GT O vs CU O

[AE 87]

Moderator? Wow. Again...His stats don't equal reality. No one (outside of this board) believes that we played 4 top 20 defenses, even fewer believe that CPJ's offense is in the same league as Chad Morris/Gus Malzahn. Spinning with stats to support CPJ is an old trick that lost its credibility several years ago. I bet he could even find a stat that says that CPJ is over .500 vs FBS opponents over the last 4 years. Is that true as well? Now...let's move on.

The guys at footballoutsiders are not members of this forum, as far as I know. Their rankings say we played 4 of the top 20 Ds last year. ESPN and SBN have begun to use their stats. They are not a fringe organization.

Please explain how stats have been spun, in your opinion.

To help, I'll give you an example of what I consider spinning stats. Using yards/game as a measure of best defense without then defending the implication that Bowling Green and Florida Atlantic were better Ds than Clemson. That suggests that you don't actually believe the stat measures best D, but you were using it only to fit your preconceived point. That's spinning. Or, using yards per game and record to argue for best offense and best team without then defending the implication that Northern Illinois was a better offense and team than Clemson. That suggests @ATL1 doesn't actually believe the logic of his post but was using the stat to support a preconceived opinion. That's spinning.

In a more subtle way @cyptomcat has given another way of spinning. His post reflects that he knows that comparing total points between an offense that seeks to maximize possessions and one that often minimizes them is meaningless at best and misleading at worst. Yet he posts it any way, apparently happy to mislead with the stat any who, like him, won't go to the trouble of looking up the number of possessions. That's also a form of spinning imo.

So explain how you think I was guilty of that.

 

[nodawgs]

I suspect there's a good bit of glee being had behind a certain keyboard in this thread. It's called trolling, for those newbies aboard.

Let's get this straight. I'm as big or bigger of a Tech fan than anyone in here. Been a fan since '85 when I was a kid. Took crap growing up from UGA fans and stuck with my team. I support whoever our coach is unconditionally for at least 5 years. If you can't make progress in 5 years, or in this case regress, you need to go. Talent levels have dropped, we are below .500 against FBS opponents in the last 4 year cycle, we had our first losing reg season in forever, and our coach is as arrogant as ever. At some point you have to look at what's best for the team that you support.

I suspect that many on this board like CPJ's system because finally there is a system that they can understand. There are only a handful of base plays. They can identify plays where they couldn't before. If he leaves they will have to start over. Look, I've coached this system. It's ok, but most of it is outdated and way to old school. There is a reason no one runs it anymore. Most talented players don't want to play in it. CPJ was hired to do more with the same. Instead he's done the same with less. Actually he's done less with less talent.

It's funny how if you criticize CPJ, some will say you are a UGA fan trolling. If I was a UGA fan, I would be talking CPJ up wanting him to stay for as long as possible. May want to re-evaluate your definition of a troll.

 

[AE 87]

I think that's the whole point of the thread, to compare the two.

As you mentioned above, Clemson has had the playmakers and GT hasn't. With that in mind, how have we held up on Offense? I think well, all things in play. As I noted above, I think Defense, ST and gut-check time on Offense have been the difference.

Yes. That's a subtext of my point. We're doing this without comparable talent.

 

[nodawgs]

The guys at footballoutsiders are not members of this forum, as far as I know. Their rankings say we played 4 of the top 20 Ds last year. ESPN and SBN have begun to use their stats. They are not a fringe organization.

Please explain how stats have been spun, in your opinion.

To help, I'll give you an example of what I consider spinning stats. Using yards/game as a measure of best defense without then defending the implication that Bowling Green and Florida Atlantic were better Ds than Clemson. That suggests that you don't actually believe the stat measures best D, but you were using it only to fit your preconceived point. That's spinning. Or, using yards per game and record to argue for best offense and best team without then defending the implication that Northern Illinois was a better offense and team than Clemson. That suggests @ATL1 doesn't actually believe the logic of his post but was using the stat to support a preconceived opinion. That's spinning.

In a more subtle way @cyptomcat has given another way of spinning. His post reflects that he knows that comparing total points between an offense that seeks to maximize possessions and one that often minimizes them is meaningless at best and misleading at worst. Yet he posts it any way, apparently happy to mislead with the stat any who, like him, won't go to the trouble of looking up the number of possessions. That's also a form of spinning imo.

