Pay like FIU, get like FIU

[DawgGoneMad]

http://www.thenewsstar.com/article/2...S04/311060032/

I actually think our fans are more embarrassing than our team this year... oh wait, I don't think they are... I know they are. We didn't even go to a bowl game last year but yea, let's build on that season. We had a total collapse at the end of last season due to some charade Dykes pulled over your eyes. He didn't build anything - he ran a gimmick offense and left us with squat. Of course this team is in the place they are in mentally - they were left for dead and have a new coach.

But yea, fire Holtz because, ya know, we're Louisiana Tech and that would be exactly what we would do. Why stop at passing up a bowl bid?

[JuBru]

You're stupid.

[SicemDawgz]

I second that. If running a "gimmick" offense results in the #1 offense in the nation, then would could logically deduce it was a highly effective offense. And if I'm not mistaken, most offenses are based somewhat on deception. Most people don't line up and say "ok mr safety, I'm gonna fake a hand off to the back, but please don't bite on it lest you get beat."

[DawgGoneMad]

yep and that #1 offense in the nation got us..... nothing.

but whatever, fire holtz. all the hoohas on this board seem to know "another coach" coulda done something different with this team.

[inudesu]

yep and that #1 offense in the nation got us..... nothing.

but whatever, fire holtz. all the hoohas on this board seem to know "another coach" coulda done something different with this team.

It got us 9 wins.

Would you say that you're pleased with the new coaching staff thus far?

[Guisslapp]

It got us 9 wins.

Would you say that you're pleased with the new coaching staff thus far?

In the third year. And no quality wins (except maybe Rice) in that 9.

[inudesu]

In the third year. And no quality wins (except maybe Rice) in that 9.

The third year was the only one in which we had the #1 offense, which is what he was commenting about - that it got us nothing. This is not a true statement. That #1 offense got us 9 wins (unless you'd like to argue that it was the defense).

[SicemDawgz]

Ok. Seriously. Are you arguing just to be arguing? We played A&M in Shreveport and put 57 on them. If it wasn't for the blocked kick we win that game. There was no team in the country we couldn't score against. It (meaning the offense) got us a lot such as exposure like we've never had and it generated excitement. People wanted to see us play. The bowl debacle and the way the season ended had nothing to do with the offense. The offense didn't make the schedule.

[Guisslapp]

Ok. Seriously. Are you arguing just to be arguing? We played A&M in Shreveport and put 57 on them. If it wasn't for the blocked kick we win that game. There was no team in the country we couldn't score against. It (meaning the offense) got us a lot such as exposure like we've never had and it generated excitement. People wanted to see us play. The bowl debacle and the way the season ended had nothing to do with the offense. The offense didn't make the schedule.

Yeah, seriously, IN YEAR THREE of Dykes. And we were also famously bad on defense.

[Woof!]

I know I'm in the minority here in not liking "gimmick offenses". Yeah, they will put points on the boards and pad the stats against inferior teams, but in my book they don't measure up against an "average" defense. People have been saying this about Oregon for years, and now their fans are starting to realize that they were right.

[SicemDawgz]

I know I'm in the minority here in not liking "gimmick offenses". Yeah, they will put points on the boards and pad the stats against inferior teams, but in my book they don't measure up against an "average" defense. People have been saying this about Oregon for years, and now their fans are starting to realize that they were right.

Define "gimmick" please.

[Woof!]

Define "gimmick" please.

Like Oregon. Their offense is based on the success of one player-their quarterback. This type "gimmick" offense is often made worse by including a "hurry up" style of play used with a spread offense with trick plays thrown in. If you have a defense that is good, like Stanford's, the gimmick doesn't work and there's nothing else for the team to fall back on.

[inudesu]

I know I'm in the minority here in not liking "gimmick offenses". Yeah, they will put points on the boards and pad the stats against inferior teams, but in my book they don't measure up against an "average" defense. People have been saying this about Oregon for years, and now their fans are starting to realize that they were right.

Wait, the Oregon team that won 12 games the last three seasons and has won 9 already this year? That Oregon? They've only played one average-level defense per year for the last 4 years?

Like Oregon. Their offense is based on the success of one player-their quarterback. This type "gimmick" offense is often made worse by including a "hurry up" style of play used with a spread offense with trick plays thrown in. If you have a defense that is good, like Stanford's, the gimmick doesn't work and there's nothing else for the team to fall back on.

Are there many offenses in which the QB is not important? Maybe we should look into one of those non-gimmick (standard?) offenses that is not based on the success of the QB.

By the way, Oregon beat Standford 8 out of the last 10 times they've played (including 20 point wins last year and the year before).

Oregon's offense blocks, passes, and runs. They only get 11 men at a time. They read and re-act to defenses. They usually do all this as quickly as possible. They spread the field (like half the other teams in college). That doesn't sound like a gimmick to me. It's just offense. I wouldn't want every team in the FBS to run the same plays from the same formations (this isn't the NFL). It's good to have some teams who use two tight ends, and others that use one, and others that use none. It's good to have teams that throw more than they pass, and other teams that pass more than they run, and others that try to balance the two 50-50. It's good that some teams use zone reads and others don't option at all.

[SicemDawgz]

Like Oregon. Their offense is based on the success of one player-their quarterback. This type "gimmick" offense is often made worse by including a "hurry up" style of play used with a spread offense with trick plays thrown in. If you have a defense that is good, like Stanford's, the gimmick doesn't work and there's nothing else for the team to fall back on.

The QB touches the ball every play. I would think that would be true of 99% of the plays in football unless its a direct snap to the HB. Therefore, he is the most important player in the offense. He is responsible for reading the defense, distributing the football, calling audibles in ANY OFFENSE.

I dont remember La Tech using lots of trick plays for the past two years. Maybe we watched 2 different tams play? The only thing I found slightly odd was not ever going under center. And if any offense is playing a good defense, they're going to have trouble moving the ball, not just teams that run a "gimmick" offense.

I'm not saying the spread gimmick no huddle offense is the best, only that it works effectively. I tend to like a 2 TE set myself.

[Brian96]

Yeah, seriously, IN YEAR THREE of Dykes. And we were also famously bad on defense.

Nevertheless, I still prefer winning to losing.

It was also Dykes' third year of ever being a head coach. This is Holtz's, what, 14th year as a head coach? Even given the ways in which this is a rebuilding year, I'd have hoped that the premium we paid for a seasoned head coach would have translated into a better on-field product. I can't see that we're getting any benefit from his experience. If by year 14 you can't read the 2-pt conversion chart (much less an opposing offense), I'm not sure you need to be a DI FBS head coach.