10-25-2016, 09:04 AM
There's a point on predictability that I want to address: is an overly predictable offense a cause or effect of a bad offense? (Or, perhaps, to crib from Orwell, is it a little bit of both: A man may take to drink because he feels himself a failure, but then fail all the more completely because he drinks.)
That is, if an offense only has a few plays it can competently execute it kind of has to stick with them -- doing something that won't work because it's surprising doesn't really sound like a recipe for success.
Incidentally I wonder whether execution/coaching is making plays less successful than they are. One of the features of this year's offense that bugs me is the reliance on shotgun runs. Unless they're accompanied with a read-option they simply are not great plays. And yet Burns rarely seems to pull the ball -- maybe that fumble against Kansas State spooked him. Chryst seems more eager to run, but neither of them are in Hogan's class as a runner. That makes the offense substantially more one-dimensional, and it's not as if either offer significant other virtues to offset that.
That is, if an offense only has a few plays it can competently execute it kind of has to stick with them -- doing something that won't work because it's surprising doesn't really sound like a recipe for success.
Incidentally I wonder whether execution/coaching is making plays less successful than they are. One of the features of this year's offense that bugs me is the reliance on shotgun runs. Unless they're accompanied with a read-option they simply are not great plays. And yet Burns rarely seems to pull the ball -- maybe that fumble against Kansas State spooked him. Chryst seems more eager to run, but neither of them are in Hogan's class as a runner. That makes the offense substantially more one-dimensional, and it's not as if either offer significant other virtues to offset that.