He set the tone early. All he had to do was run the football. He would rather sell his system than win football games.
Printable View
He set the tone early. All he had to do was run the football. He would rather sell his system than win football games.
Errr. We average 50+ points a game. The offense isn't the problem.
Definitly on Spangler this year. We should be 11-0 but our defense is the worst I have ever seen!
Of all people I would call an idiot, it is not the guy that scored 41. So, does TF have to score 60+ every game to not be the idiot?
There were a couple series were his playcalling was bewildering, especially the last series in OT. Get the freakin first down on 3rd and 3, no need to go for the TD with no clock runningQuote:
Originally Posted by stodgdog
That 3rd down call was mystifying...actually the play that got stuffed on 4th down would have been better as a 3rd down call.Quote:
Originally Posted by longdawgview
Exactly, that is what I said at the gameQuote:
Originally Posted by RealityCheck
AbsolutelyQuote:
Originally Posted by RealityCheck
You lose credibility with statements like that. We scored 41 at home. Offense is not the problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by stodgdog
No, he shouldn't have to. But, he does need to put his players in the best possible position to be successful and win football games. If you can't see the fundamental errors in coaching, starting with the very first play of the game, then there is no point in conversing the subject. I know you and everybody else is as disappointed as I am about the game. But, I really feel bad for our players in that they fought their hearts out and were victimized by their own coaches. Tech should have won this game in regulation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgyinmiami
and what makes you a football expert
That's a stupid comment. He has an opinion and expressed it. What makes your opposing opinion any better? Try explaining what's wrong with his opinion if that's what you think.Quote:
Originally Posted by bulldogbacker2
And another item, one needs not possess "expert" qualifications to make valid and accurate observations. A dedicated fan's perception and perspective is sometimes clearer than the "experts" who can be too close to the situation. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with stodgdog, just sayin'...
A couple of bad calls doesn't erase an entire season of excellence. Your comments re: the system are out of left field and totally off base. Only a blind man can't see that we are a top-10 team this year with even an average defense. Step off the ledge.Quote:
Originally Posted by stodgdog
I agree but the post he was commenting on was also stupid. We have the #2 ranked scoring offense in the country. There WERE some weak ass calls tonight, that said I think we have MUCH, MUCH, MUCH bigger fish to fry than a couple of bad calls.Quote:
Originally Posted by LookingForResults
Can't call Franklin an idiot. He's an offensive genius as far as I'm concerned and Tech would not be as good as they are without him. BUT...the play calls on 3rd and 4th down in overtime were not good at all. Oh well. Still probably the best Tech team ever and 10-2 will be a damn good record. On to SJSU!
we had no success running up the middle all night, but that was the last play we ran in OT. STUPID
Offense didn't score 41 dumb assQuote:
Originally Posted by baddawg
Yeah but the same Special Teams that scored a TD also cost us dearly. The blocked FG and the fumbled KO return were crippling. Like I said in the other thread. TOTAL TEAM LOSS. Offense, Defense, Special Teams, Coaching with a nice shout out to the refs as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by maddawg
What you say is not up for debate. You are correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigdog13
Our already known horrible defense held them to 38 in regulation. Our high powered offense scored 34 and got zero in the red zone on three attempts.
It's maddening that ONE more stop by the defense. Just ONE turnover created. If the offense just eliminates ONE of their mistakes. ONE Special Teams gaffe. Maybe if we get ONE more PI call from the refs, we are WAC champions. Enough to make you sick.Quote:
Originally Posted by maddawg
Don't claim to be. Haven't played a down of football, other than sandlot, since high school and that was when we had leather helmets. However, I do know that in any war (and a game of football is a war) success or failure is ultimately determined by boots on the ground and the effectiveness of the ground game.Quote:
Originally Posted by bulldogbacker2
Speaking specifically to the game, the Tech defense is what it is. The Tech offense is apparently strategically sound and effective (admittedly, to my pleasant surprise). However, tactics are wanting. The Utah State defense is one of the better, if not the best, defense we are scheduled to play. I believe that we should have established the ground game straight out of the gate. I actually think we could have had a dominant ground game today. By throwing deep on the first play (a low percentage play) we set ourselves up for a 3 and out, placing immediate and unnecessary pressure on our suspect defense. Had the pass been completed, we still would not have established anything fundamentally. Success early in the running game puts the opposing defense on their heels. Anyway, as we all experienced, we were playing catch up the rest of the game. IMHO, this was a direct and immediate result of the first play. It set the tone.
1st and ten at Utah States' 15, 52 seconds in the half, Tech with two time outs. We had been successfully running the ball. Why in the world would Franklin opt to throw the ball on first down, the incomplete pass leading to an interception in the end zone. Cameron was put in a position he shouldn't have had to be. We could have run the ball and scored and used up the clock. Basically, the same choices were made by Franklin in a very similar situation in the 3rd quarter, again resulting in an interception in the end zone.
OT - incomplete pass on 3rd, unsuccessful run on 4th. Game Over
I know we are all disappointed and hurting. I really feel bad for our players as they were not put in the best position possible to be successful. They played very well with resolute character.
Don't question my credibility (no that it really matters) because you don't recognize what I do (and that is not a criticism, just a matter of perspective and opinion). But, let's not snipe at each other. We are all disappointed.Quote:
Originally Posted by baddawg
But, TF does seem to be unwilling to or incapable of adapting to in game situations.
I shouldn't have called him an idiot, but I was unhappy.
Plus, it may have been my fault we lost as I changed the "MO". I did leave at the end of 3rd quarter as I believed the "superstions gods" were wreaking havoc on our Bulldogs. It seemed to work as about an hour later we tied the game and headed to OT as I pulled into the carport. By the time I got ESPN3 on, the Ags had scored and we all know what happened.
Thank youQuote:
Originally Posted by LookingForResults
Bill, I have to say, in my humble opinion Tony Franklin and Sonny Dykes have brought TECH FOOTBALL back. This is so much more fun to watch than that mess Dooley was running. Perfect, no...but this style of wide open offense fits US. I'm disappointed in the loss, but as some have already said...it was a TEAM loss tonight.
Hope you are well, and Happy Thanksgiving!!
Our offense is amazing. We slept-walked thru the first half. The refs were allowing their DBs to grab on and go for a ride. We made some stupid mistakes. USU does have a very good defense. And, after all of that, we still had 37 1st downs and 629 yds total offense.
I think our OL deserves some props. Those guys have gone about their business all year, doing a great job. Hats off guys! Some may even say: You are sexy and you know it. (I wouldn't say that, but others might.)
Great job all year!
Man, when the offense is not "clicking," fundamentals should get you through the rough possessions. Our flash is effective. Our fundamentals are not. Have consistently expressed that opinion since early Sept. I understand you disagree, maybe rightfully. Having the #2 scoring offense is great but is not necessarily defining of its effectiveness in game situations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigdog13
ABSOLUTELY. The loss tonight and against A&M is on the "D". The team with the best "D" won tonight and it wasn't Sonny's "D".Quote:
Originally Posted by KSDAWG
I listen to all the post game crap about the officiating, play calling and clock mgt BUT the only 2 factors that really mattered was we SUCK ON DEFENSE and we turned the ball over 3 times TWICE in the red zone. Even with the 3 turnovers we had a chance to win BUT OF COURSE our defense allowed yet another easy score in OT.
On a positive note we can still finish 11-2 - best in program history!! Oh......what coulda shoulda been :bigcry:
So was a shut out what you expected? Seriously you think giving up 38 was much worse than our offense only scoring 34? Nope this one isn't on the defense alone. Are you football savvy enough to understand that our offensive coaches called a horrible game?Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceWillisDawg
I agree with that. And I respect your opinion. But if 50 points a game and #2 ppg in the nation is with an idiot at the helm then give me the idiot everytime. Dooley stressed fundamentals and we looked like hammered crap.Quote:
Originally Posted by stodgdog
I too disagree with some of the play calls tonight. BUT the bottom line is calling someone who has an offense that has been nothing short of excellent all year because of a couple of bad plays is like calling Patton a scrub when he drops a pass. It happens. But both Patton and Franklin need to be judged by what happens over the entire season. Not a series of calls or a few bad ones in one game.
And even if there is room for improvement on that side of the ball. It is DWARFED by what needs to happen on the other side of the ball which is why I thought your post was ill-timed. Our offense IS why we were 9-1 and ranked going into tonight.
You are obviously a passionate fan but that doesn't mean you can to throw other's under the bus when things don't go as you wish. I dare say that there is only one poster to this board that has the credentials to criticize the OC given what our O has produced this season.Quote:
Originally Posted by stodgdog
Thanks, Chuck. Hope you and fam are well.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckK3
I agree. I just would like to see better decisions. It just seems so obvious to me, but I am an engineer and not a football coach. Mostly disappointed as we all are.
Though it is not my business and what I think is irrelevant, it bothers me that TF has a "side business." A business that could use our games as a display of the service he is selling. Demonstrating the system may not be in the best interest of Louisiana Tech and could determine play calling to "showcase" the product. I am not accusing anybody of anything, but it makes me wonder. Just does not seem appropriate to me.
If all we knew was that Utah State had 17 pts at the half, we would think the Dogs would win in a blowoutQuote:
Originally Posted by maddawg
Extrapolation of thought seems to be foreign to manyQuote:
Originally Posted by maddawg
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigdog13
That is not remotely my assertion
Also, the defense is what it is. No surprises. Actually, the defense played pretty well, relatively speaking. Utah State had 17 points at the half. Using the first 10 games as the reference, one would think we would have been leading by at least 2 TDs.
I totally agree with you. If I'm not mistaken. It was 1st ten with the first down marker at the two and we throw two straight incomplete passes to the end zone, then the interception in the end zone, just made no sense to meQuote:
Originally Posted by stodgdog
That doesn't mean the two are relatedQuote:
Originally Posted by Bigdog13
I don't have the power to or in the position to throw anybody under the bus. Your comment, while appreciated, makes absolutely no sense. Further, my opinion is not because things didn't go as I wish. What our O has produced this season is not relevant to the comments you find objectionable.Quote:
Originally Posted by WWDog
ThisQuote:
Originally Posted by stodgdog
Quote:
Originally Posted by stodgdog
It was not one of Franklin's better days. Much like the Virginia and A&M games, I was certain we would see a few things out of the playbook that would really catch Utah State off guard. That never happened.
I also thought we would try to establish a rhythm and control the football as soon as possible. That didn't happen either. After the great field position on the opening kickoff, we threw to Patton deep on first down. Everyone around me looked at one another as if to say "what are we doing". If we would have gotten into a rhythm and scored on that first drive, we likely would have made USU play catch up the entire first half, and USU would have had a hard time staying with us in the second half.
For the record, I also called for the long pass to Patton on the first play, only mine would have been a deep post, not the sideline variety.
If I were a DC I could cause Franklin all kinds of problems. The offense is so vanilla, it's ridiculous. Of course, opposing DCs don't have the luxury of seeing this O week after week, as they are busy preparing for other offenses. Utah State had two weeks to prepare, and we saw the results in the 1st half. But....and THIS is the truth....our guys, the players, are DAMN GOOD! Our OL is top notch, and those guys don't get the credit they deserve. Cameron is good! Patton is awesome! Dixon is a frickin' freshman freak! And all the others that play on the O are all VERY, VERY good players. Those guys make plays, even against good defense.
But, our O is so simplistic, that it is comical to give Franklin any real credit. If I were Tech's OC I would mix it up more, including going under center at times. R.P Stewart was WIDE OPENED all night, 15 yds downfield, usually in the seam, and NOT once did we throw to him. Not once! We don't run crossing patterns. We don't use Patton and White to clear out a zone and then throw underneathe. We don't have a screen package. We don't....and the list goes on and on.
This "deep playbook" idea is just a legend. Dykes has said numerous times on numerous occasions that we run a limited number of plays (about 20 as I recall) and he intends to "run them to perfection" with the anticipation that when we do that we can't be stopped. Apparently he gives no thought to what happens when we don't run them to perfection or if a team CAN stop the plays that we run. It's an incredibly narrow perspective, and is not a formula for long-term success.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Historian
But the bottom line is that THERE IS NO MORE PLAYBOOK. If there was, we would have seen it yesterday.
THERE IS NO MORE PLAYBOOK.
Yep, like I said above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
If i'm not mistaken R.P dropped one in the end zone late in the game. Also,who was clearing the zones when Gru was catching those balls? I believe we tried a screen to Patton too.
I would be interested in knowing how many how many scripted plays/series TF uses to start the game.
Good analysisQuote:
Originally Posted by The Historian
Don't recall RP dropping a TD pass. Holley dropped one. Not saying RP didn't, I just don't recall seeing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagle2180
As for a screen to Patton, well, I am not referring to bubble screens. And, I wrote "screen package." That is actually a set of plays, not just one play.
And, when I talk about "Clearing out zones" I am referring to deeper, over the middle, or in the wings, which is in the seam in a 7-15 yd depth.
It is clear Franklin/Dykes have their own offensive philosophy and schemes, and!!! it works. Overall. Can't argue with the numbers, the raw stats, this team has hung up. But, against good defenses, in a crunch, sometimes you have to fool 'em. We certainly don't do that.
