Malzahn Understudy?

[gillije25 0]

Question: Wasn't Chizik preparing for Malzahn to eventually leave? Wasn't Trooper or Luper studying under Malzahn? Was it not the plan for one of them to eventually become the OC, and run a version of Gus' system, once Gus left to become a head coach?

[ertrader 163]

I don't know if this was the case or just a message board story folks told themselves to ease the annual offseason "Gus is leaving" panic.

Either way, any contingency plan likely changed when Dye decided to return to the wishbone.

[mcgufcm 3,984]

I'm not sure about an understudy, but I know that no one expected Trooper to become offensive coordinator. That was never in the plans.

[AuburnGrad97 37]

You are correct, and it was Coach Luper. He shadowed Gus, and also spent time in the box during games, relaying information to Gus down on the field. Luper's desire is to move up in the coaching ranks, but he needs experience doing this. The next step for him would be as an OC. I would love to see us give him control of this offense right now (especially with our new committment to run the football), and see how he does. If we are planning on removing Loeffler at the end of the season, we could evaluate Luper over the last half of the season. Luper will not stay a RB coach forever, so at some point he will be moving on. I like coach Luper, and think he is one of the bright spots on our staff. Our RB's always seem well coached and prepared. He is also a very good recruiter (I think he is our Director of Recruiting). Supposedly, he is now going to serve as some kind of Co-Offensive Coordinator. I don't see this going over very well, especially when trying to establish an identity.

[keesler 5,814]

Have any other schools shown interest in hiring either coach for an OC job?

[GenTso 0]

Have any other schools shown interest in hiring either coach for an OC job?

No, we just assume thy do. In JJ's mind Gene Chizik is the most desirable coach in America.

[Duder 203]

No. It was 100% message board fodder. There are several versions, none of them more than rumor.

[AU-24 3,060]

You are correct, and it was Coach Luper. He shadowed Gus, and also spent time in the box during games, relaying information to Gus down on the field. Luper's desire is to move up in the coaching ranks, but he needs experience doing this. The next step for him would be as an OC. I would love to see us give him control of this offense right now (especially with our new committment to run the football), and see how he does. If we are planning on removing Loeffler at the end of the season, we could evaluate Luper over the last half of the season. Luper will not stay a RB coach forever, so at some point he will be moving on. I like coach Luper, and think he is one of the bright spots on our staff. Our RB's always seem well coached and prepared. He is also a very good recruiter (I think he is our Director of Recruiting). Supposedly, he is now going to serve as some kind of Co-Offensive Coordinator. I don't see this going over very well, especially when trying to establish an identity.

I understand what you are saying, and it was well written; but speaking of needing experience...CSL?

[gillije25 0]

You are correct, and it was Coach Luper. He shadowed Gus, and also spent time in the box during games, relaying information to Gus down on the field. Luper's desire is to move up in the coaching ranks, but he needs experience doing this. The next step for him would be as an OC. I would love to see us give him control of this offense right now (especially with our new committment to run the football), and see how he does. If we are planning on removing Loeffler at the end of the season, we could evaluate Luper over the last half of the season. Luper will not stay a RB coach forever, so at some point he will be moving on. I like coach Luper, and think he is one of the bright spots on our staff. Our RB's always seem well coached and prepared. He is also a very good recruiter (I think he is our Director of Recruiting). Supposedly, he is now going to serve as some kind of Co-Offensive Coordinator. I don't see this going over very well, especially when trying to establish an identity.

If this in fact true, what happened? If Luper was our "OC in Waiting" and learning Gus' system, why go from the HUNH to a more traditional/pro style offense and Loeffler?

[StatTiger 3,146]

Malzahn's true understudy was Rhett Lashlee, a grad assistant under Malzahn in 2009 & 2010. He did a great job with the quarterbacks and was hired as Samford's OC in 2011. He improved the Bulldog offense in yardage and points per game (17 pts to 28 PPG). When Malzahn took the ASU job he hired Lashlee as his OC and QB coach.

[DivisionN 102]

Malzahn's true understudy was Rhett Lashlee, a grad assistant under Malzahn in 2009 & 2010. He did a great job with the quarterbacks and was hired as Samford's OC in 2011. He improved the Bulldog offense in yardage and points per game (17 pts to 28 PPG). When Malzahn took the ASU job he hired Lashlee as his OC and QB coach.

From things I read, I just assumed that Lashlee was the automatic replacement for Malzahn. Our recruits were assured we had a coach who ran a similar system in the wings.

[StatTiger 3,146]

Malzahn's true understudy was Rhett Lashlee, a grad assistant under Malzahn in 2009 & 2010. He did a great job with the quarterbacks and was hired as Samford's OC in 2011. He improved the Bulldog offense in yardage and points per game (17 pts to 28 PPG). When Malzahn took the ASU job he hired Lashlee as his OC and QB coach.

From things I read, I just assumed that Lashlee was the automatic replacement for Malzahn. Our recruits were assured we had a coach who ran a similar system in the wings.

Very bright young man and Malzahn's right hand so to speak.

[AUIH1 1,515]

Malzahn's true understudy was Rhett Lashlee, a grad assistant under Malzahn in 2009 & 2010. He did a great job with the quarterbacks and was hired as Samford's OC in 2011. He improved the Bulldog offense in yardage and points per game (17 pts to 28 PPG). When Malzahn took the ASU job he hired Lashlee as his OC and QB coach.

From things I read, I just assumed that Lashlee was the automatic replacement for Malzahn. Our recruits were assured we had a coach who ran a similar system in the wings.

Very bright young man and Malzahn's right hand so to speak.

Stat, in your opinion or if you truly know.....What made Chiz decide to move in a different direction from a Gus-style O and when did he make that decision?

wde

[StatTiger 3,146]

Malzahn's true understudy was Rhett Lashlee, a grad assistant under Malzahn in 2009 & 2010. He did a great job with the quarterbacks and was hired as Samford's OC in 2011. He improved the Bulldog offense in yardage and points per game (17 pts to 28 PPG). When Malzahn took the ASU job he hired Lashlee as his OC and QB coach.

From things I read, I just assumed that Lashlee was the automatic replacement for Malzahn. Our recruits were assured we had a coach who ran a similar system in the wings.

Very bright young man and Malzahn's right hand so to speak.

Stat, in your opinion or if you truly know.....What made Chiz decide to move in a different direction from a Gus-style O and when did he make that decision?

wde

From what I have been told, he had a long term plan of going to a more conventional offense when he first got here but went with Malzahn short term because of Malzahn's ability to obtain the most of his personnel. It also served as a great recruiting tool to draw in offensive talent, which Auburn lacked when he arrived in 2009. I don't get caught up in schemes more than I do execution because I've seen various offenses have great success at Auburn and they all had one theme in common...EXECUTION. Terry & Tommy Bowden's offenses in 1993 and 1994 are one of my favorites because it was so simple but very successful. It all came down to doing all the little things right, which is what I had envisioned with Loeffler. I do believe with a more consistent pass-offense and solid running game, we'd be 4-1 right now. Someone suggested that Malzahn was successful because he ran a small number of plays from various formations. This was a very good observation and true to word. But like any other offense, it all comes down to execution, which we have lacked this season.

[AUIH1 1,515]

Malzahn's true understudy was Rhett Lashlee, a grad assistant under Malzahn in 2009 & 2010. He did a great job with the quarterbacks and was hired as Samford's OC in 2011. He improved the Bulldog offense in yardage and points per game (17 pts to 28 PPG). When Malzahn took the ASU job he hired Lashlee as his OC and QB coach.

From things I read, I just assumed that Lashlee was the automatic replacement for Malzahn. Our recruits were assured we had a coach who ran a similar system in the wings.

Very bright young man and Malzahn's right hand so to speak.

