Moving On

[GTL]

The game I most remember during the "Black Watch" defense era was a game at BDS against a highly ranked Clemson team.
If I remember right we won 21-19 and stopped them twice on downs in the 4th quarter inside the 5-yard line ...

I believe that was the game in 1990. I was there in the north stands close to that unbelieveable goal line stand.

 

[g0lftime]

Crap, I hate it when that happens (and a little too often lately) ... the other thing was (and I'm fairly sure I'm right on this one) was the black GT and stripe on the helmets of the defense.

Had to earn it. No GT until it was awarded.

 

[Skeptic]

It makes me wonder ... what would GT look like if TStan assembled an all-star team of coaches who truly understood the TO in a way no one else did. Then, build an infrastructure around recruiting and developing not only talent, but younger coaches too .. so we don't have to do this again.

As Jim Collins said, "Find something you can be the best in the world at. And excel at it."

Ah, better than Johnson his own self? Or Coach N or Monken? I love Johnson's offense and always have. But the recent record and an increasingly unhappy fan base mitigates against continuing with it. The only question is which diection Stansbury goes. After all, this could be a career killer for him, too. That is, assuming GT is not Maryland where incompetence is apparently applauded.

 

[Vespidae]

Ah, better than Johnson his own self? Or Coach N or Monken? I love Johnson's offense and always have. But the recent record and an increasingly unhappy fan base mitigates against continuing with it. The only question is which diection Stansbury goes. After all, this could be a career killer for him, too. That is, assuming GT is not Maryland where incompetence is apparently applauded.

I think CPJ erred by having staff that he himself inferred were not coaching properly. I am also reminded of Jimmy Johnson's criticism of Mark Richt calling his own plays ... there's too much for a head coach to do to be OC as well. (Granted, both issues are well-reported here, so no need to opine further.)

As to the unhappy fanbase, I am always interested to know ... if Tech won a national championship EVERY year with the TO, would the fan base still be unhappy? I am fearful for the real possibility that if the TO is replaced (as is most likely), whatever we replace it with will not be as productive. Which means, we better be very very good on defense. I just don't see it ... but greater minds than mine make the decisions.

 

[GTJake]

IMO, in today's P5 college football world you need a balance attack on offense ... the TO is not a balance attack.

 

[Vespidae]

IMO, in today's P5 college football world you need a balance attack on offense ... the TO is not a balance attack.

For the sake of being bored at work ... why do you think so?

 

[GTJake]

For the sake of being bored at work ... why do you think so?

Not sure how to answer this because IMO it's clearly obvious ... by balance I mean run-pass ... you honestly don't think we have an effective passing game do you ?

 

[Skeptic]

I think CPJ erred by having staff that he himself inferred were not coaching properly. I am also reminded of Jimmy Johnson's criticism of Mark Richt calling his own plays ... there's too much for a head coach to do to be OC as well. (Granted, both issues are well-reported here, so no need to opine further.)

As to the unhappy fanbase, I am always interested to know ... if Tech won a national championship EVERY year with the TO, would the fan base still be unhappy? I am fearful for the real possibility that if the TO is replaced (as is most likely), whatever we replace it with will not be as productive. Which means, we better be very very good on defense. I just don't see it ... but greater minds than mine make the decisions.

As to coaches, I agree. Too much loyalty and when two QBs are bad option players -- by that I mean recognition and decision to keep or handoff or keep or pitch , that hints to me that the offense must be too complicated or the players must not be smart enough or the coaching is bad. I lean toward the notion that making a QB of an Aback is not that easy in this offense. You can claim victory but you/'re kidding yourself. And the coaching? Unfortunately, yes They may have played for him for several years and have been loyal but that shouldn't count.

As to the second, there are a lot of fans, good fans, who just want to see the ball in the air. They won't admit that, but will talk about mixing it up and balance and stuff. The truth is they want to see air under the ball. (I get it, I do. I have spent some nice Sunday afternoons watching Dan Marino throw the best ball I have ever seen, and marveled at his release and that little Texas two-step that made him the best ever at avoiding sacks. But the perfect option wins the eye test with the perfect pass.) The fan base? Well, Swinney won a NC, was runnerup one year, and played in three straight NCs. He might be the most popular football coach in the country. I don't count Saban. Nobody likes Saban. It is that they like he wins more. But, came the dustup at QB when he told Kelly Bryant that Lawrence was starting the next game, entirely consistent with what he has always told all the players -- you compete for your job every week -- and Bryant left, the blowup was enormous, with the kindest cuts being "You have cost us another national championship and are you just stupid or what?" I paraphrase because I didn't see the actual email. So no, win a NC and it is Saturday that counts.

 

[Skeptic]

IMO, in today's P5 college football world you need a balance attack on offense ... the TO is not a balance attack.

Explain balance, please.

 

[GTJake]

Explain balance, please.

Run-Pass

 

[Vespidae]

As to the second, there are a lot of fans, good fans, who just want to see the ball in the air.

The premise of the TO, as I understand it ... is to run in order to limit the offensive opportunities of the opponent. More passing means more offensive plays for the other team ... and if they are more athletic ... advantage to them.

So ... if we pass more and lose ... will we be happy?

 

[Vespidae]

Not sure how to answer this because IMO it's clearly obvious ... by balance I mean run-pass ... you honestly don't think we have an effective passing game do you ?

Why would I want one? As I just stated in another post, the "premise of the TO, as I understand it ... is to run in order to limit the offensive opportunities of the opponent. More passing means more offensive plays for the other team ... and if they are more athletic ... advantage to them."

I suppose the question is ... is our goal to PASS? Or to WIN?

 

[Skeptic]

The premise of the TO, as I understand it ... is to run in order to limit the offensive opportunities of the opponent. More passing means more offensive plays for the other team ... and if they are more athletic ... advantage to them.

So ... if we pass more and lose ... will we be happy?

That's a premise I am not aware of. My understanding from listening to Johnson is that bad things happen when one passes, and he is confident to a fault that if he needs 6-7 yards he won't "dink" it out there but he can run for it, and that he can score on the ground. My assumption, perhaps uninformed, is that TOP was a by-product of a terrific running game. I can go either way on TOP. After all, Army had it for more than 44 minutes against Alabama, and still got into an OT shootout that they of course lost. They deprived them of the ball, kept the score down, and gave up as many points in 16 minutes as they scored in 44. It is just not always the answer.

 

[lv20gt]

The premise of the TO, as I understand it ... is to run in order to limit the offensive opportunities of the opponent. More passing means more offensive plays for the other team ... and if they are more athletic ... advantage to them.

Don't confuse premise with effect.

Why would I want one?

Did you not watch several of our games this year where we had to pass and looked like a fool when we tried?

 

[GTJake]

The premise of the TO, as I understand it ... is to run in order to limit the offensive opportunities of the opponent. More passing means more offensive plays for the other team ... and if they are more athletic ... advantage to them.

So ... if we pass more and lose ... will we be happy?

I think we'll agree to disagree on this one.
But, think about how many 3rd and 6-7-8-9-10-etc we have converted by pass ... not many.
If we don't get the 4-5-6 yards on 1st down we put ourselves behind the 8-ball because we are not diversified and the defense can stack the LOS.

 

[Skeptic]

Run-Pass

Well, OK. But is it balance if I run over the A gap, then the C gap and then counter it and then ... or is it merely a function of X number of runs vs X number of passes? (One of my irritations over 10 years has been the pass on first down that fails, at which point fans rail that "He put us in a hole early" and then passing on 3rd and 12 and the same fans railing that, "Why does he wait until they expect it before he passes?" If it gets to me imagine him. To me that is just a narrowly defined view that does not address offensive needs. I get it, really. I just think it is wrong.

 

[Vespidae]

That's a premise I am not aware of. My understanding from listening to Johnson is that bad things happen when one passes, and he is confident to a fault that if he needs 6-7 yards he won't "dink" it out there but he can run for it, and that he can score on the ground. My assumption, perhaps uninformed, is that TOP was a by-product of a terrific running game. I can go either way on TOP. After all, Army had it for more than 44 minutes against Alabama, and still got into an OT shootout that they of course lost. They deprived them of the ball, kept the score down, and gave up as many points in 16 minutes as they scored in 44. It is just not always the answer.

Totally agree. I read Ken Niumtalolo's thoughts on the TO and he clearly states that as the goal. One must limit the opportunities for the opponent to score. It seems to me that passing more creates more up tempo, more plays, more scoring. I just don't see Tech winning that way.

Bobby Dodd (who, I am not making the claim, is current with today's football) said that at Tech, the goal was to keep the game close until the 4th quarter. Then ... he'll figure out a way to win. But avoid blowouts.

 

[Vespidae]

I think we'll agree to disagree on this one.
But, think about how many 3rd and 6-7-8-9-10-etc we have converted by pass ... not many.
If we don't get the 4-5-6 yards on 1st down we put ourselves behind the 8-ball because we are not diversified and the defense can stack the LOS.

Totally agree. And as Vince Lombardi said .. "Practice it until you can."

 

[GTJake]

Well, OK. But is it balance if I run over the A gap, then the C gap and then counter it and then ... or is it merely a function of X number of runs vs X number of passes? (One of my irritations over 10 years has been the pass on first down that fails, at which point fans rail that "He put us in a hole early" and then passing on 3rd and 12 and the same fans railing that, "Why does he wait until they expect it before he passes?" If it gets to me imagine him. To me that is just a narrowly defined view that does not address offensive needs. I get it, really. I just think it is wrong.

In general I think you need to be diversified and make the defense defend the whole field, not just the LOS ...

 

[Vespidae]

Did you not watch several of our games this year where we had to pass and looked like a fool when we tried?

I am fine with passing as part of a coherent approach to the game. I am not fine with passing just to say we are good at passing.