WSU OFFENSIVE NOTEBOOK: It's Time To Air It Out
by Craig Powers on Sep 14, 2010 2:30 PM PDT
Email
PrintOn the heels of fanposts by Fightfightfight and TiltingRight, both calling for some changes to the offensive scheme, I decided to do a little research of my own.
Upon looking at the stats, one thing has become clearly obvious: This team needs to change it's run/pass ratio.
In two games so far, the Cougs have 77 rushing attempts and 59 passing attempts. Now I realize there are a number of those rushing attempts that came on called passes that ended in sacks or scrambles, but overall it would be safe to assume that this teams runs the ball more than it passes. A LOT more.
Consider that the Cougs have seen large deficits in both of their games thus far and the disproportianate run:pass ratio is even more surprising.
It's not that running is always bad thing. Running can be a great thing, but only if a team is effective in running the ball. So far, the Cougs have been a team that attempts to pound the ball first and pass later. The problem is, when an offensive unit only puts up 2.9 yards-per-carry, passing becomes less of an option and more of a requirement. Defenses love when passing is a requirement.
Still think "establishing the run" is important for the Cougs' success? I'll point you to a study published by Football Outsiders back in 2003. They took the data from the 2002 NFL season and tried to find correlations between teams that run early and overall success. Here is a little snippet that tells you a lot of what you need to know:
Statisticians have a concept called the correlation coefficient that measures how much one variable influences another variable. A correlation of 1 means the two variables are completely connected; 0 means they have no connection.
The correlation between first quarter rushing attempts and team wins is a measly .171. That means there is almost no connection between running a lot in the first quarter, and winning a lot of games. The correlation between fourth quarter rushing attempts and team wins, on the other hand, is .750. That's a sizeable relationship.
Essentially, teams that won in 2002 were running the ball a lot in the 4th quarter, not the first quarter. Why? Because they were running out the clock. Obviously, this is an NFL study and it is eight years olds, but it is safe to assume that football has not changed a whole lot in the last two years and with the flood of pro-style offenses in College Football, it still holds weight. Football Outsiders obviously feels this way, as they continue to feature the article.
This lack of correlation between running and winning is compounded when a team cannot run the ball effectively, as is the case with the Washington State Cougars. What's most interesting about this team is that they seem to try to pound the ball EVEN MORE when down. In the third quarter of Saturday's game against Montana State, the Cougs started the second half running 7 out of their first twelve plays as the Bobcats built their lead. That ratio did not flip until WSU took over possession down 15 points with just over 17 minutes left in the game.
It would seem that Washington State wants to continue to pound the ball until it is absolutely necessary to throw. This needs to change, but do we have the personnel to do it? (Click the jump for more)
It would appear that we do. Wide Receiver may be WSU's most talented and deep unit. Jared Karstetter, Gino Simone, Marquess Wilson, Daniel Blackledge, Isiah Barton, and company all have the ability to make plays. The Cougs have a mixture of big guys on the outside and quick guys across the middle. This group should be able to hold their own against most secondaries in the Pac-10.
The pass protection is obviously not the best, but it looks improved over the previous two years. Mixing in some designed rollouts and running out of the shotgun can really help with some of the collapsing pocket issues.
So what about Jeff Tuel?
We know he has a strong arm and he is most certainly accurate. Compare his numbers to the heralded sophomore over at Stanford, Andrew Luck , and you will see that their completion percentages are very similar (Luck's career completion percentage is at 56.7, while Tuel's is at 57.5), and Tuel has not had the luxury of Toby Gerhart and a stout offensive line. Put them up against the last four-year starter at quarterback for the Cougs and there is no comparison for their early statistics. Alex Brink threw 194 passes his freshman year, and completed half of them. Tuel has connected on 57.5% of his first 179 passes.
I am very confident that if given the opportunity to air it out, Jeff Tuel and company will be a more successful offense. Running the ball 40 times a game when you are only getting 2.9 yards a carry is inexcusable. I realize it is not that simple to just suddenly throwing the ball more. Coaches may be worried about risking injury to their young quarterback behind a suspect offensive line. But I ask this, what is more dangerous? Throwing the ball on obvious passing downs when the defense can pin their ears back and come for the quarterback? Or throwing the ball when the defense has to respect the run as well?
It is time to call more passes Cougs. Let's see what this young offense is capable of. If for no other reason than what we are doing right now is not working.
