What do you consider a "gimmick" offense?

• ts1227

  

  It comes up every time games are on, and has been on at least 2-3 threads today. People always refer to offenses they don't like as gimmicky. It gets applied to the SEC, Pac-10, Michigan, etc. It's got to the point where it's like a buzz word in politics; it sounds cool when making a point, but in reality 95% of the people using it couldn't even tell you what they think it means.
  
  The only definition I can come up with based upon the posts on this site is basically anything but Tresselball is a gimmick (obviously I am generalizing here). I know some people just use the word simply because others do and couldn't identify what they mean by it (because sheep don't talk).
  
  So what makes you use that word?
  Additionally, why do you have a problem with such offenses? The assumption would be that if one has to label it negatively, there is a reason.
• hoops23

  

  Gimmick offenses are offenses that use gimmick plays and includes offenses that change pace, Oregon, Boise St, etc...
  
  Traditional, pro style offenses include offenses like OSU, USC, etc...
• Big Gain

  The gimmickyest. One where the QB runs more than any running back on the team. Can't be more specific than that.
• Hb31187

  

  Gimmick offense is thrown around on this board constantly lol, couldnt tell you why. If tOSU ran the spread option I have a feeling it wouldnt be gimmicky anymore
• sjmvsfscs08

  There is no such thing as a gimmicky offense at this level.
  
  A funny story about me and gimmicky offenses. I was coaching a Libbey last year as the Freshmen defensive coordinator, we had a pretty fierce defense full of kids who'd play their asses off. Well we were playing Whitmer's vastly superior team, and we make them go three-and-out the first drive. The next series they come out in the most ridiculous formations and run literally an entire drive of "gimmicky" plays meant to fuck with young kids' brains. Now, they ended up winning ~35-7 because Whitmer is Whitmer and Libbey is....Libbey. But I was just livid they needed to use a gimmicky offense to break the morale of the opposing team because they couldn't just, you know, destroy us conventionally. There I stood trying to teach kids the proper way to play football (keep in mind the majority of the kids had never played organized football and 50% of the team was missing on any given day....it was Libbey), and the coaches on the other side knew it and went unconventional on the poor kids. I was steaming to say the least. We lost to St. John's 0-14, Waite 0-6, Bowsher 0-7, Start 7-13, etc. etc. in extremely respectable showings on my part....but Whitmer just had to go gimmicky. Ugh. If you can't tell, I'm still upset about it. Rotten Panthers!
  
  There are myriad ways to play football, some are just better than others. It's like throwing shot put or discus, as long as it comes off above your shoulder it's legal but it doesn't mean it's necessarily a good way to go about it. Just as the shuffle, glide, or spin works for different people, pro-style, triple option, air raid, etc. is better for different teams. At this level, since it's not a bunch of guys who just started playing the game and have put sick amounts of time into it, anything is fair game.
  
  Now, that doesn't necessarily mean RichRod's offense works well in the Big Ten like it did in the Big East or ACC. But to insinuate anything is gimmicky/unfair when it is America's best amateur footballers is a bit ridiculous. In fact, people sorta sound like a gigantic pussies when they bring it up.
• jordo212000

  

  lol @ the "gimmick" offense haters. It isn't 1994 any more fellas. This is going to be fixture in college football for the foreseeable future.
  
  By the way, how is it a gimmick if we are going to be having two "gimmick" offense running teams in the National Championship?
  
