|
Post by **** on Dec 2, 2019 22:03:36 GMT -6
With these scores and scores in the NCAA as well as some examples in the NFL, I think the most striking thing is how Offense (and offensive tempo) impacts points against or points given up. Heck, Nick Saban, who is treated as and infallible defensive deity by many on this site has given up 33, 44, 46, and 48 in its last 4 games against top 20 ( i.e. - comparably talented) opponents. Points per possession is a much better evaluative stat than total points now.
Anybody wanna bet Bama will have a new DC next year?
I’ll take that bet
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2019 22:23:26 GMT -6
I have long suspected that saban has given to much rope to his staff. Wouldnt be surprised if he raids nfl staffs and ditch some current recruiting trends.
|
|
|
Post by paulsonj72 on Dec 3, 2019 6:51:19 GMT -6
On Minnesota we had a title game end 10-7 with about 300 yards combined between the two teams.
|
|
|
Post by blb on Dec 3, 2019 7:22:37 GMT -6
FWIW there were no outlandish scores like those posted here in our state finals (highest scoring games were 35-26 and 35-25).
Conversely there was a 7-0 and a 14-0.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2019 8:38:41 GMT -6
I have long suspected that saban has given to much rope to his staff. Wouldnt be surprised if he raids nfl staffs and ditch some current recruiting trends. Huh
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2019 11:00:38 GMT -6
I have long suspected that saban has given to much rope to his staff. Wouldnt be surprised if he raids nfl staffs and ditch some current recruiting trends. Huh I watch them @ times and its "WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING?" With that talent, its pitch and catch. That hitch pitch and catch to waddle for the td..HOLY. Harris was a ridiculously physical runner.They do some dumb azz sh!t. It shouldnt be that complicated.
|
|
|
Post by wingtol on Dec 7, 2019 7:41:24 GMT -6
2A PA state title game yesterday Southern Columbia 74 Avonworth 7. They scored 74 unanswered points to win...
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Dec 7, 2019 11:34:36 GMT -6
2A PA state title game yesterday Southern Columbia 74 Avonworth 7. They scored 74 unanswered points to win... I am going to go out on a limb and say that every time someone scores 74 unanswered that they win.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Dec 7, 2019 12:15:45 GMT -6
2A PA state title game yesterday Southern Columbia 74 Avonworth 7. They scored 74 unanswered points to win... I am going to go out on a limb and say that every time someone scores 74 unanswered that they win. Apparently, not necessarily in Arizona.
|
|
|
Post by wingtol on Dec 7, 2019 15:08:46 GMT -6
Just saw D2 playoff score from Slippery Rock...65-59.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Dec 7, 2019 22:05:22 GMT -6
2A PA state title game yesterday Southern Columbia 74 Avonworth 7. They scored 74 unanswered points to win... During the regular season SC beat Wyoming Area, who just won the 3A championship, 42-0.
|
|
|
Post by 44dlcoach on Dec 7, 2019 23:32:45 GMT -6
Our state game for the highest classification ended up 50-7 today, I guess one team played defense haha. We lost to the state champ 42-24, we played defense for a half...
|
|
|
Post by wingtol on Dec 8, 2019 11:21:36 GMT -6
2A PA state title game yesterday Southern Columbia 74 Avonworth 7. They scored 74 unanswered points to win... During the regular season SC beat Wyoming Area, who just won the 3A championship, 42-0. SC might have won every class this year.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 8, 2019 11:26:39 GMT -6
So, based on many of these posts...is it fair to suggest that perhaps the current offensive scheme are indeed superior as an OFFENSE to other schemes? Key point, the objective is to win games, not have the best offense. That said, given the fact that so many are running the zone read spread RPO type offense that it is seen week after week and great defensive teams still give up many more points than they used to, is this a "better" offense?
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Dec 8, 2019 11:40:23 GMT -6
So, based on many of these posts...is it fair to suggest that perhaps the current offensive scheme are indeed superior as an OFFENSE to other schemes? Key point, the objective is to win games, not have the best offense. That said, given the fact that so many are running the zone read spread RPO type offense that it is seen week after week and great defensive teams still give up many more points than they used to, is this a "better" offense? Unless they've radically changed, Southern Columbia runs the Wing T.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 8, 2019 11:46:32 GMT -6
So, based on many of these posts...is it fair to suggest that perhaps the current offensive scheme are indeed superior as an OFFENSE to other schemes? Key point, the objective is to win games, not have the best offense. That said, given the fact that so many are running the zone read spread RPO type offense that it is seen week after week and great defensive teams still give up many more points than they used to, is this a "better" offense? Unless they've radically changed, Southern Columbia runs the Wing T. I thought about that while I was posting...but I decided that the main idea still stands. Sure, there are outliers, but OVERALL scoring is up and the majority of teams seem to be running "the" college offense.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Dec 8, 2019 12:31:15 GMT -6
I got curious so I looked at the scores of the Virginia semifinals. The average score was 31-17. Only two games were what I'd consider a shootout 36-35 and 35-28 (Some my consider 28-21 to be a shootout. Feel free). In most games if one team scored a lot of points the other team scored a little. What's it mean? Probably not a damn thing.
|
|
|
Post by blb on Dec 8, 2019 14:44:04 GMT -6
I got curious so I looked at the scores of the Virginia semifinals. The average score was 31-17. Only two games were what I'd consider a shootout 36-35 and 35-28 (Some my consider 28-21 to be a shootout. Feel free). In most games if one team scored a lot of points the other team scored a little. What's it mean? Probably not a damn thing.
It probably means, even at that level, one team is bigger and has more speed than the other.
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Dec 8, 2019 16:40:52 GMT -6
So, based on many of these posts...is it fair to suggest that perhaps the current offensive scheme are indeed superior as an OFFENSE to other schemes? Key point, the objective is to win games, not have the best offense. That said, given the fact that so many are running the zone read spread RPO type offense that it is seen week after week and great defensive teams still give up many more points than they used to, is this a "better" offense? Wing T guy here. Yes. The current modern offenses are better at producing points. Not always of course, but in general and schematically. Ask Alabama (their best, most explosive offense ever), if it was worth it to convert to an all out score as any points as possible offense.
|
|
|
Post by coachdubyah on Dec 8, 2019 17:48:47 GMT -6
So, based on many of these posts...is it fair to suggest that perhaps the current offensive scheme are indeed superior as an OFFENSE to other schemes? Key point, the objective is to win games, not have the best offense. That said, given the fact that so many are running the zone read spread RPO type offense that it is seen week after week and great defensive teams still give up many more points than they used to, is this a "better" offense? This is what the game has turned into. However due to taking this approach you’re leaving your Defense on the field more(Alabama). Also, more receivers being recruited than defensive players. Think about this...there’s an “option team” (that could be debated but hard to argue) that is top 5 in the NFL, but there’s not even an option team in the Top 10 of College Football.
|
|
|
Post by wildcatslbcoach24 on Dec 8, 2019 17:59:46 GMT -6
Y’all these scores are kinda tame compared to many of the 1A scores in AZ. Especially when teams like Baghdad were lighting it up a few years ago.
|
|
|
Post by CS on Dec 8, 2019 18:09:40 GMT -6
Unless they've radically changed, Southern Columbia runs the Wing T. I thought about that while I was posting...but I decided that the main idea still stands. Sure, there are outliers, but OVERALL scoring is up and the majority of teams seem to be running "the" college offense. Hard to say. It’s just new and defenses are going to catch up eventually. I will say that spread teams are becoming more efficient in their playcalling. Where in previous years they wanted to take more “shots” and be explosive. And now they will thrownhitches and just move the chains like a ground and pound team
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 8, 2019 18:45:14 GMT -6
So, based on many of these posts...is it fair to suggest that perhaps the current offensive scheme are indeed superior as an OFFENSE to other schemes? Key point, the objective is to win games, not have the best offense. That said, given the fact that so many are running the zone read spread RPO type offense that it is seen week after week and great defensive teams still give up many more points than they used to, is this a "better" offense? This is what the game has turned into. However due to taking this approach you’re leaving your Defense on the field more(Alabama). Also, more receivers being recruited than defensive players. Think about this...there’s an “option team” (that could be debated but hard to argue) that is top 5 in the NFL, but there’s not even an option team in the Top 10 of College Football. Is Baltimore an option team? Or a team with a running QB? I haven't seen them play much, but from what I have seen, they don't look that different than OU with Jaylen Hurts.
|
|
|
Post by coachdubyah on Dec 8, 2019 20:05:31 GMT -6
This is what the game has turned into. However due to taking this approach you’re leaving your Defense on the field more(Alabama). Also, more receivers being recruited than defensive players. Think about this...there’s an “option team” (that could be debated but hard to argue) that is top 5 in the NFL, but there’s not even an option team in the Top 10 of College Football. Is Baltimore an option team? Or a team with a running QB? I haven't seen them play much, but from what I have seen, they don't look that different than OU with Jaylen Hurts. It was a little tongue in cheek but they run it more than you think. Very little Triple but a lot of Double. I see them as a modern day Nebraska from the 90s.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 8, 2019 20:53:27 GMT -6
Is Baltimore an option team? Or a team with a running QB? I haven't seen them play much, but from what I have seen, they don't look that different than OU with Jaylen Hurts. It was a little tongue in cheek but they run it more than you think. Very little Triple but a lot of Double. I see them as a modern day Nebraska from the 90s. Yes, but I was just pointing out that by your definition it is probably safe to say there are "option teams" in the top 10 in the FBS.
|
|
|
Post by coachdubyah on Dec 8, 2019 21:27:50 GMT -6
It was a little tongue in cheek but they run it more than you think. Very little Triple but a lot of Double. I see them as a modern day Nebraska from the 90s. Yes, but I was just pointing out that by your definition it is probably safe to say there are "option teams" in the top 10 in the FBS. ........Ok........
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Dec 9, 2019 8:10:00 GMT -6
So, based on many of these posts...is it fair to suggest that perhaps the current offensive scheme are indeed superior as an OFFENSE to other schemes? Key point, the objective is to win games, not have the best offense. That said, given the fact that so many are running the zone read spread RPO type offense that it is seen week after week and great defensive teams still give up many more points than they used to, is this a "better" offense? Yes, IMO, these types of offenses are geared to putting up more points. A well coached, up-tempo team, statistically, will produce more points simply because they have more offensive snaps. It really doesn't matter what their pass/run ratio is; they're running more plays. This isn't simply limited to uptempo teams either; offenses that throw the ball well will typically put up more points as there's just a greater chance for big plays.
But, as we've all seen, there's always a trade off. An uptempo and/or Chuck N' Duck team gets more offensive snaps but it has several distinct disadvantages:
They might be spewing out points, but they're leaving time on the clock through their tempo and through dropped balls. We don't freak freak out if these teams are a few scores ahead because we know the game was going to be longer. We were going to get more opportunities in all three phases of the game to score.
More offensive snaps also equates to a greater chance of more offensive mistakes. Some of those mistakes are minor and recoverable within a drive (holding penalties and what not) and some aren't (turn-overs, bad snaps, major penalties, etc..etc..). And, some of those major mistakes put their offense at a serious disadvantage; poor field position, long D&D, etc..etc.. They might be getting snaps and points but they're also putting themselves at risk.
Our defense isn't on the field as much as theirs' and that is a situation we like. Everyone wants to see a worn-down defense on the field and that's pretty much unavoidable if a team is uptempo and/or throwing a lot. And, being a run-first team, we REALLY like it; pounding the ball at a tired defense is fun for us.
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Dec 9, 2019 8:42:43 GMT -6
It was a little tongue in cheek but they run it more than you think. Very little Triple but a lot of Double. I see them as a modern day Nebraska from the 90s. Yes, but I was just pointing out that by your definition it is probably safe to say there are "option teams" in the top 10 in the FBS. Baltimore actually pitches the ball some which looks more like traditional option. Most college teams now have a bubble or rpo for the "pitch" phase.
|
|
|
Post by rudyrude9 on Dec 9, 2019 12:20:54 GMT -6
I actually count 8 teams in the CFP top 10 as option teams. And all 10 run at least some option.
Whatever that means. I wouldn't think that that would have to be pointed out here but I guess it doeas.
|
|