Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
Recruiting analysis
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Techster" data-source="post: 480260" data-attributes="member: 360"><p>In essence, you've pretty much summarized recruiting. Unfortunately, there are some things our coaches can not smooth over in the process of recruiting....and CPJ alluded to it in the SI article:</p><p></p><p><a href="https://www.si.com/college-football/2018/09/27/triple-option-offense-army-georgia-tech" target="_blank">https://www.si.com/college-football/2018/09/27/triple-option-offense-army-georgia-tech</a></p><p></p><p><em>Meyer, then the up-and-coming head coach at Utah in 2003 and ’04, often phoned the Navy football offices to pick the brain of Johnson, who had improved the Midshipmen from two wins in year one to eight wins in year two with an option offense that was all the rage 25 years prior. Meyer wanted in, or at least part of the way in, looking to incorporate some of Navy's concepts in a double option zone-read system that would eventually make him the toast of college football.</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>“He’d call about help with this or that,” Johnson recalls. The phone conversation would often end the same way: <strong>Meyer or his assistants reminding Johnson and the Navy staff to keep the conversations on the down-low. “Don’t tell anybody!” Johnson remembers them saying. “We don’t want to get labeled!”</strong></em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>The option family is always fighting the ham sandwich label—productive, but plain; sustainable, but simple. The golden years of the option faded away for recruiting reasons as much as any other. Option teams claimed one-third of the national championships from 1950 to ’79. <strong>Then, gradually, dozens of coaches dropped the system in favor of variants of BYU’s West Coast offense, Steve Spurrier’s Fun ’n' Gun, Mike Leach’s Air Raid or Meyer’s spread scheme, in an effort to woo teenagers with flash..."</strong></em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em><strong>“Talk to the high school coaches, they’ll tell you the kids want to be receivers,” Johnson says.</strong> The label exists for a reason—take for example the four games last season in which Monken’s Army team did not complete a pass, including the one in which the Black Knights did not attempt a pass.</em></p><p><em></em></p><p>That's what our coaches are fighting against. Unfortunately, they are winning very few of those battles. Top tier WRs want to catch footballs, top tier QBs want to throw the ball. Heck, some WRs will have more catches in a game than some of our WRs will have in an entire year. Some of the QBs will have more pass attempts in a game than our QBs will have completions for the year. I wrote in another thread that's it's probably now much harder to find pure option QBs on the HS level to recruit than it is to find Spread passing QBs. Even our own QB recruiting has reflected that: Pretty much all of our QBs we've signed are from spread passing type offenses that play out of the shotgun.</p><p></p><p>The whole APR, GT has tough academics recruiting argument should really be shelved until CPJ is gone. His system makes it hard for us to truly judge and assess the true impact of those issues. Not saying GT will catch recruiting fire once CPJ is gone as GT has some hurdles on the academic side that decreases the pool of SAs we can recruit, but recruiting should experience and uptick provided GT doesn't bring in another coach that runs a pure triple option system.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Techster, post: 480260, member: 360"] In essence, you've pretty much summarized recruiting. Unfortunately, there are some things our coaches can not smooth over in the process of recruiting....and CPJ alluded to it in the SI article: [URL]https://www.si.com/college-football/2018/09/27/triple-option-offense-army-georgia-tech[/URL] [I]Meyer, then the up-and-coming head coach at Utah in 2003 and ’04, often phoned the Navy football offices to pick the brain of Johnson, who had improved the Midshipmen from two wins in year one to eight wins in year two with an option offense that was all the rage 25 years prior. Meyer wanted in, or at least part of the way in, looking to incorporate some of Navy's concepts in a double option zone-read system that would eventually make him the toast of college football. “He’d call about help with this or that,” Johnson recalls. The phone conversation would often end the same way: [B]Meyer or his assistants reminding Johnson and the Navy staff to keep the conversations on the down-low. “Don’t tell anybody!” Johnson remembers them saying. “We don’t want to get labeled!”[/B] The option family is always fighting the ham sandwich label—productive, but plain; sustainable, but simple. The golden years of the option faded away for recruiting reasons as much as any other. Option teams claimed one-third of the national championships from 1950 to ’79. [B]Then, gradually, dozens of coaches dropped the system in favor of variants of BYU’s West Coast offense, Steve Spurrier’s Fun ’n' Gun, Mike Leach’s Air Raid or Meyer’s spread scheme, in an effort to woo teenagers with flash..."[/B] [B]“Talk to the high school coaches, they’ll tell you the kids want to be receivers,” Johnson says.[/B] The label exists for a reason—take for example the four games last season in which Monken’s Army team did not complete a pass, including the one in which the Black Knights did not attempt a pass. [/I] That's what our coaches are fighting against. Unfortunately, they are winning very few of those battles. Top tier WRs want to catch footballs, top tier QBs want to throw the ball. Heck, some WRs will have more catches in a game than some of our WRs will have in an entire year. Some of the QBs will have more pass attempts in a game than our QBs will have completions for the year. I wrote in another thread that's it's probably now much harder to find pure option QBs on the HS level to recruit than it is to find Spread passing QBs. Even our own QB recruiting has reflected that: Pretty much all of our QBs we've signed are from spread passing type offenses that play out of the shotgun. The whole APR, GT has tough academics recruiting argument should really be shelved until CPJ is gone. His system makes it hard for us to truly judge and assess the true impact of those issues. Not saying GT will catch recruiting fire once CPJ is gone as GT has some hurdles on the academic side that decreases the pool of SAs we can recruit, but recruiting should experience and uptick provided GT doesn't bring in another coach that runs a pure triple option system. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
What's the good word?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
Recruiting analysis
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top