and will look forward to the practical analysis it provides.

Lest anyone get misaligned, I don’t favor a “three yards and a cloud of dust” offense. However, I do like consistency on offense because that implies efficiency of execution. Such an offense will produce big plays and explosives as a matter of course. We didn’t see that immediately but I presume we have the weaponry to see those before long. But I won’t shrink from my fair share of abuse.

I agree that last year the Horns wound up too leaning heavily on explosive plays because their general offensive execution was not up to par and they didn’t have much of a choice. Those explosives are what preserved a 10-win season.

Great work.

in knowing the effect of explosives in UT’s games with the heavy hitters. Mack often points to how the combination of winning explosives and winning the turnover stat in the same game is a near-certain win.

Fine. Except most of those games are against Sam Houston State and Baylor.

Rating team on the number of long gainers is akin to looking at how a successful team makes more 1st downs on 1st or 2nd down than on 3rd down. It seems the advantage swings in favor of the defense on 3rg down than compared to 2nd down, so an offense that avoids 3rd downs is going to do much better. Gains of 16+ yards that happen to be a 1st or 2nd down play eliminates the one down that the situational advantage goes to the defense. Explosive plays or eliminating 3rd downs might be close to the same effect on the offense.
 
also eliminating 3rd downs would seem to be vastly more important when the team is not in field goal range.

There might be a mental aspect to explosive plays. They might erode the confidence of the defense has to stopping the offense or make it seem like the offense is unstoppable.

An interesting note is Graham Harrells number from last week 536 and only two td’s McCoys 222 and 3 td’s. You would guess Harrell had more explosive plays than McCoy but did that lead to more scores?

It seems like a worthy project. Step one might be to define terms. To me a consistent offense has a small standard deviation in what it does; whatever it can do, it can do reliably. It can execute without errors and plays within its abilities. This does not really describe the capabilities of the offense but an offense does not have much hope if it is not consistent.

One concept that seems interesting to me is the robust offense. This is an offense that is well rounded, it can throw efficiently short, intermediate, and long. It can run efficiently inside and outside. This is an offense that robustly adapts to the game time conditions, that is, it can take what the D gives and it can exploit the D weaknesses. It can adapt.

This implies not only that the offense has people with the requisite skill sets (i.e. power running, fast outside running, explosive YAC receivers, precise intermediate route runners with good hands, tall fast receivers for long passing, versatile QB who can throw accurately short, intermediate and long, OL that can block for all these requirements, etc.) but that the coaching has the ability to do both the game planning and real time adjustments necessary to respond to the opponents’ defensive scheming.

For example, UT might dare Tech to run the ball by playing a dime all game and loading up with fast cover guys and pass rushers (i.e. doing virtually nothing either schematically or personnel wise to stop the run). Does Tech have both the personnel and the coaching necessary to take advantage of this opportunity? If it can’t, then the Tech offense is not very robust.

A robust offense requires at least minimal competence at running inside/outside and passing short/intermediate/long and the coaching to switch rapidly between the schemes necessary to counter what the opposition D is giving (and taking away). A robust offense can adapt even within a single play (eg: checkdown to a back or TE rather than trying to force a pass into double coverage).

A robust offense needs to be multiple and that this is facilitated by having players who are multiple. For example, rather than having offensive personnel that are totally optimized for intermediate passing, it is easier for an offense to be robust if the players have multiple capabilities.

Cody Johnson is an example of a guy with multiple capabilities. cody can run for power, can be a receiver, can block LBs and DEs, can lead block in the running game, and can pass protect block (somewhat). So, with no substitutions, the OC can use Cody to support the power running game as a runner, the normal running game as a blocker, the passing game as a blocker and as a pass receiver. Cody can pass protect early in the passing play and make himself a dump pass target if the primary targets are not open (i.e. perform multiple roles within a single play).

Malcolm Williams is another player with multiple capabilities: he provides a deep threat, he can catch passes over the middle, he can block effectively (i.e. not just DBs but he can also block LBs and can even screen block DEs effectively), and he may even be able to run the ball OK on the end around.

Offenses that are not robust are erratic. The 2007 horns could run outside pretty well (Jamaal) and could pass in the intermediate zone well but were not effective at short passing, long passing, and power running. It is no wonder they were erratic.

The 2008 horns look to be more robust on O. Their short passing is much improved already, they have deep threats and the O line to provide the time for passing long, they have a power runner (Cody). The 2008 horns O should have the physical capabilities to exploit whatever the D gives or wherever the D is vulnerable. The fact that GD could spend the off season on strategizing and the addition of Major should help the game planning in 2008. I don’t know about the real time adjustments.

If you want an explosive O, there is no substitute for great downfield blocking. Great downfield blocking requires great downfield blockers.

There are also many more opportunties for explosive O when the D is forced to over commit (eg: bring up a safety to stop the run game) to stop the vanilla stuff (eg: the short passing game and the running game).

If it is worth doing, it is worth measuring. How do we measure robustness?

BillyZane, thanks, it is good to be back.

That is a topic worthy of discussion. I am also a big fan of Mike Leach’s and, until recently, agreed with everything you say. I love the West Coast offense (especially the quick slants and crossing patterns). Mike Leach says that he would like to play an entire game without running.

Football, like most sports, is all about matchups (both personnel and scheme). Using my original example, UT could prepare a D that is completely optimized for pass D (nothing but pass rushers/pass defenders and guys who are a combination of the two). UT could also use a defensive scheme that completely ignores the run. Let’s assume that UT has the best pass D in the country, including the best schemes, the best coaches, and the best pass defense athletes. Let’s further assume that UT’s run D is really poor.

My question to you is do you think Tech could still have a robust offense (with a completely passing offense that has absolutely no runs) against UT in those circumstances? At a certain point even Tech will run the ball because they will have a difficult time passing the ball effectively against a D that completely sells out to stop the pass. It has been reported that Tech runs the ball for sure when there are only 5 men in the box and has the option of running the ball when there are 6 men in the box.

If the D has a weakness in power run D, why not exploit it? Isn’t this better than running your same offense no matter what the D? Given that Texas can recruit the poeple that it needs (i.e. that it can recruit the Cody Johnson’s), why not take advantage of this advantage? If the D has a weakness at CB (say a very short CB), why not exploit it?

I think there is no single offense that always works in all circumstances and that an offense that cannot adapt (i.e. is not robust) is going to be vulnerable. I think an offensive scheme (such as run and shoot, wishbone, whatever) can, at best, give you a temporary advantage. As soon as people have film, they will study the offense and figure out how to defend it. At that point, the offense has to adapt. That is why coaching is so much work. You have to study film forever to identify your opponent’s weakneses and then construct a strategy (based on your team’s actual capabilities) that can exploit those weaknesses. If the opponent’s weakness is interior run D, it would be really great to be able to run inside.

Tech fan:
UT certainly hasn’t been selling out to stop the pass against Tech or they would not have been playing 4-3 so much. Any team that is playing their normal DTs (like UT did for much of the game last year) is not selling out to stop the pass. As you said, running makes it easier to pass. Why do you think Leach runs whenever there are 5 men in the box and has the option to run when there are 6 men in the box? It is not because he is a fan of the run, it is because he knows it is smart football.