The Offense....The Hope of 2009

When last season ended, I did an analysis of our offense for the 2008 season. You can read the post here, but the bottom line is this:

• Any idea that our Gregg Brandon offense was some kind of juggernaut is not supported by facts.
• We were hampered by our inability to make big plays. Our dink and dunk attack simply didn't deliver enough production.
• The only reason we finished in the middle of the pack in scoring (6th) in a weak conference is that we were strong in the red zone and on third down. By performing on those key plays, we did get a middle of the pack performance.

Here's a review of the rankings in a bunch of offensive metrics, most of which I made up....

From FalconBlog--Triumphs and Trials in the BGSU Falcon Nation

So, what's in store for 2009? We can't begin without acknowledging that virtually everyone in the world thinks Dave Clawson's highly complex, rocket scientist offense is impossible for a bunch of players to grasp in less than two years. I submit that this remains to be seen. And, virtually everyone says that Clawson had losing seasons his first years at Fordham and Richmond. And I submit (without benefit of any facts) that this is the most talent he has started with.

The bottom line is that if this team is going to be bowl eligible--much less compete for the MAC title--the offense is going to have to deliver. Big time. Not middle of the MAC pack.

That's going to mean a few things. First, it is going to mean (as Coach has said) that Tyler Sheehan is going to have to be the best (or among the best) QBs in the MAC. That means we are going to have to score points by the bushel...both because I suspect we will need it to win, but also because I think our defense stands a much better chance if we can force teams to be one-dimensional and go to the air.

Tyler is a senior, and he has been a very productive QB. When you look at his numbers last year, you see someone who did everything that was asked for him. He threw for a high% and also did more than his share of running for a drop back QB. The one thing he did not do very often is go deep---and we don't really know if it was our hyper-conservative playcalling or whether he doesn't have a long arm. I suspect we will find out this year, because I think you will see us stretch the field in that direction more than in the past.

If Tyler is injured, by the way, his backups are highly touted but young QBs (Pankratz R-FR, and Schilz True FR). While these guys might be very effective, I think it is safe to say this team's success is reliant on Tyler producing at high levels all year.

Our other challenge is to run the ball. We did not get the kind of running we should in a spread offense last year, especially out of our RBs. If you factor out sacks, Tyler Sheehan had the most rushing yards on our team last year. Anthony Turner is next, and he has graduated.

The returning backs are Willie Geter (who averaged 6.7 yards per carry but only played in eight games due to injury) and Chris Bullock, who did not seem to have a place in the Brandon offense. I have already written that I think Bullock has the ability to really thrive in a more traditional run offense, and reports from Fall practice have shown that Geter has been ripping off some huge runs.

The need to run would help with two things the Brandon teams were woeful on...short yardage conversion and killing the clock in the 4th quarter when you have a lead (uh, tap tap tap, is this thing on??).

Also, you can expect us to line up with a FB in some formations, so don't get alarmed if there's another guy in the backfield. He's supposed to be there.

I think we are in solid shape at RB and QB. I am a little worried about WR, where we lost our #1, #4, #6 and #7 receivers from last year. If Freddie Barnes can stay healthy all year, he has proven that he can be a real weapon, especially as a possession receiver. The other remaining players have never come up with huge numbers or been go-to guys (Pronty, and Wright) and other young players (Hutson, Hodges, Joplin and Brighton) that we like but haven't seen enough to know if they can produce.

If the offense is going to ring all the bells on the scoreboard--as we need them to do--we are going to need to find out that at least a couple of these guys are as good as we think they can be. I do understand, by the way, that we don't need four or five quality WRs in our offense anymore, but I think we probably need three for most of our sets, and we have yet to see if we have them.

I think the TE position is solid. Jimmy Scheidler had some big games (7 of his 17 catches were TDs) last year, and I think he can play an even bigger role in this year's attack. I assume he can block to, because I also suspect we will use our TE as more than a big receiver.

Moving now to the line, which is where I guess we should start each analysis. The skill players rely on the line to move things along. We graduated two starters off the line, and have 52 line starts returning this year, based on this from Phil Steele.

This is the new big holy grail of prognostication stats, based on a feature in the Wall Street Journal. We'll see how it tracks. There are four teams in the MAC with even fewer returning line stars, and EMU has the most.

Like I said. We'll see.

For our Falcons, we will need Scott Lewis, Scott Albert and Tyler Donahue--each of whom got some snaps last year--to develop into solid players right away. Only one of those three is a senior, and we have five lineman who red-shirted last year. I guess it seems like our line is a year or two away from reasserting dominance, though I kind of worried about them last year, and they did seem to do pretty well.

So, to recap.

• Last year's offense very average.
• This year's can't be.
• Need Sheehan to kick ass.
• Need RBs to produce as we have seen them...
• We need WRs to produce as we haven't seen them (except Barnes)
• Need a continual maturing in the offensive line.