Seriously, this is an excellent article (link here). I found Muschamp's quote in particular to be quite telling:
"I don't think it's because of [the] spread," Muschamp said. "I think it's because of tempo. You're playing more snaps. It has nothing to do with scheme. Schemes are obviously getting further advanced, but we eventually catch up. At the end of the day, it's about the number of snaps you take."
I don't entirely agree with Muschamp, because I feel the quick-read nature of the spread contributes heavily to the number of snaps an offense can take. Still, he makes a critical point - one which multiple sets of metrics have pointed out (as Montana HC Bob Stitt pointed out on this ESPN podcast after his thrilling win over North Dakota State this weekend): the more snaps you take, the more points you score.
This could be good for us in two key ways: first, it validates the increased auxiliary-staff roles (particularly the metrics-based ones) that Eichorst and Riley want to build in our AD as we benefit from the coming river of B1G money. Second, it has the potential to validate our current approach to offense - assuming we utilize a heavy degree of up-tempo.
@mlandis3 and I (among several others) have been adamant from the start of the Riley Era that moving toward a pro-style offense is a very bad move for us. And I still feel this way...however...if we continue to move forward with a hybrid "pro-spread" offense and focus on maximizing our snaps by going up-tempo consistently, perhaps we'll gain in the long run via both increased plays and an increased flexibility due to combining the best of what both styles have to offer.
It's worth thinking about, anyway. Especially during this time of year.
"I don't think it's because of [the] spread," Muschamp said. "I think it's because of tempo. You're playing more snaps. It has nothing to do with scheme. Schemes are obviously getting further advanced, but we eventually catch up. At the end of the day, it's about the number of snaps you take."
I don't entirely agree with Muschamp, because I feel the quick-read nature of the spread contributes heavily to the number of snaps an offense can take. Still, he makes a critical point - one which multiple sets of metrics have pointed out (as Montana HC Bob Stitt pointed out on this ESPN podcast after his thrilling win over North Dakota State this weekend): the more snaps you take, the more points you score.
This could be good for us in two key ways: first, it validates the increased auxiliary-staff roles (particularly the metrics-based ones) that Eichorst and Riley want to build in our AD as we benefit from the coming river of B1G money. Second, it has the potential to validate our current approach to offense - assuming we utilize a heavy degree of up-tempo.
@mlandis3 and I (among several others) have been adamant from the start of the Riley Era that moving toward a pro-style offense is a very bad move for us. And I still feel this way...however...if we continue to move forward with a hybrid "pro-spread" offense and focus on maximizing our snaps by going up-tempo consistently, perhaps we'll gain in the long run via both increased plays and an increased flexibility due to combining the best of what both styles have to offer.
It's worth thinking about, anyway. Especially during this time of year.
