SMART FOOTBALL ON WHAT MAKES AN OFFENSE TERRIBLE
Every week Chris Brown from Smart Football answers a reader question about football strategy, and therefore raises the quality of your life by allowing you, the informed viewer, to scream “You suck!!!” in a more educated and justified manner. Submit questions for next week’s by going to twitter.com/edsbs and firing away. This week’s question comes from Stephen Webb, who wondered…
Q: What makes an offense truly terrible?
The short answer: Put on the tape of NC State vs. South Carolina from Thursday night, and just take it in.
Or, since we have footage, Auburn at Mississippi State, 2008.
Baby, you’re burning! Because you’ve set yourself on fire, Messrs. McCorvey and Franklin–ed.
The long answer: Bad offenses typically don’t just fail to do one or two things that make it easy to say, “Oh, they did that! They obvious suck and their coaching sucks!” Instead, it is usually the slow, steady burn of a set of ineptitudes that add up to result in nothing good. Most of these bad traits are a matter of degree rather than being simply being a matter of yes/no or present/not-present. With a few exceptions (fill in your own here), most college coaches have gotten their job because they coached someone, somewhere successfully, and when things go awry it is because they slipped away.So I’ve got a set of non-exhaustive factors that, either alone or apart, are common with really awful offenses. Think of it like “You might be a redneck if …” but replace “be a redneck” with “have/coach a terrible offense.”
- Bad players: You have to start here, even if it is not entirely fair to. But, in college football, recruiting is the most important thing a coach does (though you have to be able to do more than just recruit — see Orgeron), and most games will still be decided based on talent. And when the talent is really bad, or the disparity between teams is really wide, there aren’t many strategies that will work (and a lot of mediocre coaches can look very smart).
- Grab-bag offense: Far and away, the number one problem from a strategic view is a disorganized, “grab-bag” offense that lacks a definable identity. This isn’t to say that you can only do one or two things, but the bad teams almost universally do not know who they are. Say what you will about Tony Franklin at Auburn, but that whole thing was a mess last year because, among other reasons, they had an identity crisis. But this problem is not just germane to coaching changes or new offensive coordinators. Often, teams that have been fine try to “update” their offenses with the new-new thing, and more often than not they regress. There’s a completely true old coaching adage that it is less important what system you run than it is the fact that you have a system, preferably one that you know well and can coach. Hence an offense like Urban Meyer’s works for a lot of reasons, but one reason is that the entire team is completely committed to it. The same is true for Paul Johnson at Georgia Tech, or Nebraska’s great I-option teams, or really any other good team you can think of. They might appear “multiple,” but there’s an identity there. Again, it’s hard to underemphasize this because not only does it make planning coherent, it has its biggest gains probably for practice time: when Meyer or Johnson or Osborne or any of the other committed coaches practice their offenses, they focus exactly on what they will actually do in games, and their stuff all fits together. A grab-bag team might be adding or subtracting stuff week by week, and they never get good at anything.
- Line play, in every phase: It’s a cliche, but it’s still undervalued. The most important coach on the staff is the line coach. I didn’t say most important assistant, I said coach. The head coach gets things organized, brings in the boosters, the OC calls the plays, but the line coach makes the whole operation go. If you’d like to know how Boise State was able to stymie Oregon’s fancy spread, the answer is simple: they whipped Oregon’s line, which was starting four new guys. Similarly, with all these spread offenses you see a lot who want to throw the ball, but they don’t understand pass protection or focus enough on it. There’s both a “who” and a “how,” and awful offenses can do neither. Runningbacks are nice, but beyond Heisman-winning breakaway speed, the run game won’t go if guys can’t block. (Note that with modern zone plays, it is not always about driving guys off the ball, it is about technique and leverage. This only increases the need for good coaching on the line.) And even the most high-flying offenses have been grounded by a lack of pass protection.
- Bad practice habits. One thing USC does as well as anyone is that their practices are very fast, and very efficient. Similarly Mike Leach’s Texas Tech practices are famous for their complete focus on throwing the ball and working on all the skills necessary to do it well. One thing many fans might not realize is that “team periods” — i.e. scrimmages, 11 on 11, etc — are, in most coaches’ minds, negatively correlated with being good at fundamentals. In other words, practices are about focusing on individual players, individual and position drills. When you do 11 on 11, the coaching tends to be more diffuse, and more difficult, and guys tend to regress or not get better at the little skills. This is the hardest one for fans to see, but if your team cannot play well or is undisciplined in missing blocks, running routes, and the like, then their practice habits might be poor.
