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. RW4H22 05/28/2010 at 12:56 PM #

    I like the idea; it would definitely make things interesting, but aren’t we bringing that Bennet kid in for kickoffs? If he can get the ball down to the goal line while also getting some decent hang time on it, that alone should significantly improve some things.

  2. old13 05/28/2010 at 12:58 PM #

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

    Please explain this statement, BJD95. Seems to me that if defensive recruiting and player development don’t improve, your “fix” just delays the inevitable, whether or not it succeeds this year.

  3. wufpaxno1 05/28/2010 at 1:16 PM #

    While I do agree in part with the premise that we need to keep our offense on the field as much as possible, bear in mind that our running game is virtually untested and our strength is in the passing game and in particular the long ball with our veteran receiving corps. That does not lend well with ball control and means that our defense will spend time on the field. However, I disagree that our defense will be deplorable. We return a solid group at the linebacker position, have added one of the best defensive minds in college football to the staff, we get Nate back and even if he is not physically at 100% his ability to put people in the right position is as invaluable, if not more so than his physically intimidating presence. Though I believe he will again be a presence. Our secondary last year was made up largely of freshman, redshirt freshman, and sophomores. The largest learning curve in football takes place between year one and year two in the secondary and I expect them to be much improved, not world beaters, but solidly improved. The question becomes our defensive line, last year’s strength but decimated by graduation. This is one area that I think TOB did a good job of red shirting, and though not the unit’s strength, I expect it to be adequate to the task. This defense will not lead the ACC, but it will also not be the leagues weakest. I think that we will all may be pleasantly surprised.

  4. Plz2BStateFan 05/28/2010 at 1:47 PM #

    Based on the standard view points we either are going to be horrible again or we will be a 6,7,8 win bowl team assuming improvement in the secondary.

    The results of this year are heavily dependent on “coaching them up.” This year could be a case study in our staffs coaching ability. Good or Bad.

    One thing is for sure, nobody on that team is riding any kind of hype and knows it has to maximize the learning time we have before the year starts…..

    And dont forget the unknown quantity that is Tenuta being added to the staff.

  5. choppack1 05/28/2010 at 1:53 PM #

    Just some stats from our D last year:
    Scoring D – 99th
    Rushing D – 57th
    Passing D – 69th
    Total D – 55th
    3rd Down Conversion – 92nd
    Red Zone D – 66th
    TO’s Caused – 116th

    Translation – our D – as bad as it was – really sucked when it came to generating TO’s. The rushing D was mediocre, and the red zone and passing D were w/in that range – but the 3rd Down D and TO’s killed us. Hopefully, Tenuta can do something to get us off the field because Archer has definitely failed in this regard.

  6. tjfoose1 05/28/2010 at 2:22 PM #

    “Our net punting was only 3 yards out of 1st place in the conference last year. ”

    True, 3.44 to be exact. State was 9th in the ACC in net punting (34.7 yds), 79th out of 120 FBS schools nationally.

    However, our total defense was 8th (361.25 yds/game), 55th nationally. Our scoring defense was 11th (31.17 pts/game), 99th nationally. Our turnover margin was dead f’n last (-.92), 114th nationally.

    Our time of possession was 63rd nationally, at 29:50 per game. Considering our defense, I think this is a remarkable testament to our offense and further supports the ‘no punt’ philosophy.
    http://web1.ncaa.org/d1mfb/natlRank.jsp?year=2009&div=4&rpt=IA_teamtop&site=org

    Speaking of our offense, it was 5th (393.83 yds/gm) in the ACC. Scoring offense was 4th in the ACC at 30.33 pts/gm. But more importantly, our offense was very explosive with the capability of big plays and for scoring from anywhere on the field.

    For an effective analysis, you must consider all aspects of NC State’s team. Offense, defense, special teams, time of possession, TO,s, personnel, depth, strengths, weaknesses, etc… For instance, if our punting were DFL in the country, but we had Alabama’s defense, such a philosophy would be ridiculous.

    “…in the third highest level of Arkansas high school football, that hardly constitutes a perfect laboratory setting.”

    It makes sense at that level because of the quality (or lack there of) and inconsistency of the kicking game.

    Actually, It could be argued that it makes more sense for NC State to employ the ‘no punt’ philosophy than the AR HS team that made it famous.

    Both NC State and the HS team have explosive offenses, both have issues with the kicking game (the HS team as a function of youth, NC State as a function of talent)… But throw in NC State’s woeful defense and TO margin (neither of which were characteristics of the HS team), I think yes, it does make more sense for NC State to employ such a philosophy.

    Simply put, based on last year’s kicking game and defense, the philosophy does improve our chances to win.

    Not to mention the ancillary positive effects: national press, free publicity, and thus, recruiting, etc…

    NC State 2009 Team Stats:
    http://web1.ncaa.org/football/exec/rankingSummary?year=2009&org=490

    [Edit]:

    NC State’s 3rd down conversion rate:
    44.81% (69/154), 2nd in ACC, 22nd nationally

    4th down conversion rate: I believe this is irrelevant to the discussion, as it usually only came into play in late game, catchup situations, which skewed the results (for example, 20+ yd chuck to endzone at end of game against SoCar), but, FWIW:
    36.84% (7/19), 97th nationally.

    NC State’s Defense, 3rd Down efficiency:
    42.5%, (68/160) 92nd nationally

    4th down defense efficiency:
    57.14%, (8/14) 89th nationally

    For reference, great stats page:
    http://web1.ncaa.org/mfb/mainpage.jsp?year=2009

  7. ryebread 05/28/2010 at 2:22 PM #

    What our defense really struggled with last year was getting off the field. The lack of TOs may have been statistically bad, but what killed us is that we just couldn’t stop drives on critical 3rd downs. I think that attributed to the scoring D being worse than the rushing and passing D numbers would indicate.

    IMHO, this was due to a fatally flawed strategy when it comes to alignment. It will be 3rd and 3 and we’ll have our DBs lining up 8 yards off of the line of scrimmage. Throw a slant or an out, get the first down and keep on marching. It really ties into our entire defensive mentality.

    If we fix the mentality and alignment issues and can get off the field, then I think we’ll fix the turnover problem as well. Our guys were so lost/put out of position, that they really didn’t have a chance to make instinctual plays or focus on turnovers. Get them in position and playing more aggressively, and I think they’ll get to more balls.

    Each year is a new season. I think Tenuta will help us do this. I don’t think for one second we hired him just to be a LB coach.

    Now, if we’re 1/2 the way through the year and still can’t stop anyone, then I’m all for adopting this strategy. Heck, it’d be foolish to be stubborn and NOT try something different. I’m just not willing to say we should start the season this way.

  8. wolf pack 05/28/2010 at 2:34 PM #

    Say what

  9. T-FIC 05/28/2010 at 2:38 PM #

    Nate Irving is only good for 20 snaps a game??? This is the first I have heard of that. Anyone have insight into this?

  10. tjfoose1 05/28/2010 at 2:56 PM #

    “It will be 3rd and 3 and we’ll have our DBs lining up 8 yards off of the line of scrimmage.”

    Yep, all game long, every game. The Duke game was especially ridiculous. But it is what Archer teaches and preaches.

  11. packalum44 05/28/2010 at 2:57 PM #

    “Is it really that hard to get decent kickers/punters?”

    We got a new kick-off guy. Supposedly he can kick it into the end zone or get some hang time on it. Punting is the huge concern.

    TOB DID go for it alot last year. I remember on a 4th and 12 we went for it and Wilson got a Wolfpack 1st Down!!!

    I’d agree with this strategy ONLY if our D is worse than last year. Reason being we were SO close to getting game-changing stops on 3rd downs. The difference was inches in many cases. Like the popular adage states, football is game of inches and its completely true. Assuming Nate and Company can improve, if only marginally, these few inches here and keep a TD per game off the opponents scoreboard. That’s worth a couple Ws because we were that close in most losses.

    I like the critical thinking though and this strategy doesn’t have to be employed on day 1. If after a few games its obvious we suck bigger balls than last year then I’m all for it.

  12. choppack1 05/28/2010 at 3:06 PM #

    tj – I saw our 3rd down % too and it did give me a little bit of pause. However, you’d think that in those 4th down #s, we’d have plenty of cases that were custom-made for this philosophy. And if you abandon your punting game – you’ll end up w/ plenty of 4ths and forevers.

    Like I said – I can see us doing a modified version of this. I think any team w/ an offense that’s better than their defense should do this as long as the game is in doubt.

    Finally, I’ve seen what happens too many times when gimmick teams play real ones. And the bottom line – the worst thing about this philosophy is also what makes it scary – when you go out on downs – the other team gets the ball back – and a lot of times that field position is going to give the offense much more of an advantage than they’d have if they’d punted.

  13. b 05/28/2010 at 3:54 PM #

    I’ve no problem in general with going for it anytime between the 50 and the opponents 20, but Czajkowski was 7/9 from 30 plus for 77%. Most times a 3/4 shot at 3 points, is better than a 1 in 3 chance to keep trying for a touchdown.

    Sometimes it’s not, sometimes you need to send a message to your offense that you believe in them or keep the ball to run clock. If your defense has proven it can stop the other team from moving the ball, the risk pays off more often than not. If your D is suspect, you just increase the already overwhelming odds in the other teams favor, 2 out of three times.

    And getting it once just means you may have to try again three plays later. So realistically, to get from the thirty to the endzone, you will have to brave those 1/3 odds three times, for two first downs and a TD. Versus that same 7/9 odds for three points.

  14. wufpaxno1 05/28/2010 at 5:07 PM #

    ryebread and tjfoose1

    I got really frustrated with the 3rd down alignment of our secondary as well and agree that it had more to do with our horrible third down defensive stats than anything else, but I will also venture that this alignment was due more to inexperience then poor coaching. More than any other position, reaction time is key to the secondary, and our inexperienced secondary was very slow to react while they processed what was happening in front of them. The staff placed them further off the line to increase the time needed for them to process and react to the play. The only cure for this is experience and that is something that we will have more of this year. I doubt we will see them line up that far off the ball this year. If we do, then I will whole heartedly agree that it is coaching and put Archer directly in front of the target.

  15. baxter 05/28/2010 at 7:13 PM #

    Okay, I need someone to explain to me why anyone would employ “bend but don’t break”? Am I missing something in this philosophy where as a defense minded person I’d go, OH THAT MAKES SENSE?

  16. Packfan28 05/29/2010 at 9:25 AM #

    Like Update said, the net punting yards weren’t terrible, although we were 9th in the ACC in that category. In punting average, Ruiz was 13th, which is quite a feat in a 12 team league. He was also 12th out of 12 in kick-off distance, which puts an awful lot of pressure on the cover team.

  17. PoppaJohn 05/29/2010 at 10:39 AM #

    I’m not buying the concept as being potentially successful.

    Premise 1 – The opposition is going to score on us regularly because we can’t stop anybody.
    Premise 2 – So we’re saying we throw (almost) every down. The defenses know it is coming, we don’t hide it.

    Isn’t that basically last year all over again? Okay, so we didn’t start the year with that as the plan, but that’s the way it worked out. It was awful!

Leave a Reply