The Philosophical Gamble That Could Define The Jim Mora Era Of UCLA Football

The Riskiness of Mora’s Vision

After the need to bring offensive and defensive philosophies in line (and subsequently solve the time of possession issue that absolutely haunted last year’s squad) became impossible to ignore, Mora indeed acted by making a major schematic change to create philosophical harmony. However, curiously, the changes Mora made were exclusively on the offensive side of the ball, as he made the much ballyhooed move to promote running backs coach Kennedy Polamalu to offensive coordinator in order to institute a transition to a pro-style offense and away from Noel Mazzone‘s high-tempo, no-huddle spread.

While there are no doubts that Mazzone had to be replaced as offensive coordinator, his scheme was not the problem with the offense. Despite having few plays, Mazzone’s offense itself was a resounding success at UCLA, putting up record numbers by running simple concepts that were easy for college players (like, say, an uber-intelligent true freshman quarterback) to learn and perfect from the get-go.

Mazzone’s main issue as a coach (overlooking his recruiting inadequacies), much like Bradley’s, was an absolute refusal to adapt in situations that screamed out for adjustments after a defense had sussed out Mazzone’s initial gameplan. His short-yardage play-calling was a particular problem, as the Bruins averaged a subpar 2.45 yards per carry on third-and-short largely because Mazzone had a well-known predilection to run right up the gut in short-yardage situations for which opposing defenses were well-prepared.

Nonetheless, those were problems that could have been dealt with by simply hiring a better play-caller of a spread, and it wouldn’t have been very difficult to attract one of those when the chance to coach Rosen and a plethora of new playmakers was on offer, as teams like Baylor and Ohio State have shown that a spread can still be multi-faceted and predicated on power.

Related Story: UCLA Football Spring Practice Preview – Offensive Line

Conceptually speaking, a pro-style offense modeled on modern Stanford or classic USC teams emphasizes the run to set up play action passes down the field and revolves around the idea that grinding out possessions will grind out clock, keep your defense fresh, and wear out the opposing defense as the game progresses.

In one sense, it’s totally logical: anyone who follows me on Twitter knows I love to tweet “Win the line of scrimmage, win the game.” But there’s also this flip side with a grind-it-out offense: when you minimize possessions, you minimize your offense’s margin for error. A pro-style team can dominate for the most part and still lose inexplicably because it didn’t make the most of its limited offensive possessions, regardless of whether those possessions drained the clock or not (also known as a USC at Stanford in 2014 or even a Colorado at UCLA in 2015).

Also, power running is not exclusive to a pro-style system. For example, Ohio State’s evisceration of Oregon on the ground in the first Playoff Championship game involved the use of power running concepts out of a spread formation. Baylor just destroyed a 10-win North Carolina team on the ground in the 2015 Russell Athletic Bowl, racking up an obscene 645 rushing yards (!!!) by running veer concepts out a shotgun spread. So if UCLA is changing to a pro-style because it sees that as its only recourse to reestablish the toughness of its offensive line, then that is a misguided and uninformed decision.

Mora decided that the offense was the unit of the team in need of an overhaul rather than the previously discussed defense, as is his prerogative as the football program’s leader. However, that choice is fraught with risks that realistically threaten to impede the team’s ability to maximize its potential while Rosen is the quarterback.

Next: The Riskiness of Mora's Vision - Part II