Gimmick offenses (Oregon, Texas A&M, etc...)

Bamabuzzard

FB Moderator
Staff member
Aug 15, 2004
30,569
18,330
237
48
Where ever there's BBQ, Bourbon & Football
that is a true fact...the type of offense that is run in a spread is VERY dependant on a specific type of player, and the better the players are, the better that type of offense will work...
Cam newtons only come around once in a lifetime, but the spread can be very successful with the right coaching and players. But, no offense is unstoppable withg the right scheme, players and coaching.
Personally, that is the reason I think teams who cannot find that "special type" player, on the Manziel, Newton, Tebow level. Will actually have a harder time consistently staying on top.
 

AgentAntiOrange

1st Team
Dec 30, 2009
888
0
0
Norman, OK
I am tired of people acting like Oregon and Chip Kelly are some magical team............

....Alabama was that great.
I agree 100%. For all the talk about football evolving and everyone looking for innovative offenses, the same thing wins football games today that it always has. Run the ball, stop the run. Period. Oregon may well get a NC at some point. But if you want to have sustained, prolonged success then you better be able to control the clock and get defensive stops. These offensive were born out of the need to compensate for a lack of talent and as defenses have learned how to beat them they have become a hindrance rather than a help vs the better defensive teams.
 

B1GTide

TideFans Legend
Apr 13, 2012
45,499
46,843
187
Personally, that is the reason I think teams who cannot find that "special type" player, on the Manziel, Newton, Tebow level. Will actually have a harder time consistently staying on top.
You are correct, but they are not Alabama and will take the short term success along with a shot at a championship even if it means 10 years wandering in the desert afterward. Now I am depressed.
 

257WBY

Suspended
Aug 20, 2011
2,077
1
0
Call it what you will, but its just plain old scrambling. It isn't taught and its not anything the coaches call. When you have a Michael Vick, Can Newton or Johnny Manziel it works well. A&M beat Alabama by doing things unconventionally. When the play broke down JM scrambled around long enough to find someone open. Call it real-time audible if you want but its chaos and anyone who tells you it isn't is lying.

Krazy has a good point because without that every once in a while scrambling talent the offense doesn't work. Unlike a more traditional offense like Alabama who can continue to plug players in and stay consistent. It's the difference in having a few good years and building a machine.

I'm not knocking A&M, I was a big advocate of them joining the conference and I have lots of aggies friends. I also don't think anyone in the country deserved the heisman more than Manziel. However, look at the success of the programs with super dual threat QB's after they graduated. The programs after McCoy, Vick, Tebow and Newton left all had to transition back to a more traditional style play.
Texas went to an SEC style offense after McCoy and haven't been the same sense. Tebow followed Leak for a NC. Baylor plugged in the next QB and he only broke RGIIIs season yardage record. Oregon has run several QBs and they just keep on winning. Texas Tech had about four QBs that put up huge numbers and won ball games. It only ended when Craig James ran the coach off.
 

KrAzY3

Hall of Fame
Jan 18, 2006
10,615
4,540
187
44
kraizy.art
that is a true fact...the type of offense that is run in a spread is VERY dependant on a specific type of player, and the better the players are, the better that type of offense will work...
I think this gets into what Chip Kelly is probably best at. He is very good at identifying talent that works with his system. That's probably his greatest asset. He had Johnny committed to come play for him. Think about that, a lot of people say they didn't know he'd be that good, but I guess Chip saw it. I think that's what has kept things going for Oregon at this level. As to other programs, I don't think we have a real example of maintaining that level of success after players leave. It also means that Chip can focus on players that other schools don't want as much since he needs a specific type.

We can look at a school that produced mediocre records and say oh hey, they're offense still has been good in this system over the years, but has the team actually been that good? That's the question and in that regard Oregon is really the only good example I can think of.
 

TexasBama

TideFans Legend
Jan 15, 2000
25,827
29,044
287
66
Houston, Texas USA
I saw Payton Manning 10 years ago call every play at the line. It didn't look gimmicky. This gimmicky assertion reminds me of the nihilists in the Big Lebowski complaining its not fair.
 

KrAzY3

Hall of Fame
Jan 18, 2006
10,615
4,540
187
44
kraizy.art
I saw Payton Manning 10 years ago call every play at the line. It didn't look gimmicky. This gimmicky assertion reminds me of the nihilists in the Big Lebowski complaining its not fair.
I tried to make it abundantly clear that my labeling it a gimmick offense was not a complaint at all. My point was, and is that it is an offense that is not fundamentally sound and is very vulnerable. It relies on lack of opponent's preparation, so it creates a false impression. I brought up Georgia Southern for a reason, since the logic that Oregon and A&M are the best teams in football is the same logic that Georgia Southern had the best offense Alabama faced in 2011. This "gimmick" can and will be dealt with in the future, once teams start to prepare for it (as Nick Saban said he would).

