Offensive Comparison

[AuburnSpider 2]

At this point I'm feeling like without a special talent at QB his Os are not gonna be championship caliber. Not sure how often they come along.

[StatTiger 3,188]

I understand the point here, but it may as well be labeled as stats according to freak athletes as qb versus normal human beings. The freak athletes only averaged 4 more points a game than the normal human beings, meaning they turn one filed goal a game into a td. I'd say this also proves that without a freak athlete at the helm, Gus can clearly run a pocket qb system with normal human beings and still be very effective (now if he had a freak athlete that was a pass first qb, I bet it would skew the numbers the other way)

Not really... there are an extremely high number of offenses at the HS level running variations of "spread" offenses operated by DT-QB's. There are far more system oriented offenses at the collegiate level, which allows these HS QB's to come in early and contribute than 10-15 years ago.

Number of DT-QB's that rushed for at least 500-yards and passed for at least 1500-yards during a season at the FBS level:

2000-2004: 22

2005-2009: 46

2010-2015: 93

[FoundationEagle 637]

Getting back to DT QB's, there have been 161 at the FBS level from 2000-2015 that totaled at least 500-yards rushing and over 1500 yards passing in a season. Their offenses averaged over 440-yards per game and had an average national ranking off 33rd in total offense. All the offenses at the FBS level from 2000-2015 averaged 384.8 yards per game. During the last 5 years, DT-QB offenses averaged 458-yards per game.

Well in all fairness, you picked out the best dt qbs and disregarded the ones that didn't have good numbers while using all the good and bad qbs for non dt qbs. Not sure how you could cut down to only the good pocket passers as well but it would be a more accurate representation. I suppose you could take the worst dt qb you used, take his total yards passing and rushing and then cut out all pocket qbs with less yards than that and it would be even. May not change anything, but would tell a more accurate story.

[FoundationEagle 637]

I understand the point here, but it may as well be labeled as stats according to freak athletes as qb versus normal human beings. The freak athletes only averaged 4 more points a game than the normal human beings, meaning they turn one filed goal a game into a td. I'd say this also proves that without a freak athlete at the helm, Gus can clearly run a pocket qb system with normal human beings and still be very effective (now if he had a freak athlete that was a pass first qb, I bet it would skew the numbers the other way)

Not really... there are an extremely high number of offenses at the HS level running variations of "spread" offenses operated by DT-QB's. There are far more system oriented offenses at the collegiate level, which allows these HS QB's to come in early and contribute than 10-15 years ago.

Number of DT-QB's that rushed for at least 500-yards and passed for at least 1500-yards during a season at the FBS level:

2000-2004: 22

2005-2009: 46

2010-2015: 93

While I agree with your point, I was referring to the fact that the only dt qbs available for this comparison are NM and Cam, 2 freak athletes.

[StatTiger 3,188]

At this point I'm feeling like without a special talent at QB his Os are not gonna be championship caliber. Not sure how often they come along.

The same can be said for almost any offense. Because of NCAA rules, we are seeing less time available for the coaches to work directly with the players, which is why we are seeing more system oriented offenses. A player like Nick Marshall would have never been given a shot at QB in the 80's or 90's. Quarterbacks coming out of college that are DT-QB's have a better chance of playing early and having success than ever before because they can make natural plays with their feet until they can mature as a passer. Take a kid like Tommy Armstrong Jr. of Nebraska and he would have been a star in Malzahn's offense. He is a square peg being forced in a round hole at Nebraska. They finally cut him loose in their bowl game and he had a a career game operating from a base read-option attack. I consider Cam Newton a once in a lifetime player because he was a freak athlete as well as a great passer. Nick Marshall doesn't fall into the same category or he would have been drafted as a QB. I thought Malzahn obtained the most of Marshall's skill set to make him a dangerous collegiate QB.

[FHeal 4]

Does this still apply:

In terms of an entire season, I would label a DT QB has one that had at least 150 carries during the course of a season or at least 500-yards rushing for the season.

2 cents

Getting back to DT QB's, there have been 161 at the FBS level from 2000-2015 that totaled at least 500-yards rushing and over 1500 yards passing in a season. Their offenses averaged over 440-yards per game and had an average national ranking off 33rd in total offense. All the offenses at the FBS level from 2000-2015 averaged 384.8 yards per game. During the last 5 years, DT-QB offenses averaged 458-yards per game.

Well in all fairness, you picked out the best dt qbs and disregarded the ones that didn't have good numbers while using all the good and bad qbs for non dt qbs. Not sure how you could cut down to only the good pocket passers as well but it would be a more accurate representation. I suppose you could take the worst dt qb you used, take his total yards passing and rushing and then cut out all pocket qbs with less yards than that and it would be even. May not change anything, but would tell a more accurate story.

to the above ?

Just wondering if this would weight or slant the stat's since only the more successful dual threats would be included .... and I guess the other less successful dual threats would be considered as pocket passers?

[StatTiger 3,188]

Getting back to DT QB's, there have been 161 at the FBS level from 2000-2015 that totaled at least 500-yards rushing and over 1500 yards passing in a season. Their offenses averaged over 440-yards per game and had an average national ranking off 33rd in total offense. All the offenses at the FBS level from 2000-2015 averaged 384.8 yards per game. During the last 5 years, DT-QB offenses averaged 458-yards per game.

