Playmakers on Offense

[Just1More]

_ You can coach running backs, or any player for that matter, however if they do not adapt to the coaching as well as others or do not take to the playbook and blocking schemes of the particular offense quick enough, how do you just blame coaching on their lack of growth. Kevis Streeter and Aaron Spikes are in town working out with the team and while they have likely started learning and studying the playbook, nothing makes up for repetition in live drills and action to absorb the information as second nature. These guys will have literally one month to do that. By the same account, Tyrell Fenroy came in and took to it quickly and started and flourished from his first moment on campus. I'd venture to guess that they "coached" him similarly to how they will prepare these young men. For these running backs now, preparation must meet opportunity and I feel strongly that they will do what they have to do to grasp the offense and present their best case for playing time. I do not think that you will see one back emerge however, but do not confuse a committee approach with lack of coaching or lack of talent.

We adapted this offense some years ago to meet the talents we had on offense which were versatile quarterbacks who could run and throw. I think that the QB's we have now are very similar to that of Jerry Babb who flourished his first two years in this offense. Desormeaux was a bit different as he was a much better runner but obviously not as talented passer. However, he had smarts, character, leadership and toughness to go with his athletic ability. I think that is why we went away from the triple option sets we saw often with Babb to running the single option zone read offense we now employ. I would much rather go back with the triple option sets using two of our talented backs in the backfield at one time while still allowing the QB to set up the run and take it when need be. None of our QB's should run the ball much more than about 10 times per game max but to say that we shouldn't utilize their mobility is not rational. These QB's are mobile and that is an asset not a liability. It proposes another variable in an offense that is geared to take advantage of spatial matchups and advantages. I'm not sure how or why you can say that having a running QB is a failure for an offense but that ideology is proved wrong in every conference in college football.

I'd say that Masson played pretty darned well last year given his inexperience and lack of options in both the running and passing games. He is given many more options this year with the athleticism we have at RB and the returning experience in the receiving corp. _

There is very little complexity to our running back assignment. There is no more complexity to our RB assignments than any other offense at 90% of the FBS conference teams. If the RBs these guys recruit (and let's consider the fact that we have 5-6 guys at various depths at any given time). These are academic qualifiers. They are RBs out of highschool (not just "athletes") and have succeeded in their roles in those systems. You almost act like we should give our coaches a free pass because on Tyrell's success... not going to happen. I'm not crediting them for what that special young man was able to do... if 8-10 other running backs that these coaches personally recruited... are not nearly as capable of quickly picking up their full assignments in this offense and cannot be productive.

A RB's ability to succeed are also coupled to the rest of the offense. If our QB cannot complete passes... if our coaching staff cannot call the right plays... if our OL isn't blocking well... if our coaches don't have our OL blocking technically well for our RB... all of that falls on our coaching staff. The verdict is not in on this year... but I can absolutely with certainty guarantee you that if we do not see one of these RBs have a breakout year this year... this coaching staff does not know how to coach these kids.

As for our QBs... I did state that I like having mobility. I do like a QB that is a threat to pick up yardage on a given down. I DO NOT like it when his legs are one of the primary "required" weapons to make our offense tick. I consider it a failure when our RBs cannot find holes, our QB cannot complete short and medium passes, BUT... we have limited success... down to the wire against mediocre teams... and we inch out a win on the battered legs of our QB. That is exactly why and how you end up with no more than 6 wins in a season.

As for our offense... we discussed this last year at length. I agree with you that we are still operating the zone read and without dismantling and recreating (which is virtually impossible) I would like to go back to the triple option with a QB that has mobility... but has an accurate short and medium passing ability. The spread requires that defenses also spread. The last couple of years, the Cajuns have been ineffective at getting the opponent defenses spread out. They plug the middle as if they know when we are running the ball, and they have no fear of our QB taking flight. They do not fear our passing attack one bit. I still feel like we are basically only a sure thing (almost) against only very bad opponents. That is simply unacceptable.

In a nutshell... all of that is the fault of coaching. You will rarely ever get me to single out a player for the inconsistency of the 11 man operation out on the field. If you've ever run something, you know damn well that if you picked the individuals, picked the plan, taught the plan, and expect the plan to win... you are the one to blame for failure... whether somewhere in that system you created is a headcase or 20 headcases... it is all on you.