  Ohio State would have been wise to run some sort of a gimmick offense this year with Pryor. Cam Newton looks like the player that TP should be. Instead, we are trying to turn him into Peyton Manning for whatever reason. It's cool though, we'll continue to lose a game or 2 per season with Pryor before we ultimately unleash him in the bowl game where he puts up great stats and looks like Heisman hopeful for next season... and then the cycle starts over again
• darbypitcher22

  

  I agree with others. There really isn't what you would call gimmicky at the college level. With all of the tape that you have to watch and review, you should have a pretty good idea week by week of what someone is going to do against you (unless its Week 1)
• sleeper

  

  Really anything used by a team in the SEC. If they ever came north, it would be exposed, but alas they will continue to perpetuate the myth of southern superiority.
• ytownfootball

  

  Any offense at the collegiate level that utilizes personnel that has little to no chance of advancing to the next level at given positions is gimmicky. It's bad for the institution using it because it locks them up into a narrow recruiting window, the talent slowly begins to decline as recruits with more stars by their names head for greener pastures. I really believe if you employ this type of offense you're not being progressive, you're setting your squad back ten years.
• jordo212000

  

  ytownfootball;576397 wrote: It's bad for the institution using it because it locks them up into a narrow recruiting window, the talent slowly begins to decline as recruits with more stars by their names head for greener pastures. I really believe if you employ this type of offense you're not being progressive, you're setting your squad back ten years.

  
  Playing in the National Championship is bad for your program? lol. Oregon and Auburn both run "gimmicky" offenses. Oregon has done it for 4-5 years now and it hasn't set them back at all. Since when it is the college's responsibility to prepare college players for the NFL? Isn't winning (and winning national championships) the best recruiting tool there is? Also look at Miss. State, bad program, Mullen comes in and installs a gimmicky offense and voila they're bowl eligible. I really don't know how anybody who has been conscious over the past 5 years can honestly argue that the spread is "bad" for a college program
• enigmaax

  sleeper;576384 wrote:Really anything used by a team in the SEC. If they ever came north, it would be exposed, but alas they will continue to perpetuate the myth of southern superiority...............

  
  .....and win National Titles.
• Hb31187

  

  Lol @ its bad for your program
• ytownfootball

  

  Oregon also runs the shit out of the opposition by being in much better shape. I don't necessarily consider that gimmicky, but another part of strategy, that is equalized by ball control. Auburn hardly has the team they do without Newton, same with WVU and Pat White, UM with Robinson...it's too centered around having the perfect personnel at key positions imo. It's like anything else, the rest of the D's will catch up, then where's your program?
  
  How long did the "run & shoot" last in the NFL?
• enigmaax

  ytownfootball;576406 wrote:Oregon also runs the shit out of the opposition by being in much better shape. I don't necessarily consider that gimmicky, but another part of strategy, that is equalized by ball control. Auburn hardly has the team they do without Newton, same with WVU and Pat White, UM with Robinson...it's too centered around having the perfect personnel at key positions imo. It's like anything else, the rest of the D's will catch up, then where's your program?
  
  How long did the "run & shoot" last in the NFL?

  Um, losing to Mississippi State and South Carolina? @#$%!!!!
• jordo212000

  

  I think I hear some roller skates haha
• sleeper

  

  enigmaax;576400 wrote:.....and win National Titles.

  
  The Big Ten has more with less teams.
• ytownfootball

  

  enigmaax;576408 wrote:Um, losing to Mississippi State and South Carolina? @#$%!!!!

  
  I didn't say anything about there not being teams of destiny.
• enigmaax

  sleeper;576411 wrote:The Big Ten has more with less teams.

  
  Yeah, great...no one cares about the 40s. You were talking about the current state of the game...and currently it is being dominated by that southern superiority you mentioned. That leaves you with a bunch of ifs and bitterness.
• Hb31187

  

  You're right, you have to have the right personnel at key positions....Thats why you RECRUIT that personnel to fit those needs. Theres hundreds of Dual threat QBs and speedy little Rbs/Slot Wr's to fit those positions. Its not like the players needed to run the spread are few and far between
• sleeper

  

  enigmaax;576420 wrote:Yeah, great...no one cares about the 40s. You were talking about the current state of the game...and currently it is being dominated by that southern superiority you mentioned. That leaves you with a bunch of ifs and bitterness.

  
  The Big Ten has a winning record against the SEC since the beginning of the BCS era.
• enigmaax

  sleeper;576434 wrote:The Big Ten has a winning record against the SEC since the beginning of the BCS era.

