Football Study Hall - Leach V. Holgorsen, 2012Because some nerds don't love baseball.https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/community_logos/50273/fsh-fav.png2013-02-22T07:51:31-05:00http://www.footballstudyhall.com/rss/stream/31757032013-02-22T07:51:31-05:002013-02-22T07:51:31-05:00Leach v. Holgorsen: A look back
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/h5x3EeZtsssYEMpmmbmFFzemkq0=/47x0:999x635/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/8532173/136433410.0.jpg" />
<figcaption>Mike Ehrmann</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Rewind seven months. We thought we had charting gold on our hands. The hiring of Air Raid guru Mike Leach at Washington State meant a variation of the vaunted offensive philosophy West Virginia had just used to blitz Clemson in the 2012 Orange Bowl would now be showcased on the West Coast. Sure, the two systems would not identical, but the idea of Leach leading a “more aggressive version of Sonny Dykes’” Air Raid attack in the traditionally wide-open Pac-12 Conference was mouth-watering to college football fans everywhere. But then the games started.</p> <p>From very early on, you could tell Washington State’s offense was not going to be one of Leach’s old Texas Tech juggernauts. Inconsistency at quarterback, a porous offensive line, a blatant refusal to call run plays, and ongoing drama throughout the receiving core led to one of the most disappointing offensive performances in recent history.</p>
<p>Nearly 2,000 miles away, Leach’s pupil, Dana Holgorsen, rode a rollercoaster of momentum, first positive then negative, to an overall unimpressive record of 7-6. After opening the season with five consecutive victories, the Mountaineers lost five in a row before scrapping together two victories to close out a mediocre 7-5 regular season. Then, amid a blizzard at Yankee Stadium, the Syracuse Orangemen pounded West Virginia to the tune of 38-14. </p>
<p>In all, each team’s season was relatively disappointing considering their lofty preseason expectations. Washington State was hoping that a big-name coach would lift them out of the cellar of the Pac-12, while West Virginia hoped to carry the momentum gained from a 10-3 season into their first tour of the Big XII. Neither happened.</p>
<p>Despite the mutual disappointment of their seasons, the statistics show it there were two very different reasons for each team’s struggles. For West Virginia, numbers show that despite having a potent offensive attack, an atrocious defense was the main culprit for their up and down season. As for Washington State, surprisingly it was Leach’s offense that was the main cause of the Cougars’ underperformance. </p>
<p>Telling offensive stats from the 2012-13 seasons: West Virginia averaged 39.5 points per game, and Washington State averaged 20.4.</p>
<p>For two coaches defined by their offensive acumen, Leach and Holgorsen’s units put up very differing point productions. The last time Leach coached, back in 2009, his Texas Tech squad averaged 37.0 points per game. This year’s floundering Cougars averaged nearly 17 points less per game. You could possibly chalked it up to first year adjustments, but even Leach’s 2000 Red Raiders (his first year at Texas Tech) averaged 24.6 points per contest. </p>
<p>On the other hand, one year after West Virginia’s offense averaged 37.6 points per game on its way to a 10-3 season, Holgorsen’s Mountaineers actually increased their point production. But despite increasing their offensive production, the Mountaineers’ record fell dramatically to just 7-6. For those (very few) of you who wish to defend the Big East, consider that 37 points per game (and a bad defense) got West Virginia into a BCS bowl game while in the Big East, but 39 points per game (and a bad defense) barely got the Moutaineers above .500 in the superior Big XII.</p>
<table border="1" style="background-color: #ffffcc;"><tbody>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center;"><b>Yards Per Game</b></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"><b>WSU</b></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"><b>WVU</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Passing</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">330.4</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">330.2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Rushing</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">29.1</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">171.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>TOTAL</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">359.5</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">502.0</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<p>Both teams were successful racking up yards through the air, a staple of the Air Raid offense. But the 140+ yard difference on the ground between the two teams is what separated them this past season. Leach, notorious for refusing to call run plays, was at it again this past season. In one two game stretch against Stanford and Utah, the Cougars called 139 passes while calling just 11 runs. How’s that for balance? </p>
<p>Holgorsen on the other hand, had no such stubbornness in his play calling. Willing to beat a defense anyway he could, West Virginia had an extremely varied attack. A prime example of Holgorsen’s willingness to change up his philosophy week to week was when the Mountaineers gashed the Texas Longhorns on the ground, just one week after quarterback Geno Smith’s mind blowing aerial performance against the Baylor Bears. Later in the season, Holgorsen even changed the position of his most dynamic playmaker, Tavon Austin, from wide receiver to running back and found great success (and an unreal highlight reel).</p>
<center><iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/TxzPryPMB74" frameborder="0"></iframe></center>
<p>
</p>
<table border="1"><tbody>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center;"><b>Play Type</b></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"><b>WSU</b></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"><b>WVU</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Total Plays Charted</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">492</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">593</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Runs</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">104<span style="line-height: 9px;"> </span>(21.1%)</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">257<span style="line-height: 9px;"> </span>(43.3%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Passes (and Sacks)</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">388<span style="line-height: 9px;"> </span>(78.9%)</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">336<span style="line-height: 9px;"> </span>(56.7%)</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<p>This season, we charted seven on Washington State’s games and eight of West Virginia’s games. If you include sacks as pass play calls, Washington State called pass plays on nearly 80% of the plays charted. West Virginia only called passes about 55% of the time. The refusal to run the ball, or even threatening to run the ball, caused a ripple effect of negativity throughout the Cougars’ offense.</p>
<p>As seen in the chart below, the threat of the run forced Mountaineers’ opponents to bring four rushers and drop seven defenders in coverage the majority of the time in order to maintain soundness against the run. This opened up passing lanes for Smith to exploit. In contrast, Cougars’ opponents relied much more heavily on a three-man rush with eight defenders in coverage because there was a little threat of the ground attack hurting them. The additional defender in coverage, often times dropped into the low hole, wreaked havoc on Washington State’s short crossing game, which is traditionally a staple of Leach’s Air Raid offense.</p>
<p>
</p>
<table border="1"><tbody>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center;"><b>Pass Rushers (Passes and Sacks)</b></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"><b>WSU</b></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"><b>WVU</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>3 or fewer</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">43.6%</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">17.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>4</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">39.4%</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">64.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>5 or more</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">17.0%</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">18.2%</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<p>The lack of a ground attack from the Cougars not only made it more difficult to pass, but also hurt their chances to convert third downs and sustain drives. Without the ability to consistently put themselves in third and short situations, the Cougars often found themselves in third and long situations. Those situations generally ended with Washington State punting the ball away.</p>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px;">First Downs Per Game: WVU 25.4, WSU 20.8</span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px;">Third Down Conversion Rate: WVU 44.0%, WSU 31.7%</span></li>
</ul>
<p>As you can see in the chart below, throwing the ball downfield with accuracy was not one of the Cougars’ specialties in 2012. Consistently putting their offense in third and longs was essentially setting them up for failure.</p>
<table border="1"><tbody>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center;"><b>Plays with PYD* 10+ Yards</b></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"><b>WSU</b></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"><b>WVU</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Attempts</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">132</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">93</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Completions</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">53</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">49</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Completion Rate</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">40.2%</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">52.7%</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<p><i>*PYD is the distance the ball traveled from the line of scrimmage in the air. </i></p>
<p>When attempting to throw the ball at least ten yards downfield, Washington State quarterbacks only completed 40% of their attempts. For a team that consistently found themselves in third and long situations, it is easy to see why the Cougars converted less than one-third of their third down attempts on the season. On the flip side, West Virginia’s 53% completion rate on balls thrown at least ten yards downfield helps explain why the Mountaineers were in the upper echelon of teams in regards to first downs per game as well as third down conversion rates.</p>
<table border="1"><tbody>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center;"><b>Big Play Breakdown</b></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"><b>WSU</b></td>
<td style="text-align: center;"><b>WVU</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Total Plays Charted</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">492</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">593</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>40+ Yards</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">5 (1.0%)</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">18 (3.0%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>30-39 Yards</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">5 (1.0%)</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">10 (1.7%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>20-29 Yards</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">22 (4.5%)</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">15 (2.5%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>10-19 Yards</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">68 (13.8%)</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">87 (14.5%)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Total Big Plays</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">100 (20.3%)</td>
<td style="text-align: right;">130 (21.9%)</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<p>The accuracy issue spills over into the teams’ big play breakdown. Granted, we charted one more game of West Virginia than we did of Washington State, but the Mountaineers had an astounding 30 more plays of ten yards or more than the Cougars in those games. Most notably, the Mountaineers had 18 plays of forty or more yards while the Cougars had just five. While each of these offenses are referred to as versions of the <i>Air Raid </i>attack, this season it was clear that one version was much more explosive than the other.</p>
<p>As we repeatedly stated throughout the season, the difference between the two offenses was expected. After all, Holgorsen was returning a top quarterback and two of the most dynamic receivers in the country while Leach was inheriting a squad that just got their previous coach fired. That being said, we didn’t expect the difference between the two offenses to be <i>this </i>dramatic.</p>
<p>Next season, we would expect to see this gap close considerably. By then, Leach will have another class of <i>his</i> recruits on board while Holgorsen will be trying to replace two potential first-round draft picks - Smith and Austin. But given Holgorsen’s willingness to tailor his scheme according to personnel and opposing defensive philosophies, while Leach seems to have an eternal stubbornness about his game plans, smart money would seem to be on Holgorsen’s Air Raid going forward.</p>
https://www.footballstudyhall.com/2013/2/22/4017058/leach-v-holgorsen-a-look-backMNixon252012-11-06T13:55:52-05:002012-11-06T13:55:52-05:00Leach V. Holgorsen: The Final Edition
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/HlGYcQViBmUGuejQiny-YzTmB9M=/0x166:4000x2833/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/2773549/20121103_jla_ai4_340.0.jpg" />
<figcaption>Russ Isabella-US PRESSWIRE</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>While we finally got the whole gang back together, we sure didn’t get good offensive football. This past weekend was again defined by the head-scratching struggles of the West Virginia and Washington State offenses.</p> <p>The unwelcoming reception to the Big XII continued once again for the <a class="sbn-auto-link" href="http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/teams/west-virginia-mountaineers">West Virginia Mountaineers</a> and their once-dynamic offense. In the Mountaineers 39-38 overtime loss to the <a class="sbn-auto-link" href="http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/teams/tcu-horned-frogs">TCU Horned Frogs</a>, West Virginia’s offensive struggles continued. What once looked like an offense that may go down as one of the most prolific in the history of college football, now simply looks like a sputtering unit that the most vanilla defensive game plans can easily slow.</p>
<p>The trend started against Texas Tech a few weeks ago and hasn’t stopped since. In that contest, the Red Raiders consistently rushed just four defenders against Coach Dana Holgorsen’s <i>Air Raid </i>attack and played sound, seven-man coverages behind the basic rush. The simple defensive game plan worked that day, and has worked every game since. While opponents haven’t necessarily been creating a ton of sacks against the Mountaineers, the four-man rushes have been able to put just enough pressure on quarterback Geno Smith to make him get rid of the ball in a timely manner. </p>
<p>Earlier in the season in the epic shootout against Baylor, the Bears chose to regularly rush just three defenders and drop eight-men into coverage. While the strategy flooded the underneath passing lanes with defenders, a lack of pressure allowed Mountaineers’ receivers to eventually break open and produce a ton of big plays. In stark contrast, the four-man rush employed in recent weeks has created enough pressure to force Smith to get rid of the ball quickly, thus eliminating <i>fluky</i> deep passes that were so prevalent against Baylor.</p>
<p>A three-man rush against the Mountaineers forces defenders to cover much too long. A blitz or pressure package exposes a defense to West Virginia’s dangerous run-after-catch threats. A vanilla, four-man rush seems to be a happy medium that is working for opponents. Texas Tech, Kansas State, and TCU have all welcomed the short, quick passes from Holgorsen’s attack and have trusted their defender’s ability to make tackles after the short catch. While the injury to wide receiver <a class="sbn-auto-link" href="http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/players/84145/stedman-bailey">Stedman Bailey</a> is partially to blame for West Virginia’s struggle, much more credit should be given to the simplified defenses to which the Mountaineers have yet to adapt. How dedicated have opponents been to the four-man rush against West Virginia? During regulation time this past Saturday, the Horned Frogs brought more than four pass rushers just one single time.</p>
<p>Against these bland defenses, it is Geno Smith’s inability to throw the long ball that has continuously hurt the Mountaineers’ offense. Out of Smith’s 50 pass attempts in regulation, he threw the ball at least 12 yards downfield nine times. On those nine attempts, Smith went 3-for-9 for 46 yards, one touchdown and one interception. But it should be noted that the touchdown could have easily resulted in a interception had wide receiver <a class="sbn-auto-link" href="http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/players/38562/j-d-woods">J.D. Woods</a> not made the catch of the day for Smith, wrestling the ball away from a defender.</p>
<p>Smith’s inability to throw the ball downfield is really hurting West Virginia on third downs. Against TCU, the West Virginia offense threw the ball six times when faced with 3rd-and-9+. The distance of Smith’s pass attempts on those downs: minus-1, 2, 0, 0, 9, 37 yards. All six attempts were either incomplete or left the Mountaineers well short of a first-down. Two weeks after going 0-for-5 on longer pass attempts, it seems the bye week did little to cure Smith’s downfield woes. Is there anything Coach Holgorsen can do to get Smith’s deep accuracy turned around and get the offense rolling once again? Well, at least they still have Kansas on their schedule.</p>
<p align="center">**********</p>
<p>As for Coach Mike Leach, his Washington State Cougars followed up their best effort of the season against Stanford with an absolute stinker against Utah, losing 49-6. There really isn’t much to discuss about this over-matched squad other than Leach’s outlandish play-call breakdown and some very-telling statistics from the contest.</p>
<p>One week after having a pass/run play-call split of 77 passes to six runs, Leach followed it up this week by calling 62 passes versus five runs (including sacks and scrambles as pass play-calls). In total, since coming off their bye two weeks ago, Leach has called 139 passes and 11 runs. That is defensible, right? I mean, who would want a semi-balanced attack when your squad is a potent 2-7?</p>
<p>While this season is obviously a transition year for the Washington State program, it is difficult to not view the season as a bit of a disappointment. Coming off a four-win season where pieces for a strong passing attack seemed to be in place for the renowned passing guru, Wazzu's season has been defined by questionable play-calling, poor execution, and the inability to turn yardage into points. While the overall passing numbers look fine (324.2 yards per game), many of those yards have come in garbage time when contests were well out of hand. Last weekend against Utah, it was the same old story.</p>
<p>Discounting the Cougars’ final possession, a drive that resulted in their only score of the day on the game’s final play, the offense produced just 186 yards and zero points. On third- and fourth-downs, the Cougars went a combined 2-for-17. Including sack yardage, Washington State rushed for a grand total of -4 yards, currently leaving them 124th (out of 124 teams) in the nation in rushing yards per game. Even more baffling, Saturday’s futile efforts on the ground and in protecting the quarterback meant the Cougars have produced negative rushing yard totals in three of their past five contests! Against Utah, Washington State’s refusal/inability to run the ball, as well as its failure to convert first downs, resulted in lopsided time of possession. Utah held the ball for 37:39, while the Cougars had it for just 22:21. One word: ugly.</p>
<p align="center">**********</p>
<p>Three months ago, I can’t imagine fans for either West Virginia or Washington State thought this is where they would currently find themselves. Coming off an Orange Bowl victory where the Mountaineers put up 70 points in a whacking of Clemson, West Virginia returned the core of its dynamic offense and looked to barnstorm the wide-open Big XII. Presently owners of three consecutive losses and a sputtering offense, the Mountaineers look like a typical middle-of-the-pack Big XII squad.</p>
<p>As for Leach, it is hard to imagine this is what Washington State had in mind when they handed him $2.25 million a year. As mentioned before, this is a transition year for the Cougars, and Leach should be given slack until he gets his own recruits into Pullman. Having said that, there have still been some embarrassing losses this season (see: Colorado and Utah) that have seem to have to rubbed a bit of the shine off Leach’s hiring. When the only wins of the season are a four-point win over Eastern Washington and a eight-point win over a 2-8 UNLV, it is difficult to find the silver lining.</p>
<p>The question to ask is, what does the future hold for each of these two squads? Will West Virginia be able to overcome the losses of Geno Smith and <a class="sbn-auto-link" href="http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/players/84134/tavon-austin">Tavon Austin</a> this off-season? Will the Mountaineers be able to field a defense capable of slowing opponents in the Big XII? Will Mike Leach be able to recruit to Pullman? Is it really a talent issue, or are defenses slowly starting to figure out his <i>Air Raid </i>attack? The beauty of college football is that you never really know what to expect from week to week. As this season has unfolded, both West Virginia and Washington State have been perfect examples of the volatility of the sport.</p>
https://www.footballstudyhall.com/2012/11/6/3610040/leach-v-holgorsen-the-final-editionMNixon252012-10-30T11:51:04-04:002012-10-30T11:51:04-04:00Leach v. Holgo: Old Man Snyder crashes the party
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/cp5kwO82PgQjzAHXMheDENxDvvY=/0x170:2785x2027/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/2315125/154843346.0.jpg" />
<figcaption>Jamie Squire</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This past weekend found the well-rested Washington State Cougars headed down to Palo Alto, while the West Virginia Mountaineers sulked in a much-needed bye week. Just as we replaced Washington State with a fellow Pac-12 squad last week, we will replace WVU with an in-conference fill-in: Bill Snyder’s Kansas State Wildcats. In charting each squad this past weekend, there was a stark contrast of philosophies between the ‘my way or the highway’ Cougars and the ‘we’ll run whatever works for us’ Wildcats.</p> <p>Starting with our old pal Mike Leach, Washington State finally showed some signs of life against a very solid <a class="sbn-auto-link" href="http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/teams/stanford-cardinal">Stanford Cardinal</a> defense. While we knew Stanford would be able to get to Cougars’ quarterback, <a class="sbn-auto-link" href="http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/players/78188/jeff-tuel">Jeff Tuel</a> – and they did, racking up 10 sacks – Washington State's offense looked more like one of Leach’s old Texas Tech offenses then it had at any other point in this season. In Saturday’s contest, if you were to include sacks and quarterback scrambles as pass play-calls, the Cougars called a ridiculous total of seventy-seven pass plays to just six run plays. That equates a preposterous pass/run play calling ratio (12.8 to 1) that might even make Mike Leach blush.</p>
<p>But, you know what? The Cougars actually had a couple of justifiable reasons to abandon their ground attack. First off, when Leach actually did call a run play, it simply didn't work. Six planned Cougar rushes resulted in a grand total of minus-four yards. Stanford was simply too good in its front-seven for a team like Washington State to run with success. Second, the short, high-percentage passing game that Leach loves to use as a replacement for a running game was finally working this week. In previous weeks, poor accuracy, dropped balls, or bad downfield blocking prohibited Washington State from finding any sort of rhythm in their short, quick passing game. This past Saturday, the Cougars ran either a quick hitch or bubble screen with their receivers seven different times. On those plays, Tuel went 7-for-7 for 40 yards and a 5.7 yards/pass average. If the Cougars are able to sustain this type of success in the short passing game, then Leach’s reluctance to run the ball will finally be vindicated.</p>
<p>In further executing Leach’s longtime philosophy, Tuel was able to spread the ball around to a wealth of receivers. Against the Cardinal, eight different receivers caught at least two passes, while six of those receivers caught four or more balls. This even distribution of targets and catches has been a staple of Leach’s Air Raid<i> </i>offense. Tuel’s ability to play with patience and take whatever Stanford gave him on Saturday was the main reason behind his 72-percent completion rate and 401-yard performance. Washington State is finally out of the buzzsaw-portion of its schedule, and the strong performance against Stanford will hopefully serve as a stepping-stone towards some much-needed victories down the stretch for the Cougars.</p>
<p>All I have to say about Bill Snyder’s Kansas State offense is that when it get rolling, <i>look out world</i>! Two weeks ago against West Virginia, the Wildcats’ offense started the game by scoring on their first eight possessions (FG, TD, TD, TD, TD, TD, TD, TD). Well, this week the Wildcats waited until the second half before doing their thing. After leading, 13-10 at halftime, the Wildcats came out in the second half and scored touchdowns on each of their first five possessions, then simply run the clock to zeros on their sixth. If you combine the Wildcats’ first eight offensive possessions against West Virginia with their last five full drives against Texas Tech, the Wildcats’ scored 12 touchdowns and kicked one field goal. Simply unreal.</p>
