Forget defense field an explosive offense!

[IBulleve]

5 hours ago, HPbull said:

Well not entirely but with the way offenses are putting up points in this new era of football it would be beneficial to just field a team that has a chance at winning shootouts.

Football these days are basically basketball on grass, Taggart figured that out and basically said we arent going to ask the defense to win games for us, we are going to go out and win it with the offense and I loved that mentality.

Strongs old school keep it close and hope the D gets a stop and win by 3 points is yesterday’s game,  I don’t know why strong insist on wearing bell bottoms and an afro in the era of dreadlocks and skinny jeans. GOT TO ADAPT.... 

Lincoln Riley, is that you?

...kidding. I agree with most of your points. 

Edited November 13, 2018 by IBulleve

[Capital H]

1 hour ago, GaUSFBull said:

Offense sells tickets, and defense wins championships ... at least that's how it used to be.  Defense is going by the wayside, and not just in college, but in the NFL too.  

I think this is a little bit of a misnomer.

Other than Notre Lame, the top 3 teams in the "Playoffs" are 1-2-3 in scoring D.

https://www.ncaa.com/stats/football/fbs/current/team/28

And yes the Saints are an outlier, but the division leaders in the NFL are all in the top half of the league in Points Allowed.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/total/sort/totalPointsPerGame/position/defense

 

I'm guessing YoY the numbers are looking worse, but comparatively speaking in a season you need to at least be "league average".

 

[Blackice12]

 In 2014 TCU head coach Gary Paterson, who is known as a defensive-minded coach, accepted the change to the game and the need to match up better with other Big 12 teams hired Sonny Cumbie.   In 2014 the team when 12-1 compared to a 4-6 record the prior year.

Sonny Cumbie implemented a spread air raid system.  I am not advocating one system over the other but it is worth stating that the modern era of football requires the need for more wide open aggressive offenses.

Heck, even Nick Saban opened up the Alabama offense.

So its either there is a lack of talent at USF or there is a bad fit with this style of offense.  Also, only a hand full of coaches found success with the veer and shoot.  In my opinion only one has been successful who's last name is not Briles and that is Dino Babers. 

 

https://www.footballstudyhall.com/2018/6/29/17518110/what-will-2018-hold-for-the-veer-and-shoot-houston-tulsa-usf-briles-montgomery-gilbert-babers

 

 

[Calibull]

I'd rather field a complete team. I'm tired of relying on one or the other... you don't win conference championships without both. Look at Temple... They're more successful than we are.

[Azmodi]

6 minutes ago, Calibull said:

I'd rather field a complete team. I'm tired of relying on one or the other... you don't win conference championships without both. Look at Temple... They're more successful than we are.

Sorry Cali but, UofL won with just an offense. UConn won with just a Defense and we all know that WVU won a couple with just an Offense. This year, all of our contenders have good Offenses and mediocre Defenses with the exception of UC whos Defensive stats are misleading. Check their schedule ranking and teams they played. You'll find that most teams Defenses would look good against said schedule. Well, except ours. "Sigh!"

Edited November 13, 2018 by Azmodi

[Bull Dozer]

1 minute ago, Calibull said:

I'd rather field a complete team. I'm tired of relying on one or the other... you don't win conference championships without both. Look at Temple... They're more successful than we are.

This.  A couple times a season one of the units just isn't going to show up like they normally do and you'll need the other to step up.  

I personally like a wide open aggressive philosophy on both sides of the ball.  An attacking blitz heavy scheme with potential to create turnovers pairs well with a creative and aggressive offensive philosophy.   

[HPbull]

I just feel that when you try and be good at both with the level of kids we recruit you actually end up being average at both. Only a few teams really field an elite offense and defense, I am not saying have an absolute horrible D, I am just saying that I feel in this day and age it would be advantageous to have a wide open offense and a serviceable defense.

 

I would rather have Q, Mack and company on the field needing a touchdown to to win a game over having Selvie, Moffit and company needing a stop to win the game.

[Bull Dozer]

15 minutes ago, HPbull said:

I just feel that when you try and be good at both with the level of kids we recruit you actually end up being average at both. Only a few teams really field an elite offense and defense, I am not saying have an absolute horrible D, I am just saying that I feel in this day and age it would be advantageous to have a wide open offense and a serviceable defense.

 

I would rather have Q, Mack and company on the field needing a touchdown to to win a game over having Selvie, Moffit and company needing a stop to win the game.

In truth you don't get to dictate quality as much as you do philosophy and recruit towards your philosophy.  If it was as easy as just  wishing an elite offense into existence then more teams would have one.    Give me an aggressive philosophy on both sides of the ball and let the chips fall where they may.    

[Bull94]

4 minutes ago, Bull Dozer said:

In truth you don't get to dictate quality as much as you do philosophy and recruit towards your philosophy.  If it was as easy as just  wishing an elite offense into existence then more teams would have one.    Give me an aggressive philosophy on both sides of the ball and let the chips fall where they may.    

I agree about being aggressive on both sides of the ball. Generally a coach will put his best athletes on the side of the ball that he prefers. That's why it was a mistake to hire a defensive minded coach to replace and offensive minded one. Taggart put all the talent on the offensive side of the ball for the most part. Q and Mack and i'm sure others were recruited to play defense for some other programs. Taggart used them on offense where Strong probably would have used them on defense.

[Bull Dozer]

Just now, Bull94 said:

I agree about being aggressive on both sides of the ball. Generally a coach will put his best athletes on the side of the ball that he prefers. That's why it was a mistake to hire a defensive minded coach to replace and offensive minded one. Taggart put all the talent on the offensive side of the ball for the most part. Q and Mack and i'm sure others were recruited to play defense for some other programs. Taggart used them on offense where Strong probably would have used them on defense.

Yup, this is what separates good from great coaches IMO.  Recognizing that a talented athlete is of more value to your program on the side of the ball that isn't your specialty and giving the other unit the first crack.   Good leaders know it's not all about them all the time.   Our classes usually have a good 4-6 kids every season that could play on either side of the ball, and hopefully our coaches are looking at what's best for their team and not their pride.....