[stupac2]

I think the staff has done an excellent job of adapting the offense to the skills and abilities of the players. The offense has changed dramatically every year that Shaw has been at the helm without firing anyone. You can expect to see changes next year as well.

Yeah, I think some people are overreacting to a small sample size here. Clearly the staff thought that the game plan that had won us tough games all year long would work against MSU, but it didn't work well enough. But can we really say that we don't threaten the whole field based on a season-long look? We attack the edges with our backs plenty, we run Hogan out of the pocket plenty, and we throw the ball all over the place. The thing that offense was missing was the intermediate-range passing attack, and while we don't really know why that was missing, if we take it for granted that the coaches would prefer to have one but thought there were good reasons why we couldn't do it, then it obviously limits us to where we were.

But, seriously, can anyone say that we haven't changed our offensive identity a bunch of times now? Maybe it's not as drastic as what some coaches do year-to-year, but we've gone from "feed Toby the ball" to "power running, but let Luck fling it to his TEs and WRs off play action" to "power running, QB running, and short-but-high-percentage throws to TEs" to "power running, and long-but-low-percentage throws to WRs". Reverses, sweeps, and wildcat have always been featured to various degrees.

Besides Shaw's first year, the offense has changed its emphasis pretty heavily to suit personnel. Maybe it's not exactly what we'd do, but it's clear it's being done. I'm not sure that we can conclude that Bloomgren is in over his head after his first year doing this.

[stupac2]

I think the staff has done an excellent job of adapting the offense to the skills and abilities of the players. The offense has changed dramatically every year that Shaw has been at the helm without firing anyone. You can expect to see changes next year as well.

Yeah, I think some people are overreacting to a small sample size here. Clearly the staff thought that the game plan that had won us tough games all year long would work against MSU, but it didn't work well enough. But can we really say that we don't threaten the whole field based on a season-long look? We attack the edges with our backs plenty, we run Hogan out of the pocket plenty, and we throw the ball all over the place. The thing that offense was missing was the intermediate-range passing attack, and while we don't really know why that was missing, if we take it for granted that the coaches would prefer to have one but thought there were good reasons why we couldn't do it, then it obviously limits us to where we were.

But, seriously, can anyone say that we haven't changed our offensive identity a bunch of times now? Maybe it's not as drastic as what some coaches do year-to-year, but we've gone from "feed Toby the ball" to "power running, but let Luck fling it to his TEs and WRs off play action" to "power running, QB running, and short-but-high-percentage throws to TEs" to "power running, and long-but-low-percentage throws to WRs". Reverses, sweeps, and wildcat have always been featured to various degrees.

Besides Shaw's first year, the offense has changed its emphasis pretty heavily to suit personnel. Maybe it's not exactly what we'd do, but it's clear it's being done. I'm not sure that we can conclude that Bloomgren is in over his head after his first year doing this.