How long does it take to install the option?

[CrackerJacket]

I've watched Tech football for a long time, and I can only remember two Tech offenses that really gave us a competitive advantage, that opposing coaches hated to prepare for - CPJ's and Ralph Friedgen's.

An interesting point. But Fridge's offense was tough on the opposition because of the variety of looks he'd give the same play in order to disguise it. CPJ's offense is a pain to prepare for because the other guys see it once or twice a year at most. I'll take Big Ralph's game over CPJ's any day.

 

[knoxjacket]

Because you don't think Defense contributes to wins and losses. Tevin's offense in 11 and 12, despite the hiccups of Vad in 12 were really darn good.

A crappy defense seems to pretty tightly coupled with this offense.

 

[AE 87]

A crappy defense seems to pretty tightly coupled with this offense.

Not at Georgia Southern.

What's your logic for the coupling that explains both data points?

 

[4shotB]

Not at Georgia Southern.

What's your logic for the coupling that explains both data points?

We get your point. CPJ has proven that this offense will work at this level. I think we can accept that as a given outside of a few who have some sort of axe to grind or other agenda.The bigger questions remain unanswered. Can you have a good offense and a defense with Paul's system at this level? Is our defensive woes a function of the system? Or is it Paul's ineffectiveness at identifying and hiring talent? Or has the school's budget for coaching hires stymied his efforts? (Note that we performed at a much higher level on the D side under the previous regime with similar academic restraints.) As I said above, the new DC will go a long way in answering these questions. IMO, if things remain the same for the next 2-3 years the association between our offensive scheme and poor defense will become too strong to overcome in the minds of the general public/average college FB fan.

Remember, we are looking at it and discussing it in the context of being a game changer at schools like Kansas, Syracuse, Vandy, etc. At our school, it has to date not been a game changer - it has just spread out the variance around the mean. Higher highs, yes, but with lower lows. I think what happens in Atlanta over the next 2-3 years will have serious implications for this type of offense in college FB.

Yes, it might have worked at the next level down. But at that level, you are not recruiting and competing against the type of kids who are thinking of the NFL as their next stop. I think it's an apples and oranges comparison.

 

[AE 87]

We get your point. CPJ has proven that this offense will work at this level. I think we can accept that as a given outside of a few who have some sort of axe to grind or other agenda.The bigger questions remain unanswered. Can you have a good offense and a defense with Paul's system at this level? Is our defensive woes a function of the system? Or is it Paul's ineffectiveness at identifying and hiring talent? Or has the school's budget for coaching hires stymied his efforts? (Note that we performed at a much higher level on the D side under the previous regime with similar academic restraints.) As I said above, the new DC will go a long way in answering these questions. IMO, if things remain the same for the next 2-3 years the association between our offensive scheme and poor defense will become too strong to overcome in the minds of the general public/average college FB fan.

Remember, we are looking at it and discussing it in the context of being a game changer at schools like Kansas, Syracuse, Vandy, etc. At our school, it has to date not been a game changer - it has just spread out the variance around the mean. Higher highs, yes, but with lower lows. I think what happens in Atlanta over the next 2-3 years will have serious implications for this type of offense in college FB.

Yes, it might have worked at the next level down. But at that level, you are not recruiting and competing against the type of kids who are thinking of the NFL as their next stop. I think it's an apples and oranges comparison.

1) My ref to GS was that he had a top or very good D there. So, if you're going to make the argument that the O affects the D that data needs addressing.

2) It is inaccurate to say that we had a much better D with "similar academic restraints" since APR only came-in in like 2006 or so.

3) Still, CPJ hasn't been satisfied that we are doing as well as we can on D.

4) As I've said before, I'm open to CPJ perhaps being a hindrance on D. If Woody can't get significant improvement in 2 years, I may get convinced.

 

[takethepoints]

GT should have tried to hire Bill Snyder in 1992 after Bobby Ross left for San Diego

That would have been a smart move, but I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have moved then. Or later. He's like Joe Tiller at Purdue; he likes the place and they will do anything to keep him.

 

[takethepoints]

I don't get this "Coach is a defensive liability" business. Recall, please, that he was a DC when he started out and pretty good at it. He knows D. His problem has been three fold in this area. First, Coach is an O specialist; he wants to leave the D with his DC and concentrate on what he does best. This sometimes leads to a lack of attention. Second, Tech won't pony up the cash. We lost Chuck Kelly because of that. Third, even Coach can be wrong. But example = Groh. Great rep, good recruiter, unable to adapt his D ideas to the personnel he was able to get, and unable to get along with his boss (oops). NB: I don't include Roof's Ds in this; last year we did ok and he was building the player base to take us to the heights he reached at Minnesota and earlier at Tech under George. But … even Roof had his bad points - poor pass rush, mainly - and Coach doesn't tolerate failure (in his eyes) well. Hence, the fruitbasket turnover at DC.

