:laugh: .......and all the red dots you have just proves that nobody gives a crap what you think anyway. :laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by eagle2180
Printable View
:laugh: .......and all the red dots you have just proves that nobody gives a crap what you think anyway. :laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by eagle2180
And you actually think I give a dang how many red dots I have only proves my point!
Thank you Mr Yahoo! :laugh: So does the Eagle mean you are a USM fan?Quote:
Originally Posted by eagle2180
Ummm, no! I actually graduated from La Tech. I would like to see La Tech improve in all aspects............. but I fear, the same mentality that you have is the very reason La Tech has failed to increase it's enrollment or fan base in the last 20 years!
You are missing the point -Quote:
Originally Posted by T1
I get the feeling that in protecting Holtz from the lynch mob, as you say, you perhaps went too far and gave little to no blame/fault to the head coach last year. Surely a head coach bears some blame, even in a rebuild, even with an apparently "bare cupboard".Quote:
Originally Posted by T1
On the other hand, maybe some -- in trying to put some blame on Holtz last year -- went likewise too far and didn't give any credence to the "massive rebuilding" job that needed to take place.
Isn't that what happens in discussions like these? Polarizing points attract the defenders, and those defenders dig in their heels and go more headlong to one extreme than they ever initially believed... doesn't that happen? Might that be the case here? I know I have a tendency to do that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
And, just an aside, your fellow Tech fans are, first and foremost, YOUR fellow Tech fans (at least on this board) -- diverse opinions / perspectives and all. Might wanna hold off on the moron and mentally ill rhetoric. Nevertheless, I appreciate your perspective / insight; though, often different from mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by T1
Here's my take on last year. I think when Holtz interviewed for the job, he was told that Tech has always been a passing team and wants to continue that way. So, he hires Peterson and tells him we have to run the no-huddle spread offense here and that's what he did. After a disastrous year, Holtz decides to go back to what he knows best since he knows if he doesn't get things turned around he could be fired from his second job in a row. He goes out and gets some players that are more suited to his offense like Gaston and the two big freshman RB's. He also gets lucky when Sokol does not get the start at Iowa and transfers. He also makes a great hire when he gets Diaz to run the defense. He doesn't feel comfortable with Peterson calling the plays since he's a spread coach, so he decides to call the plays himself. As far as I'm concerned, I hope we never run the spread again. I really like the kind of offense we're running now. I love those power plays down on the goal line and I like to see the QB getting under center. It makes it a lot more difficult to see who gets the ball.
That could be true. I just couldn't see the bad coaching through all the terrible playing. OL not blocking well, QB's making poor throws, and not having speed or size at WR stuck out to me. Others said our receivers couldn't block well, but I didn't notice that as much (wasn't looking). Now, you can blame that on coaching, but you HAVE to give a new coach some time to develop his team. The impatience was ridiculous. A lot of folks wanted him fired before he arrived in Ruston.... and I think that played a BIG role in the discussions here last year.Quote:
Originally Posted by gabzooks
Another thing... it could very well be Sokol making him look better than he really is this year too. We don't know. It will take 3 or 4 years to get a good read on Holtz. I do like the turnaround though... I truthfully wasn't expecting to score like we are this year... but I didn't know what kind of QB Sokol would be and I didn't know how improved the line would be. I'm still holding judgement until I have more evidence. The direction appears to be up though and that's a good thing.
Good post! I agree with almost everything you stated. The only difference I have is that we won't stand a chance of beating the big boys without the fast paced spread. You are correct, though, that it is not Holtz's style. He is running his offense this year and it is working against mid level teams. It takes talent and depth that we don't have to beat (or even have a chance to beat) top level opponents with it, though. We don't have that. We have a great first team. Beyond that, we are not good. That is why Auburn will burn us, but we will have a chance to get to the CUSA conference championship.Quote:
Originally Posted by DONW
Dykes knew this and ran a wide open fast offense that had a chance against top teams.
However, you are completely on track about Holtz trying to run a scheme last year that wasn't his style. Plus, we didn't have the players that were capable of doing it either. He is on the right track to try to win a conference championship.
Each of these propositions is demonstrably false.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagle2180
So .... you're dumb. And, by definition, you could not have graduated from Tech.
Which also makes you a liar.
No, he's a lying idiot.Quote:
Originally Posted by HogDawg
Some of you are confused on what a "spread" offense is. We are still spread out with 4 WRs on the field almost always. We mix in a TE/FB here and there, but it's not like we switched to a power I with a TE, flanker and split-end lined up tight.
Yes, we have multiple formations, of which the spread is one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris29
I don't care what he calls it as long as we avg 40+ a ballgame and playing like we are playing its all good
But whatever you call it - its a 180 difference from what you saw in 2013 - which was hand-off hand-off incomplete pass and punt...