Post-Spring game season win total poll

[vamosjackets]

I look at it with a much simpler lense. Based on talent comparison alone, I call each matchup either highly favored (we'd likely win 8 out of 10 matchups), highly underdog (we'd likely lose 8 of 10 matchups) or push (fairly even, we'd likely win 5 or so out of 10). There are so many "push" games on our schedule, it makes it virtually impossible to accurately predict given the sample size (12 games) and the myriad of factors affecting close games and their outcomes that are not accounted for in a purely talent, even if accurate, analysis. Iow, I don't think it's probable that we win half the "push" games. It is just as probable to win all of them or none of them. From a scientific standpoint, there are just too many uncontrolled (unaccounted for) variables in a game that could easily be decided by an inch gained or denied here or a blown call there.

It's a fools errand you pursue, but hey, it's the offseason so CHEERS! This is the beauty of true unscripted sports competition. This ain't pro rasslin'!

I agree. I think part of my drive here is to help myself and others to analyze our own analysis (meta-analysis) of recruiting and talent and all that stuff ... this seems like an important task since that is now the stated driving factor for the success of GT football under this new regime. We're going to do the same thing everybody else does, so if we want to win, we've got to have either A) Superior talent, B) Superior coaching, or C) Superior luck. We will not have a schematic advantage on offense (though possibly one on defense?), so the superior coaching will have to come from other coaching-related factors like motivation/culture, and player development, etc.

So, which games on our schedule would you call a push in talent?

 

[dressedcheeseside]

I agree. I think part of my drive here is to help myself and others to analyze our own analysis (meta-analysis) of recruiting and talent and all that stuff ... this seems like an important task since that is now the stated driving factor for the success of GT football under this new regime. We're going to do the same thing everybody else does, so if we want to win, we've got to have either A) Superior talent, B) Superior coaching, or C) Superior luck. We will not have a schematic advantage on offense (though possibly one on defense?), so the superior coaching will have to come from other coaching-related factors like motivation/culture, and player development, etc.

So, which games on our schedule would you call a push in talent?

Clemson, Ugag: we're highly underdogs
Temple, Citadel: we're highly favored (maybe not Temple)
Everbody else is a push.

 

[slugboy]

Clemson, Ugag: we're highly underdogs
Temple, Citadel: we're highly favored (maybe not Temple)
Everbody else is a push.

I'd say that's about right.
I'd say offense will be less of a factor (more points, less clock control, less schematic advantage). Defense is likely to be better. Special teams is likely to be better. Conditioning is likely to be better. Transition is probably going to be hard. I still think it's way too early to make a forecast, but I'll vote in the poll.

 

[85Escape]

I would consider "culture" to be in the category of coaching. I have 2 categories - coaching and talent ... well, there really should be a third - luck. So, you believe that our coaching is superior to the majority (or perhaps all) of the teams on our schedule then ... because it will produce a culture in which our players play harder than their opponents. I'm just trying to restate your argument to make sure I understand it correctly.

Pretty much. I have three categories. Coaching, Talent, Culture.

Coaching => Scheme + Development
Talent => Jimmies & Joes before development
Culture => Buy-in, heart, team-first mentality, expectation of winning

I do think that this bunch of coaches is taking an approach that has the chance to meaningfully get more out of the talent than the average ACC coach.

I've seen it at work and in sports teams at all levels; some leaders just get more out of the same team members than other leaders. And it is not necessarily development...those same team members' performance falls with the next leader.

In my own experience, organizations who operate with a negative mindset, under a cloud of fear, and without a clear and compelling vision simply do more poorly than those that don't have one or more of those cultural problems. There is mounting scientific evidence that that the brain behaves chemically differently at positive than under negative, neutral or stressed (studies have shown a 30+% improved cognitive performance difference as well.)

My own anecdotal evidence, both personally and observationally, gives me cause to believe the data that posits the hypothesis that individual performance is strongly affected by attitude and that the sum of the individual attitudes and the team culture are strongly linked.

So, yeah, that's what I believe and I have some reasonable reason to hope that this group of coaches can fill the initial talent gap with a stronger 'will to win.'

 

[LibertyTurns]

We will not have a schematic advantage on offense (though possibly one on defense?), so the superior coaching will have to come from other coaching-related factors like motivation/culture, and player development, etc.

So, which games on our schedule would you call a push in talent?

Seems to be our lot in life- we either can’t score or we can’t keep the other team from scoring. We rarely seem to be able to do both at the same time. I missed the entire 1990 season while overseas except for the National Championship game. If that’s how we played that season, it has been exactly once in my lifetime.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Pretty much. I have three categories. Coaching, Talent, Culture.

Coaching => Scheme + Development
Talent => Jimmies & Joes before development
Culture => Buy-in, heart, team-first mentality, expectation of winning

I do think that this bunch of coaches is taking an approach that has the chance to meaningfully get more out of the talent than the average ACC coach.

I've seen it at work and in sports teams at all levels; some leaders just get more out of the same team members than other leaders. And it is not necessarily development...those same team members' performance falls with the next leader.

In my own experience, organizations who operate with a negative mindset, under a cloud of fear, and without a clear and compelling vision simply do more poorly than those that don't have one or more of those cultural problems. There is mounting scientific evidence that that the brain behaves chemically differently at positive than under negative, neutral or stressed (studies have shown a 30+% improved cognitive performance difference as well.)

My own anecdotal evidence, both personally and observationally, gives me cause to believe the data that posits the hypothesis that individual performance is strongly affected by attitude and that the sum of the individual attitudes and the team culture are strongly linked.

So, yeah, that's what I believe and I have some reasonable reason to hope that this group of coaches can fill the initial talent gap with a stronger 'will to win.'

Your whole theory operates on the premise that the previous team had a weak will to win or lack of buy in. I think quite the opposite. Those players knew exactly what they were signing up for, there was a very clear vision set forward by the coach. The expectations were very high, I’ve never seen anyone who wanted to win more than Coach Johnson. Therefore I believe your definition of culture is inaccurate.

 

[Jacket05]

Your whole theory operates on the premise that the previous team had a weak will to win or lack of buy in. I think quite the opposite. Those players knew exactly what they were signing up for, there was a very clear vision set forward by the coach. The expectations were very high, I’ve never seen anyone who wanted to win more than Coach Johnson. Therefore I believe your definition of culture is inaccurate.

I think that CPJ had a strong will to win and tried to pass that to the players. Buy-in on the other hand was probably about 50-50 with the players. While I loved CPJ, he is a very polarizing person, as evidenced by the fact that EVERY thread here turns into an argument about CPJs tenure! Also there are plenty of his players that loved him and bought into the system and plenty of others that did not enjoy playing for him or in his system. Vad Lee is a prime example of not being bought into the system, and the comments from players after the spring game show some of that as well. In addition, I witnessed many discussions and arguments after he announced retirement from his former players about what kind of a coach he was. Some were so happy he was gone and the system was changing and others were very grateful to have played for him. One player in particular wrote up a really good farewell message where he mentioned that while at Tech the player resented CPJ and hated playing for him but as the player has matured realized the discipline and work ethic CPJ pushed upon his players has made him a better person in life.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

I think that CPJ had a strong will to win and tried to pass that to the players. Buy-in on the other hand was probably about 50-50 with the players. While I loved CPJ, he is a very polarizing person, as evidenced by the fact that EVERY thread here turns into an argument about CPJs tenure! Also there are plenty of his players that loved him and bought into the system and plenty of others that did not enjoy playing for him or in his system. Vad Lee is a prime example of not being bought into the system, and the comments from players after the spring game show some of that as well. In addition, I witnessed many discussions and arguments after he announced retirement from his former players about what kind of a coach he was. Some were so happy he was gone and the system was changing and others were very grateful to have played for him. One player in particular wrote up a really good farewell message where he mentioned that while at Tech the player resented CPJ and hated playing for him but as the player has matured realized the discipline and work ethic CPJ pushed upon his players has made him a better person in life.

Your name one guy and then say 50%. Nice. I highly doubt it was that high. Maybe, maybe it was 10% and that was because they weren’t seeing the field. But every single guy knew exactly what they were signing up for when they committed. A fault of Coach Johnson is that he was probably overly transparent in the recruiting process.

 

[Ibeeballin]

Your name one guy and then say 50%. Nice. I highly doubt it was that high. Maybe, maybe it was 10% and that was because they weren’t seeing the field. But every single guy knew exactly what they were signing up for when they committed. A fault of Coach Johnson is that he was probably overly transparent in the recruiting process.

You are sold a dream during recruiting. So you believe the staff didn’t expressed to recruits that they would open up the offense and pass more?

 

[dressedcheeseside]

You are sold a dream during recruiting. So you believe the staff didn’t expressed to recruits that they would open up the offense and pass more?

A decade of film says what the offense is. When we have a competent passer, we pass more. When we have competent receivers, we pass more. When we have competent protections, we pass more. Who knows what is said privately to recruits. We know Vad was told things and a major effort was made to accommodate those promises. We were flat out bad at it, so it was scrapped.