Well in all fairness, you picked out the best dt qbs and disregarded the ones that didn't have good numbers while using all the good and bad qbs for non dt qbs. Not sure how you could cut down to only the good pocket passers as well but it would be a more accurate representation. I suppose you could take the worst dt qb you used, take his total yards passing and rushing and then cut out all pocket qbs with less yards than that and it would be even. May not change anything, but would tell a more accurate story.

Not really, nearly 30 pct of them were on offenses that averaged less than 400-yards per game and only 17% were drafted into the NFL as a QB. You're missing the point, we are indeed seeing more of them playing every year.

[StatTiger 3,188]

Just wondering if this would weight or slant the stat's since only the more successful dual threats would be included .... and I guess the other less successful dual threats would be considered as pocket passers?

The point is to be a dual-threat QB, you have to be a threat to run and pass right? Picking QB's that rushed for 500-yards and threw for at least 1500 yards passing doesn't make them the cream of the crop. Many of these guys were average passers.

[FoundationEagle 637]

Just wondering if this would weight or slant the stat's since only the more successful dual threats would be included .... and I guess the other less successful dual threats would be considered as pocket passers?

The point is to be a dual-threat QB, you have to be a threat to run and pass right? Picking QB's that rushed for 500-yards and threw for at least 1500 yards passing doesn't make them the cream of the crop. Many of these guys were average passers.

Ok, I get the reason for having a cutoff for passing and rushing numbers. So, if you're using 2000 yards as the worst qb for dt purposes, does this apply to pocket passers as well? That is my only point of clarification. I appreciate the numbers as I like using stats to prove points as well. I'm not saying you should be expected to spend more time going through nilumbers to make me satisfied with the results, just giving my input as to what this comparison would need to be truly indicative of real trends to be fair to both sides. It skews the numbers to have a minimum number of yards for one type of qb and not for another. It may not skew it much at all, but without all factors being even, it's subjective.

[StatTiger 3,188]

Just wondering if this would weight or slant the stat's since only the more successful dual threats would be included .... and I guess the other less successful dual threats would be considered as pocket passers?

The point is to be a dual-threat QB, you have to be a threat to run and pass right? Picking QB's that rushed for 500-yards and threw for at least 1500 yards passing doesn't make them the cream of the crop. Many of these guys were average passers.

Ok, I get the reason for having a cutoff for passing and rushing numbers. So, if you're using 2000 yards as the worst qb for dt purposes, does this apply to pocket passers as well? That is my only point of clarification. I appreciate the numbers as I like using stats to prove points as well. I'm not saying you should be expected to spend more time going through nilumbers to make me satisfied with the results, just giving my input as to what this comparison would need to be truly indicative of real trends to be fair to both sides. It skews the numbers to have a minimum number of yards for one type of qb and not for another. It may not skew it much at all, but without all factors being even, it's subjective.

The numbers came from taking the NCAA's top 100 passers from 2000-2015. I then scanned through for the QB's that rushed for 500+ and at least 1500-yards. So that left plenty of great passers on some great offenses out of the 161 DT-QB's I selected.

If Gus ever decides to go in a different direction in terms of offensive philosophy, it will only work if he changes just about everyone on the offensive side of the staff. Take away the two years at Tulsa and his 8 other offenses averaged only 25 passes per game and 45 rush attempts. He clearly believes in running the football and IMO, a DT-QB is the best option in that regard. If you take his Tulsa and Arkansas State offenses, they were much more pass-heavy and compiled a record of 31-10. Compare that to his his best 3 offenses at Auburn (2010, 2013 and 2014) and he had an overall record of 34-7. I will admit I am old school and I enjoy having a great running game so there is some bias to wanting to see a DT-QB to make the running game click.

[AUbritt 611]

The other issue with this is that Cam and Nick were unquestionably the best QBs Gus has ever had. So, it's kinda biased in their favor.

I'll say this, though -- I'm also kind of biased in favor of a dominating running game. Cam was awesome, but I liked watching our 2013 offense even more than 2010.

I just think it would be interesting if you put an excellent passer in for a couple of seasons, then made the comparison.

He did have great passing games 2 years at Tulsa, 1 year at Arkansas State and Chris Todd put up some solid numbers in 2009.

Yeah, I know there have been some good passing performances under Gus. I guess I mean someone who's as good a 'passing QB' as Cam and Nick were 'DT QBs'. Now, maybe you can say that it's the fact that Cam and Nick were DT QBs that made the O so good under them. But maybe it's that the O was so good under them because they were such outstanding QBs.

Nick not being a QB anymore makes this a weird point of view. I worry that some folks will think that it's just the system, rather than the QB. They might think you can put just anyone back there, as long as they're a DT QB. But Nick was incredible at running the zone read, especially with Tre Mason and that OL from 2013 (but even in 2014); and he was dangerous enough as a passer. He also didn't make too many huge mistakes in terms of turnovers. And Cam was, well, Cam.

I guess I'm just reluctant to accept that it's the DTness itself that made offenses led by Cam and Nick so productive; Cam and Nick had something to do with it.

What if you put Bo Jackson in an offense other than the wishbone? Wouldn't you think he'd still produce monster rushing stats? I know it's not exactly the same, comparing QBs and RBs. I'm just trying to figure out a way to express my reservations about the conclusion that Gus needs a DT QB. Cam and Nick are pretty tough acts to follow, IMO.

