Paul Johnson visiting the Ravens today

[dressedcheeseside]

That may be if you line 1 game up against another. What’s the impact of having 3-4k more season tickets because of a better schedule? Are we really better off with 25k fans every year to watch A St instead of 45k fans on alternating years to line up against Michigan, Texas, Ole Piss or God forbid our nemesis Stanford?

Maybe now those teams will play us.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

This is my favorite comment so far.
"This is a typical comment from fans of coach X; you guys all act alike and say the same things over and over. Now quit engaging in ad hominem attacks."

 

[Animal02]

This is my favorite comment so far.
"This is a typical comment from fans of coach X; you guys all act alike and say the same things over and over. Now quit engaging in ad hominem attacks."

Koolaid drinkers have a 7+ month streak of projecting.

 

[takethepoints]

I know nobody would use the spread option in the NFL, but I think it would work. If you view it from a GM and salary cap level. Your highest paid players on O are PP QB, LT, and WR. Because you are looking for and value different trait at QB you will save a ton on QB. Since you aren’t passing 60% of the time you will save $ on LT and WR. There are many very good RB coming out of college that go late in the draft. Everyone talks about the punishment the QB will take, because there isn’t a ton $ on a PP Qb you can have better backup Qb and even rotate them a little more during the season. You don’t have to worry about practice time limits, you can have multiple Qb run with the 1’s. Also, since most of the d in the league are built to stop the passing game you have an advantage by being a power running team. Also, some nfl CB that arent willing to take a big roll in the running game. Now what I think is the kicker in this would be you could use the $ saved on the O as well as top draft picks to load up on D. Assuming you had a good DC and an eye for d talent in the draft and FA. You could have crushing D and a O that could eat up the clock, give your D long rest, wear out the opp. D. Let’s take CPJ and his time at GT out for a second and just look at Army and Navy. You would be able to narrow the talent gap that those team currently face. You give Army a couple of the top 20 RB in college FB that would be a scary O. Like I said I know nobody would do it, but in General I think there are advantages to doing different things than everyone else. You aren’t going to out Clemson, Clemson because if try being and doing like everyone else, you have to rely On just having better talent.

All true, imho. There has been one pro team to run a shotgun spread option scheme that included some triple option plays: the Broncos when Tim Tebow was their QB. They found out that Tebow didn't have a quick enough release - the arm was plenty strong, the release sucked - to run their usual O, but they had nobody else. So they put in a limited number to shotgun spread option plays and let Tebow be Tebow. And, as you might expect, led the NFL in rushing per game for the season and averaged 4.8 ypc (6th), despite only installing the shotgun in the 7th week of their season. And won (Tebow was 8 - 5 as the QB), despite having a second year QB who had never started a game and a bunch of O people who barely knew what they were doing. I was kind of hoping that the Broncs would put the full scheme in the next year, but John Elway has always been looking for tall white guys who are drop back passers (i.e. John Elway clones) and found one: Peyton Manning. Can't blame him for that, I suppose, but seeing a real shotgun spread option scheme in the pros would sure be an eyeopener.

It'll happen. It's only a matter of time and hiring two QBs who can run and who are big enough to take the punishment.

 

[takethepoints]

Carolina has a triple option series in there playbook and have had it in there for awhile. They run it out of offset I and pistol. So there was film of it in the nfl. The truth of the matter is that the only boon to recreuiting that cpj got was the indoor facility. Turns out no where that has built one has aeen a bolster in recruiting due to that. The locker room will do more

Yes, and what some people we know say about the indoor field leaves out that it was started under Drad; the problems with support for the football program came when Bobinski froze football spending. Right at the time that everybody else in the ACC was increasing theirs.

To some extent, that is the issue. I think that when Bob took a look at the football program what he saw was wins and the best offensive production year over year in Tech history. Why not spend the limited extra cash on basketball? Fix the D and everything will be fine in football. And, sure enough, if everything had remained the same at opposing programs, he might have been right. But it didn't.

It's a fine example of what some have called the Lampedusa Rule: "If you want everything to remain the way it is, everything must change." We didn't and Paul suffered for it. Now we have and Coach will (I hope) get the support for recruiting he needs. Provided we pony up, of course.

