OT: Interesting Article about Mike Leach

[Buddah]

Don't bash me. This has nothing to do with Rich Brooks or UK or our football program. I didn't know where else to post this. I find it interesting how NFL scouts and insiders say that the game today taylored for the passing game and how leach would succeed in the NFL. Interesting if nothing else. For someone that couldn't make it here or anywhere else in college if you listen to "experts", makes you think. What are NFL exec and writers thinking, they must not got the memo. ;)

http://www.dallasobserver.com/Issues/2006-01-05/news/whitt_2.html

BTW: Yes, I know the Tuna is coming back.

[ukbob]

Who is Rick Brooks?

[Buddah]

ukbob wrote:
Who is Rick Brooks?

An amalgmy of the greatest and the worst this school has ever witnessed. i could change it, if you'd like.

[UedK]

I didn't read the article, but who is Mike Leach?

[Matt Dillon]

Buddah wrote: Don't bash me. This has nothing to do with Rich Brooks or UK or our football program. I didn't know where else to post this. ;)

http://www.dallasobserver.com/Issues/2006-01-05/news/whitt_2.html

BTW: Yes, I know the Tuna is coming back.


How about on the Pro Sports/Prep Sports forum. That looks like the perfect place for it to me.

[baldcat]

Buddha and Leach just need to get a room and get it over with.

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_1_34.gif (http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001_ZNxdm414YYUS)

[Buddah]

baldcat wrote:
Buddha and Leach just need to get a room and get it over with.

Â*http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_1_34.gif (http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001_ZNxdm414YYUS)Â*


what would that do to "us" though, bald ?


btw: read the article it is a good one. thanks

[baldcat]

Don't go all Brokeback on me, buddah.

Just having a bit of fun. LMAO

Buddah wrote:
baldcat wrote:
Buddha and Leach just need to get a room and get it over with.

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_1_34.gif (http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001_ZNxdm414YYUS)


what would that do to "us" though, bald ?


btw: read the article it is a good one. thanks

[Mark Blueblood]

I read the article and enjoyed it. Methinks, however, the writer overstates Leach's "genius". In the words of George Harrison (via a Simpson's episode) - "It's been done". And that by a guy named Hal Mumme who learned it from Lamar ....(sorry, shame on me - I don't remember his last name) at Brigham Young.

So, once again, Mike Leach did not invent the forward pass. Would it really work in the NFL? I have my doubts. Gimmick offenses never have. And....if it took him a few years to assemble the kind of talent needed then he'd never be around long enough to get the job done. And pity the poor "traditional" coach that inherited his roster.

But hey - I'm all for him getting the chance. The NFL needs something.

[The Old School JPS]

LaVell Edwards was the BYU coach whose systems inspired Mumme.

That sort of offensive attackworked forEdwards and BYU for a long, long time.

I don't know that it's fair to say that the LaVell Edwards, Mike Leach pass happy approach is a 'gimmick offense'. Granted, by late 1999 SEC defenses were on to Mumme's approach, but Mumme wasn't ever able to adjust mid-game - a great strength of Leach IMO. Leach has flexibilityand adaptability thatMummelacked and I think that's part of his success.

Throwing the ball a lot isn't a gimmick offense IMO. Was Spurrier's attack a gimmick offense? Is the option a gimmick offense? Just because it's uncommon doesn't necessarily make it a gimmick IMO. Granted, Spurrier didn't do well in the NFL and you don't see the option there (I sometimes wonder what would happen if just one NFL team did run the option, whether it would fail (my guess)or succeed since no one would ever see it except for one week at a time peryear) but I'm not sure that means throwing the ball is gimmicky; it worked for Coryell and the Chargers, Montana and the 49ers, etc. Whatever it is, Leach seems to be able to make it work well with what he has on his roster in a very tough conference.

As Leach makes his offense work with a lot of kids who aren't regarded as great college prospects, maybe he'd dowell in the NFL also where there is often more of a parity in talent. Who knows.

I'd rather see Leach stay in college football, because I follow and enjoy college football more. I'd also like to see him move Tech into the top ranks of the Big XII consistently. I'd like to see more coaches in college football who shake up the usual pecking order.

[Buddah]

The Old School JPS wrote: LaVell Edwards was the BYU coach whose systems inspired Mumme.

That sort of offensive attackworked forEdwards and BYU for a long, long time.

I don't know that it's fair to say that the LaVell Edwards, Mike Leach pass happy approach is a 'gimmick offense'. Granted, by late 1999 SEC defenses were on to Mumme's approach, but Mumme wasn't ever able to adjust mid-game - a great strength of Leach IMO. Leach has flexibilityand adaptability thatMummelacked and I think that's part of his success.

Throwing the ball a lot isn't a gimmick offense IMO. Was Spurrier's attack a gimmick offense? Is the option a gimmick offense? Just because it's uncommon doesn't necessarily make it a gimmick IMO. Granted, Spurrier didn't do well in the NFL and you don't see the option there (I sometimes wonder what would happen if just one NFL team did run the option, whether it would fail (my guess)or succeed since no one would ever see it except for one week at a time peryear) but I'm not sure that means throwing the ball is gimmicky; it worked for Coryell and the Chargers, Montana and the 49ers, etc. Whatever it is, Leach seems to be able to make it work well with what he has on his roster in a very tough conference.

As Leach makes his offense work with a lot of kids who aren't regarded as great college prospects, maybe he'd dowell in the NFL also where there is often more of a parity in talent. Who knows.

I'd rather see Leach stay in college football, because I follow and enjoy college football more. I'd also like to see him move Tech into the top ranks of the Big XII consistently. I'd like to see more coaches in college football who shake up the usual pecking order.



I been away a few days and just got back to thispost.Good post JPS, the NFL has much more of a parity than college football. I would be tempted to see if the Genius could translate into the NFL, i would rather he stayed. It is just to much of a gamble to take a chance in the NFL, but then again that is what endears so many to Mike, he isn't afraid to take chances and this would definitely be one of the biggest. In a few years or less than ten, the game and how its played will change and the creator of those changes will probably go back to Mike Leach... Just as the game changed with Walsh, there will probably be another change coming, and i believe that leach will be leading it..

[largebluej]

Buddah wrote: .. . . I would be tempted to see if the Genius could translate into the NFL. . . .. In a few years or less than ten, the game and how its played will change and the creator of those changes will probably go back to Mike Leach... Just as the game changed with Walsh, there will probably be another change coming, and i believe that leach will be leading it..
:?is there any way we can construct a wager on this outcome???

[Buddah]

you probably thought the same thing when bill walsh was named the 49ers head coach, now a version of his style of play is used more widely.... see thats the whole concept of being visionary, alot folks can't really see the forest for the trees... i would love to wager with you. and i will be equally happy in taking your money, every penny. though as i state 10 years or more... who knows if we will even be on the earth by then

[largebluej]

FWIW, Bill Walsh learned the passing game under Sid Gilliam, who never had the talent Walsh did at SF. I think Bill Walsh was a very good coach, and did at the time. He had a great offensive mind; he was an even better evaluator of talent. I wonder if you, or anyone else for that matter, would consider him a visionary if someone other than Joe Montana was pulling the trigger on the WC offense in its formative years, or if he he didn't have Jerry Rice on the receiving end.Did Walsh lose his vision when he failed at Stanford a few years later?? I don't think so, I think he had less talent relative to the opposition than he did when he built the 49ers. I believe talent trumps scheme most of the time.

If Leach is "Genius", what does that make Mike Shula?? Omnipotent Ruler of Time, Space and Dimension??;)

[Buddah]

largebluej wrote: FWIW, Bill Walsh learned the passing game under Sid Gilliam, who never had the talent Walsh did at SF. I think Bill Walsh was a very good coach, and did at the time. He had a great offensive mind; he was an even better evaluator of talent. I wonder if you, or anyone else for that matter, would consider him a visionary if someone other than Joe Montana was pulling the trigger on the WC offense in its formative years, or if he he didn't have Jerry Rice on the receiving end.Did Walsh lose his vision when he failed at Stanford a few years later?? I don't think so, I think he had less talent relative to the opposition than he did when he built the 49ers. I believe talent trumps scheme most of the time.

If Leach is "Genius", what does that make Mike Shula?? Omnipotent Ruler of Time, Space and Dimension??;)



You prove my point, Leach does it year in and year out with scrubs and NO talent or much less talent than most in his conference, read the articles, research. Since when do walk ons beat olk, neb, texas, califorina etc Leach has sucess with players that the old money schools never wanted or even thought twice about. i don'tsee what that is so hard to see.. Mike shula was lucky on a last chance field goal.. since you speak of sid gilliam forth, i won't take your money.. spend it on the great great grand kids, i would feel guilty. ;)

[largebluej]

Beating OU and Neb was no great shakes this year. I have seen the research and it says that Leach is in the middle of at worst the 3rd best FB recruiting state in the nation, I don't buy the no talent argument. Texas and OU get the cream, but there is plenty there to go around. He's at a big enough school and has enough talent that if hereally was thatfar ahead of the game w/his offensive strategy, he should have a better record against a boring, old traditionalist such as, oh, sayMack Brown. And enough talent to fare better than he did against a still-probation-shortened, bereft-of-offense Alabama. When I brought up Shula Lite, I wasn't so much referring to the win as the fact that they completely shut-down an offense that was supposed to be unstoppable. That wasn't luck.

I've got nothing against Leach, glad he was on our side back in the day, respected very much the fact he gave his old boss Hal the heads up that Bassett was up to no good, even though Mumme didn't do anything about it. (I actually thought that was enough of a smoking gun for Lievy to fire Mumme w/o the buyout, but he didn't have the stones for that). But I digress. I think Leach is a good, not great coach, similar to about 30-40 so currently practicing the craft. ;)But don't worry, I'm not interested in pilfering your retirement, either.

