An insult to JT and GT

TheGridironGeek

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
276
That, I believe, is the prime definition of a system QB. And pretty much condemns the SEC that a guy with Tebow's obvious limitations threw for more than 3,000 yards. And "limitations" is being kind.

That's ridiculous. At the time, nobody had seriously ran the option in the SEC for 15 years, and Meyer/Tebow pioneered a new version of it and won titles. It's not Florida's fault that the zone-read became the dominant style in CFB and mobile "system" QB's began to seem interchangeable.

Every QB is a system QB anyway. Justin Thomas is a system QB. When Jim Plunkett had to run the option for New England, a lot of people smirked about his limitations. Every QB is what they is.

It's important to give credit to the opposition once in a while. In the Meyer era Florida was A #1 in the very strongest conference. You can't ignore 7 national championships in a row. Just because other conferences are catching up athletically now doesn't mean we can retroactively bash the champions of years past.

The QB's at Ohio State are putting up good #'s because they're freaks. Meyer has his pick of the litter, so they're not slugs coasting along in an automatic-success playbook. No such thing anyway.
 

TheGridironGeek

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
276
Was that Davies? Now at New Mexico where he is winning some games, 4-5 the last couple of years, but a lot better than three wins in the previous three or four years before they hired him. He is running the option out of a pistol, still too chicken to go all the way.

Yeah, the zone-blocked Muskegon hybrid, very similar to GaSo.

Last season NM ran for 400+ yards against Boise State. In the first half. I'll have what Davies is having, chicken or eggs or whatever.
 

Skeptic

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,954
Yeah, the zone-blocked Muskegon hybrid, very similar to GaSo.

Last season NM ran for 400+ yards against Boise State. In the first half. I'll have what Davies is having, chicken or eggs or whatever.
Which goes to proves he can coach better than he can analyst.
 
Messages
921
Location
Middle, Ga
That's ridiculous. At the time, nobody had seriously ran the option in the SEC for 15 years, and Meyer/Tebow pioneered a new version of it and won titles. It's not Florida's fault that the zone-read became the dominant style in CFB and mobile "system" QB's began to seem interchangeable.

Every QB is a system QB anyway. Justin Thomas is a system QB. When Jim Plunkett had to run the option for New England, a lot of people smirked about his limitations. Every QB is what they is.

It's important to give credit to the opposition once in a while. In the Meyer era Florida was A #1 in the very strongest conference. You can't ignore 7 national championships in a row. Just because other conferences are catching up athletically now doesn't mean we can retroactively bash the champions of years past.

The QB's at Ohio State are putting up good #'s because they're freaks. Meyer has his pick of the litter, so they're not slugs coasting along in an automatic-success playbook. No such thing anyway.
Do a little research on the QB at bowling green when Meyer was the coach. His system is just works!
 

okiemon

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,363
I don't think it is really an insult. The Heisman trophy is going to be biased towards passing QBs. We finished 123rd in the country in passing last year. JT would have to do something really special to overcome that.

I don't think it's an insult either. The writer knows what stats weigh in to the Heisman voting, that's all. We Tech fans tend to take offense at almost everything, don't we?
 

AE 87

Helluva Engineer
Messages
12,967
I don't think it's an insult either. The writer knows what stats weigh in to the Heisman voting, that's all. We Tech fans tend to take offense at almost everything, don't we?

I agree that they look at Total Yards, Comp, TD's etc, as @Techster highlighter earlier. However, I don't think it's a simple statistical formula weighted toward passing but rather how those stats reflect the overall impact of the one player on the team's success.

As it turns out, that's also what ESPN tries to determine with it's Total QBR (Link)
Total QBR is based on all of a quarterback’s plays (rushing, passing, sacks, fumbles, interceptions, penalties, etc.), and it calculates the per-play net impact of the quarterback on the ability to score. Each play is weighted by the situation (i.e., down and distance, field position, time during the game) and its importance to the game’s outcome. For example, a completed five-yard pass on 3rd-and-3 would increase a quarterback’s QBR more than a five-yard completion on 3rd-and-15 because the former continues the drive and thus improves the team’s chance of scoring. Also, plays in closely contested games carry a greater value than plays in less competitive situations.​
I think there's a difference between the NFL and NCAA formulas and that there have been modifications since 2011, but that's all I know.

