For Non-BCS Teams Who Have Pulled Off Big Upsets

PlummMeanGreen · November 10, 2005

Does NORTH TEXAS need to have the kind of offense that you voted for in this poll that gives us those better chances as a non-BSC school to beat the, uh...........BIG BOYS (and just more OOC games in general)?

If you have time, please explain why you voted for your choice of offense in this poll and maybe what school comes to mind who has has some success with that kind of offense you chose.

GMG!

Monkeypox · November 10, 2005

I said passing-oriented, but I don't know that they really have to be. They've simply been more passing oriented than ours. Our offense would be more passing deficient.

untgirl04 · November 10, 2005

Well, I'm not a wealth of football knowledge, but this is what it seems to me....

A pass-oriented offense gives you one major advantage that running does not: time. I know that sometimes it's a bad thing to score quickly, but when you need a 2-minute drill at the end of the game, running just doesn't cut it. Ideally, you have a balanced attack that can allow you to tire out the defense by pounding them with the ball, and make 'em run with the spread. By the end of the game, you've got their defensive coordinator so frustrated he doesn't know what to do.

But when you're playing the bigger teams, you need an offense that can score quickly. That starts to take the crowd out of the game - a huge asset when you're stuck with those money games. Even if you don't score every time you take the field, the threat is always there for a quick 7 or 3. It can keep the games closer towards the end, and even allow you to pull an upset. DD himself has said that our style of offense doesn't allow our team to come from behind. But it seems to me that if I'm coaching, I want to consider every possible senario. If that's the case, I have to assume that every now and then my team is going to get behind. I mean, it's not like we're the defending national champions or anything...But I digress... The point is that we need a balanced game that might lean a bit more toward the pass that will allow us to come from behind. With our recent lack of time management skills, a straight running game just isn't going to cut it.

Green92 · November 10, 2005

Seems like the strong running game only works against teams that have slower athletes. It’s probably why we win so few OOC games. Most of those teams are either just better than us or have the athletes to contain the running game. This has been exposed even more this year because our defense is very average. The past 4 years we have had a solid defense that gave our offense many opportunities. This year, our offence is even more one dimensional. Maybe Saturday’s game is a start. We do need to pass the ball at least 20 times a game. Probably 25 times or more. Then the offense can compete better with a faster defense.

buff64 · November 10, 2005

Look at Texas Tech, their offense has enabled them to compete weekin and weekout with the traditional football powers. For a long time the UT's and A&M's,Colorado's, Nebraska's,etc. have been able to recruit quality depth. Tech has always had a few quality athletics ,but not the numbers . Now with their offense and specialized players they can compete,as a aside their sucess has lead to better recruits each year. Bobby Knight was discussing this the other day on TV, the perfect offense for the Raiders and their situation.

Seems like the strong running game only works against teams that have slower athletes. It’s probably why we win so few OOC games. Most of those teams are either just better than us or have the athletes to contain the running game. This has been exposed even more this year because our defense is very average. The past 4 years we have had a solid defense that gave our offense many opportunities. This year, our offence is even more one dimensional. Maybe Saturday’s game is a start. We do need to pass the ball at least 20 times a game. Probably 25 times or more. Then the offense can compete better with a faster defense.
←

Mean'n'Green07 · November 10, 2005

I'd say they have a good passing attack, but more importantly an aggressive defense that can force some turnovers. Look at troy almost upsetting lsu.

Michael Scott · November 10, 2005

I'd say they have a good passing attack, but more importantly an aggressive defense that can force some turnovers. Look at troy almost upsetting lsu.
←

I think the only real common thread is that they weren't ranked between 100-119 every freaking year.

Believe or not running and/or defensive teams have pulled upsets too. They may not have been passing teams, but they were probably able to do a little of each. If you think we get blown out now, imagine if we passed more.

No system makes an upset - only players, but a starting point is being average to above average at both rushing and passing.

Now let's all go install that championship-winning Texas Tech offense and fire the coaching staff.

