Quick poll on the pulse of the fanbase....

Have you lost faith in CPJ?


  • Total voters
    274

Techster

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,034
You think maybe CPJ had to install new concepts or formations to the offense to help compensate for Vad's lack of progression with running the base offense? There is nothing that I have seen from Thomas that makes me think he can't be a more effective passer in this offense than Vad was. Justin has showed he has a very quick release and made some impressive throws in the 1st game. This offense needs a true dual threat QB and JT is just that. Will there be growing pains? Yes but I can't wait to watch Thomas master the TO over the next 3 years.

JT was on the team last season (as was Byerly)...and he was coming off a redshirt season. So if CPJ thought he had to re-invent his offense to make use of a QB, maybe it's more on CPJ than on Vad, don't you think? I think CPJ knew exactly what he had, and he also took the longview with Vad...take some lumps now, and it will pay off down the road. Vad dipped out early, and I don't blame CPJ for it, it just happens sometimes.

I just have a problem with people who want to put all the blame on Vad "not committing" (as DaBuzz refers to) when the coaching staff has full control of the situation. They make the call, not the player.

I think JT will be a very good player. That he stayed and Vad didn't also says a lot about JT.
 

AlabamaBuzz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,185
Location
Hartselle, AL (originally Rome, GA)
because we were Killin' it! when we ran a pro style offense with CCG......not

We definitely were NOT killing it, and my distaste for Chan came much earlier than my epiphany about the current administration. BUT, with that said, CG did get some future pros recruited, and PJ has had very, very few that he recruited. I like PJ, and I am pulling for him and GT, as always, but like it or not, other teams are successful in painting a picture to top recruits about PJ's system. These recruits believe it, especially when they hear it from multiple other programs. This is HARD to overcome. I think the kids who think the NFL is their destination (and of course, many are delusional about this) will continue to hesitate about coming to our program, although I do not believe they should feel this way.
 

Techster

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,034
That's what you said. Johnson would've said, "He should've seen playing time."

Per Eric's post:

"We have to get him in the game"

MY interpretation is that if he wasn't good enough to play in the past two games, CPJ wouldn't have made it a point to say that. Why would he say "have to" about a player that's not ready to play? CPJ knows it's important to get Devine snaps given our history of OL injuries...regardless if someone else thinks he "fat and out of shape". You don't make it a priority to "have to" play guys that aren't ready. (BTW...Devine is listed as #2 on the depth chart)
 

cyptomcat

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
866
I'm going to lmao when Tulane goes to a bowl, just like they did last year. Oh, and when they beat Duke in 2 weeks.
You probably didn't check their schedule. In addition to Duke, other likely Tulane losses: UCF, Rutgers, ECU, Cincy

They already have 2 losses.

If you want to bet that they beat Duke and/or they go to a bowl, I am game.
 

augustabuzz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,332
Per Eric's post:

"We have to get him in the game"

MY interpretation is that if he wasn't good enough to play in the past two games, CPJ wouldn't have made it a point to say that. Why would he say "have to" about a player that's not ready to play? CPJ knows it's important to get Devine snaps given our history of OL injuries...regardless if someone else thinks he "fat and out of shape". You don't make it a priority to "have to" play guys that aren't ready. (BTW...Devine is listed as #2 on the depth chart)
You missed the point. Coach Johnson has graduated from college. So, it should be assumed that he would've used the correct verb.
 

augustabuzz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,332
You can have a college education and not use the correct verb (as any thread on any message board will prove). I guess you missed my point...
That's true. People can choose to present themselves as ignorant, but shouldn't make someone else appear ignorant by misquoting him.
 

Squints

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,035
On point 1...finally glad someone else besides myself said it. I said in another thread, each fan sees what they want to see. Some fans see it as "building character and overcoming adversity" for later in the season. I saw it as a P5 team struggling against the likes of Wofford and a sloppy showing against a less talented non-P5 team.

Meh. It goes both ways. It's possible to not play well and "build character and overcome adversity". It doesn't have to be totally black white which is the direction this debate appears to be going.
 

Techster

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,034
That's true. People can choose to present themselves as ignorant, but shouldn't make someone else appear ignorant by misquoting him.

Oh dear...someone really wants make the English language an issue. Well done, sir.
 
Last edited:

Eastman

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,289
Location
Columbia, SC
Techster, if I understand correctly, since we were less successful passing against Tulane than Wofford, that means "we're probably not there yet once the talent in our opponent increased" (i.e. Tulane > Wofford). Conversely, vs Wofford we had 228 yards rushing at 5.3yds per run. At Tulane we had 344 yds at 6.0 yds per run. Doesn't that logically require that our running game vastly improved from game 1 to game 2 since we performed better against a more talented opponent?

Isn't each such assessment oversimplification? Against Tulane only 8 passes were thrown vs 16 against Wofford. If 16 had been thrown at Tulane, maybe the passing results would have been more similar to the Wofford game since in the first game JT started slowly passing, but to me this simply shows appropriate play calling. We saw their defense, were running successfully and therefore focused on the run.

We beat a motivated Tulane team at Tulane after some early major mistakes. Isn't that more of a "glass half full" assessment?
 

CrackerJacket

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
353
Location
Corpus Christi, TX
I dropped off the CPJ bandwagon a while back, even though he was on my short list for the hire when we let Gailey go.
Our recriting difficulties are well known; no need to rehash them here. I thought Johnson's offense would help compensate, but it's added another recruiting obstacle instead.
And IMHO the TO is just not as much fun to watch as the Malzahn spread or other contemporary schemes, given all are operating at a similar level of perfromance.
 

swampsting

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,438
Ps-he also seems down to earth and doesn't suffer the fools in the media. I heard a story from my bro-in-law that at GSU he used to come to frat row and have some beverages with the fratties after games. I still haven't verified but hope to one day at the coaches show.

He really does have a great sense of humor. His off the record stuff, from what I hear, is absolutely terrific. I've heard tales of him going to the frats and imbibing with the students during his GSU days. He's 57 now, so I don't think that's really in play anymore. He turned 40 during his first August practice at Southern, so he was still a relatively young man.
 

Techster

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,034
Techster, if I understand correctly, since we were less successful passing against Tulane than Wofford, that means "we're probably not there yet once the talent in our opponent increased" (i.e. Tulane > Wofford). Conversely, vs Wofford we had 228 yards rushing at 5.3yds per run. At Tulane we had 344 yds at 6.0 yds per run. Doesn't that logically require that our running game vastly improved from game 1 to game 2 since we performed better against a more talented opponent?

Isn't each such assessment oversimplification? Against Tulane only 8 passes were thrown vs 16 against Wofford. If 16 had been thrown at Tulane, maybe the passing results would have been more similar to the Wofford game since in the first game JT started slowly passing, but to me this simply shows appropriate play calling. We saw their defense, were running successfully and therefore focused on the run.

We beat a motivated Tulane team at Tulane after some early major mistakes. Isn't that more of a "glass half full" assessment?

Like I keep saying, people see what they want to see.

I saw us struggle in some aspects against Wofford that we did better with against Tulane, but I also saw us do worse in some aspects against Tulane than we did against Wofford. Some want to say it's not such a big deal and our team is young and still learning. That is true, but the better opponents don't care.

I for one hope I am TOTALLY wrong and was over critical about the first two games and we go on to win 10+ games and win the conference. I will be first in line to say I was wrong and should have had more faith.

As it stands right now, I'm maybe more concerned about certain aspects of our play than maybe others.
 

Eastman

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,289
Location
Columbia, SC
Like I keep saying, people see what they want to see.

I saw us struggle in some aspects against Wofford that we did better with against Tulane, but I also saw us do worse in some aspects against Tulane than we did against Wofford. Some want to say it's not such a big deal and our team is young and still learning. That is true, but the better opponents don't care.

I for one hope I am TOTALLY wrong and was over critical about the first two games and we go on to win 10+ games and win the conference. I will be first in line to say I was wrong and should have had more faith.

As it stands right now, I'm maybe more concerned about certain aspects of our play than maybe others.

Fair enough. I think everyone has concerns and that will probably always be the case a couple games into the season. We all hope our young players will grow up quickly or this could become a long season.
 
Top