Another criticism of what passes for an offense around here

[FQDawg]

Saw this in an article on SI.com about Rick Neuheisel and Norm Chow. The Spring Game notwithstanding, hopefully Croom was sincere in his comments to open the offense up somewhat. Otherwise, I think we'll be in for another long year.

It's also a chance for him [Norm Chow] to replicate what he did at USC: Resuscitate a program victimized by the dreaded West Coast offense.

Before he became a Heisman winner and eventual No. 1 draft choice, USC's Palmer struggled badly enough his first three seasons to nearly get benched. So did Notre Dame's Brady Quinn in two seasons under Tyrone Willingham. The common denominator: Both were bogged down by a highly complicated NFL offense that has rarely been successful at the college level (See: Bill Callahan's failed stint at Nebraska).

It's the same offense Dorrell stubbornly stuck to at UCLA, and, with the exception of a 10-2 season in 2005 with a senior QB (Drew Olson) at the helm, consistently ranked among the least productive in the country. ... Players practiced hundreds of different plays, each with their own pass-protection nuances and audibles.

"Bill Callahan took a team to the Super Bowl, so far be it from me to critique him," said Neuheisel, "but the West Coast offense in this arena [ie college football] is difficult."

 

[FlabLoser]

[No message]

 

[Coach34]

dead horse quotes and them whining about how they get it already.

Good article. There is lots more evidence the WC offense isnt for college football than there is for it.

 

[RebelBruiser]

Interesting stuff, and if you think about it, it makes sense that the pros can use more complicated schemes. In college, you have limited practice time. You still get a lot of time with the team, but you don't have nearly as much as they do in the pros, so you don't have time to implement a really complicated offense or defense.

On top of that, in the pros players can spend a lot more time in the film room and doing off the field study. In college, you have school and other things that keep football from being your only job and limit the time you have to study the playbook or watch film.

I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with the WCO. I think it can work. I just think that for it to work on the college level, you'd have to pick a segment of your playbook each year that fits your personnel, and focus almost solely on that segment, rather than trying to install your entire package.

 

[8dog]

the pros can be so selective in who they get to run it. They are not forced to throw players out there that barely made it into school. They use the smartest players available.

 

[Stormrider81]

However, that isn't our main problem. Heck, what we run doesn't really even resemble a WCO. Our main problem is predictability in playcalling. Teams know what we are going to do based on down and distance and formation. Look at the times we mixed it up more, such as the last drive of the Liberty Bowl or the first half against UK, and you can see how much more effective our offense was when it wasn't totally predictable.

 

[Coach34]

" Our main problem is predictability in playcalling"

No doubt that is our biggest. Crooms makes Jackie look like Bill Walsh

 

[thunderclap]

that is, after sitting through the spring game, I have come to the realization that we probably are not going to score. We have zero firepower. That way, once we average 8.2 ppg, I can say I was surprised by how well the offense played.

 

[patdog]

because we went to a bowl game last year are the same people who were giving Polk a pass because we went to the CWS last year. Just because we went to the CWS last year didn't mean our baseball program was in good shape overall, and just because we went to a bowl game last year doesn't mean our football program is in good shape overall. Look for us to win 5-6 games this fall and then go back to a 3-5 win season in 2009.

 

[studentdawg87]

Amen but unfortuantely your average fan will argue you down over that..if we can't at least crack the top 90 or so in offense this year, which we wont, McCorvey and the wco have to go.

 

[War Machine Dawg]

Amen but unfortuantely your average fan will argue you down over that..if we can't at least crack the top 90 or so in offense this year, which we wont, <span style="font-weight: bold;">Croom</span> and the wco have to go.

There, fixed it for ya. </p>

 

[Porkchop.sixpack]

tried out our 2nd string quarterback. Oh wait.

 

[OEMDawg]

F that. If it happens again then Crooms needs to be removed. The man was a coordinator in the NFL on the OFFENSIVE side of the ball. If he has one of the worst offenses for 5 straight years then the excuses are over. Of course the problem with that is that Crooms has already been given the pseudo-lifetime contract by some MSU fans due to the bowl win.

 

[BewareOfMSUDawg]

kills me about Croom:

Look at the times we mixed it up more, such as the last drive of the Liberty Bowl or the first half against UK, and you can see how much more effective our offense was when it wasn't totally predictable.

When he actually does mix it up, allowing us to move the ball, he shuts it down and goes back to "his" way.

I just don't get it. Well, actually I do; he's going to do things his way come hell or high water, whether or not it works. And eventually that will be his downfall.