than the latter.
Either way, I'm looking forward to to your finished piece on Loeffler's 2013 season!
The defense wasn't exactly a stellar unit last year and this year, they're pretty good. There were SO many things wrong with that whole situation, mostly stemming from the simple fact that Chizik is a bad coach. Keep in mind, Auburn did some things very well last year, like running the football. However, they didn't have a passing game (former QB is now a safety) to convert 3rd downs or keep defenses out of the box, so they always got down quickly and had to throw the ball a ton to pay catch-up. Since, as mentioned, they didn't have a passing game, this quickly became a horrific downward-spiraling dumpster fire.
The fact is that Malzahn is a very, very good coach with talent (that he recruited for his scheme, plus a JC transfer QB who is pretty good himself) to work with. He's improved that team in all three aspects of the game. My point: I don't put much stock in Loeffler's success (or lack thereof) at Auburn. He was put in a position to succeed comparable to that of Lambert this past Saturday.
yeah, the JC thing is really important here. It's a market VT really doesn't have access to because of ACC admission standards. If Auburn can't go out and pick up a quarterback like Marshall in the offseason, they aren't the same team. Plus, c'mon, the gap between Auburn and VT recruiting is grand-canyon-esque.
Nick Fairly and Cam Newton were both JC transfers as well and look at what they did for them.
Too bad we couldn't afford Cam