Stat, in your opinion or if you truly know.....What made Chiz decide to move in a different direction from a Gus-style O and when did he make that decision?

wde

From what I have been told, he had a long term plan of going to a more conventional offense when he first got here but went with Malzahn short term because of Malzahn's ability to obtain the most of his personnel. It also served as a great recruiting tool to draw in offensive talent, which Auburn lacked when he arrived in 2009. I don't get caught up in schemes more than I do execution because I've seen various offenses have great success at Auburn and they all had one theme in common...EXECUTION. Terry & Tommy Bowden's offenses in 1993 and 1994 are one of my favorites because it was so simple but very successful. It all came down to doing all the little things right, which is what I had envisioned with Loeffler. I do believe with a more consistent pass-offense and solid running game, we'd be 4-1 right now. Someone suggested that Malzahn was successful because he ran a small number of plays from various formations. This was a very good observation and true to word. But like any other offense, it all comes down to execution, which we have lacked this season.

Thanks, sounds logical to me. Personally, I really don't care what style of O we run as long as it works. I know that is a big "Well DUH", but I truly have little preference to the style of O. However; I will say I am more of a fan of the Gus-style spread versus the Air-Raid style of Mike Leach.

wde

[StatTiger 3,146]

Thanks, sounds logical to me. Personally, I really don't care what style of O we run as long as it works. I know that is a big "Well DUH", but I truly have little preference to the style of O. However; I will say I am more of a fan of the Gus-style spread versus the Air-Raid style of Mike Leach.

I agree. I believe you have to be able to run the football to win in this conference. In a pass heavy offense, if the QB has an off day, you're dead in the water.

[mcgufcm 3,984]

Stat, I think most people (certainly most head coaches named Gus or Dana) would tell you that their offenses are about to out-execute other offenses because they run a smaller number of plays (regardless of the actual formation pre-snap).

The issue I have with those offenses (and the reason I agree with the move back to a more diverse, pro-style offense... even if we got the wrong guy to do it) is this: when a defensive coordinator has time to prepare for it, you're essentially playing checkers instead of chess. You can overcome that simplicity with pure unadulterated talent, which is really what we did in 2010 against great defenses, but if you don't have the talent edge and you don't have a schematic edge, you're laying all your eggs in the tempo bucket. Most seasons, I don't expect that to be a championship formula.

Interestingly, I think a HUNH spread is more likely to give you consistent results against the middle tier (and lower tier) in any conference. That's effectively what Texas Tech did while Leach was there. It's what we did with Gus (setting aside the year of transcendence). It's what WVU did last year. Running that offense will provide a more consistently productive offense because there are less moving pieces (so to speak). Easier to learn. Easier to execute. Fast tempo to provide a built-in advantage if you're well conditioned.

What I do NOT believe that offense provides is consistent performance against top tier teams. Texas Tech had one great season. Auburn had one great season. WVU might be in the midst (with a stud of Sr QB and two NFL caliber WRs on the edge) of a great season. On the other hand, Leach had only two seasons (in 10 years) with less than four losses (9-3 in 2005 when they scored 10 points on Alabama in a bowl game loss; 11-2 in 2008 when they got dump-trucked by OU and lost to Ole Miss in a bowl game). Auburn went 8-5 every non-great year (more on the defense than the offense I'll admit). WVU went 10-3, but also played in the Big East... so there's that.

I'm not trying to make an all-encompassing argument that a spread offense results in 4 losses every year it isn't great. What I'm saying is, a HUNH spread offense dumbs itself down (on purpose) to encourage tempo. It's just not clear that said offenses result in championship caliber teams all that often, unless the offense also has vastly superior talent (like say a Senior-laden offensive line paired with a once in a generation QB, two NFL-level talents at RB, and multiple playmakers on the edge).

If the goal is to win championships, I think a more complex offense is the better route. Or maybe I'm just a crotchety football fan that fears change. It's one or the other.

[AuburnSpider 2]

WOuld love someone to explain the lack of execution. Is it practice routines, duration, intensity or what. Seems to me if you practice correctly, all spring and fall with a good overall plan, you should not have the level of execution problems we have. Is it the plan, routine, lack of decipline, WHAT

[StatTiger 3,146]

Stat, I think most people (certainly most head coaches named Gus or Dana) would tell you that their offenses are about to out-execute other offenses because they run a smaller number of plays (regardless of the actual formation pre-snap).