<p>Credit Coach Snyder and his coaching staff for throwing a kitchen sink-style of play-calling at opponents on a weekly basis. While the versatility and play making ability of Heisman front-runner <a class="sbn-auto-link" href="http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/players/36403/collin-klein">Collin Klein</a> obviously is essential, the diversity of alignments and plays deserves an equal share of the acclaim. No other team in the nation has as much variation on a play-to-play basis as the Kansas State Wildcats. They run a plethora of things, and run them all well.</p>
<p>The Kansas State offense can go from an empty-backfield pass play, to a two tight-end, I-Formation power run play, to a three-receiver, pistol-formation speed option on three consecutive plays. If an opposing defense is lucky enough to hold them to a fourth-and-short, the Wildcats will simply have their 6’5, 226-pound quarterback line up in a Wildcat Formation and follow two blocking backs and a pulling guard. Nine times out of 10, Klein is going to ram his way forward and get the first down.</p>
<p>Kansas State's offense is only predictable in that everybody involved knows what they do well and will simply out-execute you while putting big numbers on the scoreboard. Klein is obviously the engine that makes this machine work. The talented quarterback is currently on pace to finish the regular season with 2,445 passing yards, 951 rushing yards, and 42 total touchdowns (side note: two of his remaining games are against Baylor and Texas, so who knows how high those numbers may go). When you can count on a quarterback to not only make good decisions but also make plays when things begin to break down, you are way ahead of the curve at the college level. While it may not always look pretty, Klein consistently makes the plays he should and has the Kansas State offense playing at an elite level.</p>
<p>With just four games remaining, in which Kansas State will likely be favored by at least a touchdown, the only thing that seems to be standing between the Wildcats and a 12-0 record is themselves. But if Klein continues to lead with such efficiency and so few turnovers, the BCS title game will likely be welcoming the 2012 Heisman Trophy winner.</p>
<p>The contrast between Leach and Snyder is a stark one. It seems Leach, unwavering in his gun-slinging ways, would never implement the type of balanced offense Kansas State has, even if he had a talent like Klein behind center. Snyder on the other hand, seems to be willing to do whatever it takes to put his players in the best position possible to succeed. While Leach will likely look to recruit players who are tailored-made for his system in the future, Snyder has done a remarkable job adapting his system to the talent he (and Ron Prince before him) recruited. While the respective track records of both coaches prove there is no single way to build a successful program, at least for one year, it is Bill Snyder’s squad that is making its coach look like an offensive genius.</p>
https://www.footballstudyhall.com/2012/10/30/3576318/leach-v-holgorsen-bill-snyderMNixon252012-10-23T09:01:29-04:002012-10-23T09:01:29-04:00Leach v. Holgorsen brings in a ringer
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/PjObupFCXm9eq44YgHS5PSqM--U=/0x64:4000x2731/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/1850371/20121018_mjr_su5_202.0.jpg" />
<figcaption>Mark J. Rebilas-US PRESSWIRE</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>With Mike Leach’s Washington State Cougars on a much-needed bye, we decided to look at another offensive-minded Pac-12 squad in this week’s piece: the <a class="sbn-auto-link" href="http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/teams/oregon-ducks">Oregon Ducks</a>.</p> <p>Coming into this past weekend, Oregon’s first true road test (at Arizona State) and West Virginia’s first bounce-back game (vs. Kansas State) were highly anticipated contests that many hoped would reveal each of these teams’ true colors. Well, plenty was revealed, and what we learned about the two squads could not have contrasted more.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">**********</p>
<p>Let’s start with our old friend, the <a href="http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/teams/west-virginia-mountaineers" class="sbn-auto-link">West Virginia Mountaineers</a>. I know this is meant to be an offensive column, but this simply must be said: West Virginia’s defense is bad, really bad. In the Mountaineers’ first four Big 12 games, they have giving up an average of 54.8 points per game! On Saturday against Kansas State, the Wildcats’ first eight drives of the game had the following results: FG, TD, TD, TD, TD, TD, TD, and TD. No, that is not a typo. Eight possessions, eight scores, 52 points.</p>
<p>Tying that back into offense, no matter how good West Virginia’s offense may be, it will never be allowed to show it when West Virginia is down, 31-7, at halftime. Strong balance between the running and passing game is a staple of Holgorsen’s <i>Air Raid</i> attack. But when your defense is hemorrhaging points at a Texas- and Baylor-like level, the offense has little choice but become very one-dimensional (passing) as the Mountaineers attempt to climb their way back into the contest.</p>
<p>Two weeks ago, in West Virginia’s big 48-45 victory over Texas, the Mountaineers ran the ball 42 times for 192 yards and two touchdowns. The strong ground game allowed the Mountaineers to finish the game with a 50/50 split in time of possession and eke out a solid, three-point road victory. At halftime of the past week’s game against Kansas State, West Virginia had run the ball just 9 times for 21 yards and barely held the ball for nine minutes. West Virginia, a team that consistently runs 75+ plays in a given game, finished the first half against the Wildcats with a grand total of 21 offensive plays.</p>
<p>The smooth rhythm and flow that defined the Mountaineers’ early season offensive success has been nonexistent over their past two losses. As the athleticism and execution of opposing defenses have improved, the explosive run-after-the-catch plays West Virginia leans so heavily upon have been greatly minimized. Early in the season, quarterback Geno Smith could get away with throwing the ball a yard or two downfield on third-and-10, knowing that West Virginia’s superior athletes could make a defender miss and turn the short throw into a first down. That is no longer the case.</p>
<p>A play midway through the second quarter perfectly summed up the Mountaineers’ recent offensive woes. Facing a third-and-10, West Virginia motioned into a five-wide, empty backfield formation. Kansas State chose to rush just four defenders, challenging Smith to make a play downfield against its seven-man coverage. After the snap, Smith briefly surveyed the defense but quickly settled for his safety valve, Dustin Garrison. The problem was, Garrison simply stood in place on the snap of the ball and made the catch one yard behind the line of scrimmage. Even after Garrison ran seven yards after the catch, the Mountaineers were still left with fourth-and-4 and forced to punt the ball away.</p>
<p>While Smith may have very well made the correct read (tough to say because the vertical patterns were cut off by the television feed), when you’re already down 17-0 (and quickly on your way to 24-0), simply taking what the defense gives you and living to play another down is not going to cut it.</p>
<p>Complicating issues is the fact that Smith’s vertical accuracy has seemingly deserted him over the past two weeks. Last week, we mentioned that Smith threw 13 consecutive incompletions on attempts thrown 12 or more yards downfield. This week, it was more of the same. Despite being down the entire game, Smith only attempted five passes 12 yards downfield or longer. In a very un-Heisman-like performance, Smith went 0-for-5 on those longer attempts.</p>
<p>For the sake of West Virginia fans everywhere, let’s hope the Mountaineers’ defense quickly learns how to get a stop or two in the Big 12, or we should expect more of the same. In back-to-back losses, the defense has simply put this once-dynamic offensive in too many unfavorable situations to succeed.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">**********</p>
<p>I’ve made the point in other pieces that the Oregon Ducks are unique in the way they run their spread offense. On the complete other end of the spectrum from Mike Leach (who seems to openly despise the running game), Chip Kelly loves to spread the defense out in order to run the rock. Just take a look at Thursday night’s stat line from Oregon’s 43-21 victory over Arizona State: 406 yards rushing, 48 passing. While the limited passing yards had a lot to do with the fact Oregon lead 43-7 at halftime and not the Ducks' true passing ability, it is quite clear that the Oregon ground attack is one of the most formidable threats in the nation (and has been for several years).</p>