I hope Woody is the cure here. We'll see.

 

[4shotB]

I don't get this "Coach is a defensive liability" business. Recall, please, that he was a DC when he started out and pretty good at it. He knows D.

First, Coach is an O specialist; he wants to leave the D with his DC and concentrate on what he does best. This sometimes leads to a lack of attention.

Second, Tech won't pony up the cash.

Third, even Coach can be wrong. But example = Groh.

I hope Woody is the cure here. We'll see.

Look, my first and foremost desire is for CPJ to be so successful here that Saban and Swinney and Meyer want to switch to our offense. WTBS, look at your list. There are 3 items on it. Two are in Paul's control, one is not. The reason there are lingering doubts about Paul and his system is that A) we were good defensively (for the most part) under the previous regime even with similar cash restraints and B)we are on DC number 4. The data is hard to ignore.

Like I said, I and most every GT fan are fervently hoping that Coach Woody is the cure and that we take the leap forward that we all said would happen IF we could find a D that would complement our O. I want CPJ to be successful as I am sure that all reasonable fans do. But, if the 4th guy is NOT the answer, I believe that the general perception will be that you cannot have a good D when running this O. Whether that is fair or not is another topic of conversation.

 

[Wrecked]

First, Coach is an O specialist; he wants to leave the D with his DC and concentrate on what he does best. This sometimes leads to a lack of attention.But … even Roof had his bad points - poor pass rush, mainly - and Coach doesn't tolerate failure (in his eyes) well. Hence, the fruitbasket turnover at DC.

I hope Woody is the cure here. We'll see.

Interesting comments, but considering that "Coach" is the Head Coach and not just an OC, a lack of attention on his part to any aspect of the team would be a failure on his part to do his job. And since he doesn't tolerate failure...

Obviously my comment is TIC, but it is troubling that 11 years into CPJ's regime we are still having conversations about a lack of consistency, depth and finding players to make this system work.

 

[RamblinWreck92]

Well, it wasn't the CPJ option-based spread, but: After West Virginia completed a successful regular season in 1969, with a young offensive coordinator named Bobby Bowden, Bowden and coach Jim Carlen decided to change things up to surprise the SC Gamecocks in the Peach Bowl, so: West Virginia installed the wishbone offense in December.

West Virginia threw all of two passes against the Gamecocks, and won, 14-3 as RB Eddie Williams ran for 208 yards. Carlen moved on to Texas Tech, and Bowden was bumped up to HC at West Virginia.

Didn't Jim Carlen go on to head-coach those very same Gamecocks a few years later?

 

[RamblinWreck92]

An interesting point. But Fridge's offense was tough on the opposition because of the variety of looks he'd give the same play in order to disguise it. CPJ's offense is a pain to prepare for because the other guys see it once or twice a year at most. I'll take Big Ralph's game over CPJ's any day.

Big Ralph's offense made George "Oh My" Godsey into a stat machine and a winner and beat the mutts 3IAR. Comparatively, only the absolute best of already-talented QBs won big under CPJ's offense and that offense couldn't beat some of the worst mutt teams ever, even his best in 09.

I too will take Ralph any day.

 

[MikeJackets1967]

Didn't Jim Carlen go on to head-coach those very same Gamecocks a few years later?

Jim Carlin coached West Virginia 1966-1969,Texas Tech from 1970-1974 and then South Carolina from 1975-1981. At Texas Tech he guided the Red Raiders to Bowl Games in 1970,1972,1973 and 1974. At South Carolina he guided the Gamecocks to Bowl Games in 1975,1979 and 1980.

 

[knoxjacket]

Not at Georgia Southern.

What's your logic for the coupling that explains both data points?

Georgia Southern had every institutional advantage known to man at their level.

 

[lv20gt]

Not at Georgia Southern.

What's your logic for the coupling that explains both data points?

One different level of play. Coaching is worse, and less likely to exploit weakness, and GSU was a talent powerhouse for the level. A talent advantage can cover a lot of weaknesses. Furthermore, that was roughly 20 years ago, before a lot of the innovations that have swept through college football. It's not that the offense has some intrinsic negative impact. It's that the current state of college football offenses make present us with challenges that we can't properly address with the offense we have, because we simply do not recruit players for roles, and so have a hard time giving our defense adequate looks in preparation. Our offense has a similar advantage in that other teams have a harder time preparing for us.

 

[AE 87]

Georgia Southern had every institutional advantage known to man at their level.

and?

 

[takethepoints]

The reason there are lingering doubts about Paul and his system is that A) we were good defensively (for the most part) under the previous regime even with similar cash restraints and B)we are on DC number 4. The data is hard to ignore.

Well … only if you interpret them incorrectly.

