ACC quarterbacks in front of '15

[Skeptic]

Don't know this writer at all and keep in mind it is an internet site so there is that. But the summation of GT seems reasonable to me. Did get a kick out of the description of Cutcliffee having a "knack" for "developing QBs" and citing ... the Mannings. Anybody else in particular come to mind?

http://www.realclearsports.com/arti...fects_betting_in_2015_98217.html#.VVnWEMb_AqZ

 

[deeeznutz]

That 10-4 "against the spread" record is both a testament to how much we overachieved last year and a knock on the oddsmakers. I wouldn't be surprised if Vegas kept that number in mind when setting the lines this year...they really don't like to lose!

 

[JacketXL]

That 10-4 "against the spread" record is both a testament to how much we overachieved last year and a knock on the oddsmakers. I wouldn't be surprised if Vegas kept that number in mind when setting the lines this year...they really don't like to lose!

Unless they set the line exactly - the oddsmakers "lose" on every single game. They also "win" on every single game. Oddsmakers actually win when the underdog covers, but doesn't win, since the vast majority of the betting public will take the favorite minus the points. It's for that reason that they have to set the line far enough away from a pick em to give the underdog a shot, while still making it seem like the favorite will easily cover.

So whether Vegas won or lost money on us last year almost certainly depends on if we were the favorite or not. I can't speak for the entire season (because I'm too lazy to go look it up) but I can almost promise you the Clemson,UGA,FSU,MSU stretch of games was very good to Vegas.

 

[RyanS12]

I made good money on us last year. Really cleaned up on the Ugag and Miss St spreads. Only game I didn't win was Duke. I didn't touch GSU or UNCheat.

 

[RamblinCharger]

Vegas sets lines based on public perception and the money bet on one side or the other in order to attempt to keep the money even on both sides. The lines then move as the betting continues.

There are some narratives out there that say that vegas sets lines based on analysis of the game and who they think will win the game, but from what I've read, and from talking to people that know more about it than me, that is a false narrative.

 

[RamblinCharger]

I made good money on us last year. Really cleaned up on the Ugag and Miss St spreads. Only game I didn't win was Duke. I didn't touch GSU or UNCheat.

Yeah I typically make money on GT and a lot of the ACCC because I know them much better than the general public. That's the key to sports gambling. Know the teams you're betting on better than most of the public, but obviously don't bet with your heart.

 

[TheGridironGeek]

Curious remark about CPJ being inconsistent even when having the right QB. Presumably, the bookie took one look at Vad Lee 3 years ago, decided he was the perfect mix of size, speed & arm for GT, then blithely wondered why they weren't winning more and not understanding Lee's actual shortcomings in the Flex.

But it's not so much that I happen to disagree, these types of comments ignore that the QB's and the team's success go together. No QB is ever a bad fit for their team when they're winning Orange Bowls, and no QB who pilots a disappointing season was ever seen as perfect. Say GT had a bad season in '14 and Thomas got hurt trying to do too much. They would say "See, he was too small, we told ya" and write him off. People display a lot of vanity when they write about sports.

Slightly OT -- I personally think Thomas is the FIRST great fit for CPJ at Tech, because he's the first guy whose running style is ideal who can also pass well & make good decisions. But then I'm a Navy Academy fan. I think the Flexbone is meant to look like circular gears in fluid motion, not the sort of stop/go machine-like execution of the offense under Josh Nesbitt.

 

[Skeptic]

Curious remark about CPJ being inconsistent even when having the right QB. Presumably, the bookie took one look at Vad Lee 3 years ago, decided he was the perfect mix of size, speed & arm for GT, then blithely wondered why they weren't winning more and not understanding Lee's actual shortcomings in the Flex.

But it's not so much that I happen to disagree, these types of comments ignore that the QB's and the team's success go together. No QB is ever a bad fit for their team when they're winning Orange Bowls, and no QB who pilots a disappointing season was ever seen as perfect. Say GT had a bad season in '14 and Thomas got hurt trying to do too much. They would say "See, he was too small, we told ya" and write him off. People display a lot of vanity when they write about sports.