<p>Oregon’s offense showed it could beat you several ways against the Sun Devils. After turning the ball over on their initial drive, the Ducks put together drives that lasted two, 14, 15, three, two, and one plays. Six drives, six touchdowns, 43 points (they successfully converted a 2-point conversion after their initial score). In sum, the Ducks made an Arizona State defense that <i>had</i> been playing good football look like a middling Big-12 defense. Many people believe if you don’t give up big plays and make Oregon sustain long drives, then you may have a chance at limit their success. Well, Oregon showed that simply is not the case with back-to-back 14- and 15-play drives that both resulted in touchdowns early in the contest.</p>
<p>One of Chip Kelly’s calling cards, much like Holgorsen, is how he consistently mixes up offensive formations on a week-to-week basis. Against the Sun Devils, Kelly opted to use formations that included a traditional tight end attached to the line much more than he had in previous contests. Whether or not that was to combat the Sun Devils’ blitz-heavy defense or to simply make the Sun Devils adjust to something new on the fly, it proved very effective.</p>
<p>More importantly, quarterback <a href="http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/players/136013/marcus-mariota" class="sbn-auto-link">Marcus Mariota</a> had his coming out party for the Ducks’ ground attack. Coming into the match-up, Mariota had rushed 43 times for 221 yards. Against the Sun Devils, Mariota rushed 10 times for 135 yards, and that was without playing a single snap in the second half. As if Ducks’ opponents didn’t already have enough to worry about with <a href="http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/players/37392/kenjon-barner" class="sbn-auto-link">Kenjon Barner</a> and De’Anthony Thomas, they now have to be concerned with Mariota’s developing ground game.</p>
<p>Chip Kelly doesn’t seem care what any defense throws at the Ducks. He will gladly make adjustments and eventually pick you apart. In this contest, it didn’t take the Ducks long to figure out the aggressive Sun Devils were vulnerable to the Mariota’s running ability. Next week, it may be something completely different that propels the Ducks’ offense. Going forward, the Ducks have so much talent and are so willing to make the necessary adjustments when something is not working, it’s difficult to envision them being slowed by anything other than their own mistakes.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">**********</p>
<p>One week, two very different outcomes. Holgorsen’s Mountaineers were once again let down by a sieve of a defense and a scuffling offense. On the other hand, Chip Kelly’s Ducks put up an easy 43 and may have been able to post 70+ points had he not called off the dogs and rested his starters in the second-half. A bye week could not have came at a better time as West Virginia gets some needed down time to clear their heads before TCU rolls into town on October 3. On the West Coast, we’ll find out if Mike Leach’s Cougars used their own bye week wisely, or if they are simply going to put up another zombie-like performance against Stanford this weekend.</p>
https://www.footballstudyhall.com/2012/10/23/3542318/mike-leach-chip-kelly-dana-holgorsen-real-guruMNixon252012-10-16T14:19:20-04:002012-10-16T14:19:20-04:00Leach V. Holgorsen, Week 7
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/hQa_ncOGAogjC7vc7x83CggkWaU=/0x60:4000x2727/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/1493389/20121013_tjg_an2_421.0.jpg" />
<figcaption>James Snook-US PRESSWIRE - Presswire</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>After starting out 4-for-5 on long pass attempts, Smith went 0 for his next 13.</p> <p><i>West Virginia’s offense finally paid the price for their dreadful defense while the Washington State offense may have finally found rhythm despite another loss.</i></p>
<p>What was supposed to be a bit of a breather in the middle of the West Virginia’s baptism-by-fire Big 12 initiation, quickly turned into an old-fashioned Texas Chainsaw Massacre. After WVU ran consecutive offensive clinics against Baylor and Texas, the <a href="http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/teams/texas-tech-red-raiders" class="sbn-auto-link">Texas Tech Red Raiders</a> stole the show on Saturday and presented their own ‘how-to-stop the <i>Air Raid </i>attack’ tutorial. As a column that has simply gushed about the effectiveness, flexibility, and talent of the Mountaineers’ offense this season, it is strange to dissect a game in which West Virginia’s well-oiled wheels simply fell off the wagon.</p>
<p>First, we should just state the obvious: West Virginia’s porous defense finally caught up with it. In previous weeks, the Mountaineers' offense has been able to overcome this fatal flaw by putting up seventy points or rushing the ball for over 200 yards. But in a game that saw Texas Tech race out to 14-0 lead and go into halftime leading, 35-7, the Mountaineers’ offense was simply unable to recreate the unstoppable force they had generated the previous two weeks.</p>
<p>As most football fans will testify, playing from behind is a whole lot different than keeping the pedal to the metal when enjoying a lead. In this contest, the Mountaineers played from behind throughout and seemed to <i>press</i> more and more as the deficit continued to expand.</p>
<p>Very early in the contest, when the Mountaineers were actually in the game, quarterback Geno Smith threw in rhythm as he has all year. Coming out of the gates, on passes thrown 12 or more yards downfield, Smith went 4-for-5 for 81 yards. With that kind of start, it was easy to wonder if the deep-ball accuracy Smith displayed in the Baylor game (12-for-14 for 380 and five touchdowns) was going to be present once again. Then it all disappeared.</p>
<p>As the West Virginia defense continued to hemorrhage points at a ridiculous rate, Smith threw long-ball after long ball as if he wanted to get 14, 21, or even 28 points back on one great throw. For the first time this season, Smith failed to take what the defense was giving him (not that they were giving him much) and consistently forced the long-ball in hopes of igniting a comeback. Unfortunately for the Mountaineers, Smith simply couldn’t connect. After starting out 4-for-5 on long pass attempts, Smith went 0 for his next 13.</p>
<p>One of the main culprits to Smith’s rough day was the pressure the Texas Tech front-four consistently got on the Mountaineers. Red Raiders coach<a href="http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/stewart_mandel/10/14/alabama-oregon-florida-bcs-standings-overtime/1.html"> Tommy Tuberville said the game plan</a> was to press the West Virginia receivers on the outside and take their chances with Smith’s vertical accuracy. The plan worked. What greatly helped the Red Raiders execute the game plan was the pressure their defense was able to get without having to bring an extra defender, something the West Virginia offense generally exposes very well. Consider that in the first half alone, the Red Raiders were able to get pressure (force a scramble or get a hit on the quarterback) at least eight times when rushing <i>just</i> three or four defenders. The strong rush with seven- and eight-man coverages contributed greatly to Smith’s worst outing of the season.</p>
<p>While the passing game didn’t live up to WVU's lofty expectations, the running game was not much help either. A week after running 38 times for 230 yards and two touchdowns (not including sack yardage), the Mountaineers rushed for just 30 yards on 12 carries in the first half. While the Mountaineers' final rushing numbers eventually looked decent (36 carries for 133 yards), many of those yards were accumulated in the second half, when the Red Raiders defense was more than happy to keep the clock moving.</p>
<p>Much like the issues that have plagued Mike Leach’s offense this season, the Mountaineers were simply unable to sustain drives on Saturday. Coming off a two-week stretch in which the Mountaineers converted 20 of 32 third- and fourth-downs (62.5%), Texas Tech held them to 11-for-28 (39.2%). A few early stops seemed to get the Mountaineers’ buzz saw offense off kilt early, and they were even able to get back on track.</p>
<p>As for Mike Leach’s Washington State Cougars, one can hope that a quarterback change can build on the momentum created in this past weekend’s loss to California. After quarterback <a href="http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/players/114012/connor-halliday" class="sbn-auto-link">Connor Halliday</a> started the game 4-for-10 with two very poor throws that led to interceptions, senior <a href="http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/players/78188/jeff-tuel" class="sbn-auto-link">Jeff Tuel</a> took over and had one of the Cougars’ best performances of the season. In going 30-for-53 for 320 yards and two touchdowns, Tuel was finally able to bring <i>some</i> semblance of rhythm and continuity to the Cougars’ stale attack.</p>