Still, looking at the 9 QB's who won the Heisman over the last 11 years (2005 and 2009 went to running backs), the winner of the Heisman trophy was also #1 in total QBR in 2007, 2008, and 2012-2014. In 2004, Matt Leinart won the Heisman while #7 in QBR. Interestingly, while USC did finish #1 at 13-0, Auburn finished 13-0 also, and Jason Cambell had a higher QBR. In 2006, Troy Smith won the Heisman while #4 in QBR. WV's Pat White was #1 in QBR, but they finished #10 in the AP. In 2010 Cam Newton won at #3 in QBR while Auburn was #1 even though Andrew Luck was #1 in QBR while Stanford finished at #4. Perhaps 2011 is the most interesting. RG III won the Heisman while #4 in QBR and Baylor finishing at #13. Russell Wilson (#1 QBR) led Wisc to #10; Kellen Moore (#2 QBR) led BSU to #8, and Andrew Luck (#3 QBR) led Stanford to #7 in the AP. Only Boise State and Stanford had been in the top 10 after weeks 11, 12, and 13. Russell Wilson was probably hurt by Montee Ball also being a contender from Wisconsin. Kellen Moore and Andrew Luck had bad losses at bad times to sour voters, iirc.

Regardless, I still think that determined by stats as informed by stats along with team record and the pizzazz factor in big games. I find it interesting that QBR seems to do a decent job at measuring that. In 2014, Justin Thomas was #4 in Total QBR, 83.7, behind Mariota 90.9, JT Barrett, 86.7, and Nick Marshall 85.2. By comparison RG III's Total QBR was 82.5 in 2011. So, even with Justin playing within the system this past year, he got his Total QBR stat and ranking within range of Heisman winners.

So, while I respect the difference of opinion that you, @ATL1, @CobbTech, and @Techster offer, I don't think you need to suggest that those who disagree are just emotional and too sensitive. There simply has not been an option QB in contention over the last several years to compare, and the statistic that does seem to work (5 of last 7 QBs, 8 yrs) can actually work in JT's favor.
 

Northeast Stinger

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,489
I agree that they look at Total Yards, Comp, TD's etc, as @Techster highlighter earlier. However, I don't think it's a simple statistical formula weighted toward passing but rather how those stats reflect the overall impact of the one player on the team's success.

As it turns out, that's also what ESPN tries to determine with it's Total QBR (Link)
Total QBR is based on all of a quarterback’s plays (rushing, passing, sacks, fumbles, interceptions, penalties, etc.), and it calculates the per-play net impact of the quarterback on the ability to score. Each play is weighted by the situation (i.e., down and distance, field position, time during the game) and its importance to the game’s outcome. For example, a completed five-yard pass on 3rd-and-3 would increase a quarterback’s QBR more than a five-yard completion on 3rd-and-15 because the former continues the drive and thus improves the team’s chance of scoring. Also, plays in closely contested games carry a greater value than plays in less competitive situations.​
I think there's a difference between the NFL and NCAA formulas and that there have been modifications since 2011, but that's all I know.

Still, looking at the 9 QB's who won the Heisman over the last 11 years (2005 and 2009 went to running backs), the winner of the Heisman trophy was also #1 in total QBR in 2007, 2008, and 2012-2014. In 2004, Matt Leinart won the Heisman while #7 in QBR. Interestingly, while USC did finish #1 at 13-0, Auburn finished 13-0 also, and Jason Cambell had a higher QBR. In 2006, Troy Smith won the Heisman while #4 in QBR. WV's Pat White was #1 in QBR, but they finished #10 in the AP. In 2010 Cam Newton won at #3 in QBR while Auburn was #1 even though Andrew Luck was #1 in QBR while Stanford finished at #4. Perhaps 2011 is the most interesting. RG III won the Heisman while #4 in QBR and Baylor finishing at #13. Russell Wilson (#1 QBR) led Wisc to #10; Kellen Moore (#2 QBR) led BSU to #8, and Andrew Luck (#3 QBR) led Stanford to #7 in the AP. Only Boise State and Stanford had been in the top 10 after weeks 11, 12, and 13. Russell Wilson was probably hurt by Montee Ball also being a contender from Wisconsin. Kellen Moore and Andrew Luck had bad losses at bad times to sour voters, iirc.

Regardless, I still think that determined by stats as informed by stats along with team record and the pizzazz factor in big games. I find it interesting that QBR seems to do a decent job at measuring that. In 2014, Justin Thomas was #4 in Total QBR, 83.7, behind Mariota 90.9, JT Barrett, 86.7, and Nick Marshall 85.2. By comparison RG III's Total QBR was 82.5 in 2011. So, even with Justin playing within the system this past year, he got his Total QBR stat and ranking within range of Heisman winners.

So, while I respect the difference of opinion that you, @ATL1, @CobbTech, and @Techster offer, I don't think you need to suggest that those who disagree are just emotional and too sensitive. There simply has not been an option QB in contention over the last several years to compare, and the statistic that does seem to work (5 of last 7 QBs, 8 yrs) can actually work in JT's favor.
You make an excellent point. And given what you posit it goes to show that our dissatisfaction with the article was not that it was a direct put down of JT or Tech but rather it was lazy writing. It is easy to say that, "Well, yes, we all know the Heisman trophy winner, if he is a quarterback has to throw for 3000-4000 yards a season," but that is short term memory and ignores the larger parameters of what Heisman voting is all about.
 

