I'll be perfectly honest: I'm stunned at how widespread the willingness of Auburn fans to lay palm branches down at Gus Malzahn's feet seems to be. Not because he's not deserving (well, metaphorically speaking), but because these are the same Auburn fans who were ready to tar and feather Tony "Spread Man Walking" Franklin
before running him out of town on the proverbial rail, and that was three games into the season. They're the same Auburn fans who looked at Mike Leach's 11-1 record in this year's Big 12 and said "Actually, we'd rather wait until you go undefeated, thanks." And now comes Malzahn, with his Franklinesque up-tempo scheme and high school roots, and his Leachesque hatred of the humble punt, and he's greeted with hosannas? Was the
Fear of a
Patrick Nix Planet really this strong?
So, yeah, I was expecting more comments along the lines of this beauty left in the thread after
Sunday's post:
Oh no - this is an absolute disaster. I remember the last time an SEC team hired Malzahn and what happened there. Nobody is left from that debacle at Arkansas.
I thought we were going back to smash-mouth football, but apparently we are simply going to concede the next few years to Bama and everyone else in the country and maybe hire Turner Gill after this HIGH SCHOOL COACH fails to implement the spread at AU once again. Tony Franklin, redux. What is that quote about insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result ? The ONLY silver lining in hiring Chizik was he promised a return to AU football, i.e., not the spread. So what does he do next ? This is it for me. The powers-that-be at AU are absolutely crazy and the whole lot of them needs to be run off....
This opinion is far and away in the minority, though. Charles Goldberg's survey shows
more than 88 percent of Auburn fans are behind the hire. Why? Are the surface differences between Tony Franklin, the man who'll forever be known as the decision that destroyed Tommy Tuberville's Auburn coaching career, and Malzahn really that great? Hell, despite his Arkansas episode, Franklin's systems were more proven against SEC competition than the ones Malzahn will run at Auburn will be.
But even if I can't explain why Malzahn is being welcomed with such open arms--maybe it's that his Tulsa numbers are off the freaking chart, as opposed to Franklin's Troy numbers merely being very, very good?--you can definitely consider the JCCW among the cheering throng.
Here's why.
The numbers really are that bonkers. It would be one thing if Malzahn had arrived at Tulsa and only maintained an already-built offensive machine. And, to be fair, Tulsa wasn't bad before Malzahn arrived: 26th in
yards-per-play in 2006,
31st in 2005. You also have to take Tulsa's total offense numbers under Malzahn with at least a tiny grain of salt: because Malzahn tries to run so many damn plays in a game, their per-game stats (both offensively and defensively) get inflated.
But yeah, things have still been decisively on the ridiculous side for the Golden Hurricane since he showed up.
Third in the nation in '07 in yards-per-play (to go with their easy first in total offense), then
a tie with Houston for first this season with a staggering 7.3 yards a play, a mark matched only over the past five years by the likes of Leinart and Bush's USC, White and Slaton's West Virginia, Colt Brennan's stupid year at Hawaii.
Are you more worried about scoring than yardage? That's the sort of thing that gets distorted by field position and defensive touchdowns, but why not: Tulsa went from
37th to
6th and then
2nd this year.
There's also the little matter of Malzahn's (ahem)
turbulent season at Arkansas in 2006. Exactly how much credit you want to give Malzahn for an offense that finished
12th in yards-per-play and third in the country in rushing is kind of up to you; given that the offense bore very, very little resemblance to what Malzahn has run at Tulsa, that Houston Nutt and then-QB coach David Lee (who took the Wildcat to Miami, as you probably know) are pretty sharp offensive minds in their own rights, and that that offense had at its disposal perhaps the greatest SEC running back since Bo, I'd pass on putting too much weight on Malzahn's results in Fayetteville. That said: the year before he got there, Arkansas ranked 66th in
yards-per-play; the year after he left, the Hogs slipped just a hair, from
12th to 14th. (To be fair, the Hogs' scoring offense
improved dramatically. So Arkansas sort of stayed about the same overall.) Whatever you want to say about Malzahn's Hog tenure, you have to admit this: he sure as hell didn't hurt that offense.