I guess it depends on your aspirations. If you are satisfied toasting crappy teams, winning 8+ games, and getting into a lower-tier bowl, then TF/SD's approach works. Obviously. But, if you want more. Then, one has to question their approach. Which is also obvious.
The underlined and bolded above can't be better stated.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
Whoa!
Let me hasten to add, if we had even a mediocre defense, we'd be achieving higher goals too. I don't want to "bash" Franklin/Dykes too hard, because IMO, the offense is NOT the problem. Was just discussing (this is a message board, a forum for discourse) how the offense can improve. Not saying it's the problem.
This is the problem. You don't use the first 10 games as a reference to determine what good defense is. Good defense is good defense and bad defense is bad defense. Last night we gave up over 300 yards rushing and over 630 yards overall. That is bad defense. Offense, Coaching and Special Teams deserve the blame too. Bad game all around.Quote:
Originally Posted by stodgdog
The bottom line is that our offense is "set" with a certain number of plays that will be run during the course of a game regardless. We will not go under center regardless. We will not throw the intermediate pass over the middle regardless, and more. The inflexibility of the offense IS part of the problem on critical downs against good teams.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by LookingForResults
My other point is, if we had a decent defense we would be 11-0 right now. So, I don't want to bash the O too much and say it's the reason we aren't BcS bound. That problem could have been more easily rectified by having a real defense.
The O can use some tweaking.
The D is a complete mess and needs a major overhaul.
That's my point.
This hurts us so much.Quote:
Originally Posted by LookingForResults
Very true.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
That pretty much sums it up. We have the Statistical #1 offense in the country.....and the Statiscal #120 defense in the country. Um.......where does the problem lie???Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
If Dykes stays, how the hell can he keep Spangler? Surely, that's an easy case to make: Ah, coach, we are DEAD-FRICKIN'-LAST in defense! You're fired.
the few times we have thrown it over the middle it goes for huge games 12-15 yards or more. It happens very rarely. Also, you are right that there is no deception with our offense. I am glad to see that we don't run a bunch of end around and double reverse type plays, but you have to have some misdirection sometimes.Quote:
Originally Posted by LookingForResults
You are complaining about our offense that just scored, excuse me 34 points. We scored 7 on special teams. Regardless 41 points was not enough. My point was that defense is the problem. If we just had a defense in the top 50 we are probably undefeated right now. Anyone complaining about our offense has no credibility, knows nothing about football and is just looking for something to bitch about. This years team is better than last years, already has more wins, has had more national attention, and has elevated the program. All we can ask for is improvement from one year to the next and we have it. If we're only scoring 20 points a game next year or our D doesn't improve then you may have a case. Until that time you just sound like one of those moronic LSU fans that wants to fire the coach every year they don't win the national championship. This isn't directed at just you. Many of you are morphing into those same clowns we all despise.Quote:
Originally Posted by maddawg
Great post.Quote:
Originally Posted by baddawg
I love it when I see a DUMB ASS comment like this. For all bulldogbacker2 knows, his stupid post above might be directed to Terry Bradshaw!!! :laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by bulldogbacker2
THAT shouldn't bother you. To the contrary, TF's "side business" has helped LA Tech recruit quite a few good players to Ruston. I was told that we found quite a few of our "star" players because their high school coaches were "students" of TF's system. Time to get over it. This is not a system for engineers. :icon_wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by stodgdog
The problem is that our playbook is built on plays with multiple options based on what the d shows. Most of the time out of the big bone, Colby has the ability to audible out of a run play if he has man coverage on the outside with no safety help. Utah State was purposefully pushing us into those adjustments at the start and we did not execute on the deep pass.
^^^^This. All very true. Several times last night RP Stuart was so wide open he was 15 yds down field waving BOTH arms.....but Colby didn't see him.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
I believe Colby doesn't like to throw to the middle of the field. That's why we don't see many slants or crossing patterns from our WR's.....the stuff you and I like! Colby prefers to throw sideways, and let the receiver do the work.......or throw very, very deep (which he is very good at.) I hate the fact that he ignores the middle, because our middle is usually wide open. But if you think about it....both of Colby's INT's last night were over the middle.
A true "screen" pass (or middle screen, etc..) would have worked beautifully last night on a number of occasions. Don't know why we don't throw one to Dixon.