<p>As mentioned in last week’s piece, Tuel really seems to enjoy throwing to the Cougars’ Marquess Wilson. On Saturday, the duo got off to a hot start before an injury to Wilson spoiled a potentially huge stat line. In Tuel’s first two drives, he hit Wilson three times on five targets for 47 yards. It’s too bad Wilson got hurt because it looked like he was on his way to a monster game with Tuel calling his number early and often.</p>
<p>The spread of receptions had to once again please Leach. A staple of Leach’s <i>Air Raid</i> attack, eight different receivers caught at least two balls, with <a href="http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/players/136526/isiah-myers" class="sbn-auto-link">Isiah Myers</a> leading the charge with eight receptions for 108 yards. One play of note against Cal was when Leach stole a page out of Holgorsen’s playbooks and ran a fly-sweep shovel a five-yard gain. With little to lose at the point in the season, and considering his usual reluctance to run the ball, it will be interesting to see if Leach experiments a bit and utilizes a fly-sweep shovel package more often in the future.</p>
<p>It was another week and another failure for the Cougars when it came to their running attack and third-down conversions. Without harping on it too much, it should be noted that Cougars’ running backs had 12 carries for 66 yards (5.5 yards per carry), yet Leach once again had no intention of establishing the ground attack. As for third-down conversions, Washington State went just 5-for-16 (31.3%). The inability to run and the inability to convert on third downs have been two crippling constants for the Cougars this season. Luckily for Washington State, they can enjoy a much needed bye week and hopefully right the ship before facing Stanford in two weeks.</p>
<p>As for West Virginia, the Mountaineers have an opportunity to make up for last week’s dud in a big way as No. 4 Kansas State visits Morgantown on Saturday. A huge performance against Kansas State, and the Mountaineers will find themselves right back in the thick of things. Hopefully for their sake, the West Virginia defense might actually give its talented offense a chance in that one. With Washington State on a bye, next week’s piece will contrast the Mountaineers with the <a href="http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/teams/oregon-ducks" class="sbn-auto-link">Oregon Ducks</a>, who visit the Arizona State Sun Devils this Thursday. In a contrast to what Washington State has shown thus far, the Oregon Ducks will likely show how good a system can look when you actually have great athletes running it.</p>
https://www.footballstudyhall.com/2012/10/16/3512468/leach-v-holgorsen-week-7-texas-chainsaw-massacreMNixon252012-10-09T11:54:49-04:002012-10-09T11:54:49-04:00Leach V. Holgorsen, Week 6
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/z06HFyA45hksVLpEvhiG4PfMcZw=/0x0:2743x1829/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/1022953/20121006_lbm_sh2_418.0.jpg" />
<figcaption>Tim Heitman-US PRESSWIRE - Presswire</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The pupil breaks out new formations for big gains, and the master sticks with the tried-and-true, unable to find enough offensive talent to move the ball.</p> <p>Okay, so quarterback Geno Smith didn’t throw for another 600+ yards this week against the <a href="http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/teams/texas-longhorns" class="sbn-auto-link">Texas Longhorns</a>. But you know what? West Virginia came out of Austin looking even more dangerous than they did after putting up 70 points on Baylor a week ago.</p>
<p>The versatility of the Mountaineers’ offense is simply astounding. Early in the season, the discussion often revolved around West Virginia’s short, high-percentage passing game that relied heavily on the run-after-catch abilities of <a href="http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/players/84134/tavon-austin" class="sbn-auto-link">Tavon Austin</a> and <a href="http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/players/84145/stedman-bailey" class="sbn-auto-link">Stedman Bailey</a>, two of the most dynamic receivers in the nation. While those qualities are still present, the offense has evolved into much more. After last week’s 70-point onslaught, the discussion quickly turned to Smith and his newly minted vertical passing game. The performance made you wonder whether Coach Dana Holgorsen’s Air Raid offense would be able to reach unforeseen levels if this newly-found effectiveness of the deep-ball remained a constant.</p>
<p>Now, after West Virginia’s latest victory, in which they put up 48 points on the road against the No. 11 Texas Longhorns, the discussion focuses on a downhill, power running game that simply overwhelmed Texas down the stretch. Credit Holgorsen for having the foresight to lean on his running game throughout the contest. Knowing Texas could match-up athletically on the outside better than any of his previous four opponents, Holgorsen came out and used his Pistol-formation the way it has traditionally been utilized: for running the ball downhill.</p>
<p>Despite running primarily out the Pistol formation this season, there has been no question that the primary identity of the Mountaineers has been their passing attack. But in this contest, West Virginia used the Pistol to run through the Longhorns like old Nevada teams used to run through overwhelmed WAC opponents. Not including the four sacks of Smith, West Virginia ran the ball 38 times for 230 yards and two touchdowns. That is an average of over six yards per carry against a defense littered with four- and five-star athletes.</p>
<p>The item that stood out most about West Virginia’s offense was the heavy usage of two new formations. First, in a break from early-season tendencies, the Mountaineers came out with Smith <i>under</i> center using three receivers and an off-set I-formation backfield twelve times. Of the twelve times they lined up in this formation, they ran the ball 10 times for 42 yards and two touchdowns. By forcing Texas’ linebacker/nickel back to remove from the box to cover the slot receiver, the Mountaineers consistently found success running a weak lead-zone play at the Longhorns’ six-man box.</p>
<p>The other formation the Mountaineers used heavily for the first time this season was an inverted variation of their traditional Pistol-formation, one where their running back lined up where the fullback generally does and vice versa. This formation presented a plethora of options for Holgorsen to utilize, and he didn’t disappoint. When West Virginia lined up in the inverted Pistol, the offense ran stretches, play-actions, screens, and reverses. The first touchdown pass of the game came from the inverted Pistol-formation when Smith hit Bailey on a slant route after faking a stretch play to running back <a href="http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/players/134557/andrew-buie" class="sbn-auto-link">Andrew Buie</a> (who had just broken off a 30-yard run on the previous play). As if defensive coordinators didn’t have enough to worry about before this week, Holgorsen has now added two additional, diverse formations from which his offense now has proven successful. For a team that leans so much on its offense, West Virginia's ability to consistently come up with new ways to light up the scoreboard is going to be vital to their future success.</p>
<p>On the other side of the United States, it is hard not to feel bad for Mike Leach. Comforted by offenses he knew could consistently put up big numbers during his tenure at Texas Tech, Leach currently finds himself with a bare cupboard. That lack of talent continues to hinder Leach’s ability to live up to his well-earned reputation as an offensive mastermind.</p>
<p>On Saturday against a well-coached, stingy Oregon State defense, Washington State’s offense was on the field for just 41 offensive snaps (not including punts and field goal attempts). For an offense that came into the game avenging 72.2 snaps per game, it was a huge step in the wrong direction. The two obvious culprits for the step backwards were turnovers and the lack of third-down success. Against the Beavers, Washington State turned the ball over five times, including four interceptions and one fumble lost.</p>
<p>When the Cougars did hang on to the ball, they simply could not move the chains. For the game, Washington State went just 2-for-10 on third-downs was 0-for-1 on fourth-downs. It goes without saying that if you can’t make the plays to sustain drives, it is very difficult to consistently put up points.</p>
<p>One positive takeaway from the game is that the Cougars seem to be spreading the ball around like Leach prefers from his offense. On Saturday, a total seven players had catches, with five of those players catching at least three balls. It will be interesting to see if the even spread of the catches continues going forward, or if Cougars’ quarterbacks lock back into their preferred targets.</p>
