ON NEW OFFENSIVE COORDINATORS, QUARTERBACKS, AND SCHEMES

by Joel on Oct 3, 2008 6:39 AM CDT in College Football

Tennessee's struggles on offense this season are well-documented. To determine just how bad it is, have a quick look at the Vols' ranking in all of the NCAA's key offensive statistics:

RO	PO	TO	SO	PE	SA	TFLA	3DC	4DC	RZO	FDO	AVG
49	96	81	101	111	22	26	87	1	82	89	67.72727

Abbreviation key:

Rushing offense
Passing offense
Total offense
Scoring offense
Pass efficiency
Sacks allowed
Tackles for loss allowed
3rd down conversion percentage
4th down conversion percentage
Red zone offense
First down offense

Tennessee leads the nation in 4th down conversions (woo, and cue hooper bashing his head against a brick wall) and isn't actually horrible at allowing sacks or tackles for a loss, but other than that, it's fairly pitiful. Our average offensive ranking is 67.73. Passing offense, scoring offense, and pass efficiency is absolutely putrid.

This is the point in the article where we beat our chests and scream into the raining heavens, "WHY, THEN?! WHY, OH WHY?!"

There are most certainly many reasons for the current futility of our offensive unit, but I wanted to focus on three factors and then compare our stats to schools in similar situations. Those factors? New coordinators, new schemes, and new QBs. Unfortunately, the real-life obligations of the week have practically pounded me into a fetal position, and I haven't been able to gather all the data I wanted. I'm hoping y'all will help. Here's what I have so far:

Team	New OC	New QB	New Scheme	AVG OR
Alabama	Y			34.09091
Arkansas	Y			78.63636
Auburn	Y	Y	Y	86.45455
Baylor	Y			49.72727
California	Y			45.90909
Duke	Y			57.18182
Georgia	Y			34.90909
Georgia Tech	Y			60.27273
Kansas St.	Y			22.81818
Maryland	Y			65.72727
Michigan	Y	Y	Y	88.36364
Mississippi	Y			53
Nebraska	Y			43
Northwestern	Y			54.18182
Oklahoma St.	Y			17.45455
South Carolina	Y			68.18182
South Fla.	Y			36
Syracuse	Y			73
Tennessee	Y	Y	Y	67.72727
Texas A&M	Y			80.72727
UCLA	Y	Y		88.18182
Washington St.	Y			95.54545
West Virginia	Y			57.27273

Those are the schools in BCS conferences that at least have new offensive coordinators this season. I obtained the coordinator info by reading Phil Steele's preseason blurbs on each team's coaches. I could have missed some, and some of that could be wrong. For instance, I couldn't really gather whether South Florida had a new OC this season, but it sortkinda sounded like they did. I filled in the new QB information column just from memory, but I didn't really want to guess, so I only completed it if I was pretty sure. Determining whether a team has a new QB this season shouldn't be difficult. Determining whether they have a new scheme is more problematic but might be the factor most correlating to a steep and long learning curve.

In any event, if any of you have time and the inclincation, see what you can find to fill in that chart above. I wonder what we can learn, if anything, once it's completed. Some discoveries may be quite painful, such as finding that former Vol Trooper Taylor is doing quite nicely at Oklahoma St., thank you very much, which may lead to wide-spread lamentations that we in fact should have hired the man. Or that Alabama's new OC is, um, rolling right along. But . . . we may find that the Cowboys' (and maybe the Tide's) only change on offense is the coordinator, and that they merely plugged a new OC into a mature system with an experienced QB. That's certainly quite different than bringing in a new guy with a new system and making the team adapt to a new scheme with a new QB under center.

Other discoveries may give some comfort, like finding that Tennessee is in pretty good company with the likes of South Carolina, Auburn, UCLA, and Michigan. I'm fairly certain that we'll find that with the exception of South Carolina (where Spurrier's son is almost certainly calling plays out of Spurrier's system), those schools are all struggling on offense primarily because they changed everything on offense . New OC, new QB, new scheme.

Anyway, let's see what we can find. All of the above teams' offensive statistical rankings in order of average rank is below the fold for anyone who's interested.

Rank	Team	RO	PO	TO	SO	PE	SA	TFLA	3DC	4DC	RZO	FDO	AVG
3	Oklahoma St.	1	53	4	3	4	8	26	8	73	9	3	17.45455
10	Kansas St.	74	12	23	8	11	1	8	10	32	52	20	22.81818
14	Alabama	17	101	57	19	42	30	12	14	1	31	51	34.09091
16	Georgia	54	25	30	29	30	60	37	27	32	13	47	34.90909
19	South Fla.	28	26	16	20	31	60	94	20	22	65	14	36
30	Nebraska	57	24	33	17	12	35	78	85	32	59	41	43
35	California	22	41	20	10	44	50	78	80	80	46	34	45.90909
45	Baylor	13	67	26	30	22	97	72	32	80	63	45	49.72727
51	Mississippi	45	60	49	49	49	19	12	57	80	75	88	53
52	Northwestern	64	61	67	72	86	7	37	44	73	23	62	54.18182
58	Duke	78	43	61	44	56	78	50	22	90	78	29	57.18182
59	West Virginia	12	111	67	83	38	15	50	46	48	89	71	57.27273
65	Georgia Tech	5	115	43	56	52	50	50	36	80	97	79	60.27273
69	Maryland	39	89	64	63	59	73	58	35	77	65	101	65.72727
73	Tennessee	49	96	81	101	111	22	26	87	1	82	89	67.72727
74	South Carolina	91	56	79	89	84	116	94	31	32	52	26	68.18182
85	Syracuse	55	108	109	90	82	46	4	115	77	1	116	73
96	Arkansas	109	29	74	96	74	119	116	76	42	59	71	78.63636
100	Texas A&M	101	87	107	88	35	109	112	15	42	93	99	80.72727
107	Auburn	56	97	90	97	99	46	108	112	48	105	93	86.45455
108	UCLA	106	95	114	109	108	78	31	104	13	101	111	88.18182
109	Michigan	82	104	110	93	109	15	112	114	22	99	112	88.36364
114	Washington St.	92	72	96	103	106	113	116	96	113	78	66	95.54545

