Oregon's Gimmick Offense Should Put Us On Notice

#326
#326
rcvol said:
Cam Newton, Manziel are anomalies. If you want to win in our conference, and I'm not talking about 9 games a year, you have to run a pro-style, run-intensive offense and play solid D. You can't just rely on a quick strike, up-tempo offense. Oregon's offense is designed to exploit average to above-average defenses. It is not designed to win championships.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

So many anomalies around that it's hard to tell what's an anomaly anymore.
 
#328
#328
patrick said:
Bama has 3 Natl Championships in 4 freaking years.....

Whats your point!

When Tennessee won their natl champ in 98 did they do it with a zone read?

HELL Noooooooooo!
Click to expand...

Not many teams if any ran the zone read back then if they did they probably would have tried it with Tee Martin.
 
#329
#329
volinSmyrna said:
Kansas City is 9-0, after being the doormat last year.
Seattle is 8-1
S.F. is 6-2, played in (and should have won) the Super Bowl last year.
TN is 5-4

The rest of those teams are ONLY successfull on offense BECAUSE of the read option (Wash and Oak)

I would say those are fairly successfull teams.

Your question was "tell me which NFL teams were successfull running the read option". So there is only ONE successfull team each year? You sir, are a moron, and I just destroyed your argument!
Click to expand...


Yeah the Eagles and Titans are awesome. Tell me again, which Superbowl winner has ever run a read option?
 
#330
#330
jp1 said:
What are you talking about. Auburn's defense was garbage. Just ask the great RCVol.

He can also give you some pointers on the spread option that they call from the huddle. I know, sounds unreasonable, but RC swears Tebow called it in the huddle.
Click to expand...

Ok so you think we will be successful with the read option? I just want to get you on the record here. You prefer a gimmick offense over pro-style offense? And you believe we will have a QB as good as Tebow or Newton in the next three years? I'm just making sure I understand where you're coming from.
 
#331
#331
rcvol said:
Yeah the Eagles and Titans are awesome. Tell me again, which Superbowl winner has ever run a read option?
Click to expand...

Reading comprehension again. I never mentioned the Eagles. Didn't say the Titans were "awesome" either. The point is they are having success running some form of the read option.

So there is only 1 successfull NFL team every year and the rest are posers, wannabes, and losers?
 
#332
#332
Well, when Butch Jones does his daily check in on the forums here I'm sure this will convince him. :crazy:

It is what it is and we have who we have. Sorry all those pro style coaches turned us down the last 2 coaching searches. B1t[hing about it here isn't going to change our coach's offensive philosophy.
 
#333
#333
rcvol said:
Ok so you think we will be successful with the read option? I just want to get you on the record here. You prefer a gimmick offense over pro-style offense? And you believe we will have a QB as good as Tebow or Newton in the next three years? I'm just making sure I understand where you're coming from.
Click to expand...

It was a gimmick 10-12 years ago. Now it is a perfectly fine and established form of offense that MANY teams, at ALL levels are having success with.

I bet you were opposed to receivers taking their hands off the ground from a 3 point stance. The shotgun formation was also a "gimmick" 30 years ago. The ALMIGHTY I formation was also a gimmick at some point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#334
#334
BACKDOC said:
They had possibly the best dual threat QB ever in college ball too.
Click to expand...

Exactly. For some reason people on this board think we will get the next Cam Newton. Hell, we don't even have a QB signed for 2014 yet. I like Dobbs, and I like his running ability, but it sure would take some pressure off by having a fullback or maybe some two back sets. Right now every team knows who is getting the football when we run it. Plus our run plays are too slow to develop. In a pro-style offense the RB can immediately accelerate and hit the hole hard. This read option crap takes forever to develop and it's too easy to read. Missouri ate it up and so will Auburn. My main criticism of the read-option/spread option system, however, is it provides minimal protection for the QB forcing him to get rid of the ball very quickly. A fullback and blocking half-back would give Dobbs more time to find receivers and let them run their routes. Currently he's a sitting duck as our highly-touted offensive line can't block worth a damn.
 
#335
#335
rcvol said:
Exactly. For some reason people on this board think we will get the next Cam Newton. Hell, we don't even have a QB signed for 2014 yet. I like Dobbs, and I like his running ability, but it sure would take some pressure off by having a fullback or maybe some two back sets. Right now every team knows who is getting the football when we run it. Plus our run plays are too slow to develop. In a pro-style offense the RB can immediately accelerate and hit the hole hard. This read option crap takes forever to develop and it's too easy to read. Missouri ate it up and so will Auburn. My main criticism of the read-option/spread option system, however, is it provides minimal protection for the QB forcing him to get rid of the ball very quickly. A fullback and blocking half-back would give Dobbs more time to find receivers and let them run their routes. Currently he's a sitting duck as our highly-touted offensive line can't block worth a damn.
Click to expand...

so......much......lunacy. so......little......time!!!

Heck, lets just go back to the wing-T.
 
#339
#339
hog88 said:
Yes but he also holds the record for most completions in a row.