[doc4aday 1,887]

The other issue with this is that Cam and Nick were unquestionably the best QBs Gus has ever had. So, it's kinda biased in their favor.

I'll say this, though -- I'm also kind of biased in favor of a dominating running game. Cam was awesome, but I liked watching our 2013 offense even more than 2010.

I just think it would be interesting if you put an excellent passer in for a couple of seasons, then made the comparison.

He did have great passing games 2 years at Tulsa, 1 year at Arkansas State and Chris Todd put up some solid numbers in 2009.

I just hope Gus will choose a QB that can get us back to winning 9 or more games on regular basis. I am not so sure that JJ & SW are the answers for 2016. Time will tell and I hope that Gus will make the right decision with the QB position for 2016. It all starts with the QB that can run Gus' offense to as close to perfection as possible.

[StatTiger 3,188]

I guess I'm just reluctant to accept that it's the DTness itself that made offenses led by Cam and Nick so productive; Cam and Nick had something to do with it.

What if you put Bo Jackson in an offense other than the wishbone? Wouldn't you think he'd still produce monster rushing stats? I know it's not exactly the same, comparing QBs and RBs. I'm just trying to figure out a way to express my reservations about the conclusion that Gus needs a DT QB. Cam and Nick are pretty tough acts to follow, IMO.

Forget the QB's for a moment... how many WR's and TE's has Auburn recruited and developed from the HS level over the last 15 years? Auburn has two 1000-yard receivers in the history of the program. Auburn has had some very good receivers come through the program but nowhere close to the level of Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, LSU or even Alabama over the past two decades. Auburn has traditionally been known to be a RB school. Can we change that? Sure but it would take a completely different change in offensive philosophy. Malzahn's staff has struggled bringing in elite WR's into the program and one of the reasons is because Auburn doesn't have a great history for WR development.

There have been only 15 offenses in school history to average more than 400-yards per game.

Compare 2010, 2013 and 2014 to the other 12 teams and you have 491-yards and 39 PPG compared to 407-yards and 31 PPG.

Add into the mix the current coaching staff and where they have had success in player development on offense and leans towards OL and RB's more than the remaining skill players. This is another reason why I prefer a DT-QB operating Malzahn's offense as we see it today. I would prefer Baylor, Oklahoma and Oregon's offense but only for one primary reason. They have elected to define a specific offensive philosophy with the intent of recruiting for it year in and year out. This allows them to plug and play much easier than Auburn. One downfall I have seen to Malzahn's offense is that it takes 3-4 games into the season to define where we are at on offense, when a new QB is broken in. This is dangerous because it can result in early losses that could put the team behind. Malzahn has recruited pocket passers and DT-QB's since he has been here. This eventually leads to changes in offensive philosophy to make it work. If you change from Nick Marshall to Jeremy Johnson, it means changes across the board on offense, especially at the WR position. For now, we have clearly seen better results with a DT-QB, in place so why not stick with it?

[AUbritt 611]

I guess I'm just reluctant to accept that it's the DTness itself that made offenses led by Cam and Nick so productive; Cam and Nick had something to do with it.

What if you put Bo Jackson in an offense other than the wishbone? Wouldn't you think he'd still produce monster rushing stats? I know it's not exactly the same, comparing QBs and RBs. I'm just trying to figure out a way to express my reservations about the conclusion that Gus needs a DT QB. Cam and Nick are pretty tough acts to follow, IMO.

Forget the QB's for a moment... how many WR's and TE's has Auburn recruited and developed from the HS level over the last 15 years? Auburn has two 1000-yard receivers in the history of the program. Auburn has had some very good receivers come through the program but nowhere close to the level of Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, LSU or even Alabama over the past two decades. Auburn has traditionally been known to be a RB school. Can we change that? Sure but it would take a completely different change in offensive philosophy. Malzahn's staff has struggled bringing in elite WR's into the program and one of the reasons is because Auburn doesn't have a great history for WR development.

There have been only 15 offenses in school history to average more than 400-yards per game.

Compare 2010, 2013 and 2014 to the other 12 teams and you have 491-yards and 39 PPG compared to 407-yards and 31 PPG.

Add into the mix the current coaching staff and where they have had success in player development on offense and leans towards OL and RB's more than the remaining skill players. This is another reason why I prefer a DT-QB operating Malzahn's offense as we see it today. I would prefer Baylor, Oklahoma and Oregon's offense but only for one primary reason. They have elected to define a specific offensive philosophy with the intent of recruiting for it year in and year out. This allows them to plug and play much easier than Auburn. One downfall I have seen to Malzahn's offense is that it takes 3-4 games into the season to define where we are at on offense, when a new QB is broken in. This is dangerous because it can result in early losses that could put the team behind. Malzahn has recruited pocket passers and DT-QB's since he has been here. This eventually leads to changes in offensive philosophy to make it work. If you change from Nick Marshall to Jeremy Johnson, it means changes across the board on offense, especially at the WR position. For now, we have clearly seen better results with a DT-QB, in place so why not stick with it?

Well, I agree for sure with the observation about it being dangerous to take 3-4 games to figure things out. I also agree we should have a consistent offensive style and stick to it (and recruit to it). I also am partial to a run-oriented offense. I said before, and I mean it, that the 2013 offense was the most beautiful offense I've ever seen operate.

I just sort of feel like the debate tends to be whether we need a running QB vs. a passing QB, when I think we all agree that we want a TRUE dual-threat at QB -- someone who can hurt a D both with his feet and with his arm. I think the long passes to Sammie also helped open up the running game. I think the threat of Nick running also helped the passing game, and would have helped even more if Nick could throw like Cam.

We're looking at perhaps our greatest ever WR recruiting class coming in. I think we need an offense that can take advantage of all our offensive players (including tight ends -- no idea why we essentially ignore them). I just don't want us to abandon the pass. Gus sometimes says we're a run, play-action team. I guess I'd favor a run first, deep-threat passing team. I don't like a lot of the dinky little WR screens. We need the WRs to stretch the field vertically, for the most part.

If we look at last year, I would certainly agree that we needed the QBs to be more of a running threat. We also needed them to be more of a passing threat. When we couldn't pass, we couldn't run well, either. We've got to be able to take the top off the D, or they'll just stack the box on us.

As long as the dual-threat is a real dual-threat (and not just someone who can run, but not pass), I'm all for it. I'm definitely not trying to argue that we should retool the offense for an immobile pocket passer.

[DAG 33,977]

I guess I'm just reluctant to accept that it's the DTness itself that made offenses led by Cam and Nick so productive; Cam and Nick had something to do with it.

What if you put Bo Jackson in an offense other than the wishbone? Wouldn't you think he'd still produce monster rushing stats? I know it's not exactly the same, comparing QBs and RBs. I'm just trying to figure out a way to express my reservations about the conclusion that Gus needs a DT QB. Cam and Nick are pretty tough acts to follow, IMO.

Forget the QB's for a moment... how many WR's and TE's has Auburn recruited and developed from the HS level over the last 15 years? Auburn has two 1000-yard receivers in the history of the program. Auburn has had some very good receivers come through the program but nowhere close to the level of Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, LSU or even Alabama over the past two decades. Auburn has traditionally been known to be a RB school. Can we change that? Sure but it would take a completely different change in offensive philosophy. Malzahn's staff has struggled bringing in elite WR's into the program and one of the reasons is because Auburn doesn't have a great history for WR development.

There have been only 15 offenses in school history to average more than 400-yards per game.

Compare 2010, 2013 and 2014 to the other 12 teams and you have 491-yards and 39 PPG compared to 407-yards and 31 PPG.

Add into the mix the current coaching staff and where they have had success in player development on offense and leans towards OL and RB's more than the remaining skill players. This is another reason why I prefer a DT-QB operating Malzahn's offense as we see it today. I would prefer Baylor, Oklahoma and Oregon's offense but only for one primary reason. They have elected to define a specific offensive philosophy with the intent of recruiting for it year in and year out. This allows them to plug and play much easier than Auburn. One downfall I have seen to Malzahn's offense is that it takes 3-4 games into the season to define where we are at on offense, when a new QB is broken in. This is dangerous because it can result in early losses that could put the team behind. Malzahn has recruited pocket passers and DT-QB's since he has been here. This eventually leads to changes in offensive philosophy to make it work. If you change from Nick Marshall to Jeremy Johnson, it means changes across the board on offense, especially at the WR position. For now, we have clearly seen better results with a DT-QB, in place so why not stick with it?

[StatTiger 3,188]

I just hope Gus will choose a QB that can get us back to winning 9 or more games on regular basis. I am not so sure that JJ & SW are the answers for 2016. Time will tell and I hope that Gus will make the right decision with the QB position for 2016. It all starts with the QB that can run Gus' offense to as close to perfection as possible.

I would too but it would take more than that. I believe it is even more important to define the style of offense he wants to operate moving forward than the QB itself. I'm not sold that Malzahn can develop a sophisticated pass-offense on his own based on his current history. Thus far he has yet to recruit a HS QB and develop him into a consistent performer. I'm Not saying he can't, just pointing out that he hasn't at this point. I do believe he has helped develop and improve upon some of the QB's he has worked with but several were already at a solid stage in their development. It might require an OC change that could make that kind of change as well as bringing in someone to evaluate, recruit and develop WR's too. I believe Dameyune Craig could make for a solid QB coach but who would change the style of pass offense? I always thought Mark Richt did a great job of QB development and that primarily came from selecting specific QB's in recruitment that he thought would fit his style of offense. Malzahn has recruited both pocket passers and DT-QB's.

IMO, I wish Gus would simply decide on the style of offense he wants to operate. From that point, bring in the right coaches to evaluate and recruit for the type of players for the "base" offense. This would increase the probability of plug and play every year as players move on. In 2010, 2013 and 2015, we heard the team needed 3-4 games into the season to see where they were at. I would like to see most of that cleared up in spring and fall camps before Auburn begins the season. If this occurs again in 2016, Auburn could be in major trouble based on their opening schedule. Does he want to be a more pass-oriented offense? Fine but recruit and scheme for it. Does he want his base offense to be built around the read-option? Fine but recruit for it. Recruiting different styles of QB's forces some schematic change and adjustments carrying over into the start of the season.

2 cents

[Malcolm_FleX48 1,869]

I just hope Gus will choose a QB that can get us back to winning 9 or more games on regular basis. I am not so sure that JJ & SW are the answers for 2016. Time will tell and I hope that Gus will make the right decision with the QB position for 2016. It all starts with the QB that can run Gus' offense to as close to perfection as possible.

I would too but it would take more than that. I believe it is even more important to define the style of offense he wants to operate moving forward than the QB itself. I'm not sold that Malzahn can develop a sophisticated pass-offense on his own based on his current history. Thus far he has yet to recruit a HS QB and develop him into a consistent performer. I'm Not saying he can't, just pointing out that he hasn't at this point. I do believe he has helped develop and improve upon some of the QB's he has worked with but several were already at a solid stage in their development. It might require an OC change that could make that kind of change as well as bringing in someone to evaluate, recruit and develop WR's too. I believe Dameyune Craig could make for a solid QB coach but who would change the style of pass offense? I always thought Mark Richt did a great job of QB development and that primarily came from selecting specific QB's in recruitment that he thought would fit his style of offense. Malzahn has recruited both pocket passers and DT-QB's.

IMO, I wish Gus would simply decide on the style of offense he wants to operate. From that point, bring in the right coaches to evaluate and recruit for the type of players for the "base" offense. This would increase the probability of plug and play every year as players move on. In 2010, 2013 and 2015, we heard the team needed 3-4 games into the season to see where they were at. I would like to see most of that cleared up in spring and fall camps before Auburn begins the season. If this occurs again in 2016, Auburn could be in major trouble based on their opening schedule. Does he want to be a more pass-oriented offense? Fine but recruit and scheme for it. Does he want his base offense to be built around the read-option? Fine but recruit for it. Recruiting different styles of QB's forces some schematic change and adjustments carrying over into the start of the season.

2 cents

This.... So much this...

Our recruiting has been somewhat scattered for the offensive side and style. It's one of those situations where we have DEFINITELY been very hit or miss with how recruits fit and whether or not they have use in the offense. The offense also has lost it's niche for what it wants to do. At a basic look at the Malzahn Wing-T, it want's to be a power run offense using leading H-Backs, though at the same time maintain just enough ability to pass to catch the defense slipping with a deep shot should they get caught underneath. Unfortunately the application and use of the recruits has not been the best. For one thing, the offense needs to take a more balanced approach by:

Actually recruiting talented and explosive tight ends rather than taking full backs and using them as H-Backs. Adding the TE-Wing formation can be a deadly asset, as well as having TEs play the H-Back and still be able to play attached to the LOS and in the slot.

Advantage: A Tight End can ALWAYS play H-Back and do the SAME exact thing that the H can do and then some. For one thing, they aren't fish out of water in the receiving game which allows you to maintain some unpredictability by still having all your talented route runners on the field despite being in run formations and NOT sacrifice your ability to block at the point of attack. Another advantage using a TE rather than a FB does is that they're hard to cover regardless of who is on them. If you've got one of these TEs that is blazing in speed, at least 6'4-6'5, strong enough to beat press cover LBs and Nickel backs, who are you going to cover them with? Our current H-Backs are less agile in space than running backs which LBs cover all day. By allowing them to use an LB to man cover an H-Back, the team automatically still has their other DBs free, rather than having to bracket and double team a match-up nightmare TE taking away 2 defenders, possibly pulling a safety down to leave the middle of the field uncovered. I just don't see the novelty in stockpiling fullbacks over greater TEs when one group is more versatile than the other. At least this way, if Gus wants to remain a somewhat 50/50 offense in terms of run-pass efficiency, he can do it correctly.

Bring back Nakeds.

An awkward title, but at the same time, we need naked bootlegs back. It may have just been me, but I don't think I saw us run this at all this season, or if we did it was scarce. This play and types like it are an absolute MUST! When the offense zone steps to the right and the QB fakes the handoff and rolls left, with the H-Back faking the slice/cruise block as he would normally to kick out the LB, it almost always draws a defense to the right literally leaving them "naked." The play also establishes multiple "levels" of which a QB can throw and makes the reads EXTREMELY easy by taking most of the run defense to the opposite side of the field. Bama makes ample use of this and it is almost ALWAYS a good gain. The check down to the TE is available should the 10 yd in be covered by an LB or safety, the 10 yard in is open if the LBs bite too hard on the TE, or if the safety tries to come down or gets caught "staring at the devil" then the WR's stop-and go route to the bootleg side is automatically a sure thing. Another hidden perk is that if we would just get a Dual Threat QB, then another option would be turning this into a sizable run gain as well. Either way, this play concept needs to make a triumphant return.

We need more XL WRs.

This one can go either way, because it is without question that Gus tends to break the bank recruiting versatile WRs in the size range of 6'1-6'2, which I do think is a good idea, but one thing that is notably missing from our offense (With the exclusion of Tony Stevens and Melvin Ray) is the jumbo WRs. I like 6'2 WRs, they can still be speedsters, but also physical forces in the run game, but there is no denying that having one or 2 and maybe 3 in the goal line, excluding the TE is a godsend and makes even the shakiest QB a force if he can buy time. And it's not like they're not out there. This year's class has had SEVERAL 6'3-6'6 WRs going to schools around us in the SEC (LSU got 3 of them in this one class, 6'4, 6'5 and 6'5) while it's clear they aren't even targets of ours. While they can at times be crap-shoots with their hit and miss tendencies in how they pan out, massive WRs are a HUGE advantage in the pass and run game. (See Ricky Seals Jones and his blocking ability and nastiness... Haven't forgotten what he did to one of our DBs) With that length matched up on a corner in the run game, it definitely provides another advantage if Gus spreads the formation out and attacks the AT and OFF tackle areas. Not going to harp on this one, but it's definitely something that needs to be done. The catch radius of these super-sized wides would make a HUGE difference in our redzone efficiency, especially when combined with TEs. I can only dream of a super-sized redzone formation. 6'4-6'6 recievers and TEs spread out, single back, and a DT QB=Supreme redzone deadliness.

More Varied Pre-Snap Motions

I know I'm not the only one who literally got our motion scheme down to a T. Almost immediately I narrowed down the motions to literally a science, whether it was starting with 2 backs and motioning one into the slot, having a H-Back split out and motioning them back to their original position, the dreaded jet sweep motion, ect. Basically, the motions that we use almost serve no purpose and don't benefit the Wing-T and it's nature of being unpredictable. Heck, we don't even use simple, move the H-Back to the opposite side of the OL to change the blocking strength and defensive assignment on the fly. There are LOADS most useful motions that could be used. If we took advantage of large WRs, we could motion one into the box (buzz) to give us another large body in the box to block or to drag a defender into a crowded space and then take advantage of the extra bodies to allow him to get open much easier. Needless to say, the creativity hasn't been there with the motion schemes and it just seems more like lifeless proceedings that are done before hand rather than actually pragmatic movements.

[StatTiger 3,188]

This.... So much this...

Our recruiting has been somewhat scattered for the offensive side and style. It's one of those situations where we have DEFINITELY been very hit or miss with how recruits fit and whether or not they have use in the offense. The offense also has lost it's niche for what it wants to do. At a basic look at the Malzahn Wing-T, it want's to be a power run offense using leading H-Backs, though at the same time maintain just enough ability to pass to catch the defense slipping with a deep shot should they get caught underneath. Unfortunately the application and use of the recruits has not been the best. For one thing, the offense needs to take a more balanced approach by:

Actually recruiting talented and explosive tight ends rather than taking full backs and using them as H-Backs. Adding the TE-Wing formation can be a deadly asset, as well as having TEs play the H-Back and still be able to play attached to the LOS and in the slot.

Advantage: A Tight End can ALWAYS play H-Back and do the SAME exact thing that the H can do and then some. For one thing, they aren't fish out of water in the receiving game which allows you to maintain some unpredictability by still having all your talented route runners on the field despite being in run formations and NOT sacrifice your ability to block at the point of attack. Another advantage using a TE rather than a FB does is that they're hard to cover regardless of who is on them. If you've got one of these TEs that is blazing in speed, at least 6'4-6'5, strong enough to beat press cover LBs and Nickel backs, who are you going to cover them with? Our current H-Backs are less agile in space than running backs which LBs cover all day. By allowing them to use an LB to man cover an H-Back, the team automatically still has their other DBs free, rather than having to bracket and double team a match-up nightmare TE taking away 2 defenders, possibly pulling a safety down to leave the middle of the field uncovered. I just don't see the novelty in stockpiling fullbacks over greater TEs when one group is more versatile than the other. At least this way, if Gus wants to remain a somewhat 50/50 offense in terms of run-pass efficiency, he can do it correctly.

Bring back Nakeds.

An awkward title, but at the same time, we need naked bootlegs back. It may have just been me, but I don't think I saw us run this at all this season, or if we did it was scarce. This play and types like it are an absolute MUST! When the offense zone steps to the right and the QB fakes the handoff and rolls left, with the H-Back faking the slice/cruise block as he would normally to kick out the LB, it almost always draws a defense to the right literally leaving them "naked." The play also establishes multiple "levels" of which a QB can throw and makes the reads EXTREMELY easy by taking most of the run defense to the opposite side of the field. Bama makes ample use of this and it is almost ALWAYS a good gain. The check down to the TE is available should the 10 yd in be covered by an LB or safety, the 10 yard in is open if the LBs bite too hard on the TE, or if the safety tries to come down or gets caught "staring at the devil" then the WR's stop-and go route to the bootleg side is automatically a sure thing. Another hidden perk is that if we would just get a Dual Threat QB, then another option would be turning this into a sizable run gain as well. Either way, this play concept needs to make a triumphant return.

We need more XL WRs.

This one can go either way, because it is without question that Gus tends to break the bank recruiting versatile WRs in the size range of 6'1-6'2, which I do think is a good idea, but one thing that is notably missing from our offense (With the exclusion of Tony Stevens and Melvin Ray) is the jumbo WRs. I like 6'2 WRs, they can still be speedsters, but also physical forces in the run game, but there is no denying that having one or 2 and maybe 3 in the goal line, excluding the TE is a godsend and makes even the shakiest QB a force if he can buy time. And it's not like they're not out there. This year's class has had SEVERAL 6'3-6'6 WRs going to schools around us in the SEC (LSU got 3 of them in this one class, 6'4, 6'5 and 6'5) while it's clear they aren't even targets of ours. While they can at times be crap-shoots with their hit and miss tendencies in how they pan out, massive WRs are a HUGE advantage in the pass and run game. (See Ricky Seals Jones and his blocking ability and nastiness... Haven't forgotten what he did to one of our DBs) With that length matched up on a corner in the run game, it definitely provides another advantage if Gus spreads the formation out and attacks the AT and OFF tackle areas. Not going to harp on this one, but it's definitely something that needs to be done. The catch radius of these super-sized wides would make a HUGE difference in our redzone efficiency, especially when combined with TEs. I can only dream of a super-sized redzone formation. 6'4-6'6 recievers and TEs spread out, single back, and a DT QB=Supreme redzone deadliness.