  
  Big fucking deal. When your best is THE best every year, you're going to get respect. Myth or not, the SEC has taken advantage of its opportunities on the big stage and thats what most people are interested in.
• sleeper

  

  enigmaax;576440 wrote:Big fucking deal. When your best is THE best every year, you're going to get respect. Myth or not, the SEC has taken advantage of its opportunities on the big stage and thats what most people are interested in.

  
  Shows nothing about the conference as a whole. If Ohio State wins 100 National Championships in a row(highly likely if cheating wasn't allowed), it doesn't make Minnesota any better.
• goosebumps

  

  Lol, Sleeper just cracked me up with that one.
  
  I'd say most teams don't run a gimmick offense as a whole, but just run way too many trick plays. Boise and LSU come to mind.
• osuturfman

  Hb31187;576426 wrote:You're right, you have to have the right personnel at key positions....Thats why you RECRUIT that personnel to fit those needs. Theres hundreds of Dual threat QBs and speedy little Rbs/Slot Wr's to fit those positions. Its not like the players needed to run the spread are few and far between

  
  Agreed.
  
  How many of these undersized (or whatever you want to call them) players would have to settle on a MAC, FCS, or even D2 school 10 and 15 years ago? I would venture to say that the talent pool for the type of system player being referred to here is larger than you might expect. Another facet of these "gimmick" offenses is that a lot the schemes are recycled and/or slightly tweaked versions of stuff that has been around for in some cases 40+ years, making it easy to teach, learn, and install. That means the athletes get on the field sooner, produce sooner, and in the case of a team like Oregon, provide solid depth at the skill positions to keep the pressure on the opposing defense. Teams that use a pro style offense generally use the first several years of a players career to teach them their assignment and job on the field, thereby compressing the time and opportunity to produce. Obviously some players grow and learn faster than others and still yet others arrive on campus at a pro-style school ready to contribute day one (see M. Clarrett, A. Peterson) but by and large, it takes time to grasp the entire system.
  
  To say that these offenses aren't legitimate because they don't put players in proper position to succeed at the next level are fooling yourselves. College coaches get paid to win games, period. Sure, recruits like to see how many players a program puts into the NFL but, who doesn't like and can't be sold on winning? If you are athletic enough and intelligent enough the NFL will find a position for you.
  
  Personally, I'm not a huge fan of the newer spread stuff. I will say though it is interesting to see the wrinkles these teams add and likewise the defensive wrinkles used to stop all of this stuff. I'm sure somewhere in the 50's and 60's someone was calling bullshit on the Wing-T and the triple option and we know those haven't exactly disappeared.
  
  </intelligent discussion>
  
  <flame osu and sec>
• enigmaax

  sleeper;576453 wrote:Shows nothing about the conference as a whole. If Ohio State wins 100 National Championships in a row(highly likely if cheating wasn't allowed), it doesn't make Minnesota any better.

  
  "If cheating wasn't allowed" pretty well sums up your problem. It is the rest of the world, not you. Riiight. Anyway, I agree to an extent. The thing is, if you are a team who wants to contend for a national title, where is your BIGGEST challenge going to come from. If you were a very good independent being forced to join a conference, but you get to choose between the Big Ten and SEC (and your exclusive goal being to win the conference title), which conference would you choose?
  
  In the Big Ten, if you manage to beat Ohio State you are probably sitting pretty. In the SEC, you might beat Florida but then you still have to beat LSU and Alabama...or maybe this year its Auburn...or if it was a few years ago it'd have been Georgia or Tennessee. You can say the conference is top heavy, but thats the point. Four programs have won titles in the BCS era and two others have finished undefeated or in the top 2 in the country. The Big Ten's national title hopes are a one trick pony. That is the difference.
  
  We can talk for days about how the middle four teams match up or the bottom three teams, but the truth is that nobody gives a shit. It IS all about how tough it is at the top because that's where the challenge is.