Some analysis on this past season & the state of the program going forward

PostGameOrangeSlices · February 2017

Just kidding, fuck off.

TierbsHsotBoobs · February 2017

PostGameOrangeSlices said:
Just kidding, fuck off.

This is the best offseason post yet.

PurpleJ · February 2017

In looking through the comments for our last few podcasts, I've noticed that there have been requests and/or disappointments that we didn't talk or discuss this topic or that topic or whatever. As the podcast has been drifting towards 2 hours as it is (probably about 30 minutes longer than ideal) given the large number of topics/interest in the program, it's just impossible to get through everything.

While texting today about the latest developments at Cal today, I thought it'd be a good idea to put out a topic that quite honestly we likely won't get into on the pod anytime in the near future (if at all) but is interesting enough that I'm sure that @CokeGreaterThanPepsi, @Dennis_DeYoung and I will have very strong, and potentially very different opinions on. So on with the topic ... "Progams Exploiting Market Inefficiencies to Fast Track Competitiveness."

Both Cal and Oregon have made coaching changes this offseason and while you could argue that both of them have made reasonable, but not necessarily inspiring, head coaching hires, it's very difficult to argue against the fact that they are putting together high end assistant staffs.

One of the topics that we've collectively been very adamant about is how important recruiting is in building up the foundation of the program. Simply put, if you don't recruit at a high level, barring insane development levels, you've already lost on the field 2-3 years down the road.

Going back historically with Oregon about 10+ years ago, two areas where they outpaced the competition and it allowed it to really get a leg up in recruiting were tied to being one of the first programs to really embrace the arms race with respect to facilities and then the variety in their uniforms. As time has progressed, almost every program has upgraded their facilities and so many programs have different uniforms that those "advantages" for Oregon have fallen back.

Another prevalent theme that those that remember the Don James era and now are seeing similar with Chris Petersen, and then comparing that to what we see around the country with the elite level coaches like Saban, Meyer, etc. is that there are only a handful of those elite coaches in place. Make no mistake, when you have an elite level coach in place, while the assistants are important, the stability at the top of your program with consistent messaging, vision, and way that work is done is almost impossible to duplicate. The resume build that assistants get from being on your staff is tremendous which allows the HC to have the ability to get high end assistants on a fairly consistent basis. The vulnerability though is that the turnover in assistants can be high as those positions are stepping stones to bigger/better jobs.

What I see in what Cal and Oregon doing is that they looked at the market and their own situations and decided that since they will not be able to get an elite level HC now (or likely anytime in the future), that instead of wasting resources on an above average HC, they would go after HC candidates that may over time develop into that on the cheap while devoting the resources to securing as deep and talented of an assistant staff as they could get. The idea behind that is that the splashes made by pulling ace recruiters together will allow the staff to increase their recruiting ability and down the road that will increase their on field performance ... if everything plays out right then the HC develops during that period and by the time all the pieces come together you get magic.

On the surface, this isn't a terrible idea. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again ... and in the case of programs like Cal and Oregon, trying to operate in the same manner as the power schools in the PAC like USC or Washington operate is a recipe for falling in line behind them. The down side of this though is the part that nobody is talking about. Right now, it's a bunch of free pub and offseason natty talk because the staffs are great. There's no question that there will be recruiting upticks. The downside though is that the assistants that are being hired are being lured with more money and responsibility than what they could get from their existing elite schools for one reason or another. It's not so much that these coaches are in a position that they can't do the jobs that they are being hired to do, but more that they've made it extremely clear through their actions that their expectation is that they are using this new job to jump somewhere else as soon as possible. And that's the problem ...

The problem with what Cal and Oregon are doing is that 2-4 years down the line, the balance of the assistant staffs that they are hiring today will be looking at either taking HC jobs elsewhere or using the positions that they have to leverage lateral moves to bigger programs with more established HC and more $$$ to finish out their resumes. These schools will perpetually be in a position where they are turning over staffs with one massive problem ... they are ultimately operating with a HC that will fall behind those of the national elite unless they get extremely lucky with their hire and that HC turns into a national elite ... at which point he likely gets plucked away anyway. Some of that is just what it is anyway ... but if the HC is what the HC is, to retain the HC the resources start to get shifted away from the assistants and towards the HC ... if the $$$ isn't there for the assistants then the recruiting base starts to crumble which leads to results starting to crumble, etc.