I'm not negative about this coming year. I just expect this to either be a year that Bustle finally makes it past 6 wins... or the admin gets a flame thrower directed on their lard... and is forced to act... much quicker than they did with men's basketball. We fans had better either feel the sense of urgency for our football program this year... or create it.

[zephyr]

_ There is very little complexity to our running back assignment. There is no more complexity to our RB assignments than any other offense at 90% of the FBS conference teams. If the RBs these guys recruit (and let's consider the fact that we have 5-6 guys at various depths at any given time). These are academic qualifiers. They are RBs out of highschool (not just "athletes") and have succeeded in their roles in those systems. You almost act like we should give our coaches a free pass because on Tyrell's success... not going to happen. I'm not crediting them for what that special young man was able to do... if 8-10 other running backs that these coaches personally recruited... are not nearly as capable of quickly picking up their full assignments in this offense and cannot be productive.

A RB's ability to succeed are also coupled to the rest of the offense. If our QB cannot complete passes... if our coaching staff cannot call the right plays... if our OL isn't blocking well... if our coaches don't have our OL blocking technically well for our RB... all of that falls on our coaching staff. The verdict is not in on this year... but I can absolutely with certainty guarantee you that if we do not see one of these RBs have a breakout year this year... this coaching staff does not know how to coach these kids.

As for our QBs... I did state that I like having mobility. I do like a QB that is a threat to pick up yardage on a given down. I DO NOT like it when his legs are one of the primary "required" weapons to make our offense tick. I consider it a failure when our RBs cannot find holes, our QB cannot complete short and medium passes, BUT... we have limited success... down to the wire against mediocre teams... and we inch out a win on the battered legs of our QB. That is exactly why and how you end up with no more than 6 wins in a season.

As for our offense... we discussed this last year at length. I agree with you that we are still operating the zone read and without dismantling and recreating (which is virtually impossible) I would like to go back to the triple option with a QB that has mobility... but has an accurate short and medium passing ability. The spread requires that defenses also spread. The last couple of years, the Cajuns have been ineffective at getting the opponent defenses spread out. They plug the middle as if they know when we are running the ball, and they have no fear of our QB taking flight. They do not fear our passing attack one bit. I still feel like we are basically only a sure thing (almost) against only very bad opponents. That is simply unacceptable.

In a nutshell... all of that is the fault of coaching. You will rarely ever get me to single out a player for the inconsistency of the 11 man operation out on the field. If you've ever run something, you know damn well that if you picked the individuals, picked the plan, taught the plan, and expect the plan to win... you are the one to blame for failure... whether somewhere in that system you created is a headcase or 20 headcases... it is all on you.

I'm not negative about this coming year. I just expect this to either be a year that Bustle finally makes it past 6 wins... or the admin gets a flame thrower directed on their lard... and is forced to act... much quicker than they did with men's basketball. We fans had better either feel the sense of urgency for our football program this year... or create it. _

I do not give them a pass on Fenroy's success. However, to lay blame and responsibility for a RB's missed assignments or lack of progression entirely on a coach or staff in general is absolutely ludicrous. The same offensive line we've had for several years completely underwhelmed any and all defenses they challenged last year. That same offensive line which opened up gaping holes for our running game and helped it become one of the nations leading attacks played subpar last year. It's that simple. However, you're telling me that the coaches failed the kids when we ran the same system with the same line? That's crazy. I am willing to lay "blame" which to anyone that deserves it even though it seems highly vogue to, as fans, sit down and start blaming everybody for things that don't go our way. However, to not acknowledge a player's role for a lack of work in progression over a given year or even career is absolutely negligent. I also don't buy the whole "well he recruited him " thing since there were numerous schools who recruited Yobes Walker to see him struggle last year. Would you have said the same thing had he signed with Nick Saban to only struggle in his first year and see the practice squad?

Also, I tend to be a bit confused on your QB statements. You did not mention that you were for mobility as you put it " everytime a QB runs with the ball, even if it is positive yardage, is a failure of our offense". To me, you are referencing that you would prefer a QB who is a more traditional passer since you also referenced comparing them to a Jake Delhomme. This day and age is moving towards multiple weapons in a spread field attack and that often means looking for mobile QB's who can hurt you with their legs. If McGuire or Gautier is our QB, they can run this system we've employed well. If Masson is the QB, they might want to find some diversity in the offense as he is mobile and quite quick but would be better served running when we need to rather than thinking it is a strength of his.

