Mike Sewak

Missed recruiting opportunities.

With the lure of blocking for a once in a lifetime back like Fenroy; UL's RedShirt Sophs, Jrs, and Senior O-Linemen should be the best around right now.
igeaux.mobi

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BirdofParadise

_ Yes, they went 6-6. But last year they were in a BCS bowl.

And, I'm not buying this business of changing the offense means we have to wait to recruit to win.

We'll need a different kind of offensive lineman with the option. But the offensive line we have wasn't great this year. In fact, recruiting offensive linemen has been IMO the weakest point of our recruiting over the last decade. Remember that two of our most decorated OL (Fisher and Bustle) were walkons.

Unless we have some really good redshirts, I question whether this offensive line can help us win regardless of the offense we're running.

We didn't pass block OR run block very well this year. _

---

So we are going to switch to an offense that emphasizes and relies heavily on a position that is arguably the weakest on our team and ignores positions such as WR where we have some young talent that showed flashes in their limited time this season? Also at least two of our returning QB's including last year's starter are not suited for this type of offense.

The O-line may still struggle a bit regardless of the system but at least the remainder of our offense is more suited to a balanced attack.

Who would determine the type of offense we run, the head coach or the offense coordinator? I mean, its not like Sewak or any coach could not hire an OC to install an offense other than the triple option...especially if our talent dictates it.


igeaux.mobi

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CajunRed

Who would determine the type of offense we run, the head coach or the offense coordinator? I mean, its not like Sewak or any coach could not hire an OC to install an offense other than the triple option...especially if our talent dictates it.
igeaux.mobi

---

Since all 3 of Bustle's OCs ran look alike systems, I would say the head coach.

However I think Deforest would delegate and let his hire work in their own comfort zone.

igeaux.mobi

So... Sewak could hire an OC to install some other kind of offense.

igeaux.mobi

I don't see this tremendous downside that others seem to see with running an option offense.

There's no denying our young receivers showed flashes, but they are not megatrons. Also, our all of our quarterbacks, while serviceable, are not accurate consistent passers. i know alot has to do with poor oline play, but that probably won't change anytime soon either.

UL isn't recruiting pro quality skill positions, so why not run an offense that can use their atypical skill set to our advantage. Instead of asking a kid to do the same thing his more gifted counterpart can do, why not change the game?

Triple option is a scary change, but it could be worth it.
igeaux.mobi

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CajunRed

So... Sewak could hire an OC to install some other kind of offense.

igeaux.mobi

---

In the generic sense, every HC will hire an OC and DC that fits their idea or comfort zone.

However depending on their background it is only natural for the HC to exert control in their area of expertise.

For example I would expext DeForest to be the heartbeat of special teams and the same respectivly for whichever coach is hired.
igeaux.mobi

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CajunZ1

_ I don't see this tremendous downside that others seem to see with running an option offense.

There's no denying our young receivers showed flashes, but they are not megatrons. Also, our all of our quarterbacks, while serviceable, are not accurate consistent passers. i know alot has to do with poor oline play, but that probably won't change anytime soon either.

UL isn't recruiting pro quality skill positions, so why not run an offense that can use their atypical skill set to our advantage. Instead of asking a kid to do the same thing his more gifted counterpart can do, why not change the game?

Triple option is a scary change, but it could be worth it.
igeaux.mobi _

---

why alienate a large group of your players on offense though. we have the best TE in the country in Ladarius Green and have some very good young receivers. Bring in a guy who can actually coach up these guys on the offensive line as opposed to switching to a third different style of offense in 4 years and you might see some huge progression.

just a note: i'm not discounting the skill of our linemen but rather the intelligence of switching to a completely different offense the year after they learned the pistol/spread, and 2 years after adjusting from the zone read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CajunFan89

_ while alienate a large group of your players on offense though. we have the best TE in the country in Ladarius Green and have some very good young receivers. Bring in a guy who can actually coach up these guys on the offensive line as opposed to switching to a third different style of offense in 4 years and you might see some huge progression.

just a note: i'm not discounting the skill of our linemen but rather the intelligence of switching to a completely different offense the year after they learned the pistol/spread, and 2 years after adjusting from the zone read. _

---

But this is true for any coaching change if the coach brings in a different system. Remember, we fired the last coach because whatever he was doing was unsuccessful. We would be foolish to think that we can bring in a new staff, running (basically) the same system, and expect different results. Bustle was not a terrible coach.
We should not fear drastic change IMO: it could be the prescription for what ails us.

I'm not sold on Sewak, just playing devil's advocate/damage control since it seems he has a very solid chance of being our next coach.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boomer

_ Why would any decent o-lineman (with a chance at pro ball) go to a option type program?????? Why would any great receiver go to an option school---I remember a former great UL receiver that was recruited by Oklahoma in their wishbone days----When asked why he wasn't blocking well he said if he wanted to block he would have signed with Oklahoma!!!!!---And finally why would a future pro QB want to run the option???? I think that it cuts your recruiting down big time!!!!! _

---

If you're running the option, you don't recruit those types of linemen, which in my opinion is an upside. We haven't been able to recruit offensive linemen. In the option attack, you go for linemen who are smaller and quicker. Those guys aren't getting recruited by every college in America and they are easier to get.

Although wide receivers don't get as many opportunities, they actually flourish in the option attack because when the ball is thrown, it's always man to man coverage. You play zone against the option attack and you get killed.

Georgia Tech had a receiver while running the option that was a first round NFL pick.

And the quarterback, who originally signed because Ga. Tech was running a pro set under Chan Gailey, loved the option attack and flourished in it.

There are two negatives about the option attack. It isn't exactly a great come from behind offense, and it can be a high risk-high reward offense. Because of the pulled handoffs and pitches, the ball can wind up on the ground sometimes.

But hey, if you're throwing it all over the place, you risk interceptions.