0 recs | Comment 7 comments |

Read Related

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

/bashes head against wall

Say it with me, kids: SMALL SAMPLE SIZE!!!

That 4th down conversion percentage thing must be overblown in this case: it’s not like we tried a 4th and short at the fringe of field goal range late in the 4th quarter! (BTW, I’m referring to the penultimate punt, not the last one.) Ok, more rationally now: the 4th-down conversion ranking is buoying the offensive score and making it look a touch better than it should, but that’s not too big of a deal.

What’s notable is the sacks allowed and the tackles-for-loss allowed at 22 and 26, respectively. Those are primarily a function of the line play (especially when you’re not in the patented Cutcliffe 1-Mississippi-pass-or-throwaway offense), and those are good numbers. Considering the problems we’ve had with fumbles on handoffs, miscues on formations, and miscues on plays, the flipping O-line is one unit we can’t really pin any blame on. That’s good.

by hooper on Oct 3, 2008 11:43 AM CDT 0 recs

Actually...

Georgia doesn’t have a new OC. Mike Bobo is in his 2nd full year at calling the plays.

by deanpat92 on Oct 3, 2008 1:04 PM CDT 0 recs

If I recall correctly

I think I included Georgia b/c Mark Richt gave up the play calling this year.

Can anyone confirm?

Go Vols!

by Joel on Oct 3, 2008 5:02 PM CDT up 0 recs

It was at the very end of the 2006 season. Then confirmed at the beginning of the 2007 season.

Here. And here. And here.

by hooper on Oct 3, 2008 5:17 PM CDT up 0 recs

Okay, thanks

That actually helps with the hypothesis. I’ll remove them.

Go Vols!

by Joel on Oct 3, 2008 6:49 PM CDT up 0 recs

Two issues here...

Your analysis of football is excellent, both scientific and philosophical.

My belief why the football team is having issues is three fold. I agree with everything you say, but more. From my research, it normally takes a good football team with talent and good coaches 4 games to get down new systems. With that, we should see an explosion this weekend. The defense is good and will get better.

The second issue is with Jonathan Crompton. I have watched him closely for three years, especially when he came in for Ainge. It is one thing to step in for the starter, the pressure is different, you don’t have the burden especially when the starter has not played well (hurt), so all you can do is improve. You are not expected to play well anyway, you are the back up.

But all this changes when you become the man with a huge responsibility on your shoulders. You see it constantly in war, where great subordinates suddenly became the overall guy and failed. As long as they had a superior pulling top covers for the ultimate success or more importantly failure, well, they did not need the strengh of character to carry the weight that their decisions carried at the top level.

It is the same here. Crompton is throwing poorly because he is trying not to fail (interception). He is handing off poorly, in the worst of all places because he is trying not to fail. Instead of trying to lead and succeed by taking risks, he is playing too tight. The burden of his decisions is squarly on his shoulders. Some excell, some do not. Playing great in highschool is one thing. Coaches recruiting can only hope they can give their young stars experience and let them ease into the pressure.

Not saying It is very tough, and I could not do it, but I have commanding and led small units up to companies in combat, so I can feel the pressure. But, his issue is magnified with expectations from the following TN football has (both good and bad). I am simply saying that because a play was a star at one level may not translate into the next, especially when he suddenly is bolted into the staring role while spending three years waiting for it.

All this, like the fumbles by Arian Foster are not his sole fault, but the tighteness I see in his face at times easily rubs off on other players. He is the quarterback, and everyone, even on the defense looks to him for leadership.

Stephens in my opinion is coming in at a great time, in that he is not expected to do great, so anything he does well, can be built upon. Plus, by now, the Clawson system is becoming more familiar to the players.

The last point is Fulmer. I like the man personally, he is very unselfish, gives all to the school and state, the players like him because he is a moral guide, but he is out of touch with today’s college game. No matter who you hire below you, you are still the guy that the style of the team emulates, and his style is long past.

Tennessee football has the talent, in my opinion as good as anyone in the SEC, but leadership, in the two critical positions is the problem. Until it changes, the best we can hope for is for other teams to mess up, and for us to return to the SEC for the fifth time and lose again.

Don Vandergriff

by ArmyVOL on Oct 3, 2008 1:32 PM CDT 0 recs

Welcome back!

I remember you posting earlier in the summer and enjoyed what you had to say. I think you really have something here as well; the type of pressure Crompton felt when subbing in is not the same pressure he feels as the unquestioned starter. In that LSU game, he did not spend the entire week thinking about playing in the game (ok, I know that all backups think about it to a degree, but not in a tangible sense) so he didn’t have a week’s worth of anticipation leading into it.

Here’s hoping the same fate doesn’t befall Stephens. That wouldn’t be any fun at all.

by hooper on Oct 3, 2008 2:05 PM CDT up 0 recs