NAVY......

[Skeptic]

I think it's more hard to find guys who WANT to come to GT with those qualities than there are guys out there. Usually we settle on guys with some or most of the qualities of the ideal flex option QB, but we can't seem to convince the guy with ALL of the qualities.

We recruited a kid last year, Victor Viramontes, who to me would have been PERFECT for our offense. Big kid who was quick, fast, TOUGH, great arm, and good passer.



Unfortunately, he chose to go to Cal and will probably never see time at QB there.

Seems to me that the QBs we lose in recruiting are always the ones who could have been great at GT. Fact is we don't have a clue. Not one. It is a unique offense requiring a unique skill -- or at least I think it is -- and it doesn't involve running or throwing the ball. it is decision making under duress and under fire, and making it inside of one second. I could not do that. I knew a guy who was high up in NASA in our moon shot years, and he said that of all the astronauts of any "recruiting class", only Deke Slayton could make instantaneous decisions under great pressure, and be right. And that he was the only one of dozens. And all of these guys, and later women, were selected as the best of the best. All of our guys have had their strengths, but of all the weaknesses, I have come to the reluctant conclusion that Thomas simply cannot reliably make the instant decision he needs to put the play in motion. . Defenses have gotten better, more film-ready, more experienced with the spread option. That's part of it. But in my mind the major, 90% iceberg reason, is that Thomas very often, like mostly some games, gives to the Bback who gets crushed in the line. That's not athletic skill, or intelligence. It is up in the rarefied air of recognition and decision time. I didn't think TW could pass a kidney stone or run in traffic, and of them all, only he and Thomas just get hammered running a keeper between the tackles. With all that said, in Johnson's tenure on the Flats, TW was his best option QB, and that is not I view I always held.

 

[Techster]

Seems to me that the QBs we lose in recruiting are always the ones who could have been great at GT. Fact is we don't have a clue. Not one.

Yup. I agree 100% Recruiting is an inexact science and no one knows for sure how a kid will react or perform on this level. Someone can look like a perfect fit on film, but that's not how it works when it comes to a recruit's personality and fit.

Tevin was a 2 star recruit and Vad was a 4 star by some services. I think Vad would have been REALLY good had he bought in (like he did in 2012 when he was trying to earn playing time as a RS FR), but that's one of the things services, coaches and fans will never be able to predict. Tevin, maybe because he was lightly recruited and didn't have other options (excuse the pun) bought in and dedicated himself to mastering the offense. We all know Vad wanted to "expand" the offense, and even admitted as much during his radio interview.

The NFL spends millions every year poking, prodding, and dissecting players in the hopes of making sure they get it right, Even then, they get it wrong more times than they get it right.

 

[Boomergump]

Seems to me that the QBs we lose in recruiting are always the ones who could have been great at GT. Fact is we don't have a clue. Not one. It is a unique offense requiring a unique skill -- or at least I think it is -- and it doesn't involve running or throwing the ball. it is decision making under duress and under fire, and making it inside of one second. I could not do that. I knew a guy who was high up in NASA in our moon shot years, and he said that of all the astronauts of any "recruiting class", only Deke Slayton could make instantaneous decisions under great pressure, and be right. And that he was the only one of dozens. And all of these guys, and later women, were selected as the best of the best. All of our guys have had their strengths, but of all the weaknesses, I have come to the reluctant conclusion that Thomas simply cannot reliably make the instant decision he needs to put the play in motion. . Defenses have gotten better, more film-ready, more experienced with the spread option. That's part of it. But in my mind the major, 90% iceberg reason, is that Thomas very often, like mostly some games, gives to the Bback who gets crushed in the line. That's not athletic skill, or intelligence. It is up in the rarefied air of recognition and decision time. I didn't think TW could pass a kidney stone or run in traffic, and of them all, only he and Thomas just get hammered running a keeper between the tackles. With all that said, in Johnson's tenure on the Flats, TW was his best option QB, and that is not I view I always held.

Well said and yes, TW was our best QB in the CPJ era when it comes to reading a play and making the right decisions. That is why I think he is so under-rated. Could he leave people in the dust on a sprint to the EZ? No. Could he chuck it 50+ yds down field? No. Could he bowl you over? No. Could he throw well on the run? Not really. However, having said all this, he still made us better in a lot of ways. He wasn't a bad athlete and he wasn't slow, and he wasn't electric either, but he made us work. Did he find his way into the EZ on short yardage plays? Absolutely, and very well I might add. Could he run midline? Heck Yes! Could he check down and find alternate receivers? Heck yes too. QB is about a lot of things beyond just superior athleticism.

Saying we always lose the best QBs in recruiting I am not sure is accurate. QBs across the land, regardless of system, are the hardest to place. That is why ALL PROGRAMS recruit that position more fully than all others. The more you have, the greater chance one of them will work out. Ours have been pretty good, even if not perfect in every way.

 

[stech81]

Well said and yes, TW was our best QB in the CPJ era when it comes to reading a play and making the right decisions. That is why I think he is so under-rated. Could he leave people in the dust on a sprint to the EZ? No. Could he chuck it 50+ yds down field? No. Could he bowl you over? No. Could he throw well on the run? Not really. However, having said all this, he still made us better in a lot of ways. He wasn't a bad athlete and he wasn't slow, and he wasn't electric either, but he made us work. Did he find his way into the EZ on short yardage plays? Absolutely, and very well I might add. Could he run midline? Heck Yes! Could he check down and find alternate receivers? Heck yes too. QB is about a lot of things beyond just superior athleticism.

Saying we always lose the best QBs in recruiting I am not sure is accurate. QBs across the land, regardless of system, are the hardest to place. That is why ALL PROGRAMS recruit that position more fully than all others. The more you have, the greater chance one of them will work out. Ours have been pretty good, even if not perfect in every way.

Any word on how much he is helping with the QB's this year.

 

[Milwaukee]

Navy will be on national television tonight. Watch the speed in which they execute.

 

[Boomergump]

Any word on how much he is helping with the QB's this year.

No. I have no clue.

 

[Skeptic]

...the observation was more in the nature of Johnson's comment that the most popular player on the team is always the backup QB. We just tend to look at those who went elsewhere and say: That's him! The one! If only! And we don't know, and often don't know if we're even recruiting the one who supposedly got away.

Saying we always lose the best QBs in recruiting I am not sure is accurate. QBs across the land, regardless of system, are the hardest to place. That is why ALL PROGRAMS recruit that position more fully than all others. The more you have, the greater chance one of them will work out. Ours have been pretty good, even if not perfect in every way.

 

[Skeptic]

Well said and yes, TW was our best QB in the CPJ era when it comes to reading a play and making the right decisions. That is why I think he is so under-rated. Could he leave people in the dust on a sprint to the EZ? No. Could he chuck it 50+ yds down field? No. Could he bowl you over? No. Could he throw well on the run? Not really. However, having said all this, he still made us better in a lot of ways. He wasn't a bad athlete and he wasn't slow, and he wasn't electric either, but he made us work. Did he find his way into the EZ on short yardage plays? Absolutely, and very well I might add. Could he run midline? Heck Yes! Could he check down and find alternate receivers? Heck yes too. QB is about a lot of things beyond just superior athleticism.

Saying we always lose the best QBs in recruiting I am not sure is accurate. QBs across the land, regardless of system, are the hardest to place. That is why ALL PROGRAMS recruit that position more fully than all others. The more you have, the greater chance one of them will work out. Ours have been pretty good, even if not perfect in every way.

 

[Skeptic]

Well said and yes, TW was our best QB in the CPJ era when it comes to reading a play and making the right decisions. That is why I think he is so under-rated. Could he leave people in the dust on a sprint to the EZ? No. Could he chuck it 50+ yds down field? No. Could he bowl you over? No. Could he throw well on the run? Not really. However, having said all this, he still made us better in a lot of ways. He wasn't a bad athlete and he wasn't slow, and he wasn't electric either, but he made us work. Did he find his way into the EZ on short yardage plays? Absolutely, and very well I might add. Could he run midline? Heck Yes! Could he check down and find alternate receivers? Heck yes too. QB is about a lot of things beyond just superior athleticism.

Saying we always lose the best QBs in recruiting I am not sure is accurate. QBs across the land, regardless of system, are the hardest to place. That is why ALL PROGRAMS recruit that position more fully than all others. The more you have, the greater chance one of them will work out. Ours have been pretty good, even if not perfect in every way.

Well, I will get this right. Maybe. My observation was more in the line of Johnson's point that the most popular player on the team is always the backup QB. As fans we tend to think that the QB who got away, stolen from under us by Podunk U, is the one who could run this offense. And there is no way to know. I am cursed to be a Dodger fan and have been increasingly frustrated with the "analytics" approach that measures everything. Except heart. And against the Cubs they just did not compete. But, geez, did the computers get the matchups right. I doubt if recruiters, regardless of experience or knowledge or skill, an reliably predict the ability of the 4-star athlete to make the right decision with his first step. It would be a really interesting study to figure out how many character traits are needed at that very moment. Regardless, Saturday is Duke. I want us to be 1-0 when the sun goes down.

 

[steebu]

Navy will be on national television tonight. Watch the speed in which they execute.

I wonder if I should refresh the whole "who's faster at running the option" study again. I get the feeling the results will be similar.

As you pointed out previously, the speed at which they execute is relative to who they're playing. Let's see Navy play Clemson and see if they score 7.

 

[Milwaukee]

I wonder if I should refresh the whole "who's faster at running the option" study again. I get the feeling the results will be similar.

As you pointed out previously, the speed at which they execute is relative to who they're playing. Let's see Navy play Clemson and see if they score 7.

Their backs are also extremely shallow with their alignment, much different than ours. That's a big part of why they're quicker to the LOS.

QB Worth isn't very quick.

 

[steebu]

Their backs are also extremely shallow with their alignment, much different than ours. That's a big part of why they're quicker to the LOS.

QB Worth isn't very quick.

Lol. Their backs are shallow because they're SLOWER THAN OURS.

I talked about this with PJ on the radio show once. Watch tape from 2008 and 2009. Jonathan Dwyer is nearly 4.5 yards behind Nesbitt because he was so fast coming off the snap and his speed messed up the timing of the mesh. Compare that with Navy's B-Back who's 3 yards behind Worth. Dywer 4.5 yards behind the LOS got to the line quicker than any Navy B-Back 3-yards behind the LOS. The depth with which the B-Back sits is completely dependent on his speed. I'm sure Marcus Marshall sits a little bit deeper than the Navy B-Back.

This is why I wondered if it was time to do another study, but unfortunately GT and Navy do not share any common opponents.

 

[FightWinDrink]

Might want to skip the Navy game on right now

 

[Milwaukee]

Lol. Their backs are shallow because they're SLOWER THAN OURS.

I talked about this with PJ on the radio show once. Watch tape from 2008 and 2009. Jonathan Dwyer is nearly 4.5 yards behind Nesbitt because he was so fast coming off the snap and his speed messed up the timing of the mesh. Compare that with Navy's B-Back who's 3 yards behind Worth. Dywer 4.5 yards behind the LOS got to the line quicker than any Navy B-Back 3-yards behind the LOS. The depth with which the B-Back sits is completely dependent on his speed. I'm sure Marcus Marshall sits a little bit deeper than the Navy B-Back.

This is why I wondered if it was time to do another study, but unfortunately GT and Navy do not share any common opponents.

I don't think any of the Tech fans are saying Navy's players are faster than ours. We're talking about hitting the LOS.

 

[steebu]

I don't think any of the Tech fans are saying Navy's players are faster than ours. We're talking about hitting the LOS.

I ... just ... wrote ...

Dywer 4.5 yards behind the LOS got to the line quicker than any Navy B-Back 3-yards behind the LOS.
​

I timed it out years ago. Like did frame-by-frame video timing comparisons. Like computed distance traveled over time. This is why I wondered if it was time to do another study to put this whole, "Navy runs the option faster than us!" to bed. PJ even commented, "Logic would tell you that the faster guy would get quicker."

I certainly think it's possible that they may execute better, but like you said, that could very well be a function of opponent and not completely dependent on brain. Does Justin string it out too much, making our option look "slow"? Maybe. Does Worth run a 5.3 40 yard dash, but cuts it upfield immediately on the triple against Fordham, making Navy look "faster"? Maybe. But on things that are quantifiable (how quickly does the B-Back get to the LOS, how quickly does the PST get past the LOS assuming a clean release) we were flat-out FASTER. Cutcliffe recognizes this:

Duke coach David Cutcliffe said there are similarities between Army and Georgia Tech but also added, “Army, with all due respect, is not even close to what Georgia Tech is from a weapons standpoint offensively. I think our players do realize that. They watch the tape, and they see that. So it’s really hard to simulate the speed that Georgia Tech has on offense.”​

Again, on the quantifiable things it's easy to see: Marcus Marshall is going to hit the LoS pretty darn fast, faster than Army did, and probably faster than Navy.

In 2013 Navy and GT both played Duke. We won something like 38-7 and Navy got pounded something like 38-7. Unfortunately, GT and Navy do not have a common opponent this year.

 

[Milwaukee]

I ... just ... wrote ...

Dywer 4.5 yards behind the LOS got to the line quicker than any Navy B-Back 3-yards behind the LOS.
​

I timed it out years ago. Like did frame-by-frame video timing comparisons. Like computed distance traveled over time. This is why I wondered if it was time to do another study to put this whole, "Navy runs the option faster than us!" to bed. PJ even commented, "Logic would tell you that the faster guy would get quicker."

I certainly think it's possible that they may execute better, but like you said, that could very well be a function of opponent and not completely dependent on brain. Does Justin string it out too much, making our option look "slow"? Maybe. Does Worth run a 5.3 40 yard dash, but cuts it upfield immediately on the triple against Fordham, making Navy look "faster"? Maybe. But on things that are quantifiable (how quickly does the B-Back get to the LOS, how quickly does the PST get past the LOS assuming a clean release) we were flat-out FASTER.

In 2013 Navy and GT both played Duke. We won something like 38-7 and Navy got pounded something like 38-7. Unfortunately, GT and Navy do not have a common opponent this year.

That's good info.

 

[up state jacket]

They will not be ranked next week. They are getting their areses handed to them. They are not fast enough tonight.

 

[Milwaukee]

They're getting drilled. But that's another story.

 

[Longestday]

I am not liking the defensive setup by Navy. Safeties are out of every play.