 

[Jacket05]

Your name one guy and then say 50%. Nice. I highly doubt it was that high. Maybe, maybe it was 10% and that was because they weren’t seeing the field. But every single guy knew exactly what they were signing up for when they committed.

Actually I mentioned that I witnessed MANY different players on social media discuss how much they hated playing for him and was glad he was gone (and many were multi-year starters that were major contributers on offense and defense). There were also many coming to his defense. I pointed out the message from the one player cause I thought it showed more to the motivation behind how CPJ coached and how some 18-21 year old kids responded to it. CPJ was a tough guy and would get onto players when they messed up but ultimately it was to push them and make them better players and men. The problem is that not everyone responds well to that kind of coaching and I would argue that in this day and age most college kids don't.
I love CPJ as a coach but he is absolutely a love him or hate him kind of guy. I would also venture to say that prior to committing his players didn't always know how tough and hard of a coach he really was. So no they probably didn't really know what they were getting into. Haven't you ever gone into a job interview and thought this job will be great but then realize that after you have been working there that maybe it is not for you.

 

[Ibeeballin]

A decade of film says what the offense is. When we have a competent passer, we pass more. When we have competent receivers, we pass more. When we have competent protections, we pass more. Who knows what is said privately to recruits. We know Vad was told things and a major effort was made to accommodate those promises. We were flat out bad at it, so it was scrapped.

The recruits are insinuating what was said

We were bad at? We won an entire gm entire game with it (Duke). We just didn’t want to allocate time to it

 

[vamosjackets]

Clemson, Ugag: we're highly underdogs
Temple, Citadel: we're highly favored (maybe not Temple)
Everbody else is a push.

So, if everybody else is a push talent-wise, does that mean that the recruiting rankings (where they are 20-30 spots higher, ie about 2 times better than us) are not to be taken seriously in your opinion?

 

[vamosjackets]

The recruits are insinuating what was said

We were bad at? We won an entire gm entire game with it (Duke). We just didn’t want to allocate time to it

And, then we lost several games after that and weren't ranked as well offensively as we had been. Then CPJ went back to focusing on being good at the option and 2014 happened (won 12 games) and then had a bad year with injuries and such and only won 3 games and then won 9 games the next year. The offense was never the problem.

And DCS hit the nail on the head. If CPJ tells a great dual-threat QB or an elite WR, "We'll throw more with you here", that's a true statement. But, we often didn't get that great QB or elite WR. When we had either of those, we were as good as it gets. Bay Bay Thomas had a year for the record books his senior year at GT. DeAndre Smelter had a fantastic 2-years as a WR. Neither of those guys could have had a better career as a WR by going to a different system. So, again, if CPJ says to an elite WR, "We will throw you the ball more and you will have a chance to have an incredible career and go to the next level, while helping take us to the next level", he's telling them the truth, and the incontrovertible evidence is there to back it up.

Vad simply wasn't good enough for the offense to revolve around him and his desires. Vad still could've been a very successful QB for us (and was in his first year as the starter, could've been even better in his 2nd and 3rd years starting). It wasn't what he wanted. Vad's subjective opinion of CPJ and the offense does not carry any objective weight whatsoever. That would be like judging CGC on Dameon Williams or Parker Braun or anybody else who decides to transfer over the next several years.

 

[vamosjackets]

Pretty much. I have three categories. Coaching, Talent, Culture.

Coaching => Scheme + Development
Talent => Jimmies & Joes before development
Culture => Buy-in, heart, team-first mentality, expectation of winning

I do think that this bunch of coaches is taking an approach that has the chance to meaningfully get more out of the talent than the average ACC coach.

I've seen it at work and in sports teams at all levels; some leaders just get more out of the same team members than other leaders. And it is not necessarily development...those same team members' performance falls with the next leader.

In my own experience, organizations who operate with a negative mindset, under a cloud of fear, and without a clear and compelling vision simply do more poorly than those that don't have one or more of those cultural problems. There is mounting scientific evidence that that the brain behaves chemically differently at positive than under negative, neutral or stressed (studies have shown a 30+% improved cognitive performance difference as well.)

My own anecdotal evidence, both personally and observationally, gives me cause to believe the data that posits the hypothesis that individual performance is strongly affected by attitude and that the sum of the individual attitudes and the team culture are strongly linked.

So, yeah, that's what I believe and I have some reasonable reason to hope that this group of coaches can fill the initial talent gap with a stronger 'will to win.'

I like this argument because it's logical. It's based on a presupposition, as all arguments ultimately are, but if that presupposition is true then the argument holds. I hope it bears out.

 

[Ibeeballin]

And, then we lost several games after that and weren't ranked as well offensively as we had been. Then CPJ went back to focusing on being good at the option and 2014 happened (won 12 games) and then had a bad year with injuries and such and only won 3 games and then won 9 games the next year. The offense was never the problem.

And DCS hit the nail on the head. If CPJ tells a great dual-threat QB or an elite WR, "We'll throw more with you here", that's a true statement. But, we often didn't get that great QB or elite WR. When we had either of those, we were as good as it gets. Bay Bay Thomas had a year for the record books his senior year at GT. DeAndre Smelter had a fantastic 2-years as a WR. Neither of those guys could have had a better career as a WR by going to a different system. So, again, if CPJ says to an elite WR, "We will throw you the ball more and you will have a chance to have an incredible career and go to the next level, while helping take us to the next level", he's telling them the truth, and the incontrovertible evidence is there to back it up.

Vad simply wasn't good enough for the offense to revolve around him and his desires. Vad still could've been a very successful QB for us (and was in his first year as the starter, could've been even better in his 2nd and 3rd years starting). It wasn't what he wanted. Vad's subjective opinion of CPJ and the offense does not carry any objective weight whatsoever. That would be like judging CGC on Dameon Williams or Parker Braun or anybody else who decides to transfer over the next several years.

We scrapped it the following week at UNC. We didn’t let it work bc it’s not what CPJ wanted to devote time to.

It’s bit disingenuous to say either of those WRs, especially BayBay, wouldn’t have their success in another system considering his success in the league in a non option system.

I’m not even sure I can buy the Vad argument considering his success JMU. Yes it was JMU, but 2100yds on 68% completions% is more than enough to suggest it could, but that’s the past and it is what it is

 

[dressedcheeseside]

So, if everybody else is a push talent-wise, does that mean that the recruiting rankings (where they are 20-30 spots higher, ie about 2 times better than us) are not to be taken seriously in your opinion?

Grain of salt.

 

[vamosjackets]

Grain of salt.

What if we get in to that 20-spot in the recruiting rankings? Should that also be taken with a big grain of salt, so that we should also consider it a push when we face teams who were like us in that 50-range? Ie, 50 is just as good as 20, and so we shouldn't get excited at all about a higher level of recruiting unless it's at that "elite" (ie top 10) level?

 

[vamosjackets]

We scrapped it the following week at UNC. We didn’t let it work bc it’s not what CPJ wanted to devote time to.

It’s bit disingenuous to say either of those WRs, especially BayBay, wouldn’t have their success in another system considering his success in the league in a non option system.

I’m not even sure I can buy the Vad argument considering his success JMU. Yes it was JMU, but 2100yds on 68% completions% is more than enough to suggest it could, but that’s the past and it is what it is

I remember us doing the diamond formation thing in that UNC game and it not working very well. And, CPJ didn't think we were good enough at any part of our offense (because, in his opinion, we were trying to do too much), which is when we decided to scrap it. I'm not saying CPJ was right, that we couldn't have been successful doing different things on offense along with our base. I'm not saying he was right or wrong about that. He did have 2014 (when we were the best of the best) and 2016 when we were also very good in favor of his argument. But, that's not really the point we started on. The point we started on was whether CPJ lied to recruits.

I'm not saying Bay Bay WOULDN'T have had success in another system, I'm saying he wouldn't have necessarily had MORE success in another system. I'm saying he likely would've had just as much success as he had here.

I'm also not saying Vad was a "bad" QB, he could've been a good QB, but he wasn't an elite QB that you build your offense around (like a Cam Newton/DeShaun Watson/Trevor Lawrence).

 

[HurricaneJacket]

I remember us doing the diamond formation thing in that UNC game and it not working very well. And, CPJ didn't think we were good enough at any part of our offense (because, in his opinion, we were trying to do too much), which is when we decided to scrap it. I'm not saying CPJ was right, that we couldn't have been successful doing different things on offense along with our base. I'm not saying he was right or wrong about that. He did have 2014 (when we were the best of the best) and 2016 when we were also very good in favor of his argument. But, that's not really the point we started on. The point we started on was whether CPJ lied to recruits.

I'm not saying Bay Bay WOULDN'T have had success in another system, I'm saying he wouldn't have necessarily had MORE success in another system. I'm saying he likely would've had just as much success as he had here.

I'm also not saying Vad was a "bad" QB, he could've been a good QB, but he wasn't an elite QB that you build your offense around (like a Cam Newton/DeShaun Watson/Trevor Lawrence).

The 2013 UNC game broke Vad. He took a massive hit on an option play out of the diamond and was not the same the rest of the year. He got his mojo back for the 1st half of 2013 COFH, but he cracked under the pressure of their comeback.