To my untrained eye schools that play freshman QBs like OK and Clemson run a complicated offense.
If you saw Clemson's O last season ... not so pretty either. Just sayin' ...
However, as it related to Oklahoma's offense ... and many others ... the philosophy they adhere to is very similar to the one used by Norm Parker on D. That idea being to keep things simple so that the players can play fast. Furthermore, they're more apt to execute more consistently since things are more simple.
RPO-schemes are typically mind-numbingly simple ... often just basing a read on a single player (for example, often the MIKE).
Another simple read that many similar-such Os use is simple diagnostics to allow the QB to see if a top target is being defended in man-coverage. In an O like Oklahoma, Alabama, or Ohio State has a top WR being defended in man-coverage - that typically indicates a mismatch (because of their team-speed advantage). Consequently, the QB makes a simple read (typically based on a diagnostic feature of their scheme - like motion) ... and then lets 'er rip if he gets the right read.
An advantage of "keeping things simple" is that then QBs can then focus more on basic fundamentals like "looking off a DB" or something like that. When there are more things on the QB's plate ... a younger QB is far more likely to be caught in their own mind contending with the cognitive load of all the reads that they need to make. Consequently, a QB in such a situation is far more likely to lock onto their targets ... and they fail to look-off DBs.
Of course, a "teaching" counter-strategy in such instances is to rely more upon timing in the passing game on many plays - that way the QB doesn't need to worry about his eyes quite as much. Of course, this the relies upon the QB and WR being on the same page ... so that the WR knows to be at the right place at the right time.
Anyhow, earlier this year I had a great discussion with another poster (maybe it was HawkinArk?) ... and that poster brought up the fine point that perhaps the Hawks should depart from their current offensive philosophy. Had the Hawks had a better record of putting QBs in the pros ... then maybe Ferentz could supply better rationale for the philosophy (of putting so much on the QB's plate). However, since Iowa QBs haven't been tearing it up in the NFL - maybe it behooves us to put more effort into taking things off the plate for the QB?
This wouldn't necessitate a change in scheme - but more a change in how we call things.
Alternatively, maybe the coaching staff could continue to strive to improve how they scaffold HOW they teach things to the QB.
Iowa fans always lament how "basic" Iowa's O is when we're breaking in a new QB. That makes sense ... because the QB's reads seem to be quite simple. The QB seems to largely be asked to count hats and check to a run-play that goes to the side with the "hat-advantage." Obviously, as the QB becomes more knowledgeable of our system - then far more checks and audibles are added to the arsenal.
It's been articulated on many occasions about how an upperclassman Iowa QB has been known to completely change the play being called based on what he's seeing from the D. The OC gives the QB a selection to choose from ... but the decision is ultimately made by the QB based upon what he sees.
I wonder if part of the problem is just the "teaching process" ... about how much to dump on the QB as he's progressing. I think that it was pretty obvious in Nate Stanley's second year starting that he was processing an enormous information-dump. After some initial hang-ups early in the season ... he ultimately caught his stride. Had the teaching approach been more scaffolded ... and less of an outright info-dump ... then maybe the process could have been more gradual and seamless.
Of course, that's the trade-off, right? Without the information-dump ... then you're essentially stuck playing with a reduced playbook. With the information-dump ... you may have more options ... but you're still at the mercy of how well your QB manages and executes it!