(Sarcasm since that is always such an issue nowadays)

PlummMeanGreen · November 11, 2005

Who was it who recently said that an effective passing oriented team can many times match up with the Top 25 guys from time to time--sort of an equalizer at times?

Even La Tech has had some degree of success with such an offense and it was a shame they lost their Texas HS produced RB to the NFL this year. And if you think about it, just think how many QB's La Tech has put in the NFL (starting with ex Steeler & Mean Joe Greene teammate Terry Bradshaw) compared to our one, ie, the late, great Steve Ramsey?

I don't know that DD changes anything, but I think he needs to look at the talent NT is able to recruit as compared to Top 25 football programs and make some adjustments with his philosophy. I don't think any of us complained about the great years of our most recent parade of Mean Green RB's starting with J' Quay Wilburn all the way up to Jamario Thomas (who has been hurt 99% of this season bless his heart). BTW, who was responsible for putting Super Jamario on the weight program that seems to have him "muscle bound" and maybe a half step slower as a result IMHO?

Yet with all this, NT had a pretty salty defense when we "held" the UT Longhorns to 27 points, but we didn't have a scoring offense that could get any points against Texas. Of course, there were many offenses who could not score against that UT defense, but then you have games where other Sun Belt offenses have stayed in games against the likes of LSU last year when Troy U almost beat them in Baton Rouge. Troy U also went to a bowl game last year.

What many on this board have been saying for a long time is we have to recruit much higher than the rest of the Sun Belt, La Tech, Tulsa, SMU and the like for us to get where many of us feel this football program can get to.

Again, this is a Mean Green football program that was ranked in the Top 20 a couple of times during the Fry era as I recall. Although, Fry's teams didn't go bowling since there were about 1/3'rd the bowl games back then than there are today, yet still those Top 20 rankings were NT football milestones that many seem to have forgotten and put on the back-burner of our school's football history.

The MAC seems to have no problem getting their leading team in the Top 25 annually and the SBC just needs to start doing the same, preferably with that team being the University of North Texas Mean Green, of course.

DD and staff have recruited some darn good talent that other decent schools also wanted and we are all excited about all those recruits in Mean Green Country, but we just need more of that good talent in terms of volume.

GMG!

Edited November 11, 2005 by PlummMeanGreen

PHSCoach · November 11, 2005

BTW, who was responsible for putting Super Jamario on the weight program that seems to have him "muscle bound" and maybe a half step slower as a result IMHO?

Are you sure it was muscle or eating a little too much??????

PlummMeanGreen · November 11, 2005

Are you sure it was muscle or eating a little too much??????
←

The key components of this board who are on the Mean Green scene on a regular basis and report for us who subscribe to the The Mean Green Report have all said "quite buff" for Jamario and with not an ounce of body fat. And FWIW, he is still Super Jamario in many of ours eyes based on what he did in 2004 and what injuries have probably prevented him from duplicating this Fall.

I think that all the extra muscle has not helped his hamstring problems, either; in fact, could that have added to the problem?

GMG!

Edited November 11, 2005 by PlummMeanGreen

LongJim · November 11, 2005

Yet with all this, NT had a pretty salty defense when we "held" the UT Longhorns to 27 points, but we didn't have a scoring offense that could get any points against Texas.

And that's a great point and factor that many tend to overlook--a great defense makes up for a lot of offensive issues, and is probably the most important thing to build at UNT. Most football coaches rank the teams in order of importance as Defense/Kicking/Offense--in that order, BION.

What many on this board have been saying for a long time is we have to recruit much higher than the rest of the Sun Belt, La Tech, Tulsa, SMU and the like for us to get where many of us feel this football program can get to.

Nutshell. Question is: Along the way, do 'we' want a competitive team, but in a system designed to compete with 'lesser' talent? Or do 'we' want a more sound system and try to continue to upgrade the talent as we go along? (This isn't a leading question, I'm interested in what everyone thinks) Because face it: A slappy-happy pass-oriented offense--run with our current level of talent--will probably still get dismantled against BCS teams right now, IMO. Just wondering if 35-21 losses are preferable to 52-6?

