|
|
Holtz obviously is shying away from up-tempo spread.
Problem is, he's not being honest about why. I wish he'd just come out and say, "QB is a problem. We're going to lose if we don't focus on the run." But instead, we're getting strung along.
I think we have a major problem at QB, and this move suggests we still have a problem with pass protection and/or WRs as well. We may not agree with Holtz's scheme, but we may be even worse if we don't become run-focused.
T1, sometimes I struggle with trying to figure out whether you are a "well spoken" troll or just kind of a pesimist when it comes to Tech football. I would have to say any Athletic program's goal is to compete at the highest level, or that program will not see much success. If we can continue to grow our program and acheive that national prowess then dollars come and so do conference championships and bowl games. Later in this thread you reference how we couldn't win a "depleted WAC" with high octane offense. The last year in the conference, the WAC had three teams ranked in the top 25 and was probably stronger than CUSA that year, including the schools who left for AAC. The only way in the near future that Tech will regain any national prowess is the offense has to be high tempo and high scoring. If we run game management type offense and run the ball, Auburn games will be 42 -10 losses and North Texas games will be 38 to 17 losses. Maybe we could win some close ones against teams like UTEP and Southern Miss but the overall success of our program will be a whole lot like last year. Don't sell yourself short as a fan, T1, we aren't ULM we should be competeing at a much higher level than Holtz has us at right now.Originally Posted by T1
I'm neither. I'm a big Tech fan and one of the 3 optimists on this board.The point of my post you referenced is to discuss if it is realistic for Tech to compete for national championships or if we should just try to compete for conference championships first. I'm kind of a realist when I think we should set our sites on beating UNT and UTSA before we think about beating Oklahoma and Auburn.
And keep in mind that we are 17-97 against the big boys in our history.
Throw in a piss poor coach too.
Dude. Nobody said we need to compete for national championships. You are making crap up at this point.I'm neither. I'm a big Tech fan and one of the 3 optimists on this board.
I am glad basketball is going to be exciting next year- football certainly is not!
Then where do we want to be? Somewhere between CUSA champs and national champs? Like the 2011 season? (WAC champs, but not in the Top 25). We bitch because the Power I won't beat Michigan or LSU. But is that realistic anyway? Will the spread make us better than Michigan and LSU? If we are better than Michigan and LSU, are we competing for a national championship? Where do we envision this program, realistically?
Would we be happy if we won CUSA next year and averaged 21 points a game and got blown out by Ole Miss in a bowl game?
I have said from day one, he was not the right hire for this program. Who the hell does he expect to beat running this power I? Teams like Bama, LSU and USC can pull that off. Two years down the drain with this guy
If we are lucky
This is my point right here. He expects to beat North Texas, Middle Tennessee, Old Dominion, UTSA, etc. Not LSU, Alabama, Ohio St.
Rice, North Texas, and Tulane all went bowling last year with boring offenses while we sat home. Why can't we win like that? We can't recruit the badass players that those schools can? We have to trick them or we will get manhandled? I don't buy that!
Dykes proved that a mid-major can at least compete by scoring a lot of points against most any team. All we needed is a better defense. Now we dismantle the machine and have a not so genius offensive mind to rebuild it. The argument that we need to fit the system to the players that you CAN recruit is certainly for in favor of a pro-style run 70% and throw 30%. We were able to be successful doing that - more 60/40 in the early 90s when we went to the I- Bowl but we also had some pretty good defenses and threw the ball mid-range and down the field quite well. We have not had much success scoring a lot of points in that style of offense since then. If it had not be for Livas and special teams we would not have scored enough points to beat N ILL under Dooley. I think honestly that after we show no improvement this year and actually become so conservatively predictable that Holtz will be shown the door. I think the outcry from donors will be overwhelming.
Why bring in a guy that has been a integral part of a high powered offense to not allow him to scheme and call plays. Ask Tiger fans how much more they enjoy Les managing the game and NOT call plays
I prefer a wide open attack on offense. And I do think that kind of approach gives us our best chance of winning against teams with more talent (which is a big picture goal).
But I also agree with T1 that we can win our conference running whatever offense we want to run (in theory). Because conference teams should be roughly at our level in terms of pure talent. In a given year some may be a little behind us and some may even be a little ahead of us, but not so much that we couldn't win with any particular style of play.
Whatever we're going to run, just run it well. If we want to have a power running game, that's fine. Just find a way to do it well. If we're going to run from the spread, that's fine, too. And I think you can do that quickly, or at a more traditional pace (and in a number of ways - Oregon, Arizona, and Baylor all run the ball a lot from the spread but with different styles). You don't have to have 2 tight ends and a fullback to run the ball. You don't have to run the wishbone to control the pace of the game. You don't have to go no-huddle with the spread. Whatever.
But where I think you run into trouble is not having (and practicing and practicing and practicing and practicing and practicing) a real offensive philosophy.
It's fun to debate on message boards about our particular favorite approaches, and I have my own. But I really just want something that works. After that, all the arguing about specific play-calls or formations or whatever becomes a lot more fun.
Check the history of those 3 programs success running the Power I. They were succesful because we were terrible and so was much of the conference. They were atleast respectable teams but we cant aspire to be a 2013 North Texas if we want a healthy football program. I would rather take the Boise State/ TCU approach, which was was continually make great coaching hires after one is bought away. We did not do that with Holtz and if we are going to run a succesful Pro style offense he is not the best at it by any means. The Spread is not the be all end all but it can be an equilizer.
And no I wouldnt be happy with a team that barely wins CUSA and gets blown out in a bowl by Ole Miss, that would say our conference is a SUNBELT type of conference, and the fact that we are comparable right now is why I am upset.
We need to sell tickets. Especially season tickets. Let's see how 3 yds and a cloud of dust does for ticket sales.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
