Most people are laying all the problems of the offense on Muschamp. I know he is the head coach but doesn’t Bryan McClendon call the plays! Whoever called the plays during last years loss to Clemson needs to go back and take notes. That was the best offensive performance by a gamecock team, that I’ve seen in years.
Gamecock Fanatics
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Bryan McClendon‘s offense
- Thread starter mels49
- Start date
To me, it seems that McClendon has control of the play calls at the beginning of the game. If we get a big lead of say 10+, I think Muschamp has him reel it in and go conservative. That would be good and all if we had a shut down defense and could rely on them keeping the lead. Going conservative bites us in the ass every time.
To me it was the everybody coaches and players team effort to blow the game. Hope to see a new team Saturday show up. On Champ he needs to stop be so conservative. Kick ass and don't stop to GAME OVER!! I just cannot believe he will the capability, That's his MO.
If you take into consideration the Ole Miss and klempzun games last year and how well our offense performed, something ain't right. I know Ole Miss didn't have much of a defense but we moved the ball on them well. Now, take the klempzun game, the way we scored on them was pretty simple. We didn't give vernables time to signal his defensive plays in and his defense was pretty much lost. They were hardly lined up correctly and we took advantage of that.
Then there is the last 2 games. We never ran the offense like the klempzun game, we were playing keep away. That tells me that CWM had a lot to do with the offensive game plan. BMac, when calling the game can light you up. CWM wants to play the conservative game and try to win with the defense. Your not winning many games with that type of game plan. College football has passed that type of philosophy due to the athletes that are put on the field. CWM got out coached Saturday, not BMac.
Then there is the last 2 games. We never ran the offense like the klempzun game, we were playing keep away. That tells me that CWM had a lot to do with the offensive game plan. BMac, when calling the game can light you up. CWM wants to play the conservative game and try to win with the defense. Your not winning many games with that type of game plan. College football has passed that type of philosophy due to the athletes that are put on the field. CWM got out coached Saturday, not BMac.
By definition you have to know offense to be a good DC, which Will was for a long time.
The question is how much delegated poor performance issues will he tolerate before jumping in the saddle himself during games.
The question is how much delegated poor performance issues will he tolerate before jumping in the saddle himself during games.
If BMAC is the offensive coordinator, you would think that once in a blue moon just to save face, he would call a play that he thought would work no matter what Muschamp said. I’ve never seen Muschamp get in his face like Saban did Kiffin. Just can’t believe BMAC wouldn’t raise the issue with Muschamp for the sake of the team and his future in coaching.
Whoever is really calling plays, they need to hang half a hundred on Saturday.
And what will that prove really? That we can beat down an inferior opponent? That won't make me feel much better, I don't know about you.
Especially given the fact that I can see Alabama hanging half a hundred on us.
I'm going to wait until after the Bama game to really pass judgement on wether BMac is a problem or not. He's been a pretty good OC for the past year, and then all the sudden after the Clemson game, his play calling has looked incredibly lackluster and unaggressive. The UNC game was bad, but I read that BMac actually called a lot of aggressive deep pass plays, but most of them completely failed due to the offensive line being so bad and not giving Jake enough time.
I actually wish that we just ran the ball most of the game. Our very first drive, we handed it off to Dowdle four or five times and he broke into the secondary for large gains very consistently. Then when Dowdle needed a breather, Feaster came in and did the same. I thought we had a great first and second drive because we established the run game, took a bunch of pressure off of Bentley, and got into the redzone, scoring points, without doing anything fancy. But shortly after, we started leaning on the passing game more, and our backs barely got any touches. So my biggest complaint with BMac in game 1 isn't that he wasn't aggressive enough, it was that he didn't stick with what worked. We ran the ball very well in Q1, and then willingly stopped the rest of the game. I think had we just rammed it down their throats from start to finish, we could've walked out of there with a double digit victory. Alas, it was important to the coaches that Jake had a big passing game to break his slump, so we called pass plays galore, only for them to completely fall apart over and over. I also think part of it is that the staff was worried about not keeping their foot on the gas, as last year we lost to Florida by exclusively running the ball to burn clock (being conservative), and ceasing our passing attack. I think they tried to do the inverse against UNC. They stopped running the ball in favor of trying to make pass plays down the stretch. I think UNC understood this, and so they consistently sent pressure after Bentley.
But anyways, I want to see how we play call against Bama. That's a game where an OC has to put all of his cards on the table against a great team, go with what's working, and be aggressive. If BMac is unable to adapt in that game, he may lose me.
I actually wish that we just ran the ball most of the game. Our very first drive, we handed it off to Dowdle four or five times and he broke into the secondary for large gains very consistently. Then when Dowdle needed a breather, Feaster came in and did the same. I thought we had a great first and second drive because we established the run game, took a bunch of pressure off of Bentley, and got into the redzone, scoring points, without doing anything fancy. But shortly after, we started leaning on the passing game more, and our backs barely got any touches. So my biggest complaint with BMac in game 1 isn't that he wasn't aggressive enough, it was that he didn't stick with what worked. We ran the ball very well in Q1, and then willingly stopped the rest of the game. I think had we just rammed it down their throats from start to finish, we could've walked out of there with a double digit victory. Alas, it was important to the coaches that Jake had a big passing game to break his slump, so we called pass plays galore, only for them to completely fall apart over and over. I also think part of it is that the staff was worried about not keeping their foot on the gas, as last year we lost to Florida by exclusively running the ball to burn clock (being conservative), and ceasing our passing attack. I think they tried to do the inverse against UNC. They stopped running the ball in favor of trying to make pass plays down the stretch. I think UNC understood this, and so they consistently sent pressure after Bentley.
But anyways, I want to see how we play call against Bama. That's a game where an OC has to put all of his cards on the table against a great team, go with what's working, and be aggressive. If BMac is unable to adapt in that game, he may lose me.
Last edited by a moderator:
If he couldn't figure out what was going wrong, he is being paid way too much. I tend to think he knows what went wrong and that was just a cop out
At this point a little honesty on his part would be refreshing.
S
Senior Rooster
Guest
Everyone is: ON POINT!!!
S
Senior Rooster
Guest
Last edited:
Cockhornleghorn
Member
Our offensive offense has Muschamp's signature all over it.
