Semi-OT: Ole Miss Offense, Speed in Space

That phrase may be in a pearl jam song, but the concept/phrase has been around since Ty Cobb/Babe Ruth. (forever)

Aaron

comparing RR now to then is different. I think after he was fired from Michigan he couldn't get the coordinators that he needed, also think there were some arrogance on his part as well. I 100% agree that he needed a D-coordinator. That was all he was missing. It's still better than the 1990's football that Harbaugh is putting out there.(Please let this year be different)

Not that I think Rich Rodriguez was a great hire, but I think there is an alternate dimension where he has more success than he had.

2011 with Rich Rod running the offense instead of Hoke/Borges + Jeff Casteel as DC instead of Greg Robinson (edit: Greg Robinson to 1st year Mattison transition) + 2011 recruiting class being stronger as a function of no coaching change

You could argue that this hypothetical 2011 team is able to flip either the MSU or Iowa game, and 11-1 Michigan is in the title game conversation instead of a third Alabama/LSU matchup (or heck, flip both games and 12-0 Michigan is a shoe-in).

That said, the wheels still probably come off for Rich Rod in the ensuing years.

Though, you do have to wonder if Rich Rod stays and flips some recruits like Braxton Miller, if OSU becomes dominant in this multiverse...

It takes more than one recruiting cycle to replenish a decimated roster.  2010+ was definitely all on him…and gerg of course.

I agree.

But.

Knowing what we know about Hoke, I kinda wished Rich Rod coached in 2011.  Denard was amazing in 2011 under Hoke/Borges, he coulda won a Heisman under Rich Rod.

Yeah, our defense probably would've been shit under another year of Gerg and maybe we're worse than 11-2, but OTOH, maybe the universe where Rich Rod gets fired after 2011 is the universe where Urban Meyer wants to know what he could do with Denard when he returns to coaching in 2012...

guess it depends on what we mean by "holding onto the ball longer".  From my perspective, holding it longer means, less big plays, taking longer to snap it, and more first downs per drive (hence more plays per drive).

Less big plays to me is a risk vs. reward. If you have the horses (clemson usually, bama, osu), you go at it every time. Nearly nobody can keep up.

Taking longer to snap it - we've seen that what happens is.. more time for the other team to set up and rest between plays, we get stupid false starts and delay of game penalties. So, assuming that taking longer to run a play simply just adds time, but in my opinion, its a negative.

Lastly, more first downs per drive. This sounds good in theory - lets take longer to score, and if we do that 4-5 times a game on long TD drives, we're unstoppable. But i see fault in this for a few reasons. 1, its HARD to get 10-20 yards per 3 plays. In other words, if you run short/medium plays constantly, the defense tightens a bit and finding space becomes tough without stretching the field. Also, you're reliant on converting 3rd downs. 3rd downs, for the most part, are binary. What i mean is... if you don't convert, high likelihood the possession is over. So by relying on that 3rd down conversion, whether it is 3rd and 1 or 3rd and 10 to extend drives and take time, i think your probability of a successful drive overall, decreases. Its hard converting 3rd downs. converting multiple in a drive is even harder.. especially, again, if you are focused on short/medium space for runs/passes.

Lastly, more plays on offense can yield more turnovers and more chaos. It could wear a defense down - true.. but the stated intent wasnt to grind teams into oblivion. The intent state was to take up more play clock time to reduce # of possessions for the opposing teams. 

Point of all of this is that to me - the time you might take up that keeps your defense off the field, might actually yield a more than proportionate lower point total for your own team. And, if your defense isnt that stellar to begin with, then you are now actually lessening the number of possessions YOU get to try and keep up with an opposing team that scores 25-30 points. And, if you are not as successful as you wish you were, your philosophy of shortening the game is now costing you the game.

if you have a bad defense and good offense, then you could argue that increasing the # of possessions gives you a better chance to win. Your offense can improve far more by increasing the # of possessions than your defense might sink by an increase in # of possessions defended. You're right.. more doesnt equal better, but... longer possessions increases the likelihood of other non-good things. turnovers, penalties, etc.. and has a counter effect --- in my non-scientific, non data-driven, view.

Exactly! I didn't check the box score after the game, so thanks for pointing it out. 

If a team doesn't score, then TOP is meaningless. I would prefer scoring often and hence, fast compared to 5-minute drives ending in FGs or punts/turnover of downs.