2009 SEC discussion

[Flocka]

Originally Posted by billmac91

That's very fair. My only counter to that would be Okie St. is a balanced team. Texas Tech was not, and is a gimmick offense.

Okie St. runs a more pro-style offense, has a good run game, Dez Bryant will be the first WR taken in the draft, and Zac Robinson is a true duel-threat. And I believe their RB is Kendall(maybe Steven, can't remember/ don't want to look it up), is very solid.

Truthfully, I just have this feeling of Joe Cox revisiting the ghosts of Joe Tereshinki (sp?). By the end of the season, I have a feeling UGA fan will be screaming for true freshman Aaron Murray.....

And Keith Toston is pretty sick too.

[GoodLifeSean]

I can't see Georgia finishing strong this year. I think they'll be top three in the East, but that's because the SEC east is a bit like the Big 12 North, One big dog and a bunch of little bitches. If they were in the west I'd give them maybe four, probably five. You don't lose Knowshon and Stafford and get stronger. I'm saying 8-4 on the season. Possibly more if they end up playing someone from the Big Ten or Big 12 in their bowl game.

[AuburnBuckeye]

Originally Posted by Sportsbuck28

The sad thing is, that kid could compete for a starting spot on their d-line.

[DontHateOState]

Originally Posted by billmac91

That's very fair. My only counter to that would be Okie St. is a balanced team. Texas Tech was not, and is a gimmick offense.

Okie St. runs a more pro-style offense.

Not to pick on you, but I have two issues with this post.

1. The Air-Raid is a legitimate offense. Texas Tech runs it about as well as anyone right now, but it has its pros and cons like any other system. But to call it a gimmick is a little harsh considering how effective it is.

2. Ok. State runs a very interesting form of the spread. It has some similarities with pro-style formations with a ton of two back sets and
judicious use of 11 personal (1 big, 1 back), but they are still pretty spread as far as mindset goes.

I think Georgia rolls in this game. I really like a possible under betting option. Georgia's athletes nullify OK. State, while UGA's offense struggles under a new quarterback.

[jwinslow]

Georgia gave up 41 to bama, 38 to struggling LSU, 49 to UF, 38 to UK (those 3 in successive weeks), & 45 to GTech.

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

No, the "air raid" is a gimmick. The triple option is a gimmick too.. it has positives and negatives, just like TTUs spread. It, when run well, can be effective....

It's still a gimmick. Effectiveness has little to do with the question.

[DontHateOState]

Originally Posted by Buckeyeskickbuttocks

No, the "air raid" is a gimmick. The triple option is a gimmick too.. it has positives and negatives, just like TTUs spread. It, when run well, can be effective....

It's still a gimmick. Effectiveness has little to do with the question.

This will probably branch off to more of a conceptual and philosophical look at football, but I want you to answer the basic question of what constitutes a gimmick and what constitutes the opposite of a gimmick?

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Originally Posted by DontHateOState

This will probably branch off to more of a conceptual and philosophical look at football, but I want you to answer the basic question of what constitutes a gimmick and what constitutes the opposite of a gimmick?

Dictionary: gim?mick (gĭm'ĭk)
Sponsored Links
Gimmick
Huge selection of Gimmick items.
Yahoo.com


Home > Library > Literature & Language > Dictionary
n.

1. 1. A device employed to cheat, deceive, or trick, especially a mechanism for the secret and dishonest control of gambling apparatus.
   2. An innovative or unusual mechanical contrivance; a gadget.
2. 1. An innovative stratagem or scheme employed especially to promote a project: an advertising gimmick.
   2. A significant feature that is obscured, misrepresented, or not readily evident; a catch.
3. A small object whose name does not come readily to mind.

You're better off to argue that the definition under "1" is too strong a word in as much as it uses words like "cheat" and sounds in dishonesty generally. None-the-less "2" fits nicely.

As for the "opposite of a gimmick," in the football context.... if you see a NFL team running it - it's not a gimmick. What to call it? Traditional? I guess? Balanced? Whatever. Point is - if the TTU spread or the triple option were so awesome, the NFL would surely by now have a team or two who also rely on it. They don't. Do the math.

[Buckeye86]

Originally Posted by Buckeyeskickbuttocks

As for the "opposite of a gimmick," in the football context.... if you see a NFL team running it - it's not a gimmick.

I would say that the "wildcat" formation in which the running back takes the snap out of the shotgun, used with great success by the Dolphins at times last season, is most certainly a gimmick despite the fact that it was used in the NFL

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Originally Posted by Buckeye86

I would say that the "wildcat" formation in which the running back takes the snap out of the shotgun, used with great success by the Dolphins at times last season, is most certainly a gimmick despite the fact that it was used in the NFL

I'd agree. If the Dolphins relied on the "wildcat" as their primary offense, my definition would be stressed to the "decision making" point. In other words, I'd have to call the Wildcat - as a primary offense - something other than "gimmick" so long as some NFL team used it also. EDIT: As it is- the Dolphins used it precisely BECAUSE it was a gimmick, for which the opposition was poorly prepared to stop.

The main point I'm trying to make is this - the NFL is the goal... when you hear "Well, we're not sure about Michael Crabtree, since he's never run an NFL pass route..." when you know Kliff Kingsbury has thrown for 7 kagillion yards, but he can't seem to run any NFL offense.... that tells you something.

You can be a RB from a triple option system and still do reasonably well as a NFL RB... but, not QB.... a QB has to demonstrate he can throw... he does not do this in college.

The TTU spread is a gimmick. that doesn't mean it's ineffective. It doesn't mean it's "bad" It just means it isn't "traditional" Colleges are full of "gimmick" offenses... take a look at RRs offense.. gimmick.

[BB73]

Originally Posted by Gatorubet

If 14 Gamecock Secondary Violations is wrong.....

For those who might assume otherwise, only 3 of those involved football.

Yahoo.com

The Level I offenses

March 6 - Assistant football coach sent an impermissible text message to a prospective student-athlete.
May 29 - Football prospective student-athletes viewed a display which simulated a gameday experience.


The Level II offenses

January 12 - Ineligible football student-athlete was provided transportation to an away-from-home contest.

[DontHateOState]

Originally Posted by jwinslow

Georgia gave up 41 to bama, 38 to struggling LSU, 49 to UF, 38 to UK (those 3 in successive weeks), & 45 to GTech.

This has more to do with the basic thought that Big 12 offenses are significantly over-valued because of the conference they play in.

[DontHateOState]

Originally Posted by Buckeyeskickbuttocks

1. 1. An innovative stratagem or scheme employed especially to promote a project: an advertising gimmick.
   2. A significant feature that is obscured, misrepresented, or not readily evident; a catch.

You're better off to argue that the definition under "1" is too strong a word in as much as it uses words like "cheat" and sounds in dishonesty generally. None-the-less "2" fits nicely.

By that definition, the I-formation was at one point a gimmick. And the one back offense. Without your so called "gimmicks," everybody would still be running the single-wing.


An offense's lasting effectiveness must be a driving force between the line of gimmick and legitimate strategy. Without that criteria, I could easily term any offense a gimmick. Only teams that run the Wing T are playing "real" football.

As for the "opposite of a gimmick," in the football context.... if you see a NFL team running it - it's not a gimmick. What to call it? Traditional? I guess? Balanced? Whatever. Point is - if the TTU spread or the triple option were so awesome, the NFL would surely by now have a team or two who also rely on it. They don't. Do the math.

Read this post for a good perspective from a great football mind.

There are certain extraneous issues with the NFL that demand the homogenized offenses you see on a regular basis. Free agency has only exacerbated this.

[DontHateOState]

Originally Posted by Buckeyeskickbuttocks

I'd agree. If the Dolphins relied on the "wildcat" as their primary offense, my definition would be stressed to the "decision making" point. In other words, I'd have to call the Wildcat - as a primary offense - something other than "gimmick" so long as some NFL team used it also. EDIT: As it is- the Dolphins used it precisely BECAUSE it was a gimmick, for which the opposition was poorly prepared to stop.

The Dolphins use it because it works. They could care less whether it is termed a gimmick. As long as an offense is sound fundamentally, or even a play, I have a hard time classifying it as a gimmick.

The only reason you view anything as a gimmick has to do with your platonic ideal of what "real" football is.

From that same site I linked earlier, there is another great post that quotes Bill Walsh:

?I?ve reflected on the single wing,? [Bill] Walsh says. ?Those blocking schemes would just chew up NFL defenses. You could double-team every hole and trap at every hole. You?d have six men blocking three. Plus you?d have the power for the sweeps.

?Joe Montana might be able to play tailback, to run and pass, but you wouldn?t let him do it unless you had another Joe Montana to spell him??

But, hey, if you know more than Bill Walsh...

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Don't hate...


I guess I don't understand your defensiveness on this issue.

In any case, I agree with your assertion that without gimmicks we'd still be watching single wing. You see the word gimmick and think I'm using it as an insult. That's your problem, not mine.

I really could care less what Bill Walsh has to say about the issue.

"The only reason you view anything as a gimmick has to do with your platonic ideal of what "real" football is."

No. I told you why I call it a gimmick. You may either accept what I said or not, but don't bull[censored] me with your opinion about what you think my opinion about "real" football is. Again, you're the one with the problem understanding the word "gimmick" not me.