- Messages
- 668
Well, not me from this board. Not totally. I've posted a lot less frequently of late, due to a more hectic work/family schedule. Furthermore, as GT moves on from the Paul Johnson spread option, I'll just have less to say. If we were to hire an airraid or RnS guy, I'd have some decent input. But the generic pro or generic college spread offenses? Not really something I've ever been interested in. So just a few thoughts:
1) Lots of really great posters on this board, which makes it a joy to read and participate. I'm a sidewalk fan and have never been made to feel less welcome because of it. I started following GT when my sister moved to Atlanta in the Calvin days. I had been a longtime Johnson devotee, so the hiring really upped my fanaticism. This is by far the best of the GT boards, pound for pound. Keep it up. Also, special props to steebu, who is much better than me at elucidating what's going on in the option.
2) The opposition to Johnson's system by segments of the fanbase was, for the most part, aesthetically-driven. Which is fine; I find the double wing really ugly and the RPO stuff mostly inelegant and, all else being equal, would prefer not to see them. But if you showed me an offense that was objectively performing well using those offenses, I'd acknowledge that effectiveness and would have a hard time asking for a change just because it looks ugly to me.
In CPJ's 11 years, we've been been a top 25 offense (by OFEI) 8 times. Twice we've cracked the top 5 (#2 in 2009, #3 in 2014). Sometimes we've performed really well despite a relatively weak and shallow roster. For instance, 2012 - when we basically had no one at WR - we finished #11. There have been three years that were mediocre-to-bad: 2010 (#64), 2013 (#39), and 2015 (#88). For the most part, our offenses have vastly overperformed compared to our level of talent.
The rationalizations for why we should have scrapped - or heavily modified - what we did offensively were of more and less sophisticated varieties. The more reactionary arguments tended to center on vague claims that the offense had been "figured out" or was somehow uniquely weak against good defenses and uniquely strong against poor defenses. More thoughtful critics focused on recruiting (addressed more deeply below), our admittedly-ugly pass blocking schemes, or the belief that an "opening up" of the offense by putting it in the gun, or by passing on 30-40% of our plays, or whatnot, would just obviously result in better offensive performance. But very few people would honestly admit that the aesthetic component was driving their ostensibly-performance-based critiques. That's a shame. The best proof for this may come with the next coach/OC. If the offensive performance is significantly worse, will the CPJ-offense critics cry for a "closing down" of the offense, more running, more triple option? Nah. There won't be calls to change offensive strategy as a whole from the anti-triple crowd if it's an offense they find aesthetically pleasing - maybe pass a bit more, maybe run a bit more, but not "scrap the offense, it doesn't work at this level!"
3) The odds are that the next offense will not do as well. It's not impossible, of course. But, tautologically, most offensive coaches are not performing in the top 20%. Those that do so on a fairly consistent level tend to be the guys at the schools with the most talent, which shouldn't be surprising. I think recruiting can be better, but I don't think anyone here can claim with a straight face that we will be a top-25 recruiting school year-in and year-out under the next guy. That guy will have to overperform relative to talent to keep up with CPJ. If you are expecting the next guy to be as good or better offensively, you're crazy.
4) The odds are that the next defense will do better. I am at a loss for why CPJ found zero success on defense through every DC. I liked Charles Kelly a lot and wish we could have held on to him. I like Woody a lot stylistically and hope the next coach gives him a bit more time. A decent bump in defensive performance with a not-dramatic drop in offensive performance will probably mean we've improved as a team. We will see.
5) The offense hurt our chances with some offensive recruits. I don't think any sane person can disagree with this. But any fair evaluation of our recruiting as a whole has to include how guys actually panned out here, not just their high school star rankings. Whether we found diamonds in the rough, or whether certain guys were uniquely suited for our offense, etc., is pretty irrelevant to this analysis. Yes, there's a strong correlation between 4 and 5 stars and on-field performance, but it's not perfect. I sure would have liked to have landed a few 5 star running backs and WRs. I'm guessing that in this offense Marcus Lattimore would have outrushed David Sims and Odell Beckham would have been better than Jeff Greene. Running this offense may have disqualified us for some guys like that.
I think some of this disadvantage could have been allayed by better PR. Send memos to the ESPN guys that the B-Back is a "running back" or something, and definitely not a "fullback." Call the A-Backs "slots" or "slash." Etc.
But we still landed guys that, on the field, played like 4-5 stars. Smelter. Hill. Justin Thomas. Synjyn Days at BB in the latter days of 2014 was probably playing like a four star. Shaq Mason. Waller. Etc. Would have been nice to land more but the proof is in the pudding.
6) There's a perception that CPJ is not flexible and/or doesn't adapt to his talent. I think this is true insofar as it relates to some cosmetic issues. We could have continued what we did in 2012-2013 and lined up occasionally in the gun or pistol. We performed well in 2012 changing it up occasionally. When Tevin left and we kept it up, the results weren't quite as good. But I bet going to the gun even 10 times a game would have mollified some of the aesthetically-disgruntled fans and recruits. CPJ didn't care about pleasing people and may have believed the impact on recruiting would have been minimal.
On substantive issues, CPJ was plenty flexible. I went over some stats in another thread about our passing attempts variability - when we had guys who could catch and throw, we threw it more. When we had a guy with a great arm, we passed more (though not as well, unfortunately). CPJ clearly saw what some guys did well and built gameplans around that; Matthew Jordan and the QB sprint-out, Tobias and the QB sweep, TM and the QB counters. Bebe on the smoke screen. Had CPJ been able to put Lucas Johnson or the incoming frosh QB on the field in 2019, I'm fairly confident we would have thrown it roughly twice as much as we did this year.
Contrary to popular opinion, we did implement some Run-and-Shoot stuff. The most-used play was "Go" - A Back goes in flat motion across the formation pre-snap, putting us in trips. The inside A Back goes to the flat, the outside WR runs a fly route, and the middle/motion A-Back has a read route where he can settle to a curl under a cover 4 look, run a post on a MOFO (middle of the field open) look, or run a seam if the MOFC. We also ran "Switch" occasionally (though more often on playaction and thus likely no read), Slide, and Choice.
The way we did the RnS was fairly basic. The most complicated version of Slide that the real RnS teams did had a dizzying number of permutations based on post-snap reads. We also ran less RnS with QBs who didn't read things as well or couldn't throw as well. Again, Johnson adapted the basic framework to the talent he had.
7) We can do well on offense under any coach that takes over with the roster we have now. As CPJ said in his press conference, these guys are athletes. A good coach will make his system work with these dudes. We are not necessarily in for a long rebuilding process. There may be a couple of Gardner-Webb type hiccups early but I just don't think the next coach really has a ready-made excuse.
8) To Hell With Georgia.
1) Lots of really great posters on this board, which makes it a joy to read and participate. I'm a sidewalk fan and have never been made to feel less welcome because of it. I started following GT when my sister moved to Atlanta in the Calvin days. I had been a longtime Johnson devotee, so the hiring really upped my fanaticism. This is by far the best of the GT boards, pound for pound. Keep it up. Also, special props to steebu, who is much better than me at elucidating what's going on in the option.
2) The opposition to Johnson's system by segments of the fanbase was, for the most part, aesthetically-driven. Which is fine; I find the double wing really ugly and the RPO stuff mostly inelegant and, all else being equal, would prefer not to see them. But if you showed me an offense that was objectively performing well using those offenses, I'd acknowledge that effectiveness and would have a hard time asking for a change just because it looks ugly to me.
In CPJ's 11 years, we've been been a top 25 offense (by OFEI) 8 times. Twice we've cracked the top 5 (#2 in 2009, #3 in 2014). Sometimes we've performed really well despite a relatively weak and shallow roster. For instance, 2012 - when we basically had no one at WR - we finished #11. There have been three years that were mediocre-to-bad: 2010 (#64), 2013 (#39), and 2015 (#88). For the most part, our offenses have vastly overperformed compared to our level of talent.
The rationalizations for why we should have scrapped - or heavily modified - what we did offensively were of more and less sophisticated varieties. The more reactionary arguments tended to center on vague claims that the offense had been "figured out" or was somehow uniquely weak against good defenses and uniquely strong against poor defenses. More thoughtful critics focused on recruiting (addressed more deeply below), our admittedly-ugly pass blocking schemes, or the belief that an "opening up" of the offense by putting it in the gun, or by passing on 30-40% of our plays, or whatnot, would just obviously result in better offensive performance. But very few people would honestly admit that the aesthetic component was driving their ostensibly-performance-based critiques. That's a shame. The best proof for this may come with the next coach/OC. If the offensive performance is significantly worse, will the CPJ-offense critics cry for a "closing down" of the offense, more running, more triple option? Nah. There won't be calls to change offensive strategy as a whole from the anti-triple crowd if it's an offense they find aesthetically pleasing - maybe pass a bit more, maybe run a bit more, but not "scrap the offense, it doesn't work at this level!"
3) The odds are that the next offense will not do as well. It's not impossible, of course. But, tautologically, most offensive coaches are not performing in the top 20%. Those that do so on a fairly consistent level tend to be the guys at the schools with the most talent, which shouldn't be surprising. I think recruiting can be better, but I don't think anyone here can claim with a straight face that we will be a top-25 recruiting school year-in and year-out under the next guy. That guy will have to overperform relative to talent to keep up with CPJ. If you are expecting the next guy to be as good or better offensively, you're crazy.
4) The odds are that the next defense will do better. I am at a loss for why CPJ found zero success on defense through every DC. I liked Charles Kelly a lot and wish we could have held on to him. I like Woody a lot stylistically and hope the next coach gives him a bit more time. A decent bump in defensive performance with a not-dramatic drop in offensive performance will probably mean we've improved as a team. We will see.
5) The offense hurt our chances with some offensive recruits. I don't think any sane person can disagree with this. But any fair evaluation of our recruiting as a whole has to include how guys actually panned out here, not just their high school star rankings. Whether we found diamonds in the rough, or whether certain guys were uniquely suited for our offense, etc., is pretty irrelevant to this analysis. Yes, there's a strong correlation between 4 and 5 stars and on-field performance, but it's not perfect. I sure would have liked to have landed a few 5 star running backs and WRs. I'm guessing that in this offense Marcus Lattimore would have outrushed David Sims and Odell Beckham would have been better than Jeff Greene. Running this offense may have disqualified us for some guys like that.
I think some of this disadvantage could have been allayed by better PR. Send memos to the ESPN guys that the B-Back is a "running back" or something, and definitely not a "fullback." Call the A-Backs "slots" or "slash." Etc.
But we still landed guys that, on the field, played like 4-5 stars. Smelter. Hill. Justin Thomas. Synjyn Days at BB in the latter days of 2014 was probably playing like a four star. Shaq Mason. Waller. Etc. Would have been nice to land more but the proof is in the pudding.
6) There's a perception that CPJ is not flexible and/or doesn't adapt to his talent. I think this is true insofar as it relates to some cosmetic issues. We could have continued what we did in 2012-2013 and lined up occasionally in the gun or pistol. We performed well in 2012 changing it up occasionally. When Tevin left and we kept it up, the results weren't quite as good. But I bet going to the gun even 10 times a game would have mollified some of the aesthetically-disgruntled fans and recruits. CPJ didn't care about pleasing people and may have believed the impact on recruiting would have been minimal.
On substantive issues, CPJ was plenty flexible. I went over some stats in another thread about our passing attempts variability - when we had guys who could catch and throw, we threw it more. When we had a guy with a great arm, we passed more (though not as well, unfortunately). CPJ clearly saw what some guys did well and built gameplans around that; Matthew Jordan and the QB sprint-out, Tobias and the QB sweep, TM and the QB counters. Bebe on the smoke screen. Had CPJ been able to put Lucas Johnson or the incoming frosh QB on the field in 2019, I'm fairly confident we would have thrown it roughly twice as much as we did this year.
Contrary to popular opinion, we did implement some Run-and-Shoot stuff. The most-used play was "Go" - A Back goes in flat motion across the formation pre-snap, putting us in trips. The inside A Back goes to the flat, the outside WR runs a fly route, and the middle/motion A-Back has a read route where he can settle to a curl under a cover 4 look, run a post on a MOFO (middle of the field open) look, or run a seam if the MOFC. We also ran "Switch" occasionally (though more often on playaction and thus likely no read), Slide, and Choice.
The way we did the RnS was fairly basic. The most complicated version of Slide that the real RnS teams did had a dizzying number of permutations based on post-snap reads. We also ran less RnS with QBs who didn't read things as well or couldn't throw as well. Again, Johnson adapted the basic framework to the talent he had.
7) We can do well on offense under any coach that takes over with the roster we have now. As CPJ said in his press conference, these guys are athletes. A good coach will make his system work with these dudes. We are not necessarily in for a long rebuilding process. There may be a couple of Gardner-Webb type hiccups early but I just don't think the next coach really has a ready-made excuse.
8) To Hell With Georgia.
Last edited:
