Started By
Message
re: NON-TROLL Question: Is the Vol offense a "gimmick" offense?
Posted on 8/29/23 at 8:46 am to Serraneaux
Posted on 8/29/23 at 8:46 am to Serraneaux
quote:
I love it when people say Heupel is pass happy. Lol.
Did I say that? Because I don't think I did
1
Posted on 8/29/23 at 8:51 am to L Kilmister
I honestly don't think "gimmick" is the right word.
I'd call their offense a bit one dimensional. Leach's was the same way. What I mean by that is not that they only run or pass, but rather that their offense is dependent upon the plan of the offense working. When it works it's very good. But when it gets stopped they don't really have the flexiblity to change their approach if their base offense is getting stopped.
More "standard" offenses can switch between offensive approaches more easily. UGA can bring in 2 TE and go power-I if the other team is too easily stopping the run, or spread it out if that is what is called for because of matchups. UT seems to be unable to run their offense if the opponent can stop the run without bringing extra guys into the box and they don't seem to have anything they can change to rectify that.
I'd call their offense a bit one dimensional. Leach's was the same way. What I mean by that is not that they only run or pass, but rather that their offense is dependent upon the plan of the offense working. When it works it's very good. But when it gets stopped they don't really have the flexiblity to change their approach if their base offense is getting stopped.
More "standard" offenses can switch between offensive approaches more easily. UGA can bring in 2 TE and go power-I if the other team is too easily stopping the run, or spread it out if that is what is called for because of matchups. UT seems to be unable to run their offense if the opponent can stop the run without bringing extra guys into the box and they don't seem to have anything they can change to rectify that.
Posted on 8/29/23 at 8:55 am to L Kilmister
quote:
No worries. Last year Kirby took that roster full of 5 stars and won by a whole 14 points, over a bunch of walk-ons and 2-3 stars.
You really would be so committed to never admitting Heupel got his arse kicked in Athens that you would disparage your own team (with 5 NFL draft picks including the Heisman front runner at that point) and convince yourself that a garbage time touchdown to cut the lead to 14 somehow didn’t make the game a blowout.
It’s actually impressive.
Posted on 8/29/23 at 8:58 am to DawginSC
quote:
UT seems to be unable to run their offense if the opponent can stop the run without bringing extra guys into the box
This could be applied to just about any offense in the country though…
Posted on 8/29/23 at 9:02 am to DawginSC
quote:
More "standard" offenses can switch between offensive approaches more easily. UGA can bring in 2 TE and go power-I if the other team is too easily stopping the run, or spread it out if that is what is called for because of matchups. UT seems to be unable to run their offense if the opponent can stop the run without bringing extra guys into the box and they don't seem to have anything they can change to rectify that.
Last year against Missouri, UGA went from a zone running game to a counter/power running game mid-game. We scored on the last 4 drives of the game.
Posted on 8/29/23 at 9:04 am to HailToTheChiz
in 2023, a gimmick offense would be power I.
Posted on 8/29/23 at 9:05 am to NotImber
That's not the reason USC beat Tenn. Spencer Rattler turned into Patrick Mahomes for 60 minutes.
Posted on 8/29/23 at 9:14 am to meansonny
quote:
Last year against Missouri, UGA went from a zone running game to a counter/power running game mid-game. We scored on the last 4 drives of the game.
Exactly what I'm talking about.
It feels like many "offensive guru's" want to run a specific system and are very reluctant to move off of it if it doesn't work.
They're married to their system rather than finding the holes in the defense and using whatever system might work to exploit those holes.
Posted on 8/29/23 at 9:18 am to DCTXLA
quote:
This could be applied to just about any offense in the country though…
Not really. Other teams could bring in an extra TE or switch to a formation with a fullback to get more blockers to try to force the other team to bring safeties down... which might open up downfield passing opportunities.
While that scenario will make any offense struggle more than they would otherwise, it doesn't always cause the offense to just become ineffective. It just makes them less effective and forces them to make adjustments.
With UT, there doesn't seem to be an adjustment to make.
Posted on 8/29/23 at 9:20 am to L Kilmister
quote:
I am literally surprised he got that much, considering what he had to work with.
Nice move of the goalposts there.
Posted on 8/29/23 at 9:20 am to DawginSC
Maybe this is where his offense departs from Briles and I’ll admit I’ve spent far more time watching Briles’ offense than Heupel’s but the adjustment you note is exactly what Briles would have done. Put in his 300lb “TE/FB” and power run for days.
Posted on 8/29/23 at 9:29 am to DawginSC
quote:
They're married to their system rather than finding the holes in the defense and using whatever system might work to exploit those holes.
The HUNH spread is an extremely simple offense. One read and either hand it off or run or throw. Teams throw out some pre-read motion candy for the defense to look at, but speed and simplicity are everything.
Spreading it out is cool for getting down the field but it's hell on wheels for trying to be physical in the red zone and controlling the clock.
Posted on 8/29/23 at 10:04 am to SemperFiDawg
Ehh I wouldnt say that. Its an offense and I won't label it a gimmick until it gets stopped consistently
Posted on 8/29/23 at 10:08 am to madmaxvol
quote:
Hooker was lost for the season at the start of the 4th quarter...and UT lost any hope of coming back.
I just want to clarify that when Hooker went down the game was on its way to out of hand. It was more than a 1 score game.
I dont think this poster was insinuating that the game was tight until Hooker went out, but ive seen it from other vol fans.
I think we beat them because they couldnt stop us. I think we scored TD's on our first 6 possessions. That said when hooker went down they had scored 38, so their offense wasnt the issue.
Posted on 8/29/23 at 10:14 am to SemperFiDawg
Other offenses that were considered “gimmicks”
Bill Walsh’s West Coast Offense
Steve Spurrier’s Fun N Gun
Joe Tiller’s Basketball on Grass
Hal Mumme and Mike Leach’s Air Raid
Rich Rod’s Spread Option
Urban Meyer’s Spread Offense
Art Briles Baylor Veer and Shoot
Seems like Heupel is in good company
Bill Walsh’s West Coast Offense
Steve Spurrier’s Fun N Gun
Joe Tiller’s Basketball on Grass
Hal Mumme and Mike Leach’s Air Raid
Rich Rod’s Spread Option
Urban Meyer’s Spread Offense
Art Briles Baylor Veer and Shoot
Seems like Heupel is in good company
This post was edited on 8/29/23 at 10:21 am
Posted on 8/29/23 at 10:16 am to SemperFiDawg
When the main strategy of your offense is to try and snap the ball before the defense has had time to even get in position, that is the definition of "gimmick". I put it up there with the A-11 offense.
Posted on 8/29/23 at 10:17 am to L Kilmister
quote:
Tell us what they are going to catch up on that will send Heupel to a mid-tier conference?
I don't know. However, Gus Malzahn was considered an offensive genius with his "gimmick" of an offense (which was essentially a spread version of the triple option) that he brought to Auburn. However, defenses finally caught up to it and it became a helluva lot easier to defend.
Posted on 8/29/23 at 10:18 am to SemperFiDawg
No
Posted on 8/29/23 at 10:22 am to GamecockUltimate
quote:
Ehh I wouldnt say that. Its an offense and I won't label it a gimmick until it gets stopped consistently
The HUNH spread was invented to take advantage of the rules. If the rules don't change, why would the HUNH approach?
I look at the teams that have won it all in college football and my personal opinion is that staying balanced and in a full progression read offense is still the way to go. It requires more talent, and can still have spread elements, but playing to the defense and having a running game that allows you to stay balanced in the red zone and short yardage is still a big advantage in the biggest games. See Georgia.
But for the teams with less talent, it makes a lot of sense. Like Tennessee and Ole Miss.
Posted on 8/29/23 at 10:50 am to DawginSC
quote:
More "standard" offenses can switch between offensive approaches more easily. UGA can bring in 2 TE and go power-I if the other team is too easily stopping the run, or spread it out if that is what is called for because of matchups. UT seems to be unable to run their offense if the opponent can stop the run without bringing extra guys into the box and they don't seem to have anything they can change to rectify that.
Last year, Georgia had 15 5-star and 53 4-star players...
Tennessee had 2 5-star and 23 4-star players. It's amazing how much more flexible your schemes can become when you have significantly more talent than your opponent.
"UGA can bring in 2 TE and go Power I" because they have 4 4-star players that play the TE/H-Back Position. Tennessee has 2 4-star Tight Ends...both true Freshmen. Still...only one team kept UT under 34 points last season...and (as pointed out earlier) that team had significantly better talent across the board.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News