Too many people think since he is black he is a running QB when he wasn't.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, somebody broke that record a couple years ago. I agree completely that he was a passer first, but to say he wasn't a running threat either isn't accurate either, in my opinion.
 
#340
#340
im fine with the read option.. i do like to see a power game as well. every team that is having offensive success is utilizing a form of read option.. we are going to be great in a few years.
 
#341
#341
Great post. That gimmick offense just about won the game in the last 8 minutes. :eek:lol:
 
Last edited:
#342
#342
Just read 23 pages worth of idiotic comments and realize I probably lost some IQ points. The fact is, it doesn't matter what scheme you run, if you do the following, it'll be successful. As long as you recruit the right caliber of athlete and those athletes execute the given play, and play defense you'll win.

That said, we don't have the caliber of athlete to run either a "pro-style" or "gimmick" offense which is sad. Also what the hell is a gimmick anyway?
 
#343
#343
rcvol said:
Ok so you think we will be successful with the read option? I just want to get you on the record here. You prefer a gimmick offense over pro-style offense? And you believe we will have a QB as good as Tebow or Newton in the next three years? I'm just making sure I understand where you're coming from.
Click to expand...

I actually prefer a pro-style to be honest, however I'm not short-sighted enough to think we cannot win with the spread. In fact, it may suit us better because of recruiting.

Besides that, the fact that Oregon lost last night doesn't tell me jack squat about how successful we can or can't be with it. For you to come to that conclusion is asinine.
 
#345
#345
The no NFL teams run it successfully is a stupid comment. Apples and oranges comparison. Just ask Tim Tebow.
 
#346
#346
Burhead said:
Just read 23 pages worth of idiotic comments and realize I probably lost some IQ points. The fact is, it doesn't matter what scheme you run, if you do the following, it'll be successful. As long as you recruit the right caliber of athlete and those athletes execute the given play, and play defense you'll win.

That said, we don't have the caliber of athlete to run either a "pro-style" or "gimmick" offense which is sad. Also what the hell is a gimmick anyway?
Click to expand...

Yep...note to self. Next time rcvol starts a thread.....AVOID AVOID AVOID!!!

jp1 said:
The no NFL teams run it successfully is a stupid comment. Apples and oranges comparison. Just ask Tim Tebow.
Click to expand...

Also, it's stupid because it's not true. His arguments haven't made since yet, I don't know why they would start now.
 
#347
#347
volinSmyrna said:
Yep...note to self. Next time rcvol starts a thread.....AVOID AVOID AVOID!!!



Also, it's stupid because it's not true. His arguments haven't made since yet, I don't know why they would start now.
Click to expand...

I try and stay in the recruiting forum but sometimes venture here. I have to wonder if they would consider Paul Johnson's offense as "gimmicky"?
 
#348
#348
Gentleman, I was at the game. Let me tell you what happened:

Give some credit to Stanford. Their OL were men, they thus ran it well, and while the schemes weren't overly impressive, the gameplan (and execution of it) to just run, chew up clock, and hopefully keep the Oregon offense off the field was a good one, and executed well, worked well. Clearly. That said, Stanford did not beat Oregon as much as Oregon beat itself.

As someone that paid for a ticket, I was pretty disappointed, as I wanted to see Oregon win (don't like nerdy school's teams...haha), but moreso, I wanted to see Stanford play at or near potential, and see Oregon do the same, and just see what happened when a good team playing well plays a great team playing well. That didn't happen.

Oregon played the worst game I've ever seen from them.
-Somewhat bad call to not take the FG on the road on the opening drive against a team you know has a solid D.
-Offense was completely out of sync. Open WR's missed. Maybe some routes not crisply run as well. OL never got in sync for the run game.
-When the offense did click (drive in the 1st half down to the 1)--> turnover at the 1! Killer! Which leads me to...
-Turnovers! 3 in the first 3 quarters. The first one was a huge momentum changer, as they were dissecting Stanford that drive. Can't turn it over on the road against a disciplined opponent and win.
-Takeaways: when they thought they had one, which also would have been a huge boost in the 1st half, that was taken away by (what I hear announcers thought was a) controversial pass interference call.
-Discipline: far too many penalties. I wasn't watching on TV, so I don't know how many exactly, but had to be at or near 10. Far too many.

Murphy's Law that night for them. Oregon beat themselves. Shame. I wanted to see a good game. A well-played game. Didn't really see one from them at least.
 
#349
#349
Also, the DL just flat out ran out of gas. They were on the field SO MUCH. That quick, light DL is simply not built to stop a corn fed heavy OL of good run blocking. You saw them getting pushed around all night. That is one weakness Oregon has. Their DL is build for speed, athleticism, and playmaking, but the don't have this balance in it where they have some heavy bruisers who can come in and stop the run. IMO, or from what I saw on the field.
 
#350
#350
Pretty sure I heard that Marcus Mariota played through an MCL sprain last night as well. Might have something to do with why the Oregon offense wasn't that good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top