New Starting QB at ATM..

BillySee58 · August 29, 2014

The other BCS game (besides Boise vs. OU) where a non-BCS conference team beat a BCS conference power was the 09 Sugar Bowl. Utah beat Alabama despite having just 13 rushing yards. Their qb Brian Johnson threw for 336 yards.

http://scores.espn.go.com/ncf/boxscore?gameId=290020333

golfingomez · August 29, 2014

Look in the past. G5s made noise because they were able to throw the ball. Like I said, it's the great equalizer. Passing, as well as gimmick plays. The non-BCS programs that made noise on a national level all had 3000+ yard and 25+ touchdown qbs. Guys like Kellen Moore, Alex Smith, Andy Dalton, even Jared Zabransky and Brian Johnson.
Like I said earlier as well, all 3 of our offensive touchdowns against the big national powers under Coach Mac (Alabama, LSU, Georgia) have been passing tds. 0 rushing tds. Those teams also have all scored more than 40 against us. It's hard to line up and run the ball down these teams' throats, and shut them down when we're on D.
In the 07 fiesta bowl when Boise State beat OU they were able to score 43 points (6 tds, including 1 in OT). They had 1 rushing TD, from a back who had over 20 that year. They passed for 4 tds, including 1 on a reverse pass and 1 on a hook and ladder. They also had a pick six. They won the game on a Statue of Liberty. They didn't line up and pound the ball on OU, or completely shut them down. That was one of the best non-BCS teams of the BCS era, with a 20+ TD running back and an NFL offensive lineman. They scored mainly on pass plays and gimmick plays. They did run the ball well to move it down field, but the pass plays got them in the endzone.
I think we have a line and backs that are good enough to move the ball. I think our d is good enough to keep this Texas offense in check. But we're still going to need to score at least 3 or 4 offensive tds. We're going to need a big day passing, especially for TDs, if we are to win this. Thank The Lord this game is tomorrow.

i think we are missing a key point in this though...

The big schools are all running the spread now!

While this may seem like an obvious and irrelevant point, you have to remember why the spread was invented in the first place...

Much like moneyball, the Spread was invented because it helped teams with smaller and inferior talent stand a chance against the schools with Big O-Lineman that could pound the ball. It was a market inefficiency. As long as you could find a QB who was accurate, you could spread a defense as far apart on the field as possible and beat them in one on one matchups. those big LBS designed to stop the run were getting torched, taking them out of the game.

it spread from smaller high schools to the 5A level schools and then to college. Small college coaches used the spread to lure receivers to play for them and get the ball 80 times a year, instead of going to a power school where they would get the ball 50.

The Spread is a genius design... later on it was tweaked by schools who saw the advantages of running the ball.

So yes, while the rest of the country has been adjusting the past ten years, smaller schools rode the wave of slinging the ball around to get into the BCS and 'compete' with the bigger schools. It was something that only a few colleges were running as late as 2005...

Now, everyone is running the spread, making it null as far as a competitive advantage goes... everyone on the field has been running the spread since middle school. they are used to seeing it and are prepared for it. TCU brought the 4-2-5 to the public eye, linebackers are slimmer and faster now to accommodate slot receivers and running down WR's. Everyone has adjusted.

Now the market inefficiency is tight, power formations, featuring fullbacks and running backs. Teams like us need to be able to communicate to RB's, OL's and TE's that this is the place to be. We don't know yet if this is going to be something that will stick, but I think it's worth a shot.

Yes, throwing the ball is important in being able to beat these P5 schools, but that doesn't mean you have to change your offensive schemes to throw the ball. Two of our best passing plays (IMO) last year were the TE fake block, then drag back across the defense (HOD Touchdown) and this play we ran against Rice where we had 3 RB's in the backfield, then they all went out on routes and led to a touchdown by Jim-Jim.

thank you for reading my unnecessarily long post

BillySee58 · August 29, 2014

i think we are missing a key point in this though...

The big schools are all running the spread now!

While this may seem like an obvious and irrelevant point, you have to remember why the spread was invented in the first place...

Much like moneyball, the Spread was invented because it helped teams with smaller and inferior talent stand a chance against the schools with Big O-Lineman that could pound the ball. It was a market inefficiency. As long as you could find a QB who was accurate, you could spread a defense as far apart on the field as possible and beat them in one on one matchups. those big LBS designed to stop the run were getting torched, taking them out of the game.

it spread from smaller high schools to the 5A level schools and then to college. Small college coaches used the spread to lure receivers to play for them and get the ball 80 times a year, instead of going to a power school where they would get the ball 50.

The Spread is a genius design... later on it was tweaked by schools who saw the advantages of running the ball.

So yes, while the rest of the country has been adjusting the past ten years, smaller schools rode the wave of slinging the ball around to get into the BCS and 'compete' with the bigger schools. It was something that only a few colleges were running as late as 2005...