The bottom line is that no, we don't have a ton of evidence. But every bit of evidence we
do have suggests that when you hire Gus Malzahn, your offense gets much, much better.
His real name is Gustav. Arthur Gustav Malzahn III. Would you want your opponent to have a coach named Gustav? No, no you would not.
Balance. As Jay G. Tate
related for you in the Malzahn hire's aftermath, just because Malzahn prefers to spread the field and Tulsa tied for
the best mark in D-I in yards-per-passing attempt doesn't mean he's of the Leach/Mumme/Franklin "Airraid" pass-to-set-up-the-run school. The Golden Hurricane had an almost exactly 50-50 run/pass split in 2007 (two more passes than runs) and in 2008 ran 61 percent of the time. For comparison, remember Auburn's 2007 Borges-directed grind-a-thon? 60 percent running. 2006? 62.5 percent running. In other words, the newfangled, basketball-on-grass, no-huddle pointfest Malzahn oversaw at Tulsa this year? Every bit as run-obsessed as the Auburn offenses that Tubby believed so stodgy he had to turn to Franklin.
When Franklin said he was going to pass to set up the run, he wasn't lying. That's how his system worked. When Malzahn says
he'll use the run to set up the pass, he's not lying either. And as with Franklin, that makes all the difference when it comes to success. Any shred of balance Franklin had at Troy came from Omar Haugabrook's ability to run with the ball, but Malzahn's genuine commitment to the run means that that 5.43 yards-per-rush--
eighth-best in the country this year, one spot ahead of Navy--isn't a mirage that's going to evaporate when he comes to Auburn. He'll find a way to run the ball.
And once he does, that's when he goes deep. Again, no team in the country averaged more per-pass than Tulsa; Malzahn's not interested in dinking-and-dunking. When he passes, he's usually going for the throat. End result: the only team in the country that finished in the top 10 in both total rushing and passing.
Personally, even an all-pass-all-the-time scheme like Leach's (or the Paul Johnson converse) would be fine by me--as long as it worked. But to pull off something like that requires a phenomenal coaching mind, a true savant like Leach or Johnson. For all we know, Malzahn might be that kind of savant; Tulsa's eye-popping numbers suggest he might be. But even if he's just very good, having the option of succeeding either via the air or the run means Malzahn arrives on the Plains with more ability to adapt: adapting to Auburn's personnel, adapting to SEC defenses, adapting to whatever challenges this position winds up offering him. There's a reason Malzahn hit the ground running at Tulsa and never stopped.
Ludicrous speed. That's the term the brilliant Chris Brown coined for the pace of Malzahn's Tulsa offense in
this must-read Smart Football post on Auburn's new hire. Remember how Tubby said he wanted Oklahoma's offense? As Brown points out, the two teams that in 2008 ran the most plays and played at the fastest pace were Oklahoma and Tulsa. Total offense, sure, but both of those teams also finished in top five in the country in yards-per-play. Coincidence? I doubt it.
Also, do you think this just
might be a selling point with skill position recruits? Come to Auburn, and you won't only play for a good offense--you'll play for an offense that is designed to
give you more opportunities than any other offense in football, every game, of touching the ball.
Also also: as Brown illustrates, because Malzahn's version of the Spread Eagle won't be all that schematically complex, the adjustment period shouldn't be quite so rough as it might be with some other alleged
*cough*Jonathan Clawson
*cough* gurus.
The negatives might not be as negative as you might think. Let's review the common complaints:
Malzahn's offense won't work in the SEC. Why, exactly, is never explained, of course. The same reasons Mumme's offense* and Meyer's offense weren't going to work, I'm sure, or that Paul Johnson's offense was never going to work in the ACC. You'll hear that even if the novelty has some effect, that in Year 2
the defenses will adjust. This, of course, assumes that the guy creative enough to come up with
this and who at the very least had a hand in the creation of the Wildcat is incapable of making adjustments himself.
