UNT Modern Offense?

UNTLifer · January 20, 2015

I see many people stating that we do not run a modern offense. Then I watch us and see us in multiple sets, three and four WR sets, zone read sets, etc... What is not modern about our offense? Is it the fact that we are not speeding up the game, lining up 4 and 5 WR's, O TE's and a single or no back sets? From what I can gather, the definition of a modern offense to many posters on this board is one where we are running no huddle, rush to the line, Mike Leach type system.

I would love everyone to post their answers to the following two questions.

1. What system would you like to see us run?

2. What makes our current system outdated?

UNT90 · January 20, 2015

The fact that we ran 70 percent of the time on 1st down in 2012 and were only slightly better in 2013?

The fact that we have shown a stubborn streak of only throwing the ball downfield in 2nd and 3rd and long situations?

If you really think this is a modern football offense, you haven't watched football in the last 20 years.

Edited January 20, 2015 by UNT90

MeanGreenTexan · January 20, 2015

I see many people stating that we do not run a modern offense. Then I watch us and see us in multiple sets, three and four WR sets, zone read sets, etc... What is not modern about our offense? Is it the fact that we are not speeding up the game, lining up 4 and 5 WR's, O TE's and a single or no back sets? From what I can gather, the definition of a modern offense to many posters on this board is one where we are running no huddle, rush to the line, Mike Leach type system.
I would love everyone to post their answers to the following two questions.

1. What system would you like to see us run?

2. What makes our current system outdated?

1. The system we're running now. Need the horses to run it though. We have been blessed at RB over the years, but we've been in a QB wilderness for a while now. Thompson was the quintessential effective bus driver.

2. "outdated" isn't a fair word. McCarney is all about establishing the run. This is old-school type thinking, but look at what happens when a super-high-octane, pass-happy offense runs up against a power team who can establish a run game, while effectively mixing in the pass game (OSU:42, OR:20). The system may be "old", but it works when you have the right guys running it.

MeanGreenTexan · January 20, 2015

The fact that we ran 70 percent of the time on 1st down in 2012 and were only slightly better in 2013?
The fact that we have shown a stubborn streak of only throwing the ball downfield in 2nd and 3rd and long situations?
If you really think this is a modern football offense, you haven't watched football in the last 20 years.

When you're trotting McNulty out there at QB, and you have Jimmerson/Pegram/Wilson back there running the ball, what are you going to do most of the time?

You want McNulty to air it out more?

Need a better QB to throw it more. Hopefully we have that now in Smith.

MEANGREENCOACH2 · January 20, 2015

I wouldn't be opposed to running the triple option like Navy and Georgia tech.

Teams would have a difficult time preparing for it and then we can take the shorter more athletic type QB's and have multiple RB's on the field.

UNT90 · January 20, 2015

When you're trotting McNulty out there at QB, and you have Jimmerson/Pegram/Wilson back there running the ball, what are you going to do most of the time?

You want McNulty to air it out more?

Need a better QB to throw it more. Hopefully we have that now in Smith.

I'm talking about 2012 and 2013. Last year we didn't have a QB because we don't view it as a priority position..

BillySee58 · January 20, 2015

Mccarney wants to line up under center and pound the ball. Canales is the one who adds the "modernness" to our offense. But he's really only allowed to do it out of necessity (i.e. 3rd and 5+ type plays). That's why we have such a heavy running offense on early downs.

GOMG2013 · January 20, 2015

Predicability. Even if you run a lot, you dont have to be so predictable. We have different sets, but still have limited plays in each set. We dont specialize in one thing or do one thing real good.

When we finally decide to pass, dbs are sitting on plays and jumping the route. I watched the pick 6 against Rice over the holidays. The DB lined up and just sat there and waited for that play. He knew it was coming. Last year, it was that screen pass that got picked a few times.

It does you no good to have multiple sets if you dont do a lot in them. Predictability is a big problem.

Withers940 · January 20, 2015

I dont mind that we run the ball a lot but its just like GOMG2013 said, We need to mix it up a bit and not be so damn predictable. If we are a power run team then run the ball and throw in a bunch of PA to catch those safeties that creep up. We have RB's with speed so why not do more toss, stretch plays? Now that we are getting more speed at WR, we should be able to stretch the field more and no I dont mean Dodge Air it out style.

I dont care if we have a modern offense but what ever we do, lets be great at it. If we have an offense that we are running and it doesnt really work with the type of kids we have in here, then 1. Get kids in here that can run that offense or 2. Be an actual OC and morph your play book to better fit the guys on your squad. Last year it seemed like no matter who was in at qb, we ran the same offense. We did do more QB read with DW but other than that all 3 qb's ran the same offense and non of them were worth a damn.

Josh Heupel for OC 2015

MeanGreenTexan · January 20, 2015

I dont mind that we run the ball a lot but its just like GOMG2013 said, We need to mix it up a bit and not be so damn predictable. If we are a power run team then run the ball and throw in a bunch of PA to catch those safeties that creep up. We have RB's with speed so why not do more toss, stretch plays? Now that we are getting more speed at WR, we should be able to stretch the field more and no I dont mean Dodge Air it out style.

I dont care if we have a modern offense but what ever we do, lets be great at it. If we have an offense that we are running and it doesnt really work with the type of kids we have in here, then 1. Get kids in here that can run that offense or 2. Be an actual OC and morph your play book to better fit the guys on your squad. Last year it seemed like no matter who was in at qb, we ran the same offense. We did do more QB read with DW but other than that all 3 qb's ran the same offense and non of them were worth a damn.

Josh Heupel for OC 2015

Because McNulty/Williams/Greer. That's why.

oldguystudent · January 20, 2015

The NFL tells me that the modern offense is all about confusing the defense as to who is and isn't eligible on the line. They went on this big Patriots love fest about how Bilicheck (I have no idea how to spell that and don't care to look it up) has always been on the front of the curve, citing his use of the spread offense over ten years ago.

In reality, from my limited football knowledge point of view, I think that offenses that depend entirely on either running (Mac) or passing (Dodge) are doomed to fail. If you can't keep the defense guessing as to what you're gonna do, they can simply line up the same way every play, knowing full well what you're gonna do, and force 3 and out after 3 and out after 3 and out.

LongJim · January 20, 2015

A power running team that can throw. That's what DMC wants. Nothing wrong with it.

GOMG2013 · January 20, 2015

Because McNulty/Williams/Greer. That's why.

For play action to work, you need to have a line and a running game. A dominant one.

Just look at this years Dallas cowboys...they built the line and put a good back in there. Made a huge difference. Even with a broke up, limping Romo.

We are a fake smash mouth team. it is not real. We claim we are though. A smash mouth team can run a predictable play and still get 3 yards and a cloud of dust. Especially against the likes of USM and UTSA this year. Maybe not against good teams, but enough to get 6 wins against a weak cusa schedule.

Mean Green 93-98 · January 20, 2015

In reality, from my limited football knowledge point of view, I think that offenses that depend entirely on either running (Mac) or passing (Dodge) are doomed to fail.

It is interesting that Dodge gradually moved away from a pass-happy offense towards a more balanced, or even run-dominant, philosophy.

2007: Rush-381 Pass-553

2008: Rush-370 Pass-514

2009: Rush-420 Pass-413

2010: Rush-498 Pass-316 (Canales interim last 5 games)

TIgreen01 · January 20, 2015

For play action to work, you need to have a line and a running game. A dominant one.
Just look at this years Dallas cowboys...they built the line and put a good back in there. Made a huge difference. Even with a broke up, limping Romo.
We are a fake smash mouth team. it is not real. We claim we are though. A smash mouth team can run a predictable play and still get 3 yards and a cloud of dust. Especially against the likes of USM and UTSA this year. Maybe not against good teams, but enough to get 6 wins against a weak cusa schedule.

We were a smash mouth team in 2013. Then last year it all fell apart. What I don't get is why we switched to the zone blocking scheme last year. What triggered the decision to change?

MeanGreenTexan · January 20, 2015

We were a smash mouth team in 2013. Then last year it all fell apart. What I don't get is why we switched to the zone blocking scheme last year. What triggered the decision to change?

Having to kick your all-conference guard out to Tackle might have had something to do with it.

Not to mention the box was always stacked because our QBs are sub-par.

UNT90 · January 20, 2015

We were a smash mouth team in 2013. Then last year it all fell apart. What I don't get is why we switched to the zone blocking scheme last year. What triggered the decision to change?

What fell apart is defenses had zero fear of the forward pass from any of our QBs.

See the DT HOF thread please.

pastorgrant · January 20, 2015

I love the offense the Cowboys ran this year. The balance was old school, but the way they were able to create favorable matchups and could always do something well was special to see. IMO, you need to have a solid running game, a QB who knows how to and is able to exploit favorable matchups, and multiple viable targets to make it work. That's not something we had, but in an ideal world, for my money, that's the kind of football I like to watch most.

untjim1995 · January 20, 2015

A power running team that can throw. That's what DMC wants. Nothing wrong with it.

I agree completely--but he cannot seem to get a QB that can actually throw the ball with any consistency. No one he has had as QB here has been good at throwing the ball on a consistent basis, including Derek Thompson. That, to me, says more about the level of QB we can realistically get here, which does go back to his power running offense being the primary motor of the offense. When 95% of Texas HS QBs play in a spread offense, you're offense doesn't look modern, even if it really is a better way to win at a school like ours, since you can develop linemen and the running game, which helps your defense and special teams, too.

GOMG2013 · January 20, 2015

What about the running back? When you stack the line, one fear is a back getting through there and taking it to the house. We did not have that fear. Pegram was a drop off. Byrd deserves a miss you thread... Our running game looked better when Wilson was in.

MeanGreenTexan · January 20, 2015

What about the running back? When you stack the line, one fear is a back getting through there and taking it to the house. We did not have that fear. Pegram was a drop off. Byrd deserves a miss you thread... Our running game looked better when Wilson was in.

I too was a little let down by Pegram. Jimmerson seemed to step backwards too. I'm excited to see Wilson in a feature-back role this coming season. I think he's the real deal.

meangreendork · January 20, 2015

I too was a little let down by Pegram. Jimmerson seemed to step backwards too. I'm excited to see Wilson in a feature-back role this coming season. I think he's the real deal.

I think it was a blocking scheme and QB issue here. When defenses don't think the QB can toss a reliable ball, they'll play accordingly, aiming to pressure the QB into a bad pass, or aiming to swarm any ball carrier. It's deadlier when the offense is predictable, running only a few plays from a few formations. Then if the blocking isn't good enough to support a QB, the situation gets worse. Assignments are missed, sacks take place, and TFLs take place.

In the 2013 season, being predictable wasn't such a big deal. The line was more stout, the blocking schemes were more effective. The WRs were a little better. More importantly, Thompson was a different QB in 2013 than he was in the years prior. So while defenses expected a lot of running, they weren't quite prepared for an effective QB that could get ball into the hands of shifty, quick, receivers. That gave our coaches a little more room to take risks during games and more room to coach new and different plays.

MeanGreenTexan · January 20, 2015

I think it was a blocking scheme and QB issue here. When defenses don't think the QB can toss a reliable ball, they'll play accordingly, aiming to pressure the QB into a bad pass, or aiming to swarm any ball carrier. It's deadlier when the offense is predictable, running only a few plays from a few formations. Then if the blocking isn't good enough to support a QB, the situation gets worse. Assignments are missed, sacks take place, and TFLs take place.
In the 2013 season, being predictable wasn't such a big deal. The line was more stout, the blocking schemes were more effective. The WRs were a little better. More importantly, Thompson was a different QB in 2013 than he was in the years prior. So while defenses expected a lot of running, they weren't quite prepared for an effective QB that could get ball into the hands of shifty, quick, receivers. That gave our coaches a little more room to take risks during games and more room to coach new and different plays.

I think Wilson can stretch the field a little bit as well. Pegram wasnt beating anyone around the corner, and Jimmerson wants to stutter around in the backfield too much looking for a hole to hit. Wilson looked great on sweeps and other runs outside the Tackles.

GOMG2013 · January 20, 2015

I think Wilson can stretch the field a little bit as well. Pegram wasnt beating anyone around the corner, and Jimmerson wants to stutter around in the backfield too much looking for a hole to hit. Wilson looked great on sweeps and other runs outside the Tackles.

What was the deal with trying to throw to pegram out of the backfield this year? Did it ever work?

I noticed our running game didnt do well against UTSA and looked like trash when pegram was in, but all of a sudden would look good once Wilson got in there.

All About UNT · January 20, 2015

What was the deal with trying to throw to pegram out of the backfield this year? Did it ever work?
I noticed our running game didnt do well against UTSA and looked like trash when pegram was in, but all of a sudden would look good once Wilson got in there.

I harped on a reliance on Pegram starting last offseason. Dude gives it his all but is just too slow to make huge differences.