It's always something, isn't it? Other than 2008 with Ganz what good offense has Shawn Watson coached? Pelini took a terrible defense and turned it into one that looks like it will be one of the nations best year in and year out. He did that despite injuries, despite not having his own players, despite having a poor offense on the other side of the ball. That's what good coaches do.
You are correct, though. Ultimately, it's Bo's responsibility. The blame will eventually fall on his head. But hey . . . if you want to defend drop back passing in a 3rd and 2 situation with a run first QB, you go ahead and do that.
But none of the things I brought up are excuses. There is just a whole litany of things that could have been handled better about the offense and Watson is certainly responsible for some of them. And some pretty major decisions that affected the offense a lot, others (well, Bo) are responsible for. It is fair to lay blame where it's due, so why avoid any of that when it doesn't point to the guy you want it to point to?
On other good offenses Shawn Watson has coached, I would say this year and 2007, I guess.
On the 3rd and 2, though, you are going to have a problem with everyone if that's what you are unhappy about. 3rd and 2/3 is just a fairly high percentage pass situation. Exactly how much we have done it I don't know, could be from 40 to 60% I guess. This is generally true about 3rd and short (beyond QB sneak distance). You guys treat the pass and run games like they are mortal enemies or philosophically incompatible something, instead of complements. The 40-to-60% of them that we run it in these situations, the conversion rate is made that much higher because of the threat to pass. Similarly, the equivalent 40-to-60% of the time we make a short easy throw here, those are plays that we have a good chance on because defenses have to worry about loading up to stop the run.
I also find there's been a lot of over-dramatization of 3rd and short situations. Could go back and look for it, but someone on Rivals posted a pretty long list of plays off the top of his head of 3rd and short passes that worked. And I've seen several instances of people massaging their memories to reduce a few yards and refer to say, 3rd and 6's as 3rd and 3's or in one case, 3rd and goal from the 10 as 3rd and short. Not saying this is what you are doing, but in general I think this argument is overblown, and something that isn't likely to change. So when people rip the new OC for calling a pass on 3rd and short, I'll continue to argue with this point. Not really about Watson anymore.
The bit about the running QB - similarly, that is the whole reason a raw passer like Taylor has been able to find success through the air this year (excepting the times he gets fazed and out of the loop). He brings a huge running threat on the ground and it opens up the pass. 3rd and 2 makes not defending the run very dangerous and it opens up the pass for us, which again opens up the run, etc.
Right now, there is something wrong with our offense if a single player getting injured can cause it to come to a screeching halt. If Watson can only work with one player at a time then he's not a good OC and we can his a$$. The whole offense shouldn't be based on a single player as it seems to be now, it should be based around the team starting with the QB and his backups.
I don't know how much of an argument you can make about an offense not being based a lot on the play of the quarterback: the guy that gets the ball almost every snap of the game, is responsible for reading defenses pre-snap and making adjustments based on what he sees, and runs all the plays. I do agree though that it was not a great idea to key the entire offense around one guy when he backups did not have similar skillsets, and when he was so streaky to begin with. It was Bo's call however, to shape it this way and put the offense entirely in Taylor's hands and rest everything on his big-play capability, which was a skill he regarded as a trump card to everything else.
Quarterbacks affect every part of an offense's play even on plays they aren't directly involved in. They aren't a utility player that can be subbed in and out, they are the commanders in the huddle and the generals on the field. A lot of their effects are more invisible (whether from a leadership standpoint or more concretely, making the right adjustments when they see a blitz coming or a certain coverage), which is why IMO it's hard to help an offense living or dying with the play of their QB. And honestly riding Taylor's home run ability worked out pretty well, but it is a decision that can be open up to criticism, I agree.
When you have to morph the offense to send a backup in, I think that's generally not going to give a lot of good results for when you do need the backup. Another thing that hurt us though was we didn't really see this a lot anyways, as Green was being asked to do the same things Taylor was instead of changing the O to play to his, different, strengths. Now someone can correct me if I'm wrong as this is hearsay, but I believe that was Bo being stubborn and even read somewhere that Green went to the coaches with what he believed were his strengths, but Bo didn't want any of it. Until Colorado.
