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

KrAzY3

Hall of Fame
Jan 18, 2006
10,615
4,540
187
44
kraizy.art
if it was truly that easy to stop...we wouldn't be having this discussion, and it woundlt be uwed as frequently as it is. IMO...
Oregon was held to 14 points. Texas A&M was held to 17 and 19 points. Easy might have been the wrong way to explain it, but let me put it like this. If Alabama went out every week and practiced to handle these sort of offenses, they would decimate them. Alabama can't afford to do that though, they practice for the style of football they play and their opponents play regularly. They don't have the luxury of overlooking a LSU, or Virginia Tech simply because A&M is on their schedule. Their regular preparations prepare them for most games, their preparations for A&M are specific to A&M and that is the advantage that A&M derives.

We can't erase what we witnessed though. Both A&M and Oregon's offense were brought to a grinding halt. If the opponent is prepared, their defense falters. The advantage is in creating an offense that the defense is not prepared for, and that advantage will diminish over time. My post and my point was not to disparage A&M and Oregon, but to say that Notre Dame and Alabama deserve more credit than they are getting. Sound fundamental football got those two teams in the championship game, and those two teams are the ones that belonged.

Besides the two losses for A&M it kills me that media just totally disregard the Ole Miss game.
This is an interesting point considering Ole Miss has more familiarity with the type of offense that A&M runs. They give up 27.6 points on average, and the A&M score was 30-27. They made one of the top offenses look average because they were better prepared for it.

Having said that, I like Johnny, I wanted A&M in the SEC. More of my angst is felt towards Oregon because despite not winning anything I always seem them treated like something special. I don't blame either team for doing what they do, I just wish more people would understand what's actually going on.
 
Last edited:

TideEngineer08

TideFans Legend
Jun 9, 2009
36,284
30,895
187
Beautiful Cullman, AL
Despite the fact that I am sure it gave CNS and CKS migraines, they had A&M's offense contained after that first quarter.

That game, that loss, was on our offense more than the defense. If we don't turn the ball over 3 times, we win. If we don't flounder about on 3rd down, we win. We were beat up and tired going into that game, especially on defense, but the defense still did enough.

That game was also a testament to A&M's conditioning. They had not had a single off week all year. Their offense routinely puts their defense on the field because of quick drives. Yet their defense completely flummoxed our offense in that game. And despite Oklahoma being able to run about 50 plays in the first half against A&M, their defense still shut down OU in the second half.

Anyway, I understand that the media seems to have shifted to this narrative that someone else should have been in the game other than Notre Dame because we beat them so badly. They hyped Notre Dame up, and when we demolished them, they just cast them away. Let that be a lesson in the media's lack of intelligence. They haven't had it in a long time. You've got a select few in this country who can think logically. But by and large, the American sports media cannot process information rationally.
 

Rolltide_PA

1st Team
Jul 31, 2011
918
0
0
Anyway, my original point was the simple fact that a lot of people don't understand how easy it is to stop A&M and Oregon. You just have to prepare for it and the thing is most college teams are not prepared for it.
ridiculous statement. We're the most prepared football team in America and aTm lumped 20 on us...in the FIRST quarter. Yes we adjusted but they still put up 29 which is more than double our season average. If it was so easy to stop Sumlin wouldn't be the coach at aTm.

As far as Oregon only one team held them under 35 all season, in 2011 scored at least 27 in every game and in both 2009 and 2010 only twice were held under 37, 2009 only twice held under 31. So you're saying it is EASY to stop an offense that for the past 5 years have failed to score at least 27 points only 7 times (roughly 1.5 out of 13-14 games/year)? I'll take the facts and stats over opinion in this case. There's some really good coaches out there and none have consistently figured out a way to stop Oregon or Sumlin's offenses.

just because you play in a faster tempo than Alabama doesn't make you a "gimmick". I'd venture to guess Oregon has a higher % of running plays than we do and runs in between the tackles more times/game than the Tide. If they ever had a qb that could manage a game like AJ they'd have a nice crystal trophy

aTm's "gimmick" offense brought them 11 wins in Sumlin's first season along with a Heisman trophy...not to mention they came into Ttown and put up 29 which is the most we've allowed in BDS since 2007
 

HighTide3

BamaNation Citizen
Dec 11, 2012
26
0
0
I don't really think A&M's offense was gimmicky, but I do think their qb had an exceptional game. It reminded me of South Carolina in 2010 when Garcia played that same type of extraordinary game, hitting ridiculously tight passes all day. A&M had this type of success and along with the qb's uncanny ability to move around, they caught our team at the right time for them to be successful. Hats off to them, what else can you say and remain credible? There are no excuses for the poor execution by our offense on a questionable offensive gameplan, imo. That A&M game, if it did nothing else, exposed our team to the reality of having to define an identity (running the ball) or risk being beaten again.
The quicker paced offense of A&M also exposed something that CNS himself has been outspoken about:
His ability to have time to sub in defensive players aka personnel groups for the desired defensive 'play'.