Lastly, I do not think you will see either of these backs have a "breakout" year. I think all will contribute in a very positive manner and at times, show us why we recruited them. I think they are all very similar in what they bring to the table and I think all will play. I really don't care how we get the running game going as long as we do. If its by committee, then that's fine. I think that would likely be a good concept given this offense runs at opponents and we have smallish backs who may not be able to handle to pounding of 20-25 carries per game over the course of a season. If we average 180 yards per game and win 7, I don't think I'd say that this staff has undercoached either of the backs simply because they didn't have that breakout season. I think we must look at it and put it in its proper perspective.

I'm not in love with this staff. As a matter of fact, I was extremely excited and enthused to see the possibilities this past offseason in acquiring Ed Orgeron. However, I think a proper perspective is required when judging coaching and play on the field and how it translates into victories. Talent wins but coaching prepares you for the day to display your talent. I think its a two way street.

[zephyr]

_ Sorry, but no-way Blaine Gauthier should be the starter at QB. (no offense, JMO) _

Blaine has the best skill set of running the offense we have run for several years now. He flourishes in a zone read type of offense and has the best blend of mobility and passing. Masson and McGuire are very good leaders and I've heard Gautier is a little quieter but still a solid leader. He has done nothing but make plays when he is in the game or even scrimmages. The true test comes by having him play entire games and prepare as a starter over the course of a season. However, his upside is the greatest of the QB's we have. This is partially why McGuire was moved to H-back this offseason.

[zephyr]

_ Butler gets my vote as one of the potential "surprises" of the incoming class... _

Absolutely. A family member who handles recruiting in that area pointed him out to me last fall and mentioned that he might be a big steal in our class. The only concern with James is qualifying academically. I haven't heard anything to the contrary after school ended so I'm hoping for the best that he will be able to start up and contribute but he and Surgent are both very good prospects for us. I do believe that it will take a season or so for him to really contribute though. We play a ton of guys at the position who all do things very similarly and I don't see him stealing time from Joseph, Wolfe or Falgout and certainly not from Javone Lawson. We will have to see. One other thing about him is his size. He is bigger than most of our WR's and that may be a big factor for him and his future success.

[Just1More]

I'm not in love with this staff. As a matter of fact, I was extremely excited and enthused to see the possibilities this past offseason in acquiring Ed Orgeron. However, I think a proper perspective is required when judging coaching and play on the field and how it translates into victories. Talent wins but coaching prepares you for the day to display your talent. I think its a two way street. _

When you have a stable of backs to choose from, you can dang well believe I'm going to blame the staff for lack of RB production. You pointed to an underwhelming offensive line. That is also a coaching issue. I can absolutely guarantee it. I don't like the offensive line's blocking schemes. They do not open holes for running backs. Our staff and few unobservant observative fans can say that our backs can't "find" the holes... well heck, I've watched film and there was no hole. And, I'll say it again... if the QB isn't threat in the passing attack... you also cannot expect a RB to flourish.

And yes... from any stable of RBs, there should emerge a ball carrier that carries the load. Most successful backs require reps. If we run these backs by committee, it will also be a sign of failure. We either do not have a standout, or our coaches can't see the forest through the trees.

As for our offense, the spread is not simply a "who in the backfield is going to run the ball". The spread is meant to also massively capitalize on the passing aspect of a spread out defense. I think you know what I mean and you're just opting to argue with me. Babb was almost as ideal a QB to this system as we've had. If MD would have progressed to throwing more accurately, he would perhaps have reeled in the running and sliced and diced more defenses with more legs than his, Fenroy's, and a Chery on top.

I am not liking the lack of overwhelming advantage this coaching staff has manifested with this offensive scheme. Last year, just as I saw Chris able to successful throw the ball, our run production went down. I understand the injury excuse and not having Fenroy anymore... but the spread, when operating like a decent coach can operate it, takes broader advantage than... for whatever reason... this offense can maintain for 4 quarters.