DD and staff have recruited some darn good talent that other decent schools also wanted and we are all excited about all those recruis in Mean Green Country, but we just need more of that good talent in terms of volume.

Absolutely agree. I'm curious about which direction people see as most sound long-term. Put me down as one who doesn't want to see UNT 'settle'--whichever direction that may be.

PS: There was no "Slobber-knockin', snot-flyin' 7 yards and a cloud of dust" to pick.

Edited November 11, 2005 by LongJim

Michael Scott · November 11, 2005

Who was it who recently said that an effective passing oriented team can many times match up with the Top 25 guys from time to time--sort of an equalizer at times?
←

I'll bite and say I said that - but I do not think some sort of heavy pass exclusive offense is the answer either. I want to kind of incorporate what Long Jim said in another post in my response:

We need to integrate a system where we can run AND pass depending on situation/ down/ distance/ opponent/ etc. The teams that pulled upsets usually had a GOOD gameplan and executed it. Running the ball will always be important - but no football rule says you have to run it out of the same 2 or 3 formations to the same couple of gaps.

Michael Scott · November 11, 2005

What kind of upsets are we discussing here - non BCS over top 25 or just over any BCS team? Examples anyone wants to offer to prove each point or response could be interesting.

FirefightnRick · November 11, 2005

I'd go with a Tt style over what we have right now, anything that gets us higher than 118th in the nation. What can it hurt? Considering the mentioning of the 7 on 7 competition in the paper today that has risen in popularity over the years in which a lot of that style of talent is being groomed, and considering one of the hottest 7 on 7 teams in the state is only minutes away from campus(Southlake Carrol), I'd give it a try. Again, what can it hurt, a drop to 119th nationally?

This is an entertainment business. We need to start acting like it on the field.

Rick

Edited November 11, 2005 by FirefightnRick

Texas Stranger · November 11, 2005

bein' 2005 and all, shouldn't choice # 1 be '3 yards and a cloud of rubber pellets'

PlummMeanGreen · November 11, 2005

I'd go with a Tt style over what we have right now, anything that gets us higher than 118th in the nation. What can it hurt? Considering the mentioning of the 7 on 7 competition in the paper today that has risen in popularity over the years in which a lot of that style of talent is being groomed, and considering one of the hottest 7 on 7 teams in the state is only minutes away from campus(Southlake Carrol), I'd give it a try. Again, what can it hurt, a drop to 119th nationally?
This is an entertainment business. We need to start acting like it on the field.
Rick
←

I know one NT alum (among others) who has been saying the high-lighted part of FFR's post for a few decades now and that would be, uh...............ME!

Some of us older nestors talk about the Hayden Fry era @ NT ad nausem to many present day NT officials and I'm sure to many of you young gun NT alums, too. Certainly, even some Fry-coached NT football teams should have won some games it lost and we all know we won some games most had us pegged to lose BUT THIS ONE WORD PRETTY WELL DESCRIBES HAYDEN FRY'S MEAN GREEN FOOTBALL TEAMS--WIN OR LOSE: entertaining

NCAA football isn't the Iraq war, it isn't always a way for anyone to prove their manliness, it isn't always a way for anyone to prove their intelligence (or lack thereof)........BUT THERE IS ONE THING THAT NCAA D1-A FOOTBALL IS (or should be)..........................ENTERTAINMENT (and at which time it ceases to be that, the people who can make a difference at NCAA stadium's turnstiles will stop buying tickets to watch it). This probably even more the case at the majority of non-BCS college football outposts.

I believe NT officials in the past and present may sometimes need to remind themselves as to just what NCAA football is still largely all about and the most important constituency it direly needs to have to purchase tickets non-stop in order for it to co-exist.

GMG!

Edited November 11, 2005 by PlummMeanGreen