More Varied Pre-Snap Motions

I know I'm not the only one who literally got our motion scheme down to a T. Almost immediately I narrowed down the motions to literally a science, whether it was starting with 2 backs and motioning one into the slot, having a H-Back split out and motioning them back to their original position, the dreaded jet sweep motion, ect. Basically, the motions that we use almost serve no purpose and don't benefit the Wing-T and it's nature of being unpredictable. Heck, we don't even use simple, move the H-Back to the opposite side of the OL to change the blocking strength and defensive assignment on the fly. There are LOADS most useful motions that could be used. If we took advantage of large WRs, we could motion one into the box (buzz) to give us another large body in the box to block or to drag a defender into a crowded space and then take advantage of the extra bodies to allow him to get open much easier. Needless to say, the creativity hasn't been there with the motion schemes and it just seems more like lifeless proceedings that are done before hand rather than actually pragmatic movements.

Great stuff... I have expressed multiple times this season how much the offense was hurt without TE's being involved. In fact this was the first time from 1970-2015 that we did not have a single completion to a TE. It likely goes back further but my data base on individual receiving only goes back to 1970. You mentioned Alabama but Georgia and Arkansas have done a great job utilizing their TE's in their offense. The naked boots you mentioned were so effective during the Dye, Tuberville and Bowden eras. Borges did an excellent job of stacking routes on roll outs to give the rolling QB multiple levels to throw from and because these routes were stacked, it made for an easier read for the QB. The stretch play we ran frequently against Memphis was a great change. We ran it a few times earlier in the year but scrapped it after it failed after a few times. My understanding was that Coach Grimes pushed for the return of this play. The only issue I had was we did not run a play-action off of it against Memphis, which would have given JJ an easy read or the option to run as you pointed out.

I also believe by having a TE and FB on the field more frequently would open up the play-calling options and would allow Malzahn to substitute less often, which would bring back the pace he often comments on. As you pointed out our substitution packages often dictate the play were are about to run. No doubt that Saban's defense knows our personnel and groupings like the back of his hand, which allows them to adjust accordingly. I've also noticed we don't motion or shift as much as we did when Gus first got here. This is why I am all for Gus bringing in other assistants on offense that can provide knew concepts to what Gus already prefers to run. If not staff changes, paying visits to other coaching staffs across the country to see what other spread or hurry up offenses are doing would be nice. Not sure if Gus brings in consultants but that would also be a grand concept as well. I believe Coach Malzahn is creative when it comes to offensive football but great coaches are always looking for methods and concepts to make their offense more diverse and not so each to read from year to year.

I thought the best assistant hire in the SEC in 2015 was Dan Enos of Arkansas. He took what Arkansas had alre3ady been doing and added some knew schemes to make it more diverse. They remained a strong run-offense but they turned their passing game into a deadly unit, especially with the use of 3 TE's . They were rarely predictable and very sound in their execution. Lane Kiffen might be a jerk but he has done some great things with the Alabama offense without taking away from their ability to be a powerful run-offense. He has done a splendid job of obtaining the most of his starting quarterbacks the past two years. Once again, he also utilizes his TE's and RB's in his pass-offense to make them difficult to defend from a skill-player standpoint.

Once again, thanks for the comments!

[cole256 17,043]

I just hope Gus will choose a QB that can get us back to winning 9 or more games on regular basis. I am not so sure that JJ & SW are the answers for 2016. Time will tell and I hope that Gus will make the right decision with the QB position for 2016. It all starts with the QB that can run Gus' offense to as close to perfection as possible.

I would too but it would take more than that. I believe it is even more important to define the style of offense he wants to operate moving forward than the QB itself. I'm not sold that Malzahn can develop a sophisticated pass-offense on his own based on his current history. Thus far he has yet to recruit a HS QB and develop him into a consistent performer. I'm Not saying he can't, just pointing out that he hasn't at this point. I do believe he has helped develop and improve upon some of the QB's he has worked with but several were already at a solid stage in their development. It might require an OC change that could make that kind of change as well as bringing in someone to evaluate, recruit and develop WR's too. I believe Dameyune Craig could make for a solid QB coach but who would change the style of pass offense? I always thought Mark Richt did a great job of QB development and that primarily came from selecting specific QB's in recruitment that he thought would fit his style of offense. Malzahn has recruited both pocket passers and DT-QB's.

IMO, I wish Gus would simply decide on the style of offense he wants to operate. From that point, bring in the right coaches to evaluate and recruit for the type of players for the "base" offense. This would increase the probability of plug and play every year as players move on. In 2010, 2013 and 2015, we heard the team needed 3-4 games into the season to see where they were at. I would like to see most of that cleared up in spring and fall camps before Auburn begins the season. If this occurs again in 2016, Auburn could be in major trouble based on their opening schedule. Does he want to be a more pass-oriented offense? Fine but recruit and scheme for it. Does he want his base offense to be built around the read-option? Fine but recruit for it. Recruiting different styles of QB's forces some schematic change and adjustments carrying over into the start of the season.

