Could Oregon's O work in the MAC?

[InTheZone]

It's just a hurry up version of the spread. It seems to me it requires some speed at the skill positions, a quick QB, and a shifty RB. The offensive line doesn't have to be gargantuan, just quick.

To me, that's a perfect formula for a MAC team. Good skill players are easy to come by and many fall through the cracks of the BCS schools. We've certainly had plenty of them. Mobile QB's with decent arems are pretty easy to find too. Quality offensive lineman are the hardest to come by for mid-major schools, but there are a lot of quality, athletic offensive lineman in high school who might be sitting at 240-250 and aren't going to get recruited by the big boys. If I was any incoming MAC head coach, I'd find an offensive coordinator who knew and could run this system.

Of course RI will remain commited to his philosophy of line up and play football and may the best team win. Unfortunately 11 out of 12 times we're not the best team.

[Big Zip]

I think GP1 posted something a while back about the Oregon type of offense or run and shoot, spread, pistol, shotgun or you name it offense was the type of offense that leveled the playing field between a team that has less talent. (If it wasn't you GP1 I apologize.) I think this is exactly the type of offense a team in MAC should be running. The line up and put your best 11 against our best 11 has a chance to work against like leveled teams, but I think it significantly reduces your chances against a BCS level school which will consistently out talent you on the field size, speed and depth wise.

On the flip side this was the philosophy of the 3-3-5 on the defensive side too, but I think offense and defense are two different animals when it comes to doing something different.

At the very least an offense like this would be far more entertaining to watch. I remember trying to convince my friends to come see the Zips back in the LO/Paul Winters days....at least I had the ability to tell them it would be an entertaining offensive game even if we couldn't stop anyone. When trying to get friends to commit to see this team I have tailgating, new stadium and that is about it. When the weather gets even slightly bad I got no shot at getting them to come to a game with me. Unfortunately for me this included my family this year too.

[scottditzen]

I don't know...would we have to shotgun the snap 6 yards back on a 4th and goal running play at the one yard line?

Watching Oregon struggle in short yardage, just cost them a touchdown.

Seriously. I don't care what "your" offense is. If you can't line up and go straight ahead for 1 yard when you need it, you are in trouble.

[Buckzip]

Yes, it would work but you need the athletes. Those types of offenses are better suited for MAC type teams because top teams will find a way to control them to a point.

[Let'sGoZips94]

Not if Chip Kelly is coaching. He just cost the Ducks a national championship. Sad thing is, iCan'tCoach is way worse.

However, with the right personnel, anything will work in the MAC with how awful it is.

[skip-zip]

My only thought is that we don't even have the talent right now to execute a much simpler offensive scheme.

[InTheZone]

My only thought is that we don't even have the talent right now to execute a much simpler offensive scheme.

It's a lot easier to "execute" when you are faster than the guy across from you. Offenses like Oregon's work by creating mismatches that the defense is powerless to control. Our offense basically says we're going to line up, let you match up, and we're just going to be better than you. We don't play anyone we're good enough to do that to and win a majority of the time. I'd rather give ourselves a stategic advantage to move the ball, even if it does create some problems when you are 1st and goal inside the five. Spread offenses might struggle close to the goaline, but I'd rather move the ball to the goaline and score some of the time than not move the ball and never score at all.

[GP1]

Big Zips, it was me who posted that. Everything you said is true. It levels the playing field.

Lots of double teams are created at the line so the oline does not have to be as good as the dline man-to-man. We saw that last night.

It creates match-ups in the passing game by getting backs against slower linebackers, or more favorable match-ups wr to db.

The key is the QB. Can't did well with Cribbs and Eddleman (sp?) in this type of offense. CMU dominated the league with their qb for four years....it wasn't Brian Kelly, it was the QB because they continued to win after Kelly left.

In terms of the defense, I also said this year that schools need to go to a really big run stopping defensive line and then guys who can run behind them. We ran the 3-3-5 with JD because at the time it was a defense designed to match speed with speed. It didn't work because there weren't enough big guys on the line and we got pushed around. If anyone notices now, some schools who play a lot against this type of offense have switched to a 4-2-5. Five dbacks are necessary because so many players are going out for passes. You need a really good dline that can function well against the run game by itself or at least take up space for the two lbs to make stops. You also need one top notch pass rusher in the dline...he can be a substitution on passing downs or an every down guy, but you need one.

I would not want to be a defensive coordinator in football now. The rules are stacked against you and all of the good players are playing offense and that's the way the powers that be want it. Games are very high scoring. It seems to me the primary key to defense in college now is not giving up the big play from outside of the red zone. Teams are going to move the ball, just don't give up big plays. Force fieldgoals in the red zone or wait for a young college QB to make a mistake in the red zone where the field gets smaller, just don't give up the big play from outside of it. Oregon's QB made a mistake in the red zone last night in the first half and it cost them the game.

[Dr Z]

We ran the 3-3-5 with JD because at the time it was a defense designed to match speed with speed. It didn't work because there weren't enough big guys on the line and we got pushed around.

When asked why we ran the "stack" JD's answer was "because it's hard to recruit DL in the MAC". That I will never forget. Never made any sense to me.

It seems to me the primary key to defense in college now is not giving up the big play from outside of the red zone. Teams are going to move the ball, just don't give up big plays.

Not a fan of the Tampa Two, I like an attacking style defense. I would rather dictate what I do rather than react to what the offense does.

[ZachTheZip]

The Pro style requires both size and speed to execute. The Spread only requires speed, or at least takes the emphasis off of size. It's easier to recruit for a spread, because you can be as effective against defenses with less physical talent. It also allows players who do possess the size/speed to play in a Pro to shine even more.

Right now we don't even have the size or speed to run a spread, much less a pro offense. So Ianello had better be as good of a recruiter as all his recruiting awards make him out to be, because it takes much more talent than is neccessary to be successful on offense in the MAC if you're running a Pro Style.

[GP1]

Not a fan of the Tampa Two, I like an attacking style defense. I would rather dictate what I do rather than react to what the offense does.

Dictate with the four dlinemen in a 4-2-5 scheme. In normal defenses, the dline is left to bellybump with the offensive line so the linebackers can make all of the tackles. I want to see the four dlinemen attack for tackles and not bellybump for four quarters. The Zips need to be more aggressive with their front.

College offenses are much different than pro style offenses. Backside pressure can be achieved easier than in the NFL on running plays. Auburn wasn't blitzing last night, but they found themselves in the backfield a lot. Not run blitzing doesn't mean not aggressive. Pressure up front, cover behind is what needs to be done now. Even Oregon with a small line was able to get pressure in the backfield last night with their line because they were smart about how they achieved that pressure. Both teams last night did a really good job of defending the spread with their base defenses.