Are we going to have a good defense and get a new OC every 2 or 3 years, each one sucking just like the one before?
Only if the OC's we get are named HC somewhere every 2 or 3 years. We may replace a random coach every once in a while for other reasons, but there is no structural reason this defense will retard the development of this offense.
So the question: Does CGC do anything that would arbitrarily put the O at a disadvantage? Like what? The main ones would be recruiting and cherry-picking who plays D and who plays O. Yes, there is a natural normal tendency for most coaches to put the best players on D, but is there anything unusual with CGC?
Let's look at transfers. I see 6 transfers. 3 were for offense. The highest ranked three were on D, but that is explainable. The highest ranked had a past relationship with CGC when he was a DC, so following him is natural and normal. The second and third ranked are DB's, and CGC has a reputation for developing DB's into functional pros, and so initial transfers are likely to be over-weighted with that group. So transfers do not show a clear bias against offense.
Let's look at CGC's 2019 recruits. He slowplayed/rejected/lost two recruits. Both were offensive linemen who were not going to contribute... ever... and to my knowledge did not find a P5 home later. I count 9 freshmen he was able to gain commits from. 4 were O and 5 were D. The top player was on O. So far, everything within statistical norms.
Let's look at CGC's 2020 recruits so far. Of the first 21 current bee's, 12 are on offense and 9 are on defense. 4 of the top 5 are on offense. Does this show a bias towards
offensive recruiting? Probably not, since we direly need offensive linemen and tight ends. Hopefuls for any remaining ships come from both sides of the ball.
What else could a HFC do to retard offensive development? What about assistant coaches? Is that side of the ball getting the shaft? Can anyone say with a straight face that the offensive staff which includes Brent Key and Tashard Choice is getting neglected? I don't see how.
What else could a HFC do to retard offensive development? He has defensive familiarity, just like the last coach had offensive familiarity, but all coaches are more familiar with one side of the ball over the other, and it seems that it does not have a strong statistical effect on team unit performance either way. I can anecdotally mention quite a few cases where defensive coaches took over and installed high-power offenses.
What else could a HFC do to upset offensive development? Does he have developing offensive players waste practice snaps facing a specialized defense, slowing their development? No. His defense, while more aggressive than most, is within the CFB mainstream. And I would think facing a sophisticated and aggressive defense in practice would
help offensive development, not slow it down. CGC also emphasizes development, and runs double scrimmages to maximize useful snaps.
Does CGC unnecessarily hamstring his OC's? Force them to run unsound offenses? There is no evidence of that. The fact that DP and BK both knew CGC and followed him here is evidence that he does not over-manage the offense. Is he detrimentally detached from the offense? Based on his words and actions, I see zero evidence of that. He spends more time working with defense, but he makes effort to connect with the offensive players. Does CGC have a record of switching offenses faster than players can learn them? Not so far.
So how does all the above compare with the last decade, the situation that you fear will repeat but with roles reversed? You should analyze the last situation yourself, and with an open mind. What I see is a majority of commits in years past on the defensive side of the ball, but of those with unassigned "athlete" designations, they strongly tended to wind up on offense. I believe that is natural and normal in filling out a run option roster, and the sheer numbers of defensive recruits show a strong desire to fix the defense, although it also shows some mis-evaluation (or desperation.) The last coach had a hands-off policy on defense, and we tried a number of different defenses. I would not say this was indifference, but no one knows what happens inside meeting rooms, but I would be very surprised if the last coach was indifferent about our defense. Very very surprised. I think our defenses suffered from changing schemes too much. I have long said that it is very hard to build a strong defensive core, when your young players in peak development period are on scout team playing against your specialized offense. With the IIWII results, it is very hard to honestly argue against this.
Some think we had less ability in our defensive assistant coaches. I did not see that early in CPJ's tenure. Perhaps it turned out that way later. I don't know. I personally was not impressed with many of the replacement assistants on either side of the ball, when we lost one due to promotion elsewhere or being fired. And Sewak is a favorite whipping boy around here and he was an offensive coach. So I did not see any effort to make the defensive meeting room a second class destination. Did CPJ regularly attempt to connect with his defensive players? I will leave that question open for former players, who can answer more definitively.
But on the whole, I cannot imagine a decade-long defensive fugue to be coincidental, but the issues cannot be projected onto the new staff. I think the best fixes for our current offensive woes are a) persistent repetition of the new principles of offense, b) get healthy, and in the long term c) improve our recruiting. I don't see any of that being neglected right now.
