Gimmick Offense

[LBP]

I have read on some of the message boards of teams that we play. They think that we run a gimmick offense that will put up yards and no points. Can only move the ball in between the 20s, but can't get in the endzone. And they see us as being no threat to beat them. So far they are right and Bick and Hines prove them right every chance they get.

Does anyone expect our coaches to make any changes this week? I don't, we have been doing this crap for years and making the same mistakes over and over again, and as always no adjustments by our coaching staff. Do these guys ever watch game films? It seems that Bick and Hines have their heads in the sand. I expect us to do the same things against A&M that we do against every big name school we face. Throw dink passes(I really hate these with a very strong passion), not throw to the TE, throw 60 passes, not run the ball, not throw the ball downfield, and turn it over a lot. I don't understand these bleep dink passes. If we are only planning for a 2 yard gain, I think we should get the 2 yards by running it.

Look for Bick and Hines to prove the big name schools right about us again and Bick will say after the game,"I am very frustrated at all of these turnovers."

[hisaw]

I have read in several threads on numerous BB&B's that you are an idiot. I am sure that you have read them too. But have you changed anything??? Will you ever learn that constant negativity and calling for coaches to be fired and bench warmers to be started will only find you being found a pariah on this board??? Do you ever think that you might change this habit. It's not as if other members of this board ever see a thread by LBP and think-I wonder what he/she has said, maybe it's something new I'll go check it out.

I mean all you do is complain and complain and complain. Do you ever read your posts afterwards and think-man I should have been positive on that one-we did win the game by x-points. Or do you think that with Maxie or Zach we could've beaten them by more?
I think with a better anti-depressant you could change your outlook, or maybe just by thinking positive thoughts-just once in a while you might be positive when you post.

I mean after TECH beats aTm what will you post? "Maxie should have been playing" "Why was Zach on the bench all game" "All Bick and Hines did was call the same plays over and over-even though they went for 20 yds a pop-it was embarassing, I was calling the plays"

Give it a rest, you are as stale as you claim our coaches to be.

[Tech77]

Here's what I think on this subject: Our offense has given us a chance to stay in the game with teams which were more physically talented than we are. BCS teams usually get the pick of the best athletes, and in many cases we take guys on the second tier who are hopefully overachievers. These athletes have competed for us very well, and on offense that is thanks largely to the system we have had in place. Now, our level of recruits is getting higher. We are getting closer in terms of speed, size and strength, but we aren't quite there yet. When we play most of our conference opponents in the WAC we should be able to line up and run the ball, or hold the pocket open long enough to throw deep. But to say we're going to line up and ram the ball down Penn State, Clemson or Texas A&M's throat, or hold the pocket open long enough to throw deep 15 times a game is just unrealistic. Our coaches have implemented a system which allows us to compete, and every once in a while win a road game against these big-conference schools. We have elevated our standing significantly in the 1-A world the past 10 years, and that higher status is allowing us to recruit players we wouldn't have had a chance at before. As we get more of those guys in the program I would expect our strategies would be modified to fit our strengths.

[Dawgbitten]

Loose Butt Plug,

Did you know that prior to the PSU game we scored 10 out of the 11 times we were in the red zone? Of that 10, only 3 or 4 were field goals. The one that was missing was probably the interception in the back of the endzone at Clemson. SO what in the hell are you bitchin' about?

In case you didn't notice, Penn State was a damn good ball team. I hate to admit it, but they were much better than our dawgs. Top five in my opinion. It wouldn't surprise me to see them playing in the NC at the end of the year. Of course them playing in the NC may all depend if Mars lines up with Venus and if the Moon is in the right phase on the particular day of the BCS computer calculations.

You are one negative SOB.

[Dirtydawg]

I think we've thrown more to the tight-end in the first four games than we have the previous two years combined.

[arkansasbob]

in my opinion, a gimmick offense is one that works only if the other team doesn't expect it -- something that could be stopped if it was well prepared for, but works very well when no one knows what's comming. if anyone ran a gimmick offense saturday, i think it was penn state. they gave us more different looks in the first half than i have seen them run in the last ten years. in the second half they just banged it out the old-fashioned way, but it was all of those funky looks that kept the ball moving in the first half. we, on the other hand, have been running basically the same offense for the past several years. if your team is not expecting this type of offense, then you have done a poor job of preparing them. when you can line up and run the same set of 10 or 12 plays over and over again and still get yards and still score (which we do against most teams), i don't call that a gimmick -- i call that something that works.

