Lazor Philosophy

[J. David Wannyheimer]

No worries. You said it better than I did. Well, except about not caring for Malzahn. One of the few upsides of keeping Philbin is that once Malzahn has another year at Auburn he'll be looked at as more of a reasonable coach of an NFL team. Only the Browns have been sniffing around him this year but ultimately I think they'll be risk adverse and hire someone else. His ability to adapt his scheme and game plan before and during games is unique among coaches I've seen. Belichick is the gold standard for this but it doesn't seem like it's a talent Dolphins fans appreciate enough even though we should. It'd be nice to have a coach at least approaching his level at that.

It's amusing that it seems to have taken the NFL forever to figure out that if you want to wear the other team down with the run, you're better off lengthening the game, rather than shortening it. There can be advantages to shortening the game, but particularly for a team that is known for playing in brutal heat and humidity, that seems kind of silly, doesn't it?

 

[Bob512]

Hurry up and run the ball is a cleanser. If Lazor brings that, then we'll be on the uptick without changing much of anything else. I'm not a big fan of Oregon or Auburn or Chip Kelly but there's no denying that faced past offense is effective as long as it's based on high volume runs and not merely an excuse to line up quickly and wing it mindlessly. The Patriots were the recent team to bring up tempo running to the NFL, particularly after a big play or upon entering the red zone. Very effective.

One caution is that you need to be physical to pull off that type of approach. Oregon suffers because it is narrow on both sides of the ball and can be overpowered. Stanford pushed them around physically the past two seasons. Auburn is more rugged than Stanford. Philadelphia was not as physical as ideal, with McCoy as the feature back.

When the Eagles faltered this season they panicked and got away from running the ball. There were several games with 20 rushes or fewer, which I never would have expected from a Kelly offense. Even the playoff game was poorly executed, allowing the Saints to run the ball 14 more times than they did, 36 to 22. Foles strangely passed often on first and second down in the first half despite New Orleans' strength in pass defense and a weak rushing defense, allowing 4.6 yards per rush. I had Saints +3 via my Yards Per Pass Differential system and my primary concern before the game was that the Eagles would relentlessly run the ball at fast tempo. When that wasn't happening at all and halftime ended with the Eagles up only 1 point and with a meager 11 rushing attempts, I was very confident New Orleans would win straight up.

Good analysis.

 

[TheWalrus]

Walrus, I wanted the SEC streak to end. That's the primary reason I wasn't pulling for Malzahn and Auburn. Besides, they've been incomparably fortunate in both of their recent big years. That's an annoyance. In 2011, Clemson dropped a simple winning touchdown pass in overtime in the opener at Auburn. Otherwise that title shot ends before it starts. Auburn wasn't highly rated in preseason and could not have advanced to the BCS championship game above TCU with one loss. People tend to forget how high TCU's power rating was that year. They were favored over 1-loss Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl.

Also, Alabama contributed greatly to Auburn's huge comeback win in that 2010 game. It got to be a 24-0 deficit but rightfully should have been much greater than that. Ingram fumbled deep in Auburn territory and the ball somehow straddled the sideline and went into the end zone for a touchback instead of normally going out of bounds for Alabama to retain possession. Then Trent Richardson dropped an easy touchdown pass at the 2 yard line, leading to a field goal instead of a 28-0 lead.

Normally I don't like adjustments but Malzahn has benefited immensely from oddities in both 2010 and 2013. Kind of weird that Auburn has has poor breaks in weaker seasons like 2011 and 2012 but in their big years they get all the breaks, instead of relative obscurity via 2 regular season losses.

I think his reputation has benefited immensely from some lucky breaks, no doubt. But I think savvier fans and observers would still be onto him regardless. They'd see a coach that consistently produces an overachieving squad.

Another guy along the same lines is Boise State's longtime coach Chris Petersen, now with Washington. I've just come to assume the NFL doesn't hold any interest for him because otherwise I can't understand why teams haven't come calling. They didn't often beat the big teams but they always kept it close, and the top players they've sent to the NFL -- like Shea McClellin and Kyle Wilson -- have rarely worked out, which tells me they've already been coached about as well as they can be coached. The same thing happens with players from Bama. The few that have excelled like Julio Jones are vastly outnumbered by the disappointments like Mark Ingram, Dre Kirkpatrick, Dont'a Hightower, Rolando McClain and now Trent Richardson. It's no wonder to me that the secondary players in particular have been duds, especially early, as that's Saban's area of expertise. Kareem Jackson was only borderline rosterable his first few years, and Dee Milliner looked vastly below average last year.

The talent level on the field in the NFL is much more evenly distributed than the talent in the coaching box, in my opinion. Some people like to dispute that but all you have to do is look at the money spent on acquiring each. Teams take years and spend millions of dollars finding players, yet a coach is often hired over a weekend. Which one is likelier to have the higher degree of error? If I were in charge of one of these coaching searches I'd always be looking for the guys who consistently squeezed the margins on whatever they have to work with, regardless of the win/loss record at the end of the year. Malzahn has been that kind of guy everywhere, and he's done in different ways everywhere he's been.