A gimicky offense not unlike pornography is obviously difficult to define; but like pornography you know it when you see it.

My attempt at the defination would be an offensive scheme that is run with interchangeble parts. The skill of the players have no real effect on the success of the offense. Thus we feel the players in this offense are better than they really are. They generally are disappointments at the next level. There are exceptions to this.

quote:

---

Yet only crabtree is relevant

---

ROFL maybe you've heard of wes welker he's pretty relevant

[This message has been edited by thecougarhunter (edited 12/5/2011 8:57p).]

I think the only way the gimmicky spread offense could be succesful at the championship level is with a receiver corp of big athletic guys the size of Fuller. I think our receiver corps became gun shy this year because our passing game distance wise is similar to the spread. Your receivers take too many big hits in this style passing game.

Unlike the Offenses of number one and number two teams in the SEC that only score field goals when playing number one and number two SEC defenses, gimmicky offenses actually score touchdowns when playing the top SEC defenses.

9:6 is a baseball game score, get real.

Howler

A gimicky offense, for the puposes of this coaching conversation, is one that, while successful, is only successful given a set of variables - a lot of recievers, a crappy conference, a great QB, a great RB, whatever. It is created for a specific situation. Say TT (or the run and shoot in Houston's heyday with Jack Pardee) - you lose the recruiting war in Texas if you're cougar high or the venereal capitol of Texas - so you cant beat them strength on strength - you go with what you have and succeed.

While IT IS genius, it is SPECIFIC SITUATIONAL genius, and in NO WAY suggests that the same success could be had in a different environment.

To your inference - Sumlin can beat his puny conference for the most part - until they adjust - but he just cant hang in the SEC.

Leach could win in Texas for the most part - until we and others adjusted - but he couldnt do the same thing in the PAC.

Pardee created two Heisman winners with a gimmick - but the Aggies adjusted, beat them both and nearly beheaded one of them - At the time, could you imagine if Houston played a good SEC team?

Ty Detmer threw the ball all game long in a gimmicky offense, and almost never came out of the game, irrespective of the score, and racked up huge yards and a Heisman with his gimicky offense. Then he faced a real team, had both of his shoulders dislocated and had a hard time passing when he was quivering like a fish on his back. Again - imaging BYU plauying all SEC teams that year.

I could go on and on. Thats a gimicky offense - and why gimicky coaches dont make good cross-conference hires. But of course, you knew that.

[This message has been edited by JST92 (edited 12/6/2011 10:04a).]

A gimmicky offense is one that is successful because it's new and people don't know how to defense it. If it's really a gimmick (think Houston's run and shoot of the 80s and early 90s), someone figures out how to stop it, others copy, and it's dead.

I don't know that your would call Leach's offense a gimmick. It's stoppable, but you have to have a lot of defensive talent to do it. I remember TTU going to Ohio State fairly early in Leach's tenure. The Buckeyes played man to man, gave almost no cushion, and jammed the tard receivers at the line all game long. They also constantly blitzed and knocked the QB on his ass throughout the game. They destroyed Tceh.

On the other hand, when we played them, we usually dropped back seven or eight guys into coverage and got picked apart for six to eight yards a play.

I thought the New England Patriots ran a gimmicky offense?

Leach lost plenty of games at Tech because he could not convert 3rd/4th and short because he could not run the ball.

Gimmicky is when you pass the ball 70-80% of the time. Never use a TE or 2-back set.