Now, everyone is running the spread, making it null as far as a competitive advantage goes... everyone on the field has been running the spread since middle school. they are used to seeing it and are prepared for it. TCU brought the 4-2-5 to the public eye, linebackers are slimmer and faster now to accommodate slot receivers and running down WR's. Everyone has adjusted.

Now the market inefficiency is tight, power formations, featuring fullbacks and running backs. Teams like us need to be able to communicate to RB's, OL's and TE's that this is the place to be. We don't know yet if this is going to be something that will stick, but I think it's worth a shot.

Yes, throwing the ball is important in being able to beat these P5 schools, but that doesn't mean you have to change your offensive schemes to throw the ball. Two of our best passing plays (IMO) last year were the TE fake block, then drag back across the defense (HOD Touchdown) and this play we ran against Rice where we had 3 RB's in the backfield, then they all went out on routes and led to a touchdown by Jim-Jim.

thank you for reading my unnecessarily long post

The fact that big schools are running spread offenses is pretty secondary with regards to the point I'm trying to make. Although the examples I gave showed that teams didn't line up with 2 TEs and run the ball for scores. My main point has to do with is how you score touchdowns as a G5 playing a P5. And I don't think we need to run a full-on spread to pass the ball for scores on those teams. That's why I included gimmick plays, like the ones you mentioned, as the equalizer along with passing plays.

But you do need to pass the ball to score against those teams. Spread helps create mismatches to do so, but it's not the only way to throw the ball.

Edited August 29, 2014 by BillySee58

Army of Dad · August 29, 2014

Do you think a boring, ground and pound team like Stanford beating an Air Raid school like Todd Graham's Arizona State Sun Devils by 24 points is relevant?

We're not going to compete with Texas, OU, and the like. That ship sailed in 1983. Some of you are still standing at the dock waiting for it to return.

Until one of us gets a fat wallet like T. Boone Pickens, be happy with a coach who can take the players that will come here and turn them into a winning unit.

No I don't, because we are discussing a UNT-TU matchup. Stanford and ASU have similar resources. Did Stanford win a national title using that style of football? Wisconsin? What we are talking about is beating a power school in one game, not winning a power conference title.

From what I've read, UNT competed very well with TU in '88.

LongJim · August 29, 2014

The spread (as has been discussed for years here) is great when your opponent either doesn't face it week to week, or the spread team has comparable or better athletes. Teams that face it weekly or have better athletes will shut it down. Mike Leach and his pass-happy WSU Cougars were picked by 10 over Rutgers yesterday.

Rutgers ran the ball down WSU's throat, completed timely passes, played more defense than WSU, and that was that.

Last year in the Fiesta Bowl, George O'Leary and UCF, who probably had lesser athletes than Baylor on offense, destroyed Baylor with a ground game, timely passing, and ferocious defense. Baylor *had* no defense, essentially--similar to Leach's teams--and that was that.

The spread, and "throwing the football" means nothing if it can't be executed better than the other team executes.

TheTastyGreek · August 29, 2014

Ben Gooding · August 29, 2014

I'm not sure how a power conference school winning against other power conference schools is relavent

its not relevant at all. It's an attempt to push his point of view with trumped up reasoning. We can't consistently recruit well enough to play the style we currently are. That's all I'm saying. GMG

golfingomez · August 29, 2014

its not relevant at all. It's an attempt to push his point of view with trumped up reasoning. We can't consistently recruit well enough to play the style we currently are. That's all I'm saying. GMG

no team that has a record as bad as ours has been for a decade can recruit well enough for any style of play... it's winning that brings the recruits... and as mentioned earlier, sh!t tons of money doesn't hurt... look at the upgrades to the locker rooms of Oregon and A&M these past few years and tell me 18 year olds don't consider the ridiculosity those places have

The Fake Lonnie Finch · August 29, 2014

its not relevant at all. It's an attempt to push his point of view with trumped up reasoning. We can't consistently recruit well enough to play the style we currently are. That's all I'm saying. GMG

Hmmm. But, when Dodge was here, running the spread, he wasn't magically stealing recruits from other spread coaches in the state, though, was he? Leach at Texas Tech. Briles and Sumlin at Houston. Then, Briles at Baylor. Stoops at OU. Gundy at Oklahoma State. Kragthorpe and Graham at Tulsa. Graham at Rice.

You seem to have a memory gap from 2007 - 2010 when we did have a pass first offense...a recruits still weren't flocking to us, were they? Nor did running the spread make us a winner in even the Sun Belt while Dodge was here.

Your argument, then, is we can't recruit for the run...I throw in that we didn't recruit well for the spread...so, what is the answer?

The answer is, what we already have: Be happy with a coach who gives us a winner no matter what offense we run.

emmitt01 · August 29, 2014

Hmmm. But, when Dodge was here, running the spread, he wasn't magically stealing recruits from other spread coaches in the state, though, was he? Leach at Texas Tech. Briles and Sumlin at Houston. Then, Briles at Baylor. Stoops at OU. Gundy at Oklahoma State. Kragthorpe and Graham at Tulsa. Graham at Rice.

You seem to have a memory gap from 2007 - 2010 when we did have a pass first offense...a recruits still weren't flocking to us, were they? Nor did running the spread make us a winner in even the Sun Belt while Dodge was here.

Your argument, then, is we can't recruit for the run...I throw in that we didn't recruit well for the spread...so, what is the answer?

The answer is, what we already have: Be happy with a coach who gives us a winner no matter what offense we run.

And all this time I thought it was just that Dodge was history's shittiest D1 coach. Apparently, had he scrapped the spread and played smash mouth, he would have been successful. You'll excuse my cynicism.

greenminer · August 30, 2014

Jimmy Joes vs. X and Os

Ben Gooding · August 30, 2014

Hmmm. But, when Dodge was here, running the spread, he wasn't magically stealing recruits from other spread coaches in the state, though, was he? Leach at Texas Tech. Briles and Sumlin at Houston. Then, Briles at Baylor. Stoops at OU. Gundy at Oklahoma State. Kragthorpe and Graham at Tulsa. Graham at Rice.

You seem to have a memory gap from 2007 - 2010 when we did have a pass first offense...a recruits still weren't flocking to us, were they? Nor did running the spread make us a winner in even the Sun Belt while Dodge was here.

Your argument, then, is we can't recruit for the run...I throw in that we didn't recruit well for the spread...so, what is the answer?

The answer is, what we already have: Be happy with a coach who gives us a winner no matter what offense we run.

Ok Mr. Argumentative Douche Bag. It's not about just recruiting well enough for the offense when trying to run a run first pro style. You have to recruit very well across the board, offense and defense, for us to have long standing success. We can't recruit the depth consistently enough on the O and D lines to keep this up. Dodge was a HS football coach and he should have stayed at high school. I hope and pray I am wrong but tomorrow night will tell the tale of what I speak of, as did last year versus Georgia.

The Fake Lonnie Finch · August 30, 2014

Ok Mr. Argumentative Douche Bag. It's not about just recruiting well enough for the offense when trying to run a run first pro style. You have to recruit very well across the board, offense and defense, for us to have long standing success. We can't recruit the depth consistently enough on the O and D lines to keep this up. Dodge was a HS football coach and he should have stayed at high school. I hope and pray I am wrong but tomorrow night will tell the tale of what I speak of, as did last year versus Georgia.

That's ridiculous as well. Running the spread from 2007-2010 didn't magically make us more competitive at OU or Alabama, did it?

McCarney's style of play had us more competitive at Georgia than our spread was 2007-2010.

Edited August 30, 2014 by The Fake Lonnie Finch

greenminer · August 30, 2014

It doesn't matter what style or tempo you play, if you are predictable, you are stoppable.

Ben Gooding · August 30, 2014

It doesn't matter what style or tempo you play, if you are predictable, you are stoppable.

You are absolutely correct. And running a two TE set power run offense limits your options. With the weapons we have right now I would really, really like to see this offense be a little innovative. We have the guys to make plays in space, give them them the ball in space.

greenminer · August 30, 2014

You are absolutely correct. And running a two TE set power run offense limits your options. With the weapons we have right now I would really, really like to see this offense be a little innovative. We have the guys to make plays in space, give them them the ball in space.

Not sure I agree with it "limiting options".

It just depends on what part of the field you want to exploit, and how you motion in and out of it.

Sumlin is particularly good at creating mismatches: I've seen him use a lot of motion - consistently - before the snap.

Find your playmakers, and put them in space and position against players that do not match up well.

I actually hope we are both right as the season moves forward: I like the power/pro sets, and I think we have more weapons this year than last. Brelan could change the game on a dime, but it was really really hard for us to win when he wasn't getting touches and moving around a lot. We have more options, so I think we can distribute the ball more evenly across the roster, and still do it with 6 or 7 guys lining up in front of Greer.

UNT90 · August 30, 2014

Do you think a boring, ground and pound team like Stanford beating an Air Raid school like Todd Graham's Arizona State Sun Devils by 24 points is relevant?

We're not going to compete with Texas, OU, and the like. That ship sailed in 1983. Some of you are still standing at the dock waiting for it to return.

Until one of us gets a fat wallet like T. Boone Pickens, be happy with a coach who can take the players that will come here and turn them into a winning unit.

We need a program defining win, unless 9 wins and a Heart of Dallas bowl win against a middle of the pack Mountain Wedt team is your idea of the pinnacle of this program.

We aren't going to get a program defining win running the ball every first and second down.

And your Sanford vs ASU comparison is stupid, but you knew that when you posted it.