All in all, what Cal and Oregon are doing right now is a house of cards play that while the in the short term is exploiting some existing market inefficiencies, as the bigger programs become victims of this, they will continue to build ways to protect themselves from this kind of behavior going forward just like they did in the arms races for facilities and destroying the multi-uniform cool factor. These schools may have won this round ... but ultimately, college football has long proven that if you have the right Head Coach in place, that's the school that will ultimately win.

PostGameOrangeSlices · February 2017

Lol, another new 9 paragraph Tequilla diatribe?

I skimmed some of it and this stood out to me:

"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again"

Youre partially right, Tequilla, but you forgot the second half of the saying. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Kind of like writing 10,000 words posts over and over again and expecting someone to actually read it.

haie · February 2017

State of the Program:
P12 Title. Ducks,Coogs,Trees kindly usher yourself and your programs into the appropriate gas chamber.

State of the Program Going Forward:
Pete if you and your fucking non-5* OKFags lose to SC at home again you will be fucking coaching Central.

GrundleStiltzkin · February 2017

This post is for our Bama visitor regarding UW and how they match/fit with what Bama does. Most of this stuff will be something that will probably be discussed at length when we record the next edition of the TSIO Podcast next week ... so if you don't like the length of this post, then FUCK OFF!!! and don't read anymore.

It will be important for UW to put themselves in positions where they always have a check down option(s) for Jake to get rid of the ball in a hurry. 4-5 yard gains against Alabama keep you ahead of the sticks ... that's important. LSU is actually a very important game to watch because it shows what happens when you have a good defense coupled with an offense that does not give Alabama EASY scoring opportunities. That's a good blue print for figuring out how you can stay competitive against Alabama. LSU's biggest problem in that game was that their offense and in particular the QB position was so inept that Alabama didn't respect the passing game much at all and was able to focus on the run game. UW is by far more balanced ... I don't think it's close to a stretch to say that they are the most balanced team Alabama has played all year by a long shot. That will cause some issues for Alabama.

Another thing I've noticed when watching some of the Ole Miss game is that Alabama almost always brings a slot corner or a MLB (or both) in a blitz situation against teams that spread them out. It not only helps to slow down any run situations that may come, but allows the secondary to squat on routes and not be concerned about plays down the field. Picking up those blitzes and giving a pocket will be critical because IF you can get situations where the WRs are 1 on 1 versus the Alabama secondary, you do have opportunities to create some chunk plays. And, the blitzes that Alabama runs really aren't that hard to figure out where they are coming from. They tend to tip the blitz location.

For UW, the LT, LG, and RT are good enough to compete at this level. In the USC game, the LG was coming back from an injury and I do question how healthy he was. We "hopefully" learned a few things from that game that can help us going forward. UW's 2 most basic formations that they run are 2 WR, 2 TE, 1 RB and 3 WR, 1 TE, 1 RB. Alabama is very strong when you get them in a position where they line up and are able to easily identify their responsibilities. A staple of Chris Petersen's offenses though are shifts and motions and I suspect that we'll try to use those situations to either out-flank or confuse the Alabama defense and get a bust in their assignments. UW has at least 3 TEs that they rotate into the game that all are very good run blockers with Darrell Daniels a potential option if they decide to use him in the passing game (which I think could work very well for UW in this game). I expect our line to be in positions where we will be chipping at least one of the edge rushers each time with the TE before releasing ... the TE releasing should quiet some of the middle blitzes from Alabama. I'd expect the C + RG to combo block a fair amount and our RBs often stay in to block so I'd expect that whichever guard isn't being helped with combo blocking will get focus from the RB.

Alabama is very well coached and very fundamentally sound (that shows up big time compared to other SEC teams and the mistakes that they tend to make play after play). It will be important to use some of that against them by going against tendencies from time to time. To slow Alabama down defensively, you have to get them in a position where they are thinking versus reacting and getting them to question what it is that they are seeing. IF Washington can be successful in this, then you have yourself a ball game.

Defensively, the 3 DTs for Washington (Gaines, Qualls, and Vea) are stout and will be a handful for the Alabama middle run game. As others have noted here, the secondary will be as good as any that Alabama has seen this year. Budda Baker is as good of a safety as there is in the country. The weakness to the defense is at the OLB positions. To slow Alabama's offense down, you have to make Hurts a passer. Kiffin tries to limit the exposure of Hurts by giving him a lot of quick throws and screens to get the ball out and into the hands of playmakers. We're very familiar with that with Kiffin and Sark being from the same tree. The quick WR screens will be hard pressed to work against Jones/King on the outside ... as good of a CB tandem as Alabama has seen all year and one of the best in the nation. Not only are they good in coverage, but they are excellent tacklers particularly in the quick WR screen game. The defense has gotten better since they moved Taylor Rapp in to play S and moved Budda more into a slot corner/rover type of role. IF and this is a big IF Washington can keep Hurts from beating them with his legs, then Washington should be able to limit Alabama's offense.

