Mike Sewak

[VObserver]

J1M, your main point is EXACTLY why I am a big advocate of the Hal Mumme/Mike Leach Air Raid offense.. Unlike traditional passing offenses, Air Raid is based on very quick reads and ball delivery, and creating open receivers at or near the line of scrimmage by formation rather than by downfield separation. This offense decreases the time required for the OL to hold blocks by a significant margin.

That being said, I am also a big fan of the triple option, for exactly the same reasons. Play side blocking in the true triple option is almost ludicrously easy. First guy on the LOS to playside isn't blocked at all. QB reads the unblocked man and either gives to the first back through or keeps the ball... second guy playside is doubleteamed. Third guy is unblocked.. QB reads him and either cuts upfield with the ball or makes the pitch. Playside TE seals off LB pursuit ... OR runs the seam route that made Ozzie Newsome an All-American at Alabama in the wishbone.

Run/Pass balance in an offense is HIGHLY overrated. If you run the 'Bone and throw it only 10 times a game and you complete 6 for 100 yards, fine; you have established the threat to pass and made stopping the run much tougher. Conversely, in Air Raid, if you run it 10 times and make 80 yards, it just got easier to do what you do best.

Both offenses that we can be highly successful with here will disappoint fans of the vertical passing game and smash mouth running game. So what? We can get plenty of linemen here that can allow us stretch the field from sideline to sideline [as the 'Bone and Air Raid both do], and darn few that can block for the smash mouth/vertical thing.

[Just1More]

_ I simply don't want to run the triple option as our primary offense. While it works in some cases, I'd much rather develop a more balanced attack and tough, rugged defense that doesn't give up many points. I'd rather see us run some more traditional sets, multiple back sets and pro sets using bootleg and playaction mixed in with what we already do now. _

Zephyr, you create a balanced attack when something in your attack is a sharp spear point. We are attacking with a blunt edge because we are not getting it done at the line. You can run the triple option and still run playaction and a wide variety of plays.

What about the triple option offense precludes a "tough, rugged defense that doesn't give up many points"? The triple option is not a bad call for UL. It may not be every football fan's idealized offense... but it has some strong merits for a UL recruiting base of athletes.

[Boomer]

_ 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. _

Jay we will agree to disagree----We haven't recruited the players we are capable of getting---I don't see the disadvantage of Huge off. linemen in smash mouth veer football when a passing situation occurs they have a tremendous advantage over the little guy---Re receivers--What are the chances of getting an All-American here( recievers want to catch td passes not block) ---check with Rickman on his thoughts on being recruited by an option vs. a passing/running attack-----again the numbers game lets you have more choices at a "NORMAL" qb coming here!!!

[SlappyCajun]

_ Do you realize that option oriented offenses have been our most successful at UL more often than multiple attacks?

Brian Mitchell? Mike Desormeaux? Those names ringing any bells?

Desmo had almost zero passing skills. Yet, the MIGHTY RAGIN' CAJUN STEAMROLLING ZONE OPTION FREAK SHOW never ran better than when he was QB.

With Sewak as the head coach, all we would be doing is changing the word zone to triple.


THE MIGHTY RAGIN' CAJUN STEAMROLLING TRIPLE OPTION FREAK SHOW.


Bring it!!!!!! _

Brian Mitchell threw the ball a lot. It is doubtful if he would have come here if we were running the triple option.

Look, I've said personally, if you can't be the best you have to be different. Hopefully, this may be it. I still rank Hudspeth as a 8 out of 10, because he is young and has been successful everywhere he went.

Personally, for my excitement, I put Sewak at a 4 out of 10. He was not as successful as
Hudspeth at his only head coaching job. He got fired, according to his AD for the program losing its edge (exact words were not being feared) and losing second half leads. He is also another coach coming to UL on the wrong side of 50.

I will support the guy, but I think if we hire him we should pay the same we gave to Bustle, and try to bump up his assistants. Nothing about this guy's resume justifies the dramatic pay increase over what Bustle was making.

Remember Bustle came from the ACC as a QB coach after an incredible season. Sewak would come after a 6-6 season as the co-offensive line coach. I know that he was in a BCS game last year, but remember we are trying to invigorate fan base and build a private foundation.

With that being, said if we run the option and Sewak gets to bowl game, I will be the happiest most option loving dude on the planet.

[Just1More]

_ J1M, your main point is EXACTLY why I am a big advocate of the Hal Mumme/Mike Leach Air Raid offense.. Unlike traditional passing offenses, Air Raid is based on very quick reads and ball delivery, and creating open receivers at or near the line of scrimmage by formation rather than by downfield separation. This offense decreases the time required for the OL to hold blocks by a significant margin.

That being said, I am also a big fan of the triple option, for exactly the same reasons. Play side blocking in the true triple option is almost ludicrously easy. First guy on the LOS to playside isn't blocked at all. QB reads the unblocked man and either gives to the first back through or keeps the ball... second guy playside is doubleteamed. Third guy is unblocked.. QB reads him and either cuts upfield with the ball or makes the pitch. Playside TE seals off LB pursuit ... OR runs the seam route that made Ozzie Newsome an All-American at Alabama in the wishbone.

Run/Pass balance in an offense is HIGHLY overrated. If you run the 'Bone and throw it only 10 times a game and you complete 6 for 100 yards, fine; you have established the threat to pass and made stopping the run much tougher. Conversely, in Air Raid, if you run it 10 times and make 80 yards, it just got easier to do what you do best.

Both offenses that we can be highly successful with here will disappoint fans of the vertical passing game and smash mouth running game. So what? We can get plenty of linemen here that can allow us stretch the field from sideline to sideline [as the 'Bone and Air Raid both do], and darn few that can block for the smash mouth/vertical thing. _

Absolutely dead nuts on. Either one is minimizing dependency on a dominating OL. It is a must for the future UL. "Balance"... a notion I supported during the Bustle era... was a myth. It keeps breaking down to an "off balance" attack for UL.

You are correct... I do believe a lot of UL fans look at generic Saturday football across the country and fail to see why we are not one of those programs. They are not going to like the triple option or the "air raid"... regardless if it would succeed. It does not fit what they would simulate for UL on a Playstation game. Screw that.

We need to get realistic about the highest caliber high-end athletes we can get. They are going to be quite a few "tweeners" if we get them and they are indeed "super athletes". It is time to stack the field with the best overall athletes (speed, quickness, great hands, great feet) and stop worrying about their heights and weights... and our plays... in regards to what the SEC programs are doing. It was and is a HUGE mistake for UL.

We can shock the crap out of some programs if we use the extremes and stop playing the middle. Our "spread" has not spread jack squat.

I'll go with what the next staff has in mind... but I am very concerned with the lack of risk offensively. Our opponents kept our "balanced spread" down to the size of a dime. If we keep playing the congested parts of the field in hopes of winning the shoving match... we are going to lose.

[MetryCajun]

_ 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. _

Great post. Our OL is so bad right now it is hard to evalute the other offensive positions. I agree we have some talent, but it is hard to gauge how much when you are consistently getting destroyed at the line of scrimmage. Can our OL run block in a option scheme? I say it is much more likely than them try to pass block. We KNOW they cannot do that.
I am not option or bust, but I think it is an offense UL could be successful at.

Of course none of this matters if we have kickoff coverage like we did this year. It is impossible to win consistently with a unit like that.

[zephyr]

_ Zephyr, you create a balanced attack when something in your attack is a sharp spear point. We are attacking with a blunt edge because we are not getting it done at the line. You can run the triple option and still run playaction and a wide variety of plays.

What about the triple option offense precludes a "tough, rugged defense that doesn't give up many points"? The triple option is not a bad call for UL. It may not be every football fan's idealized offense... but it has some strong merits for a UL recruiting base of athletes. _

We are not getting it done at the line so why would you run the ball 40+ times a game in an offense that relies on good O-Line play and sometimes complex blocking schemes. Sure, you can go recruit that type of lineman but that's not sealing your success. As Jay mentioned, the option attack has some merits but IMO we would be mismanaging the talent we currently have. Jay mentioned the receivers for GT which one actually was drafted in the NFL. What he didn't get a chance to mention was his ideal size at the WR position and what the NFL scouts and teams look for as a prototypical receiver. Receivers in this offense also have to be able to block very well and having larger, physical receivers is a big plus when running this offense to not only block but to take advantage of man coverage.

You mention the OL play but the spread offense can be made to take advantage of poor play by releasing the ball on shorter drops, shorter routes and many misdirection screens that are incorporated in the spread attack. You can still open the field up and do not forget that our offense was a highly potent passing attack for portions of the year. We were not able to run the ball effectively but i wouldn't argue with the success we had in 2005-2008 in the spread attack. In that offense we were running the ball for 250 yards per game but were in much better position to pass the ball given our smaller, faster receivers that we are generally going to get here.

I never said anything about the offense predicating what type of defense we had. I said that I'd prefer a balanced attack with a coaching emphasis on providing us with a very physical defense which is why I was getting very excited about the Pellini rumors that never really surfaced.

All in all, the people here will disagree if someone like Sewak is hired due to the philosophical differences in the way the offense is run. I feel that if we go with an option coach, we will take a step back this year and perhaps the first few years in order to get players to compliment that offense. I believe this team has people in place now to run a more balanced attack that takes advantage of the current players skills.

[Just1More]

_ Brian Mitchell threw the ball a lot. It is doubtful if he would have come here if we were running the triple option.

He simply wanted to play QB. Our base offense was the option. He would have thrived in the triple option as well. The triple option QB is often very effective passing the ball.

[CajunRed]

I'm getting a headache...

Sewak is out!

[CajunZ1]

_ I'm getting a headache...

Sewak is out! _

in your opinion? or from your sources?