Etcetera. The final killers are general disorganization, a bad personality mix among coaches (think of every staff Tony Franklin has been on, save for Troy), and, down the list, poor planning. One off-shoot of the “grab bag” bit mentioned above is that some teams have a million ways to throw a five yard out, but lack any legitimate vertical stretch play to a part of the field, or they have about 15 ways to run the ball off guard, but lack any well-practiced alternative if the defense shifts to take that away. This is where number of plays does not equal actual tools in the toolbox. And, of course, the more of that you practice the thinner your practice time is spread. Finally, if you’ll notice, I mentioned gameplanning — which is key, but is usually not the difference between a mediocre and an awful team; if you can run your offense you will never be that bad, regardless of your opponent — and I didn’t even mention play-calling. Again, play-calling is important, and in a BCS title game it may wind up being the difference on a single play (though play-calling is all educated guessing, and your opponent can always “guess right,” Tecmo Bowl style), but it is wildly overrated, beyond a certain point at least.
In the end, the advice for a crappy offense is much the same as you would give to someone who failed a test. You wouldn’t tell them just to take tests better during the two or three hours. You’d say you need to study harder, use your time wiser, focus more on the core, important concepts, and, generally, improve your preparation. If you do that, the test will take care of itself. So it is with football games.
Chris Brown writes for Smart Football, which is really, um…smart. Submit questions for next week’s column at twitter.com/edsbs.









1
Soonertruth says:
Why do you pick this week to run a column about the John Blake era?
Bastards!
September 9th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
2
Harris says:
Solid analysis. As Oklahoma is learning now (and Notre Dame has been forced to accept for the past three years) it begins and ends on the offensive line.
September 9th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
3
Ed says:
The Life and Times of Rob Spence.
September 9th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
4
jd4au says:
Yes, I realize last week was only a win over LaTech. But the comment I have heard most this week that gives Auburn fans hope is that not one of the 79 plays that were run on offense even slightly resembled the Chinese fire drill that was the Tony-Franklin-Meets-Hugh-Nall cluster foo that was Auburn ‘08.
September 9th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
5
NewAZTiger says:
I hope Malzahn puts up 500 yards and AU wins 3-2 again. That would be epic.
September 9th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
6
d761 says:
#4
Absolute night and day between last year and last Saturday. When one OC basically gives the thesis example for a Smart Football post, you know there were problems. I pray I don’t live to see another sorry east/west zone read run again.
‘Course, the playcalling wasn’t Tony’s downfall. Rumor has it that Franklin preferred ketchup-based; the rest of the staff preferred vinegar. Disastrous.
September 9th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
7
Tim says:
Come on, Chris, who are these mediocre coaches that look smart? Name names!
September 9th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
8
haybeav says:
I love the “Nerrrrrds” tag, Orson
September 9th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
9
chaimy4life says:
Patrick Nix needs to be mentioned or Cane fans will riot. And nobody wants a Miami riot. Except for the people in Miami looking for a good excuse to riot. And they’ll find one, anyway. Nevermind.
September 9th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
10
Mike says:
Damn, everyone is jumping South Carolina’s ass for last week’s game. Is it better that Miami and FSU couldn’t stop each other? More entertaining? Yes. Better football? Not necessarily.
Disclaimer: I’m clearly a homer.
September 9th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
11
BTM says:
I bow before the mind power of Chris.
September 9th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
12
charlie says:
dear god they hit it on the head with grab bag offense. i’ve suffered the embarrassment of the jim tressel offense since ‘01 and it’s incredibly unpleasant. the perception of 3 yds and cloud of dust couldn’t be more off. it’s the lining up in 30 different formations and doing exactly zero of them well.
September 9th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
13
chg says:
I have to second Mike. If the South Carolina-NC State game was a cripple fight, Miami-FSU was cripples with flamethrowers.
September 9th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
14
janus09 says:
#10
Yes, you are a homer. That was bad bad football. South Carolina was obviously far more talented than NC St. but it came down to the wire because South Carolina couldn’t do anything at all right.
And it’s about time that someone pointed out what the real story with Oregon-Boise St. was. Oregon graduated the core of a great offensive line and the new one could not support even a little bit of a run game.
People liked to say it was Blount’s fault for his poor rushing but he was being met the second he touched the ball on every single run. Boise was setting up penetration at exactly where Blount would receive the ball on a read option. They had a single mindedness to stop Blount on the option and it worked.