<p>One interesting game note is that the preseason All-American candidate <a href="http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/players/114044/marquess-wilson" class="sbn-auto-link">Marquess Wilson</a> only saw one target in the first half until backup quarterback <a href="http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/players/78188/jeff-tuel" class="sbn-auto-link">Jeff Tuel</a> came on for the last drive. Throughout the game, starting quarterback <a href="http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/players/114012/connor-halliday" class="sbn-auto-link">Connor Halliday</a> only targeted Wilson one time in his twenty total pass attempts, whereas Tuel targeted him five times in seventeen attempts. Moving forward, it will be interesting to see if Wilson’s targets and production vary depending which quarterback is at the helm.</p>
<p>Once again, the Cougars running game was non-existent. Seeing as the passing game continuously coughed the ball up against the Beavers, it is strange that Leach didn’t try the running game a bit more. Oh wait, we’re talking about Mike Leach. Abandoning the running game is what Leach does. Even while the Cougars were still in the game late, Leach simply refused to run the ball enough, even though the ground game was having a bit of success. In the game, two running backs combined for nine carries and 40 yards. On an afternoon in which the passing game was doing little to contribute to the cause, it is puzzling Leach didn’t at least try something else. To his credit, though, it is difficult to try too many different things when your offense is only on the field for 41 snaps.</p>
<p>Overall, both West Virginia and Washington State find themselves in a stretch of difficult opponents. As West Virginia’s defense continues to give up numbers almost as gaudy as what its offense is gaining, the Mountaineers' offense must remain near-perfect as they face six more quality opponents in a row. For Washington State, hopefully Coach Mike Leach can reach into his bag of tricks and find a way sneak out a win or two using smoke and mirrors. Needless to say, the beginning portion of this season has gone almost perfect for one of the coaches, while the other simply needs to salvage what he can.</p>
https://www.footballstudyhall.com/2012/10/9/3478972/leach-v-holgorsen-week-6MNixon252012-10-02T15:47:08-04:002012-10-02T15:47:08-04:00Leach V. Holgorsen, Week 5
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/G-VoPNshEgMtU4rYDZtBWqhE5Cc=/0x0:4000x2667/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/470133/20120929_ajw_ac8_047.1349206818.jpg" />
<figcaption>Rob Christy-US PRESSWIRE - Presswire</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In which Mike Nixon becomes a Geno Smith believer.</p> <p>For a column focusing on offensive football, I feel it is almost insulting to dedicate too words to any team other than the <a href="http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/teams/west-virginia-mountaineers" class="sbn-auto-link">West Virginia Mountaineers</a>. Sure, we’ll touch a bit on Mike Leach’s Washington State Cougars, but this piece is simply going to praise Dana Holgorsen’s offense and the Geno Smith-led onslaught that took place this past Saturday in Morgantown, WV.</p>
<p>I have been one of Geno Smith’s harshest critics throughout the off-season and early part of this season. I often cite how his completion rate, yardage, and touchdowns are inflated by Holgorsen’s version of the Air Raid<i> </i>offense. After Saturday, I am now a full-blown believer. Simply put, there was <i>nothing </i>cheap about Smith’s performance against the <a href="http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/teams/baylor-bears" class="sbn-auto-link">Baylor Bears</a>. He did it all: short tosses, intermediate passes, and long bombs. Smith executed it all with great precision. Sure, he got help from the most dynamic receiving corps in the nation, but Smith’s performance set the standard of excellence very, very high.</p>
<p>The underlying stats back up everything you would imagine they would when looking at Smith’s ridiculous box score: 45-for-51 for 656 yards and eight touchdowns. Many basketball players talk about being in the <i>zone</i>, where no matter where they shoot from, the ball simply finds the bottom on the net. On Saturday, if the <i>zone </i>ever has existed in football, Smith was in it.</p>
<p>I’m not sure we’ll ever see another deep passing game as dominant as we saw from Smith on Saturday. Just how good was he? On passes traveling 12 or more yards downfield in the air, Smith went 12 of 14 for 380 yards and five touchdowns. That’s a completion rate of 85.7%. The craziest part? It should have been even better: <a href="http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/players/84134/tavon-austin" class="sbn-auto-link">Tavon Austin</a> seemed to be held badly on one of Smith’s two deep incomplete passes. Going forward, if Smith continues throw downfield with this accuracy, it begs to question whether any team will be able to slow this dynamic Mountaineer attack.</p>
<p>Against Baylor, the Mountaineers seemed to answer the last remaining question about their Air Raid offense. We already knew West Virginia had a steady running attack (151 yards <i>after </i>sacks on Saturday) that was supplemented by a lethal fly-sweep package (which they brought back this past weekend after shelving it against Maryland). What we were unsure of was how many big plays this Pistol-heavy offense could make vertically. If Saturday was any indication of things to come, the Mountaineers are flexible enough to beat teams multiple ways, not simply relying on gaudy run-after-the-catch numbers from their great playmakers on the outside.</p>
<p>One particular play on Saturday showed how just dangerous Holgorsen’s offense can be. While everyone knows the <i>fly-sweep shovel pass</i> to Tavon Austin is one of the staples of the West Virginia attack, Baylor defended it more aggressively and effectively than most opponents. After several <i>fly-sweep shovels</i> went for limited gains, Holgorsen adjusted and threw a new wrinkle at the Baylor defense. It resulted in an 87-yard touchdown.</p>
<p>The play can be seen at the 0:55 mark in the clip below.</p>
<center><iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/OhGkRA4b32Q" frameborder="0"></iframe></center>
<p>On this particular play, everything before the snap looked just like the Mountaineer’s typical <i>fly-sweep shovel</i>. Austin came across the formation in a speed motion, but instead of receiving a shovel pass once the ball was snapped, Smith quickly faked the shovel to him. With the Baylor secondary over-committing to the threat of Austin, <a href="http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/players/84145/stedman-bailey" class="sbn-auto-link">Stedman Bailey</a>, West Virginia’s other dynamic receiver, simply went unnoticed right down the sideline. As locked in as Smith was, an 87-yard touchdown was just a simple pitch and catch. And so it went for the Mountaineers on Saturday.</p>
<p>On the other side of the country, Washington State showed everyone that the Cougars are exactly who we thought they were. In typical Mike Leech-fashion, the Cougars finished the 51-26 loss to Oregon with 410 passing yards and minus-8 rushing yards (including sack yardage). While the sack yardage can manipulate the rushing numbers a bit, consider Washington State running backs received just 13 carries compared to 72 drop-back attempts by the Cougars’ offense. After five games, the Washington State running game is ranked 123rd in the nation.</p>
<p>In the past, though, Leach has been able to overcome a lack of running game because his dynamic passing attack found ways to put lots of points on the board. Not so much this season. Even when the Cougars' passing attack has found a bit of rhythm, stalling out in the red zone has been a common occurrence. Whether due to shoddy protection, poor throws, dropped passes, lack of a running game, or questionable play-calling, there have been many culprits behind the continuous offensive sputtering.</p>
<p>One bright spot for the Cougars was the play of receiver <a href="http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/players/114044/marquess-wilson" class="sbn-auto-link">Marquess Wilson</a>, although it was a Jekyll and Hyde-type of game for him. Wilson started the game with five straight incomplete passes when he was targeted. After that, though, Wilson caught twelve of his next thirteen targets to finish the game with 182 yards and a touchdown. But if the Cougars are going to have a shot at winning one of their next three games (at Oregon State, vs. Cal, at Stanford), they are going to need Wilson to get off to a stronger start and not just pick up meaningless statistics in garbage time.</p>
<p>One take-away from the film of this game was the frustration that seemed to be setting in for the Cougars. Several times late in the game, television cameras zoomed in on quarterback <a href="http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/players/114012/connor-halliday" class="sbn-auto-link">Connor Halliday</a> and he seemed to be yelling angrily in the direction of receivers who had failed to reel in catchable balls. While frustration is natural when a hyped offense is in the midst of prolonged struggles, it is far too early in Leach’s tenure for things to come apart at the seams.</p>