Again... if we depend on our QB for a lot of ground game... I will call the season early on... no way we reach beyond 6 games. This team needs to make use of our skill players on the passing side of the offense... or we are doomed. And yes... that should also allow one or possibly two of our best backs to gain some steady production. I DO NOT blame... and could care less if the staff comes back blaming... a lack of run game on lack of RBs "adapting". If I take 2 decent running backs into my system, I absolutely guarantee you that they will learn their assignments... or else I will resign. That is a big bogus bunch of malarchy. Every school in the SBC has had a decent RB and has reloaded... at the SBC level... year in and year out. WE are the ones that have only "found" a single Fenroy in that past 6 years. That is absolutely a coaching issue no matter how you cut it.

[ULGrad@HOU]

_ Blaine has the best skill set of running the offense we have run for several years now. He flourishes in a zone read type of offense and has the best blend of mobility and passing. Masson and McGuire are very good leaders and I've heard Gautier is a little quieter but still a solid leader. He has done nothing but make plays when he is in the game or even scrimmages. The true test comes by having him play entire games and prepare as a starter over the course of a season. However, his upside is the greatest of the QB's we have. This is partially why McGuire was moved to H-back this offseason. _

I have not seen the skills you claim, maybe you have in a practice setting. From what I saw in a mop-up duty, last minute, can't win anyway situation against Troy at the end of the game, he was ok and showed some QB skills. However, that is in no way reflective of a real game setting and I really don't believe he possesses the kind of leadership it takes to be a successful starting QB. I will stick with Mason until I see more, a lot more.

[Turbine]

We adapted this offense some years ago to meet the talents we had on offense which were versatile quarterbacks who could run and throw. I think that the QB's we have now are very similar to that of Jerry Babb who flourished his first two years in this offense.

Jerry was a very special highly underrated athlete.

We forget by Mr. Babb was setting passing records his first 2 years under center yet when the offense was changed to run/run his Jr. year he won a conference championship. Not too many QBs can make that switch.

Unfortunately Jer had cracked ribs his Sr year and was only able to duplicate the 11 game record of his Jr. campaign.

The snag in the Bustle program -that he has yet to recover from- was to change of OC-DC coaches after that very respectable 06 season.

jmo

[cajun4life]

_ There is very little complexity to our running back assignment. There is no more complexity to our RB assignments than any other offense at 90% of the FBS conference teams. If the RBs these guys recruit (and let's consider the fact that we have 5-6 guys at various depths at any given time). These are academic qualifiers. They are RBs out of highschool (not just "athletes") and have succeeded in their roles in those systems. You almost act like we should give our coaches a free pass because on Tyrell's success... not going to happen. I'm not crediting them for what that special young man was able to do... if 8-10 other running backs that these coaches personally recruited... are not nearly as capable of quickly picking up their full assignments in this offense and cannot be productive.

A RB's ability to succeed are also coupled to the rest of the offense. If our QB cannot complete passes... if our coaching staff cannot call the right plays... if our OL isn't blocking well... if our coaches don't have our OL blocking technically well for our RB... all of that falls on our coaching staff. The verdict is not in on this year... but I can absolutely with certainty guarantee you that if we do not see one of these RBs have a breakout year this year... this coaching staff does not know how to coach these kids.

As for our QBs... I did state that I like having mobility. I do like a QB that is a threat to pick up yardage on a given down. I DO NOT like it when his legs are one of the primary "required" weapons to make our offense tick. I consider it a failure when our RBs cannot find holes, our QB cannot complete short and medium passes, BUT... we have limited success... down to the wire against mediocre teams... and we inch out a win on the battered legs of our QB. That is exactly why and how you end up with no more than 6 wins in a season.

As for our offense... we discussed this last year at length. I agree with you that we are still operating the zone read and without dismantling and recreating (which is virtually impossible) I would like to go back to the triple option with a QB that has mobility... but has an accurate short and medium passing ability. The spread requires that defenses also spread. The last couple of years, the Cajuns have been ineffective at getting the opponent defenses spread out. They plug the middle as if they know when we are running the ball, and they have no fear of our QB taking flight. They do not fear our passing attack one bit. I still feel like we are basically only a sure thing (almost) against only very bad opponents. That is simply unacceptable.

In a nutshell... all of that is the fault of coaching. You will rarely ever get me to single out a player for the inconsistency of the 11 man operation out on the field. If you've ever run something, you know damn well that if you picked the individuals, picked the plan, taught the plan, and expect the plan to win... you are the one to blame for failure... whether somewhere in that system you created is a headcase or 20 headcases... it is all on you.

