Oregon's Gimmick Offense Should Put Us On Notice

#351
#351
volinSmyrna said:
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.
Click to expand...

He had escapability there's no question about that.

With the speed and size of Dlinemen now QBs need to have the ability to use their feet and extend plays. However I think its dangerous to use your QB as a primary ball carrier.

Here is why I don't like the read option, I think it is killing the teaching of the QB position at the HS and Jr HS level. A lot of HS coaches have gone to the "play the best athlete" at QB and let him improvise approach. That's a big reason we are witnessing such piss poor QB play in college and the NFL.
 
#352
#352
All rc is really arguing is that stout defense can stop the read option offense. What seems to be flying over his head is that a stout defense can stop ANY offense.

Oregon doesn't really recruit at an elite level. They recruit speed and utilize that speed in a successful system. CBJ is recruiting elite talent. He will build a stout defense and an offense that can score at will.
 
#354
#354
Gentlemen clichés are clichés because they are true.
"It ain't about the X's and O's it's about the Jimmy's and Joe's".

If you can match up in man on the outside against a spread offense you have just nullified their advantage and created one for yourself. The spread is designed to get your safeties out of the box so the offense has a numbers advantage to run the ball. When you can match up outside and the safeties don't have to help over the top you have taken that advantage away. Now since a spread formation usually has no tight end and only one and sometimes no backs inside the tackle box the defense can blitz knowing there is no one home to help. So advantage defense.

There is always a counter to whatever your opponent runs if you have superior athletes. Its all about the Jimmy's and Joe's. Butch gets it. Recruiting IS THE KEY TO WINNING!
 
#357
#357
Orange to the Bay said:
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.
Click to expand...

Disagree. Oregon didn't beat themselves, they were beaten by a better team. I watched the whole game, Stanford dominated them in every facet of the game. Stanford's a much more physical team and they showed that's how you beat Oregon. The score didn't reflect how badly Stanford owned Oregon.

It was more like Stanford beat Oregon than they beat themselves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#359
#359
rcvol said:
Which read option team is winning Super Bowls? I just destroyed your argument.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Lmao! I love how every time someone proves you wrong your either ignore the post or completely change your argument. And the best part is you think you're winning the argument. Please keep it up tho. This is extremely entertaining and comical to me and apparently the rest of VN. And how do so many of you keep saying you're adding this guy to your ignore list? How can you pass on the opportunity for a good laugh after nearly every one of his posts?
 
Last edited:
#360
#360
1974Vol said:
Gentlemen clichés are clichés because they are true.
"It ain't about the X's and O's it's about the Jimmy's and Joe's".

But what kind of Jimmy's and Joe's--smaller, sleeker, faster Jimmy's and Joes (ala Oregon)--or bigger, more physical, and faster Jimmy's and Joe's like Stanford.

You can scream all you want about Jimmy's and Joe's--and there is some real validity to that statement...

But I remember losing to Memphis, Arkansas, USCe back in the days when we had the Jimmy's and Joe's...(and Miami with Bernie Kosar did beat that great Nebraska team full of Jimmy's and Joe's--and the Sugar Vols did beat the 'Canes who were full of Jimmy's and Joe's, too).

So--my point is that Jimmy's and Joe's and the X's and O's are not mutually exclusive points when evaluating FB teams--because the games aren't played on paper, and sometimes the underdog (team without the Jimmy's and Joe's) DOES win the game. :salute:

GO VOLS! Hopefully the underdog WINS tomorrow...
Click to expand...
 
#362
#362
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...

Did he really say that? I missed that juicy post. It just keeps getting better :)
 
#364
#364
GAVol said:
Except for the national title they won with Chris Leak taking 90% of the snaps.
Click to expand...

They wouldn't have escaped with a 21-20 win in Neyland in 2006 without TEBOW--and a VERY BAD CALL....

I did notice that you said 90% of the snaps, but the Gators would have NEVER gotten to the NC game without Tebow's 10%...:salute:
 
#365
#365
Orange to the Bay said:
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.

There's no way--no way--that we could have possibly watched the same FB game last night...just no way....

There's a reason Oregon played poorly--and it's called Stanford! When Oregon plays against physical FB teams who have neutralized their SPEED advantage--they lose. I have watched them for the last 4-5 years and it's always the same.

The thing of it is--only a few teams over that time have had the ability to neutralize their SPEED advantage...

Turnovers, penalties, poor play last night was ALL a function of being PHYSICALLY DOMINATED! It's like Mike Tyson used to say--everybody got a plan 'til they get HIT! Oregon got HIT last night--and they crumbled right before the nation's eyes.

Stanford is THE great team in the PAC-12, not Oregon. :salute:
Click to expand...
 
#366
#366
hog88 said:
He had escapability there's no question about that.

With the speed and size of Dlinemen now QBs need to have the ability to use their feet and extend plays. However I think its dangerous to use your QB as a primary ball carrier.

Here is why I don't like the read option, I think it is killing the teaching of the QB position at the HS and Jr HS level. A lot of HS coaches have gone to the "play the best athlete" at QB and let him improvise approach. That's a big reason we are witnessing such piss poor QB play in college and the NFL.
Click to expand...

What the hell are you talking about piss poor QB play in college and the nfl man? Are you just among this up as you go? The nfl revolves more around the QB and less around the RB than ever b4. And have you been watching how fast QBs have been transitioning to the nfl the past 5 of so years (Ryan, Newton, Luck, RG3, Kaepernick, Dalton, Wilson, etc.)

I honestly don't think your comment could have been anymore off base than it was. Maybe I misunderstood where you're coming from. If so can you please explain?
 
#367
#367
Phat-Phil said:
What the hell are you talking about piss poor QB play in college and the nfl man? Are you just among this up as you go? The nfl revolves more around the QB and less around the RB than ever b4. And have you been watching how fast QBs have been transitioning to the nfl the past 5 of so years (Ryan, Newton, Luck, RG3, Kaepernick, Dalton, Wilson, etc.)

I honestly don't think your comment could have been anymore off base than it was. Maybe I misunderstood where you're coming from. If so can you please explain?
Click to expand...

Who are the top 5 QB's in the NFL?

How many future HOFers are starting today in the NFL?

How fast they transition to the NFL means nothing if there isn't competition. Look how many first rounders have flamed out over the past five years because they were not ready.
 
#369
#369
Someone needs to tell Gus Malzahn that those gimmick shotgun run and read option plays won't work in the SEC. It's just a fluke that he's leading the SEC in rushing this year, his first year as the head coach.
 
Last edited:
#371
#371
GAVol said:
Auburn, Texas, Florida off the top of my head.
Click to expand...

Yep and oh yeah who was that team Auburn played in the NC game that year??..Hmmm..ah yeah, Oregon and that gimmicky offense...funny how both teams ran the same style of offense and in the title game huh?...But according to Rcvol we should just dump it and go back to Big 10 style football again.:thumbsup:
 
#372
#372
VOLnMiami said:
Yep and oh yeah who was that team Auburn played in the NC game that year??..Hmmm..ah yeah, Oregon and that gimmicky offense...funny how both teams ran the same style of offense and in the title game huh?...But according to Rcvol we should just dump it and go back to Big 10 style football again.:thumbsup:
Click to expand...

I would take Bama's traditional offensive scheme over anything Oregon, Auburn, Baylor, ND, Tennessee does or any other spread option - zone read team in the AA.

But that's just my preference.

Based upon the BCS Champions since the BCS started in 1998 there have been 11 out of 15 bcs champs that run traditional non spread or zone read offenses (the 11 includes one for Fla w leak at the helm). That is a pretty good ratio by anyone's standard and shows the validity of a traditional scheme vs non traditional.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#373
#373
I agree no hurry up offense is good lets go back to huddle OFFENSE everyone is united in huddle and whatever happen in last play alot of times its resolved in the huddle. Hell u guys have been there with the sweat, mud, the heat whatever discormforts you but u always feel more comfort when u come to the line of scrimmage. Our Vols need the edge and will help.
 
#374
#374
patrick said:
I would take Bama's traditional offensive scheme over anything Oregon, Auburn, Baylor, ND, Tennessee does or any other spread option - zone read team in the AA.

But that's just my preference.

Based upon the BCS Champions since the BCS started in 1998 there have been 11 out of 15 bcs champs that run traditional non spread or zone read offenses (the 11 includes one for Fla w leak at the helm). That is a pretty good ratio by anyone's standard and shows the validity of a traditional scheme vs non traditional.
Click to expand...

Your numbers would still favor the pro style, but no one ran the spread in 1998 so you should adjust your count.
 
#375
#375
one of the problems the Ducks have against Stanford ...they run a 3 4 and run it well.

The zone read is predicated on the decisions of the defensive end...and it exploited the E gap.

With a 3-4 there is no defensive end ...and it is easier to cover the E gap . So you have an LB off the line where the DE should be in a 43. The LB just destroys the zone read by waiting . The QB is reduced to guessing .
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top