Online Now 3108

The Bodda Getta

The place for Tiger fans to talk football, basketball and recruiting

On this Board 1217
Record: 6992 (11/25/2012)

Online now 2292
Record: 9788 (12/4/2012)

Boards ▾

The Bodda Getta

The place for Tiger fans to talk football, basketball and recruiting

Dye Hard All Topic

The place for Tiger fans to talk about everything Auburn and not!

The Ticket Exchange

Buy and sell your Auburn Tiger tickets here.

Reply

Is 2012 season "Transitional" or "Systemic"?

  • I have grouped the reasons for our slow start into 2 categories: Transitional or Systemic-defined as follows:
    Transitional-new OC, new DC, change of offensive system from spread to pro style, young team.
    Systemic-wrong HC, wrong OC, wrong DC, wrong staff, bad play calling, lack of player development, lack of team chemistry.

    If the problems are transitional then we should show improvement by seasons end.
    If the problems are systemic we will show little, if any, improvements throughout the season.

    After the LSU game I'm starting to believe we are in transition and the future of Auburn Football is good.

    signature image signature image signature image

    Alabama fans love Alabama football Auburn fans love Auburn University

    AU22Or19

  • This post is for members of AuburnUndercover only. Join now! 7-Day Free Trial

    jcggolfnut

  • This post is for members of AuburnUndercover only. Join now! 7-Day Free Trial

    TigerzBaby

  • AU22Or19 said...

    I have grouped the reasons for our slow start into 2 categories: Transitional or Systemic-defined as follows: Transitional-new OC, new DC, change of offensive system from spread to pro style, young team. Systemic-wrong HC, wrong OC, wrong DC, wrong staff, bad play calling, lack of player development, lack of team chemistry.

    If the problems are transitional then we should show improvement by seasons end. If the problems are systemic we will show little, if any, improvements throughout the season.

    After the LSU game I'm starting to believe we are in transition and the future of Auburn Football is good.

    I agree with most of your points and I also agree that we'll know whether it's transitional or systemic by the end of the year.

    Having said that, I think too much is being made about "play calling." Each and every play is designed to succeed if everyone does his job. There are no plays designed for failure. If a team is having success, there are some clever ways to mix plays to enhance that success. If there is a single mismatch, clever play calling can avoid that mismatch. But if a team is struggling, fancy play calling doesn't help much especially in a conventional or pro-style offense. The "spread" uses the concept of avoiding defensive strengths and optimizing offensive strengths by getting players in space, therefore we see many weaker teams like ULM and Utah State giving traditional powers a hard time. The pro-style offense is about power, speed, and every man doing his job regardless of what play is called.

    If we can't make any yards on the sweep, then we must run it inside. But if we keep running it inside, the defense will eventually do whatever is required to stop it. If we can't connect in the passing game.... Well, you get the picture. Play execution is far more important than play calling. Right now we aren't executing in most cases. The plays we run well are so few that a good defense has little trouble making the adjustment. Therefore, I think rather than putting play calling in the systemic category it would be more appropriate to put play execution in the transitional category.

    whamil77

  • whamil77 said...

    I agree with most of your points and I also agree that we'll know whether it's transitional or systemic by the end of the year.

    Having said that, I think too much is being made about "play calling." Each and every play is designed to succeed if everyone does his job. There are no plays designed for failure. If a team is having success, there are some clever ways to mix plays to enhance that success. If there is a single mismatch, clever play calling can avoid that mismatch. But if a team is struggling, fancy play calling doesn't help much especially in a conventional or pro-style offense. The "spread" uses the concept of avoiding defensive strengths and optimizing offensive strengths by getting players in space, therefore we see many weaker teams like ULM and Utah State giving traditional powers a hard time. The pro-style offense is about power, speed, and every man doing his job regardless of what play is called.

    If we can't make any yards on the sweep, then we must run it inside. But if we keep running it inside, the defense will eventually do whatever is required to stop it. If we can't connect in the passing game.... Well, you get the picture. Play execution is far more important than play calling. Right now we aren't executing in most cases. The plays we run well are so few that a good defense has little trouble making the adjustment. Therefore, I think rather than putting play calling in the systemic category it would be more appropriate to put play execution in the transitional category.

    I agree with this post. Our offensive players need to line up and whip the guy across from them and then whatever play is called will work. That being said, the defense is without a doubt in transition, the jury is still out on the offense. I am very pleased we are going to a pro-style offense, but we don't know enough about CSL yet to know if he is the guy to lead us there. I'm sure CGC has seen enough at this point to know and I'm sure that he'll keep that assessment close to his vest.

    Rbl92

  • whamil77 said...

    Having said that, I think too much is being made about "play calling." Each and every play is designed to succeed if everyone does his job. There are no plays designed for failure. If a team is having success, there are some clever ways to mix plays to enhance that success. If there is a single mismatch, clever play calling can avoid that mismatch. But if a team is struggling, fancy play calling doesn't help much especially in a conventional or pro-style offense. The "spread" uses the concept of avoiding defensive strengths and optimizing offensive strengths by getting players in space, therefore we see many weaker teams like ULM and Utah State giving traditional powers a hard time. The pro-style offense is about power, speed, and every man doing his job regardless of what play is called.

    If we can't make any yards on the sweep, then we must run it inside. But if we keep running it inside, the defense will eventually do whatever is required to stop it. If we can't connect in the passing game.... Well, you get the picture. Play execution is far more important than play calling. Right now we aren't executing in most cases. The plays we run well are so few that a good defense has little trouble making the adjustment. Therefore, I think rather than putting play calling in the systemic category it would be more appropriate to put play execution in the transitional category.

    I agree in part with your statement. No play is designed to fail. Play calling is about exploiting mismatches, adapting to what is working or putting the QB (and team) is a better position to succeed.

    I know this is just one play, but against Clermson we were having good success running the ball off-tackle and around end. In the 2nd half we had a 3rd and short in Clemson territory. We ran right up the middle for no gain. I thought it was the wrong play.

    This post was edited by AU22Or19 on 9/25/2012 at 11:44 AM

    signature image signature image signature image

    Alabama fans love Alabama football Auburn fans love Auburn University

    AU22Or19

  • This post is for members of AuburnUndercover only. Join now! 7-Day Free Trial

    PCFLJimbo140951

  • AU22Or19 said...

    I agree in part with your statement. No play is designed to fail. Play calling is about exploiting mismatches, adapting to what is working or putting the QB (and team) is a better position to succeed.

    I know this is just one play, but against Clermson we were having good success funning the ball off-tackle and around end. In the 2nd half we had a 3rd and short in Clemson territory. We ran right up the middle for no gain. I thought it was the wrong play.

    And if we had run off tackle and not made it, someone would have said we should have run it up the middle. When our guys are lining up and whipping the guys across from them play calling is easy. When they are not, play calling is tough. In no way am I trying to point fingers at anyone especially players. The coaches are responsible for recruiting talent and coaching it up. I'm just saying, play calling?, really?

    Rbl92

Auburn
247Sports
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports