The HUNH will NOT work in the SEC...

[Fayettechill14]

LMFAO!! 

Do you seriously consider the offense that aTm used yesterday a HUNH?  I don't.  Texas A&M used good defense, strong offensive line play and they capitalized off of Bama's mistakes.

A&M Wins Time of Possession: 32:27 to 27:33

HUNH can win time of possession, especially if you run the ball. You just run more plays in less time and it evens out A&M ran 76 plays compared to 65 for Alabama.

Louisiana Tech won the TOP battle and ran 105 plays against Texas State.

More snaps = more TOP. Now, when you're HUNH each snap takes less time so it often ends in teams losing the TOP battle something like 32-28, which was the margin Arkansas State lost the TOP battle to ULM. ASU ran something like 10 more plays than ULM.

When the TOP battle is that close I don't understand the frustration over it...Petrino's teams usually lost the TOP battle by much more than that.

[BPsTheMan]

Running a spread formation has nothing necessarily to do with whether you "hurry up" or not, whether you run the option or not.

Texas A&M won time of possession against Bama yesterday. That was not a game lengthened by "hurry up" because it was not "hurry up"

On the flip side, La Tech's game lasted over four hours (they were just starting the 4th quarter when other games that also started at 6pm were over), and thus selfish "gurus" like Tony Franklin cause their own teams defense to be worn out and have their backs against the wall, whether they win time of possession or not.

Running a sound balanced run-pass attack out of any formation has nothing to do with whether or not you huddled.

[BPsTheMan]

Louisiana Tech won the TOP battle and ran 105 plays against Texas State.

And the game lasted more than four hours, and Tech's own defense was worn out.

[Pyrotechnician]

Without Manziel, Bama would have destroyed aTm.  Its not the offensive philosophy that beat alabama, it was that 1 in a million freak of nature talent....johnny football won that game.  But aTm's Defense didnt play bad either.

[Fayettechill14]

Running a spread formation has nothing necessarily to do with whether you "hurry up" or not, whether you run the option or not.

Texas A&M won time of possession against Bama yesterday. That was not a game lengthened by "hurry up" because it was not "hurry up"

On the flip side, La Tech's game lasted over four hours (they were just starting the 4th quarter when other games that also started at 6pm were over), and thus selfish "gurus" like Tony Franklin cause their own teams defense to be worn out and have their backs against the wall, whether they win time of possession or not.

Running a sound balanced run-pass attack out of any formation has nothing to do with whether or not you huddled.

Hypothetical question: Would you rather...

a) Win play battle 80-65 and lost TOP 28-32
b) Lose play battle 65-80 and win TOP 32-28

Because I'm going with B. You really tire a defense out when you run a ton of plays, not when they're standing in formation waiting on the ball to be snapped.

[BPsTheMan]

Hypothetical question: Would you rather...

a) Win play battle 80-65 and lost TOP 28-32
b) Lose play battle 65-80 and win TOP 32-28

Because I'm going with B. You really tire a defense out when you run a ton of plays, not when they're standing in formation waiting on the ball to be snapped.

easy answer

Bill Walsh never gave a rat's behind who ran more plays than who

He could run a two minute offense when need be, and slow it down when need be.

[BPsTheMan]

...and if you're "better" than Bill Walsh since you're 21 years old and sitting there with a hurry up book, and you want to be a coach, you'd better rethink. 

[rickm1976]

"If Frank said it then it must be true!  Whatever he said is true, he is after all Saint Frank!  Same guy who hired Crowe, Fired Crowe, hired Hatfield, fired Hatfield, or did he quit?, hired Holtz, fired Holtz, or did he quit? Hired Nolan, fired Nolan and after all this $hit the programs have never recovered but he is Saint Frank!"
[/quote]

Hatfield quit because of clashes with Frank, and you can debate all day long about who was right.  Holtz was fired, and should have been fired.  Nolan went batshirt crazy and left Frank no choice but to fire him.  Do you actually know any details about what was going on during those times, or are you just repeating rumors you have heard?

[wildcat101]

Hunh?

[Fayettechill14]

Hunh?

Hurry-up, no-huddle

It's a philosophy that can be applied to many offenses, but it usually refers to Spread-to-Run teams (Sumlin, Dykes, Gus, Chad Morris, Urban Meyer)

[lewd and lascivious]

Leave it up to one upset to smoke out the loons from 6 years ago.

Oregon runs the HUNH to perfection.  No better example in the college game.  How did they do against their SEC counterparts (Auburn and LSU) when they played them last?

Texas A&M is doing well, but they played three top 10 SEC teams and lost to two of them, putting up less than 20 points in those two losses, while the win was a gigantic upset.

While I have no personal opinion one way or the other about the HUNH, the evidence so far has shown that the HUNH works well in the Pac 12, but there's no evidence of it's continued effectiveness in the SEC.  If Frank had said that the wishbone wouldn't work in the SEC, mobile QB or not, that wouldn't mean that if some team ran the wishbone and upset a team with it that it would negate that statement any more than the HUNH statement.

[latrops]

And the game lasted more than four hours, and Tech's own defense was worn out.

How could you tell, not like they were that good in the first half?  They actually gave up fewer points in the second half for whatever that is worth. 

I still like Dykes...even if it is crazy.  I like Malzahn too, I'm a believer in a balanced HUNH spread offense.

[TMc]

We can but we have to have a DC that can recruit and stop the Bama running game.  You stop the running game, force Bama to throw it, and as you see, they fold.

Yeah,  that was the key - Bama couldn't line up and pound the football all night long.  A&M has a nice defense.

[Wild Bill Hog]

Broyles in January 2007 on the HUNH..
"I made a clear statement that this offense won't work in the SEC unless the quarterback runs the ball," Broyles said. "I said, 'If the quarterback is a runner, it'll work.' But if your quarterback's not a runner, in my judgment and in the judgment of most of the people, it wouldn't work without the quarterback running the ball."


He doesn't say how much the qb must run or if he must be a great runner.  The offense has extra wrinkles if the qb is mobile.  I wouldn't say it is an absolute must that the qb be a runner, but it doesn't hurt.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?id=2733149

Thanks for giving the facts.  +1

[Deepwoods]

Catching Bama after LSU is the only reason they won the game. Next year I expect Bama to beat the snot out of them in front of the 12th man.

[Axlehog]

No he said it wouldn't work AND that it required a running qb.

Not that it would work even with a running qb.

"I made a clear statement that this offense won't work in the SEC unless the quarterback runs the ball," Broyles said.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?id=2733149

Props to latrops for digging up the story.

[Ex-Trumpet]

"I made a clear statement that this offense won't work in the SEC unless the quarterback runs the ball," Broyles said.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?id=2733149

Props to latrops for digging up the story.

I'll go a step further and say that the SDBH (Slow Down Big Huddle) offense works better with a qb that can run the ball, too.

[Fayettechill14]

I'll go a step further and say that the SDBH (Slow Down Big Huddle) offense works better with a qb that can run the ball, too.

Running QB always benefits an offense, but the particular strategic benefit of a mobile QB to the HUNH is what makes it lethal.

[Piggfoot]

Keep digging that hole!

The only hole being dug is to bury Broyles statement which was indeed made to discredit Malzahn. If it required a running quarterback there were several in the Broyles era but they ran the wishbone. A running quarterback is not new to football. It dates back to the days before the forward pass and then the single wing. As I said Broyles was supporting Nutt and discrediting Malzahn. There was a battle no doubt but Nutt and Frank fired the first shot.

[Root66]

The only hole being dug is to bury Broyles statement which was indeed made to discredit Malzahn. If it required a running quarterback there were several in the Broyles era but they ran the wishbone. A running quarterback is not new to football. It dates back to the days before the forward pass and then the single wing. As I said Broyles was supporting Nutt and discrediting Malzahn. There was a battle no doubt but Nutt and Frank fired the first shot.

Did Nutt have a running QB? I think Nutt had Casey Dick, who couldn't run all that well and definitely couldn't pass until Petrino came with a capable QB coach (Garrick McGee). So Broyles was right. You can't run that offense (HUNH) with a pocket passer. But you could run the "wild razorback" with McFadden and Jones.  So what the f**k is the issue?