The interesting part in all of this is, now that CNS has spoken in favor of having time between plays to substitute players, does the rest of the college football world use this to capitalize on one of the few perceived weaknesses we have? Notice I said 'perceived', because it isn't really a weakness, it's a time issue. If we have time to get things set on defense, we do fine. Without that time between plays, our defense can be more vulnerable as would most defensive schemes.

Does the paradigm shift on offense further towards the spread and, more importantly, up-tempo offenses to try to neutralize dominant defensive teams?

When Coach Saban asked the nation a few months ago (paraphrasing) "Is this what you want football to become?" regarding no-huddle offenses and him not having time to sub defensive players, the answers still linger in the minds looking ahead to football's immediate future.

Is it fair to not allow defenses to adjust to down and distance situations?
He's asking the college football world to make decisions about the game itself, sportscasters and broadcasters, writers, heads of organizations and the like, does everybody want "NFL light" or do we hold onto more traditional style of play by legislating time between plays in college?


It's a great discussion, and I'll be following any tidbits I hear on any rules changes this off-season regarding no-huddle schemes in college. I doubt there will be any changes, officially, and hurry-up teams will continue to have some success with the blitzkrieg style. It neutralizes strong defenses at times.

History is in the making, and our coach is at the forefront of the issues in general.
It is a wonderful time to be an Alabama fan and to have the kind of coach we currently have.
Roll Tide! everybody, and if anyone hears anything regarding the issue that's obviously important to our coach and our favorite game, keep us all posted.

rtr
 

jagvocate

Scout Team
Jun 14, 2010
116
25
37
Football is always evolving, always progressing. Everyone is looking for an edge to help them.

I read an interesting article about the spread offense with a QB who can throw well and run well (like Manziel, but there are others). The author's point was this: these dual weapon QBs have moved the audible forward in time, to include during the play.

The old audible was come to the line, QB reads the defense, and changes the play as necessary, snap the ball, go.

With the mobile QB and blocking (important skill here) WRs, it is come to the line, change the play if necessary, snap the ball, drop back, read the defense again, and change the play again (from a pass to a run), with the WRs and linemen adjusting responsibilities on the fly.

A real-time audible if you will, during the play.
 
Last edited:

92tide

TideFans Legend
May 9, 2000
58,147
44,867
287
54
East Point, Ga, USA
Football is always evolving, always progressing. Everyone is looking for an edge to help them.

I read an interesting article about the spread offense with a QB who can throw well and run well (like Manziel, but there are others). The author's point was this: these dual weapon QBs have moved the audible forward in time, to include during the play.

The old audible was come to the line, get your read, and change the play as necessary. With the mobile QB and blocking WRs, it is come to the line, change the play if necessary, snap the ball, drop back, read the defense again, and change the play again (from a pass to a run), with the WRs and linemen adjusting on the fly. A real-time audible if you will, during the play.

that is what made newton so dangerous. although, it will be interesting to see if it can be done successfully two years in a row in the SEC.
 

Bamabuzzard

FB Moderator
Staff member
Aug 15, 2004
30,566
18,325
237
48
Where ever there's BBQ, Bourbon & Football
Let's be honest here. The "spread" in and of itself isn't what gives most teams problems. It is the hyper pace in which plays are run. I've watched Clemson, Oregon, La Tech, aTm and other fast tempo offenses. A big element of the success for these type offenses is running "the next play" so quick that the defense is regulated to playing sandlot defense.

There is no time to not only substitute but to even make any defensive adjustments. All the defense has time to do is get ready for the snap. So defensive strategy is all but eliminated once these offenses get into a fast tempo flow of playcalling.

Look, I am tickled Crimson that aTm joined the SEC. I think it was a great move for both the conference and aTm. But if anyone thinks that aTm's offensive success was due more to scheme and how great a coach Sumlin is rather than Johnny Football being a special athlete. They might want to go back and watch some of their games again. A lot of their scores and amazing stats came from broken plays. Plays that aren't drawn up in the playbook. Broken plays that the majority of qb's within spread offenses would not make. But Johnny Football is a special athlete. Trust me, aTm doesn't have another one waiting in the wings.

But back to the original topic. I've noticed when spread offenses don't run at the high tempo pace they're no where as successful. To me that is where the success comes from. We could do the same thing with our offense. Just huddle back up, allow AJ to call from a series of plays, and run play after play after play. It would have the same effect. But the drawback is it does't allow your defense time to rest.
 

rgw

Suspended
Sep 15, 2003
20,852
1,351
232
Tuscaloosa
I don't believe in gimmick offenses in the abstract: there are simply offenses that work and offenses that don't. Even Malzahn's scheme is predicated on traditional run concepts and passing patterns. He just brings a lot of formation multiples, motions, and reverse actions into all his plays. I don't think it is a gimmick that he calls a bunch of simple things, gets you outflanked, then pops you with some gadget play. Malzahn is running the offensive equivalent to Saban's defense. It's deceptive, overwhelms the opponent with a lot of stuff going on pre-snap and at the snap, but it is rooted in simple things that always win.
 

rgw

Suspended
Sep 15, 2003
20,852
1,351
232
Tuscaloosa
I remember when the wildcat was called a gimmick.
It is so much a gimmick that every team has it in their offense and it is practically useless now for us to use because every defense is prepared to alert against it now. There aren't opportunities to pull a 2009 South Carolina deal with that formation. We've basically only ran the wildcat to do a trick play the last three seasons and at that point it's not even worth using because the book will be "expect a gadget play when Alabama goes wildcat." Unsurprisingly, we haven't run it hardly any since the Maze to Williams INT in the 2011 LSU game. Of course I think having a great QB probably makes the staff think it is stupid to take McCarron off the snap.
 

Bamabuzzard

FB Moderator
Staff member
Aug 15, 2004
30,566
18,325
237
48
Where ever there's BBQ, Bourbon & Football
It is so much a gimmick that every team has it in their offense and it is practically useless now for us to use because every defense is prepared to alert against it now. There aren't opportunities to pull a 2009 South Carolina deal with that formation. We've basically only ran the wildcat to do a trick play the last three seasons and at that point it's not even worth using because the book will be "expect a gadget play when Alabama goes wildcat." Unsurprisingly, we haven't run it hardly any since the Maze to Williams INT in the 2011 LSU game. Of course I think having a great QB probably makes the staff think it is stupid to take McCarron off the snap.
BINGO!!!!
 

KrAzY3

Hall of Fame
Jan 18, 2006
10,615
4,540
187
44
kraizy.art
But the drawback is it does't allow your defense time to rest.
I think there's more to it than that. Your sandlot reference and points about Johnny are on point. I explained it to a few people as turning it into a game of street ball. You took away a lot of the preparation and then you just let Johnny innovate.

The thing is, it breeds sloppiness, and there are a lot of built in weaknesses. Johnny was usually remarkable, but he had bad games and in those games they created costly mistakes. We celebrate the near fumble that became a touchdown, but it was still a near fumble. Those sorts of things are more commonplace in that type of offense. Also, if you don't have that type of an athlete, you are putting yourself at a bigger disadvantage because now you're playing sandlot and the better athletes are on the other side of the ball.

I could have used a different term than gimmick, but I do believe it's a gimmick and I didn't want to get too much into talking about hurry up, spread, blur, no huddle, etc... I was there for the A&M game and I had a good seat. On TV you couldn't see the players struggling to get off the field and set as often because of the way they shoot it. But, the players were struggling to do that every single play. Why? Because the offense was something they were not used to. They adjusted as the game went on, and A&M accounted for 9 points in three quarters, hardly an unstoppable force. If you are used to it and prepared for it, I do believe it becomes easier to stop than a fundamentally sound offense (which would explain both A&M and Oregon being held to a lower point total than Alabama). The issue lies in the fact that it's not common enough yet to warrant much preparation and for people to get used to it.

To reiterate though, I'm not blaming Oregon, A&M, etc... for running it, I'm just saying because it sometimes produces spectacular results does not make them better teams than Alabama, Notre Dame, etc...

I remember when the wildcat was called a gimmick.
I think that's a perfect example though. It was big for a while, and some teams used it to great success. We've seen less of it lately, and it hasn't been as successful. Does anyone think Tebow running the wildcat when it first hit the NFL would have been held to a rushing average of 3.2? Teams got used to it and adjusted.
 
Last edited:

marcusroby

1st Team
Jan 7, 2004
414
2
137
auburn,al usa
I know a certain game that will circled on coach's calendar this year with attached mantra "Be Ready for Everything! ". The "talking heads" are talk that matchup to no end.
 

Bamabuzzard

FB Moderator
Staff member
Aug 15, 2004
30,566
18,325
237
48
Where ever there's BBQ, Bourbon & Football
I think there's more to it than that. Your sandlot reference and points about Johnny are on point. I explained it to a few people as turning it into a game of street ball. You took away a lot of the preparation and then you just let Johnny innovate.

The thing is, it breeds sloppiness, and there are a lot of built in weaknesses. Johnny was usually remarkable, but he had bad games and in those games they created costly mistakes. We celebrate the near fumble that became a touchdown, but it was still a near fumble. Those sorts of things are more commonplace in that type of offense. Also, if you don't have that type of an athlete, you are putting yourself at a bigger disadvantage because now you're playing sandlot and the better athletes are on the other side of the ball.
A lot of aTm's successes on the field were straight up Johnny Football improvises. I can't tell you how many touchdowns runs, passes and big key first down runs were nothing but JF improvises. It doesn't take away from what they did this year nor does it all of a sudden make them "inferior". But everything needs to be viewed in some form of context and when watching JF you quickly realize he brings a special skill set to the table than most qb's that are recruited for that type offense.
 

92tide

TideFans Legend
May 9, 2000
58,147
44,867
287
54
East Point, Ga, USA
I think there's more to it than that. Your sandlot reference and points about Johnny are on point. I explained it to a few people as turning it into a game of street ball. You took away a lot of the preparation and then you just let Johnny innovate.

The thing is, it breeds sloppiness, and there are a lot of built in weaknesses. Johnny was usually remarkable, but he had bad games and in those games they created costly mistakes. We celebrate the near fumble that became a touchdown, but it was still a near fumble. Those sorts of things are more commonplace in that type of offense. Also, if you don't have that type of an athlete, you are putting yourself at a bigger disadvantage because now you're playing sandlot and the better athletes are on the other side of the ball.

I could have used a different term than gimmick, but I do believe it's a gimmick and I didn't want to get too much into talking about hurry up, spread, blur, no huddle, etc... I was there for the A&M game and I had a good seat. On TV you couldn't see the players struggling to get off the field and set as often because of the way they shoot it. But, the players were struggling to do that every single play. Why? Because the offense was something they were not used to. They adjusted as the game went on, and A&M accounted for 9 points in three quarters, hardly an unstoppable force. If you are used to it and prepared for it, I do believe it becomes easier to stop than a fundamentally sound offense (which would explain both A&M and Oregon being held to a lower point total than Alabama). The issue lies in the fact that it's not common enough yet to warrant much preparation and for people to get used to it.

To reiterate though, I'm not blaming Oregon, A&M, etc... for running it, I'm just saying because it sometimes produces spectacular results does not make them better teams than Alabama, Notre Dame, etc...


I think that's a perfect example though. It was big for a while, and some teams used it to great success. We've seen less of it lately, and it hasn't been as successful. Does anyone think Tebow running the wildcat when it first hit the NFL would have been held to a rushing average of 3.2? Teams got used to it and adjusted.
the t a and m game this past year was almost identical to what happened to us in auburn in 2009. the trickery/gimmick/sandlot aspect got us on our heels quick, then we settled down and stopped it.

counting on that for four quarters over and over again is a big risk though, and i think this next year will see a much tougher go of it for a and m as folks will not be surprised by the elusiveness and quickness
 

92tide

TideFans Legend
May 9, 2000
58,147
44,867
287
54
East Point, Ga, USA
A lot of aTm's successes on the field were straight up Johnny Football improvises. I can't tell you how many touchdowns runs, passes and big key first down runs were nothing but JF improvises. It doesn't take away from what they did this year nor does it all of a sudden make them "inferior". But everything needs to be viewed in some form of context and when watching JF you quickly realize he brings a special skill set to the table than most qb's that are recruited for that type offense.
agreed, and i don't think that a system based so much on one player will have long term success in the SEC (wrt getting to and winning championships). this is in no way taking away from the freak show abilities of JM.
 

KrAzY3

Hall of Fame
Jan 18, 2006
10,615
4,540
187
44
kraizy.art
Last edited:

New Posts

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.