Georgia ran the ball a lot last year, and they will probably run it even more in 2008. I don’t know if you saw it or not, but they actually brought in former Auburn OC Al Borges to help them install some two-back sets that utilize both Knowshon Moreno and Caleb King. Moreover, as you mentioned, UGA hasn’t had any receivers really stand out just yet - despite having several highly-touted guys - and though Stafford has all the physical tools you would ever want, he hasn’t turned in the huge performances in the passing game, either. Finally, one last point, UGA is about the only team left in the conference that consistently makes use of a blocking fullback, and they still run a lot of I-formation, so even when you don’t take their current situation into consideration, this is a team that wants to run the ball a good bit. I expect UGA to run the ball as much this upcoming year as t hey did last year, and perhaps even a bit more.

As for Arkansas, I explained that in the original article. They are missing, and intentionally so. Considering they were running the Wildhog most of the time, and with no QB on the field a good portion of the time, there was simply no way to accurately assess how often they were throwing the football using the raw game data. To do so, you would have to break down the actual game film, and obviously I don’t have that at my disposal. With that in mind, I just noted that they were an extremely run-heavy team in 2007, but that in 2008 they will air it out. I would like to have their specific data, but it’d be almost impossible to get, and if you factor them in as an extreme run-heavy team anyway, without knowing the specifics, then it’s not going to change the end results anyway.

Now I have to steal find my husband’s credit card!

Do you think that even in the era of more pass-oriented offense that if you can keep the ball on the ground that you should do that?

Generically speaking, I think you should probably do whatever you do best, taking into consideration your weaknesses. If you have a bunch of great run blockers up front and some good tailbacks, it’d be dumb to try to throw the football up and down the field if you have an average passing attack. Take Arkansas last year for example… I don’t care if the other 11 SEC teams threw it on every single down, it would have taken a clinically insane person not to constantly run it with McFadden and Jones and in turn put the game on the shoulders of Casey Dick. And, vice versa, I think the opposite is true if you have a great passing attack and a not-so-good rushing attack. At the end of the day, regardless of what anyone else is doing, I think you have to play to your own strengths.

Now in terms of building an offense in the big picture, obviously the coaches themselves think it’s best to build a team that can effectively throw the football. That’s not to say that you shouldn’t run it a lot in the short-term if that is your strength, but obviously in the long-term the best and brightest football minds around think it’s best to throw the football much more than is traditionally considered appropriate.

Also, do you think the change in philosophy is coming from teams gearing their defense to stop the run and if so will the trend reverse itself as defenses get better at stopping the pass?

I don’t think I can really answer that, but only speculate.

In my opinion, the changes we have seen have resulted from coaches becoming less risk averse and by re-evaluating the risks and rewards stemming from both running and passing. I don’t really think it has been a situation of where it just became so damn hard to run the football that they decided to start throwing it all over the place. Even up into the mid-1990’s, when teams really started to air it out, you still had a ton of star tailbacks successfully running the football littering the SEC landscape. I may be wrong, but I don’t think it was / is that.

Personally, I think it all goes back to underlying changes in philosophy. For so long, throwing the football was just considered too risky. It created greater risks for turnovers and other big negative plays (sacks, holding penalties, etc), and coaches just shied away from it. The risk simply was not justified by the perceived reward. But the perceptions have changed. There is no doubt that throwing the football is the riskier course of action, but as we all know from basic finance is that as the risk goes up, so does the reward. There seems to simply have been a fundamental re-evaluation of that risk / reward relationship. Coaches from previous generations simply did not think the risks justified the rewards, but that has changed. Now coaches seem the risks being well worth the reward - the risk of a sack, penalty, or a turnover is, in the big picture, worth it when you can average 15 yards or more per completion - and as a result they are airing it out.

From all that I can tell, teams are throwing the ball more these days not because they have to, but because they want to. They, I think, are doing it simply because in the end they think it will help them score more points and win more games.

The big thing, I think, we should all keep in mind with this is none of this is exclusive to the SEC. All across all levels of competitive organized football, we are seeing the pass used more and more. At the high school level, just go to Coach Huey’s website and read how much coaches are running the Air Raid. It’s taken college football by storm, too, in the past few years everyone is simply throwing it more. The same goes true with the NFL, too… the once run-dominated league is now a league dominated by the emphasis on, and importance of, the passing game. Again, it’s not just the SEC, it’s all across the board.

And I don’t think we’ll see this trend reverse itself in the near future as teams get better at stopping the pass, simply because I’m not sure that teams will actually get better at stopping the pass. Yes we do see schools turning out a lot of very good cover guys and pass rushers now, but by the same token we also see schools turning out a lot of great passers, wide receivers, and athletic tackles capable of blocking the edge rushers. At the end of the day, I think it’s really a push. I think we’ll see more of what we see now in the NFL, where the passing game dominates and teams try to specialize in passing the football and stopping the pass. I’m not sure teams will get better at stopping it, per se. For everything the defenses do to stop it, the offenses will have a counter-action to balance it out.

At the end of the day, I think we’ve just had a complete re-evaluation of how the game should be played. Times change, and strategies change with it. We may very well see a move back towards a run-based game several years on down the road, but for now the focus is on the passing game, and I think for us to have a revert back to the old ways, it will ultimately have to stem from a fundamental re-evaluation of how the game should be played, and I think, if that comes, it would come from the risk / reward that was discussed earlier. Until coaches start thinking again that the risk of throwing the football is not worth the reward, and that emphasizing the run does not help score more points and give you a better chance of winning games, I think we’ll continue to see teams air it out.

I think UGA can win the national championship with a 60-40 run-pass split.

I think, first and foremost, that we should all accept that there is no one “right” way of doing things. There are many different ways that have been proven to get you to the ultimate destination. USC has done it running a pro-set offense, Ohio State did it with an offense that was conservative as hell, and Florida did it with the spread option. I think there are a lot of ways that you can get it done, and I do think a more traditional offense can still win the national title.

Georgia ran the ball a lot last year, but honestly it would have been a dumb idea to throw it more for them. They had a great running game, but on the other hand they had rookie tackles, a mediocre-at-best receiving corps, and a quarterback who, despite the hype and the huge arm, hasn’t put up particularly good production just yet. Just like with Arkansas, it simply would not have made any sense to throw it more often than they did.

Going forward, I don’t think UGA really needs to throw the football more, they just need to throw the ball more effectively. Last year the passing attack just never materialized. Stafford has great physical tools, but the production was never there. He only completed about 55% of his passes, and had a fairly high interception rate. Moreover, The receiving corps couldn’t develop, and even the two leading receivers couldn’t pass the 40 catch mark. The third and fourth leading receivers were actually a tailback and a tight end. The third receiver, Mikey Henderson, really didn’t do anything special aside from one big catch against Alabama and another big catch against Florida. Beyond that, they were unable to take advantage of Stafford’s big arm. He can launch the ball 70 yards, but his leading wide receivers barely averaged 15 yards per catch. Bottom line, they just didn’t throw it very well.

I think UGA can win the NC if their great defensive play from the second half of last season continues, if the running game continues to do well, and if the passing attack becomes more effective. I don’t see where being a bit run-heavy will cost them the title if they are otherwise a deserving team.