QB battle

[Eastman]

Death marches are also good if they run out the clock without scoring. They can eliminate opportunities for competitors and put pressure on their offense while resting our defense. Given our defensive play and lack of depth the last few years, that can be a good thing.

 

[potatohead]

death marches are good if they end in touchdowns. but a 2 play drive that takes 25 seconds off the clock, but goes for a TD, is better than any death march that does not.

do you want everybody in the lineup to hit a solo HR or do you want to take your chance getting 3 bunt singles in a row and then having someone hit a grand slam?

Yea, I agree. I thought your point was, as touches increase in a death march so does the risk for "bad" things (negative plays, etc)?

Like all things, a balance is preferable. I know 3.5/yards a play is a nice grind, but carving up some big chunks as well limits play count.

 

[Architorture23]

Death marches are also good if they run out the clock without scoring. They can eliminate opportunities for competitors and put pressure on their offense while resting our defense. Given our defensive play and lack of depth the last few years, that can be a good thing.

yes, there are certain times when holding the ball benefits us more, like at the end of a game. but say we're up by 2 with 2 minutes left and we hit a play and score a TD. now there's 2 minutes and we're up by 9. are we worse off? no. maybe if giving the ball back gives them a chance to tie with a 2 pt conversion...

Yea, I agree. I thought your point was, as touches increase in a death march so does the risk for "bad" things (negative plays, etc)?

Like all things, a balance is preferable. I know 3.5/yards a play is a nice grind, but carving up some big chunks as well limits play count.

well yeah that is my point. every time you snap the ball it has a chance to go awry. what is your answer if I say "do you want to score a TD on this play?" I think it should pretty much always be yes.

 

[Rock]

yes, there are certain times when holding the ball benefits us more, like at the end of a game. but say we're up by 2 with 2 minutes left and we hit a play and score a TD. now there's 2 minutes and we're up by 9. are we worse off? no. maybe if giving the ball back gives them a chance to tie with a 2 pt conversion...


well yeah that is my point. every time you snap the ball it has a chance to go awry. what is your answer if I say "do you want to score a TD on this play?" I think it should pretty much always be yes.

Umm....... 6+2 = 8

 

[Eastman]

yes, there are certain times when holding the ball benefits us more, like at the end of a game. but say we're up by 2 with 2 minutes left and we hit a play and score a TD. now there's 2 minutes and we're up by 9. are we worse off? no. maybe if giving the ball back gives them a chance to tie with a 2 pt conversion...

I like touchdowns too. I was just trying to point out that 'death marches" can be as good or better in some cases. Candidly I think it causes more pain to the opposition when they are dying to get the ball back and they just can't stop us but so long as we are getting a lot of 3 and outs, I am happy to score fast!.

 

[Vespid]

Umm....... 6+2 = 8

. Nm

 

[RonJohn]

yes, there are certain times when holding the ball benefits us more, like at the end of a game. but say we're up by 2 with 2 minutes left and we hit a play and score a TD. now there's 2 minutes and we're up by 9. are we worse off? no. maybe if giving the ball back gives them a chance to tie with a 2 pt conversion...


well yeah that is my point. every time you snap the ball it has a chance to go awry. what is your answer if I say "do you want to score a TD on this play?" I think it should pretty much always be yes.

If the other team doesn't have any time outs left, in two minutes you can take three knees and end the game. If you score to go up by 9, the other team needs a TD, onside kick, and another score. However, if you only take knees, the other team needs for you to fumble trying to take a knee. One is highly unlikely, but the other is extremely highly unlikely.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

 

[Rock]

. Nm

did I miss something?
up by 9... Td (6) and 2pt = 8.

 

[ATL1]

Death marches are also good if they run out the clock without scoring. They can eliminate opportunities for competitors and put pressure on their offense while resting our defense. Given our defensive play and lack of depth the last few years, that can be a good thing.

Except if GT doesn't score but the other team does.

 

[elwoodgt]

I don't know what y'all are talkin about. Death marches are absolutely beautiful. Getting the ball back late, up by less than a touchdown, and like 6 minutes on the clock. The other team is all like "Just get a stop, and we can TOTALLY win this!" And then... Watching the hope drain slowly from their eyes, as they watch the clock tick tick tick away...

And it's not a quick kill, either. We give them lots of third downs to cheer on their defense, but then convert them. It's like a kick to the crotch over, and over, and over.

Seriously, who doesn't love the Paul Johnson Death March?

 

[elwoodgt]

Seriously, is there anything better than holding the ball for the last seven minutes of the game, then ending it all in the victory formation on their 9 yard line?

 

[stech81]

[QU

Seriously, is there anything better than holding the ball for the last seven minutes of the game, then ending it all in the victory formation on their 9 yard line?

Yes watching Dawg fans with their head down after we beat them.

 

[Josh H]

Death marches are also good if they run out the clock without scoring. They can eliminate opportunities for competitors and put pressure on their offense while resting our defense. Given our defensive play and lack of depth the last few years, that can be a good thing.

Miami 2014. I believe they out-gained us in every stat, but we played keep away and had a few timely turnovers. Against a team with superior depth and athletes, a death march keeps their offense off the field.

