Exciting times just around the corner!

Techster

Helluva Engineer
Messages
16,030
Just a frustrating argument. You stepped into the middle and changed direction of the original intent of the posts.

Being serious here: One of the things inherently challenging about internet communication is that you can't see the person on the other side of the words. It would help to know more about a person when engaging with them. You engage differently with a woman vs a man, a 90 year old vs a 40 year old, etc; and those differing ways of engagement are often cultural ways of showing respect for differences. I'm truly wondering how old you are. It's totally fine to be young, it would just change the way I would engage with you. I would probably be able to show you more respect if I knew more about you. I'm sorry if I've offended. If you're not young, that's cool too, and I'm sorry I insinuated wrongly. If you don't want to reveal that, that's totally understandable.

Understood. Sorry if I changed the original intent...I was just going by that statement that I quoted you on.

My pet peeve is when people get personal and start name calling. Not that I haven't been guilty of it on occassions...but to me, when name calling gets thrown around I assume a poster has nothing intelligent to offer to a discussion anymore. It's especially needless to say something like "It's there in the numbers for anybody who can think." Just because someone interprets numbers one way (usually to the benefit of their argument) doesn't mean someone else interprets numbers the same way. You can ask Democrats and Republicans about numbers interpretations.

As for personal information...that's irrelevant to me. You judge a person by what they post, not by their age (or race, or sex, etc.) If I sound like I"m 13 (and maybe I do) then so be it.

Like you said, if we were sitting at a table having drinks, maybe the discussion goes differently. Tone and how you approach things goes a long ways...and that gets lost on the internet.
 

33jacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,594
Location
Georgia
33, I actually agree with a lot of what you say, but not necessarily your implied conclusion that that means we will never have good passing under CPJ. As others have pointed out, while the system does not lend itself to good completion percentages, it does lend itself to pretty good QB efficiency ratings. In fact, Tevin Washington (who I think we all agree was not a 5 star QB recruit), finished Tech with 3rd in career pass efficiency and with the 2nd best season in the history of GT in 2011 with an efficiency rating of 155.4. In that year, he also completed about 56% of his passes, which is pretty comparable to what the three guys we had before CPJ did (Reggie Ball, Taylor Bennett, and A.J. Suggs). Thomas also finished just 48 yards short of Calvin's single season passing yards record of 1202 in 2009. That he did it with 30 less receptions speaks to the increased efficiency possible in the system.

I agree that our system probably makes it tougher for any given QB to be consistent, but that doesn't mean we can't have one that is really effective. I think your point about our line needing better protection is the most important thing we need to improve.

I totally agree with you. What we do can be effective but we will never have a consistently good passing game. Just wont happen. So fans stop looking for it. Thats my point.
 

33jacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,594
Location
Georgia
Open the link attached here: Link
Fast forward to 31:50 and watch the slow motion replay of that 3rd and 6 pass play....and listen to the commentators as they say "This is not a very good scheme. Having a 225 pound running back trying to block a 270 pound defensive end." There are some other interesting comments there, too but you guys will discount them because of who said them.

But a few things to note on that play:
- Vad takes a 5-step drop on the play. He is hit just after he plants his foot on the 5th step.
- We send 2 receivers into a 2-deep ZONE coverage; not man-to-man. Both safeties roll over to play side and we end up with 4 defenders covering 2 receivers. Even if Vad had time, there would have been no downfield receiver to throw it to.
- This isn't an exception in our blocking schemes. If you want to watch the entire game there, go ahead. You'll see our A- and B- backs try to block defenders (and miss) most of the night. If you also bother to do so, you'll see the same scheme used in many other games.

Edited:
You will also note that many of the better teams we play will play 2, 3, or 4 deep zones against us just as often, if not moreso, than they play man-to-man against us.

Great data. Thanks for helping my point out. We are not vs man as much as folks think. The scheme is not great and a wr should be able to get open in 2 deep playaction. Not rocket science.
 

70Jacket

Georgia Tech Fan
Messages
79
DT was the primary receiver for (im guessing on this one) 90+ percent of all pass attempts; a combination of safeties cheating and DT's ability to beat man coverage resulted in huge success- having Dwyer in the backfield caused defenses to pick their poison, stopping the run or doubling DT, neither worked out well for most defenses.

That is you saying how the offense maximized what DT could do, is it not? Listen, on another thread you were advocating for Chris Hatcher and ignoring the fact that he inherited Jayson Foster in order to fit some agenda you have. I really can't take you seriously at all. I mean, Chris Hatcher, smh.

The argument is "developing" wide receivers in cpj offense, my premise is that DT's two years under Geis(and playing with CJ) provided him analytical skills from a pro-style perspective that are not taught in cpj scheme; being the exclusive receiver increased the productivity- but then you know all this!

I was advocating "Teri Hatcher" !!!

You need to find some one else to argue with- i'm gone!
 

33jacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,594
Location
Georgia
@33jacket your rant made a lot of good points, but I'm not sure why it was in this thread. I didn't see anyone complaining that Vad wasn't Case Keenum. At most, the complaint was that he wasn't JN or TW.

However, the facts don't support you, imo. The NCAA passer rating includes attempts, comp%, TDs and int, and still TWs 2011 passer rating would've been 13th in the country (too few att per game to count).

Also, if you just look at ypa, we were 1st or 2nd 3 of 6 and top 25 5 of 6.

Continue to prove why stats are not indicative of reality. The fact is we dont and wont ever have a consistently reliable passing game. When our run gets shut down and we have to pass our way around we cant do it. All the stats in the world show gt passing in comp percentage and yards in the bottom of ncaa. So its simple.
 

daBuzz

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
965
I was advocating "Teri Hatcher" !!!
Just for the record. Teri Hatcher is hot.

I'm in favor of bringing her in for catching duties anytime!
Teri-Hatcher-Wallpaper-3.jpg
 

Techster

Helluva Engineer
Messages
16,030
1997- Leading rusher has 567 yards. Top 3 rushers average under 4 yards a carry.
1998- Leading rusher has less than 500 yards
1999-Leading Rusher has 837
2000-908 but only averages 4 yards per carry.

2008-1395
2009-1395 and 1037
2010- 1316
2011- 987
Keep in mind that in these last 4 years CPJ has had multiple guys over 500 yards underneath the guys with a thousand. And every year a top A-Back averages between 9-12 yards per carry.

It's not a fair comparison. Even with Fridge having arguably the best player in Georgia Tech history.

Not sure you're disagreeing with anything I've said. We were talking about the offensive systems with respect to a certain position. So Friedgens RBs weren't as prolific as CPJ's in that system...but that goes back to the system. I can take Vamos statement: "We've never had a better run of successful RB's under any previous coach/system." and apply to RBs. And your argument with regards to RB under Friedgen compared to CPJ would hold true in that case because Friedgens system didn't emphasize a feature back like CPJ's (or Gailey's).

Look at it this way: BeyBey put up prolific numbers in 2009, one of the best seasons ever in GT football for a WR, but an argument can be that he should have. Total ATTEMPTS for the team that year was 168, of which DT's CATCHES (46 catches) accounted for 27.3% of just the attempts. Anyone who watched that season played out knows we targeted DT close to half the time. 46 of the 78 total completions that year went to 1 guy (DT). Now if you look at the numbers quoted by Vamos in an earlier post, and referencing the bios of the players being named, you know that their target rate under Friedgen was nowhere near what BeyBey had under CPJ.

So why is it that Friedgen WRs should get penalized because their QB isn't targeting one of them enough? You see how it can go the other way? Not switching arguments here or trying to be a smarta$$...it's just the debate is about the system with respect another poster's statement.
 

33jacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,594
Location
Georgia
Development of a wr to me does not mean single season stats as a proof. Production and development of your craft are not necessarily hand and hand.

As an example. Hill stinks in the nfl. Cant learn the playbook, plays slow and is having trouble picking the offense up. Why? As baybay points out in his quote is because they dont see a route tree or anything close to the nfl.

So then did paul develop hill? No. Hill was a great athlete that fit an aspect of the system that its designed for. The 9 route. And had good production his final year. But paul did not help hill in his craft much as shown in the nfl. And backed up by baybay saying that system didnt help him in his craft much either. Its just a fact.

Now did those two guys have two of the single best seasons. Sure. Did they also account for 70-80percent of the passing offense. Yup. But to say paul developed them is off imo. The difference in baybay and hill is simply laerning the nfl system quick. Fyi many with short memories forget baybays first two years were not that great and many were thinking he was a bust. Fact.
 

thwgjacket

Guest
Messages
969
Not sure you're disagreeing with anything I've said. We were talking about the offensive systems with respect to a certain position. So Friedgens RBs weren't as prolific as CPJ's in that system...but that goes back to the system. I can take Vamos statement: "We've never had a better run of successful RB's under any previous coach/system." and apply to RBs. And your argument with regards to RB under Friedgen compared to CPJ would hold true in that case because Friedgens system didn't emphasize a feature back like CPJ's (or Gailey's).

Look at it this way: BeyBey put up prolific numbers in 2009, one of the best seasons ever in GT football for a WR, but an argument can be that he should have. Total ATTEMPTS for the team that year was 168, of which DT's CATCHES (46 catches) accounted for 27.3% of just the attempts. Anyone who watched that season played out knows we targeted DT close to half the time. 46 of the 78 total completions that year went to 1 guy (DT). Now if you look at the numbers quoted by Vamos in an earlier post, and referencing the bios of the players being named, you know that their target rate under Friedgen was nowhere near what BeyBey had under CPJ.

So why is it that Friedgen WRs should get penalized because their QB isn't targeting one of them enough? You see how it can go the other way? Not switching arguments here or trying to be a smarta$$...it's just the debate is about the system with respect another poster's statement.
I think your major premise is that we had a better run of WR's under Fridge than we have had under CPJ then you used their stats as your evidence. What I'm saying is that Fridge threw the ball more so it is unfair to even compare the two coaches. Fridge threw the ball more than CPJ so of course his receivers are going to have more yards than CPJ's as a whole. CPJ runs the ball more than Fridge so he is going to have RB's with more yards. I'm not saying either had a better run of either position. I'm saying that it is unfair to compare the two to each other based on position groups.