The issue I have with those offenses (and the reason I agree with the move back to a more diverse, pro-style offense... even if we got the wrong guy to do it) is this: when a defensive coordinator has time to prepare for it, you're essentially playing checkers instead of chess. You can overcome that simplicity with pure unadulterated talent, which is really what we did in 2010 against great defenses, but if you don't have the talent edge and you don't have a schematic edge, you're laying all your eggs in the tempo bucket. Most seasons, I don't expect that to be a championship formula.

Interestingly, I think a HUNH spread is more likely to give you consistent results against the middle tier (and lower tier) in any conference. That's effectively what Texas Tech did while Leach was there. It's what we did with Gus (setting aside the year of transcendence). It's what WVU did last year. Running that offense will provide a more consistently productive offense because there are less moving pieces (so to speak). Easier to learn. Easier to execute. Fast tempo to provide a built-in advantage if you're well conditioned.

What I do NOT believe that offense provides is consistent performance against top tier teams. Texas Tech had one great season. Auburn had one great season. WVU might be in the midst (with a stud of Sr QB and two NFL caliber WRs on the edge) of a great season. On the other hand, Leach had only two seasons (in 10 years) with less than four losses (9-3 in 2005 when they scored 10 points on Alabama in a bowl game loss; 11-2 in 2008 when they got dump-trucked by OU and lost to Ole Miss in a bowl game). Auburn went 8-5 every non-great year (more on the defense than the offense I'll admit). WVU went 10-3, but also played in the Big East... so there's that.

I'm not trying to make an all-encompassing argument that a spread offense results in 4 losses every year it isn't great. What I'm saying is, a HUNH spread offense dumbs itself down (on purpose) to encourage tempo. It's just not clear that said offenses result in championship caliber teams all that often, unless the offense also has vastly superior talent (like say a Senior-laden offensive line paired with a once in a generation QB, two NFL-level talents at RB, and multiple playmakers on the edge).

If the goal is to win championships, I think a more complex offense is the better route. Or maybe I'm just a crotchety football fan that fears change. It's one or the other.

and to support your point...

Over the past 20 years, Auburn's offense has converted 39% of their 3rd downs. Malzahn's offense reached this mark 20 times out of 40 games. In the 20 games his offense reached it, AU was 20-0. During the 20 times he did not, AU was 10-10.

[StatTiger 3,146]

WOuld love someone to explain the lack of execution. Is it practice routines, duration, intensity or what. Seems to me if you practice correctly, all spring and fall with a good overall plan, you should not have the level of execution problems we have. Is it the plan, routine, lack of decipline, WHAT

New schemes and a youthful offensive line spells some concerns. You mention all spring and fall but consider the actual number of practices the coaching staff could work directly with the team during installation. All it takes to blow up a play is for 1 player to miss a block or to run a poor route. I think it's fare to say some of it is player execution and some of it is play-calling. This is why you often hear coaches saying they are dialing it back to simplify things to get everyone on the same page.

[Fairleyunderappreciated 0]

Stat, I think most people (certainly most head coaches named Gus or Dana) would tell you that their offenses are about to out-execute other offenses because they run a smaller number of plays (regardless of the actual formation pre-snap).

The issue I have with those offenses (and the reason I agree with the move back to a more diverse, pro-style offense... even if we got the wrong guy to do it) is this: when a defensive coordinator has time to prepare for it, you're essentially playing checkers instead of chess. You can overcome that simplicity with pure unadulterated talent, which is really what we did in 2010 against great defenses, but if you don't have the talent edge and you don't have a schematic edge, you're laying all your eggs in the tempo bucket. Most seasons, I don't expect that to be a championship formula.

Interestingly, I think a HUNH spread is more likely to give you consistent results against the middle tier (and lower tier) in any conference. That's effectively what Texas Tech did while Leach was there. It's what we did with Gus (setting aside the year of transcendence). It's what WVU did last year. Running that offense will provide a more consistently productive offense because there are less moving pieces (so to speak). Easier to learn. Easier to execute. Fast tempo to provide a built-in advantage if you're well conditioned.