 

[FightWinDrink]

Miami 2014. I believe they out-gained us in every stat, but we played keep away and had a few timely turnovers. Against a team with superior depth and athletes, a death march keeps their offense off the field.

http://www.espn.com/college-football/matchup?gameId=400547790

nearly 41 min of possession, oh lordy

excluding the knee to end the first half they only got 7 drives

 

[MGTfan]

I'm on the TQM hype train. I don't want him starting at all costs or anything, I just hope he's the one that pulls away from the pack. CPJ made a mistake not redshirting him last year though.

 

[Jean-Baptiste Rochambeau]

no, the best way to win is to score on every play. it feels nice to grind it out, but only when it ends in a TD. every time you snap the ball, something bad can happen. if it takes 15 snaps to score, that is worse than if it takes 3 snaps to score. if we have nothing but one play TD drives, I guarantee a win.

idjut

 

[Architorture23]

did I miss something?
up by 9... Td (6) and 2pt = 8.

What you missed is that I know how to add.

It's two different scenarios. One is if were up by 2 and score to up by 9, then we did not lower our chance to win.

If though, we had a situation where we were up by 1 and scoring might give them a chance to also score, get a 2 pt conversion, and tie us, then it might conceivably be a bad idea to score.

 

[Boomergump]

Do you guys remember when CPJ asked our guys to let UGA score late? Brilliant strategy and the only chance we had. Sometimes scoring quickly is NOT what you want to do, especially in certain end of game scenarios. It is not just the 2 pt conversion you have to worry about. What about onside kicks?

 

[Techster]

Oh, I wasn't arguing that he was the best option moving forward. I'll trust CPJ to make that decision. I was just saying that, from what we've seen, he's the best passer of the bunch.

But yes, I like your plan nicely

I'm going to make a prediction: If LJ becomes the starter this year, barring injury, he will be QB1 for the duration of his career at GT.

I think CPJ's hint that Taquan may move to AB is a clear sign that he isn't long for QB, and he's keeping the seat warm for one of the freshmen...and it's beginning to look like LJ, despite all the sizzling comments about JJ. When CPJ said "JJ will be a very good QB in a year or two" that was telling to me. You can be a very good QB, but if the guy in front of you is QB1 and playing exceptionally, you can still be very good but not be QB1. Ask Steve Young about Joe Montana. The bigger picture is JJ just isn't ready right now, and by the time he is ready, LJ just might have a stranglehold on the position. Being good in a year or two doesn't help right now, and the more reps LJ gets, the harder it will be for JJ to catch up.

As for MJ...I'm not sure what it means for him anymore. I think CPJ would like MJ to be the starter because he has a lot of experience, and I don't think CPJ wants to push the young QBs too far to fast, but MJ's health and rusty performance is making it harder for CPJ to keep the rains on the younger guys. I think Taquan's development is welcome sight for CPJ, but as I said above, if you have long term plans for someone, you're not repeatedly dropping hints that they could move somewhere.

This is easily one of the most fascinating and interesting position battles at GT in quite some time.

 

[tech_wreck47]

I'm going to make a prediction: If LJ becomes the starter this year, barring injury, he will be QB1 for the duration of his career at GT.

I think CPJ's hint that Taquan may move to AB is a clear sign that he isn't long for QB, and he's keeping the seat warm for one of the freshmen...and it's beginning to look like LJ, despite all the sizzling comments about JJ. When CPJ said "JJ will be a very good QB in a year or two" that was telling to me. You can be a very good QB, but if the guy in front of you is QB1 and playing exceptionally, you can still be very good but not be QB1. Ask Steve Young about Joe Montana. The bigger picture is JJ just isn't ready right now, and by the time he is ready, LJ just might have a stranglehold on the position. Being good in a year or two doesn't help right now, and the more reps LJ gets, the harder it will be for JJ to catch up.

As for MJ...I'm not sure what it means for him anymore. I think CPJ would like MJ to be the starter because he has a lot of experience, and I don't think CPJ wants to push the young QBs too far to fast, but MJ's health and rusty performance is making it harder for CPJ to keep the rains on the younger guys. I think Taquan's development is welcome sight for CPJ, but as I said above, if you have long term plans for someone, you're not repeatedly dropping hints that they could move somewhere.

This is easily one of the most fascinating and interesting position battles at GT in quite some time.

I get a totally different vibe from CPJ on JJ. Even though he said JJ will be a good QB. I don't see how you can get out of that small comment, that you can be good, but if QB1 is playing well, you can be good and not be QB1. No offense (please don't take it that way) but that just seems to be reading a little to much into something that's not there. You also left out something very valuable about JJ, CPJ is willing to move TM to Aback but said (with what seemed to be really confident) that JJ is a QB. If CPJ didn't think he could be the starter in a year or two even if LJ was starting I doubt he would make that statement. Imo it's obvious JJ has pretty much the full skill set CPJ wants, now it's just a matter of putting it all together, and even if another guy had it put all together and JJ the same, JJ will win out because they don't have the full skill set JJ has. JMO. This isn't a hit on anyone either. I want the best guy out there.