I can take the second half of your post here and show that Fridge did not share his handoffs among backs like CPJ does. So CPJ's passing offense focused on mainly one guy and that guy put up better stats than any of Fridge's in receiving. So conversely CPJ shares his handoffs in much the same way that Fridge shared his receiving targets. So why did none of Fridge's running backs put up numbers as high as the best CPJ had? But now we're getting into a purely system based argument and that's not what I'm trying to do. All I am trying to get you to see is that you can't compare receivers under CPJ stat-wise to another coach because the system is so slanted to running the ball.
 

thwgjacket

Guest
Messages
969
Development of a wr to me does not mean single season stats as a proof. Production and development of your craft are not necessarily hand and hand.

As an example. Hill stinks in the nfl. Cant learn the playbook, plays slow and is having trouble picking the offense up. Why? As baybay points out in his quote is because they dont see a route tree or anything close to the nfl.

So then did paul develop hill? No. Hill was a great athlete that fit an aspect of the system that its designed for. The 9 route. And had good production his final year. But paul did not help hill in his craft much as shown in the nfl. And backed up by baybay saying that system didnt help him in his craft much either. Its just a fact.

Now did those two guys have two of the single best seasons. Sure. Did they also account for 70-80percent of the passing offense. Yup. But to say paul developed them is off imo. The difference in baybay and hill is simply laerning the nfl system quick. Fyi many with short memories forget baybays first two years were not that great and many were thinking he was a bust. Fact.
You don't think it has anything to do with the fact that Hill's hands are like two marble slabs? Also, could you link the article that talks about how Hill can't learn the playbook? Would be an interesting read.
 
Last edited:

Techster

Helluva Engineer
Messages
16,030
I think your major premise is that we had a better run of WR's under Fridge than we have had under CPJ then you used their stats as your evidence. What I'm saying is that Fridge threw the ball more so it is unfair to even compare the two coaches. Fridge threw the ball more than CPJ so of course his receivers are going to have more yards than CPJ's as a whole. CPJ runs the ball more than Fridge so he is going to have RB's with more yards. I'm not saying either had a better run of either position. I'm saying that it is unfair to compare the two to each other based on position groups.

I can take the second half of your post here and show that Fridge did not share his handoffs among backs like CPJ does. So CPJ's passing offense focused on mainly one guy and that guy put up better stats than any of Fridge's in receiving. So conversely CPJ shares his handoffs in much the same way that Fridge shared his receiving targets. So why did none of Fridge's running backs put up numbers as high as the best CPJ had? But now we're getting into a purely system based argument and that's not what I'm trying to do. All I am trying to get you to see is that you can't compare receivers under CPJ stat-wise to another coach because the system is so slanted to running the ball.

I'm just going to agree to disagree with you on this one. I think we both have posted enough stats and counter arguments. We'll let the readers decide how they want to interpret it.
 

Ash

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
756
I totally agree with you. What we do can be effective but we will never have a consistently good passing game. Just wont happen. So fans stop looking for it. Thats my point.

I'm not looking for a balanced passing game, I will settle for a legit passing threat. Somewhat like what Auburn was able to do last year...they didn't just pass when they had to, which is what I feel like we are doing.
 

AE 87

Helluva Engineer
Messages
12,992
Cheese you guys need to see that our scheme ruins QBs ability to pass. Alot of reasons. ...

My post was in response to this, which I perceived as your thesis.

Continue to prove why stats are not indicative of reality. The fact is we dont and wont ever have a consistently reliable passing game. When our run gets shut down and we have to pass our way around we cant do it. All the stats in the world show gt passing in comp percentage and yards in the bottom of ncaa. So its simple.

Now, it seems logical to me that comp% will be lower when you throw more lower % passes (long) and that you will have fewer pass yards when you throw fewer passes.

So please explain why these stats are better than passer rating for measuring whether a QBs ability to pass has been ruined. Why do you think the passer rating was invented if not for measuring ability to pass?

Or do you feel that TW was just a great QB and would've been top 5 rather than top 15 if not ruined by CPJs system?
 

Squints

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,206
Continue to prove why stats are not indicative of reality. The fact is we dont and wont ever have a consistently reliable passing game. When our run gets shut down and we have to pass our way around we cant do it. All the stats in the world show gt passing in comp percentage and yards in the bottom of ncaa. So its simple.

I don't think you completely understand what some of the statistics that have been cited really mean or are intending to mean. Or how they really work.
 

LongforDodd

LatinxBreakfastTacos
Messages
2,586
... This idea that Nesbitt and Lee would have been prolific passers in another offense is getting old. They clearly have/had little accuracy.

I believe JN was never destined to be a passer of the football. JN was great for PJ's system and excelled. Vad, on the other hand, has much, more potential to be a very good passer. It's unfortunate for him that he got stuck at GT in PJ's system to where he obviously did not have a system, coaching, or surrounding cast for him to develop his passing skills in.
 
Top