What I do NOT believe that offense provides is consistent performance against top tier teams. Texas Tech had one great season. Auburn had one great season. WVU might be in the midst (with a stud of Sr QB and two NFL caliber WRs on the edge) of a great season. On the other hand, Leach had only two seasons (in 10 years) with less than four losses (9-3 in 2005 when they scored 10 points on Alabama in a bowl game loss; 11-2 in 2008 when they got dump-trucked by OU and lost to Ole Miss in a bowl game). Auburn went 8-5 every non-great year (more on the defense than the offense I'll admit). WVU went 10-3, but also played in the Big East... so there's that.

I'm not trying to make an all-encompassing argument that a spread offense results in 4 losses every year it isn't great. What I'm saying is, a HUNH spread offense dumbs itself down (on purpose) to encourage tempo. It's just not clear that said offenses result in championship caliber teams all that often, unless the offense also has vastly superior talent (like say a Senior-laden offensive line paired with a once in a generation QB, two NFL-level talents at RB, and multiple playmakers on the edge).

If the goal is to win championships, I think a more complex offense is the better route. Or maybe I'm just a crotchety football fan that fears change. It's one or the other.

I respectfully disagree (created an account just to do so). You kinda selectively picked your examples of spread offenses to prove your point. 3 the SEC's 7 NC's were spread offense teams. Florida and Auburn were spreads. Bama and LSU were prostyle. So tow teams running both systems have won NC's. While Texas ran the spread they played in 2 NC games winning one. The Sooners would also would contradict such an assumption regarding spread offenses. Oregon, while no NC, is anyone gonna argue that they arent a NC caliber program that just so happens to operate a spread? Does anyone doubt Urban Meyer isnt going to have success with his spread at OH St???

Yes, the spread requires far superior talent to win NC's but how many players were drafted from Alabama's and LSU's teams the year they one theirs? So, it would appear to me that far superior talent is a recipe for NC's regardless of ones scheme.

[Fairleyunderappreciated 0]

Malzahn's true understudy was Rhett Lashlee, a grad assistant under Malzahn in 2009 & 2010. He did a great job with the quarterbacks and was hired as Samford's OC in 2011. He improved the Bulldog offense in yardage and points per game (17 pts to 28 PPG). When Malzahn took the ASU job he hired Lashlee as his OC and QB coach.

From things I read, I just assumed that Lashlee was the automatic replacement for Malzahn. Our recruits were assured we had a coach who ran a similar system in the wings.

Very bright young man and Malzahn's right hand so to speak.

Stat, in your opinion or if you truly know.....What made Chiz decide to move in a different direction from a Gus-style O and when did he make that decision?

wde

From what I have been told, he had a long term plan of going to a more conventional offense when he first got here but went with Malzahn short term because of Malzahn's ability to obtain the most of his personnel. It also served as a great recruiting tool to draw in offensive talent, which Auburn lacked when he arrived in 2009. I don't get caught up in schemes more than I do execution because I've seen various offenses have great success at Auburn and they all had one theme in common...EXECUTION. Terry & Tommy Bowden's offenses in 1993 and 1994 are one of my favorites because it was so simple but very successful. It all came down to doing all the little things right, which is what I had envisioned with Loeffler. I do believe with a more consistent pass-offense and solid running game, we'd be 4-1 right now. Someone suggested that Malzahn was successful because he ran a small number of plays from various formations. This was a very good observation and true to word. But like any other offense, it all comes down to execution, which we have lacked this season.

Thanks, sounds logical to me. Personally, I really don't care what style of O we run as long as it works. I know that is a big "Well DUH", but I truly have little preference to the style of O. However; I will say I am more of a fan of the Gus-style spread versus the Air-Raid style of Mike Leach.

wde

Im sorry but how does that sound logical? Recruit, coach and develop your roster for 3 years around a spread offense then switch to a traditional offense and still expect to compete at a NC level? Or did CGC know that he was gonna win a NC in year two thereby buying another 2-3 years to complete another rebuilding process? If that was truly CGC's plan then this is yet more evidence of why...