September 9th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
15
wfguiteau says:
Thanks for answering my question. I kinda figured the answer would be something along the lines of “All happy offenses are the same, but each unhappy offense is unhappy in its own way.” Please keep this column coming, it’s beautiful.
I do have another question: is Paul Johnson really as brilliant as you keep hyping, Chris? Nesbitt seems to fumble a lot, and although he’s still running an offense with basically Chan Gailey’s tepid leftovers and doing it well, will it saturate out at some point?
September 9th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
16
Tim says:
Not necessarily better football, but in this case it was. A low scoring game does not always mean two defensive powerhouses either.
September 9th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
17
JoeDawg says:
Ah, the Auburn/MSU game. A special place in hell is reserved for the copyright fascists who stripped “Live to Win” from the EDSBS highlight video.
September 9th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
18
Irish09 says:
For further information, please see “Dame, Notre; 2007 Season.”
September 9th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
19
Anonymous IV says:
#15, Two of my great loves came together right there, Tolstoy and college football.
Thank you!
September 9th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
20
Chris says:
wfguiteau,
Regarding Johnson, I know I hype Johnson and much it is in the same way I hype Mike Leach: they are great coaches, they absolutely know their offenses to an incredible degree, and I get great aesthetic pleasure in watching their teams go, and maybe even more when things are quite right because you can see the gears turning as they try different things and make adjustments. But that’s not to say that they will win every game, or their offenses are perfect, or even that they are appropriate for every team. I don’t see a big reason for USC, with all their talent and great defense, to run an offense like the flexbone or the Airraid. But if you watch those two teams play you’ll learn a lot of football. They do a wonderful job with the talent they are given.
The other correlation between both is that, whether they are geniuses or not, they know their schemes. So that’s one reason why I recommend watching their teams, enjoy watching their teams. You can peel back the veil and see what they are doing. That’s not the case with some other teams.
I use those extreme examples but I’m not saying that having a good offense is limited to being flexbone or Airraid. There’s lots of good run-first spread teams, pro-style teams, traditional option teams, etc. No offense is perfect — if everybody ran the offense everyone agreed was the best of all offenses that offense would still only win 50% of the games.
September 9th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
21
Mr.Pelican Pants says:
Alabamas fortunes are tied to the O-Line for sure, and left tackle(see Sugar Bowl) When Saban was out recruiting and picking up these young linemen, I knew we were putting the pieces together for a shot at a balanced offense. Once we picked up a decent QB, an elite receiver and a few elite backs, I knew we would be scoring some points. On the D-line side, Mt. Cody is such a disruptive force by having to be double-teamed, he literally pushes the center back so that running any traps or kick out blocks by either guard is screwed, and that allows one of Sabans D-backs to tee off on someone and force a hurried handoff or hurried pass. I think Saban would like to face USC and a freshmen QB, cause his defensive schemes are like the DaVinci Code with helmets.
September 9th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
22
Kevin@LSU says:
Here’s some food for thought, although I may be off base on this theory but I just thought of it.
Does a team benefit more from having an explosive offense or a superb defense?
I say having a awesome offense helps more because I believe it allows that team to score more easily, even on a great defense. Though they may not score as much, they can still score. So, the chance for a team to win is greater due to the potential of straight up outscoring their opponent, even if they aren’t the better team.
Now say this team has a great defense but a shitty offense. They maybe able to stop a team from scoring a lot of points but they won’t score on a consistent enough by either making their opponent’s defense look good, or by self-inflicted wounds. So, for a team like this, losing a low scoring game is probable and winning a shoot-out is near impossible.
I guess what it boils down to is creating opportunities. A good defense has to play a great game for a complete game in order to make up for a lack of offence, while great offenses can score in bunches, overwhelming the opponents defense while boosting their own team’s defense.
Does this make sense to anyone?
September 9th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
23
Janus09 says:
#20
Nobody that doesn’t start Vince Young at QB, given the choice, would want to play USC in an out of conference game.
Though they may have a true freshman QB, he is behind one of the best O-lines in college football and in front of the deepest group of RB’s in college football.
September 9th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
24
Golden Hand says:
@15. Paul Johnson went to three NC games in 4 years at Georgia Southern, and won two of them. He averaged 8 wins a year at Navy after his first year, with bottom 10 recruiting classes every year. Yes, he really is that freakin’ brilliant. Nesbitt’s in the top 10 in the nation in passing efficiency after an admittedly mediocre overall offensive performance against a Div. II squad (albeit a kickass Div. II squad). Mediocre as in 497 yards of total offense, 335 on the ground.
