Run first in the PAC for 2018?

[cr8zyncalif]

Stanford has been a run-first team for quite a while.

SC has no obvious returning game-changing passer, and probably will have both a good O line and good backs. I predict they will also run as often as they pass.

Arizona has Tate, who is more of a runner than a passer, at least to my eye. Sumlin is new to the PAC; no telling what he will do; but I'm guessing that if you count QB runs of all types, Arizona will run at least as often as they pass.

Utah has not had a good passer in what seems like ages (probably not that long, but it seems that way to me). And if there is a brilliant passer on the roster, I don't see him. Seems likely that Utah will run a lot this year.

If Colorado has the O line to pull it off, they will run a lot.

If Kelly had a QB of the sort that he likes, most of the comments about Tate & Arizona would also apply to UCLA...though even with a mobile QB, Chip will pass more than run. But the ratio won't be way out of whack.

And Peterson will run whenever he feels that he can control a game by doing so, and UW has what looks like a good O line for this fall.

So...is the PAC becoming a more run-oriented conference than 5 years ago? Is it a trend?

 

[M-I-Coug]

Interesting analogy. Would you agree, I see Peterson losing only one game this year?

 

[79COUG]

Interesting analogy. Would you agree, I see Peterson losing only one game this year?

Petersen has 100% buy-in from the kids in the uw program. With what he has coming back this year, I see MAYBE 1 loss. Do I long for the days of 0-12 to return? Yes, absolutely. Unfortunately as long as he's the coach I just don't see them ever finishing sub-500 again.

 

[BiggsCoug]

Stanford has been a run-first team for quite a while.

SC has no obvious returning game-changing passer, and probably will have both a good O line and good backs. I predict they will also run as often as they pass.

Arizona has Tate, who is more of a runner than a passer, at least to my eye. Sumlin is new to the PAC; no telling what he will do; but I'm guessing that if you count QB runs of all types, Arizona will run at least as often as they pass.

Utah has not had a good passer in what seems like ages (probably not that long, but it seems that way to me). And if there is a brilliant passer on the roster, I don't see him. Seems likely that Utah will run a lot this year.

If Colorado has the O line to pull it off, they will run a lot.

If Kelly had a QB of the sort that he likes, most of the comments about Tate & Arizona would also apply to UCLA...though even with a mobile QB, Chip will pass more than run. But the ratio won't be way out of whack.

And Peterson will run whenever he feels that he can control a game by doing so, and UW has what looks like a good O line for this fall.

So...is the PAC becoming a more run-oriented conference than 5 years ago? Is it a trend?

I swear QB is the worst evaluated, recruited and coached position in all of football. Is there another position where highly successful kids move from one level to the next and so many just flounder or fail or simply don't succeed for any number of reasons.... and when the issue comes up it's usually 100% the fault of the kid. The coach that couldn't coach worth a damn had nothing to do with it. The coach that put him into a system that suited none of his talents had nothing to do with it. No blocking? Bench the starter! Poor play calling? He needs to change position. Poor decision with the football? Not smart enough.

I just find it interesting that what is one of, if not the most important position to your offense has sooooo many teams that just can't seem to find a decent guy. Even though they picked thru the best of the best. How do kids that are lighting the world on fire wind up having zero talent at all???? I know there will be kids that just miss or kids that just don't quite turn the corner from one level to another. But damn near an entire conference without decent QB play???? With how many high school players to choose from every year??? And each school can't find just 1 guy???

Chip Kelly is probably the smartest guy in the room when he says "find what your quarterback does best and do that."

 

[avabob1]

I think the problem at QB is that there is really no shortage of big fast kids with great arms. College success comes down so much to the non measurable intangibles.

 

[M-I-Coug]

Petersen has 100% buy-in from the kids in the uw program. With what he has coming back this year, I see MAYBE 1 loss. Do I long for the days of 0-12 to return? Yes, absolutely. Unfortunately as long as he's the coach I just don't see them ever finishing sub-500 again.

Peterson may be the next SC for at least a decade.

 

[Loyal Coug]

Petersen has 100% buy-in from the kids in the uw program. With what he has coming back this year, I see MAYBE 1 loss. Do I long for the days of 0-12 to return? Yes, absolutely. Unfortunately as long as he's the coach I just don't see them ever finishing sub-500 again.losing to the Cougs again.

Fixed your post.

 

[BiggsCoug]

I think the problem at QB is that there is really no shortage of big fast kids with great arms. College success comes down so much to the non measurable intangibles.

Then do what big fast kids with great arms do. Option, sproption, RPO, something, anything to highlight their talents rather then pound the square peg into a round hole.

 

[kayak15]

A nice thread with many good observations. Little to no disagreement from me about any of the posts.

Cr8zy started if off well with his posit that this may be the year of the running game in the pac12. It may well be. Last year saw an abundance of top quarterbacks- Darnold, Falk, Rosen, Browning- but most are now gone with only Browning returning. More running may well be in order if the replacements cannot pass as well as last year's QBs.

Regarding the ewe, Carroll is no spring chicken and I can see Peterson moving cross town when Pete decides to call it a day. Peterson knows what he is doing and I, and am sure you, would rather the sniffers were lead by someone less competent.

 

[cr8zyncalif]

Biggs had some interesting observations. I agree; QB is very tough to evaluate, and is no picnic to coach. But it is hard to understand why something like 65-70% of the QB's recruited by PAC schools completely wash out. Based on the idea that each school takes at least one, and sometimes 2, per recruiting class, and with some guesstimates about how many of the transfers ever see the field at (minimum) a Mountain West level conference, that is how the math works out. I suspect that Biggs is right in that some of the HC's try to fit a square peg into a round hole, and some of the coaching staffs don't do a particularly good job of teaching/coaching. But I also think that the QB slot is tough to evaluate, since there are a lot of intangibles. Long story short, not every team in the league has one fully competent P5 level QB, and most are not sure that they have 2. If only one QB were recruited every year by each school, if every team had 2 legitimate P5 potential kids on the roster, and the QB cycle were typically 5 years, then that means that 40% of the recruits would prove out. But I suspect that some teams don't have 2 good QB's; and I know that sometimes a school takes 2 QB's instead of 1 in a recruiting class. And that doesn't count walk-ons! Long story short, it seems like more QB's wash out than any other position.

Thinking about Bigg's quote by Chip Kelly...I doubt that all, or even most, of the PAC HC's are flexible enough to change offensive systems to match their QB's abilities. Maybe make some tweaks, but a wholesale change? Chip is one of the few that I think might be able to pull that off. Anybody willing to combine option plays with a passing offense might have that flexibility, but most would not.

I am not sure if (per Kayak's suggestion) Peterson is looking at following Carroll, but it is a possibility. I'd like to see that for the same reason that Kayak would.

Finally, I keep waiting for OSU to bring back some form of the option offense. Whether that is the Oklahoma 1970's/80's version, or the pistol, or some other hybrid...not sure, but both WSU and OSU need to differentiate themselves (particularly on offense) in order to recruit consistently. WSU has done that with the air raid. I'm waiting to see if OSU figures out that they also need something that is at least semi-unique. The most likely semi-unique approach for a bunch of reasons would seem to me to be some form of the pistol, but who knows? Maybe they will keep trying to do the same thing as everybody else, with fewer resources. That would not seem to be a formula for success.

 

[Coug95man2]

Biggs had some interesting observations. I agree; QB is very tough to evaluate, and is no picnic to coach. But it is hard to understand why something like 65-70% of the QB's recruited by PAC schools completely wash out. Based on the idea that each school takes at least one, and sometimes 2, per recruiting class, and with some guesstimates about how many of the transfers ever see the field at (minimum) a Mountain West level conference, that is how the math works out. I suspect that Biggs is right in that some of the HC's try to fit a square peg into a round hole, and some of the coaching staffs don't do a particularly good job of teaching/coaching. But I also think that the QB slot is tough to evaluate, since there are a lot of intangibles. Long story short, not every team in the league has one fully competent P5 level QB, and most are not sure that they have 2. If only one QB were recruited every year by each school, if every team had 2 legitimate P5 potential kids on the roster, and the QB cycle were typically 5 years, then that means that 40% of the recruits would prove out. But I suspect that some teams don't have 2 good QB's; and I know that sometimes a school takes 2 QB's instead of 1 in a recruiting class. And that doesn't count walk-ons! Long story short, it seems like more QB's wash out than any other position.

Thinking about Bigg's quote by Chip Kelly...I doubt that all, or even most, of the PAC HC's are flexible enough to change offensive systems to match their QB's abilities. Maybe make some tweaks, but a wholesale change? Chip is one of the few that I think might be able to pull that off. Anybody willing to combine option plays with a passing offense might have that flexibility, but most would not.

I am not sure if (per Kayak's suggestion) Peterson is looking at following Carroll, but it is a possibility. I'd like to see that for the same reason that Kayak would.

Finally, I keep waiting for OSU to bring back some form of the option offense. Whether that is the Oklahoma 1970's/80's version, or the pistol, or some other hybrid...not sure, but both WSU and OSU need to differentiate themselves (particularly on offense) in order to recruit consistently. WSU has done that with the air raid. I'm waiting to see if OSU figures out that they also need something that is at least semi-unique. The most likely semi-unique approach for a bunch of reasons would seem to me to be some form of the pistol, but who knows? Maybe they will keep trying to do the same thing as everybody else, with fewer resources. That would not seem to be a formula for success.

Cr8zy, I don't know about your evaluation of P5 QB's on any given roster. I think it's completely possible that during practice, QB #4 outplays QB #2. So QB #4 gets the starting job. That doesn't mean QB #2 isn't a P5 player. It means QB #4 was better by however way you (or the coach) want to quantify that. And the difference could be minutia. That also doesn't mean QB #5 was unable to grasp what the coach was saying or wanting. It doesn't mean he isn't a P5 caliber player. It still meant QB #4 was better.

I'm sure there are washouts, like what you outline. But I would wager that, for instance, Alabama doesn't have a lower division QB on their roster... no way. But numbers will show that several will never play on their field on Saturday, as you outline. And the reason for the step down to a lower conference? The very stigma you outline. If they got passed up, it must mean they aren't THAT good... right?

Also, transfer rules aren't exactly conducive to players transferring to a school that might play against each other. So if they want to stay on the pacific side of the world, for example, they can't play in the Pac12. So San Diego State, here I come.

I think you and Biggs have a point. But I think there are other issues, as well.

 

[avabob1]

Not just a college issue. If it was easy Brady wouldnt have been 6th round, snd Wilson wouldnt have been 3rd round. Lots of other examples to. I dont think it is about coaches not willing to change systems to match a kids skill set either. The intangibles are more about decision making in fluid environments

 

[BiggsCoug]

Cr8zy, I don't know about your evaluation of P5 QB's on any given roster. I think it's completely possible that during practice, QB #4 outplays QB #2. So QB #4 gets the starting job. That doesn't mean QB #2 isn't a P5 player. It means QB #4 was better by however way you (or the coach) want to quantify that. And the difference could be minutia. That also doesn't mean QB #5 was unable to grasp what the coach was saying or wanting. It doesn't mean he isn't a P5 caliber player. It still meant QB #4 was better.

I'm sure there are washouts, like what you outline. But I would wager that, for instance, Alabama doesn't have a lower division QB on their roster... no way. But numbers will show that several will never play on their field on Saturday, as you outline. And the reason for the step down to a lower conference? The very stigma you outline. If they got passed up, it must mean they aren't THAT good... right?

Also, transfer rules aren't exactly conducive to players transferring to a school that might play against each other. So if they want to stay on the pacific side of the world, for example, they can't play in the Pac12. So San Diego State, here I come.

I think you and Biggs have a point. But I think there are other issues, as well.

The issue is that teams don’t have a decent #1 guy. For whatever the scheme they run.

Imagine going to work every day and your boss directing you to do specifically what you’re bad at. You know it. He knows it. But still you’re required to do what you’re bad at. Then you get fired. In your meeting the boss tells you that you weren’t good at your job. You walk out scratching your head wondering what might’ve happened if you’d been doing what you were good at. To me, that’s a lot of QB scenarios in all levels of football.

 

[How_did_this_happen?]

Petersen has 100% buy-in from the kids in the uw program. With what he has coming back this year, I see MAYBE 1 loss. Do I long for the days of 0-12 to return? Yes, absolutely. Unfortunately as long as he's the coach I just don't see them ever finishing sub-500 again.

Forget sub .500. Unfortunately, I doubt he will finish sub .800 again.