[BostonCard]

 when is the last time you watched Stanford on O and said "what a brilliant call - way to scheme that guy open!"?

Big Game, Mills hits Donald Stewart for a 40 yard touchdown in which he was wide open.

However, I think philosophically we disagree.  Taking advantage of a mismatch is great offensive scheming, whether it is throwing to a 6'4" receiver defended by a 5'10" DB, a 4.5" 40 TE being covered by a slower linebacker, or a 300 lb pulling guard plowing the playside linebacker, leaving your 220 lb RB one-on-one in space with safety, isn't that what you want?

I'm all for scheming players open when possible.  I am a firm believer in play action passing (and the data supports that play action passes are more efficient than almost any other pass play in the playbook, and, contrary to popular opinion, it doesn't seem to lose efficacy if you "overuse" it).  However, you don't want to have to rely on "scheme" to get you open.  Usually, if you have "schemed a guy open" what you really did is take advantage of a blown assignment by the defense.  And if you can get it, take it, but I don't think you can build your offense around that, or at least, not any more than you can build your offense around hoping that Love breaks a tackle at the line of scrimmage and then is gone 60 yards for a touchdown.  It will work against undisciplined and poorly coached teams (and teams that are pressing because you are dominating them, such as Va Tech in the Orange Bowl).  But it won't work against a team that is disciplined and well-coached, just as Love couldn't do his magic against teams that were well positioned and were sure tackling.

And when you have a team that can't execute, it doesn't matter what the hell you scheme.  Your receiver might be wide open down the sideline, but it is pointless if the QB is being chased down by a defensive end.  You might have a perfectly set up screen, but it does nothing if the QB throws it into the ground or the RB drops the ball because he looks upfield before catching it.  I still have nightmares of Caleb Bowman running wide open behind the defense as a perfectly thrown ball is heading his way, only to see him drop the damned thing.  You never answered the question of why if the answer is just putting together the right scheme, the Willingham/Didrich offense in 2000 was almost as bad as the Shaw/Pritchard offense in 2019.

But all of this does get me to a question I've been meaning to ask generally... what scheme would I want to implement if Shaw made me head coach.

BC

[BostonCard]

 when is the last time you watched Stanford on O and said "what a brilliant call - way to scheme that guy open!"?

Big Game, Mills hits Donald Stewart for a 40 yard touchdown in which he was wide open.

However, I think philosophically we disagree.  Taking advantage of a mismatch is great offensive scheming, whether it is throwing to a 6'4" receiver defended by a 5'10" DB, a 4.5" 40 TE being covered by a slower linebacker, or a 300 lb pulling guard plowing the playside linebacker, leaving your 220 lb RB one-on-one in space with safety, isn't that what you want?

I'm all for scheming players open when possible.  I am a firm believer in play action passing (and the data supports that play action passes are more efficient than almost any other pass play in the playbook, and, contrary to popular opinion, it doesn't seem to lose efficacy if you "overuse" it).  However, you don't want to have to rely on "scheme" to get you open.  Usually, if you have "schemed a guy open" what you really did is take advantage of a blown assignment by the defense.  And if you can get it, take it, but I don't think you can build your offense around that, or at least, not any more than you can build your offense around hoping that Love breaks a tackle at the line of scrimmage and then is gone 60 yards for a touchdown.  It will work against undisciplined and poorly coached teams (and teams that are pressing because you are dominating them, such as Va Tech in the Orange Bowl).  But it won't work against a team that is disciplined and well-coached, just as Love couldn't do his magic against teams that were well positioned and were sure tackling.

And when you have a team that can't execute, it doesn't matter what the hell you scheme.  Your receiver might be wide open down the sideline, but it is pointless if the QB is being chased down by a defensive end.  You might have a perfectly set up screen, but it does nothing if the QB throws it into the ground or the RB drops the ball because he looks upfield before catching it.  I still have nightmares of Caleb Bowman running wide open behind the defense as a perfectly thrown ball is heading his way, only to see him drop the damned thing.  You never answered the question of why if the answer is just putting together the right scheme, the Willingham/Didrich offense in 2000 was almost as bad as the Shaw/Pritchard offense in 2019.

But all of this does get me to a question I've been meaning to ask generally... what scheme would I want to implement if Shaw made me head coach.

BC