Mark Whipple Officially Named Offensive Coordinator + Quarterbacks Coach

[FrantzHardySwag]

56 minutes ago, Undone said:

Now I'm asking basically the same question again: How much does adding Mark Whipple really do for the W/L column?

Recent success stories from first year OCs:

 

Grimes improved Baylor scoring output by 7 PPG. 

Lashlee improved Miami scoring output by 8 PPG. 

DeBoer improved Indiana scoring output by 6 PPG. 

Brady improved LSU scoring output by 16 PPG. 

 

All these teams had a significant improvement in W/L as well. Not saying it will happen here, but the right OC hire can have a significant impact. 

[Undone]

Just now, FrantzHardySwag said:

Recent success stories from first year OCs:

 

Grimes improved Baylor scoring output by 7 PPG. 

Lashlee improved Miami scoring output by 8 PPG. 

DeBoer improved Indiana scoring output by 6 PPG. 

Brady improved LSU scoring output by 16 PPG. 

 

All these teams had a significant improvement in W/L as well. Not saying it will happen here, but the right OC hire can have a significant impact. 

 

It's really encouraging data there.

 

But I also wonder how their lack of discipline and execution on the offensive line heading into their first seasons compared to ours.

[Undone]

40 minutes ago, M.A. said:

50 is a reach. With an upgrade in receivers coaching with better quarterback play and an offensive line with their act together 35-40 and occasionally more is realistic. We need to generate a reliable running game for conversions too. That's a lot of if's but if we can do that'll we'll be winning a lot more games.

 

It seems his scheming is less complicated which should be helpful. That's the impression I'm getting anyway. He does need good quarterbacking. 

 

Would be curious to hear why a scheme being "less complicated" is a benefit to you. I didn't feel like our skill players failed to run the right routes or be in the right spots very much at all this year.

 

If anything I feel like our scheme caught the other team with their pants down multiple times in critical situations and put yards & points up on the board when just "going vanilla" probably wouldn't have worked because that requires good line play.

 

I agree with the benchmark needing to be that we get to "35-40 occasionally." Looking at our points scored in our 9 losses, look at how many times we couldn't crack even 23 in games. Even just getting that up to 28-30 maybe makes us an 8 win team.

 

But in the B1G that is so much easier said than done.

[r06ue1]

Who is going to be the QB of this new pass first offense? 

What offensive line are we going to bribe to come here to pass block for it? 

Can we start getting the recruits here for this offensive type? History anyone? 

Why do I feel like history is repeating itself and Bill Callahan is riding into town once again? 

Hoping for the best as usual but also been doing that since the Callahan hiring news.

[Undone]

4 minutes ago, r06ue1 said:

Who is going to be the QB of this new pass first offense? 

What offensive line are we going to bribe to come here to pass block for it? 

Can we start getting the recruits here for this offensive type? History anyone? 

Why do I feel like history is repeating itself and Bill Callahan is riding into town once again? 

Hoping for the best as usual but also been doing that since the Callahan hiring news.

 

I think we've been over this before, if memory serves. You'll first have to explain what your definition of a "pass first offense" is.

 

If I remember right, you had been one of the posters that said we needed to run the ball 70% of the time and also referenced being "pass happy." But again for reference, Iowa went 10-2 this season and only ran the ball 54% of the time, while we ran it 55% of the time.

 

But all of that subjectivity & style preference aside, I believe that if we get a guy who is a better passer than he is a runner that we will put more points up on the board - even if we were to increase our run/pass ratio to be even heavier on the run than it was this last season.

[FrantzHardySwag]

8 minutes ago, r06ue1 said:

Who is going to be the QB of this new pass first offense? 

What offensive line are we going to bribe to come here to pass block for it? 

Can we start getting the recruits here for this offensive type? History anyone? 

Why do I feel like history is repeating itself and Bill Callahan is riding into town once again? 

Hoping for the best as usual but also been doing that since the Callahan hiring news.

You realize we already rely heavily on our pass offense right now, right? If we don't have a competent QB, line and 'recruits' we will be boned next year no matter what. 

[thexyz]

7 minutes ago, Undone said:

 

Would be curious to hear why a scheme being "less complicated" is a benefit to you. I didn't feel like our skill players failed to run the right routes or be in the right spots very much at all this year.

 

If anything I feel like our scheme caught the other team with their pants down multiple times in critical situations and put yards & points up on the board when just "going vanilla" probably wouldn't have worked because that requires good line play.

 

I agree with the benchmark needing to be that we get to "35-40 occasionally." Looking at our points scored in our 9 losses, look at how many times we couldn't crack even 23 in games. Even just getting that up to 28-30 maybe makes us an 8 win team.

 

But in the B1G that is so much easier said than done.

The common denominator is that we need good line play no matter what schemes are implemented. And having a quarterback that can effectively execute the offense. 

 

I can see the benefits of both. Do think it would be in our interest to tone down the complication some. Easier to execute.  It just seems to me that that we try so many things. They may be brilliant plays but can we execute them consistently enough.

 

Whatever we do, we've got to be doing it well. Have we been doing what we've been doing well enough with regularity...Somehow that has to improve to where there's greater consistency. There needs to be reliable, high percentage plays incorporated. Having Mickey Joseph here is going to be of great benefit whatever we do. I feel really good about our receivers improving. 

