That's who we are. We are a throwing team. As long as Tyler keeps throwing the ball like he is throwing we are going to continue to be a passing team

In the aftermath of the Temple victory Saturday, Coach Brandon made the statement above. The Falcon Nation, ever looking for something to debate, has taken to wondering if a team with an imbalanced attack can succeed consistently.

The stats sheet says we have passed the ball 151 times, and run it 74 times--a 67% play mix in favor of passing. In fact, it is worse than that. There are 8 sacks, and Sheehan has 14 other runs, almost all of which were scrambles off pass plays. So, that would mean 173 passes and 52 runs (77% pass mix). Our RBs have run the ball only 40 times in our 225 plays! (The remainder are mostly to Anthony Turner on designed QB runs).

By contrast, Omar's 2004 season had 472 passes and 432 rushing attempts in raw numbers.

There are two schools of thought on this.

One is a traditional, by the book school. You need balance to succeed. If you can't keep a defense guessing, then sooner or later they will be able to put enough guys in the right place to defend you. Also, you need a plan B for use in case Tyler Sheehan is having a bad day, or is injured, or the weather sucks.

Commentary: this school appeals to common sense and logic. That does not mean, however, that it is the only way to run a football team. We have run very little so far, yet Sheehan is lighting up the passing stats. Further, we tried a one-dimensional attack last year, and it failed badly.

The other school of thought is a little more radical. It says that while the balance is the preferred route, you can succeed if you can do the one thing you do really well.

Commentary: it seems like some teams succeed without passing very much. It seems to follow that some teams can succeed without running very much. But, you have no margin for error. What you do, you must do nearly to perfection, under all conditions with whatever injuries come along.

Teams have typically defended BG by dropping seven into coverage, which makes the most sense, given our ability to spread the field. They then try to get pressure by rushing four, but rushing hard, because they aren't worried about the run. Our main defense to this has been the screen--but not to any great success.

I guess we really get an idea from the quote that leads this post how much Coach Brandon hated last year's offense.

Here is my final, uninformed and totally personal opinion: I believe, in theory, that you can win with a one-dimensional attack. However, I believe it almost always misses opportunities to be even more dangerous. PJ Pope was devastating on those Meyer/Brandon teams...a backbreaking weapon and a serious consideration for teams racing back into coverage. I understand that Willie Geter and Chris Bullock and Dan Macon are not PJ Pope and BJ Lane. But, given the space they should have, I can't imagine they can't produce.

Just as an example, we threw and failed twice on 3rd and 1 Saturday. You'd like to think you could run for those.

Of course, so long as the team keeps moving the ball, the whole argument looks silly. But on, let's say, a blustery November day in Buffalo when the passes aren't falling, I'd hate to think we don't have the ability to open some lanes mixing it up a little bit.