So explain how you think I was guilty of that.

Does your site have W/L records that take out FCS opponents? That is really the only one that matters.

 

[AE 87]

Does your site have W/L records that take out FCS opponents? That is really the only one that matters.

No, but that's readily available. So, for the record again, you are now saying W-L against FBS opponents is the best way to measure offense. In your opinion, the quality of a team's defense has no impact on W-L.

Again, I think that would be a minority opinion. Do you want to explain why you feel this way?

 

[nodawgs]

I was addressing your "move on" comment. Nowhere in my comment to you did I offer an opinion on whose stats are more valid. I have an opinion, and I've intentionally left it out of the thread because I don't think it'll add value to the discussion.

Let me clarify. I've gotten inbox messages from a certain moderator (not Cuse) that basically told me, don't get deep into debates or you will get a ban. Told me not to respond. That's exactly what I was doing. I made my point and moved on. Its not a fair platform for debate if you are not a CPJ Homer. You can get hammered by garbage, but the second you respond, you are getting warned or banned over defending your position. If Cuse is for fair debate then I apologize. To me it felt like I was getting baited.

 

[cyptomcat]

In a more subtle way @cyptomcat has given another way of spinning. His post reflects that he knows that comparing total points between an offense that seeks to maximize possessions and one that often minimizes them is meaningless at best and misleading at worst. Yet he posts it any way, apparently happy to mislead with the stat any who, like him, won't go to the trouble of looking up the number of possessions. That's also a form of spinning imo.

wow, you have a real problem being civil.

I made it clear in multiple posts that someone needs to expand the numbers and not take it face value. It's an attempt to expand the stats hoping others will complete it.

How about you or someone else expands the stats instead of wasting time on a reply that is neither constructive nor civil?

 

[nodawgs]

FWIW, it's probably not fair to compare CPJ against someone who had tools like Sammy Watkins, Tajh Boyd, Dwayne Allen, Deandre Hopkins, Andre Ellington and Martavis Bryant.

Or at least keep that in mind while comparing.

Clemson has a system that attracts top notch players, CPJ's does not. That's part of it. You lay in the bed you've made. Friedgen brought in some pretty good playmakers as I recall, and even Gailey brought in his share.

 

[OldJacketFan]

Let's get this straight. I'm as big or bigger of a Tech fan than anyone in here. Been a fan since '85 when I was a kid. Took crap growing up from UGA fans and stuck with my team. I support whoever our coach is unconditionally for at least 5 years. If you can't make progress in 5 years, or in this case regress, you need to go. Talent levels have dropped, we are below .500 against FBS opponents in the last 4 year cycle, we had our first losing reg season in forever, and our coach is as arrogant as ever. At some point you have to look at what's best for the team that you support.

I suspect that many on this board like CPJ's system because finally there is a system that they can understand. There are only a handful of base plays. They can identify plays where they couldn't before. If he leaves they will have to start over. Look, I've coached this system. It's ok, but most of it is outdated and way to old school. There is a reason no one runs it anymore. Most talented players don't want to play in it. CPJ was hired to do more with the same. Instead he's done the same with less. Actually he's done less with less talent.

It's funny how if you criticize CPJ, some will say you are a UGA fan trolling. If I was a UGA fan, I would be talking CPJ up wanting him to stay for as long as possible. May want to re-evaluate your definition of a troll.

Wow! Condescend much? Glad to know you're the best and brightest.

 

[Eric]

Let me clarify. I've gotten inbox messages from a certain moderator (not Cuse) that basically told me, don't get deep into debates or you will get a ban. Told me not to respond. That's exactly what I was doing. I made my point and moved on. Its not a fair platform for debate if you are not a CPJ Homer. You can get hammered by garbage, but the second you respond, you are getting warned or banned over defending your position. If Cuse is for fair debate then I apologize. To me it felt like I was getting baited.

I don't think this is true at all. I for one am not a CPJ homer and always see both sides of the argument. As long as things stay on topic and don't resort to childish like back handed comments then there is no problem...if you feel someone is baiting you or something of that sort then please report the post. We do our best to read every post but we may miss some here and there.

 

[Eric]

This thread has ran it's course and isn't going to get back on track.

Locking it down.