[CleCoTiger 1,957]

Malzahn's true understudy was Rhett Lashlee, a grad assistant under Malzahn in 2009 & 2010. He did a great job with the quarterbacks and was hired as Samford's OC in 2011. He improved the Bulldog offense in yardage and points per game (17 pts to 28 PPG). When Malzahn took the ASU job he hired Lashlee as his OC and QB coach.

From things I read, I just assumed that Lashlee was the automatic replacement for Malzahn. Our recruits were assured we had a coach who ran a similar system in the wings.

Very bright young man and Malzahn's right hand so to speak.

Stat, in your opinion or if you truly know.....What made Chiz decide to move in a different direction from a Gus-style O and when did he make that decision?

wde

From what I have been told, he had a long term plan of going to a more conventional offense when he first got here but went with Malzahn short term because of Malzahn's ability to obtain the most of his personnel. It also served as a great recruiting tool to draw in offensive talent, which Auburn lacked when he arrived in 2009. I don't get caught up in schemes more than I do execution because I've seen various offenses have great success at Auburn and they all had one theme in common...EXECUTION. Terry & Tommy Bowden's offenses in 1993 and 1994 are one of my favorites because it was so simple but very successful. It all came down to doing all the little things right, which is what I had envisioned with Loeffler. I do believe with a more consistent pass-offense and solid running game, we'd be 4-1 right now. Someone suggested that Malzahn was successful because he ran a small number of plays from various formations. This was a very good observation and true to word. But like any other offense, it all comes down to execution, which we have lacked this season.

Thanks, sounds logical to me. Personally, I really don't care what style of O we run as long as it works. I know that is a big "Well DUH", but I truly have little preference to the style of O. However; I will say I am more of a fan of the Gus-style spread versus the Air-Raid style of Mike Leach.

wde

Im sorry but how does that sound logical? Recruit, coach and develop your roster for 3 years around a spread offense then switch to a traditional offense and still expect to compete at a NC level? Or did CGC know that he was gonna win a NC in year two thereby buying another 2-3 years to complete another rebuilding process? If that was truly CGC's plan then this is yet more evidence of why...

Can't believe you even asked that. They say there are no stupid questions, yet...

[alexava 6,946]

that was a rhetorical question. the point was made.

[Builder 86]

Malzahn's true understudy was Rhett Lashlee, a grad assistant under Malzahn in 2009 & 2010. He did a great job with the quarterbacks and was hired as Samford's OC in 2011. He improved the Bulldog offense in yardage and points per game (17 pts to 28 PPG). When Malzahn took the ASU job he hired Lashlee as his OC and QB coach.

From things I read, I just assumed that Lashlee was the automatic replacement for Malzahn. Our recruits were assured we had a coach who ran a similar system in the wings.

Very bright young man and Malzahn's right hand so to speak.

Stat, in your opinion or if you truly know.....What made Chiz decide to move in a different direction from a Gus-style O and when did he make that decision?

wde

From what I have been told, he had a long term plan of going to a more conventional offense when he first got here but went with Malzahn short term because of Malzahn's ability to obtain the most of his personnel. It also served as a great recruiting tool to draw in offensive talent, which Auburn lacked when he arrived in 2009. I don't get caught up in schemes more than I do execution because I've seen various offenses have great success at Auburn and they all had one theme in common...EXECUTION. Terry & Tommy Bowden's offenses in 1993 and 1994 are one of my favorites because it was so simple but very successful. It all came down to doing all the little things right, which is what I had envisioned with Loeffler. I do believe with a more consistent pass-offense and solid running game, we'd be 4-1 right now. Someone suggested that Malzahn was successful because he ran a small number of plays from various formations. This was a very good observation and true to word. But like any other offense, it all comes down to execution, which we have lacked this season.

Stat- you mention 4-1....I agree but who would we have lost to?