Tech might win only 8 this year because of fumblititis, but considering the recruiting handicap at the Georgia Institute of Nerdology, anything over .500 can be chalked up to coaching (yes, and that’s a plug for Chan Gailey not sucking as much as you think).
September 9th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
25
wfguiteau says:
@22
What you’re observing depends on how good the defense is. The example that comes to my mind is the Baltimore Ravens team that won the Super Bowl with Trent Dilfer at the helm. Dilfer is not a great quarterback, but he didn’t make any critical turnovers, and his defense was allowed to storm through the playoffs absolutely crushing any offense they faced. Such a team can exist in the NFL, because that defense was populated by stars that played together professionally, gelled together, and had a few years to play together before they made that run.
College teams are much less likely to have a defense that good, since a good defense is much more “system” than “individual players”. Look at Tennessee last year. Eric Berry is a god damned stud with a ball magnet and a propensity for dispensing pain on anyone in the secondary, and that team hemorrhaged points.
Offenses have to be on the same page, and it’s best to be on the same page, but it seems to me that they have an intrinsic advantage since the defense is reacting to the offensive play, which they don’t know in the beginning of the play. My take is that a great defense would be able to win and win consistently and well, but that it’s easier to develop a powerful offense and play above average defense, and win games 30-20 rather than 7-3.
The 7-3 win strategy also suffers some volatility. If you can expect your defense to keep opponents under, say, 1 points per game, that means your team has to score more than that. If your offense can be expected to score 20 points, that might be a nontrivial task to pull off week in and week out. By contrast, if you know your offense is good for 30 points every week, the other team has to match that tally, which might put upward pressure on their offensive system.
At the end of every match, to quote John Madden, the team with the most points wins. If you can consistently do that by playing games with scores that resemble baseball scores, then you are probably going to be just as successful as if you are going balls out and gunning for fifty every week. The only problem I see is that, with low scoring games, there is less margin of error for fluctuations in the scores before you drop a few games that a team with a bigger offense would have pulled through.
September 9th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
26
This Guy says:
Homerism accepted, but FSU-Miami and USC-NCSU are two sides of the same coin. The BYU-Oklahoma game, on the other hand, featured three touchdowns and sixty bazillion eyes on it because it was two teams playing really good football.
September 9th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
27
Magic Hobo says:
@10, Mia/Fl.St didn’t blow a number of easy FG chances. They didn’t go for it on fourth down in the first half for no real apparent reason. They didn’t bobble every single damn pass, even when it hit them straight in the numbers. They didn’t try running it on 3-and-15. And they were able to recover from unfortunate, inopportune penalties.
It wasn’t quality stopping quality that led to 7-3, it was idiot-versus-loser.
September 9th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
28
Nate says:
I love watching a true option team that really knows their stuff. To the casual observer it likes the same 5-8 plays run over and over again. If you watch the blocking you can see when they adjust to disrupt the defensive keys and all of a sudden the start breaking big runs off on the D. Nothing killed the wishbone except roster limits and recruiting. Elite backs were fed the same old lines about how they wouldn’t get enough carries. The old veer option is nigh impossible to stop when the QB reads it correctly.
Gary Croton at LSU is the worst offender in the “grab-bag” category. Is LSU an I-formation, spread option, or spread passing team?
September 9th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
29
Kevin@LSU says:
@ 28
LSU is more of a spread-I-pistol-coast
September 9th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
30
chg says:
@27, USC-NC State did not blow a number of extra point chances. They also did not go for it on 4th down in the first half at all, and they combined for one run on 3rd and 10 or more. They didn’t treat tackling as optional, allow receivers to run free for easy scores, did not each demonstrate an inability to pin the other team inside the 40 on kickoffs, did not leave a receiver to sit in a wide open spot in the end zone on the game’s penultimate play, and did not then miss said WR, thus blowing the free gift.
It wasn’t quality offense that led to 38-34. It was horribly incompetent defense and special teams.
Each game was poorly played on one side of the ball by both teams, but most people prefer shiny points to defense.
September 9th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
31
Kecalf Bailey says:
Another application of the Anna Karenina principle:
Good offenses are all alike; every bad offense is bad in its own way.
I like Paul Johnson, and once on the radio he raised a good point. He said if a team passes for 300 yards and runs for 150, they are a great offense with great balance, but whenever his team runs for 300 and passes for 150, they say it’s a run-only offense, and he thinks that hypocrisy is total bullshit.
(his words, not mine).
September 9th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
32
Mike says:
As I stated in my disclaimer, I am a bonified homer. However, I feel USC’s defense is very, very good. They will get the opportunity to prove that against some good teams this year: Florida, Bama, Ole Miss, etc.
I do agree that USC’s offense was inept, but when you are confident the other team will not/can not score on you, why try to be cute with Steven “Mac” Garcia.
Frankly, we left a minimum of 6 pts on the board with a bobble snap and missed 27 yd FG. We also had a TD called back for offensive PI, that could have gone uncalled.
I know woulda, shoulda, coulda, but if the score was 20-3, instead of 7-3, I’m not sure everyone would be piling on.
By the way, FSU did miss an extra point, so they weren’t perfect in that respect. Further, if you can’t see that FSU’s and Miami’s secondaries got torched, I’m not sure we were watching the same game.
September 9th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
33
Jeremy says:
This “The best defense is a good offense” philosophy is a debate as old as football itself. However, we’ve made a mistake in how we’ve framed the debate as “Which is better? A great offense with a mediocre defense or a good defense with NO offense?” Of course the team with the great offense is better overall in that scenario. However, if a team can’t stop ANYBODY on ANY possession, even their great offense will sputter on a possession here and there and they’ll be outscored 56-49 or somesuch score.
Personally, I think a strong defense combined with a consistently productive running game (meaning they have a good RB or two and a competent OL) is probably better for an underdog/undertalented team than a big time passing team who scores in bunches but struggles to play defense or shorten the game when necessary.
September 9th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
34
Mr. Pelican Pants says:
I’ll take great defense with more than 4 first round draft picks, sprinkled with a few 2nd rounders, a possession QB, good running backs to move the chains, a game breaker on special teams, and a ballsy Def Coordinator, FTW, Alex….
And your answer in the form of a question is:
What is _____________?
September 9th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
35
AERose says:
“I pray I don’t live to see another sorry east/west zone read run again.”
You might want to skip Oregon games this year.
September 9th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
36
janus09 says:
#30
I won’t argue that there was some horrific defense on the field at times during Mia-Fl St., but both teams put some great offensive plays together that South Carolina or NC St. would not have stopped and been plenty of enough to win a game against those incompetent offenses.
Specifically, Harris’s beautiful flag pass to the sidelines on their final drive. That was perfect and nobody’s defense was stopping it. There was NOTHING close to that in South Carolina – NC St.
September 9th, 2009 at 8:22 pm
37
Shpip says:
@32,
Who was it that bent you over and slipped it to you to make you “bonified?” (sic)
/pedant
September 9th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
38
CA Dawg says:
(Gasps for breath)… Listen, Bobo. Liiisten!
September 9th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
39
James C. says:
N.C. State deserves some credit defensively for what they did in negating South Carolina’s offense. It wasn’t ALL Steven Garcia sucking. After the gimme score in the first quarter, SC did score another point for the remainder of the night.
And don’t give me the “phantom” PI call that negated the SC touchdown…that was as clear a pushoff as you’ll ever see. He extended his arms, right in front of the official, no less.
September 9th, 2009 at 11:25 pm
40
DK says:
“Good offenses are all alike; every bad offense is bad in its own way”. Was that Tolstoy, or was it Chekov?
That said, I do know this: show me a team that has a disappointing year, and i can usually show you a team having problems on the offensive line.
Regarding volatility, I would argue that one of the greatest variants is always weather. Artificial surfaces may have mitigated that somewhat, but in much of the country terrible weather will have an effect on what can be executed.
It may be a cliche, but a good offense needs to be able to effectively strike at various points horizontally and vertically at any given time. A poor offense or defense will be deficient in one or more of those areas.
Would you rather have a terrible offense or a terrible defense? A terrible offense will get the OC and the HC fired faster, so in terms of job security the offense is more important. High scoring games will put more butts in seats…but won’t win you championships. They may be weak in other areas, but I don’t think you will find too many championship teams deficient on defense or on the offensive line.
What coaches like Johnson or Leach and many in the greatest of the history of the game do by being thorough in whatever they teach is they eliminate doubt in the minds of their players.Terrible offenses (and defenses) will generally doubt themselves- in their schemes, in their coaches, and/or in their teammates. The exact system doesn’t matter so much as the lack confidence in what they are doing.
September 11th, 2009 at 3:55 am