I Would Die for the Freeze Option Because... | Syracusefan.com

I Would Die for the Freeze Option Because...

Try selling that to the QB your recruiting ... Coach P never could.
 
DomeStranger said:
Try selling that to the QB your recruiting ... Coach P never could.

Really? We already have 2 QBs who may be able to run it: Kinder & Broyld. Doesn't seem hard at all.

The funny thing, IMO, is that you could make an argument that P's struggles really began when he went to more of a pass-happy offense. Didn't hurt much with McNabb b/c, well, he was a Pro Bowl caliber talent. But P seemed to embrace the short-passing, west coast game instead of moving toward the spread em out and run it style and that choice backfired.

I also think it would be easier to recruit those QBs now because there are so many offenses that are proudly run-dominated out of the spread, Oregon being a prime example. Yes, they throw the ball well and are closer to 50-50, but it is their run game that gets you into trouble.
 
Really? We already have 2 QBs who may be able to run it: Kinder & Broyld. Doesn't seem hard at all.

Last I checked, Broyld isn't at SU.
 
I miss the days of Donnie Mc and Marvin Graves version of the freeze option. Those were some exciting offenses to watch and I think easy to recruit QBs for.
 
Last I checked, Broyld isn't at SU.

Yes, but he's committed. So, in the spirit of the discussion, there would be no problem with him executing an option office.

Also, I forgot a 3rd QB, Hunt. He looks mobile.
 
Try selling that to the QB your recruiting ... Coach P never could.
Exactly, Michael Vick chose not to come to Syracuse because he did not want to run an option offense.

Same thing with the Holliday (I think that was his name) QB who went to ND - he didn't want to run the option.

And Joe Daily decided at the last moment not to come to Syracuse because of the offensive scheme.

And teams like Florida, Ga Tech, Michigan and WVU could not recruit QBs during those years because their offenses included option football and significant QB rush attempts per game.

Oops.

Wrong on all counts.
 
NFL offenses are boring and ineffective in college Fball.
True. NFL offenses - and the games themselves with too many rules, too much replay and too much officiating - is now hard to watch.

Many people I know - including me - spend much more time watching Red Zone TV rather than watch the actual games because the games are dull.

They have ruined NFL football for me.
 
True. NFL offenses - and the games themselves with too many rules, too much replay and too much officiating - is now hard to watch.

Many people I know - including me - spend much more time watching Red Zone TV rather than watch the actual games because the games are dull.

They have ruined NFL football for me.

How is it different from college FB as far as too many rules, replays and officiating?

Ditto on the RZ. I watch that channel religiously.
 
I'm partial to McPherson. His 1987 season is one of the best ever by an SU player. He deserved the Heisman that year.
 
I'm partial to McPherson. His 1987 season is one of the best ever by an SU player. He deserved the Heisman that year.

All-time leader in passing yards, second in touchdowns, four winning seasons, won three bowl games. McPherson was screwed out of a Heisman though.
 
I miss the QB draw. Forced teams to at least respect that play as an option.
 
How is it different from college FB as far as too many rules, replays and officiating?

Ditto on the RZ. I watch that channel religiously.
Not that much different.

The pro game seems to have more rules and more involvement of the officials.
But, you're right, the college game is getting to be more and more like the pro game - both have too many rules, too much officiating and too many replays.
 
True. NFL offenses - and the games themselves with too many rules, too much replay and too much officiating - is now hard to watch.

Many people I know - including me - spend much more time watching Red Zone TV rather than watch the actual games because the games are dull.

They have ruined NFL football for me.

** Looks at Ratings **

You are in the minority. :noidea:
 
I think we all miss our most recent glory days when we ran the option effectively. There are probably Texas fans who are nostalgic to bring back the Wishbone, and Delaware fans would would like to see the Wing-T. But defenses adapt, and are much faster than they were 20 years ago, so teams that rely on the option (e.g., Navy) have limited success, especially against upper-echelon teams (which is what we aspire to be, right?)
 
** Looks at Ratings **

You are in the minority. :noidea:
I know.

And you know why the ratings are so good?

Because of gambling. Everybody has money on the games in one form or another, whether it's an office pool or a parlay or suicide or fantasy football.

The proliferation of NFL gambling explains a lot.

It explains why most fans do not seem all that concerned about the arbitrary character of the game - nobody really knows what is or what is not holding or PI or when either will be called. And nobody really understands all the bizzare rules. That doesn't matter because all of that renders the game one of chance - no different than blackjack or roulette. The arbitrary nature of the game is in essence part of the game's appeal or understood by the gambling nature of the game to be part of its core.

Gambling also explains why we now have replays. To the extent that it is possible, the fans must be convinced that the games are honestly officiated because if there is any chance that the games are fixed, less people will gamble and less people will watch on TV.

Gambling and the appeal of NFL Football also explains the overwhelming popularity of fantasy football.

And the fact is that even I don't really like what has devloped with the game, I'm just as guilty as anybody else. I play in a weekly NFL suicide game with a bunch of people and used to play in a fantasy league.

But the game itself isn't all that good. I find it hard to watch.

I watch Redzone but that's about it.
 
That doesn't matter because all of that renders the game one of chance - no different than blackjack or roulette. .

Yet amazingly the same good teams are good every year and the shitty teams are bad every year.
 
NFL offenses are boring and ineffective in college Fball.
Freeze option was good until my wife started to call the plays accurately because George was terrible in play selection and became as predictable saying Syracuse will a snowy winter.
 
Reason it's hard to watch the NFL is there is very, VERY little variety in how offenses are run. They are all the same.

Also the reason it wins ratings wise is the Northeast.
 
Then why isn't baseball bringing in the same ratings?
Base ball is agonizingly slow and favors the pitching side way too much. The game is cal;ulated to failure when a BA of .300 is considered excellent indicating the player failed 70% of the time. I still watch the games but admit I get bored. Others won't even attempt to watch the games because they are too tedious.
 
Base ball is agonizingly slow and favors the pitching side way too much. The game is cal;ulated to failure when a BA of .300 is considered excellent indicating the player failed 70% of the time. I still watch the games but admit I get bored. Others won't even attempt to watch the games because they are too tedious.

I realize this. hence the whole "Northeast" argument is null and void as baseball is huge in NY, Philly, and Boston.
 
Yeah, and Red Sox-Yankees games reflect that. They don't care otherwise.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
169,996
Messages
4,865,792
Members
5,986
Latest member
RedSoxNat

Online statistics

Members online
64
Guests online
879
Total visitors
943


...
Top Bottom