 

[Pointer]

Yes, and what some people we know say about the indoor field leaves out that it was started under Drad; the problems with support for the football program came when Bobinski froze football spending. Right at the time that everybody else in the ACC was increasing theirs.

To some extent, that is the issue. I think that when Bob took a look at the football program what he saw was wins and the best offensive production year over year in Tech history. Why not spend the limited extra cash on basketball? Fix the D and everything will be fine in football. And, sure enough, if everything had remained the same at opposing programs, he might have been right. But it didn't.

It's a fine example of what some have called the Lampedusa Rule: "If you want everything to remain the way it is, everything must change." We didn't and Paul suffered for it. Now we have and Coach will (I hope) get the support for recruiting he needs. Provided we pony up, of course.

Exactly. I'm excited for the support CGC should be getting! CPJ has even said repeatedly that this new AD gets it. Let's GO!

 

[AE 87]

How is your baseless comment better than his? If the TO would provide an NFL team an edge someone would try it. The fact that no one has,ever, means case closed.

The real point here is what offense you run is not just about the offense itself but how it fits into the team structure. What we have seen at Tech is successful offenses with overall lesser talent. We have also seen that recruiting problem extend to the rest of the team and suffered with poor defenses and special teams most years. So yes, you can rave about the offense but the point is to win games. Kudos to Paul for what he was able to accomplish at Tech. I preferred his ability to have higher highs that Chan but also have to admit he had lower lows. Now he’s decided to step down and I am excited by the potential the new staff promises. Here’s hoping they can deliver.

I think your second paragraph refutes your first. For whatever reason, the flexbone offense is not seen as cool. And player buy-in is crucial to the NFL game. Saying that players don't want to play in that offense is different from saying that it wouldn't work if they did.

Just look at the D1, Pwr5. Regardless of the issues surrounding CPJ and Defense (I think there's probably something there but not as simplistic as some made it seem a few months ago), he did prove that his offense works at the D1, Pwr5 level. So, people began to ask why more D1 teams didn't use it. The answer is obviously not that it doesn't work. When you consider the success of Navy and now Army as well as others at D1 and even against Pwr5 opponents, it's been working everywhere it's been tried. So, the answer seems to come down to two issues: getting players willing to commit to it and the risk-factor associated with being different.

What I mean by the risk-factor associated with being different can be seen in this post:

Anyone who watched the Clemson and mutt games of the past few years and wanted to keep running that offense against 'em is a masochist.

Three years ago, we beat the mutts averaging 7.5 yds/play against a defense which allowed 5.26 yds/play on average. However, leave that aside. In 2017 and 2018, Clemson had the number 3 and number 1 defenses in the country. In 2017, both georgie and Climp's kid were playoff teams. In 2018, georgie had the #7 defense in the country. So, let it sink in. Someone who is probably otherwise reasonable, reduced the struggles of our offense against two of the best defenses in the country to ... the scheme.

Now, can you imagine the fans of most teams calling into question the offensive scheme when their team fails to be as efficient against the best and one of the best teams in the country? Obviously not. However, when you run a unique scheme, there is a tendency among skeptical fans and commentators to treat it like some kind of magic. If it doesn't perform a miracle, then the magic must have worn off. The defenses have figured it out. Or whatever. The fact that our starting QB over the last two years was brought in as an A-Back and that the guys expected to compete for the starting job were injured, and all of this is after the primary QB target had been injured before arriving on campus. When you run a unique offense, none of that matters.

 

[takethepoints]

I think your second paragraph refutes your first. For whatever reason, the flexbone offense is not seen as cool. And player buy-in is crucial to the NFL game. Saying that players don't want to play in that offense is different from saying that it wouldn't work if they did.

Just look at the D1, Pwr5. Regardless of the issues surrounding CPJ and Defense (I think there's probably something there but not as simplistic as some made it seem a few months ago), he did prove that his offense works at the D1, Pwr5 level. So, people began to ask why more D1 teams didn't use it. The answer is obviously not that it doesn't work. When you consider the success of Navy and now Army as well as others at D1 and even against Pwr5 opponents, it's been working everywhere it's been tried. So, the answer seems to come down to two issues: getting players willing to commit to it and the risk-factor associated with being different.

Yes. Its a lot like shooting foul shots underhanded in basketball. Rick Barry had the best foul shooting record in basketball history (90%) using an underhanded shot. He's been willing to teach it to anybody who might want to get better at foul shooting - and God alone knows there are plenty of NBA players who could improve - but few players have taken him up on it. Why? It isn't because they don't think it will work; they admit that. It's because they think people will laugh at them if they shoot foul shots underhanded. Here's a good story about it:



Well, sooner or later, this kind of foolishness will loose out to more efficient methods. Unless - could it be? - all those myths we keep telling ourselves about competition and efficiency are just a load of BS? Nah, that couldn't be the reason.

 

[RickStromFan]

I think your second paragraph refutes your first. For whatever reason, the flexbone offense is not seen as cool. And player buy-in is crucial to the NFL game. Saying that players don't want to play in that offense is different from saying that it wouldn't work if they did.

True but if it worked, it'd still be in usage somewhere on some team.

Just look at the D1, Pwr5. Regardless of the issues surrounding CPJ and Defense (I think there's probably something there but not as simplistic as some made it seem a few months ago), he did prove that his offense works at the D1, Pwr5 level. So, people began to ask why more D1 teams didn't use it. The answer is obviously not that it doesn't work. When you consider the success of Navy and now Army as well as others at D1 and even against Pwr5 opponents, it's been working everywhere it's been tried. So, the answer seems to come down to two issues: getting players willing to commit to it and the risk-factor associated with being different.

What I mean by the risk-factor associated with being different can be seen in this post:


Three years ago, we beat the mutts averaging 7.5 yds/play against a defense which allowed 5.26 yds/play on average. However, leave that aside. In 2017 and 2018, Clemson had the number 3 and number 1 defenses in the country. In 2017, both georgie and Climp's kid were playoff teams. In 2018, georgie had the #7 defense in the country. So, let it sink in. Someone who is probably otherwise reasonable, reduced the struggles of our offense against two of the best defenses in the country to ... the scheme.

Not sure I follow you but I think the biggest difference -- and why we're kind of debating past each other, respectfully - is that you appear to be focusing on PJ-OC whereas I'm focusing on PJ-HC, at least when it comes to looking back at his GT tenure. Problems with the Defense and ST lay at his feet, regardless of how productive the offense was. And I've said repeatedly (and admittedly elsewhere since it's not a topic here) that PJ's In-Game Coaching Adjustment vs mutts in 2016 was, IMO, his best. And that adjustment was to start throwing it down the middle, where we burned them for huge gains in the 4th to spur the comeback. But I digress....

Current and former players are on the record about the scheme's effect on the defense. It's a big thread further down. Without rehashing it, I'll simply say that I will always side with the players' opinions vs that of the fans and that's not different here. But again, that's a PJ-HC thing, not a PC-OC thing.

Now, can you imagine the fans of most teams calling into question the offensive scheme when their team fails to be as efficient against the best and one of the best teams in the country? Obviously not. However, when you run a unique scheme, there is a tendency among skeptical fans and commentators to treat it like some kind of magic. If it doesn't perform a miracle, then the magic must have worn off. The defenses have figured it out. Or whatever. The fact that our starting QB over the last two years was brought in as an A-Back and that the guys expected to compete for the starting job were injured, and all of this is after the primary QB target had been injured before arriving on campus. When you run a unique offense, none of that matters.

Again, not sure where I've questioned the efficacy of the offense in general over PJ's tenure here. But PJ wasn't just the OC, he was HC. Which meant that the dismal failures on Def and ST were his responsibility too. Not sure why this observation angers some here (not you, AE). But it's how you have to judge a football HC: By the entirety of the program he is coaching, not just 1 of the 3 phases he took part in.

 

[RickStromFan]

This is my favorite comment so far.
"This is a typical comment from fans of coach X; you guys all act alike and say the same things over and over. Now quit engaging in ad hominem attacks."

Laughably and predictably, you can't even quote me correctly, even though it's right there on the last page. But thanks for providing more proof of:

This is a good example of a typical reply of the PJ fan club: Ad hominem attacks that don't even bother to address the topic

Pointing out typical behavior isn't an ad hominem attack. Pointing out that you clearly don't know the definition of 'ad hominem' might be though.

Oh well, time to ignore the troll.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Laughably and predictably, you can't even quote me correctly, even though it's right there on the last page. But thanks for providing more proof of:



Pointing out typical behavior isn't an ad hominem attack. Pointing out that you clearly don't know the definition of 'ad hominem' might be though.

Oh well, time to ignore the troll.

It was a generic statement based on more than one quote. But you clearly must have felt guilty that it was close to home with your on-going comments.

And you clearly have constructed some kind of composite for a typical CPJ fan. Hence your best defense of your opinion seems to be to compare those who disagree with you to whoever this person is who lives in your brain.

I recommend trying a different thread because this one pushes some buttons with you that don't make you very happy.

 

[AE 87]

True but if it worked, it'd still be in usage somewhere on some team.



Not sure I follow you but I think the biggest difference -- and why we're kind of debating past each other, respectfully - is that you appear to be focusing on PJ-OC whereas I'm focusing on PJ-HC, at least when it comes to looking back at his GT tenure. Problems with the Defense and ST lay at his feet, regardless of how productive the offense was. And I've said repeatedly (and admittedly elsewhere since it's not a topic here) that PJ's In-Game Coaching Adjustment vs mutts in 2016 was, IMO, his best. And that adjustment was to start throwing it down the middle, where we burned them for huge gains in the 4th to spur the comeback. But I digress....

Current and former players are on the record about the scheme's effect on the defense. It's a big thread further down. Without rehashing it, I'll simply say that I will always side with the players' opinions vs that of the fans and that's not different here. But again, that's a PJ-HC thing, not a PC-OC thing.



Again, not sure where I've questioned the efficacy of the offense in general over PJ's tenure here. But PJ wasn't just the OC, he was HC. Which meant that the dismal failures on Def and ST were his responsibility too. Not sure why this observation angers some here (not you, AE). But it's how you have to judge a football HC: By the entirety of the program he is coaching, not just 1 of the 3 phases he took part in.

Thank-you for your reply, but you have the field after this. You have won in driving me away from more active participation.

You say, "True but if it worked, it'd still be in usage somewhere on some team." That is the opinion I am disputing. Stomping your foot and repeating it doesn't make it any more or less true.

You say, "Again, not sure where I've questioned the efficacy of the offense in general over PJ's tenure here." However, my post to which this responds was in direct and explicit response to you saying, "Anyone who watched the Clemson and mutt games of the past few years and wanted to keep running that offense against 'em is a masochist." Read what you said again and again until it becomes clear that you are challenging appreciation of our offensive scheme based on its performance against two teams over the last few years. Now read my post again and again until you see that I only raised data reflecting our offense against those two teams over the last few years. I am saying that your position is irrational and so nonsensical that it is easily disproved by the fact that most teams aren't changing their offensive scheme every few years because of their failure to be more effective against the best teams in the country.

 

[HurricaneJacket]

You sir are talking some hot garbage. Parker mentioned he was transferring somewhere to better prepare him for the NFL. This was a dig at the many "we will be running an NFL offense" comments that CGC is forced to say by the big Tech donor. I will not entertain anymore corrections of your many other false claims.

Out of genuine curiosity, where is the big Tech Donor forcing a certain narative coming from? I've seen nothing that even hints at that in the various news outlets that cover Tech.

 

[Coloradojacket]

True but if it worked, it'd still be in usage somewhere on some team.



Not sure I follow you but I think the biggest difference -- and why we're kind of debating past each other, respectfully - is that you appear to be focusing on PJ-OC whereas I'm focusing on PJ-HC, at least when it comes to looking back at his GT tenure. Problems with the Defense and ST lay at his feet, regardless of how productive the offense was. And I've said repeatedly (and admittedly elsewhere since it's not a topic here) that PJ's In-Game Coaching Adjustment vs mutts in 2016 was, IMO, his best. And that adjustment was to start throwing it down the middle, where we burned them for huge gains in the 4th to spur the comeback. But I digress....

Current and former players are on the record about the scheme's effect on the defense. It's a big thread further down. Without rehashing it, I'll simply say that I will always side with the players' opinions vs that of the fans and that's not different here. But again, that's a PJ-HC thing, not a PC-OC thing.



Again, not sure where I've questioned the efficacy of the offense in general over PJ's tenure here. But PJ wasn't just the OC, he was HC. Which meant that the dismal failures on Def and ST were his responsibility too. Not sure why this observation angers some here (not you, AE). But it's how you have to judge a football HC: By the entirety of the program he is coaching, not just 1 of the 3 phases he took part in.

Ok, so CPJ should have been held accountable for Defense.....As should have George O'Leary for his poor defense in 1999....and Chan for his poor offense for much of his tenure. We could go on and on. Which brings me to the point I always make about Tech football. We rarely have a very good defense with a lot of depth because the front 7 players we might want to recruit, can't get into Tech or stay at Tech. Or to be blunt. Most are dumber than a box of rocks and thus end up at Alabama, UGA etc.

 

[bke1984]

In the first 3 quarters of the 2017 and 2018 games against Clemson and Ga they have about 35 points and we have about 5. In fourth quarter we and they run out the clock as we out score them.

I get it. I just don’t know why some think we’re going to do better running something they see week in and week out that they also hold to 1-2 scores. Is the theory that they’ll be lulled to sleep by the time they play us? It’s just curious logic to me, that’s all.

 

[GTpdm]

Ok, so CPJ should have been held accountable for Defense.....As should have George O'Leary for his poor defense in 1999....and Chan for his poor offense for much of his tenure. We could go on and on. Which brings me to the point I always make about Tech football. We rarely have a very good defense with a lot of depth because the front 7 players we might want to recruit, can't get into Tech or stay at Tech. Or to be blunt. Most are dumber than a box of rocks and thus end up at Alabama, UGA etc.

Comparing a box of rocks to a (u)GA enrollee-athlete? Not fair, not fair! The box of rocks is being unfairly judged in that scenario!

 

[ScGold]

Ok, so CPJ should have been held accountable for Defense.....As should have George O'Leary for his poor defense in 1999....and Chan for his poor offense for much of his tenure. We could go on and on. Which brings me to the point I always make about Tech football. We rarely have a very good defense with a lot of depth because the front 7 players we might want to recruit, can't get into Tech or stay at Tech. Or to be blunt. Most are dumber than a box of rocks and thus end up at Alabama, UGA etc.

We seemed to field some pretty good defenses before Paul arrived. Funny how it declined when he got here. Also funny how tech people give a man a place in Hof for being slightly better than avg. BTW Chan got fired for his short comings. He was held accountable for the success and failure of the TEAM.

 

[smokey_wasp]

I get it. I just don’t know why some think we’re going to do better running something they see week in and week out that they also hold to 1-2 scores. Is the theory that they’ll be lulled to sleep by the time they play us? It’s just curious logic to me, that’s all.

The hard truth is that they are so far ahead of us, talent-wise, that it doesn't matter what we run as far as the Clemson and uga games are concerned. 2016 against the mutts was nice, but that was a transition year and they are an entirely different animal right now because they went out and signed maybe one of the best classes in cfb history right after that. You can't scheme around a talent gap that wide. CPJ himself said that.

Closing the talent gap some can only help us, and it should also help us beat the mid pack ACC teams that have been out-recruiting us.

 

[iceeater1969]

I get it. I just don’t know why some think we’re going to do better running something they see week in and week out that they also hold to 1-2 scores. Is the theory that they’ll be lulled to sleep by the time they play us? It’s just curious logic to me, that’s all.

We have a metric - score a td and hold them to less than 5 tds before 4th quarter.

I know one thing about the last two years. We could not rush the ball.

Players
Clemson is reloading - #1 recruiting class with 5 each 5* and 11 each 4*.
We have 1 each 4*.


Coaching pool.
To staff the old offense the pool is zero in power 5. Also the lack of demand for our old staff would make staffing expensive.

 

[wrmathis]

We seemed to field some pretty good defenses before Paul arrived. Funny how it declined when he got here. Also funny how tech people give a man a place in Hof for being slightly better than avg. BTW Chan got fired for his short comings. He was held accountable for the success and failure of the TEAM.

GOL had some pretty bad defenses himself. probably cost JHam a Heismen. and he was a defensive person