lack of passing game

[daBuzz]

When I hear someone call the offense gimmicky what I actually hear is "It's different, I don't understand it, I personally don't like it and no one can convince me otherwise."

It's a very deep analysis.

Just because the offense is different & I don't like it does not mean I don't understand it. And yes, I think it's gimmicky.

 

[Squints]

So you're saying you don't think it matters what the players you're trying to recruit think? Not sure I understand the logic in that statement.

Sigh. You wouldn't understand the logic in that statement because there isn't much. But that's not what I said. It obviously matters what the players are trying to recruit think. But these recruits are 18 year old high school kids. But you can't start making decisions on how to run the program based on what they want. You change the offense because it's not working. Not because of public perception as other posters were saying. That's what I'm trying to say. It's the coaches job to convince them that what we do is a good fit for them. Not bend over backwards to do what they ask.

Just because the offense is different & I don't like it does not mean I don't understand it. And yes, I think it's gimmicky.

You may be able to understand it but I think it's clear this is not the case for more than a few football fans. The real question I have is would you be so kind as to explain what the gimmick part of the offense is? Because I've heard people say that for years an no one's been able to explain it to me. What does our offense do specifically that makes it gimmicky other than "no one but the academies does it"? I'd honestly like to hear some feedback on this.

 

[daBuzz]

The real question I have is would you be so kind as to explain what the gimmick part of the offense is? Because I've heard people say that for years an no one's been able to explain it to me. What does our offense do specifically that makes it gimmicky other than "no one but the academies does it"? I'd honestly like to hear some feedback on this.

I was basing it on my interpretation of what the word "gimmick" means. I was thinking of it as one might from a marketing standpoint...which is pretty much what we're talking about here...the marketing of our offense.

Per Wikipedia:

In marketing language, a gimmick is a unique or quirky special feature that makes something "stand out" from its contemporaries.

Since only us and the service academies run this offense, that makes it stand out from the "norm" of offenses. Therefore, I would call it gimmicky.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

One of the things we have been battking

Geez, I'm tired of CPJ's offense. You need balance - multiple credible threats for the defense to worry about. The passing game gives you a credible downfield threat you just don't have in our offense unless you entice a BayBay-caliber WR to come play for us.

Haven't seen Smelter play any yet eh? You really should

 

[dressedcheeseside]

One of the things we have been battking


Haven't seen Smelter play any yet eh? You really should

He doesn't count because he came over from the baseball team.

 

[Rock]

The day we start making decisions about our program based on what high school athletes are thinking is the the day I give up.
You honestly think other teams base their offensive philosophy based on public opinion?!? What world do you live in?!?

not what I said.
Colleges "pitch" kids on the O they run. They "market" the O to the kids. They tell kids, "we throw the ball in the spread" etc.. trust me , I know first hand.
If you don't think they do, what world do you live in???

 

[GTRanj]

not what I said.
Colleges "pitch" kids on the O they run. They "market" the O to the kids. They tell kids, "we throw the ball in the spread" etc.. trust me , I know first hand.
If you don't think they do, what world do you live in???

Yes and I guess you would say the reason tech has not recruited well in the past 30 years is because we haven't run the "right" offense. It has nothing to do with our academics... I guess CCG's pro style offense really deterred away the commits.

 

[CrackerJacket]

The vast majority of those vast majority have no business going to GT. High school kids are fickle, at least the vast majority are. How many of those same kids would change their tune at the drop of a hat if we won 10 - 12 games a year? Lemme guess.... a vast majority?

So how has our recruiting gone since our 2009 ACC championship and Orange Bowl appearance? So-so. Why? The school's tough and the offense is not attractive. The limited cirriculum and administrative indifference to football success are big enough hurdles, and the CPJ offense has turned out to be another one. Cheese, I had CPJ at the top of my list when Chan was let go, but I was wrong. CPJ's offense doesn't compensate for our recruiting issues, it adds one more.

 

[bravejason]

I was basing it on my interpretation of what the word "gimmick" means. I was thinking of it as one might from a marketing standpoint...which is pretty much what we're talking about here...the marketing of our offense.

Per Wikipedia:
In marketing language, a gimmick is a unique or quirky special feature that makes something "stand out" from its contemporaries.

Since only us and the service academies run this offense, that makes it stand out from the "norm" of offenses. Therefore, I would call it gimmicky.

In that context, wouldn't being gimmicky would be a good thing?

 

[dressedcheeseside]

So how has our recruiting gone since our 2009 ACC championship and Orange Bowl appearance? So-so. Why? The school's tough and the offense is not attractive. The limited cirriculum and administrative indifference to football success are big enough hurdles, and the CPJ offense has turned out to be another one. Cheese, I had CPJ at the top of my list when Chan was let go, but I was wrong. CPJ's offense doesn't compensate for our recruiting issues, it adds one more.

How do you get that? Even by recruiting service rankings we're still averaging what we did under Chan and that includes his anomalous class.

 

[daBuzz]

In that context, wouldn't being gimmicky would be a good thing?

No way to know for sure. But my thoughts on that are, if it's such a good thing, why aren't others running it as well?