Now when Malzahn went to Auburn he had the BEST running QB in the history of college football, to that date, in Cam Newton, who was also an effective passer. The QB has to be one mobile sonofabitch for that offense to be effective. Or you're dead in the water.

[Fayettechill14]

Urban Meyer's offense is the Wing T and 90s One-back out of shotgun. Gus's is similar.

Gus did not introduce anything revolutionary in terms of plays. He just introduced the philosophy that these old-school running offenses are more effective when you remove the threat of fringe defenders by spreading them out, and then run the plays faster so that the defense is worn out and can't get set.

No single idea of Gus's offense was invented by Gus, he just compiled them brilliantly:
-Tubby Raymond invented the Wing T in the 1940s
-Bill Yeoman invented the Veer in the 1960s
-Bear Bryant used the Read Option in the 1970s-1980s
-LaVell Edwards used the Hurry Up to slow the pass rush against his Air Raid in the 1980s
-Mike Price used the Misdirection to beat physically superior defenses in the late 1990s
-Bill Snyder invented the Wildcat in the late 1990s

So tell me this: Do you need a running QB to run the Veer or Wing T? There's your answer to the running QB in the HUNH.

[MC_Hog]

Gus is doing just fine with what he has and it was in place when he got there.  Gus will always find a QB to run his system.  It's time to stop the Gus hate and hire him.  He's a winner and will stay here until he retires.

NOOOOOOO PLEASE NOOOOO!

[hogsanity]

The HUNH as most people here think of it, Gus' offense, requires a Qb that is a run threat.  No offense will work well without the right players.  Gus' offense, and Kelly's at Oregon require a QB that can run and read the option correctly. 

Bp's offense requires a QB that can make accurate throws, quick reads, and receivers that can run precise routes. 

Bama's offense requires a Qb that won't get them beat, will get them out of bad plays, and takes care of the ball. 

[jamie72921]

"I made a clear statement that this offense won't work in the SEC unless the quarterback runs the ball," Broyles said.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?id=2733149

Props to latrops for digging up the story.

That is simply Broyles being asked about what he originally said.

NOT A QUOTE OF WHAT HE ACTUALLY SAID AT THE TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Do facts not matter at all anymore?

Broyles made his original STATEMENTS after USC beat us in Fayetteville.

The article you just quoted is dated Jan 16, 2007 and is Broyles trying to explain his version of his statement way after the fact.

Sorry, but Broyles originally stated that Gus' offense would not work in the SEC AND needed a running qb.

Seriously, if it would work in the SEC at all, why say "it won't work in the SEC"?  Wouldn't it have been easier to say "it needs a running qb to work?"

Of course it would. The quote at the Broyles Award banquet you posted is simply an attempt on the part of Broyles to diffuse his role in the mess that was taking place on the hill at the time.

Just like when he said Gus' leaving was just him taking a promotion.

You really have to be weak minded to by Broyles' garbage from that time. I guess you were not part of the 5% either?

[Piggfoot]

Did Nutt have a running QB? I think Nutt had Casey Dick, who couldn't run all that well and definitely couldn't pass until Petrino came with a capable QB coach (Garrick McGee). So Broyles was right. You can't run that offense (HUNH) with a pocket passer. But you could run the "wild razorback" with McFadden and Jones.  So what the f**k is the issue?

Now when Malzahn went to Auburn he had the BEST running QB in the history of college football, to that date, in Cam Newton, who was also an effective passer. The QB has to be one mobile sonofabitch for that offense to be effective. Or you're dead in the water.

I believe you're forgetting about Clint Stoerner and of course Matt Jones neither of whom could be classified as protype pocket or drop back passers.
Both were running quarterbacks and effective passers. To be sure Matt Jones was one mobile sonofabitch, probably the best we've ever had. As I said before
Frank was trying to support Nutt and discredit Malzahn as Nutt did.
I first heard Nutt discredit him when a Razorback club ask about Malzahn and Nutts comment in a descrediting mocking tone said, While watching a scrimmage Malzahn said "Coach, that defensive is faaast". I lost my respect for Nutt that day and it was before the season even started. Herring smuggly tacitly went along with it. I knew then that Frank and Nutt had used Malzahn to get the Springdale boys and appease the fans.