HD
Honestly, I don't have a problem with it either...as you say, I honestly see LaTech as the potential beneficiary of TF's networking around the country.Quote:
Originally Posted by HogDawg
Well, as badly as Spangler has performed this year, I believe you could give TF BOTH assignments (OC & DC) and he'd do a better job on defense than Spangler has done.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckK3
I can't forgive Spangler. He's fired for SURE at season's end. His chitty defense was okay early in the season when our guys were still trying to "find there way". But by games 9, 10 and 11, you need to have your chit together on defense. There's no excuse for any LA Tech defense finishing the season ranked #120.
HD
I agree with everything you said.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
I hope we've saved our best game for last? We've never won 10 games since we moved up and my prediction was 10-2.
Tony is a great offensive coach. I've got no qualms with the offense. Mistakes by the players cost us that game.
So you love our performances against teams with winning records? You love our short yardage play selection and performance, especially against teams with winning records? Look at the record IN CONTEXT.Quote:
Originally Posted by FishingBack
My preseason prediction was 10-2. But I thought the 2 losses would come out of the aTm, Ill, and UVA games. Never thought USU and SJSU would be this good. But, they are. So, now we need to hold serve so my 10-2 prediction is right. Come on Dawgs! Win one for ole D80! (and for yourselves and everyone else too!)
In context, our team scored 57 and 41 against the two best teams on our schedule. The offense is not the problem. If our defense was even medicore short yardage play calling wouldn't even be a subject matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by LookingForResults
I have some issues with our offense. But, come on! it is NOT the problem. As several of us have posted, even with a mediocre defense we are looking at 12-0.
The Bulldogs left UState last year with a last-minute 24-17 win. The Blue Ags and their coaches were pi$$ed for 12 months about that loss.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
I'm sure the returning Spartans remember last year's 38-28 loss to the Bulldogs last year. I'm sure they're pi$$ed, too.
Guess we need to out-pi$$ the Spartans and get back to our fast-scoring ways.
I truly believe the "problem" with the offense Saturday was that CC was off. I am a huge Colby fan.....but he was not feeling it. He was missing bad early on and then he was staring down his receivers. He was locked and loaded to throw to one man from the moment he got the ball. This is not normal for him at all as I have seen him go through his check downs. Like I said he was off and was compensating by staring down the receiver.....therefore, he never saw RP wide open, or anyone wide open. This also could have been due to the coverage USU ran.Quote:
Originally Posted by HogDawg
Wow! carrying such "pissed-off" emotions like that ain't healthy. Need to just let it go....Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgpix
I left off the hangover effect from last year's NMexState game when the coach made his team sit there and watch us get the WAC trophy. This year, they were seriously motivated for us.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
Yeah, they were pi$$ed, too. :icon_wink:
Here's the only thing I'll disagree with you about: it's not that people complaining don't know anything about football; they just think their philosophy is better and more important than our current coaches. Opponents can't argue with the results of this offense. They can just nit-pick that it's not the way they would do things. They don't like the limited playbook, but our coaches believe simplicity breeds success. They disagree with this and that, but the bottom line is that this is the best offense Tech has had since Tim Rattay roamed the sidelines, and arguably it is the most balanced and successful in school history.Quote:
Originally Posted by baddawg
And.... we all know the Dawgs don't deserve to win anyway. If there was any justice in this world, we'd finish 0-12. Afterall, an undeserving team shouldn't ever win.
:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by stodgdog
That is true in most football games.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigdog13
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceWillisDawg
I don't believe that is true
The Tech defense is what it is. No way around it. That means the offense coaches have to game plan with that in mind. The HAVE to score early and often in order to win the game. Doesn't matter what it SHOULD be. Absolutely irrelevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by baddawg
Seems to me, the smart thing to have done was practice 10 minutes a day all season running out of a conventional set and in THE critical game of the year, come out with a TE, two RBs, and under center. Would have totally screwed up Utah State.
Hmmm... Completely change our offensive scheme for the first 10 minutes of the game (of course we would execute it flawlessly) and completely confuse the opponent (as if they haven't seen that before). Your calling TF an "idiot" shows your understanding of offensive coaching. Maybe you should start doing camps and a clinic to show everybody how it's really done....Quote:
Originally Posted by stodgdog
That is good to know. Thanks for the info.Quote:
Originally Posted by HogDawg
"This is not a system for engineers"
Agreed
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigdog13
But we don't and it is. I don't understand your argument.
That's not what I saidQuote:
Originally Posted by boxerdog
You said something close to that and it makes you seem ignorant. We have one of the best offenses in the country based upon TF's scheme/gameplanning and our players. He knows how to coach offense. To suggest he's an idiot makes you seem like a simpleton (Ross Perot argument).Quote:
Originally Posted by stodgdog
Most people believed that whoever won the turnover battle would win this game. We had 2 turnovers in their end zone (lost points) and 1 turnover in our redzone. Do the math...
sorry you feel tht way about me.Quote:
Originally Posted by boxerdog
Besides, it wouldn't be changing the offense if you had practiced for it. Many times, what looks like 4 different plays are the same play run out of 4 different formations.
Again I said calling him an "idiot" makes you seem ignorant and I think your fix makes you appear simplistic. We have a very good offense. Much of it is based upon the scheme TF has incorporated. To publicly berate him as being an idiot is ridiculous.Quote:
Originally Posted by stodgdog
Someone please send this insane thread to Da PIT.
Good is good and bad is bad. It doesn't change relative to whether the defense is good or whether the defense sucks. Good offense is judged on how good the offense is. NOT on whether they outscored the other team. By your standard if the offense scored 150 points but the defense gave up 155 its the offenses fault because they knew the defense was bad going in.Quote:
Originally Posted by stodgdog
I can't begin to tell you how assinine and illogical it is to say that since the offense "knows" the defense sucks going in that they have to score 50 or 60 and if they don't it's the offense fault." The offense is trying to score every possession. They don't plan for 28 against Illinois because they cant score 30 on our defense or 60 on A&M because they can score 59 on our defense. We try to score everytime we get the ball. So does every team in the country. We just happen to be better than anyone else at it. Plain as day your arguments are illogical and irrational and frankly they remind me of Obama voters who when faced with thousands of facts and stats that prove he is a poor President simply choose in their mind to believe he knows what he is doing. You and a few others don't like TF and/or SD and despite being shown mounds of evidence as to why you are wrong refuse to acknowledge the truth because of preconceived notions, you don't like the style (example: we could literally score 100 a game but if it is done without FBs and TEs it's still not good offense, etc...) or some other personal reason.
I like SD and TF. Don't know why you think I don't. I didn't say it was anybody's fault we lost. I DID say play calling was poor and considering the defense, we can't afford poor play calling. Man, I hate it when I don't express myself or write well enough for people to understand. One of my faults I suppose. None of this has to do with my preferences. The only preference I have is that Tech WINS.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigdog13
Part of it is my fault. I'm lumping you in with a few other people who don't like TF and will never like him unless he has the qb line up under vented with a fb and a te. I still don't agree with you using relativism to judge how well the offense has played though.Quote:
Originally Posted by stodgdog
*center not vented. LOL.
Know I am late coming in....but anyone who calls Franklin an idiot has NO idea what they are looking at or talking about. You CAN'T do what that offense has done this year on ACCIDENT and with an idiot at the helm. It's SOOOOO easy to make the calls from the stands....you get 'em ALL RIGHT.
Exactly!!Quote:
Originally Posted by collardgreens
It's real easy to figure out what we should do different when you have unlimited time to decide. TF has what 25 -30 seconds to make a play call? I'd like to see some of the people calling him an idiot call a game.
To Da PIT!!!
That's silly. That's what he thinks about day and night. It's what he's PAID to do and he's paid to get it right. The biggest single play in the school's history was NOT the time to get it wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by eagle2180
You actually captured some truth in that post, you just let your personal dislike for "people complaining" to lead you to wrong conclusions. First, one offensive philosophy is not more "important" than another, and no one of whom I'm aware has made any such assertion. Second, a philosophy is different from observable results. While this offense has produced points by the bushel, and while variations of this offense will clearly become the dominant offense of the next decade, IMO, it is in those "variations," what you call nit-picking, that will determine the successful from the also-rans. The "people complaining" just recognize with more clarity what "variations" are necessary to consistently compete with, and defeat, upper-echelon teams.Quote:
Originally Posted by theprofessor
Quote:
Originally Posted by LookingForResults
Of course that is just your theory which can't be proven until we have at least an average defense. Because it is crystal clear that our INCREDIBLY porous defense is why we can't defeat upper echelon teams right now.
Again while I agree that some of your complaints have merit, complaining about what you are complaining about while we are number 1 in the nation in offense and DEAD LAST in the entire country in defense is like being upset that your car stereo doesn't get enough bass while the engine is on fire.
Just go out and find a BIG IDIOT to coach defense and problem solved! :icon_wink: