Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by EddieCrowder, Dec 7, 2012.
I like MacIntyre more than DeRuyter
I like Mac too but he runs a pro style and 4/3 defense which don't have me excited...
Does anyone know if we have reached out to Mac or if we have already interviewed him? He is interviewing (or already did interview) for the USF position and was a top candidate in the Cal search before they hired Dykes.
I am a fan for sure.
Golden is my numero uno. Mac was my first choice out of up and comers.
Sadly Golden isn't leaving Miami unless possibly for the Wisconsin job.
I would like if there were more options then Mac or Deruyter.
Probably would prefer Deruyter more as he at least builds a strong 3-4. Also I do not want to see the pro offense anymore.
"No, this isn't me advocating exhuming legendary coach Bill McCartney from retirement." Ringo :lol:
I think it would be a mistake to blame our problems on scheme and therefore rule out people who use such schemes. I saw the comments by some CU players talking about complicated reads, etc., but that's a function of the specific way the scheme is used and implemented. There are variations galore out there for all of these approaches (my goodness, look at all the variations of the spread offense).
In fact, given that the players we have were recruited for a pro-style, it might not be bad to use it. The difference is in playcalling and execution. I mean, the "pro style offense" didn't call a QB sneak on a 1st and 10 down...
Schools (even small schools) have been running that offense forever (Oregon was running a variation of it in the 1980s). Block well...tackle well...have a play caller upstairs with some creativity and touch...it can work just fine (in fact...I'm not sure that most offenses can't if implemented and executed correctly). The spread is hot right now...but college football is like that. Offenses get trendy and then get replaced by newer trendy ones. But switching to, say, the spread doesn't do anything magical for you (especially if you don't have the right sort of players recruited to play in it) anymore than switching to the I-Bone does. They all have their pros and cons...and all only work if you play fundamentally, are well coached, and the right calls are made by either the OC or the signal caller.
And there's nothing wrong with the 4-3 either. I prefer the 3-4 myself...but they all can work (the 4-2-5 is good too...works well against spread teams allegedly. But then you play against USC and Stanford and there goes your advantage in scheme...).
The problem at Colorado was bad coaching...poor fundamentals...bad play calling...not enough raw talent on the field...and not enough "coaching up" of the talent we DID field. The defensive or offensive scheme we chose to run was a convenient whipping boy...but it played virtually no role in what happened on the field with us (to believe that, you would have to think if we just switched schemes, we would have magically improved significantly).
The SJSU coach's schemes will work just fine if he can do a good job coaching.
The only thing I don't like is the "get rid of the spread and run between the tackles" comment. Yuck zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Funny how you non-chalantly and yet so succinctly summed up why we sucked *** this year.
Good post, there is nothing wrong with the pro-style scheme. The problem was EB 3 yards and a cloud of dust offense and we were very young. SJSU went 10-2 with the pro-style offense and 43 defense. They barely lost to Stanford by 3, the same team that beat us by 48-0.
Want to copy someone? Maybe take a lesson from Coach Kelly up in Oregon. He's stated how he keeps his offense as simple as possible to allow his playmakers to just make plays. Can't argue with success. Pro coach or college coach, you have to scheme to maximize your teams talent.
No to the pro style. Need a spread hurry up in Boulder, let's use the altitude to our advantage
The reason prostyle is not being run by anything more than a minority of CFB teams, and most have better talent than their opponents when they are successful, is that they are tremendously complicated. Can they be successful? Sure, Stanford with Luck, USC with a string of first round picks at Qb and nearly every other position.
The reason the spread is n vogue is it is simple, allows your athletes to be athletes and creates mismatches without having to go through a mental checklist longer than the launching sequence for the Space Shuttle. Mismatches are created in the spread the same way Emory Bellard's wishbone did in the 60's, by forcing the D to devote a man to the QB and doubling down on a DL or forcing a DL to choose between RB and QB as ball carrier. It's in vogue because it works and is easy to implement.
I have not watched McIntyre's version of the prostyle so I cannot comment on it, but color me skeptical. GB and Watson ran the WCO at the tail end of GB's tenure. That is why they were wedded to JK, he got all the practice reps and was the only QB who made the reads. It was mildly succesful, CU beat who they should beat and got pounded by everyone else. I would gladly take 7-5 FB right now after watching what has gone on the past 7 years. Embree installed more prostyle and look how well that worked.