[Buddah]

largebluej wrote: Beating OU and Neb was no great shakes this year. I have seen the research and it says that Leach is in the middle of at worst the 3rd best FB recruiting state in the nation, I don't buy the no talent argument. Texas and OU get the cream, but there is plenty there to go around. He's at a big enough school and has enough talent that if hereally was thatfar ahead of the game w/his offensive strategy, he should have a better record against a boring, old traditionalist such as, oh, sayMack Brown. And enough talent to fare better than he did against a still-probation-shortened, bereft-of-offense Alabama. When I brought up Shula Lite, I wasn't so much referring to the win as the fact that they completely shut-down an offense that was supposed to be unstoppable. That wasn't luck.

I've got nothing against Leach, glad he was on our side back in the day, respected very much the fact he gave his old boss Hal the heads up that Bassett was up to no good, even though Mumme didn't do anything about it. (I actually thought that was enough of a smoking gun for Lievy to fire Mumme w/o the buyout, but he didn't have the stones for that). But I digress. I think Leach is a good, not great coach, similar to about 30-40 so currently practicing the craft. ;)But don't worry, I'm not interested in pilfering your retirement, either.




Again compared to most of the elite Tech has gotten the leftovers or the walk ons, especially the quaterback position. I guess we will just agree to disagree on Leach, which is o kay... But i do think that visionary coaches such as walsh went thru the exact thing, but now the west coast offense is a standard... we shall see.

BTW: WHen he beat cal and texas they were highly ranked.. the beating them is nothing this year is really a cop out, had we beaten tn last year would we have added that caveat as well. just agree to disagree.

[GeorgiaBlue]

Could Leach suceed in the NFL? - Coaching the exact same way - I'd say no. Is he smart enough to tweak his system so that a version of it could be run in the NFL? I dunno.

I'm not sure I'd call Leach a 'visionary' - when others have come before him. However it takes me back to the days of a coach by the name of Jack Pardee - who translated his absurd QB numbers in NCAA (re:Andre Ware) to a fairly successfull stint in the NFL - so maybe Leach could win that same way.

Interestingly enough he talked about other sports in this article - who was the basketball coach that tried the "i'll simply outscore you" approach in the NBA a few years ago - scores were like 174-154 and whatnot.

[MurphyLee]

GeorgiaBlue wrote:
Interestingly enough he talked about other sports in this article - who was the basketball coach that tried the "i'll simply outscore you" approach in the NBA a few years ago - scores were like 174-154 and whatnot.
Are you thinking of Paul Westhead?He's the guy that put Loyola Marymount in the Elite 8 after the death of Hank Gathers.With Gathers and Bo Kimble leading the way they tried to get a shot off something like every 10 seconds,maybe less.Anyway he turned that into a job with the Nuggets.They scored something like 120 ppg his first year and like 99 his second.Combined he was 44-120 for those 2 years.

[Aike]

Paul Westhead was the Laker coach before he ever coached at Loyola. He won a championship in Magic's rookie year (1980). Allegedly, Magic ran him off.

MurphyLee wrote: GeorgiaBlue wrote:
Interestingly enough he talked about other sports in this article - who was the basketball coach that tried the "i'll simply outscore you" approach in the NBA a few years ago - scores were like 174-154 and whatnot.
Are you thinking of Paul Westhead?He's the guy that put Loyola Marymount in the Elite 8 after the death of Hank Gathers.With Gathers and Bo Kimble leading the way they tried to get a shot off something like every 10 seconds,maybe less.Anyway he turned that into a job with the Nuggets.They scored something like 120 ppg his first year and like 99 his second.Combined he was 44-120 for those 2 years.

[The Old School JPS]

largebluej wrote: I wonder if you, or anyone else for that matter, would consider him a visionary if someone other than Joe Montana was pulling the trigger on the WC offense in its formative years, or if he he didn't have Jerry Rice on the receiving end.Did Walsh lose his vision when he failed at Stanford a few years later?? I don't think so, I think he had less talent relative to the opposition than he did when he built the 49ers. I believe talent trumps scheme most of the time.
Good post. I do think that what Walsh, Edwardsand Coryell were doing back then was 'visionary' in that it was different than what other people were doing and it worked well. But no doubt Walsh benefitted from having great talent that fit his scheme. (And I'd certainly give him credit as a coach for that; some coaches do the square peg/round hole thing with talentand schemes, as we've seenat UK and elsewhere at times.)

I'd add to that last part, though, that while talent often trumps scheme, scheme is one of the quickest, easiest and best ways for a team with less talent to overcome that disadvantage. Mumme did that at UK for two and a half years. I think Leach does it, and has since he's been at Texas Tech. Recently his starting QB was a walkon, someone whom none of their Big XII opponents would've given a scholarship. Many or most of their players would not get offers from some other conference schools, including some Leach has beaten recently.

Of course, the best of all worlds is having a talent advantage and an effective scheme on both sides of the ball, like Spurrier's old Florida teams, for example...