LSU Post-Regular Season: Monday Post Redux (or "Benevolent Dictator: Offense Edition")
I have been putting this particular post off because I was really not sure what approach to take with my analysis of the offense. Despite all the problems with the offense this year, I am not sure that there was anything wrong with our approach to this phase of the game.
I think that in general you have two competing interests in planning an offense. Do you want your offense to be highly variable and unpredictable? Or do you want your offense to run a few things but run them very very well? In truth I suppose this is not quite as simple of a choice as I have presented it. It's more like a spectrum. On one side of the spectrum you have an offense that practices the same handful of plays over and over again, while on the other side of the spectrum you have an offense that can throw anything at you at any time. As a coach, you have to decide where along that spectrum you want to operate.
I think it is clear that Gary Crowton wants LSU to operate on the "highly variable" side of the spectrum. We run everything from I-formation power football, to traditional option, to 5-wide receiver spread, to pistol formation, to spread option. We throw screens. We throw deep passes. We run reverses. We run the fullback. We throw to the tight end. We do everything. We are firmly committed to being variable on offense.
This is in contrast to a team like Florida, who despite having seemingly dozens of offensive weapons on the field, generally seems to run variations on the same handful of plays all the time. They run spread option. They run QB draws. They run basic passing skeletons with a bunch of receivers, trying to take advantage of speed and mismatches. It looks sophisticated, and it is, but you can generally sleep at night knowing that you are not going to have to prepare for the I-formation or a whole lot of curl routes. They do the things they do very well because they practice the same things time after time.
I think it is possible that Gary Crowton was too committed to variation at times. For example, Keiland Williams had a terrific first half against Arkansas, then didn't get another touch after halftime. Why didn't Crowton go with the hot hand? He probably thought, "I've established Keiland, now let me show them something different." Was this the right call? In retrospect, you have to think not, though obviously if we had won we might have a different thought on that.
This was not the only example. Bringing in Richard Murphy to run a direct snap run in overtime against Alabama after Charles Scott had gotten a nice gain on first down was another decision that seems to have been simply for the sake of doing something different. Murphy had only had one touch the whole game before this (a nice 9 yard run, for what it's worth), and was coming into the game ice cold. Everyone in the stadium knew he was running the ball, and Bama was able to stop it for a loss, setting up a 3rd and long pass that was intercepted. The interception essentially clinched the game, but the Murphy run set up the interception.
We can think of other examples if we sit down and consider it for a while. The point is that we have an offensive coordinator who is wedded to the idea of throwing everything but the kitchen sink at the opposing team. This comes with advantages and disadvantages. You have to have the personnel to run all these styles, and you have to have the time to practice them. The college game, of course, limits the amount of practice time you can have.
I think, as benevolent dictator, I would probably dial back a bit on the variation. I think I would endeavour to figure out which styles we run the least effectively (this year, I think our screen game was particularly abysmal) and go ahead and cut those parts out of the game plan. If the direct-snap game isn't effective for us, ditch it. Spend the practice time we would have used getting that phase up to speed and instead use that time perfecting something we do pretty well. I'm not suggesting we should implement a confining "system" like the West Coast or the Air Raid. We just just try to simplify a little bit to keep a lot of the variation, but cutting out the things we do least well.
This would be a little tweak rather than a wholesale change.
0 recs |
8 comments
|
Comments
Interesting
I remember a number of plays that were doomed because players were out of position on blocks, running lanes, and the like.
by GasHouseGorillas on Dec 8, 2008 9:11 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
agreed
Crowton seems to get a little cute at times instead of rolling with what works. The bama overtime is a perfect example. Another example are the pass plays to Q Johnson. Quinn doesnt have the surest of hands and while these worked occasionally, they oftentimes ended in a drop or bad throw. The guy is a 265 wrecking ball. Let him wreck. And then wreck some more thus wearing down the defenses.
by nepomo on Dec 8, 2008 11:13 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
This is a double edged sword...
I’m going to lay off of Crowton for now, though I share some of the same thoughts about getting “too cute” and not getting the ball to our play makers enough.
Obviously, we need to find a healthy balance between running 4 plays really well, and being able to “mix it up”, but at least we haven’t had any more 3 point debacles like the Auburn 2006 game since Jimbo left.
I’d rather lose 27-20 in overtime after throwing 4 picks, than losing 7-3 because we refuse to do anything except run it into the pile until there is 6 minutes left in the game.
I like Crowton a lot, but he’s human…Hopefully he’ll learn from the team’s inconsistencies this year.
by LSU Jonno on Dec 8, 2008 12:39 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I agree
The guy’s track record speaks for itself. His O was great at La Tech, BYU, Oregon, and has been very good by and large at LSU.
In my mind, Crowton gets a big pass this year on any “poor play-calling.” I can only imagine how difficult it is to call plays when you never know what you are going to get w/ your qb.
I am not saying he was perfect, but any problems we encountered b/c of his decisions rank way down my list of priorities for this team.
by Zandor435 on Dec 8, 2008 1:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
also agree
I’ve been saying all year long that Crowton has been way too fancy. However, he does get a pass for two reasons. First, the offense still puts points on the board. If we score 30 points, we should win. It falls on the defense at that point. Second, young and new QB’s.
Now saying that, I really do hope that he cuts out some of the formations we use. I think it’s great we have a lot of different “looks” as Miles is always saying. But I think we need to focus on doing a smaller amount of them right. Sometimes is seems as if Crowton is calling a play that is fancy just for the sake of not calling a simple play (see Richard Murphy in OT of Bama example).
I think Crowton looks at the next play and thinks “this play will definitely work”. When I would rather him think to himself, “what is the lowest risk, highest percentage chance of success play that will work.”
Charles Scott up the middle late in the game with a worn out defense would have been a low risk, high percentage change of success play. Where the Murphy play was probably still low risk but an unknown chance of success I feel at that point in the game. It seems as if Crowton sometimes just looks for good plays but never tries to figure out the best one for a situation.
by Bob Barker on Dec 9, 2008 10:45 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
two points
A great deal depends upon identity. I think we are a running team given our personnel and experience. The backfield is too loaded not to give Scott, Williams (woefully underused this season) and Murphy the bulk of the plays. No, I don’t mean to say we should make the passing game an afterthought—we have great talent to exploit there too, but given our talent on the O-line and the backfield, we are at our best running.
Secondly, I appreciate that Crowton does not call the same set of plays repeatedly. Jimbo Fisher wasn’t bad, and he certainly wasn’t as bad as many of his detractors made him out to be, but he had a habit of using the same plays too much. Example—the bubble WR screen to Skyler Green. And remember two years ago…every time Trindon Holliday was in the game it was obvious he would get the hand off. It’s as though Fisher thought the other team wasn’t aware of videotape.
by uberschuck on Dec 8, 2008 10:36 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Might have missed an important point
I think you may have missed an important point to your argument. Crowton lines us up in many different formations, but the number of options from each formation is too small. Therefor, if a defense has done their homework, they have a very good idea of what is coming from each formation. It takes a far superior team to win if the defense knows what is coming on most plays.
by Gman6809 on Dec 9, 2008 8:37 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Absolutely right
Crowton’s multiple formations causes the other DC’s to do much more homework. However, once the homework is done it is much easier on them to execute. For example, when trindon is in, there are probably only 3 plays we ever run. We need to find a medium amount of formations and increase the number of plays for each formation.
by Bob Barker on Dec 11, 2008 12:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

by 
