Slightly OT -- I personally think Thomas is the FIRST great fit for CPJ at Tech, because he's the first guy whose running style is ideal who can also pass well & make good decisions. But then I'm a Navy Academy fan. I think the Flexbone is meant to look like circular gears in fluid motion, not the sort of stop/go machine-like execution of the offense under Josh Nesbitt.

I didn't read it quite the same way. I think the "inconsistent" observation was fair, given the middlin' years before '14. Most but not all of that had to do with Johnson's inability to recruit a QB, in my mind his single greatest failing at Tech. I would bet he'd agree though never out loud. (Defense is not that far behind, but lord knows I don't know what else he could have done.) In that very narrow sense -- very narrow, as I don't want it read wrong -- critics of his spread option were right if the objective is to win championships. Tech could be .500 or a shade better with Washington or Lee, better with Nesbitt with that strong defense early on, for the wrong reason, as they would be in most offenses. I think this particular offense is so QBcentric results can't be finessed or shaded. Get one, win big. Got one in '14, won big.

Interesting observation on Nesbitt, though. In hindsight, I think fair.

 

[AE 87]

I didn't read it quite the same way. I think the "inconsistent" observation was fair, given the middlin' years before '14. Most but not all of that had to do with Johnson's inability to recruit a QB, in my mind his single greatest failing at Tech. I would bet he'd agree though never out loud. (Defense is not that far behind, but lord knows I don't know what else he could have done.) In that very narrow sense -- very narrow, as I don't want it read wrong -- critics of his spread option were right if the objective is to win championships. Tech could be .500 or a shade better with Washington or Lee, better with Nesbitt with that strong defense early on, for the wrong reason, as they would be in most offenses. I think this particular offense is so QBcentric results can't be finessed or shaded. Get one, win big. Got one in '14, won big.

Interesting observation on Nesbitt, though. In hindsight, I think fair.

Fwiw, I couldn't disagree more. If the "middlin" years had an identifiable problem, it was clearly D. This point has been argued to death imo, and if you had any data to support your opinion, you'd be the first in four years. Remember w-l is a team measure not an O measure.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Fwiw, I couldn't disagree more. If the "middlin" years had an identifiable problem, it was clearly D. This point has been argued to death imo, and if you had any data to support your opinion, you'd be the first in four years. Remember w-l is a team measure not an O measure.

I agree that the D was the downfall in the "middlin" years, but....

The D wasn't exactly head and shoulder's better in '14 yet the team did significantly better.

Here's a comparison between the '11 team that went 8-5 with Tevin, whom I've always supported and admired, and the team that just won the OB.

................Comparison of Key Stats (rankings) Between the '11D and the '14D
.............................................'11 defense...................'14 defense
Scoring D.................................60....................................53
Total D......................................43....................................81
Int's............................................31....................................10
Fumbles Forced......................50....................................11
Opponent 3rd down
conversion rate.......................83...................................114

So in summary, the '14 D was much better in forcing turnovers, but that was it. Scoring D was very similar. The '11D was significantly better in both opponent's 3rd down conversion rate and total D. I'd call it a wash. So why was the '14 "team" so much better? Was the '14 offense that much better? I don't think so. I think it was clutch plays. Both sides of the ball were much better in clutch time in '14 than in '11. Remember how many games we lost by the slimmest of margins in '11. The converse was true last year.

 

[TheGridironGeek]

I didn't read it quite the same way. I think the "inconsistent" observation was fair, given the middlin' years before '14. Most but not all of that had to do with Johnson's inability to recruit a QB, in my mind his single greatest failing at Tech. I would bet he'd agree though never out loud. (Defense is not that far behind, but lord knows I don't know what else he could have done.) In that very narrow sense -- very narrow, as I don't want it read wrong -- critics of his spread option were right if the objective is to win championships. Tech could be .500 or a shade better with Washington or Lee, better with Nesbitt with that strong defense early on, for the wrong reason, as they would be in most offenses. I think this particular offense is so QBcentric results can't be finessed or shaded. Get one, win big. Got one in '14, won big.

Interesting observation on Nesbitt, though. In hindsight, I think fair.