Oregon's lowest point total was 14 points, the most points given up was 52.
Texas A&M's lowest point total was 17, the most points given up was 57.

If you can't look at those numbers and understand that these teams were very beatable, then anything I say is futile. My angst in regards to this issue is that because Alabama dominated Notre Dame, a lot of people wanted to give undo credit to Oregon and Texas A&M and also disrespect what Alabama and Notre Dame accomplished. All four of those are good teams, but the two fundamentally sound teams are the ones that made it to, and belonged in the championship game.
 

bamadp

All-SEC
Sep 24, 2006
1,023
0
0
Sheffield, Al.
Call it "gimmicky" or whatever nomenclature you want...just ask why. The main objective of a hurry-up, fast paced offense is to prevent the other team from substituting, Why? Because their players are better than yours. Why? They've got 85 schollies, you've got 85 schollies. Are their 85 better? Are they better coached? Isn't that the headcoaches responsibility to evaluate, recruit, and develop the players on the whole team? Your team plays defense half the time, but I guess it's easier to cover up for half your teams deficiencies with the other half.

Playing that type offense inevitably makes a team "soft". Who do ya think they practice against? Texas played that way with MCoy but they couldn't block for the run or tackle. A lot of coaches and players have gotten away from the fundamentals these days. Why should players learn to block and tackle, it's easier just to cover it up and outscore the other guys.

I'm sure some can't wait to see A&M vs. Oregon play an "exciting" 50-49 NCG...but that's not football, at least not the way I know it...but maybe by the time it happens, Ill be six feet under.
 

AggieMom

Suspended
Nov 19, 2012
57
0
0
Huntsville, AL
Many here are discrediting the very good defensive play of Texas A&M. Did any watch the Cotton Bowl and see the defensive stands that stopped a very good OU team and forced them to settle for field goals? The commentators repeatedly said that A&M would be warn down in the second half but instead held them to 3 successive 3 and outs in the 3rd quarter. This defense practices every day against the hurry up offense and apparently it has made them a better defense.
 

B1GTide

TideFans Legend
Apr 13, 2012
45,499
46,843
187
Many here are discrediting the very good defensive play of Texas A&M. Did any watch the Cotton Bowl and see the defensive stands that stopped a very good OU team and forced them to settle for field goals? The commentators repeatedly said that A&M would be warn down in the second half but instead held them to 3 successive 3 and outs in the 3rd quarter. This defense practices every day against the hurry up offense and apparently it has made them a better defense.
I do not think they are discrediting the "play". The fans on this site have given aTm and Manziel his due many times over since that loss. They are discussing the offensive philosophy.

Your head coach didn't run this offense at the beginning of the season. He said that he changed the offense when it became clear what he had in Manziel. And I agree that your defense was solid, but the defense was not your strength this season. It complimented your offense.
 

BamaPokerplayer

All-American
Oct 10, 2004
3,112
149
82
A&M played 12 games in a row in the brutal sec, with a freshman Qb and still only lost 2 games. If having a low scoring game makes a offense a gimmick then ever offense is a gimmick. How is Oregon's offense a gimmick?
 

AggieMom

Suspended
Nov 19, 2012
57
0
0
Huntsville, AL
I do not think they are discrediting the "play". The fans on this site have given aTm and Manziel his due many times over since that loss. They are discussing the offensive philosophy.

Your head coach didn't run this offense at the beginning of the season. He said that he changed the offense when it became clear what he had in Manziel. And I agree that your defense was solid, but the defense was not your strength this season. It complimented your offense.
I was responding to the poster above my post who said essentially that the hurry up offense made the team "soft" and unable to "block and tackle" and led to high scoring games with little defense.
 

rgw

Suspended
Sep 15, 2003
20,852
1,351
232
Tuscaloosa
TAMU scored the most points on us in over two years (2010 South Carolina)...so they're doing something right.
 

BamaPokerplayer

All-American
Oct 10, 2004
3,112
149
82
In my opinion all these "fast huddle" teams ( oregon Texas A & M, etc.) are what I call coward football. They can only win mainly because they line up quick against a defense who's players are not speed demons . They won't line up and slug it out, they have to run up to the line and hope to scamper off a play before the defense has a chance to even blink an eye.
But I betcha Saban will be ready for this kind of thing next time and one day one big burly defensive player is going to slam mr. jonnhy football to the ground..
I was very unimpressed watching him play in their bowl game. Didnt he know the camera was on him and every time it was he was using the F word and acting all cocky. And dont foreget the audio ESPN loved to keep repeating leading up to the NC game where he said it was good to beat Bama's a**.
Reminds me a lot of sCam Newton..
Why is it coward football? The whole point of the game is to give your team edge.
 

BamaPokerplayer

All-American
Oct 10, 2004
3,112
149
82
I was responding to the poster above my post who said essentially that the hurry up offense made the team "soft" and unable to "block and tackle" and led to high scoring games with little defense.
A&M is not soft IMO. They are going to be a big time player in the sec.
 

Dallas4Bama

Suspended
Sep 27, 2006
3,882
0
0
Dallas, Texas
First of all please disregard the comments by bamaforever. That's completely out of left field and should be deleted because of the implied cursing included. His view doesn't represent.what the rest of us are discussing. He obviously doesn't remember some of the things Coach Bryant did to change the game away from the conventional means at the time to gain an advantage.

Second, if we use the word "unconventional" instead if "gimmick" can we spend less time on the debate over syntax and more on the merits of the offense?
 

bamadp

All-SEC
Sep 24, 2006
1,023
0
0
Sheffield, Al.
Many here are discrediting the very good defensive play of Texas A&M. Did any watch the Cotton Bowl and see the defensive stands that stopped a very good OU team and forced them to settle for field goals? The commentators repeatedly said that A&M would be warn down in the second half but instead held them to 3 successive 3 and outs in the 3rd quarter. This defense practices every day against the hurry up offense and apparently it has made them a better defense.
That's Big-12 mentality, a 57th ranked defense is considered very good. Maybe they're better against other hurry-up offenses (though they did give up 57 against La. Tech). They also gave up 28 to Sam Houston State, and 29 to Missouri.
Teams that run this type of offense have never been known for their physicality. See Texas, Oregon, Arizona, West Virginia, and yes...even Oklahoma. Last year the A&M defense was #59, and that was in the Big-12. This year in the no offense SEC they were #57. Their m.o. was to outscore people...not overpower them. Playing tough, physical football and scoring lots of points are two different things. No one is discrediting A&M, but these teams don't hold up well against physical teams...we've all seen it, many times in the past. Sometimes the truth hurts.
 

rgw

Suspended
Sep 15, 2003
20,852
1,351
232
Tuscaloosa
First, I've said before that TAMU was not an untalented team on offense. They had a huge question mark at QB entering the season but I figured the system was conducive to getting winnable QB play. Kinda like the difference between 2008 Chris Todd and 2009 Chris Todd for Auburn. He wasn't great but that system made him decent enough to lead a bowl eligible team.

Mike Sherman didn't get fired for poor talent identification. He got fired for game management. TAMU was a 8 or 9 win team that couldn't manage a lead in several games. Tannehill need to be reeled in some and they would let him bumble the game away several times.

This was basically the 2011 Aggies with a different coach and quarterback. I think those two factors made all the difference for them. With that said, they're losing a lot of talent this offseason and it may be hard for them to meet their current expectations.
 

AggieMom

Suspended
Nov 19, 2012
57
0
0
Huntsville, AL
That's Big-12 mentality, a 57th ranked defense is considered very good. Maybe they're better against other hurry-up offenses (though they did give up 57 against La. Tech). They also gave up 28 to Sam Houston State, and 29 to Missouri.
Teams that run this type of offense have never been known for their physicality. See Texas, Oregon, Arizona, West Virginia, and yes...even Oklahoma. Last year the A&M defense was #59, and that was in the Big-12. This year in the no offense SEC they were #57. Their m.o. was to outscore people...not overpower them. Playing tough, physical football and scoring lots of points are two different things. No one is discrediting A&M, but these teams don't hold up well against physical teams...we've all seen it, many times in the past. Sometimes the truth hurts.
Was unable to see La Tech game so have no input on that. However, the 28 and 29 points in other games you mentioned were garbage time points put up against 2nd and 3rd string defense after the starters were removed because the game was well in hand. Coach Snyder said after those games that the drop off from the first string was problematic and indicative of less time working with non starters. The defense definitely improved over the season and we obviously held FL, LSU, and AL to less than 25 pts each. Going into the season the defense was the area of the most concern with least depth. With the level of recruiting I expect they will make strides. You are making generalizations and trying to equate to mindset.
 

Latest threads

TideFans.shop : 2024 Madness!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.