You've noted in a few different areas looking at yardage totals as a measure of the UW defense and specifically cited certain games and yardage totals. One thing you have to understand about the PAC is that teams here like to push play totals upwards of 80-100 on a game by game basis. It's important to look at things from a yard per play basis when looking at the running and passing games. And I also think it's important to look at things from a conference only or P5 only standpoint versus your entire schedule because the entire schedule can be skewed by a few overmatched opponents.

Washington in conference has given up 4 yards per carry in the run game. The games where UW has given up over 4 yards per carry are as follows:

Arizona: 43 for 308 (7.2 yards per carry)
Oregon: 43 for 230 (5.3 yards per carry)
Oregon St: 30 for 177 (5.9 yards per carry)
Utah: 47 for 213 (4.5 yards per carry)

The Arizona game is unique and probably what they do is most similar to what Auburn runs in that the QB is a massive running threat. 176 of those yards came from Arizona's QB ... which is why I said that the biggest obstacle in this game for the UW defense is stopping Hurts in the run game. There's a lot of read option that Arizona runs and if there's a big weakness to the UW defense at times it is that it doesn't like to change what it does to start games. They will adjust at halftime if needed and against both Arizona and Utah the adjustments made really slowed down the opposition offense ... the only plays given up in the 2nd half to Arizona were really a couple of broken plays that hit big. Utah's run game dramatically slowed down in the 2nd half as we brought an extra body into the box and forced Utah to beat us with their passing game. The Oregon game was 70-21 ... I don't read a lot into that. And as for Oregon St, 75 of the 177 yards came on a jet sweep in the 2nd half of a blowout game ... although it was against the #1 defense ... a defense that came out very flat in the 2nd half.

In the last 5 games (Cal, USC, ASU, Wazzu, and Colorado), the yards per rush have been 3.7, 3.1, 0.6, 2.7, and 2.8.

I think even most SEC fans would admit that the QB play in the PAC is usually better than that in the SEC top to bottom in the conference. In conference games, Washington is allowing a completion percentage of 56.5%, 5.8 yards per attempt, and 10.3 yards per completion. In contrast, Alabama's numbers are 52.5% completion percentage against, 6.2 yards per attempt, and 11.9 yards per completion. If there's an area where you could look at the stats and question UW's secondary, it'd be in the completion percentage number as 6 times in 10 conference games have the opposition completed over 60% of their passes. But this also goes to show why completion percentage can be a very misleading stat because when you go back and watch the tape of UW, what you see from them is that they have no problem letting you check it down whether it be screens, rollouts, etc. What they do though extremely well is rally up and tackle those opportunities. Very rarely do you beat a team by making 15+ play drives going 80 yards ... somewhere along the line you're going to get a holding penalty or something to back you behind the sticks or you're going to try to push a pass, etc. that turns into a turnover ... which Washington has averaged over 2 turnovers per game the entire season (they've generated multiple turnovers in every game this season except for the 0 turnovers caused at Utah - hence why that game was relatively close).

The defenses that are probably most similar to UW in the SEC are LSU and maybe Florida ... and the funny thing when you look at those games is that Hurts wasn't really an effective passer:

LSU: 10 of 19 for 107 yards
Florida: 11 of 20 for 138 yards

The keys for this game from a UW perspective:

1) Field Position: Limit turnovers and force Alabama to go a full field on a consistent basis
2) Turnover Margin: +2 or better will give UW the chance to be in the game in the 4th quarter
3) Bring the Alabama defense out of its comfort zone by emphasizing motion and shifts
4) Contain Hurts in the running game and force him to win with his arm
5) Special Teams: Must play at least even here

I definitely think that UW can stay within 2 TDs in this game. The computer models are saying that UW has about a 1 in 3 shot to win the game ... yet the money line in Vegas is UW +575 or thereabouts. That's a lot of value. The public perception is that Alabama is so elite that nobody is in their class ... my perception is that the SEC was a really bad league this year. Alabama is rightly the favorite ... they should be. But this will be a game.