|
|
Post by khalfie on Jan 1, 2009 17:25:14 GMT -6
TT vs Ole Miss...
Can this game provide insight into the age old question of scheme vs talent?
I ask because there are 3 scenerios taking place that eithers answers or poses more questions in regards to this timeless debate.
1. TT's Air Raid scheme... the same one that is supposed to give lesser talented team the ability to compete with more talented tea? Now it takes on Ole Miss... who's not one of the most talented teams in the nation, but a team that supposedly comes from a conference that puts a high priority on defense.
2. The talent differential. I would think Ole Miss and T-tech have similar talent. Though Ole miss has struggled more than tt this year... they have beaten the high flying super fast extra special 'gators... and played bama tough, while crushing LSU. TT has the victory over Texas... and the tough lost to Oklahoma.
3. The time to prepare. Any of the 100 of coaches on this board can tell you how to stop Air Raid... ;D Ok, I'm lying, but isn't that the question, or the statement, most of the world is making? That you CAN'T stop the spread? Bad teams can become competitive with it... competitive teams can become good with it... and good teams become national champions with it. According to some, its the only offense that should ever be ran, and if you aren't running it, you are in the stone age, and ruining the game.
In short... does this game mean anything... does it answer any questions... or is it just another game, just another match up, that speaks to a coaching staffs ability to prepare its team for the one game?
|
|
|
|
Post by fbdoc on Jan 1, 2009 17:43:28 GMT -6
Not really passionate about this but I'll take the bait... You say that Miss. State is "not one of the most talented teams in the country.." and then you say "I would think Ole Miss and T-tech have similar talent"... these two statements are somewhat contradictory. My opinion is that Miss. State does have decent talent, but I also think Tex. Tech has much better talent for what they want to do!Does this game mean anything? Does it answer any questions? I assume you're talking about the Superiority (?) of the spread / air raid? Its just another bowl game between an excellent program (TT) and a pretty good team (MS). Is Oregon's spread/option superior to Oklahoma State's spread? No, its just a stinkin bowl game. Although as a Duck fan, I thoroughly enjoyed the a$$ kicking they gave to OSU.  |
|
|
|
Post by khalfie on Jan 1, 2009 18:11:18 GMT -6
Not really passionate about this but I'll take the bait... I appreciate you taking the bait... not the best of fishermen... but I try... Nothing keeps the blood flowing better than a good debate...  You say that Miss. State is "not one of the most talented teams in the country.." and then you say "I would think Ole Miss and T-tech have similar talent"... these two statements are somewhat contradictory. Okay... If we're going to debate, we have to make sure we're debating the same topic... 1. Talking about Ole Miss... Not Mississippi State... 2. I am saying, Ole Miss is not one of the most talented teams in the country... SIMILARLY... TTech is not one of the most talented teams in the country... (so says some respected posters of this board, who went as far as to say many members of the TT team wouldn't start on the heavy weight teams in the nation._ So what I'm establishing, is two basically equal teams (according to perception) are about to play. I, for one, believe TT to be a very talented team, hence their ability to play with the Big dogs and beat them... but that's another debate for another time. 3. No contradiction... for the record I am stating Ole Miss is not overly talented... and TT is not overly talented... for the sake of this conversation. My opinion is that Miss. State does have decent talent, but I also think Tex. Tech has much better talent for what they want to do!Now you're being contradictory... Ole Miss doesn't have the talent for what they want to do? Why? Why not? Is a team ultimately judged upon its ability to get the talent for what it wants to do? Isn't the gist of this discussion, the question of what a team wants to do with the talent it has, or the talent it wants to recruit? Does this game mean anything? Does it answer any questions? I assume you're talking about the Superiority (?) of the spread / air raid? Its just another bowl game between an excellent program (TT) and a pretty good team (MS). Is Oregon's spread/option superior to Oklahoma State's spread? No, its just a stinkin bowl game. Although as a Duck fan, I thoroughly enjoyed the a$$ kicking they gave to OSU. So if we ever wanted to quantify the effect and influence scheme has on success... how would that be accomplished? Spread vs Spread... interesting question... Spread to run vs Spread to Pass... or are both trumped by Spread to balance? Is the Spread portion negligible, when to spread teams face... or is talent the defining factor, but talent never is, until it has separated itself as talent... and that's entirely too circumstantial, to be able to predict who and where talent is, until it has exposed itself as talent. Again.... Thx for taking the bait. |
|
|
|
Post by fbdoc on Jan 1, 2009 18:29:20 GMT -6
Don't know where my typing of Miss. State came from... maybe too many beers last night.
This topic is probably one for "Whoever has the chalk last wins..."
Question - Why did the spread develop? Answer - Because coaches could not compete against superior "Talent" slugging it out in the I-formation. But....
Double Wing coaches will preach that if you don't have superior talent, you need to go Double Tight, Double Wing with zero splits to be "competitive..."
Spread or Tight? Which is better?
TALENT does matter and so does EFFICIENT use of your talent. Leach is winning more now because he has better air raid talent than in previous years (and better defensive players !). Is Georgia Tech going to do better as Paul Johnson gets "better" option talent? I think so. That's talent and coaching (use).
Is one offense, scheme, formation, "Better" (quanitatively) than another? You can't answer it without factoring in the Players - Talent and the Coaching - Efficient Use of Talent.
Your Turn with the chalk.
|
|
|
|
Post by khalfie on Jan 1, 2009 18:44:41 GMT -6
Don't know where my typing of Miss. State came from... maybe too many beers last night. This topic is probably one for "Whoever has the chalk last wins..." Question - Why did the spread develop? Answer - Because coaches could not compete against superior "Talent" slugging it out in the I-formation. But.... Double Wing coaches will preach that if you don't have superior talent, you need to go Double Tight, Double Wing with zero splits to be "competitive..." Spread or Tight? Which is better? Hill Larry... I don't want the chalk... I want answers... 1. If spread was created, as an answer to lack of talent... doesn't that imply "superiority?" If it makes bad teams competitive... what does it do to great teams? 2. If spread is superior... then where do the other schemes fall on this hiearchy of scheme effectiveness? 3. Talent? Easy to label after the fact... according to our definition... when you win, you have talent, when you don't win... you don't have talent...  We've got to do better than this... TALENT does matter and so does EFFICIENT use of your talent. Leach is winning more now because he has better air raid talent than in previous years (and better defensive players !). Is Georgia Tech going to do better as Paul Johnson gets "better" option talent? I think so. That's talent and coaching (use). Is one offense, scheme, formation, "Better" (quanitatively) than another? You can't answer it without factoring in the Players - Talent and the Coaching - Efficient Use of Talent. 4. Which came first? The talent or the scheme? You said yourself, teams went spread, because they couldn't compete in the I... but could with the spread? Is that talent or scheme? Ok... let's say both... but if the talent, on the bad I team, wasn't considered talent, until put into the spread... doesn't that imply superiority? Or better yet, what changed? did the coaching change... the players change... or just the scheme. |
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Jan 1, 2009 19:48:31 GMT -6
Houston Nutt is in his first year at Mississippi.
I doubt he has the kids he wants for what he really wants to do.
Leach has been running what he runs forever and is great at it, sure he has the kids he wants, Im sure any team in the country would take Crabtree. he's one of the top 2-3 in the country.
Certainly a game I will enjoy watching both teams.
|
|
|
|
Post by towtheline on Jan 2, 2009 1:56:14 GMT -6
Every offense is a good one if you execute it
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 2, 2009 10:11:19 GMT -6
TT vs Ole Miss... In short... does this game mean anything... does it answer any questions... No, it means relatively nothing. It is not a game of rock/paper/scissors. Air Raid doesn't beat flexbone. Flexbone doesn't beat Pro Style multiple. Pro Style multiple doesn't beat Air Raid. The missing factor in your "case study" series is execution. The players have to actually go do what they are supposed to do while the opposing team has to counteract those efforts, regardless of scheme or talent differential. The T-Tech players did their jobs better than the UT players regardless of scheme or talent differential. The OU players did their jobs better than the T-Tech players regardless of scheme or talent differential. The UT players did their jobs better than the OU players regardless of scheme or talent differential. The LSU players did their jobs better than the GT players regardless of scheme or talent differential, the GT players did their jobs better than the UGA players regardless of scheme or talent differential, and the UGA players did their jobs better than the LSU players regardless of scheme or talent differential. |
|
|
|
Post by khalfie on Jan 2, 2009 12:07:42 GMT -6
Execution?