The offense didn't work against real competition. Riiiiight.
528 yards against Arkansas, a better per-play average against the Hogs than
anyone but Florida or Alabama ... a clear failure. The relatively anemic ECU output of 24 points and 399 yards? Still good for
28 first downs and 100 more yards than ECU managed.
2007? 5.5 a play against Oklahoma,
8.5 in a 55-47 win over 11-2 BYU, 6.5 in the 63-7 annihilation of Bowling Green in their bowl game. No, over two seasons, Malzahn's Golden Hurricane haven't been quite as good stepping up against non-C-USA competition as they are in bludgeoning the weak sisters of their home league. But that doesn't mean they've failed, exactly, either.
Chizik won't let him be Malzahn, just as Tubby never let Franklin be Franklin. Uh, Malzahn is now very likely Chizik's only hope of turning the steaming, fetid pile that is the current Auburn offense into something competent before the ax falls on his own neck and the neck of the man who hired him. Hamstringing him in any fashion seems the very essence of stupidity--particularly since if Chizik is indeed attempting to build the SEC's version Oklahoma, meddling is the very opposite of what Stoops did with Leach/Mangino/Wilson. (Not to mention that if Chizik's experience at Iowa St. is any indication, he needs to spend a
lot more time worrying about his defense than his offense.) Also: there is no misguided loyalty to Steve Ensminger et al to get in Chizik's way. I will be very, very surprised if what we see at Jordan-Hare this fall isn't something awful close to what Tulsa's doing right now.
Malzahn's teams turn it over too damn much, and between that and the supercharged pace, they hurt the defense. Well ... there might be something to this. Tulsa has finished
97th and
92nd in turnover margin under Malzahn, and it was the Golden Hurricane's TOs and general wastefulness in the red zone cost them the Arkansas and East Carolina games (the laterr of which featured an incredible 7 Tulsa TOs). Whether you want to blame the turnovers or the pace, with Malzahn in tow Tulsa finished 100th in scoring defense in 2007 and 84th this year. Yards-per-play? Back-to-back 93rd-place finishes after finishing 37th in '06.
But ... that downturn in defense also coincides with Steve Kragthorpe's departure from Tulsa. Is it really due to Malzahn's arrival, or to the AgroKrag and his staff's departure? There's no way to tell. Are Tulsa's turnover margins--2008's would have been +4 if not for meltdowns against Houston and ECU--really due to the Hurricane's lightning pace and more plays, or could we assume that with both teams having so many possessions in each game, that it might just be bad luck that will even itself out over time? Again, I don't think two seasons is enough to know for sure.
Yes, it's a worry. But only a worry--I'd much rather my defensive-minded head coach go out and find the best offensive coach he can and worry about figuring out the defense myself. That's the way Pete Carroll's approached it, the way Bob Stoops has approached it. It looks for all the world to me that's the way Gene Chizik has approached it, and even if the results aren't quite so spectacular, there's not enough reasons here to think there shouldn't be offensive results.
He's a good coach. This is the bottom line. Good, smart coaches find a way to succeed. Bad, misguided coaches find a way to fail. Everything we've seen of Malzahn has to suggest that he is, in fact, a good coach, right?
Of course, in the wake of last year's Chick-Fil-A Bowl, I've said the exact same thing about Tony Franklin. Is he really a bad coach and Malzahn really a good one? Nah. I think they're both good coaches. But one got suckered into a series of mistakes and dug himself a hole "his" staff and situation wouldn't let him out of. Malzahn won't face that situation. His balance means he'll have more slack to make mistakes. His statistics suggest he's an even better coach than Franklin was.
So in some ways, yes, he is the second coming of Franklin. But it's my best guess--biased as it is--that this Franklin is going to come to a very different end on the Plains than the first one. This Franklin is going to be the one we wanted, the one we were promised all along.
*
Remember, Mumme's offense was never the problem; it put up points like mad. He just never got the defense figured out. I like Chizik's odds a lot better than Mumme's if everything offensive winds up equal. At least, I think I do.