75 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I am not a Price fan
For this very reason. For as long as I’ve been a Coug, the mantra has too often been “run for nothing, pass short, scramble around and get sacked, punt”. It’s not new with Wulff, I remember complaining about the same thing in ’98, ’99, even ’03.
I’ve wondered for years why we always seem to run on 1st down. It’s not like it has ever worked worth a damn, yet every week…
I was maddened by that first throw for an interception last week, but at least we did something different. We threw the ball on first down. It was great to see.
I feel this way too
For what it’s worth, here are the first down plays against Montana State:
Interception, Rush -1, Rush 0, Rush 2, Rush 70, Sack -3, Rush 4, Incomplete Pass, Rush -1, Rush -2, Rush 5, Pass 13, Rush 11, Incomplete Pass, Rush 5, Rush 5, Rush 3, Rush 2, Pass 12, Rush 2, Pass 19, Rush 3, Incomplete Pass, Rush -2, Pass 7, Pass 19, Rush 1, Kneel.
Apart from the big run, we averaged 2.6ypc on 1st down. Meanwhile, we averaged 6.7 ypa throwing on 1st down, with one sack, one interception, and one TD. In terms of success, counting 3 yard gains successful on 1st down, rushing worked 39% of the time, while passing worked 50% of the time. Of course, passing was more risk / reward too.
by johnnycougar on Sep 14, 2010 3:16 PM PDT up reply actions
I hope they do something different.
They need to be more aggressive on both offense and defense. Maybe that has been this coaching staff’s problem all along, they are just too conservative trying not to lose rather than trying to win. Hopefully they learned something in the 4th quarter of that last game.
I mainly agree but have a couple points
First, considering that in two games we have rushed 18 times more than passed, and you say that you “realize there are a number of those rushing attempts that came on called passes that ended in sacks or scrambles,” then there is no evidence we’ve run more than passed. 9 pass plays that turned into sacks or scrambles would even up the tally for each at 68 plays. I think the play calling has been fairly balanced, if unsuccessful as you rightly point out.
Second, there is still too small of a sample size for me, especially considering that our first game was a blowout. I recall from the game thread that people were complaining Tuel was checking down too much – possibly because OK State was throttling us and playing not to give up the big play? That would lead to falsely inflated passing accuracy numbers and yardage.
Those points aside, it is clear from watching the games that we have a better passing attack than running attack. I’m all for opening up and setting up the run with the pass. I know in years past Wulff has been worried that we’ll go 3 and out so easily by passing that the defense will get gassed too quickly, but I think we have to risk it.
I would argue that balance isn't always the best course of action, and might not be for WSU
See the Seahawks on Sunday as an example of how throwing out balance can work from time to time.
Balance should be more on a YPA standard than a number-of-plays-called standard.
In the case of the Hawks, they had a 7.2 to 3.3 advantage for passing. Other than running out the clock, there wasn’t reason for them to run more than a couple times against the 49ers.
Well, exactly
I just think that’s his rationale. Not agreeing with it!
by johnnycougar on Sep 14, 2010 3:17 PM PDT up reply actions
Good points.
One question: If Montana State does not go up 22-7 and it stays around a one possession game, do you think the team keeps calling runs on first down? We might see an even higher run:pass ratio then.
CougCenter Formerly known as Dancing Football
Twitter!
by Craig Powers on Sep 14, 2010 3:35 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
True
I think that would have been likely
by johnnycougar on Sep 14, 2010 4:28 PM PDT up reply actions
What? You want to talk FOOTBALL????
Screw this, I want to talk about Paul Wulff. You’re dumb, Craig.
We exist solely to stir the pot on Paul Wulff
This “analysis” is something that simply doesn’t belong at a message board like CougCenter.
Nope.
He’s still our pal.
CougCenter Formerly known as Dancing Football
Twitter!
by Craig Powers on Sep 14, 2010 3:45 PM PDT up reply actions
Our relationship status is currently at "It's Complicated"
by Brian Floyd on Sep 14, 2010 3:46 PM PDT up reply actions 4 recs
I took his question far more literally than you did.
CougCenter Formerly known as Dancing Football
Twitter!
by Craig Powers on Sep 14, 2010 3:49 PM PDT up reply actions
They had
his wolfpack speech on the stalls in Stephenson for like 2 months last year
Cougar999 version 2.0. Now with a shorter name!
Actually "In an open relationship" might be more appropriate
Cougar999 version 2.0. Now with a shorter name!
Apologies.
I’ll go back to my nonsense posts now.