Is that coach speak?
Seriously... the team that wins, is always the one that executes? How is execution determined? Points? Yards? 3rd down efficiency? Can a team execute and lose? Can a team not execute and win? If one teams executing does that automatically mean the other team isn't executing?
Is the offense not executing when the defense is executing, or is it the offense executing when the defense is not executing? Can the offense and defense both not execute... what happens when the offense and the defense are both executing?
Execution seems to be one of those intangible concepts that only fits to describe why something was successful, without actually stating why it was successful.
TT was executing vs Texas... but not against Ok... why? A couple of theories were the "athletic superiority of Ok...", as if Texas wasn't athletically superior?
Execution... what's that... when plays work? When you are able to score? Is that execution... is execution a synonym for success/winning?
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 2, 2009 13:28:23 GMT -6
Execution. My job as guard might be to reach and overtake the 3 tech with the help of the OT. The 3 tech's job might be to NOT get reached/overtaken by just the guard, and not allow me to jump through to the next level.
If I am able to overtake the 3 tech in a manner that allowed the OT to fit up on the next level defender, we executed (and he didn't) If the 3 tech maintains his leverage, or if he stayed solid enough that the OT was not able to fit on the next level, HE executed and we didn't. If the QB took the snap properly, put the ball in the RB's pocket properly, and executed his fake so that at the intended defender has to respect a boot fake, HE executed.
Just count up the these little battles, see who wins more of them, and that is the process by which a team wins. Now, it is not purely mathematical. Some opportunities to execute/fail to execute turn out to be more important than others. Special teams for example...failing to execute fielding a punt can turn out to be a VERY big deal, but dropping a dig route is not as important. A defensive back whose eyes wander into the backfield on a play action pass is a failure that can turn out to be more detrimental than a WR not getting the proper angle for a cut off block on the backside of a sweep.
|
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jan 2, 2009 13:55:40 GMT -6
In short... does this game mean anything... does it answer any questions... or is it just another game, just another match up, that speaks to a coaching staffs ability to prepare its team for the one game? No. this game answer no questions and has no basis for a football armageddon, unless you want to start a debate on "can one football game summarize what a team / scheme is"?Texas Tech has performed exlempary at times this season (Texas), and sputtered at others (Oklahoma), and vis versa for Ole Miss. Davecisar brought up a great point about what Nutt accomplished with Orgeron's talent......different leadership/focus/etc.... Both teams have some phenomenal talent on them. One 'case study' you could perform (airraider, the lucky dog, is at this game today), is the brilliant footwork of Graham Harrell (ESPECIALLY when working through his progressions). Execution? Execution... what's that... when plays work? When you are able to score? Is that execution... is execution a synonym for success/winning? I honestly hope you are married for as much as you gripe (lol). Most games are won and lost on 2 to 3 plays that 'break' the game open. Those plays are 'made' because a player(s) out-execute/perform their assignment over their opponent. Texas Tech 'executes' over their opponents because of the way their receivers and backs execute their stems and breaks, and catch flawlessly. They out-execute most defensive backs they matchup with (because of their skillset proficiency) |
|
|
|
Post by khalfie on Jan 2, 2009 16:09:28 GMT -6
Hill larry...
I am married.. currently fighting with the wife... and losing of course... so hence I'll fight with you guys in hopes of a small, yet meaningless victory.
If the games don't answer the questions... then what?
Execution....
If the game comes down to 2 or 3 plays... how can execution be the defining factor?
You can execute all you want but miss that one tackle or throw that pick six... and game over.
I liked the conversation of the small battles... but that's not true either... Its the big battles that matter... and you don't know which battles are the big battles until its too late.
I think, long story short... this game is indecipherable, until the game is over.
Hindsight is 20/20... foresight is blind luck?
|
|
|
|
Post by khalfie on Jan 2, 2009 16:11:41 GMT -6
Yeah... what he said.
|
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jan 2, 2009 16:15:02 GMT -6
If the game comes down to 2 or 3 plays... how can execution be the defining factor? You can execute all you want but miss that one tackle or throw that pick six... and game over. EXACTLY like coacd5085 iillustrated......it is not a crap-shoot, grip-n-rip event. Two teams with 11 individual matchups for 140-170 plays a game. If you out-execute the opposing team for 170 plays, you will win. If you win 70 plays your chances are better than average. If you execute 100 plays but throw 3 picks, chances are, those 3 plays are likely to break your back (you lose). This is actually a pretty basic, and simple calculus that we all have to deal with (hence, the entire point of coaching and practice). If you are suggesting there is another dynamic at work, please present it / spell it out (if it is not execution). "superior" scheme that is not executed = bad. I liked the conversation of the small battles... but that's not true either... Its the big battles that matter... and you don't know which battles are the big battles until its too late. that was the whole point.....didja not see the halftime speech of Any Given Sunday? ;D |
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Jan 2, 2009 16:34:11 GMT -6
If the game comes down to 2 or 3 plays... how can execution be the defining factor? You can execute all you want but miss that one tackle or throw that pick six... and game over. EXACTLY like coacd5085 iillustrated......it is not a crap-shoot, grip-n-rip event. Two teams with 11 individual matchups for 140-170 plays a game. If you out-execute the opposing team for 170 plays, you will win. If you win 70 plays your chances are better than average. If you execute 100 plays but throw 3 picks, chances are, those 3 plays are likely to break your back (you lose). This is actually a pretty basic, and simple calculus that we all have to deal with (hence, the entire point of coaching and practice). If you are suggesting there is another dynamic at work, please present it / spell it out (if it is not execution). "superior" scheme that is not executed = bad.I liked the conversation of the small battles... but that's not true either... Its the big battles that matter... and you don't know which battles are the big battles until its too late. that was the whole point.....didja not see the halftime speech of Any Given Sunday? ;D Case in point; New Mexico State over the past 3 years. Hal Mumme is generally considered to be a "spread guru", but struggled with the Aggies., Good scheme, good Xs and Os, BAD EXECUTION equals less than 3 wins a year over the space of 3 years. Now, I'm not attacking the spread offense and it's offshoots, but the NMSU situation clearly shows that it goes beyond schemes. Heck, look at Army this year; I was happy to see that they were going back to the veer. I was hoping another team would do what Navy and GT (Paul Johnson) had done; prove that the veer works. Quite the opposite... Army was terrible. |
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jan 2, 2009 16:43:51 GMT -6
coach,
I would like the Ole Miss Rebel 2007 playbook and the Houston Nutt defense. I think it is going to turn our season around next year.
Please email it to my at chunkylover3293@aol.com
|
|
|
|
Post by khalfie on Jan 2, 2009 16:48:28 GMT -6
coach,
I would like the Ole Miss Rebel 2007 playbook and the Houston Nutt defense. I think it is going to turn our season around next year.
Please email it to my at chunkylover3293@aol.com Yup... That's funny! ;D People all across the nation burning their Air Raid material in effigy! But I have to ask... does this make a profound statement on the Texas lost... USC not being allowed to play in the Nc? I'm not sayin'... I'm just sayin... |
|
|
|
Post by los on Jan 2, 2009 20:57:04 GMT -6
Far as I'm concerned, until the top 10 or 12 ranked teams have some kind of a playoff system, it'll always be a "mythical" championship in college football.....somebody's always gonna be crying!
|
|
We've got to do better than this...