[RougeDawg]

Loose Butt Plug

Classic!

[DawgyNWindow]

We are only 14 or so years into being a Division 1A team, have the smallest athletic budget in the WAC in probably the smallest market, yet we are competitive with BCS schools that have 50+ years of major college football tradition behind them (such as Penn State, Auburn, California and Alabama). Most neophytes in this league (like basically we basically still are) don't get the kind of respect or national press that we do, and they are hardly worth the kind of trolling that we experience here on a regular basis (you know you're getting good when people start to hate you). The entire Sunbet, half the WAC, and even some of the middle-to-bottom-dwellers in the BCS conferences would love to be where we are now.

And we're getting better.

[faninmonroe]

We are only 14 or so years into being a Division 1A team, have the smallest athletic budget in the WAC in probably the smallest market, yet we are competitive with BCS schools that have 50+ years of major college football tradition behind them (such as Penn State, Auburn, California and Alabama). Most neophytes in this league (like basically we basically still are) don't get the kind of respect or national press that we do, and they are hardly worth the kind of trolling that we experience here on a regular basis (you know you're getting good when people start to hate you). The entire Sunbet, half the WAC, and even some of the middle-to-bottom-dwellers in the BCS conferences would love to be where we are now.

And we're getting better.

Clemson -20
PennState -32

in our 15th year of d1A football

that ain't too good in my book

[DawgyNWindow]

[/quote]

Clemson -20
PennState -32

in our 15th year of d1A football

that ain't too good in my book[/quote]

Yep, and both of these schools have 5-10X our athletic budget, 4X the fan and alumni base, and will both compete for their respective conference titles.

Nebraska didn't fare too well againt Penn State either, and our resources pale in comparison to theirs.

[aubunique]

Wins against BCS teams will occur more often when Tech can afford to hire them to play in Shreveport or Ruston.
When the season ends, count the number of wins that outsiders have at either Clemson or Penn State.
In fact, check past schedules and see how many teams beat BCS teams at home the years that Tech played them. That is the measure of how well Tech is doing.
Had we been filling our stadium, the Dawgs might have won all home games even in 2000. To win at home with good crowd support, the home team has to be only about 80 percent as good as the visiting team. To win at home with overwhelming crowd support, a team sometimes has to be only about 60 percent as good as the visiting team.
To win on the road against overwhelming crowd support means a team has to been MUCH, MUCH better than the home team! The oddsmakers take a bit of that into account. But playing on the road in a half-full stadium isn't nearly as difficult as playing on the road in a full stadium with experienced fans! That is the BCS advantage.
Tech's players and coaches are far better than the fan support!
Living 350 miles away, more or less, for the past 38 years, I consider attending a Tech game such a treat and privilege that I can't imagine leaving early.
But people who can get to a Tech home game easily leave early in droves.
Thousands left the highly competitive OSU game in Shreveport and missed the comeback win. Thousands left the Tulsa runaway victory in Ruston. The only thing that might have kept them at either game a bit longer was a one-TD difference the whole game and more cloud cover in Ruston!
It is simply too easy and too inexpensive to be worth their time, apparently.

[inudesu]

I don't think we have a gimmick offense.

1. We aren't the only ones who use it.
2. It is several years old.
3. It works.
4. I don't really believe there is such a thing - everybody gets the same rulebook, use it however you want!

[Tech77]

It's been stated before that our short passing game is really a substitute for rushing. Until we can line up and rush the ball against the better teams we must have the short passing game to maintain ball control. When you gain 450 yards, most of it on short passes, you're keeping the other team's offense off the field. The thing we haven't done well this year is prevent turnovers. For those that remember when the wishbone and veer option were all the rage, the key for those teams that ran it was to keep from putting the ball on the ground. It's the same way for us. Turnovers will kill any offense, and that's what has been happening to us lately.

[Dirtydawg]

It's been stated before that our short passing game is really a substitute for rushing. Until we can line up and rush the ball against the better teams we must have the short passing game to maintain ball control. When you gain 450 yards, most of it on short passes, you're keeping the other team's offense off the field.

The funny thing is that more and more offenses are less able to run on good defenses. I'll be very surprised to see too many backs get much over a 100 yards on Penn St, A&M and Clemson this year. Look at Va Tech against the Aggies. The two best backs in college football struggled.