CougCenter Formerly known as Dancing Football
Twitter!
by Craig Powers on Sep 14, 2010 3:43 PM PDT up reply actions
No, you can stay
I’m just going to leave to go back to my baseless speculation and see if firepaulwulff.com is available.
This comment would have been more effective with a "your dumb" or maybe even "ur dum"
by johnnycougar on Sep 14, 2010 4:29 PM PDT up reply actions
We have a high standard here, even in sarcastic insults.
CougCenter Formerly known as Dancing Football
Twitter!
by Craig Powers on Sep 14, 2010 4:29 PM PDT up reply actions
This is a very Highbrow site.
"John, I was first team All-State. I can put the ball anywhere I want to. I'll make it rain out here." - Jeremy Grey
I like the idea of more passing
Tuel is still a bit jumpy back there, but I do feel that once he gets more acclimated to the fact that he does actually have a tad more time than in the past he will start accomplishing check offs. Also, as he adapts, he will get better at recognizing what the defense is giving, and taking it. I am a firm believer that stretching the field, regardless of completions, keeps that SS and FS honest and hold the blitzers at bay a bit more. I agree that while not the most stellar set of WR’s ever- this is a solid group for the Cougs and they need to be utilized more fully. Dropped slants against OK ST cost the Cougs several first downs. I still say run it until they make an adjustment to stop it- then throw at the hole created by the adjustment. Spread ’em- and throw that hog!
If you can't Go Cougs... don't go.
The strength is the depth at WR
So throwing the ball more out of three- and four-wide sets should be able to generate mismatches if the correct plays are called and executed properly. Much more so that lining up double tight or with a power-I, both of which I think I saw far too much of on Saturday. That just does not play to the strength of our personnel.
Exactly!
On the replay I was wondering if Sturdy thought he was Woody frickin’ Hayes! Honestly, keeping it at a 3 receiver set with a TE or H-Back for your base formation gives you a LOT of flexibility. You motion someone every play and you’ve got dozens of looks out of the same formation that will give you numbers leverage or misdirection at a different point of attack every time.
When you line up 9 guys in the box, you invite 8 or 9 defensive guys to do the same, and THAT’S how you end up with a 2.9ypc average.
by TiltingRight on Sep 15, 2010 1:20 AM PDT up reply actions
Todd Sturdy has a strong suit?
I’ll bet it’s Chinese Checkers. Perhaps Connect 4?
by Kyle Rancourt on Sep 15, 2010 1:40 PM PDT up reply actions
I agree with throwing it more.
What is wrong with throwing it more. Look at Mike Leach’s offense…he was pretty successful. We are going to get a good look at throwing this weekend with June Jones’s offense. We will probably have to throw more just to keep up. Remember the numbers Colt Brennen put up in June Jones offense. I hate to admit it, but I think the way college football is going WSU might need a gimmicky offense. Smaller market teams seem to do well with these offenses. If you look at smaller schools many of them go this route. Brian Kelly was successful at Cincinnati when he passed a lot and look at Oregon’s crazy spread option…that offense is putting up a ton of points.
"John, I was first team All-State. I can put the ball anywhere I want to. I'll make it rain out here." - Jeremy Grey
Gimmicky offenses are only gimmicky until everyone else copies them
Dennis Erickson and especially Mike Price were gimmicky early on with their new-fangled one-back offense …
True,
I feel like it is trendy thing. For instance, the Wild Cat or Pistol offense (Nevada now UCLA). I am already starting to see people take note of Chip Kelly and Rich Rodriguez’s offenses.
"John, I was first team All-State. I can put the ball anywhere I want to. I'll make it rain out here." - Jeremy Grey
It doesn't have to be gimmicky.
The run and shoot and those types of spread offenses operate on the same basic principles as Dennis Erickson and Mike Price’s one back sets. They choose to emphasize other things to create additional pressure on the defense, but playcalling aside, Price and Erickson’s “old” systems are still very much sound.
by TiltingRight on Sep 15, 2010 1:23 AM PDT up reply actions
The one-back is honestly my preferred offensive system
And not just in video games. I love the flexibility it gives you.
Mine too.
Particularly if you’ve got an athletic TE who can motion to the backfield or split out.
Goes back to the idea of motion giving different points of leverage or misdirection.
by TiltingRight on Sep 15, 2010 11:34 AM PDT up reply actions
Same, here.
I remember years and years ago reading how a lot of NFL teams still thought it was crazy that Mike Shannahan would run out of the same single back formations he’d pass out of. MADNESS! HOW CAN YOU NOT RUN WITH A FULLBACK?!
