Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
Moving On
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="AlabamaBuzz" data-source="post: 506468" data-attributes="member: 906"><p>Thank you for writing all of this - I actually considered putting a lot of these thoughts down in a thread, but I knew that it would be better coming from someone like you, so I appreciate it greatly. Here is my favorite paragraph, for those who don't like reading the larger piece above:</p><p></p><p><strong>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!"</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p>Also, you wondered in your piece why we never performed better on the defensive side of the ball, even with multiple D coordinators, it is my opinion, and my opinion only, that we really never had the LB talent (or at least enough of it) (I know the DL talent was very suspect also - but at GT, that is ALWAYS going to be true to some degree; there just isn't enough 300 lb. guys with motors to recruit) that was necessary from a speed/size standpoint to have the success we needed. I think the DC's get the blame, but really, they were all good coaches. I believe the reason for the LB issue did <strong>somewhat</strong> stem from the following negative recruiting that probably occurred against PJ - "all you will see in practice are guys coming at your knees; do you really want to do that?"</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="AlabamaBuzz, post: 506468, member: 906"] Thank you for writing all of this - I actually considered putting a lot of these thoughts down in a thread, but I knew that it would be better coming from someone like you, so I appreciate it greatly. Here is my favorite paragraph, for those who don't like reading the larger piece above: [B]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!" [/B] Also, you wondered in your piece why we never performed better on the defensive side of the ball, even with multiple D coordinators, it is my opinion, and my opinion only, that we really never had the LB talent (or at least enough of it) (I know the DL talent was very suspect also - but at GT, that is ALWAYS going to be true to some degree; there just isn't enough 300 lb. guys with motors to recruit) that was necessary from a speed/size standpoint to have the success we needed. I think the DC's get the blame, but really, they were all good coaches. I believe the reason for the LB issue did [B]somewhat[/B] stem from the following negative recruiting that probably occurred against PJ - "all you will see in practice are guys coming at your knees; do you really want to do that?" [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
How many points did Georgia Tech score against Cumberland in 1916?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
Moving On
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top