Great interview with CPJ

Whiskey_Clear

Banned
Messages
10,487
I don't doubt that. I'm merely casting doubt upon the stat he chose to throw out there to prove his point. I'm not willing to accept that stat at face value of being more effective if we actually did take 3x more plays from under center than we did from the gun.

If you're running 3 times the plays from one formation, then it stands to reason you're going to have more yards rushing and passing from that formation.

And, FWIW, I'm not arguing one way or the other. I could care less if we start under center or out of the gun. I just wish we weren't so one-dimensional. Having read the opinions of many on this board, I realize I'm probably in the minority.

But the NFL and college games have both become primarily passing leagues. And our insistence on running the ball 80% of the time means that we are going to struggle to get the Calvin Johnson's & Demaryius Thomas'es of the high school football world to even consider coming to play at GT. Just my opinion.

To play devils advocate. If 80% of the teams out there are moving to primarily passing offenses...the majority of defenses will adapt to counter those 80%s. That grants us a competitive advantage through diversity. I agree most offenses are moving in that direction. But these things go in cycles. And it will eventually cycle back toward more balance.
 

IEEEWreck

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
587
It would be more interesting, and more compelling, if we knew how many passes were thrown out of each formation.

Note that CPJ says that we completed "more passes", not "a higher percent of passes".

My memory, which admittedly can often be faulty, says that we took somewhere in the neighborhood of 70% or more of our snaps from under center last year. If that's correct, then of course we threw more passes from under center than out of the shotgun. In which case, it would absolutely make more sense that we completed more passes that way.
Maybe I'm a starry eyed optimist, but I have trouble believing any part of GT would make that kind of statistical interpretation error without someone saying something.
 

daBuzz

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
965
To play devils advocate. If 80% of the teams out there are moving to primarily passing offenses...the majority of defenses will adapt to counter those 80%s. That grants us a competitive advantage through diversity. I agree most offenses are moving in that direction. But these things go in cycles. And it will eventually cycle back toward more balance.

Fair point, but the flaw in that line of logic still lies with the recruiting. I don't disagree that the "uniqueness" of our offense makes it more difficult to prepare to play us because teams see it so rarely.

But if most teams in college and pros are going to a passing offense and you're not passing often yourself, the recruits WILL see the handwriting on the wall and recognize that they won't get the kind of exposure at GT they would somewhere else. And since the kind of kids who are the top talents will usually have a dream of playing in the NFL, they're going to perceive playing in our offense as a potential stumbling block to them realizing their dream.
 

GT Man

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
898
I don't doubt that. I'm merely casting doubt upon the stat he chose to throw out there to prove his point. I'm not willing to accept that stat at face value of being more effective if we actually did take 3x more plays from under center than we did from the gun.

If you're running 3 times the plays from one formation, then it stands to reason you're going to have more yards rushing and passing from that formation.

And, FWIW, I'm not arguing one way or the other. I could care less if we start under center or out of the gun. I just wish we weren't so one-dimensional. Having read the opinions of many on this board, I realize I'm probably in the minority.

But the NFL and college games have both become primarily passing leagues. And our insistence on running the ball 80% of the time means that we are going to struggle to get the Calvin Johnson's & Demaryius Thomas'es of the high school football world to even consider coming to play at GT. Just my opinion.

I'm not so sure the offense is the reason for the one-dimensionality. Keeping in mind that PJ coached at Hawaii, a pass-happy team, I would assume it's more of a personnel issue. Vad was the best thrower we've had up until now. I've seen flashes with JT but only time will tell. I really would like to see more short passing plays instead of run run run deeeeep bomb run run run...
 

dressedcheeseside

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,675
And since the kind of kids who are the top talents will usually have a dream of playing in the NFL, they're going to perceive taking hard classes as a potential stumbling block to them realizing their dream of partying in college while playing football.
fify.
 

Whiskey_Clear

Banned
Messages
10,487
Fair point, but the flaw in that line of logic still lies with the recruiting. I don't disagree that the "uniqueness" of our offense makes it more difficult to prepare to play us because teams see it so rarely.

But if most teams in college and pros are going to a passing offense and you're not passing often yourself, the recruits WILL see the handwriting on the wall and recognize that they won't get the kind of exposure at GT they would somewhere else. And since the kind of kids who are the top talents will usually have a dream of playing in the NFL, they're going to perceive playing in our offense as a potential stumbling block to them realizing their dream.
Winning cures everything.....popping in some video of D. Thomas n Steven Hill doesn't hurt either. Those perceptions do hurt us I agree....no wonder CPJ has little patience for the mass of media pukes who seem determined to perpetuate many misconceptions regarding our O.
 

stylee

Ramblin' Wreck
Featured Member
Messages
603
I'm not so sure the offense is the reason for the one-dimensionality. Keeping in mind that PJ coached at Hawaii, a pass-happy team, I would assume it's more of a personnel issue. Vad was the best thrower we've had up until now. I've seen flashes with JT but only time will tell. I really would like to see more short passing plays instead of run run run deeeeep bomb run run run...


I think Vad had the best arm of anyone we've had up until now. I do not think he threw better this year than Tevin did in 2012. TD/Int ratio, QB Rating, etc., back this conclusion up.

Vad had/has the potential to be a great thrower. He wasn't this year. I hope he continues to progress at his new school.
 

daBuzz

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
965

Sorry but I don't accept that. The team he coached in 2009 had 9 All-ACC first or second team players and Michael Johnson was an All-American....all recruited by Gailey.
The previous coach also brought in Demaryius Thomas and Calvin Johnson, 2 of the top receivers in the NFL today.

Yes, the majority of high end recruits are not going to want to come to GT because of academics. But let's not act like we've never had superb NFL-caliber talent.
 

daBuzz

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
965
Never said that, but let's also not act like we've been littered with it, either. Even BC can go back 15 years and cherry pic a handful of NFL alumns.

Very true and I didn't mean to insinuate we had. But, if you compare the roster of NFL talent under the previous coaches, we certainly had more then than we currently have.
 

Whiskey_Clear

Banned
Messages
10,487
Most of Gailey's top talent came in late during his time at Tech...the last two years. Here's to hoping CPJ can bring some of the same types in now that he is fairly established here. Also hoping for a strong start to the season. Helps build recruiting momentum and squash the "CPJ" on thin ice bit. That mess kills recruiting.
 

dressedcheeseside

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,675
Very true and I didn't mean to insinuate we had. But, if you compare the roster of NFL talent under the previous coaches, we certainly had more then than we currently have.
There's no doubt CPJ's early years we fairly lean though a handful of prize recruits never panned out, but that doesn't change the fact they were prize recruits at the time. His later years are still unknown as they are still in college. We also had a handful of very near misses on some really special players. Hopefully the new changes will close the gap in landing those type of guys in the future.

There's also this point: isn't the whole reason we brought CPJ in here in the first place was that he could beat NFL talent with non-NFL talent? Maybe his record at GT proves this is impossible. Or maybe it proves that it's not an absolute situation. Maybe it's really a function of the talent gap. We can still beat teams with more talent, we just need to close the gap a little more.
 

daBuzz

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
965
There's no doubt CPJ's early years we fairly lean though a handful of prize recruits never panned out, but that doesn't change the fact they were prize recruits at the time. His later years are still unknown as they are still in college. We also had a handful of very near misses on some really special players. Hopefully the new changes will close the gap in landing those type of guys in the future.

There's also this point: isn't the whole reason we brought CPJ in here in the first place was that he could beat NFL talent with non-NFL talent? Maybe his record at GT proves this is impossible. Or maybe it proves that it's not an absolute situation. Maybe it's really a function of the talent gap. We can still beat teams with more talent, we just need to close the gap a little more.

In my opinion, no, that isn't the reason he was brought in. He was brought in to win as many games as possible.

I think many people, and you appear to be one, believe that GT will never get a high number of NFL-type bodies in and CPJ is therefore the best coach for a situation such as ours.

While I don't think we'll ever be a 4- or 5-star factory of talent, I do believe that O'Leary and Gailey's recruiting in his latter years do prove that we are indeed capable of getting enough NFL-caliber talent to be more than competitive.

This is nothing more than my opinion so you don't have to agree or disagree with it, but I believe a coach running a traditional spread option offense where you throw the ball more than 12 times per game could be VERY successful at GT. An offense such as Malzahn's at Auburn would even be a fairly easy transition from the one we run now. And removing that "run only" stigma, combined with the easing of the # of exceptions should be enough that we can be competitive in recruiting to the point where we are at least a team that is in the top 25 every year.

I don't think we'll ever be a consistent top 10 team...too many restrictions with the obvious reasons: calculus requirement, few # of majors, limited # of top-caliber athletes who can perform at GT academic levels, etc. But I look at what was a program that experienced top 25's fairly regularly and find myself wishing for those days...instead of the consistent .500'ish records that result in a top 40, 50 or in one case, 70 ranking.
 

iceeater1969

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,658
The trend being to more wide open passing (Baylor- etc) and to read for passing option creates a much stronger demand for speedy receivers . Brielle's ran this at Stevensville high and at u of Houston with great success. When at Baylor limped along till he added raw speed on edges.

Fewer running backs needed

Now almost no running backs taken in nfl.

Larger pool of running backs for gt to look at coming out of high school
Since in TO A backs get touches and pass receptions, this should give us advantage recruiting this under recruited pool of high school backs

So far we (CPU) shoot ourself in foot by playing too many rb . We need to make a recruiting change and say 5 star come to tech and play day one with lots of touches . The only reason I can see for so many A backs is we use them as play messenger boys and coach can be on tv and we hear announcer say blah blah all in his head no clipboard.

We are in a good place if we get aggressive in all phases of program. Coach has done a good job to get us through the disaster left by departing AD.

Time for coach to swing for fence( 2014 easy schedule average wins will foretell disaster in 2015 fsu, nd, away games). If we are average this year we need to accept the beatings in 2105 with a new group. Play aggressive in 2014 and 2015 and go down swinging.

I really hope coach will tell defense to be more aggressive early in season.

What a buzz if the defense blitzes early and often = for sure it is Fun for player! Results option one = turnovers ( def off field quickly, play maker gets on tv, short field for TO) or option two - quick score ( def off field quickly, weak link exposed ( recruiters say needed 5 star here next year and you will play) , happens early in game so time to recover, offense back on field early in game again).

Current defense of bend and bend and don't break is based on message to players - we think you are not playmaker and cannot attract talent. Biggest CPU failure Al Groh one year too long. By ceding the field early we let their defense rest early- not logical.

I hope on of our senior AB has break out in some early games and we load up his *** wagon for espn highlites = recruiters say need 5 star here next year and you will play.

This is the best of times or this is the worst of times, but for sure it is time for THWG!
 

dressedcheeseside

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,675
In my opinion, no, that isn't the reason he was brought in. He was brought in to win as many games as possible.

I think many people, and you appear to be one, believe that GT will never get a high number of NFL-type bodies in and CPJ is therefore the best coach for a situation such as ours.

While I don't think we'll ever be a 4- or 5-star factory of talent, I do believe that O'Leary and Gailey's recruiting in his latter years do prove that we are indeed capable of getting enough NFL-caliber talent to be more than competitive.

This is nothing more than my opinion so you don't have to agree or disagree with it, but I believe a coach running a traditional spread option offense where you throw the ball more than 12 times per game could be VERY successful at GT. An offense such as Malzahn's at Auburn would even be a fairly easy transition from the one we run now. And removing that "run only" stigma, combined with the easing of the # of exceptions should be enough that we can be competitive in recruiting to the point where we are at least a team that is in the top 25 every year.

I don't think we'll ever be a consistent top 10 team...too many restrictions with the obvious reasons: calculus requirement, few # of majors, limited # of top-caliber athletes who can perform at GT academic levels, etc. But I look at what was a program that experienced top 25's fairly regularly and find myself wishing for those days...instead of the consistent .500'ish records that result in a top 40, 50 or in one case, 70 ranking.
The eligibility landscape changed in a big way since the days you long for. APR was a killer. The intention was good and noble, but it turned out helping the schools with basket weaving majors while hurting the schools with nothing but legitimate degrees. There's not many schools in the latter group, in fact, it may be a group of one.

Also, every coach is brought in to win games. CPJ showed he could win at a school with two hands tied behind his back (Navy) then he was hired here. You do the math.
 

daBuzz

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
965
The eligibility landscape changed in a big way since the days you long for. APR was a killer. The intention was good and noble, but it turned out helping the schools with basket weaving majors while hurting the schools with nothing but legitimate degrees. There's not many schools in the latter group, in fact, it may be a group of one.

Also, every coach is brought in to win games. CPJ showed he could win at a school with two hands tied behind his back (Navy) then he was hired here. You do the math.

Au contraire, my friend. APR was in effect when Gailey was here because it started in 2004. It didn't stop him from recruiting Calvin Johnson, Demaryius Thomas, Michael Johnson, Darryl Richardson, Morgan Burnett, Jonathan Dwyer, Vance Walker, etc.

Although I agree with you that the consequences of APR was probably 180 degrees from what they really intended, it's not as if we cannot still recruit players. The key is:
a) identifying them
b) recruiting them
c) signing them
d) developing them
 

jayparr

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,318
Location
newnan
The eligibility landscape changed in a big way since the days you long for. APR was a killer. The intention was good and noble, but it turned out helping the schools with basket weaving majors while hurting the schools with nothing but legitimate degrees. There's not many schools in the latter group, in fact, it may be a group of one.

Also, every coach is brought in to win games. CPJ showed he could win at a school with two hands tied behind his back (Navy) then he was hired here. You do the math.
You just told like it is!!! Thanks!
 

jayparr

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,318
Location
newnan
Au contraire, my friend. APR was in effect when Gailey was here because it started in 2004. It didn't stop him from recruiting Calvin Johnson, Demaryius Thomas, Michael Johnson, Darryl Richardson, Morgan Burnett, Jonathan Dwyer, Vance Walker, etc.

Although I agree with you that the consequences of APR was probably 180 degrees from what they really intended, it's not as if we cannot still recruit players. The key is:
a) identifying them
b) recruiting them
c) signing them
d) developing them
I could be wrong on this my statement: As I remember there was an apr rule for a year or two; then there came another that made things even tougher. Somebody set this straight, but I think this is so.
 

ATL1

Helluva Engineer
Messages
7,377
To play devils advocate. If 80% of the teams out there are moving to primarily passing offenses...the majority of defenses will adapt to counter those 80%s. That grants us a competitive advantage through diversity. I agree most offenses are moving in that direction. But these things go in cycles. And it will eventually cycle back toward more balance.

Unfortunately we're not balanced.
 
Top