Feedback, 11/6

Working on the first half of the Ole Miss recap after dealing with some Real Life things the past couple of days, but just so you don't have to wait too long for some content, thought I'd respond to some of the stuff in my comment- and/or in-box.

Gene wrote Oct. 27 to say ...

I guess you noticed half the top ten run some version of the spread offense.

... which, to be honest, I hadn't, but it's worth noting that since then the rankings are even more dominated by spread teams: with Utah joining the party, five of the top six and seven of the AP top 10 run some variety of the spread, with only Alabama and USC continuing to run something approaching traditional QB-under-center-and-two-wideouts offenses. (I'm classifying Boise's unique hodgepodge as "unclassifiable," although it has a lot more in common with the spread teams than with 'Bama/USC.) The total offense rankings--as I've noted previously--are even more spread-centric, with 15 of the top 16 outfits (USC is the only interloper) going spread-first.

As I said, I've made this point, and an accompanying one--that many of these teams are not equipped with substantially more talent than Auburn is--before. But after watching West Virginia carve up yet another roasted SEC victim, after seeing Florida convert every opportunity the Dawgs gave them into a touchdown, after seeing Tulsa essentially continue their murderous offensive rampage in Fayetteville last weekend (just without the points ... the Hurricane gained more yards against the Hogs than any other team this year), I think it's safe to say this "can't work in the SEC" canard needs to be put to bed. The spread can work in the SEC. It may even work better in a league where it's still a relative novelty as opposed to the spread-happy Big 12, Big 10, etc.

Given that many of our current class of recruits were promised a spread offense and that it doesn't require a massive amount of talent to run, yeah, I'm still very much on board with hiring a spread-first, spread-second guy. Find one with better people skills than Franklin, let him build his own staff, and let's see what happens. Tubby saying he wants someone who "fits into what we'd like to do" and that Auburn's offense "is still going to be multiple" doesn't sit entirely comfortably with me. I guess we'll see.

I'll give you a sneak preview of the Ole Miss recap: there's a lot of ace-shotgun and there's a lot of failed runs. So it's worth noting this comment from Acid in the wake of the West Virginia recap:

Running the ball out of the I set is easier than that hybrid shotgun/ace. Snap, drop, back already at full sprint taking the handoff. No tosses, all sprint handoffs, with a guy like Burns threatening to bootleg/waggle out the back side. On a shotgun handoff, it's awkward, and guys are two-stepping it trying to avoid bumping into one another on the exchange. In short, the timing on those things is tricky. WVA had a LOT better success containing in the second half, because of how slow those shotgun running plays develop.

I concur, and wonder if the ace-gun set is a concession to Burns, who--if I'm not mistaken--took nothing but shotgun snaps in high school and perhaps prefers them. As for the defense, Acid added the following:

.....Bynes had the B gap. Bynes would end up over the left tackle, phantom chasing White to the outside, because Powers was lining up with a 15 yard cushion to that side. I know Powers was hurt, and they had to play him off, and he wasn't going to be much help against the run. But against the (zone read), the middle linebacker has GOT to be able to fill the B gap. (for the novice, that's the gap between the center and left guard.) Some might say that this is defensive tackle responsibility, but our scheme has the left DE responsible for outside contain, and the tackle has to slide over and get the guard-tackle gap. We're getting a double-team on SenDerrick Marks, so Bynes HAS to shut down that inside B-gap give. HAS TO!

.....----- on Bynes, or on the scheme, one.

I figured I'd been too lenient on Bynes; this sort of confirms it. However you slice it, the point is this: the linebacking, one of Auburn's biggest strengths over the past several years, is not getting the job done. Blackmon is hurt and never seemed to really get up to speed. Evans hasn't been the same playing on the outside as inside. Bynes and Stevens are sophomores. Johnson might be a senior, but he hasn't been able to claim a regular job over either Evans or Stevens. As with the running backs, the 2008 crew just hasn't been as good as we've been led to expect.

Speaking of talent, performances, expectation levels, etc., there was some minor disagreement in this comment thread regarding the defensive line, which Jason called "very average" and Grotus responding thusly:

(T)he D-line? Coleman? Doolittle? Marks? If that's average then sheesh. I think we're just playing banged up and poorly conditioned. Rhoads has to take some of the blame for that.

I'd fall between these two viewpoints, myself. Coleman has been every bit as good as advertised and if I think there's been one or two games (WVU included) where Marks hasn't made as much of an impact as perhaps he should have, I'd stop well short of having any complaints. The other tackle spot--Doolittle, Blanc, Clayton, etc.--has been manned ably, I'd say.

The problem is that Coleman has been the only defensive end who's accomplished much of anything. It's one thing to move a senior who hasn't played defense since high school from tight end to DE just a handful of weeks before the season starts. It's another for him to be handed a major spot in the rotation. I admire McKenzie's dedication and effort, but it was always impossible for him to become an impact player there in such a short period of time. Goggans has been alternating between being hobbled and being generally ineffective. The same goes for Carter. I realize injuries have played a big, big role in the failures here, but you're looking at a d-line that's half brilliance, 1/4 capable, and then 1/4 a glaring weakness. That's just not how it works for truly elite defenses.

In the wake of this post on Tubby, I received the following comment taking issue with my statement that Tennessee and Auburn were programs of "approximately equal stature":

Nice article, but Auburn is nowhere near the same level as Tennessee. Tennessee has more history and tradition (more than twice as many conference titles, more than twice as many national titles, far more bowl wins/appearances, etc.) than Auburn, and it has a bigger budget. Its facilities are larger, and no expense was spared on the UT football program (and with its budget, that's saying something). Plus, Tennessee is the only football power in the whole state. I am neither a UT fan nor an Auburn supporter, but face the facts: Auburn is not on-par with Tennessee. Clemson, yes. Tennessee, no.

Hmmm ... not a Vol fan, not an Auburn fan, but intimately familiar with the histories of both and more than eager to assure us Auburn's history is the one that's lacking? Please, sir, give me one guess which team it is you do support.

Snark aside, I won't argue that for some of the reasons mentioned ($$$, primarily) Tennessee might be, perhaps probably is, the more desirable job (as I mentioned here as well). But I did say approximately equal. Tennessee's job might be slightly better than Auburn's, but based on the factors just mentioned and the potential recruiting base, the facts are that both Tennessee and Auburn have a little ways to go to catch Florida, Georgia, LSU, and (*sigh*) a rejuvenated 'Bama in desirability. The Vols' job remains, in the JCCW's totally unbiased and perfectly neutral viewpoint, substantially more similar to Auburn's than to the SEC's current upper crust's. Thus: "approximately equal."

And that's the last time this month I talk about the opening in Knoxville, I swear.