[Goose]

So here is where I disagree with OutsiderFan.  While I agree that our passing offense is not optimally suited for the kind of offense we are running, it seems to me that it would be much better to try to fix the running game, which is clearly not working, than "fix" the passing game, which works well (if sub-optimally).  That's not to say that we shouldn't tinker around the edges (for example, the first pass to Smith was a short pass just past the line of scrimmage, well in front of the defender, that went for six or seven yards; we could do with more of that).  Wholesale changes to the offensive philosophy, however, would be a mistake (witness Kelly's luck changing the Bruins offense, and he had an entire offseason to do so).  A merely adequate running game (4.5 yards per cary and 170 yards per game, which is about what the median teams, Utah and ASU average) would leave us with a much more powerful offense and would put us in a position to win most of the rest of our games.  So, I would focus my energy on getting some marginal improvement in the run game, which would make our passing game more effective.

BC

Totally agree. The play-action, semi-roll-out short pass shows the coaches know how to "tinker around the edges" effectively. Last year, in his first two games, they moved the pocket with KJ. Not on many downs, but on some. We can do that too, and I think it will help.

However, "fixing" the run game is our best hope, I think. We aren't going to become WSU in the last 6 or so games of the season, for the reasons BC has stated. I also believe, in addition, that we don't have the receivers to do it. They were recruited to run the  offense we have been running. The idea of striving for a more efficient rushing offense, even with the understanding that it hasn't happened so far, is, I believe, our only real choice.

Nobody likes where we are. What we need to do is get to a "better place".  That is possible only if we don't attempt to go a bridge too far and put ourselves in an even worse position. However, I think the coaches should consider dialing back the expectations on each running play from a possible home run to "let's make sure we at least get three yards". Getting a bunch of runs stuffed puts too much pressure on the passing game. On another thread, somebody likened Scarlett to Remound Wright. If Scarlett could reproduce the 4.5 YPC average Wright had in 2014 in a running back by committee year, I think we could live quite handily with that. Perhaps wishful thinking. I know we all hope that Love will return, get lots of touches,  and be healthy, but until we get a line that can make holes with zone blocking and slowly developing runs, I suspect Love is going to have trouble getting free reliably. Hopefully, we will get the opportunity to find out.

[Goose]

So here is where I disagree with OutsiderFan.  While I agree that our passing offense is not optimally suited for the kind of offense we are running, it seems to me that it would be much better to try to fix the running game, which is clearly not working, than "fix" the passing game, which works well (if sub-optimally).  That's not to say that we shouldn't tinker around the edges (for example, the first pass to Smith was a short pass just past the line of scrimmage, well in front of the defender, that went for six or seven yards; we could do with more of that).  Wholesale changes to the offensive philosophy, however, would be a mistake (witness Kelly's luck changing the Bruins offense, and he had an entire offseason to do so).  A merely adequate running game (4.5 yards per cary and 170 yards per game, which is about what the median teams, Utah and ASU average) would leave us with a much more powerful offense and would put us in a position to win most of the rest of our games.  So, I would focus my energy on getting some marginal improvement in the run game, which would make our passing game more effective.

BC

Totally agree. The play-action, semi-roll-out short pass shows the coaches know how to "tinker around the edges" effectively. Last year, in his first two games, they moved the pocket with KJ. Not on many downs, but on some. We can do that too, and I think it will help.

However, "fixing" the run game is our best hope, I think. We aren't going to become WSU in the last 6 or so games of the season, for the reasons BC has stated. I also believe, in addition, that we don't have the receivers to do it. They were recruited to run the  offense we have been running. The idea of striving for a more efficient rushing offense, even with the understanding that it hasn't happened so far, is, I believe, our only real choice.

Nobody likes where we are. What we need to do is get to a "better place".  That is possible only if we don't attempt to go a bridge too far and put ourselves in an even worse position. However, I think the coaches should consider dialing back the expectations on each running play from a possible home run to "let's make sure we at least get three yards". Getting a bunch of runs stuffed puts too much pressure on the passing game. On another thread, somebody likened Scarlett to Remound Wright. If Scarlett could reproduce the 4.5 YPC average Wright had in 2014 in a running back by committee year, I think we could live quite handily with that. Perhaps wishful thinking. I know we all hope that Love will return, get lots of touches,  and be healthy, but until we get a line that can make holes with zone blocking and slowly developing runs, I suspect Love is going to have trouble getting free reliably. Hopefully, we will get the opportunity to find out.