forums

Let's hope we break out of the Nix Zone

Advertisement
People are all over the place in this thread.

First the tempo is good, then it's bad. I've flatly said having 4/42 passes be downfield is A)unlike anything we've run under Fisch and B)not sustainable for success.

Given those two statements, what the **** are we arguing about?
 
mrprice8387899101 said:
People are all over the place in this thread.

First the tempo is good, then it's bad. I've flatly said having 4/42 passes be downfield is A)unlike anything we've run under Fisch and B)not sustainable for success.

Given those two statements, what the **** are we arguing about?
Click to expand...
All im tryin to say bro is that I dig that we finally got a gunslinger at QB who can make any throw on the field. I love how we spread the ball around today, but didnt like how we were in the shotgun from the 5yd line...I jus wish we run the ball more esp on short yardage/goaline
 
mrprice8387899101 said:
People are all over the place in this thread.

First the tempo is good, then it's bad. I've flatly said having 4/42 passes be downfield is A)unlike anything we've run under Fisch and B)not sustainable for success.

Given those two statements, what the **** are we arguing about?
Click to expand...

Wait, we won right? Hug it out, hug it out.

LULZ. You're good peeps price.
 
Advertisement
GhostofVenice01 said:
mrprice8387899101 said:
People are all over the place in this thread.

First the tempo is good, then it's bad. I've flatly said having 4/42 passes be downfield is A)unlike anything we've run under Fisch and B)not sustainable for success.

Given those two statements, what the **** are we arguing about?
Click to expand...
All im tryin to say bro is that I dig that we finally got a gunslinger at QB who can make any throw on the field. I love how we spread the ball around today, but didnt like how we were in the shotgun from the 5yd line...I jus wish we run the ball more esp on short yardage/goaline
Click to expand...

Yeah man. If we wanted to go spread we have the wrong guys. Receivers are weak but the interior of the line and our backs are our strength. Gotta take advantage of that when we can.

Liked what Fisch did softening them up early but he never followed through with the jugular like I thought he would or could.

But like we agreed on hours ago, HA, its one game.....a win BTW
 
mrprice8387899101 said:
People are all over the place in this thread.

First the tempo is good, then it's bad. I've flatly said having 4/42 passes be downfield is A)unlike anything we've run under Fisch and B)not sustainable for success.

Given those two statements, what the **** are we arguing about?
Click to expand...

I still haven't seen where anyone complains about the tempo. That's a massive straw man argument created somewhere in the process of this thread.

Then it went all over the place.
 
IIRC we had 2 goaline series. 1) was a traditional set of under center runs, and one wasn't.

I wish we gave duke the ball more and wish we went downfield more, but to say that scoring 50 points per game on offense is somehow bad is something I don't get.

That soft okie state team beat a rugged, powerful stanford team last year. Big, burly Wisconsin got beat by undersized spread teams Oregon and tcu in back to back rose bowls. You can win with a spread offense, you just need a defense, too. Which is universal.
 
Advertisement
LuCane said:
mrprice8387899101 said:
People are all over the place in this thread.

First the tempo is good, then it's bad. I've flatly said having 4/42 passes be downfield is A)unlike anything we've run under Fisch and B)not sustainable for success.

Given those two statements, what the **** are we arguing about?
Click to expand...

I still haven't seen where anyone complains about the tempo. That's a massive straw man argument created somewhere in the process of this thread.

Then it went all over the place.
Click to expand...

Hey I had my Fisch thread praising his genius, then you had to go and bring up Pat Nix and rile the masses.






/I keed I keed
 
LuCane said:
mrprice8387899101 said:
People are all over the place in this thread.

First the tempo is good, then it's bad. I've flatly said having 4/42 passes be downfield is A)unlike anything we've run under Fisch and B)not sustainable for success.

Given those two statements, what the **** are we arguing about?
Click to expand...

I still haven't seen where anyone complains about the tempo. That's a massive straw man argument created somewhere in the process of this thread.

Then it went all over the place.
Click to expand...

I'm assuming that the thing that's "bad" for okie state's defense is that they go so quickly that the d sees a lot of plays. Is that inaccurate?
 
Advertisement
GhostofVenice01 said:
mrprice8387899101 said:
GhostofVenice01 said:
mrprice8387899101 said:
Btw, we rushed for 208 yards today, primarily from shotgun.
Click to expand...
Id venture to say that 90% of that though was between the 20s and not in the redzone
Click to expand...

There are only 20 yards in the red zone. Of course that'd be the ratio.
Click to expand...
Jesus Marion Joseph your sounding like Nites now goin in circles
Click to expand...

We had 2 red zone possessions. Why wouldn't the yardage ratio be wildly off, considering teams spend a lot more time outside of it than in, and that it's a lot smaller area?
 
LAWL


I refuse to get sucked into another argument, I jus downloaded Avengers

































































/spread offense still sucks without a power running game *****
 
mrprice8387899101 said:
IIRC we had 2 goaline series. 1) was a traditional set of under center runs, and one wasn't.

I wish we gave duke the ball more and wish we went downfield more, but to say that scoring 50 points per game on offense is somehow bad is something I don't get.

That soft okie state team beat a rugged, powerful stanford team last year. Big, burly Wisconsin got beat by undersized spread teams Oregon and tcu in back to back rose bowls. You can win with a spread offense, you just need a defense, too. Which is universal.
Click to expand...


No, you need a consistent running game to win a national championship. Period. a running game that can be powerful, as well -- not a running game like Oregon's that is based primarily on misdirection. That is the universal common denominator for every national championship. And, there has NEVER been a spread team like Oklahoma State that won a national title, so I don't get why you're even arguing this. It's pretty cool that Oregon wins Rose Bowls, but I'm more interested in what the national champs are doing.
 
Advertisement
weownfsu said:
The bottom line is that you cannot win a title without a running game that has some power to it, period. Teams like Oklahoma State will never win a title in this era of college football. Every single recent national champion has had a powerful running game. Okie St's style of offense isn't conducive to that whatsoever. I would much rather UM build an offense similar to Alabama's, but more wide open because we have access to better WR's.
Click to expand...

Bottom line really is, you can not win a title without being in the SEC for a plethora of reasons...for one, they are that **** good...the power run game is low on the list of reasons why the teams winning national titles win national titles.

IMO, Oklahoma State could have beaten either team in the title game. Same for Stanford. They just didn't get a chance to do it. In a one game scenario...its all about matchup. IMO, to beat an SEC defense in a one game scenario with preparation, you need an elite QB. Oklahoma State and Stanford had that, along with great teams around them. Oregon doesn't matchup because they lack good QB play...look at what Alabama did against Denard Robinson. Its all about matchups.

The SEC dominates because of DLine, and by extension, front seven play...offensive line coming in second on that list. The strong SEC teams use that old Miami way of winning...getting kids with the hunger. Poor kids from the PnB sections of the country where obesity is high (you get these giant kids who run 4.5), and the only way out of the gutter is athletics. Same reason these SEC schools have the high crime rates...same correlation...same kind of kids. Bad boys who like being bad boys...and the only way to by Big Momma a new house is by making it to pro football. Miami used to have tons of those kids. Now those kids go to Alabama, Florida, LSU, etc. Oregon can't run the Club Pickle offense because their OL can't handle the defensive lines of a top SEC team. ***** up their entire scheme.

Florida didn't exactly have power runners...Tebow was their power runner...the backs were speed backs. Defense was nasty. Auburn had Cam Newton, and had backs like Dyer and McCalebb...not exactly Power I offenses. But, they had Nick Fairley, who was a big nasty *******. LSU and Alabama have power offenses, mostly due to having giant offensive lines that maul and average at best quarterbacking...the Power O just comes with it. But, combined, have had more notable defensive linemen than any team over the past 15 years.

Look back at the history of the BCS...every team that won had a ridiculous Defensive Line. That's the key. I think you are confusing the power run game with a big offensive line that can dominate the line of scrimmage.
 
Last edited:
As long as you can run out of it, the formations don't matter.

Accept the spread! Embrace the new era of the greatest show on turf!
 
Advertisement
Back
Top