Brent Pry

[ManAboutTown]

I want to emphasize the point that I'm talking about what would work here at UL. I'm not against defensive coaches at all, if you have the talent. I do believe that when you can have SEC type talent, you should run the ball and play good defense because, percentage wise, you can win most games that way. For us, it's totally different. It has to be a higher risk scheme to beat better talented teams. I want our team to not only beat teams in the lower half of FBS, but compete against the upper half also. I just don't think the "run the ball, play good defense" scheme will do that at UL. We could never have a good enough defense to stop Oklahoma State as an example, to run the ball. But, if we could score by passing, they will have to abandon running the ball, thus giving us a chance. Jmo.

Well said.

[ULGrad@HOU]

Boise state runs the ___ out of the ball, Baylor ran the ___ out of the ball. Latech ran the ___ out of the Hall. I’m not talking about 3 yards and a cloud of dust. We were scoring 35 points a game when hud got here and we ran the ___ out the ball. A dynamic offense is not one dimensional one way or the other...that’s why it’s dynamic.

Yeah, we ran the ball, and we couldn't beat any really good team either.

[Hark Mudspeth]

Yeah, we ran the ball, and we couldn't beat any really good team either.

Why? When you score 35 a game and lose...what does that mean? No defense. When Troy was the “giant killer” they had studs on defense...mckelvin, bear woods, Demarcus Ware, umenioyora

[ManAboutTown]

Boise state runs the ___ out of the ball, Baylor ran the ___ out of the ball. Latech ran the ___ out of the Hall. I’m not talking about 3 yards and a cloud of dust. We were scoring 35 points a game when hud got here and we ran the ___ out the ball. A dynamic offense is not one dimensional one way or the other...that’s why it’s dynamic.

And they all do it out of the spread base.

[Just1More]

I want to emphasize the point that I'm talking about what would work here at UL. I'm not against defensive coaches at all, if you have the talent. I do believe that when you can have SEC type talent, you should run the ball and play good defense because, percentage wise, you can win most games that way. For us, it's totally different. It has to be a higher risk scheme to beat better talented teams. I want our team to not only beat teams in the lower half of FBS, but compete against the upper half also. I just don't think the "run the ball, play good defense" scheme will do that at UL. We could never have a good enough defense to stop Oklahoma State as an example, to run the ball. But, if we could score by passing, they will have to abandon running the ball, thus giving us a chance. Jmo.

What's ironic is that Hud is an "offense background" coach. But he turned out to be more about dual threat quarterbacks (mostly enamored by the athletic running ability more than the passing side of their skill set) and the running game. It's interesting that Hud has a dynamic play book. He has the plays to lay out a controlled attack. But he has never, and his staff have never, taught additional capabilities to a QB... or good pass blocking skills. There is no sign that Hud and any of his staff recognized how to recruit a passing QB, or coach the art of the passing attack. Hud always goes the route of a dual threat QB... allowing them to throw the jump ball until it doesn't work... or run plays that utilize the legs of the QB and RB... unfortunately not in a synchronized read option... as the talent he recruits would likely succeed.

As for a future coach... I'm not that worried about a head coach that comes from the defensive side of the ball. But... I'm probably leaning toward someone in the FCS ranks that has been operating as a head coach over a very dynamic offense. If his personal skills are defensive or offensive... it matters not to me. I agree with you in that we should operate a giant killer type of offense... and not think in terms of "SBC head to head matches". We need to be geared to upset programs... and when we amass that talent/skill... the rest will take care of itself. So... that leads me to push Maggard in that direction. Who is available in the ranks out there that would operate an explosive offense? That system will recruit itself. My take on that is... it needs to be someone that peers agree is a trend setter with offensive line and QB development. If that nugget of skill can be found... I want that guy. And if he never says anything about "execution" and "turnovers" as his staple vocabulary of how to play football... that will be fine with me too. I think we tried out a power lifter as a head coach... and we got what we got. It might be time to find a little skinny guy with thick glasses to run our football program. I'm obviously being facetious on how he "looks". But I'd like to be impressed with the brains for a change. If the brain hires a Marine boot camp drill sergeant as his "heavy"... that's fine. But brains first for a change.

[ULGrad@HOU]

J1M, I don't think Hud has a dynamic playbook what so ever, but I respect your opinion of what you are saying.

[Just1More]

J1M, I don't think Hud has a dynamic playbook what so ever, but I respect your opinion of what you are saying.

Well... we'll have to disagree on the play book. I like it. I just don't like how it's coached or used.

[zephyr]

Why? When you score 35 a game and lose...what does that mean? No defense. When Troy was the “giant killer” they had studs on defense...mckelvin, bear woods, Demarcus Ware, umenioyora

At this level, good offense beats good defense almost every time. Unless you have a Ravens defense of the early 2000's or something like that, good offense will always trump good defense.

[zephyr]

I'm not as concerned about the side of the ball the coach who is hired comes from. What I am concerned about is how well they recruit. I'm also thinking this needs to be somewhat of a splash hire name wise. Maybe I'm wrong but we need some excitement driven into this program.

[Hark Mudspeth]

At this level, good offense beats good defense almost every time. Unless you have a Ravens defense of the early 2000's or something like that, good offense will always trump good defense.

Want to have a really good offense? Give them the ball back often. Apps defense is a big part of why they have 35 at half. If you want to be a great program you need all 3...offense defense and special teams...that’s the only recipe to be special...definitely at our level.

[ManAboutTown]

Want to have a really good offense? Give them the ball back often. Apps defense is a big part of why they have 35 at half. If you want to be a great program you need all 3...offense defense and special teams...that’s the only recipe to be special...definitely at our level.

So is our sideline's stench of desperation

[zephyr]

Want to have a really good offense? Give them the ball back often. Apps defense is a big part of why they have 35 at half. If you want to be a great program you need all 3...offense defense and special teams...that’s the only recipe to be special...definitely at our level.

Well of course. This is obvious. However, you were discussing which side of the ball you want your coach to come from. You've argued for a defensive minded coach. I'm just saying that good defense will not consistently beat good offenses and good teams. Look at us last year. Why did we do so poorly when we had a nationally ranked defense? I'll wait.