Spread immediately equalizes because the D has to defend the whole field, and every player. If you add in athlete on top of that equation, you blow up like WVU or Oregon. Rich Rod will have AZ in contention perhaps as soon as next year.
Lastly, the Mastermind himslef, Shanahan, said when Jake Plummer was here that third year in the prostyle system is when you really see a QB take off. Think about that. College QB's have four years of eligibility. Pros practice nearly year round now, and as a full time job. But some college QB with 20 hours a week in fall and spring camp is going to master it. Good luck with that.
Some coaches can be too smart for their own good. They make these elaborate offenses that pros studying all day for 7 days a week can barely grasp then expect a 19 year old student to grasp it. There seems to be two types of coaches, coaches that make the players conform to his system, and coaches that change their system around the players. I like the latter because its more flexible. I wonder if Mac is tied to the pro style or can shift to whatever his OC wants to run?
But didn't SJSU just win 10 games with it? Didn't they do that with (nearly always) inferior talent? Didn't they almost upset top 10 teams using it with inferior talent? And maybe I missed something, but I just looked at their roster...and I don't see a senior QB on SJSU's team.
The "pro" system is a catch-all phrase. It can apply to systems that are quite different from each other. If a coach wants to tweak it to cut down on complicated reads, it's flexible enough to do that.
I agree 10000000000000000000000%
That's a lot of agreement.
If McIntyre is the wiz who can do with the prostyle what GB and Embree could not, fine. Like I said, I haven't seen any of SJSU.
Constantly you hear prostyle systems in college being dumbed down, simplifying the playbook etc. It's the complication that lends itself to being effective, so paring it down is like removing the alcohol from beer. But if he can make it work, have at it. I remain skeptical.
I have noticed that under Hawkins and Embree, the players seemed to be thinking too much instead of just playing. That is why I suggested Leach before we got Embree. What we need are schemes that are effective along with a simple playbook.
Dont we recall how some CU OL talked about how many plays they ran during 62-36 back in 2001? The pros can run pro style offenses because the players arent going to class and doing homework on topics that won't apply to them in life.
Regarding the debate about his pro-style offense, I thought i'd like up highlights of their game against Stanford. This video is short and only shows about 5 offensive plays for them but only a few look like traditional pro-style plays. They have wildcat and read-option type plays thrown in there so it looks like a hybrid system to me:
In favor of a hybrid system, just don't want to go strictly spread until we get more playmakers in for the spread offense.
You guys are idots. MacIntyre doesn't run the pro style, watch some of their highlights. It's mostly spread/pistol that incorporates dual TEs sometimes for power sets.
I agree BoydBuff...worth looking at some highlights.
Look at them this year on the road versus Stanford (a MUCH, MUCH more talented team that SJSU almost never plays well against) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IefR_uff1xg
Here they are against another team with much more talent...BYU this year (and a coach we were also looking at...Bronco M.): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRMT6UYBoKY
That is a seriously inferior team in terms of talent. What's the difference? You would have to say coaching, wouldn't you? I am not asserting that...I just can't think of any other reason that explains it.
a lot of shotgun...
Here's some decent scouting info put out before the BYU game:
I kind of like the hybrid too.
What is surprising is how many people opposing his offense and defense when it was top 30 in the nation and they did play against some good opponents. Not only that, let's look at common opponents for this year. Someone else may have posted this somewhere else but:
Stanford 20-17 (L)
CSU 40-20 (w)
Stanford 48-0 (L)
CSU 22-17 (L)
So despite most probably having much lower talent levels than CU, SJSU was 1-1 with a combined score of 57-37 (in favor of SJSU) for common opponents this year. On the other hand, CU was 0-2 with a combined score of 17-70.
I know Embree, et. al sucked, but this also shows that Mac can compete with the big boys despite having access to less talent and worse facilities.
Like I said I haven't seen even one play of SJSU. If he looks like a serious candidate, maybe I'll watch some of the links. It's not like my opinion matters anyway.
This is my dude besides Andersen, no hybrids, do what ur gonna do. My brother tried out a hybrid system on O, didnt work, but he did see what they could do. He ran with that after.
Separate names with a comma.