There is nothing wrong with throwing the ball a lot.
It’s currently the most advantageous way to approach football games, and probably the Cougars’ offensive strength.
The answer to your question is simply that “it’s not the way it’s done!” When the Browns entered the NFL, they dominated the defending champion Eagles. After the game, the Eagles complained that the Browns threw the ball too often, saying they only won because they didn’t play the right way (Otto Graham was a notorious anti-establishment type). We’ve come a long way, but there’s still a lingering belief that you win by establishing the run and balancing your play calls and that’s the way football is played.
As a side note, the Browns met the Eagles later that year and beat them without throwing a single pass. Last time that’s ever happened.
When passing they
should at least make sure to run play action to slow up the defensive front, so Tuel has time to pass.
"John, I was first team All-State. I can put the ball anywhere I want to. I'll make it rain out here." - Jeremy Grey
Only one issue with play action
You’ve got to take your eyes off the defense. I’m a proponent of as little play action as possible with a young QB, unless it’s token PA out of the shotgun.
Bunch set
“Seattle”. That play is so money.
by Kyle Rancourt on Sep 15, 2010 1:42 PM PDT up reply actions
Lets just stay in the shotgun 80% of the time.
That way the QB can see the whole field and he can see the blitz coming. He can also adjust to his reads easier. Run a few draw plays from the shot gun to keep the defense honest. Lets do what we can with what he have. This isn’t USC.
"John, I was first team All-State. I can put the ball anywhere I want to. I'll make it rain out here." - Jeremy Grey
They ran a lot of play action in the 4th.
Probably every 3rd pass was a play action. I don’t have a problem with that, per se, but if we’re going to have to spot a lead for three quarters to make play action effective for our comeback in the 4th… yeah, I’m not okay with that.
by TiltingRight on Sep 15, 2010 1:25 AM PDT up reply actions
they ran a ton of screens at the practices I saw
Tuel and Staden were in sync and the work was tight. I have been hoping to see more of it. Got to figure out a way to keep team from jamming 8 in the box and storming the fort all the time.
If you can't Go Cougs... don't go.
by hollyweirdcoug on Sep 14, 2010 5:36 PM PDT up reply actions
I have heard of a lot of things that were seen in practice
That I have yet to see in either of the first two games.
Ya, screens do work well
in practice, on our own defense.
"John, I was first team All-State. I can put the ball anywhere I want to. I'll make it rain out here." - Jeremy Grey
The screens we have ran seem poorly executed.
CougCenter Formerly known as Dancing Football
Twitter!
by Craig Powers on Sep 14, 2010 5:43 PM PDT up reply actions
The jailbreak we ran to Wilson with Staden cut blocking the corner was fun
We saw some decent screen success last week. A fumbled negated one that went for about 15.
Yeah, I'm watching the game now.
That Montgomery fumble was a nice play until the end.
CougCenter Formerly known as Dancing Football
Twitter!
by Craig Powers on Sep 14, 2010 6:24 PM PDT up reply actions
Another good one to Staden on the first TD drive.
CougCenter Formerly known as Dancing Football
Twitter!
by Craig Powers on Sep 14, 2010 6:31 PM PDT up reply actions
we should run the ball more, not less
When USC was down 21-0 at the half at ASU a few years ago, what did they do? USC RAN THE BAL:L in the second half, and won the game. Running the ball, especially on the road, controls the clock, takes the opposing crowd out of the game, and breaks the will of the defense. I think the problem is that in spite of our lip service committment to running the ball, we don’t really mean it. We need at least 150 yards running the ball/game to keep the defense honest, and keep our own defense off the field. Passing the ball exclusively leads to to too many 3 and outs, and then our defense is back on the field. .i grant you that our results of running the ball on first down have been awful, but we are so predictable in our run game that the defense knows what we are doing.
—Our QB is still shaky in the passing game; he doesn’t set his feet, has sloppy mechanics, and is missing open receivers. Our receivers often drop the ball anyway. Running the ball takes the pressure off the passing game.
No
First, using what USC did as a comparison is terrible. Second, have you seen our run game? Third, an ineffective run game — which is what we’ve had the last two years — leads to three and outs, too. We are not a grind it out football team. As much as you may want us to be, we’re not.
Running the ball and the run blocking of our offensive line are not our strength. Jeff Tuel and the group of receivers are, on paper, the strength.
We try our best to get to a 150 yards.
Because we run 35 times a game. And we still don’t get there.
That’s fine that USC ran the ball and won that one game a couple years ago, but guess what? We aren’t USC and this isn’t that one game a couple years ago.
Passing the ball doesn’t lead to three and outs, not gaining ten yards in your first three plays leads to three and outs, and it doesn’t make any difference how you got there. We averaging 2.9 YPC. That is a recipe for three and outs.
Our running game is ineffective, as has been for the last two years. We can commit to it all we want, but that’s not going to make our offensive line block better all of the sudden.
CougCenter Formerly known as Dancing Football
Twitter!
by Craig Powers on Sep 14, 2010 7:48 PM PDT up reply actions
Touche.
CougCenter Formerly known as Dancing Football
Twitter!
by Craig Powers on Sep 15, 2010 4:56 AM PDT up reply actions
I feel like we have been questioning the play calling
for a few years now. First, we weren’t sure about this no huddle offense. Then Wulff and Co. decided that they didn’t have the personnel to run the no huddle. Then after scrapping the no huddle, they decided they had to dumb down the offense because they felt the players were not getting it. What is the reason now? I have seen offensive coordinators turn around offenses in one year. Okie St’s O-coordinator was new this year and they seemed okay for a first game, especially with a new QB. I think it is how the offense is communicated to the players and game day play calling, that is what makes the difference. I don’t think Wulff is the problem. If Wulff stays around I wouldn’t be surprised if we see a new O-coordinator. I wonder how Levy has done taking a back seat to all this? I wasn’t always happy with Levy, but (speaking of passing) this is what he did.
As the offensive coordinator, the Cougar pass offense finished in the top 21 nationally each season, including eighth in 2007, 10th in 2001 and 13th in 2002. WSU finished in the top 20 nationally in total offense in each of his first two years as coordinator, including an eighth-place finish in 2005.Craig is right something needs to happen with the play calling. I am not sure if Sturdy is Pac10 caliber O-coordinator. We need to keep our defense off the field this year and give them some time to breathe. Sometimes the best defense is offense.
"John, I was first team All-State. I can put the ball anywhere I want to. I'll make it rain out here." - Jeremy Grey
by SoCalCoug on Sep 14, 2010 9:37 PM PDT reply actions 2 recs
The hallmark of a tactically inept coach is worrying about "establishing the run"
I remember reading a book in middle school which disemboweled that canard. The book, at the time I was reading it in middle school, was 10 years old.
I’m now 25.
Do the math.
There’s no correlation between run effectiveness and pass effectiveness. There’s a correlation between total rush yards and winning, but it’s an inverse causal relationship to what’s usually referenced. It’s not that teams that run a lot win, it’s that teams that win run a lot (for precisely the referenced reason, they’re running out the clock).
Some number of run plays are needed to keep the defense honest (it’s what game theoreticians would call a mixed strategy). But it cannot possibly be correct to turn to the weaker of your two play choices the outright majority of the time.
"We don't want our people to be preoccupied with seminude, crazy men jumping up and down who are chasing an inflated object," said Sheik Mohamed Osman Arus, head of operations for the Hizbul Islam insurgent group.
by PaulThomas on Sep 14, 2010 10:15 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
I don't know how to do rec'd
or I would drop one on PaulThomas just for using the word canard on the forum!
If you can't Go Cougs... don't go.
by hollyweirdcoug on Sep 15, 2010 12:03 PM PDT up reply actions
thanks- I am watching the replay on FOX Pacific in socal BTW
If you can't Go Cougs... don't go.
by hollyweirdcoug on Sep 15, 2010 12:11 PM PDT up reply actions
You should FanPost your thoughts when you're done if you have time
I’d love to hear them.
by Brian Floyd on Sep 15, 2010 12:15 PM PDT up reply actions
Chris Brown -- who primarily focuses on college -- of the excellent Smart Football. . .
. . . essentially rips to pieces concepts like “you have to establish the run!” and “you need a balanced attack!” a lot. Balanced attack being 50/50 on play calls in this case.
Football is not some simplistic sport where you either run or pass. There are a wide range of ways to get balls to your best players for the best success rate and most yards as possible. If your running success isn’t rivaling your pass success, you keep passing. You have to run enough to keep the defense honest, but you don’t have to run because of some antiquated notion that it’s the way football is played or something.
whatever it takes
to matriculate the ball down the field
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Community Guidelines
Related FanPosts on CougCenter
Related FanShots on CougCenter
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