 

[MidtownJacket]

No way to know for sure. But my thoughts on that are, if it's such a good thing, why aren't others running it as well?

I wonder if a big reason why more folks dont run the offense is it requires much more in game "flow choices". Meaning you can't really scheme it out a head of time as much as a traditional offense. Not all coaches have the ability/desire to manage the game the way CPJ does. You take a LOT more risk when things don't go as well because it is a feel approach not always statistics etc like traditional systems.

Any Thoughts?

 

[Rock]

Yes and I guess you would say the reason tech has not recruited well in the past 30 years is because we haven't run the "right" offense. It has nothing to do with our academics... I guess CCG's pro style offense really deterred away the commits.

I didn't say that either.

 

[forensicbuzz]

Stop trying to use each other's words against each other. It turns the thread into an argument not about GT Football, but about you. Keep it on target and if you're trolling, stop that too.

The best thing about this site is that the threads tend to stay on-topic. Keep that in mind when you're responding to something you feel slighted for. We all tend to get defensive when someone challenges us. Let's not let this get personal.

 

[daBuzz]

I wonder if a big reason why more folks dont run the offense is it requires much more in game "flow choices". Meaning you can't really scheme it out a head of time as much as a traditional offense. Not all coaches have the ability/desire to manage the game the way CPJ does. You take a LOT more risk when things don't go as well because it is a feel approach not always statistics etc like traditional systems.

Any Thoughts?

Personally, I think that's a very reasonable assertion. I will say however, that an additional reason it isn't run often is that the wide-open, passing offenses have a "sexier" appeal to recruits and it makes it an easier sell. Note that I didn't say that necessarily makes them more effective; but I do believe it makes it an easier sell when the perception is that you pass the ball more than 12 times per game.

 

[MidtownJacket]

Personally, I think that's a very reasonable assertion. I will say however, that an additional reason it isn't run often is that the wide-open, passing offenses have a "sexier" appeal to recruits and it makes it an easier sell. Note that I didn't say that necessarily makes them more effective; but I do believe it makes it an easier sell when the perception is that you pass the ball more than 12 times per game.

Agreed, I think CPJ was even quoted recently in one of the stories linked on the board about the "sexiness" factor. I hope - and believe- that if we can get back to executing the 3O correctly it all of a sudden looks much better. I posted on another board about one of my favorite things in football is a defensive stand to win the game on the goal line. Watching the death march rock and roll down the field is a very very close second.

 

[forensicbuzz]

I think there are several reasons CPJ's offense is not more widely used in college football. Not many of them have to do with likes and dislikes of 18-year-olds. Here are a few.

1. 3-0 Football requires a mastery of the read, timing, spacing, and awareness. If any of a number of these four things breaks down during the play, it won't be successful. To achieve mastery of these four things, repetition is the key. Over and over and over and over again, until it becomes muscle memory. That takes practice time, and when practices are limited by regulation, a team can only accomplish so much. That's part of the reason CPJ stated that the passing game needed to be worked on individually, outside of practice. It takes 100% buy-in by the staff. You can run this type of offense and do something else efficiently.

2. The QB reads for the 3-O (or Veer) are much more complicated than for some of these other spread option-read offenses. That takes time for QB development and success. Every time you change QB's there's going to be a learning curve. We've seen that. JN was better his senior year, TW was way better his senior year, VL would have been better this year, etc.

3. To make successful game-time adjustments, the blocking schemes for the O-Line, the blocking schemes for the A-Backs and WR's have to be tweaked real-time. This requires an intimate knowledge of the offense, it's strengths and weaknesses, and how best to counter certain defensive strategies. This knowledge comes from years of exposure. Most coaches don't have that knowledge base.

These are a few reasons why coaches may shy away from this offense. Add to this that it's not necessarily a "sexy" sell, and it becomes clear why other coaches tend to shy away from it. There are many other reasons, but I put these here as a few examples.

edit: well, while I was typing out this book, some of these same thoughts came from others. Guess that adds credibility? Depends on who agreed with me.

 

[Rock]

Personally, I think that's a very reasonable assertion. I will say however, that an additional reason it isn't run often is that the wide-open, passing offenses have a "sexier" appeal to recruits and it makes it an easier sell. Note that I didn't say that necessarily makes them more effective; but I do believe it makes it an easier sell when the perception is that you pass the ball more than 12 times per game.

thank you.
that's what I was saying.

 

[CrackerJacket]

Nice post, forensic. Lays out some reasons why kids (or anyone else) would rather play in something besides the TO.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Nice post, forensic. Lays out some reasons why kids (or anyone else) would rather play in something besides the TO.

You wanna know why kids don't wanna come to GT? The offense is just a symptom of the larger disease. They don't want to come to GT because of status.... or lack thereof. That's all there is to it, really. The factories who are worshipped by the unwashed masses in 80,000+ seat stadiums and on ESPN give them that. We don't. It's the same reason they all want to wear the shoes they really can't afford. Status, plain and simple.

Why else did we all where those godawful Member's Only jackets in the 80's?