I'm not negative about this coming year. I just expect this to either be a year that Bustle finally makes it past 6 wins... or the admin gets a flame thrower directed on their lard... and is forced to act... much quicker than they did with men's basketball. We fans had better either feel the sense of urgency for our football program this year... or create it. _

Ok, this is not meant to bash any poster on this board or you personally, but have any of you played football at the collegiate level?

If not, then to say an offense in college is not complex is an ignorant statement. It may seem like we run simple schemes and the same running plays every time out, but I can assure you they are not simple. One running play may have multiple variants depending on the defensive alignments, the blocking calls then throw in the fact that there may be 60 different running plays with the same number of reads.

Coaching staffs may also call certain plays that they know may not be very successful just so they can set up a play for later in a series. They follow their game plane and sometimes it works and others it doesn't.

[reddot]

_ Ok, this is not meant to bash any poster on this board or you personally, but have any of you played football at the collegiate level?

If not, then to say an offense in college is not complex is an ignorant statement. It may seem like we run simple schemes and the same running plays every time out, but I can assure you they are not simple. One running play may have multiple variants depending on the defensive alignments, the blocking calls then throw in the fact that there may be 60 different running plays with the same number of reads.

Coaching staffs may also call certain plays that they know may not be very successful just so they can set up a play for later in a series. They follow their game plane and sometimes it works and others it doesn't. _

Still not as complex as soccer.

[Damon]

_ Still not as complex as soccer. _

Replace sideline coach look-ats with Paul the Octopus, and we've got ourselves some real entertainment value.

[DrumRoll]

I think our offense is very complex, and because we rely on underclassmen to play it, maybe too complex. Also, while I am busy aimlessly prognosticating, I HATE the meerkat look to the sideline crap.

Can we not recruit a QB with enough football acumen to audible?

With the MEERKAT we end up looking at the fake poker face the D shows us, react to it, and then they change, or did they change, or was it really what they were going to do all along, or is it a fake to fake us and they did the same thing so next time when they change they will fake us out on 3rd and 3 when it matters...

All of this posturing, communicating, reading, play calling, meerkating, and so forth, has to contribute to the stress level of our own players moreso than to the defense we are supposed to be trying to confuse...

I wanna see our guys looking at the defense and developing a plan without losing eye contact...

Can we not coach up a QB to READ it and audible?

Let's stress out the bad guys instead of our own players :-)

_ Ok, this is not meant to bash any poster on this board or you personally, but have any of you played football at the collegiate level?

If not, then to say an offense in college is not complex is an ignorant statement. It may seem like we run simple schemes and the same running plays every time out, but I can assure you they are not simple. One running play may have multiple variants depending on the defensive alignments, the blocking calls then throw in the fact that there may be 60 different running plays with the same number of reads.

Coaching staffs may also call certain plays that they know may not be very successful just so they can set up a play for later in a series. They follow their game plane and sometimes it works and others it doesn't. _

[zephyr]

_ I think our offense is very complex, and because we rely on underclassmen to play it, maybe too complex. Also, while I am busy aimlessly prognosticating, I HATE the meerkat look to the sideline crap.

Can we not recruit a QB with enough football acumen to audible?

With the MEERKAT we end up looking at the fake poker face the D shows us, react to it, and then they change, or did they change, or was it really what they were going to do all along, or is it a fake to fake us and they did the same thing so next time when they change they will fake us out on 3rd and 3 when it matters...

All of this posturing, communicating, reading, play calling, meerkating, and so forth, has to contribute to the stress level of our own players moreso than to the defense we are supposed to be trying to confuse...

I wanna see our guys looking at the defense and developing a plan without losing eye contact...

Can we not coach up a QB to READ it and audible?

Let's stress out the bad guys instead of our own players :-) _

The look back to the sidelines is many times in fact, not an audible. They will call the formation in the huddle but the coaches will not call the actual play until they've reviewed the defense's setup and personnel to try to counter that with a better play. It has NOTHING to do with how smart our QB is or not. It is something that has caught fire in a lot of offenses who operate the spread and while it is truly annoying, it is done for a reason whether we agree with it or not.