[Axlehog]

That is simply Broyles being asked about what he originally said.

NOT A QUOTE OF WHAT HE ACTUALLY SAID AT THE TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Do facts not matter at all anymore?

Broyles made his original STATEMENTS after USC beat us in Fayetteville.

The article you just quoted is dated Jan 16, 2007 and is Broyles trying to explain his version of his statement way after the fact.

Sorry, but Broyles originally stated that Gus' offense would not work in the SEC AND needed a running qb.

Seriously, if it would work in the SEC at all, why say "it won't work in the SEC"?  Wouldn't it have been easier to say "it needs a running qb to work?"

Of course it would. The quote at the Broyles Award banquet you posted is simply an attempt on the part of Broyles to diffuse his role in the mess that was taking place on the hill at the time.

Just like when he said Gus' leaving was just him taking a promotion.

You really have to be weak minded to by Broyles' garbage from that time. I guess you were not part of the 5% either?

So Broyles lied? Is that it? Broyles lied about his original statement (a statement that NO ONE can find printed in any form and fashion) to cover up his belief that the HUNH could not work in the SEC under any circumstances.

Talk about simple minded. To believe a thing despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary is the definition of simplemindedness. Show me a quote. I would love to see some evidence of what to say is fact (a fact everyone shoud just somehow know or take your word for). Just because you really, really want something to be true does not make it so, sorry.

[ballz2thewall]

LMFAO!! 

Do you seriously consider the offense that aTm used yesterday a HUNH?  I don't.  Texas A&M used good defense, strong offensive line play and they capitalized off of Bama's mistakes.

A&M Wins Time of Possession: 32:27 to 27:33

i agree. i don't know where this hunh reference is coming from.  bama was flat and a&m played very good.  that's about it.

[jamie72921]

So Broyles lied? Is that it? Broyles lied about his original statement (a statement that NO ONE can find printed in any form and fashion) to cover up his belief that the HUNH could not work in the SEC under any circumstances.

Talk about simple minded. To believe a thing despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary is the definition of simplemindedness. Show me a quote. I would love to see some evidence of what to say is fact (a fact everyone shoud just somehow know or take your word for). Just because you really, really want something to be true does not make it so, sorry.

Did you really ask if Broyles lied? Seriously?!

He lied when he said only 5% of fans were upset with Nutt.

He lied when he said Gus left for Tulsa because it was a promotion.

Nope, Frank would never lie to improve his position on a subject.

Geez.

[Axlehog]

Did you really ask if Broyles lied? Seriously?!

He lied when he said only 5% of fans were upset with Nutt.

He lied when he said Gus left for Tulsa because it was a promotion.

Nope, Frank would never lie to improve his position on a subject.

Geez.

Fine, he lied. Show me a quote or go away.

Or are we supposed to just take your word for it? Someone already gave you a direct quote from FB and you say he is lying, fine. Tell us what he REALLY said.

[Root66]

I believe you're forgetting about Clint Stoerner and of course Matt Jones neither of whom could be classified as protype pocket or drop back passers.
Both were running quarterbacks and effective passers. To be sure Matt Jones was one mobile sonofabitch, probably the best we've ever had. As I said before
Frank was trying to support Nutt and discredit Malzahn as Nutt did.
I first heard Nutt discredit him when a Razorback club ask about Malzahn and Nutts comment in a descrediting mocking tone said, While watching a scrimmage Malzahn said "Coach, that defensive is faaast". I lost my respect for Nutt that day and it was before the season even started. Herring smuggly tacitly went along with it. I knew then that Frank and Nutt had used Malzahn to get the Springdale boys and appease the fans.

I "forgot" them because in no way, shape or form were they pertinent to the conversation about the HUNH, unless you tell me that Malzahn was one of the Nuttster's assistant coaches during Stoerner's and Jones' careers at Arkansas. Both were pocket passers FIRST...and Malzahn was running a high school football team at those times.

[latrops]

We should all have a great deal of respect for what Broyles did with and for the University of Arkansas over about 50 years.  That being said, he is one man and his opinion now shouldn't count for much more than one informed opinion.  It isn't gospel, nevermind that he apparently has neither come out strongly in favor nor opposed to a HUNH offense.  When you look at what he said 5 years ago, you have to take into consideration why he was even asked about the subject (Malzahn/Mustain/Nutt controversy).  Had he come out at the time and offered a full public endorsement of the HUNH, it would have been seen as critical of Nutt, who was still the head coach.  What he said was pretty neutral...basically, if you have the right players, it can work. 

All that being said...I care less about Broyles opinion on the HUNH than I do Saban's, and he isn't much a fan.  If Saban doesn't like something, his opponents should probably strongly take that into consideration.

"I think that the way people are going no-huddle right now, that at some point in time, we should look at how fast we allow the game to go in terms of player safety. The team gets in the same formation group, you can't substitute defensive players, you go on a 14-, 16-, 18-play drive and they're snapping the ball as fast as you can go and you look out there and all your players are walking around and can't even get lined up. That's when guys have a much greater chance of getting hurt when they're not ready to play.
I think that's something that can be looked at. It's obviously created a tremendous advantage for the offense when teams are scoring 70 points and we're averaging 49.5 points a game. With people that do those kinds of things. More and more people are going to do it.
I just think there's got to be some sense of fairness in terms of asking is this what we want football to be?"

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/10/03/saban-on-no-huddle-offense-is-this-what-we-want-football-to-be/

[jamie72921]

Fine, he lied. Show me a quote or go away.

Or are we supposed to just take your word for it? Someone already gave you a direct quote from FB and you say he is lying, fine. Tell us what he REALLY said.

They gave a quote ABOUT the ORIGINAL quote. NOT THE ORIGINAL QUOTE!

The original quote was as it has been stated before. Frank said Malzahn's offense wouldn't work in the SEC. He later added that it required a running qb.

There was no muddied waters about that quote until after Broyles tried to reframe it at the banquet. He was reframing his stance because Nutt had just run off the offensive coordinator that had won a different award for being national coordinator of the year for the film boy for the Cowboys. And, he had done it with Frank's help to some extent.

You had to be around at the time to understand, I suppose. But Broyles has never been an idiot, and he used that question as an opportunity to distance TRY and distance himself from the coming circus.

Of course Broyles got fired for his involvement with this entire situation, but don't let that influence your search for the "truth".

[jamie72921]

We should all have a great deal of respect for what Broyles did with and for the University of Arkansas over about 50 years.  That being said, he is one man and his opinion now shouldn't count for much more than one informed opinion.  It isn't gospel, nevermind that he apparently has neither come out strongly in favor nor opposed to a HUNH offense.  When you look at what he said 5 years ago, you have to take into consideration why he was even asked about the subject (Malzahn/Mustain/Nutt controversy).  Had he come out at the time and offered a full public endorsement of the HUNH, it would have been seen as critical of Nutt, who was still the head coach.  What he said was pretty neutral...basically, if you have the right players, it can work. 

All that being said...I care less about Broyles opinion on the HUNH than I do Saban's, and he isn't much a fan.  If Saban doesn't like something, his opponents should probably strongly take that into consideration.

"I think that the way people are going no-huddle right now, that at some point in time, we should look at how fast we allow the game to go in terms of player safety. The team gets in the same formation group, you can't substitute defensive players, you go on a 14-, 16-, 18-play drive and they're snapping the ball as fast as you can go and you look out there and all your players are walking around and can't even get lined up. That's when guys have a much greater chance of getting hurt when they're not ready to play.
I think that's something that can be looked at. It's obviously created a tremendous advantage for the offense when teams are scoring 70 points and we're averaging 49.5 points a game. With people that do those kinds of things. More and more people are going to do it.
I just think there's got to be some sense of fairness in terms of asking is this what we want football to be?"

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/10/03/saban-on-no-huddle-offense-is-this-what-we-want-football-to-be/

Broyles chose a side in the Nutt debacle. It's why he got fired.

Claiming he tried to remain neutral is ridiculous.

[Axlehog]

They gave a quote ABOUT the ORIGINAL quote. NOT THE ORIGINAL QUOTE!

The original quote was as it has been stated before. Frank said Malzahn's offense wouldn't work in the SEC. He later added that it required a running qb.

There was no muddied waters about that quote until after Broyles tried to reframe it at the banquet. He was reframing his stance because Nutt had just run off the offensive coordinator that had won a different award for being national coordinator of the year for the film boy for the Cowboys. And, he had done it with Frank's help to some extent.

You had to be around at the time to understand, I suppose. But Broyles has never been an idiot, and he used that question as an opportunity to distance TRY and distance himself from the coming circus.

Of course Broyles got fired for his involvement with this entire situation, but don't let that influence your search for the "truth".

You keep talking about this ORIGINAL QUOTE. I don't know how I can make this any more clear: SHOW ME THE ORIGINAL QUOTE.

You can't. You know why? It does not exist. He never said it.

We get it, you do not care for Frank Broyles. But just because the truth does not fit with your preconceived notions you can't create your own facts. That does not work.

[hogfanfish]

Okay...Here is exactly what he said,

"I made a clear statement that this offense won't work in the SEC unless the quarterback runs the ball," Broyles said. "I said, 'If the quarterback is a runner, it'll work.' But if your quarterback's not a runner, in my judgment and in the judgment of most of the people, it wouldn't work without the quarterback running the ball."

Broyles said blocking challenges are different in an offense like Malzahn's. He pointed out that West Virginia has used a spread, no-huddle offense successfully, but Mountaineers quarterback Pat White is a dangerous runner.

"It'll work when you've got the best players," Broyles said. "Any offense will."

[ballz2thewall]

Okay...Here is exactly what he said,

"I made a clear statement that this offense won't work in the SEC unless the quarterback runs the ball," Broyles said. "I said, 'If the quarterback is a runner, it'll work.' But if your quarterback's not a runner, in my judgment and in the judgment of most of the people, it wouldn't work without the quarterback running the ball."

Broyles said blocking challenges are different in an offense like Malzahn's. He pointed out that West Virginia has used a spread, no-huddle offense successfully, but Mountaineers quarterback Pat White is a dangerous runner.

"It'll work when you've got the best players," Broyles said. "Any offense will."

makes sense to me.

it should also be added the the hurry-up offense is not a new baby, rather, its been around a long, long time.  what broyles refers to is experience over the long haul rather that a snap in time.

[12247]

Damn, Broyles was in a room full of fans and he was standing by his HC.  He had an opinion, who really cares.  It could be clearly said his HC never presented an offense that worked in the SEC of any formation.  Eventually most learn its the playcalling that usually works. 

A smart OC will spend most of his time trying to find a defensive weakness and exploit it.  The HUNH can do that.  Don't matter if you running the wishbone, pro style, spread, wing t, or whatever.  A&M  gassed the BAMA D and than scored on them more than they are used to giving up.  The BAMA O faultered much of the game and put the D in holes such as the A&M second TD.  The HUNH is a great offensive tool. 

Just for kicks, if BAMA and A&M played again tonight at BAMA and you had to put a grand on the game at BAMA minus 3, who would you take.  I'd take BAMA and I love the HUNH idea.

[Piggfoot]

I "forgot" them because in no way, shape or form were they pertinent to the conversation about the HUNH, unless you tell me that Malzahn was one of the Nuttster's assistant coaches during Stoerner's and Jones' careers at Arkansas. Both were pocket passers FIRST...and Malzahn was running a high school football team at those times.

The reason I mentioned Stoerner and Jones is because as I understood the point of the thread is Frank said you had to have mobile quarterbacks. I don't care whether you speed up the game or not both Malzahn and Nutt ran plays with the quarterback under center and from the shotgun. Both used quarterbacks in college that could run and throw and both utilized the quarterback based on each athletes strong suit. But we have always had quarterbacks who could run admittedly not with power like Newton but Jones was a runner of a different type with his bootleg plays. BP on the other hand utilized  a relatively immobile passing quarterback. I don't think his playbook had more than a couple of designed quarterback plays.

[superior_wang]

just from a fan standpoint, watching Oregon sure beats the hell outta watching LSU try and score... yeah, i know u folks are gonna split hairs about how Oregon isnt a true HUNH ofesnve or some bs like that... whatever..  theyd annihilate the sec, cept maybe bammer and lsu

[Root66]

just from a fan standpoint, watching Oregon sure beats the hell outta watching LSU try and score... yeah, i know u folks are gonna split hairs about how Oregon isnt a true HUNH ofesnve or some bs like that... whatever..  theyd annihilate the sec, cept maybe bammer and lsu

There's always that exception...eh?

[hogsanity]

just from a fan standpoint, watching Oregon sure beats the hell outta watching LSU try and score... yeah, i know u folks are gonna split hairs about how Oregon isnt a true HUNH ofesnve or some bs like that... whatever..  theyd annihilate the sec, cept maybe bammer and lsu

so basically they would be 2nd or 3rd in the secw but you would be okay with that because it is "exciting".  Just another poster proving the point our fans would rater lose 52-49 than win 17-14.

And you will be able to watch LSu score early and often when they play the Hogs next week.

[jesterzzn]

Every single team that runs a spread hurry-up has one of these "special QBs," so it's not that hard to get one.

Not exactly.  You have to have the QB before you install the offense.  Installing the offense doesn't make the QBs magically appear.  Ask Auburn about that one.  Once their special QB left, their next in line mucked it up pretty bad. 

[jamie72921]

The belief you have to have a running qb is to run a HUNH is born of complete ignorance.

The HUNH is not an offense, it is a philosophy that says you will run your offense at a very high pace between plays.

Peyton Manning is not a running qb but is devastating when running a version of this philosophy in the pros.

[jamie72921]

Okay...Here is exactly what he said,

"I made a clear statement that this offense won't work in the SEC unless the quarterback runs the ball," Broyles said. "I said, 'If the quarterback is a runner, it'll work.' But if your quarterback's not a runner, in my judgment and in the judgment of most of the people, it wouldn't work without the quarterback running the ball."

Broyles said blocking challenges are different in an offense like Malzahn's. He pointed out that West Virginia has used a spread, no-huddle offense successfully, but Mountaineers quarterback Pat White is a dangerous runner.

"It'll work when you've got the best players," Broyles said. "Any offense will."

Again, this is not "exactly what he said"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You have quoted his "explanation" of what he actually said and occurred 4 months AFTER what he said initially.

What he actually said, was it wouldn't work in the SEC four months earlier.

[jamie72921]

You keep talking about this ORIGINAL QUOTE. I don't know how I can make this any more clear: SHOW ME THE ORIGINAL QUOTE.

You can't. You know why? It does not exist. He never said it.

We get it, you do not care for Frank Broyles. But just because the truth does not fit with your preconceived notions you can't create your own facts. That does not work.

Like I said. It is easy to see the lie here.

Frank contradicts himself by saying that it will work in the SEC...........with the best players.

Why say it wouldn't work if it actually will work?

You are a sheep and it is the sheep who are the source of confusion with regards to this. A guy finds a quote that is only about what was actually said, and you lap it up as if it were the original statement.

The original quote was never in the paper, goat boy. It was a part of the harassment Malzahn was getting from the circus clowns, Broyles included, that ran the football program at the time.

I find it funny also that people try to give Broyles a pass on Nutt because of the hiring committee and try to ignore all the enabling and actual participation of Broyles in Nutt's antics.

Does your Mom know you are on her laptop?

[Hawg414]

so basically they would be 2nd or 3rd in the secw but you would be okay with that because it is "exciting".  Just another poster proving the point our fans would rater lose 52-49 than win 17-14.

And you will be able to watch LSu score early and often when they play the Hogs next week.

he didnt say we'd be 3rd behind both of them.  he said we'd annihilate everyone else.  and if you are annihilating everyone else, you are certainly at worst competing evenly with LSU and alabama. 

just another case of you trying to portray anyone who doesnt agree with your line of thought as preferring to lose excitingly than win boringly.

Kelly's "system" certainly has a better chance of beating alabama than does alabama's "system" with less talented players.

[hogsanity]

he didnt say we'd be 3rd behind both of them.  he said we'd annihilate everyone else.  and if you are annihilating everyone else, you are certainly at worst competing evenly with LSU and alabama. 

just another case of you trying to portray anyone who doesnt agree with your line of thought as preferring to lose excitingly than win boringly.

Kelly's "system" certainly has a better chance of beating alabama than does alabama's "system" with less talented players.

So we would be what were were in 2010 and 2011.  I see.  A team that at best would finish 2nd or 3rd in the secw.  2009-2011 record against Bama and LSU 1-5.

The belief you have to have a running qb is to run a HUNH is born of complete ignorance.

The HUNH is not an offense, it is a philosophy that says you will run your offense at a very high pace between plays.

Peyton Manning is not a running qb but is devastating when running a version of this philosophy in the pros.

People have always confused the HUNH with a particular scheme.  Kelly runs it out of the spread option.  But it can be run, as you said, out of the wishbone, I, wing t, or any other set.

[Axlehog]

Like I said. It is easy to see the lie here.

Frank contradicts himself by saying that it will work in the SEC...........with the best players.

Why say it wouldn't work if it actually will work?

You are a sheep and it is the sheep who are the source of confusion with regards to this. A guy finds a quote that is only about what was actually said, and you lap it up as if it were the original statement.

The original quote was never in the paper, goat boy. It was a part of the harassment Malzahn was getting from the circus clowns, Broyles included, that ran the football program at the time.

I find it funny also that people try to give Broyles a pass on Nutt because of the hiring committee and try to ignore all the enabling and actual participation of Broyles in Nutt's antics.

Does your Mom know you are on her laptop?

So, I ask you to produce the original quote that you have refered to about 20 times in your ramblings and you call me names and then you do not produce a quote or one shred of proof that what you say is true.

Cool.

Maybe you where in the room with Frank when he said whatever it is you think he said. Maybe you and Frank are best buds and like to throw darts at pictures of Gus on the weekends. Surely you're not just repeating things you heard at the gas station or read on message boards, are you?

[Fayettechill14]

Not exactly.  You have to have the QB before you install the offense.  Installing the offense doesn't make the QBs magically appear.  Ask Auburn about that one.  Once their special QB left, their next in line mucked it up pretty bad.

Usually you do, but guys like Chris Todd, Paul Smith, and Braxton Miller were pedestrian QBs before the HUNH STR was installed. Todd was actually pretty bad. Tajh Boyd was not supposed to be as good as he's been before Chad Morris got there. Tebow and Newton were recruited specifically for the system, along with most of Oregon's QBs.

I think the system glorifies the talents of a mobile QB. It would make either Allen or Mitchell look much better than they are in some other systems, and they are pretty talented anyway.

[Hawg414]

So we would be what were were in 2010 and 2011.  I see.  A team that at best would finish 2nd or 3rd in the secw.  2009-2011 record against Bama and LSU 1-5.

...but 5th in the nation.  you left that part out. 

look, its not easy to beat alabama and LSU regularly.  thats why NO ONE ELSE does it.  but if we wanted to beat em occasionally, we'd do it better with the type of team you whine about.

lets be honest here (and you'll say this isnt true bc you just CANT admit this out loud and not be committed to an asylum)... but what you basically want is a stereotypical nutt type team.  marginal to good defense... marginal to anemic offense.  petrino and his style accomplished in 3 years (with the first year being a complete overhaul) what nutts style couldnt accomplish in 10. 

if we end up with the type of team/coach YOU are pushing for, we'll end up right back where we were for all of nutts tenure - looking forward to that big game in Starkville at the end of the year with a bid to the BBVCA Compass Bowl on the line.  Go Hogs... Beat State!!