[Undone]

6 minutes ago, M.A. said:

It just seems to me that that we try so many things. They may be brilliant plays but can we execute them consistently enough.

 

This really could be. I personally didn't really see it just from the eyeball test this season personally, but sometimes keeping it simple helps fix issues, agreed.

[Husker in WI]

Offenses under Whipple Run/Pass ratio, apologies if someone else already got this:

2014 UMass: 44/56

2015 UMass: 44/56

2016 UMass: 45/55

2017 UMass: 48/52

2018 UMass: 50/50

2019 Pitt: 46/54

2020 Pitt: 48/52

2021 Pitt: 49/51

 

So he's gotten run heavier more recently, and as they've improved on offense his teams have run the ball more. There's no way Frost made an offer that would involve drastic changes to the offense, ideally this brings some diversity to the passing game though. I think it's a good hire, he's experienced and brings a different perspective which is probably the biggest thing Walters/Lubick were missing. 

 

 

 

[thexyz]

2 minutes ago, Undone said:

 

This really could be. I personally didn't really see it just from the eyeball test this season personally, but sometimes keeping it simple helps fix issues, agreed.

Fair enough. That's the impression I get from what I've watched. I've missed some though. 

[The Dude]

1 hour ago, Undone said:

I'm asking basically the same question again: How much does adding Mark Whipple really do for the W/L column?

 

I think this question depends almost entirely on which transfer QB he can attract.   If we end up with some lame QB, throwing it 35-40 times a game could end in catastrophe if the defense is as bad as everyone seems to expect.

[Undone]

Just now, The Dude said:

 

I think this question depends almost entirely on the QB he can attract.   If we end up with some lame QB, throwing it 35-40 times a game could end in catastrophe if the defense is as bad as everyone seems to expect.

 

Agreed.

 

But I also think if you had put the Pitt QB they had this year onto our team last March, we wouldn't have gone 3-9. We might have even had a winning season, all else being equal.

[BigRedBuster]

43 minutes ago, Undone said:

 

Would be curious to hear why a scheme being "less complicated" is a benefit to you. I didn't feel like our skill players failed to run the right routes or be in the right spots very much at all this year.

 

If anything I feel like our scheme caught the other team with their pants down multiple times in critical situations and put yards & points up on the board when just "going vanilla" probably wouldn't have worked because that requires good line play.

 

I agree with the benchmark needing to be that we get to "35-40 occasionally." Looking at our points scored in our 9 losses, look at how many times we couldn't crack even 23 in games. Even just getting that up to 28-30 maybe makes us an 8 win team.

 

But in the B1G that is so much easier said than done.

Agree.  We don't need a dumbed down scheme and I very seriously doubt if his scheme is less complicated.

 

These guys are Div 1 P5 football players.  If they can't understand a playbook that is as complicated as what other programs are doing, then we need to find different players.

[Undone]

6 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Agree.  We don't need a dumbed down scheme and I very seriously doubt if his scheme is less complicated.

 

These guys are Div 1 P5 football players.  If they can't understand a playbook that is as complicated as what other programs are doing, then we need to find different players.

 

Right. And usually the eyeball test makes it pretty obvious when guys don't know where to be after they go into a pre-set motion, run the wrong routes, etc. That really wasn't our problem this year.

 

We just had so many drives die because of false starts and also just not getting good push on the offensive line that allowed 1st & 2nd downs to either move the chains or setup a 3rd & short.

 

Now there are admittedly a couple games where Martinez's accuracy being off cost us pretty big (Illinois, Purdue, and then the 2nd INT against Wisconsin).

 

But by and large I am honestly going to be pretty bummed if Frost's scheme & playbook is completely overhauled. I think if you put a guy in that has the arm ability of even someone like Tanner Morgan at Minnesota we could actually be the 2017 UCF offense. We weren't far off from doing what they did that year in terms of scheme - we just didn't execute the plays.

 

Maybe that's where @M.A. might say "Well see - just dumb it down a bit." Again, I'll take anything that gets us out of the rut we're in.   

[BigRedBuster]

5 minutes ago, Undone said:

 

Right. And usually the eyeball test makes it pretty obvious when guys don't know where to be after they go into a pre-set motion, run the wrong routes, etc. That really wasn't our problem this year.

 

We just had so many drives die because of false starts and also just not getting good push on the offensive line that allowed 1st & 2nd downs to either move the chains or setup a 3rd & short.

 

Now there are admittedly a couple games where Martinez's accuracy being off cost us pretty big (Illinois, Purdue, and then the 2nd INT against Wisconsin).

 

But by and large I am honestly going to be pretty bummed if Frost's scheme & playbook is completely overhauled. I think if you put a guy in that has the arm ability of even someone like Tanner Morgan at Minnesota we could actually be the 2017 UCF offense. We weren't far off from doing what they did that year in terms of scheme - we just didn't execute the plays.

 

Maybe that's where @M.A. might say "Well see - just dumb it down a bit." Again, I'll take anything that gets us out of the rut we're in.   

Or a sack.  Or a 2AM is hurried so he doesn't have time for the play to develop.