2 cents

I agree especially with the evaluating part. Really wish we could've gotten shae Patterson. All indications point to him being able to do it all

[cole256 17,043]

Just wondering if this would weight or slant the stat's since only the more successful dual threats would be included .... and I guess the other less successful dual threats would be considered as pocket passers?

The point is to be a dual-threat QB, you have to be a threat to run and pass right? Picking QB's that rushed for 500-yards and threw for at least 1500 yards passing doesn't make them the cream of the crop. Many of these guys were average passers.

Ok, I get the reason for having a cutoff for passing and rushing numbers. So, if you're using 2000 yards as the worst qb for dt purposes, does this apply to pocket passers as well? That is my only point of clarification. I appreciate the numbers as I like using stats to prove points as well. I'm not saying you should be expected to spend more time going through nilumbers to make me satisfied with the results, just giving my input as to what this comparison would need to be truly indicative of real trends to be fair to both sides. It skews the numbers to have a minimum number of yards for one type of qb and not for another. It may not skew it much at all, but without all factors being even, it's subjective.

Smh

[FoundationEagle 637]

Just wondering if this would weight or slant the stat's since only the more successful dual threats would be included .... and I guess the other less successful dual threats would be considered as pocket passers?

The point is to be a dual-threat QB, you have to be a threat to run and pass right? Picking QB's that rushed for 500-yards and threw for at least 1500 yards passing doesn't make them the cream of the crop. Many of these guys were average passers.

Ok, I get the reason for having a cutoff for passing and rushing numbers. So, if you're using 2000 yards as the worst qb for dt purposes, does this apply to pocket passers as well? That is my only point of clarification. I appreciate the numbers as I like using stats to prove points as well. I'm not saying you should be expected to spend more time going through nilumbers to make me satisfied with the results, just giving my input as to what this comparison would need to be truly indicative of real trends to be fair to both sides. It skews the numbers to have a minimum number of yards for one type of qb and not for another. It may not skew it much at all, but without all factors being even, it's subjective.

Smh

If you don't understand my points here, you are a moron. Wait, never mind. I'm not saying it would prove anything different, just that it's not entirely an accurate representation which would be better. Understand? I seriously doubt it.

[PatBoCamRob 30]

here's a really offensive comparison: Last year, Auburn had as many conference wins as Vanderbilt and Kentucky.

[cole256 17,043]

Just wondering if this would weight or slant the stat's since only the more successful dual threats would be included .... and I guess the other less successful dual threats would be considered as pocket passers?

The point is to be a dual-threat QB, you have to be a threat to run and pass right? Picking QB's that rushed for 500-yards and threw for at least 1500 yards passing doesn't make them the cream of the crop. Many of these guys were average passers.

Ok, I get the reason for having a cutoff for passing and rushing numbers. So, if you're using 2000 yards as the worst qb for dt purposes, does this apply to pocket passers as well? That is my only point of clarification. I appreciate the numbers as I like using stats to prove points as well. I'm not saying you should be expected to spend more time going through nilumbers to make me satisfied with the results, just giving my input as to what this comparison would need to be truly indicative of real trends to be fair to both sides. It skews the numbers to have a minimum number of yards for one type of qb and not for another. It may not skew it much at all, but without all factors being even, it's subjective.

Smh

If you don't understand my points here, you are a moron. Wait, never mind. I'm not saying it would prove anything different, just that it's not entirely an accurate representation which would be better. Understand? I seriously doubt it.

Smh. Be sure to get those insults and last word in

[FoundationEagle 637]

Just wondering if this would weight or slant the stat's since only the more successful dual threats would be included .... and I guess the other less successful dual threats would be considered as pocket passers?

The point is to be a dual-threat QB, you have to be a threat to run and pass right? Picking QB's that rushed for 500-yards and threw for at least 1500 yards passing doesn't make them the cream of the crop. Many of these guys were average passers.

Ok, I get the reason for having a cutoff for passing and rushing numbers. So, if you're using 2000 yards as the worst qb for dt purposes, does this apply to pocket passers as well? That is my only point of clarification. I appreciate the numbers as I like using stats to prove points as well. I'm not saying you should be expected to spend more time going through nilumbers to make me satisfied with the results, just giving my input as to what this comparison would need to be truly indicative of real trends to be fair to both sides. It skews the numbers to have a minimum number of yards for one type of qb and not for another. It may not skew it much at all, but without all factors being even, it's subjective.

Smh

If you don't understand my points here, you are a moron. Wait, never mind. I'm not saying it would prove anything different, just that it's not entirely an accurate representation which would be better. Understand? I seriously doubt it.

Smh. Be sure to get those insults and last word in

[FHeal 4]

here's a really offensive comparison: Last year, Auburn had as many conference wins as Vanderbilt and Kentucky.

Yes, but if you look at Kentucky's season starting QB Johhny McCrary, he was a DTQB yet he does not meet the criteria (or definition) of being this type of player, as used in this thread.

Not to shoot the messenger or any of the most excellent ideas posted here (THANKS - STAT and MALCOLM) . I whole heatedly agree in recruiting to fill needs and type of play, as opposed to winning the recruiting game. Was merely wondering if the selection process might group the less successful (regardless of type) together. Love the thread.