I don't understand what you're saying though. If CPJ has had problems recruiting QB's (valid point of issue) then he hasn't had ideal guys at that position; if he hasn't had ideal guys at QB then the columnist's remarks are moot, since the article says even when Johnson has had an excellent fit at QB his teams have been inconsistent.

Any critic who still says the Flexbone isn't a championship scheme is just moving the goalposts at this point. It's not like Alabama or LSU couldn't win national titles with a pure option scheme, they probably know it. But politics & money demand a balanced, NFL-ish playbook for distributing touches/stats to prize mercenaries. Lou Holtz has talked about his past relationship w/ boosters at Notre Dame, threatening him to get out of the Wishbone or else. "But we beat Michigan," Holtz would say. "We beat Texas. We're winning everything." And the booster would reply "I don't care, it's boring and we want to recruit the next Joe Namath."

 

[AE 87]

I agree that the D was the downfall in the "middlin" years, but....

The D wasn't exactly head and shoulder's better in '14 yet the team did significantly better.

Here's a comparison between the '11 team that went 8-5 with Tevin, whom I've always supported and admired, and the team that just won the OB.

................Comparison of Key Stats (rankings) Between the '11D and the '14D
.............................................'11 defense...................'14 defense
Scoring D.................................60....................................53
Total D......................................43....................................81
Int's............................................31....................................10
Fumbles Forced......................50....................................11
Opponent 3rd down
conversion rate.......................83...................................114

So in summary, the '14 D was much better in forcing turnovers, but that was it. Scoring D was very similar. The '11D was significantly better in both opponent's 3rd down conversion rate and total D. I'd call it a wash. So why was the '14 "team" so much better? Was the '14 offense that much better? I don't think so. I think it was clutch plays. Both sides of the ball were much better in clutch time in '14 than in '11. Remember how many games we lost by the slimmest of margins in '11. The converse was true last year.

We probably (footballoutsiders) had the best offense in at least a decade in 2014. I agree that our D was not significantly better in 2014 but think "best ever" is an unreasonable standard for our O.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

We probably (footballoutsiders) had the best offense in at least a decade in 2014. I agree that our D was not significantly better in 2014 but think "best ever" is an unreasonable standard for our O.

I agree the O was better in '14, but I still think it came down to as little as 3 or 4 clutch plays. The '14 team made 'em and the '11 team didn't.

 

[Skeptic]

I don't understand what you're saying though. If CPJ has had problems recruiting QB's (valid point of issue) then he hasn't had ideal guys at that position; if he hasn't had ideal guys at QB then the columnist's remarks are moot, since the article says even when Johnson has had an excellent fit at QB his teams have been inconsistent.

Any critic who still says the Flexbone isn't a championship scheme is just moving the goalposts at this point. It's not like Alabama or LSU couldn't win national titles with a pure option scheme, they probably know it. But politics & money demand a balanced, NFL-ish playbook for distributing touches/stats to prize mercenaries. Lou Holtz has talked about his past relationship w/ boosters at Notre Dame, threatening him to get out of the Wishbone or else. "But we beat Michigan," Holtz would say. "We beat Texas. We're winning everything." And the booster would reply "I don't care, it's boring and we want to recruit the next Joe Namath."

If you want to say the "right" quarterback, I'd agree. That would be much fairer and more accurate. But without the "right" quarterback, Tech was 7-6 or so "consistently" if you will, from '10-'14. I would not argue for a minute that even without the ideal guy the offense could be and was potent, but DCS is right in another post: nobody could make the big, or clutch, play, and the defense through those years vs. '14 was a distinction without a difference. As much as I appreciated Washington's ability to run the option, and that was substantial, he was not the "gives us a chance" QB, in Johnson's word, on 3rd and long. And both he and Nesbitt were, how to say, an adventure, throwing the ball. Lee apparently was finally the guy, until it developed he couldn't play so well under center and the quick and fast developing option was just asking too much of him. (Even ND's "next Namath" ran the option at Alabama, a little remembered fact, and was very good at it. I think I remember reading somewhere that's how he messed up his knee, but maybe not.) Anyway, as I have said before, I love the offense. But it requires the "right" QB to go all the way, so to speak. It is unfortunately an increasingly rare breed in today's shotgun offense world.