Techster

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,202
I agree that they look at Total Yards, Comp, TD's etc, as @Techster highlighter earlier. However, I don't think it's a simple statistical formula weighted toward passing but rather how those stats reflect the overall impact of the one player on the team's success.

As it turns out, that's also what ESPN tries to determine with it's Total QBR (Link)
Total QBR is based on all of a quarterback’s plays (rushing, passing, sacks, fumbles, interceptions, penalties, etc.), and it calculates the per-play net impact of the quarterback on the ability to score. Each play is weighted by the situation (i.e., down and distance, field position, time during the game) and its importance to the game’s outcome. For example, a completed five-yard pass on 3rd-and-3 would increase a quarterback’s QBR more than a five-yard completion on 3rd-and-15 because the former continues the drive and thus improves the team’s chance of scoring. Also, plays in closely contested games carry a greater value than plays in less competitive situations.​
I think there's a difference between the NFL and NCAA formulas and that there have been modifications since 2011, but that's all I know.

Still, looking at the 9 QB's who won the Heisman over the last 11 years (2005 and 2009 went to running backs), the winner of the Heisman trophy was also #1 in total QBR in 2007, 2008, and 2012-2014. In 2004, Matt Leinart won the Heisman while #7 in QBR. Interestingly, while USC did finish #1 at 13-0, Auburn finished 13-0 also, and Jason Cambell had a higher QBR. In 2006, Troy Smith won the Heisman while #4 in QBR. WV's Pat White was #1 in QBR, but they finished #10 in the AP. In 2010 Cam Newton won at #3 in QBR while Auburn was #1 even though Andrew Luck was #1 in QBR while Stanford finished at #4. Perhaps 2011 is the most interesting. RG III won the Heisman while #4 in QBR and Baylor finishing at #13. Russell Wilson (#1 QBR) led Wisc to #10; Kellen Moore (#2 QBR) led BSU to #8, and Andrew Luck (#3 QBR) led Stanford to #7 in the AP. Only Boise State and Stanford had been in the top 10 after weeks 11, 12, and 13. Russell Wilson was probably hurt by Montee Ball also being a contender from Wisconsin. Kellen Moore and Andrew Luck had bad losses at bad times to sour voters, iirc.

Regardless, I still think that determined by stats as informed by stats along with team record and the pizzazz factor in big games. I find it interesting that QBR seems to do a decent job at measuring that. In 2014, Justin Thomas was #4 in Total QBR, 83.7, behind Mariota 90.9, JT Barrett, 86.7, and Nick Marshall 85.2. By comparison RG III's Total QBR was 82.5 in 2011. So, even with Justin playing within the system this past year, he got his Total QBR stat and ranking within range of Heisman winners.

So, while I respect the difference of opinion that you, @ATL1, @CobbTech, and @Techster offer, I don't think you need to suggest that those who disagree are just emotional and too sensitive. There simply has not been an option QB in contention over the last several years to compare, and the statistic that does seem to work (5 of last 7 QBs, 8 yrs) can actually work in JT's favor.

FYI...Cam Newton, Tim Tebow were both option QBs.
 

AE 87

Helluva Engineer
Messages
12,967
FYI...Cam Newton, Tim Tebow were both option QBs.

Oh, I apologize to you. Sometimes, I assume that context will make my meaning clear. I failed to spell out the difference between GT's style of option play where we run the ball 80% of the time and the UF/Auburn style where they run the ball closer 65-70% of the time. You could probably include Mariota in there as well since Oregon probably runs it about 60%+ of the time relying on a lot of read option as well. All three of those teams relied on screen passes in some/many of the same plays where we pitch. That's why guys earlier in this thread were talking about the finding ways to give the QB credit for option pitches. So, yes, you are right, that those other teams/qbs relied on option concepts, and I didn't make it explicitly clear that when I used option QB I was emphasizing the degree to which we run the ball. Again, I am sorry for misleading you.
 

Skeptic

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,954
Oh, I apologize to you. Sometimes, I assume that context will make my meaning clear. I failed to spell out the difference between GT's style of option play where we run the ball 80% of the time and the UF/Auburn style where they run the ball closer 65-70% of the time. You could probably include Mariota in there as well since Oregon probably runs it about 60%+ of the time relying on a lot of read option as well. All three of those teams relied on screen passes in some/many of the same plays where we pitch. That's why guys earlier in this thread were talking about the finding ways to give the QB credit for option pitches. So, yes, you are right, that those other teams/qbs relied on option concepts, and I didn't make it explicitly clear that when I used option QB I was emphasizing the degree to which we run the ball. Again, I am sorry for misleading you.
My guess is that the difference they see is under-center, all the time, which nobody does any more, and the quick, rapid reads required vs. shotgun. What they don't understand they don't like and consider it, in this instance, a throwback. Well, really, it is. But nobody in football runs the option better than Thomas, but style points might get him nothing, or very little, because it is just too doggoned hard to understand. I watch and rewatch and stop action and reverse all the time, and every time I see something I didn't notice before, and it makes the offense beautiful. Beauty gets little when voting gets lazy.
 