Gailey and Coach are entirely different coaches. Chan was a pro style coach and put D first and foremost. Best example and one many cite here = Reggie Ball's completion rate decline from his freshman to senior years. In 2003, Reg threw 10 TDs and 11 INTs. In 2006, he threw 20 TDs and 14 INTs. His completion rate in 2003? 51.7%. In 2006? 44.4%. Why? Because Chan convinced him to quit trying to force completions. Chan wasn't interested in a higher completion percentage if it came with more INTs. Why? Because he was a pro style coach and believed in getting a lead, playing good D, and sitting on the ball like a slug. Personally, I liked that; one of my all time favorite Tech games was the 2003 game with Maryland, Fridge's first team. We won 7 - 3 on a late fumble recovery. I loved that game and how we won it.

But Coach isn't like that. I don't know if anyone remembers his face when they shot a picture of him during the 2007 Humanitarian Bowl. He was watching us on O and his face was a picture of contempt for the waste of talent he saw on the field. He wants production on O above everything since he thinks - correctly, imho - that this makes things easier for the D. But the O gets the first consideration. And that fits with the way modern football has evolved. The reason Chan had a hard time winning the big ones consistently was that we didn't score enough points. Today, D can only take you so far. The way the game has developed you have to put the O first. Unless you are Bama and have no talent limits.

Well, let's hope this year begins to put these arguments behind us.

 

[RamblinWreck92]

Georgia Southern had every institutional advantage known to man at their level.

If we're going to seriously consider II-A GA Southern teams from the 80s, we might as well talk about 7A high school teams today too. It's apples and oranges.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

As long as the NFL isn't running our type of offense, don't expect other colleges to start adapting it.

With the exception of us a few times, this offense actually has NOT done great against most P5 schools. Teams like Wake and Syracuse aren't trying to figure out how to beat SDSU - they're trying to compete with the elite teams in their respective conferences. Outside of Orange Bowl 2014 and maybe Clemson 2009, we haven't knocked off any top-tier elite teams with this offense. It got absolutely stifled by LSU and Iowa, wasn't able to beat FSU in 2014 and the mutt teams it beat weren't great by mutt standards. Outside of us, 'Bama, Oklahoma, aren't losing to option teams either.

I'm guessing places like Kansas are just tough to get kids to go to regardless of offense. They've sucked since forever. Yet you have places like Baylor and Texas Tech, located in hellholes, that usually reel in talent, likely because that offense is flashy and scores tons of points.

I think most places look at our offense as taking a step backward when it comes to recruiting and just the overall "package" of the team. Our W-L record with it isn't vastly different as the previous offense we ran that had very avg. results.

D, ST

 

[Skeptic]

CPJ had the perfect athletes to transition to the option at GT. Josh Nesbitt was a top 10 dual threat QB out of high school, and ended up playing safety in the NFL. IF you watch early season highlights of 2008, he was key factor in keeping our offense going with his improvisation. Dwyer was an elite RB, and future NFL player. CPJ said in terms of physical attributes, JD was the perfect BB. Demaryius Thomas...we all know his credentials. ON the OL, Andrew Gardner was a multi year All ACC player, and future NFL guy. Cord Howard was very good, and also saw some time in the NFL. Uzzi was a 4 star freshmen that played a lot. Nick Clayter was a 2 year player and a 4 star OL recruit. CPJ had to do some patch work on the OL, but there was talent there.

People sometimes forget this, but that 2008 defense was pretty stacked. Virtually the entire defense, outside of the LB spots, saw some time in the NFL. That defense actually carried us early in the season.

At Navy, CPJ struggled mightily his first year. They were 2-8. But the second year CPJ was able to take them to 8-5 and a bowl game. Coach Ken has kept the Navy Ship steaming full bore...ahem

Jeff Monken experienced the same thing at Army. First year 4-8, second year 2-10. But now he has Army is a very good spot.

To answer your question: How long does it take to install the option? Depends. CPJ was blessed to walk into a great situation with athletes that fit his offense and a great defense, and the results showed right away. At Navy and Army, it took a little more time.

One thing is certain: The Flex Option system is certainly a schematic advantage. Look at offensive FEI the past decade. GT and Navy are always ranked high, and Army actually surpassed both last year.

Off topic on how long to install the option, but Johnson's spread option has to get most of the credit for making the Army-Navy game an actual rivalry again. It is fun to watch now, purely from a competitive view. Last year it did get a bit repetitive, though, with both Army's and Navy's QBs tucking and running. Again. Again. Again....

 

[MikeJackets1967]

Off topic on how long to install the option, but Johnson's spread option has to get most of the credit for making the Army-Navy game an actual rivalry again. It is fun to watch now, purely from a competitive view. Last year it did get a bit repetitive, though, with both Army's and Navy's QBs tucking and running. Again. Again. Again....

If i'm an Army fan i'll take repetitive and win 8-9 games every season