A Bold But Logical Plan to Fix Football

As I mentioned in the comments of Derek’s recent column, I think there’s really only one way to approach the 2010 football season. Well, only one way that doesn’t involve a great deal of “wishcasting.” And as I am quite fond of saying – “hope” is not a strategy.

I think certain things about NC State football in 2010 are pretty much set in stone. First and foremost, the punting game will be atrocious. You know you are in a world of hurt when you have to beg Jeff Ruiz to come back as a 5th year senior. One doesn’t typically see “great leaps forward” with respect to punting. If you sucked as a 4th year junior, chances are you’ll suck as a 5th year senior.

Second, the Wolfpack defense will at the very least be extremely thin, and with mediocre athleticism. More likely, the unit will be all-around bad, just like it was in 2009 – when it didn’t matter how shitty Ruiz punted. Wherever any credible offense took over, a score was extremely likely. But even if you want to “hope” (there’s that damned word again) for the best-case scenario – this is not a unit you want to see on the field for 30-35 minutes, or God help us, even more.

Last, but not least, you have kick coverage. Perhaps this is where Ruiz is ironically an asset – he won’t outkick his coverage. Because in 2009, that coverage was atrocious. Of the three units we’ve discussed so far, this is probably the least set in stone. I imagine special teams tackling and technique has more natural variance from year to year. But I’m not taking that for granted.

That’s the bad news. And admittedly, it’s a whole lot of it. But don’t mark down a 5-7 record and a host of pink slips just yet. For there is a way forward. NC State has a dynamic, all-ACC caliber QB – and his backup also has great potential. For the first time, I look at the OL depth chart and like what I see. The typical Tom O’Brien OL recruits are old enough to make a difference – and I truly expect that they will. Mix in a matchup nightmare (TE/”midnight toker” George Bryan) and a fairly deep and talented WR corps, and you have a recipe to score lots of points.

The key? Maximize the number of offensive plays and possessions. Minimize how long your defense stays on the field. Go into the game with the mentality that you will outscore the opponent, not hold them down. If you have to win 56-49 – it’s just as good as a 16-14 slugfest.

How do you do that? It’s very easy. You almost never punt, or kick FGs. You employ trick onsides/squib kickoffs, from multiple formations. With great regularity. You don’t deviate from this strategy because you are playing with the lead. Mathematically, it has been shown to be the logical course of action for a typical NFL team. For a team with such extreme special teams and defensive weaknesses as NC State, it’s really a no brainer. Forget about this being “bold” – why in the hell would you not do it, given what we have to work with?

And it’s not like it hasn’t been done before. You have what you have to work with. Tom O’Brien may prefer to win the old fashioned way. Too bad – this roster can’t do it. And there really is no tomorrow – with O’Brien in his fourth season and obviously approaching retirement, it’s now or never. A boring 5-7 team will yield a dud recruiting class, and the program will be officially dead. Nothing. To. Lose.

And what about the “psychology” angle? Won’t this make the defensive players feel as if the staff has no confidence in them? First, I say “too damned bad.” Last season happened, pretending otherwise does no good. But there’s more to it than that.

Second, the defense will still be put in position to make things happen. The opponent will take over in Wolfpack territory quite often. They will have to play hard and aggressive to make stops, and/or get turnovers. There’s no more “bend but don’t break” (which we played like “bend and methodically break” anyway). And since this philosophy will only have the defense on the field for 20-25 minutes per game, they will be physically capable of playing more aggressively. And if you overplay and give up a quick six? Big deal, that works with the gameplan quite nicely. More time of possession for the offense. Which means more opposing defenders lining up gassed, or on the sidelines getting IV hydration. Win-win situation. You just trust the offense to keep scoring. It’s their job to win the game. The defense and special teams just set up the offense to do their thing.

Long, methodical scoring drives by our opponents killed NC State in 2009. You saw backup defenders on the field in key fourth quarter possessions – because the starters had been on the field too damned long. And while you might have some hope for a handful of starters, there’s none whatsoever for the Wolfpack’s depth guys. Don’t forget that Nate Irving will likely be limited to 20 or so snaps per game. Do you think we’re better served with him on the field for half our defensive snaps, or about one-third?

Like I said, there’s no logical case against this strategy. I think John Tenuta has enough “mad genius” in him to embrace his defense’s role in it. And Tom O’Brien has shown some basic understanding of mathematical odds. Now, somebody just needs to get him good and drunk over in Ireland, and have this discussion.

About BJD95

1995 NC State graduate, sufferer of Les and MOC during my entire student tenure. An equal-opportunity objective critic and analyst of Wolfpack sports.

General

42 Responses to A Bold But Logical Plan to Fix Football

  1. leewolf 05/27/2010 at 9:37 PM #

    Love this idea. Like you said, unless guys on D really outperform and are drastically better this year (and more durable/have better endurance), we are likely to see the same story again on that side of the ball. Same goes for special teams. The coaching staff has nothing to lose, and even in games we lose it is going to draw attention the program that has been lacking outside of the occasional Russell Wilson discussion. Look at how Paul Johnson got a bunch of pub for going for it on fourth down all of the time (granted GT was winning a lot too but you get the idea). That attention can only help recruiting and bring some excitement around the program that has been lacking outside of the routine wins over UNC, even if it somehow only ends in the team finishing with a .500 record or slightly better.

