lack of passing game

dressedcheeseside

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,675
To piggyback on my last post, it's the same reason NFL draftees hold out for a certain salary figure, even miss camp in some cases. It's not because what they are offered is not enough to live in luxury, no, no, no. It's because it's less than player x got who was drafter in x position after them. The salary has to fit his status in the grand pecking order scheme of things.

These recruits need that, too. It's like the gladiators of old who thrived on the cheers of the crowds. It's a huge friggin' ego trip. If we gave them that, they'd be bangin' down our doors and it wouldn't matter how hard or how limited the curriculum.

Now occasionally you get a kid who has blue chip talent who has his head on straight. There's not many of them, but we have to be able to find them and get them here.
 

forensicbuzz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,104
Location
North Shore, Chicago
I wasn't pointing these aspects as why kids don't come to GT, I was giving reasons other coaches may not want to implement this type of offense.

I agree to a large extent with what DCS just posted. It's human nature to gravitate towards what others view as valuable. I read a study once were it was demonstrably shown that 80% of people, when given a choice of A or B will choose the one that the majority of others chose. It's the safe bet. Why wouldn't you want to play at the school that has the best chance to win? Why wouldn't you want to be part of a team that perennially plays at the highest level? Why wouldn't you want to be part of the elite crowd?

It's the same reason we all went to and stayed at Tech (academically). It's why my choices were GT, Stanford, AF Academy and UCONN (can you tell which was my safety school?). We all want to be part of the best if we can.

Most of the kids that choose to play football (or any sport other than basketball), choose GT for reasons other than strictly that sport. There are exceptions, but most realize that the education they get at Tech is part of a 40-year decision, at least on some level. There are many other reasons too: exposure, PT, program, fit, comfort, proximity, etc.; but, the driving point is generally "future success".

Until GT has the reputation of UGa, Alabama, Texas, Ohio State, USCw, etc., we'll struggle to be competitive with them in recruiting. FACT OF LIFE, There are many reasons why us getting to that point in today's game is near impossible. I've heard most of these reasons 100 times in various recruiting threads. They may seem like excuses, but there's truth to each of them. They conspire to keep us where we are, and will continue to do so as long as they're in place.

All this being said, we can be successful. We have been successful in the recent past. I predict we'll be successful again in the near future. I doubt we'll ever return to the Heisman/Alexander/Dodd era of success, but we can see the Ross/O'Leary level success again. Now I'm babbling.
 

Squints

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,042
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:


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.

Ok I can see where you're coming from if you're looking at it from that perspective. When I hear people use the word gimmick to describe the offense I typically imagine them talking about the Xs & Os. As if the theoretical basis of the offense is based in frivolity or something.

When I think of the word gimmick the next couple of sentences of the wikipedia article are also important when trying to define gimmick in this context.

However, the special feature is typically thought to be of little relevance or use. Thus, a gimmick is a special feature for the sake of having a special feature.

I don't think applies to our offense.
 

Squints

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,042
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???

Of course the coaches pitch kids on the offense they run they're going to pitch everything they can. I don't think I said anything disputing or disparaging that. Your post made it seem like you supported the idea of designing our offensive scheme based on what high school athletes are currently a fan of. If that's not what you meant then I misunderstood. If it is well then I think that's a horrendous idea.
 

Rock

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
615
Of course the coaches pitch kids on the offense they run they're going to pitch everything they can. I don't think I said anything disputing or disparaging that. Your post made it seem like you supported the idea of designing our offensive scheme based on what high school athletes are currently a fan of. If that's not what you meant then I misunderstood. If it is well then I think that's a horrendous idea.

10/4. That's not what I meant but if it cam across that way, sorry.
 

Whiskey_Clear

Banned
Messages
10,487
Winning breeds success. We win more and we will recruit better. We still won't beat the bamas, ugas, and FSUs in the rankings but we will recruit better. I'm a CPJ fan and think it will happen...but he has to do it. That I acknowledge.

I also think our O was looking sexy in 08 and 09....but there were still a large number of naysayers in the media dousing water on our fire and I think that hurt us then. Some if iur struggles following 09 seemed to lead credence to the naysayers. Problem is...our big issues the following years was def n ST, not the O. Thise issues have been / are being corrected. This SHOULD lead to more wins and an easier sell in recruiting. Especially if we start winning the big 4 games.
 

Sebastian GT

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
331
The only thing I put out there were stats and a video that shows you can throw out of our formation and that CPJ has done it before. If you want to cling onto the fact that he lined up receivers at the TE spot on the goaline that's fine. I already pointed out that we have done that here at Tech. If something that happened 20 years ago doesn't mean crap then no one on this board should be able to throw 1990 out and say that shows that GT can be a great football program. I never said the passing game would be better this year or more dynamic. Though to be fair we completed a higher percentage of passes under center than in the pistol or shotgun last year, so you should be happy. We can run it every play and win plenty of games. The great thing about your opinion is that it does not matter. Auburn's starting QB averaged about 10 completions a game this year, they were ranked 107th in passing going into the Championship game. We didn't complete that many in 09 when we went to a BCS bowl. GT fans that blame the offense for recruiting problems are almost always alumni. GT is not a school that attracts top notch college football players on a consistent basis and they just don't want to admit it. We could be running the air raid and still would not be able to get the big time recruits on a consistent basis. Who is our 5'9 QB? No one listed at that height that plays QB for us.

As for D-Coordinators, the first of three we won the ACC Championship and went to a BCS bowl with. Groh was definitely a miss, no argument there. Everyone seems pretty happy with Roof. Really only one hire that I would call "bad."

Also, "every time" is two words not one. Fify

Ah the grammar/spelling police. Who knew this place was turning into stingtalk. Ditto on your opinions as well. As for the 5'9" QB you should try standing next to him. Maybe 5'10" max if I was to be generous. I hope you really don't believe all of the heights and weights the GTAA puts out. I am not trying to belittle Thomas because one of the best QB's Tech has ever had was short however he also spent a considerable amount of time in the shotgun on passing downs in an effort to give him a chance to see down field. He also had a better line and a helluva a better blocking scheme in front of him but I digress. As for most of the rest we will just have to agree to disagree and leave it at that.
 

thwgjacket

Guest
Messages
969
Ah the grammar/spelling police. Who knew this place was turning into stingtalk. Ditto on your opinions as well. As for the 5'9" QB you should try standing next to him. Maybe 5'10" max if I was to be generous. I hope you really don't believe all of the heights and weights the GTAA puts out. I am not trying to belittle Thomas because one of the best QB's Tech has ever had was short however he also spent a considerable amount of time in the shotgun on passing downs in an effort to give him a chance to see down field. He also had a better line and a helluva a better blocking scheme in front of him but I digress. As for most of the rest we will just have to agree to disagree and leave it at that.
Is "agree to disagree" your term for "I was wrong"? I showed you a video where CPJ used his formations for a passing attack. You decided to "disagree" because of one goal line set even though we use WR's in the TE spot on goal line offense here at Tech. Also have to love the old "I stood next to him this one time..." argument. Classic investigative technique. Kudos to you sir.
 
Last edited:

Sebastian GT

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
331
Is "agree to disagree" your term for "I was wrong"? I showed you a video where CPJ used his formations for a passing attack. You decided to "disagree" because of one goal line set even though we use WR's in the TE spot on goal line offense here at Tech. Also have to love the old "I stood next to him this one time..." argument. Classic investigative technique. Kudos to you sir.

Uh no. Read again. I decided to disagree for several reasons. Slant routes and what appear to be smaller line splits were also mentioned. I'll throw in another and that is several instances just in that one game of three wide or motioning to three wide which I have rarely seen him do at Tech although he has done it. So as you can see I decided to "agree to disagree" for several reasons previously mentioned in addition to making a friendly effort to end a conversation with a message board jockey who can't seem to be able to handle anyone disagreeing with him/her without getting his/her panties in a wad. As for my "I stood next to him this one time..." argument that you accuse me of making. Nowhere in my post did I say I stood next to him just one time. Lol.
 

thwgjacket

Guest
Messages
969
Uh no. Read again. I decided to disagree for several reasons. Slant routes and what appear to be smaller line splits were also mentioned. I'll throw in another and that is several instances just in that one game of three wide or motioning to three wide which I have rarely seen him do at Tech although he has done it. So as you can see I decided to "agree to disagree" for several reasons previously mentioned in addition to making a friendly effort to end a conversation with a message board jockey who can't seem to be able to handle anyone disagreeing with him/her without getting his/her panties in a wad. As for my "I stood next to him this one time..." argument that you accuse me of making. Nowhere in my post did I say I stood next to him just one time. Lol.
First let's address the message board jockey comment. The original conversation was between me and another poster. You jumped in, then when I disagreed with you in a three line post you responded with three long paragraphs going into everything including our 3 D-Coordinators and the height of our QB. I have repeatedly told you the topic was whether CPJ could run a passing offense out of the formations we currently run. You then quoted a post I made 6 days ago. You, by definition, are the message board jockey LOL.

Slants? Have nothing to do with the formations. Line splits? You admitted that you can't tell because of the quality and angle of the video but they look, at the least, similar to the ones we use now. Motioning to three wide? You admitted you've seen us do it. Again, the original topic was not what we are currently doing at Tech. The video shows that CPJ does know how to run a pass heavy offense out of the current formations we use. Justin Thomas' height? We're are off topic again. I don't care how many times you've stood next to him, you clearly have an agenda based on the second post you made regarding my comments so I'm not taking your word on anything. That's great that you're stalking him though. Congrats on that budding relationship.
 

Oldgoldandwhite

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,026
To answer the OP, nobody complains about a passing game or lack of when you lose. I remember the days of Eddie McAshan when he would throw 6 interceptions and people complained we passed too much. Auburn had a horrendous passing game much of the year last year, but nobody complained that much.
 

SidewalkJacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,592
I saw "let it go" in your post and that dang frozen song my kids are ALWAYS singing started playing in my head. Thanx a lot forensic...thanx a lot :p :D

With three kids and a wife who are constantly singing all over the house, literally EVERY SINGLE TIME to the words "let it go" are spoken together, it sets off a theatrical production... Just hoping to derail this thread further UNTIL IT DIIIIIIEEEEESSSSS!!!!!!
 
Messages
2,077
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?

Ding, ding, ding!!!! Winner. If this system is so great, why don't you see Texas and Oklahoma running it like they once did the Wishbone? It is because it can be STOPPED with better defensive athletes. There is no level of perfection of execution in the world that will make Wake Forest or Georgia Tech beat FSU's present defense with scheme. And since the bigger, better programs have their sights set on winning every game, they will avoid the OBS.
 

Buzztheirazz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,607
I'd venture to say that we've had a guy running wide open on 60% of our pass plays. I can't tell you how many times I've said, "THERE HE IS!", just to see us take a sack, or throw it somewhere else or incomplete. It's not the scheme that's the issue, it's the execution that's been the problem.
 
Messages
2,077
I wasn't pointing these aspects as why kids don't come to GT, I was giving reasons other coaches may not want to implement this type of offense.

I agree to a large extent with what DCS just posted. It's human nature to gravitate towards what others view as valuable. I read a study once were it was demonstrably shown that 80% of people, when given a choice of A or B will choose the one that the majority of others chose. It's the safe bet. Why wouldn't you want to play at the school that has the best chance to win? Why wouldn't you want to be part of a team that perennially plays at the highest level? Why wouldn't you want to be part of the elite crowd?

It's the same reason we all went to and stayed at Tech (academically). It's why my choices were GT, Stanford, AF Academy and UCONN (can you tell which was my safety school?). We all want to be part of the best if we can.

Most of the kids that choose to play football (or any sport other than basketball), choose GT for reasons other than strictly that sport. There are exceptions, but most realize that the education they get at Tech is part of a 40-year decision, at least on some level. There are many other reasons too: exposure, PT, program, fit, comfort, proximity, etc.; but, the driving point is generally "future success".

Until GT has the reputation of UGa, Alabama, Texas, Ohio State, USCw, etc., we'll struggle to be competitive with them in recruiting. FACT OF LIFE, There are many reasons why us getting to that point in today's game is near impossible. I've heard most of these reasons 100 times in various recruiting threads. They may seem like excuses, but there's truth to each of them. They conspire to keep us where we are, and will continue to do so as long as they're in place.

All this being said, we can be successful. We have been successful in the recent past. I predict we'll be successful again in the near future. I doubt we'll ever return to the Heisman/Alexander/Dodd era of success, but we can see the Ross/O'Leary level success again. Now I'm babbling.
Tech does have comparable value to those schools you listed --in education. And we can point to a fairly successful record of placing players into the NFL. We have a combination of marketable aspects that we can offer. We will never get Ohio State type athletes in mass quantities, but we could get more and better ones than we have been getting.
 
Top