Although the two of you are being snarky with each other (nothing new there), the point is actually relevant to some of the recent discussions in this and other threads.
While neither of you, nor I, would call a swing pass or WR screen the same thing as a run play, it is useful for discussion purposes to recognize that for Mike Leach, those two things fill part of the role in his offense that, for other offenses, a running play would fill. So no, they are not the same thing. But for Leach, those two plays are the sort of bread and butter short range, high probability play that many offenses would use a run to fulfill. They fit the Leach AR concept better than a run, because they spread the field more than a run would do, and that is integral to Leach's concept.
There are two areas where the AR hits a snag with an over-reliance on those sorts of plays; one we've discussed ad nauseum and one we haven't. The ad nauseum issue is execution. CML wants to see a completion % of close to 70% because it means that the passes were made and executed, but that does not mean that the blocking that may have been needed (WR screens especially) was executed. A lot of those WR screen completions went for little or no gain (and sometimes even a loss) because the blocking was not there. The less discussed point but in my view perhaps the most important has to do with the personnel that the D has on the field.
What I think Jimmie Lake recognized that so many others have missed is that it is not just "rush 3/drop 8". It is more about what players you have rushing 3 and dropping 8, and the scheme they use. Jimmy was perhaps the first in the PAC to recognize that you didn't need 3 guys who could stop a rush on the line, because there was only a 6-8% chance of a running play, and if you schemed the D properly (right number in the box) you could even trigger the run in those situations...so you were essentially never surprised by a run. So rather than linemen who were good against the rush, what you needed were your best 3 pass rushers, or a rotation that kept 3 good pass rushers fresh. You did not need a true inside LB unless you were inside the 15 yard line, because the chances of needing to fight off an O lineman trying to execute a run block were really minimal. So the 8 that you were dropping were a mix of DB's...safeties and cornerbacks...and maybe an outside LB if the guy was really quick.
What seems pretty clear to me after the LSU and Arkansas games is that if an SEC team arrogantly thinks that their usual way of doing business on D is fine for the air raid, Leach will pull an LSU on them. On the other hand, the SEC's worst team the past several years beat Leach by copying Jimmy Lake, right down to putting the best pass rushers on the line and having a back 8 that was mostly DB's. Arkansas went a step further, and also did a credible job of copying Lake's back 8 coverage schemes, at least to an average fan's view. Presumably LSU had more & better athletes than Arkansas...but the Arkansas D staff clearly out-coached the LSU D staff. And while it is possible that MSU was overconfident and did not prepare with enough intensity, I think we've seen both ends of the SEC spectrum that Leach will face. A team with better athletes was poorly coached and lost. A team with likely a little poorer athletes was properly coached and beat MSU. And since MSU is still learning the air raid, the level of execution that Leach needs to win against a well coached team is not likely to be there on offense this season. MSU seemed to have a pretty good D, and they may contribute enough to help MSU get some wins. But barring some impressive strides in execution this year, the LSU signature upset may be about all they have to brag about...unless other SEC D coordinators are as dumb as the LSU D coordinator.
And MSU won't run the ball any more than WSU did. So their execution needs a big improvement, and that includes blocking on WR screens.
