You do realize we had a freshman rb that set the all time NCAA record for td's. we didn't just have a 1 man show. We were very balanced.
|
|
|
|
|
You do realize we had a freshman rb that set the all time NCAA record for td's. we didn't just have a 1 man show. We were very balanced.
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?Originally Posted by Woof!
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.
If losing is just as good as winning, I think we could save some money. I'm still amazed that your tactic here is to diminish last year's results in an effort to make this year seem better. I don't get it. Yes, in year three we won 9 games. In year two we 8 games, a WAC championship, and played in a bowl. In year one, we improved upon our record from Dooley's last year. ALL of which was accomplished with much tougher schedules than this year's team has to deal with.
Time is your friend. Impulse is your enemy. -John Bogle
lol. Sonny had a losing record in year 1, but I like how you phrased it that way to create contrast. Dooley probably expected to be here in 2010, Dykes knew he wasn't going to be here in 2013.
Sonny did not give a shit about defense. He directed most of the budget and resources to showcase Franklin's offensive system. Not saying we didn't get positive press from that. Drinking heavily can sometimes be fun too, but hangovers can suck.
I didn't create a contrast, a contrast existed. 2009: 4-8, 2010: 5-7. 2012: 9-3, 2013: my guess is 4-8.
Take it how you will. You really think Dooley expected to be here in 2010? Dooley was no different than anybody else. He was looking to get paid and he did. Sonny was a Tech employee. If we disagreed with how he did things, what did we do about it? Have we taken steps to make sure it doesn't happen again?
Our past administration foolishly left BVD in place. They foolishly reduced our HC salary to a point where we were forced to hire a recently fired HC. My hope is that our current administration is not sitting around making excuses like some on this board. My hope is that they are proactively evaluating the situation and preparing to make whatever changes need to be made.
Time is your friend. Impulse is your enemy. -John Bogle
Not just positive press. Lots of wins. That matters.
We all expected some let-down from 2012. Holtz had (and still has, to some degree - although it's less obvious here on BB&B) some grace because of the guys we lost, regular coaching change adjustments, etc. But we've looked really bad this year against a really bad schedule. Some of that can probably be blamed on Dykes's recruiting and what was left for Holtz to work with. But did you really expect us to be this bad? Holtz has to get some of the blame in this mess.
I expect all our coaches look to make more money and will move on when they can get a good pay bump. But I seriously doubt Dooley was expecting to get the call after the 2009 season for obvious reasons. Likewise, it is pretty obvious that Dykes would have known his stock would be highest after 2012 season. If you want to argue against those points you will argue against anything.
I'm pretty sure I made that point before he was hired away. That does not justify running his final team down in a futile effort to make this disaster of a season look like anything other than what it is.
Time is your friend. Impulse is your enemy. -John Bogle
I'm not crazy about the Holtz hire to begin with or with the way the season has gone.
But there is no way on earth we fire him after one season. It's just not going to happen.
Best thing to do at this point is hope that this really is all Dykes's fault and that we'll start improving (continue to improve? in some areas?). I really hope Holtz bounces back to the success he had at ECU. Because that's the best thing (that could conceivably actually happen) for our football program.
Welcome to Bulldog Barks and Bytes. We live and breathe Tech athletics.
I lived last season. The ending sucked. Hard. Scoring 57 on A&M was nice. Giving up 27 unanswered to start the game sucked. Beating 2 AQ schools was great. Losing 2 conference games sucked. If we had just a little bit if defense it would have been nice, but it was not to be because Sonny did not give a shit about D. In the end, he got his ticket out of town and we got some nice publicity. But we also got a venereal disease and we (and Holtz) gets to deal with that. Dooley didn't leave Dykes in such craptastic shape.
Just to be clear, I am not referring to any player as being a VD. As far as I can tell they are great people and representative of LaTech. But the program itself was left in terrible shape.
Where there's a will there's a way. Hope and positive thoughts are great, but I don't think they'll help this situation.
Dykes is not responsible for poor player development. Dykes is not responsible for poor schemes. Dykes is not responsible for the attitude of this current team.
Dykes may be responsible for what he left, but what Holtz has done with what he left is all on Holtz.
Yes, Stanford. You probably didn't watch the Oregon vs Stanford game this year but that is a good example. Stanford's quarterback isn't even rated a top ten quarterback in the Pac-12 and he only threw for 103 yards, but that was enough to beat a team that everyone thought was headed to the BCS Championship.
You mean the guy who threw two interceptions the next week when they lost to USC? That unimportant QB?
Because that guy was like the 15th rated QB in his class. He isn't asked to do as much (reading or throwing) as a lot of QBs in a lot of other systems, but that's kind of the exception. And he's still pretty important to their success.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote