Is this really your argument? Is this really the best thing you have in response to the facts I pretty clearly pointed out. I mean, for the love of all things sacred, he was the OC. At Kentucky. And started scoring points a plenty. And you come back with this? Please tell me you have something better.
Wherein Mr. Groves advances the radical -- and yet unproven -- argument that scoring points is unrelated to winning games. That's deep, man.
(1) Patently false. Maybe the silliest thing I've read all day. (2) Yeah, the time for grinding out wins is when you can't score quickly (3) I agree that Oklahoma State's offense has been pretty putrid this year. I think it qualifies for an #epicfail Leach's system isn't the run and shoot.
I think the requirement for having a badass offense in the Big 12 is having 11 offensive players. As for #1 and 2, seriously? Texas A&M has lost quite a few games this year by not being able to run out the clock. Utah State, as well.
Our offense would much be better served in the short term by finding a run game to complement the passing attack rather than adopting a Leach offense.
Also, I've got to say, as bad as Poole has been, I think he's decent enough to have an OK rushing attack if the OL were performing. I realize he only got 15 or so carries in 2009, but he looked a good bit better then.
The spread is the hot offense right now in high school football. It's easy to coach and doesn't take too much talent. You really just have to have one really amazing player to make it go, and that's your QB. The fans like it because it's exciting and it lets more players get playing time. The spread has three bread and butter plays you must stop. 1. The QB read 2. The bubble screen 3. Quick slants
And Kentucky won what? If his offense is so great, you would think that it would, you know, lead to wins. All it did was lead to the Browns drafting a talentless QB. 1&2. Texas A&M disagrees. Oregon would have loved to milk the clock against Auburn. I can pull a few more out if you don't get the point. 3. When Okie State wins something of significance, like a conference title (not just a share) not the Big 12 scoring title, it will matter. Leach and offenses don't work against teams with any kind of speed on D. Sure, they'll complete a few passes and put up a lot of yards but they don't win against Ds worth a damn. When Peria Jerry makes you look foolish, your offense has issues. It's fun to watch if you don't mind getting beat by teams that play D. If you have your QB attempt 45 passes against a Saban coached secondary, how many times do you think it will blow up in your face? What about an LSU team full of future NFL starters in the defensive backfield? You can't expect a QB to be perfect 45 times a game. When going against elite or even good defenses (you know, the teams you have to beat to be anything other than 2nd place in your conference), they make you pay when you screw up.
I somehow feel that I am the butt of all these Gruden jokes ... I missed the initial announcement by about 4 or 5 hours, and it still haunts me today...
I see a lot of spread now, but it is a read option based spread. There are a few teams in my area that toss it around some, but a good bit of that is short passes to RB'S out of the backfield. 20+ passes a game on a consistent basis is not the norm that I see. Once again, most spreads are for creating mismatches, alignment issues, and blocking angles for the run game. I have seen a few odd offenses lately. Last year I even saw a single wing. No shit. Reminded me of soccer with a rugby scrum on every play.
I hope the team trying to run the single wing was just so much bigger; they could out match everyone.
Nope. Small and slow. They hoped to win with the smoke and mirror misdirection routine. All the defense had to do was to stay home, play disciplined gap responsibility football. It was an unmitigated disaster. They won 1 game against a smaller and slower team.
What in the hell does this even mean? You don't need to run out the clock if you can score. Texas A&M has lost quite a few games this year because they shit the bed at the end of the game. But I would love to hear about how TAMU or Utah State lost games this year that they would have otherwise won because they scored quickly instead of scoring slowly. Please enlighten me. Here is what I know: (1) a team that isn't explosive isn't choosing to grind out 8 minute drives. A lot of bad things can happen in the 15 or so plays it takes a Kansas State to move down the field. They are grinding it out because they aren't explosive and can't score quickly. (2) Any team that can score quickly can, by definition, score slowly. When Oregon gets the ball they score in about 30 seconds. Why? Because nobody can catch Lamichael James. If there was really a situation where you needed to burn time off the clock and that scoring quickly would be a detriment, you could always tell Lamichael James to run out of bounds after he gains ten yards. Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?
Justin, you're killing me. I like you man, but you're not making any [dadgum] sense here. What in the hell does "running the game out" have to do with it? What do you even mean? Are you actually saying that at 24-7, it would have been to the detriment of Oklahoma State to score quickly? If it would have gone to 31-7. And then 38-7. And if this would have happened in 5 minutes. Are you actually saying that this would have been to the detriment of Oklahoma State? Seriously, please present me with an argument that they would have lost that game had they continued to score quickly, as they normally do. You will fail at this. Because you wouldn't be making any sense. They lost the game because they turned the ball over. Which, incidentally, is much more likely to happen when it takes you 15 plays to score than if it takes you 3. Turning the ball over isn't the sign of a championship offense, but it has nothing to do "running the game out".
Kentucky won nothing. But Leach was not also their defensive coordinator. He got there; their offense got better. Way better. Am I missing something? Was there more to this job description than this? Was he also supposed to improve the talent on defense? Was John Chavis a bad defensive coordinator because Tennessee lost a shitload of games in 2005? I mean, do you realize how bad this argument is?