    The ACC is far from an offensive powerhouse on the whole, this has a chance to work.

  2. VaWolf82 05/27/2010 at 9:48 PM #

    I like it. TOB won’t do it, but I like it.

  3. Flannel Avenger 05/27/2010 at 10:00 PM #

    I love that plan! I would be more than happy to pay to see the football team try something like that rather than just bend over and take it.

  4. b 05/28/2010 at 2:35 AM #

    I understand your logic, but while it’s been done….in the third highest level of Arkansas high school football, that hardly constitutes a perfect laboratory setting. And when football coaches are giving world-class financial advice, I’ll start listening to economics professors about football. The stock market and the gridiron are a wee-bit different.

    Though this mentality has long been a staple of triple option football, note that PJ and GT go for it on 4th down a lot and with a fair rate of success. But that system is rarely in fourth and long and they are usually two or more scores ahead or behind when they employ it. And they have a solid defense to bail them out when they don’t succeed. A weak defense makes this suspect strategy even more untenable to me.

    As far as stats, the two that have proven to have the greatest impact on the game of football, are turnovers and field position. Sacrificing field position will work in high school, because even talented teams have personnel gaps and limited depth, and decent (let alone good) QBs are rare. In college it will not work because most teams have fewer of those gaps and a fair amount have enough depth to counter the strategy as well. And there are a enough QBs capable of making you pay more often for the frequent short field.

  5. howlie 05/28/2010 at 6:46 AM #

    I HOPE the special teams responsibility is turned over to Tenuta.

    We HAVE to not only have decent coverage on special teams, but we MUST get some take-aways.

  6. wolfwarrior 05/28/2010 at 7:58 AM #

    As far as TOB & staff using this strategy, the phrase “chances are as good as a snowball in ****”.
    Rambling, gambling man song is not on the Colonel’s iPod!

  7. Wulfpack 05/28/2010 at 7:58 AM #

    I like it and it’s great we’re thinking outside of the box. But if our defense does not improve significantly we’re destine for a losing record. The swiss cheese/15 yard cushion D has to end.

  8. Sam92 05/28/2010 at 8:50 AM #

    i like the idea too, but i don’t see TOB implementing it.

    anyway, another losing season should have everybody admitting that TOB is not working out.

    i’m already wondering who his replacement is, and hoping against hope that our new AD will take a chance on someone young(ish) and dynamic

  9. lsutton5144 05/28/2010 at 9:05 AM #

    Actually, the punting in the spring game was pretty good. As long as we don’t go back to running half way across the fiedl before we kick it, it looks to be much improved over last year.

  10. leewolf 05/28/2010 at 9:11 AM #

    Ruiz did look better in the spring game…but no one was rushing him to try to block it either. Maybe has improved, but I’ll wait until a game situation to see if the execution is as good as it was in April.

  11. Silver Wolf 05/28/2010 at 9:20 AM #

    I was a student during the Lou Holtz era and when Lou first arrived at State the team was very similar to TOB’s current team as far as composition. Lou said on several occasions when asked about his weak defense “I don’t care how many points the other team scores it is our job to score more.” As a result he won a lot of games and was considered an “offensive genius.” Of course he had the Buckey twins, Willie Burden, Charlie Young and Stan Fritz to work with and a damn good OL that included Jim Ritcher at center. As a result I saw a lot of high scorine very entertaining games while at State.

  12. Statefan1998 05/28/2010 at 9:23 AM #

    The last season for O’Brien? The odds of him being fired or quitting are at 50/50.

  13. old13 05/28/2010 at 9:55 AM #

    I wouldn’t call this a football “fix” as it provides no long-term improvement of the program. At best, it would be a stop-gap measure for this season to cover gross defensive weaknesses that should have been taken care of through recruiting and player development. And it is problematic if the offensive line will be effective enough to execute such a strategy.

    When TOB first came to NCSU, I thought the biggest criticism of his program would be of a very conservative offense. Funny how things go!

  14. choppack1 05/28/2010 at 10:17 AM #

    I read the SI article in question last year.

    I think the thing to take away from it is that in general – coach’s at all levels could be a lot more aggressive in going for it on 4th down.

    The classic example is our game vs. USC – it’s 4th and about 8 – and we’re on USC’s 36…We’d been on a long drive. Punting in that case killed our momentum and gave USC a chance to catch it’s breath.

    On our next set of down’s we go for it on 4th and 11 w/ about 3 minutes left in the game.

    However, as a strategy – I think it’s a loser. The exception is that if you play the ball control kind of game GaTech does w/ the wishbone offense.

    Since TOB’s arrived our defense has sucked – and while this strategy does kind of “do what you do best” – you’re actually requiring your offense to score more than they would otherwise.

    Finally, I’d like to go to the Pats thread and see how many folks saying “great idea” criticized Bellicheck for doing this last year.

  15. Daily Update 05/28/2010 at 10:19 AM #

    Our net punting was only 3 yards out of 1st place in the conference last year. We had the one punt against Clemson that killed us in that particular game, but otherwise the rugby style punting was reasonably effective. It seems to be made into a big deal by a lot of people, but maybe that is exaggerated because of the style we used last year.

    Our kickoff coverage was absolutely horrible. We had problems at kicker, but I think our overall lack of athleticism, depth, and youth on defense were bigger issues since those were the guys playing special teams. Hopefully it won’t be as bad this year.

  16. BJD95 05/28/2010 at 10:21 AM #

    There is no long-term if we don’t succeed this year. Period.

  17. WV Wolf 05/28/2010 at 10:35 AM #

    This is just my opinion and I’m no college football expert, but I think in college football a “gimmick” of some sort can really help level the playing field. If you line up and play straight up football against another team that plays straight up football and they have more talent and depth, you’re probably going to lose.

    Some examples that come to mind are obviously Georgia Tech’s offense, a small school like Wake Forest and all the misdirection they would run, Texas Tech overshadowed by Texas so they go with the Air Raid offense, WVU with their spread offense (before the spread was cool) and another wrinkle with the 3-3-5 defense.

    So I’m all for trying something new and being aggressive to try to level the playing field.

  18. JEOH2 05/28/2010 at 10:36 AM #

    I imagine that this is a post to spark discussion, so well it is an idea…but as “old13” said…its just a stop-gap, and does very little to help improve our defense or special teams in the coming year…

    Lets not discount the mental strain it would put on a defender to 1) be told that although he has not played a down all year, he is too horrible to trust and 2) almost to be scored on every offensive drive…if I am a 3-5 star defensive recruit, then I am not even considering NC State watching this…

    Not covered as well is our lack of a proven running back and how this impacts the offense. If our O-Line is only just a step above last year and if our running back core is subpar, we become a 1 1/2 dimensional offeense (the 1/2 for Russell Wilson’s brilliance) that becomes even easier to defend…

    Also we are putting a physical and mental strain on our offense asking them to put up wild numbers, while putting all the onus on them to win games…I don’t even want to think about how exhausted our O-Line, wideouts, and Wilson will be having to drive from our endzone, every time…

    This might be affective in a game or two…but ultimately…I see more negatives then positives…

  19. BJD95 05/28/2010 at 10:41 AM #

    When the offense has the ball for a large portion of the game, I understand that it takes more of a toll on the opposing defenders.

  20. coach13 05/28/2010 at 10:54 AM #

    Is it really that hard to get decent kickers/punters? Can’t we find one guy from the soccer team that can kickoff through/too the endzone? I hated seeing our not-so-special teams trotting onto the field last year.

  21. b 05/28/2010 at 11:05 AM #

    “When the offense has the ball for a large portion of the game, I understand that it takes more of a toll on the opposing defenders.”

    It also exposes your QB to more hits. Keeping the defense on the field is useful for running teams, due to the nature of beast. Rushing the passer can wear out a d-line, but good substitution patterns will overcome this.

  22. JEOH2 05/28/2010 at 11:12 AM #

    Right. That’s exactly what I was getting at b…

  23. choppack1 05/28/2010 at 11:26 AM #

    “So I’m all for trying something new and being aggressive to try to level the playing field.”

    So am I – but there’s aggressive and there’s crazy.
    Last year our 4th down conversion rate was 37%. In 2008, it was 38%. In 2007, it was 37%. Those aren’t good odds.

    Also, part of the reason the “go for it on 4th Down all the time” philosophy worked so well at the high school in Arkansas is because high school kicking games suck. They suck on the snap, they suck at punting and they suck on FG attempts.

    Our kicking game was mediocre – but it’s not quite the crapshoot it is in high school.

    Translation: At this point, I don’t think it’s a smart or data-supported move to implement the Arkansas High School strategy at NC State at this time.

  24. newt 05/28/2010 at 11:31 AM #

    No time to make a mathematical case, but I seem to recall O’Brien “going for it” quite a bit because of an evident lack of faith in our ability to make a decent kick – both field goals and punting. Not sure why folks automatically assume he would never go for it to hide our obvious kicking deficiencies. That’s not an overly clever approach.

  25. choppack1 05/28/2010 at 11:53 AM #

    Newt – I agree. There’s the obvious times when it makes sense. For example, we went for it late on 4th down vs. UNC even though we were on about the 20 yard line.

    I’m pretty much of the opinion that if a game’s in doubt and your defense isn’t pretty good – any time you have the ball inside your opponent’s 40 – you’re in 4 down territory. (That’s why the decision to punt in the 4th quarter in the USC game pissed me off so much.)

    However, it’s funny how quickly we forget things. One of the main reasons we were absolutely throttled by FSU in the mid 90s when MOC was coach was that he’d go for it when the CW was to punt it. He knew we wouldn’t stop them and figured our best chance to beat them was to try and score. No one liked those blow outs – but they are a likelihood if you go for it a bunch on 4th down.

Leave a Reply