Pat Swilling Interview 92.9

[TheSilasSonRising]

Well you know what the Bear said. When you throw the ball three things can happen and two of them are bad.

And the bear stole that quote, and the wishbone, from Darrell Royal.

 

[AE 87]

Yeah, I think "throw the ball more" has to do with who's playing QB. Justin threw the ball more because he could.

 

[Techster]

Well you know what the Bear said. When you throw the ball three things can happen and two of them are bad.

If you think about it, the same can be said if you rush the ball.

You're either going to gain yardage (Positive), lose yardage (Negative), fumble the ball (Negative)...and of course, just not gain any yards (negative or positive depending on your POV).

Of course, being a triple option offense, the QB could have a bad pitch (negative) or we could eff the mesh (negative).

The reality is, every play no matter what you run whether it's passing or running has its risks and rewards.

 

[ATL1]

If you think about it, the same can be said if you rush the ball.

You're either going to gain yardage (Positive), lose yardage (Negative), fumble the ball (Negative)...and of course, just not gain any yards (negative or positive depending on your POV).

Of course, being a triple option offense, the QB could have a bad pitch (negative) or we could eff the mesh (negative).

The reality is, every play no matter what you run whether it's passing or running has its risks and rewards.

Yeah, that quote was always dumb *** hell to me.

 

[AE 87]

If you think about it, the same can be said if you rush the ball.

You're either going to gain yardage (Positive), lose yardage (Negative), fumble the ball (Negative)...and of course, just not gain any yards (negative or positive depending on your POV).

Of course, being a triple option offense, the QB could have a bad pitch (negative) or we could eff the mesh (negative).

The reality is, every play no matter what you run whether it's passing or running has its risks and rewards.

Since gain yardage, lose yardage and fumble could also apply to passing plays, it's not really saying the same thing.

 

[tmhunter52]

Since gain yardage, lose yardage and fumble could also apply to passing plays, it's not really saying the same thing.

Bad things can happen on any play.

 

[Techster]

Since gain yardage, lose yardage and fumble could also apply to passing plays, it's not really saying the same thing.

That was kind of my point. Doesn't matter what you run (or pass), the same equivalent results can happen either way. Fumble equivalent to interception....no gain equivalent to incomplete pass...so on, so forth.

 

[YJMD]

I'm sure it could be mathematically modeled to give us best odds depending on down/distance for the play call. But it's really complicated and there will be a lot of variables that can't be accounted for in the model. Still useful. I think we do neglect the passing game at times, but generally I like having a clear identity, and if we aren't successful with our base plays we are unlikely to overcome it with a few big passes. Maybe with a more aggressive defense there will be some opportunities to steal games via a few pivotal pass plays. The only times I remember living off the pass to win games are when defenses sold out against the run and left openings to exploit. If Clemson, UGA, etc. gets penetration and doesn't let the option start to get going with their base defense, no amount of passing is going to overcome it and get us rolling. Usually what happens is forcing things resulting in frustration and turnovers.

 

[Techster]

I'm sure it could be mathematically modeled to give us best odds depending on down/distance for the play call. But it's really complicated and there will be a lot of variables that can't be accounted for in the model. Still useful. I think we do neglect the passing game at times, but generally I like having a clear identity, and if we aren't successful with our base plays we are unlikely to overcome it with a few big passes. Maybe with a more aggressive defense there will be some opportunities to steal games via a few pivotal pass plays. The only times I remember living off the pass to win games are when defenses sold out against the run and left openings to exploit. If Clemson, UGA, etc. gets penetration and doesn't let the option start to get going with their base defense, no amount of passing is going to overcome it and get us rolling. Usually what happens is forcing things resulting in frustration and turnovers.

You should listen to Mike Leach talk about passing versus running. He makes some very good points...the same points as CPJ does about running.

In the end, it all comes down to what each team does best. You look at all the Air Raid offenses, or spread option teams. GT will undoubtedly have more success running the ball, and running option plays than say Mike Leach at WSU. We run more running and option plays, and we practice them more than WSU does.

On the other hand, Mike Leach will have more success passing the ball than we will because that's his expertise and his teams practice passing the ball more.

There is no magic to this, and it's not complicated. As a coach, if your strengths are the option game and running the ball, it's probably best if you stick to it. If it's passing the ball, stick to passing.

When our fans say "CPJ's offense gives GT the best chance" it's true and it's false. If CPJ is our coach, of course it gives GT the best chance. If Mike Leach was here, the option probably doesn't give us the best chance because he's not as well versed in it as CPJ. But GT probably has the best chance passing the ball in the Air Raid if Mike Leach were the coach.

BTW...CPJ and Mike Leach are basically the same coach, and their offensive philosophies about moving the ball are pretty much the same even though their offenses seem like polar opposite sides of the offensive spectrum. Both developed and utilize their respective offenses because it helped them with talent disparities. If you research the "gurus" of each offensive style, it's pretty much the same thing with them also. Afterall, the basics tenets of football never changes.

 

[Coloradojacket]

You should listen to Mike Leach talk about passing versus running. He makes some very good points...the same points as CPJ does about running.

In the end, it all comes down to what each team does best. You look at all the Air Raid offenses, or spread option teams. GT will undoubtedly have more success running the ball, and running option plays than say Mike Leach at WSU. We run more running and option plays, and we practice them more than WSU does.

On the other hand, Mike Leach will have more success passing the ball than we will because that's his expertise and his teams practice passing the ball more.

There is no magic to this, and it's not complicated. As a coach, if your strengths are the option game and running the ball, it's probably best if you stick to it. If it's passing the ball, stick to passing.

When our fans say "CPJ's offense gives GT the best chance" it's true and it's false. If CPJ is our coach, of course it gives GT the best chance. If Mike Leach was here, the option probably doesn't give us the best chance because he's not as well versed in it as CPJ. But GT probably has the best chance passing the ball in the Air Raid if Mike Leach were the coach.

BTW...CPJ and Mike Leach are basically the same coach, and their offensive philosophies about moving the ball are pretty much the same even though their offenses seem like polar opposite sides of the offensive spectrum. Both developed and utilize their respective offenses because it helped them with talent disparities. If you research the "gurus" of each offensive style, it's pretty much the same thing with them also. Afterall, the basics tenets of football never changes.

So just to throw in, we had that passing attack once at Tech, it was called the Bill Lewis years.
Now for the philosophy, What Leach does is line up mostly with 5 wides in a shotgun. His offense theory is on Defense you will probably have 7-8 in coverage and rush 3 or 4. If you come up tight on coverage he gambles that he will have the time to beat you on deeper routes. Play soft and he will throw quick and short. The problem though is that if you go 3 and out your defense will be back on the field in minutes.

 

[Techster]

So just to throw in, we had that passing attack once at Tech, it was called the Bill Lewis years.
Now for the philosophy, What Leach does is line up mostly with 5 wides in a shotgun. His offense theory is on Defense you will probably have 7-8 in coverage and rush 3 or 4. If you come up tight on coverage he gambles that he will have the time to beat you on deeper routes. Play soft and he will throw quick and short. The problem though is that if you go 3 and out your defense will be back on the field in minutes.

I agree with your point. Ultimately there are positives and negatives with every offense. There is not an offense out there that's immune to some criticism. The perfect offense does not exist.

When CPJs offense is hitting on all cylinders, it's fun to watch it March down the field, and even more of a joy to see opposing DCs flail. On the other hand, it's also painful to watch when our guys are not in synch and defenders are swarming in the backfield.

To this day, Friedgens offense has been my favorite to watch of all the offenses since I've been a GT fan. Great passing attack, power running with a dash of option mixed in, and versatile QBs. Of course, his offense was complicated, and it required a QB who has been in the system for multiple years. We forget how painful it was to watch Joe Hamilton as a red shirt freshmen...No one would have predicted Heisman contention for him early in his career.

 

[SidewalkJacket]

You should listen to Mike Leach talk about passing versus running. He makes some very good points...the same points as CPJ does about running.

In the end, it all comes down to what each team does best. You look at all the Air Raid offenses, or spread option teams. GT will undoubtedly have more success running the ball, and running option plays than say Mike Leach at WSU. We run more running and option plays, and we practice them more than WSU does.

On the other hand, Mike Leach will have more success passing the ball than we will because that's his expertise and his teams practice passing the ball more.

There is no magic to this, and it's not complicated. As a coach, if your strengths are the option game and running the ball, it's probably best if you stick to it. If it's passing the ball, stick to passing.

When our fans say "CPJ's offense gives GT the best chance" it's true and it's false. If CPJ is our coach, of course it gives GT the best chance. If Mike Leach was here, the option probably doesn't give us the best chance because he's not as well versed in it as CPJ. But GT probably has the best chance passing the ball in the Air Raid if Mike Leach were the coach.

BTW...CPJ and Mike Leach are basically the same coach, and their offensive philosophies about moving the ball are pretty much the same even though their offenses seem like polar opposite sides of the offensive spectrum. Both developed and utilize their respective offenses because it helped them with talent disparities. If you research the "gurus" of each offensive style, it's pretty much the same thing with them also. Afterall, the basics tenets of football never changes.

So just to throw in, we had that passing attack once at Tech, it was called the Bill Lewis years.
Now for the philosophy, What Leach does is line up mostly with 5 wides in a shotgun. His offense theory is on Defense you will probably have 7-8 in coverage and rush 3 or 4. If you come up tight on coverage he gambles that he will have the time to beat you on deeper routes. Play soft and he will throw quick and short. The problem though is that if you go 3 and out your defense will be back on the field in minutes.

I agree with your point. Ultimately there are positives and negatives with every offense. There is not an offense out there that's immune to some criticism. The perfect offense does not exist.

When CPJs offense is hitting on all cylinders, it's fun to watch it March down the field, and even more of a joy to see opposing DCs flail. On the other hand, it's also painful to watch when our guys are not in synch and defenders are swarming in the backfield.

To this day, Friedgens offense has been my favorite to watch of all the offenses since I've been a GT fan. Great passing attack, power running with a dash of option mixed in, and versatile QBs. Of course, his offense was complicated, and it required a QB who has been in the system for multiple years. We forget how painful it was to watch Joe Hamilton as a red shirt freshmen...No one would have predicted Heisman contention for him early in his career.

This is a great convo, and the reason I love GTSwarm.

It's absolutely right that Leach and CPJ are very similar. I think the benefits of CPJ's offense over Leach's are:
1) on his unsuccessful plays, the clock keeps moving, and
2) the constant blocking by WRs and ABs wears down the defense

 

[first&ten]

I agree with your point. Ultimately there are positives and negatives with every offense. There is not an offense out there that's immune to some criticism. The perfect offense does not exist.

When CPJs offense is hitting on all cylinders, it's fun to watch it March down the field, and even more of a joy to see opposing DCs flail. On the other hand, it's also painful to watch when our guys are not in synch and defenders are swarming in the backfield.

To this day, Friedgens offense has been my favorite to watch of all the offenses since I've been a GT fan. Great passing attack, power running with a dash of option mixed in, and versatile QBs. Of course, his offense was complicated, and it required a QB who has been in the system for multiple years. We forget how painful it was to watch Joe Hamilton as a red shirt freshmen...No one would have predicted Heisman contention for him early in his career.

Good call on Friedgens offense. I too, remember Lil Joe in his freshman year, never would have figured he would be up for the Heisman. I've said it before,but if George had left for ND just one year earlier, Ralph would have taken over as HC and the good times would have rolled on!

 

[jgtengineer]

Good call on Friedgens offense. I too, remember Lil Joe in his freshman year, never would have figured he would be up for the Heisman. I've said it before,but if George had left for ND just one year earlier, Ralph would have taken over as HC and the good times would have rolled on!

Im not entirely sure they would have only because Ralph would have still been up against flunkgate and the change in recruiting that came with APR. We probably would have seen him going heavier toward the option. We might have still got calvin since a huge reason he came here was his own recruiting of us. Maybe we recruit some better qbs than ball ( though ball in a friedgbone probably would have been pretty strong). in the end though I think he probably is gone by 2008 anyway given that maryland probably still would have offered him the job at some point and that was his alma mater.

 

[slugboy]

Im not entirely sure they would have only because Ralph would have still been up against flunkgate and the change in recruiting that came with APR. We probably would have seen him going heavier toward the option. We might have still got calvin since a huge reason he came here was his own recruiting of us. Maybe we recruit some better qbs than ball ( though ball in a friedgbone probably would have been pretty strong). in the end though I think he probably is gone by 2008 anyway given that maryland probably still would have offered him the job at some point and that was his alma mater.

Fridge was a great QB coach (even though he was an OC). Godsey apparently had some issues with his throwing before Fridge worked with him.
I think he’d have developed a QB if he didn’t recruit one that was ready.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[CuseJacket]

Caption this

 

[jwsavhGT]

Caption this

Hey Paul, have you considered passing more?

 

[Yoda]

I'll never forget going to a Tech football camp when I was younger, maybe 1987? Pat Swilling was working out there that summer and strolled across the field. Dude looked like Mr Olympia. Not long after that, John Salley walked by. Not as impressive on the muscular side, but was super tall to this 10-11 yr old.

 

[jacketup]

Im not entirely sure they would have only because Ralph would have still been up against flunkgate and the change in recruiting that came with APR.

This is just wrong. Flunkgate happened because Gailey treated kids like NFL players and did not monitor their classroom work. Ralph would have continued the strict regime of O'Leary and sent gradasses around to make sure kids were in class and were otherwise doing the work.

Flunkgate had everything to do with Gailey not understanding GT when he first came and nothing to do with O'Leary or APR. The way the NCAA calculates APR is based on recruiting classes, and it was O'Leary's recruiting class, but he was not at GT when flunkgate happened.

Gailey figured out GT academics and he figured out recruiting. Then we fired him. He never figured out college offenses, however, and he was too stubborn to hire a quality OC. If he had, he would have been a good coach at Tech.

O'Leary would have been fine with APR. People who suggest otherwise are Johnson apologists looking for excuses for the current mediocrity. There was a lot I didn't like about O'Leary, but the academic criticism has no basis in fact.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

This is just wrong. Flunkgate happened because Gailey treated kids like NFL players and did not monitor their classroom work. Ralph would have continued the strict regime of O'Leary and sent gradasses around to make sure kids were in class and were otherwise doing the work.

Flunkgate had everything to do with Gailey not understanding GT when he first came and nothing to do with O'Leary or APR. The way the NCAA calculates APR is based on recruiting classes, and it was O'Leary's recruiting class, but he was not at GT when flunkgate happened.

Gailey figured out GT academics and he figured out recruiting. Then we fired him. He never figured out college offenses, however, and he was too stubborn to hire a quality OC. If he had, he would have been a good coach at Tech.

O'Leary would have been fine with APR. People who suggest otherwise are Johnson apologists looking for excuses for the current mediocrity. There was a lot I didn't like about O'Leary, but the academic criticism has no basis in fact.

Tech should have brought Oleary back after resume gate. I think he would have evolved to handle APR just fine. It’s not like his recruits weren’t taking calculus.

Our proud academic institute and butthurt alumni (and tree hugger don’t have rough practices types) made it an impossibility.

I was one of about 100 Tech fans at the time that wanted him back. Water under the bridge.