Techster

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,202
Oh, I apologize to you. Sometimes, I assume that context will make my meaning clear. I failed to spell out the difference between GT's style of option play where we run the ball 80% of the time and the UF/Auburn style where they run the ball closer 65-70% of the time. You could probably include Mariota in there as well since Oregon probably runs it about 60%+ of the time relying on a lot of read option as well. All three of those teams relied on screen passes in some/many of the same plays where we pitch. That's why guys earlier in this thread were talking about the finding ways to give the QB credit for option pitches. So, yes, you are right, that those other teams/qbs relied on option concepts, and I didn't make it explicitly clear that when I used option QB I was emphasizing the degree to which we run the ball. Again, I am sorry for misleading you.

We get it bro...your schtick when someone even remotely disagrees with you is to come off as condescending and insulting to make yourself seem smarter, but you really just look like a angry fan attacking everyone in the safety of his mom's basement, and your point just gets lost.

The funny (or is it ironic) thing about you tagging me and referring to my post is that post was in a way agreeing with your overall point. I guess you just like to cherry pick someone's post to fuel what ever kinda animosity you can to find the courage to lash out...but had you read my post in its entirety, you would have read that I was in a way agreeing with you when I said:

The Heisman is a dog and pony show. JeT will need to make ESPN highlight type plays in big games, put up big numbers, and GT will need to be in the hunt for a conference championship and possibly a playoff spot. That said, GT's schedule will give JeT an opportunity to make big plays on national television, this offense can help QBs put up BIG numbers (see Tracy Ham), and we should be in the hunt for the ACC title and a playoff spot.

The ingredients are there...now JeT and GT needs to get the job done ON THE FIELD.


So I apologize if I made it plain as day that I thought JeT had the ability to win the Heisman even with our offense, but I guess the more important theme with you is just to be snarky and condescending for its own sake...which lately you have been extra salty with multiple posters in several threads. Your act is getting old and it's taking away from various posters and threads.

In the immortal words of Weezer, "Let it go, the damage in your heart."
 

DTGT

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
530
Looking at recent history, it's going to take about 4,000-4,500 yards of total offense and 30-40 TD's. Do you really think JT will produce those numbers in our offense?
Yes. Full stop.

However, when the committee does not count roughly a third of JT's yards & TDs...
 

dressedcheeseside

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,675
One thing that worries me about this year is not knowing how long it will take to achieve the same level of offensive synchronicity we had last year. Outside of JT, we had a ton of veterans on offense and a good many of them are now gone. It's gonna take a while to regain that level of experiential knowledge.
 

AE 87

Helluva Engineer
Messages
12,967
We get it bro...your schtick when someone even remotely disagrees with you is to come off as condescending and insulting to make yourself seem smarter, but you really just look like a angry fan attacking everyone in the safety of his mom's basement, and your point just gets lost.

The funny (or is it ironic) thing about you tagging me and referring to my post is that post was in a way agreeing with your overall point. I guess you just like to cherry pick someone's post to fuel what ever kinda animosity you can to find the courage to lash out...but had you read my post in its entirety, you would have read that I was in a way agreeing with you when I said:

The Heisman is a dog and pony show. JeT will need to make ESPN highlight type plays in big games, put up big numbers, and GT will need to be in the hunt for a conference championship and possibly a playoff spot. That said, GT's schedule will give JeT an opportunity to make big plays on national television, this offense can help QBs put up BIG numbers (see Tracy Ham), and we should be in the hunt for the ACC title and a playoff spot.

The ingredients are there...now JeT and GT needs to get the job done ON THE FIELD.


So I apologize if I made it plain as day that I thought JeT had the ability to win the Heisman even with our offense, but I guess the more important theme with you is just to be snarky and condescending for its own sake...which lately you have been extra salty with multiple posters in several threads. Your act is getting old and it's taking away from various posters and threads.

In the immortal words of Weezer, "Let it go, the damage in your heart."

I don't know what I can do more than apologize for not being more clear. At the beginning of my long post I expressed appreciation for your contribution.

I tagged you for your reply to @CobbTech where you suggested the only reason people disagreed was from GT fan insecurity or sensitivity.

I don't think we have a problem except for when you assert motives for the people who disagree with you as if they are stupid.

So, again I apologize that I was not more clear. If you take my apology as license to personally attack me again, well ok.
 
Top