Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="fanfanclubclub, post: 13442, member: 787"] IMO, Gimmicky means, essentially, "unsustainable strategy based on unconventional tactics that do not work in a repeat game setting." So using lots of shotgun isn't necessarily gimmicky, unless a team uses shotgun so much, and lacks adequate pass protection talent, to maintain an element of surprise. Some offenses are gimmicky, and they do not fit your formula of "if it works it works, if it doesn't it doesn't," because they only work against lower quality talent. Obviously, all offenses will play better against Rhode Island than against Alabama, but some gimmicky offenses work dis-proportionally well against Rhode Island and work dis-proportionally poorly against Alabama. I agree with your statement, but I wasn't calling shotgun, passing, and less reliance on fullbacks gimmicky. No one said that, so even though you are correct, you are arguing a straw man. You've no doubt seen our offense, and it has very little shotgun, very little vertical passing, and uses the fullback a ton. Our offense [I][B]is [/B][/I]gimmicky because we use way, way, way too many bootlegs and play action fakes. We run very few 3 or 5 step drop timing routes. We run very few timing routes out of shotgun. We run very few plays that are at the cutting edge of tactical offensive strategy. Instead, we are using an unsustainable, gimmicky strategy of moving the QB out of the pocket at a rate that will not work against better quality opponents. That is why our offense is gimmicky. Sure, some innovative and brilliant offenses, most notably the spread option, have been incorrectly labeled "gimmicky" on the false assumption that the offense wouldn't be sustainable against better talent. But that does not mean that gimmicky offenses do not exist. Many have come and gone with an embarrassing lack of efficiency against quality talent. Chris Ault's pistol offense is a good example. Mouse Davis's Run-and-Shoot is another solid example. Ditto for the triple option out of the flexbone. Yes, are you kidding me? As an objective football fan, BJ Daniels is easily the better college quarterback. He is a force on a college offense. His career passing numbers are as good as Nassib's, and his rushing numbers are far superior. He also comes from a gimmicky offense though, haha, so you've got me on that point. As a Syracuse fan, I am glad Nassib is our guy, I appreciate his popularity and his exciting role as someone playing a pivotal role in our return to respectability, and I have some Nassib memorabilia. I'm a Nassib guy! But Daniels has so far been the much more effective college QB. Also using a Chad Pennington analogy as a compliment is kinda self-defeating. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?