<p>It’s been a tale of two seasons thus far for Holgorsen and Leach. Holgorsen’s Mountaineers, coming off one of the most dynamic offensive performances in recent memory, are soaring with confidence as they head into a monster showdown against the <a href="http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/teams/texas-longhorns" class="sbn-auto-link">Texas Longhorns</a> in Austin. On the other hand, Leach’s Cougars hope to right the ship against a red-hot Oregon State Beavers squad. If this week’s games can come anywhere close to matching last week’s offensive explosions, then we’ll have a great weekend of football ahead.</p>
https://www.footballstudyhall.com/2012/10/2/3445104/leach-v-holgorsen-week-5MNixon252012-09-26T11:11:04-04:002012-09-26T11:11:04-04:00Leach V. Holgorsen, Week 4
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/-xZrheTEHL658mrHR0OGhRBIXHw=/0x154:4000x2821/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/80621/152592685.jpg" />
<figcaption>William Mancebo - Getty Images</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>West Virginia methodically rolled out a 31-21 victory, despite not playing at the level to which they are accustomed. Washington State, meanwhile, started out by playing its best three quarters of the season before its deficiencies were exposed.</p> <p>The FX Network must have read our minds. One week after the James Madison at West Virginia game was almost impossible to view on television (resulting in a one-week Leach v. Holgorsen bye), we were given a solid by a back-to-back viewing of West Virginia and Washington State. The first of the two games, Maryland at West Virginia, turned out to be nothing more than your typical ‘ho-hum’ victory by the superior Mountaineers. But in the second game of the double header, a match-up between struggling Colorado and Mike Leach’s Washington State Cougars, patient viewers were rewarded with an epic fourth quarter comeback (or collapse, depending how you’re looking at it) enabled by big plays and questionable coaching decisions.</p>
<p>The gap between Dana Holgorsen’s top-ten West Virginia and Mike Leach’s mediocre-at-best Cougars was staggering. West Virginia, a team battling the elements and facing its first BCS conference opponent of the season, methodically rolled out a 31-21 victory, despite not playing at the level to which they are accustomed. Washington State, meanwhile, started out by playing its best three quarters of the season before its deficiencies were eventually exposed.</p>
<p>Let’s start in Morgantown. Tavon Austin followed up a strong showing last week with his first (of what likely will be many) <i>monster</i> game of the season. Austin had 13 catches on 17 targets for 179 yards and three touchdowns. For those who are familiar with West Virginia’s Air Raid attack, what was even more impressive about Austin’s day is the fact he didn’t rack up a bunch of cheap receptions via the shovel pass as he often does. Against Maryland, Austin had four catches thrown at least 14 yards downfield. As if the opponent didn’t have enough to worry about with Austin’s much-celebrated run-after-the-catch ability, a talent often utilized in West Virginia’s fly-sweep package, this past week Austin added a vertical dimension to his dynamic skill-set.</p>
<p>Speaking of the fly-sweep, one only need watch last season’s Orange Bowl to see how devastating the Mountaineer’s fly-sweep package can be. One week away from West Virginia’s Big-12 opener, Holgorsen chose to abandon the package and go with a pretty vanilla game plan. With West Virginia in control for the majority of the game, there was never a need for Holgorsen to dip into his bag of tricks with a 3-0 Baylor squad coming to town this upcoming weekend.</p>
<p>After watching Geno Smith matter-of-factly put up 338 yards and three touchdowns, it will be nice to see the Heisman front-runner perform in his first real challenge of the season. Baylor, a team used to playing against wide-open offenses in the Big-12, will present much more of a contest than the Mountaineers have gotten thus far. On the season, Smith has been about as good as it gets. In the Mountaineers’ opening three victories, he has completed 81 percent of his passes for 1,072 yards, 12 touchdowns and no interceptions.</p>
<p>While the 46 yards rushing (not including sacks) West Virginia was held to against Maryland may be a bit disconcerting, the return of 235-pound <a href="http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/players/84139/shawne-alston" class="sbn-auto-link">Shawne Alston</a> (limited by thigh bruise) as well as the usage of the fly-sweep package should get the Mountaineers ground production back on track. This week’s game against Baylor should give the nation a much better feel of how good this West Virginia offense really is.</p>
<p>While the debate in Morgantown may be about how high the ceiling is, the folks in Pullman, Washington must be wondering how low rock bottom can be. Facing an 0-3 Colorado team, owners of bad losses to Colorado State and Sacramento State, the Cougars must have been chomping at the bit to build on their two-game winning streak. For the first three quarters, the performance was everything fans must have been dreaming of when Mike Leach was brought in to right the ship.</p>
<p>For the first time this season, the Cougars had an identity on offense. Leach’s version of the Air Raid kseemed to be clicking on all cylinders as <a href="http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/players/114012/connor-halliday" class="sbn-auto-link">Connor Halliday</a> threw three first-half touchdown passes. In the early-going, Washington State came out and methodically moved the ball, depending on a well-executed, short passing game before striking with the deep-ball once near the red-zone. Halliday’s first-half touchdown passes of 32, 23, and 15 yards took advantage of a shallow secondary, one seemingly concerned with stopping the short, high-percentage routes prevalent in Leach’s attack.</p>
<p>Overall, Halliday enjoyed a fine day with 401 yards and four touchdowns. His two favorite targets, <a href="http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/players/114044/marquess-wilson" class="sbn-auto-link">Marquess Wilson</a> and <a href="http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/players/161414/gabe-marks" class="sbn-auto-link">Gabe Marks</a>, did their part in combining for 12 receptions for 206 yards and three scores. In the end though, it was the Cougars’ lack of running that doomed them.</p>
<p>The collapse started midway through the fourth quarter with Washington State enjoying a comfortable 31-14 lead. When Colorado scored with 7:06 remaining to narrow it 31-21, Washington State responded on the subsequent drive by passing on five of the next six plays (including an incompletion that left at least forty seconds on the clock). When Colorado scored again with 4:23 remaining to make it 31-28, guess how Washington State’s offense responded? You guessed it! The Cougars answered by throwing the ball on two of the three downs, both for clock-stopping incompletions. The rest is history: Colorado went the length of the field and eventually scored with just nine seconds left in the game. In hindsight, I bet Leach wished he had run a couple extra minutes of the clock when he had the chance.</p>
<p>The greater point here is two-fold. One, the Washington State running game is atrocious. After four games, the Cougars average just 59.0 yards rushing per game, a stat good for 123rd in the nation. The second point is that Mike Leach is very, very stubborn. Colorado would often rush just two guys off the edge and dropping nine defenders into coverage. Any other coach in the nation would likely have run draw play after draw play until the defense showed at least a little bit of respect for the running game. But not Mike Leach.</p>
<p>Despite constantly facing two- and three-man pass rushes, Leach ran just two draw plays the entire game (for a solid average of six yards per attempt). On the contrary, the Cougars dropped back and threw 60 passes, and that doesn’t even include sacks or scrambles. I understand that Leach loves to the throw the ball and insists that his short-passing game replaces a traditional running game, but against Colorado, sticking to that philosophy cost his team a win.</p>
<p>In the end, no one expects Leach’s Cougars to look anything like his protégé Horgolson’s squad this season. But when fourth-quarter collapses are easily preventable by using sound, inside-the-box thinking, the mad-scientist Leach should be blamed when his stubbornness costs the team. Hopefully for Cougars’ fans, the next time Leach is faced with this predicament he simply does the right thing, runs the clock, and walks away with the much-needed victory. But with upcoming games against Oregon, Oregon State, Cal, and Stanford, it may be a while before the Cougars are within grasp of another win.</p>
https://www.footballstudyhall.com/2012/9/26/3411566/leach-v-holgorsen-week-4-the-stubborn-masterMNixon25