Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

9-4

2»

Comments

  • HFNYHFNY Member Posts: 4,915 Standard Supporter
    Oregon's offense isn't a gimmick per se but the hurry-up aspect of it kind of is because teams are growing accustomed to it, especially the teams with great DCs and front 7 depth (like the Stanford sharks dragging the flailing ducks to deep water).

    As for the 46 defense, I love the general principles of it and would be very curious to see the some of the principles redeployed with a 3-3-5 defense against spread option teams.

    Tailgater said:

    AZDuck said:

    You lose your starting QB, RB, and all-alcoholics-anonymous TE next year. I'm sure Sark will have Miley Cyrus ready to go.

    Besides losing all that fluff, what Sark needs is to embrace The Oregon Way and get the ducks and other BCS pretenders the fuck off his schedule. As Sark has demonstrated in 2013, a coach can have one too many hurry-up no-huddle gimmicks.

    If oregon's offense is a gimmick, sign me up. It's no more of a gimmick than running the 46 defense.
  • AtomicDawgAtomicDawg Member Posts: 7,093 Standard Supporter
    I loved the 46 defense too but eventually teams gashed it by running up the gut and short passing games.

    It's Ruth logic when you bring out the gimmick card. Their conference record ever since Kelly was the oc there tells the story.
  • RoadDawg55RoadDawg55 Member Posts: 30,123
    If Oregon's offense is a gimmick, so is 75% of college football's.
Sign In or Register to comment.