slow starter

[senoiajacket]

does cgc know he is a slow starter? are there those that disagree with this evaluation?

what can he do to improve this issue if indeed his TEAMS tend to be slow starters.

i cant imagine this being the total fault of a head coach. the staff has something to do with it. so far im not thrilled with coach pat . but its was only one game against the absolute best in the country.

certainly the current schedule favors a slow starter. he will have to pick it up a good bit next year though. thoughts?


bueller bueller

This is a non-issue for me at this point. What happened at Temple in two years is **almost** irrelevant to our situation in my mind. If we lose 2 out of the next three, then I will start to have concerns. Hopefully we will go 3 - 0 over the next three, but I could see us dropping one unexpectedly.

 

[jojatk]

OP is saying CGC teams appear to be slow starting/taking a while to find themselves and find success. Sure , no clear QB, but, and this is huge, it isn't like a new QB came in at temple, that QB was there all along. So the question is, is it taking coach P too long to identify the talent?

I agree with the question and feel like you've hit on a completely legitimate point about taking too long to identify the right QB. I'm concerned about how long it'll take to find the right guy here at GT (but not because of anything in the Clemson game).

Though I will say that in the first season at Temple he had a choice between 3 QBs that, combined, had 5 pass attempts in games. No starts. Not even really any meaningful playing time. The previous starter had won the job as a freshman in Rhule's first year and never relinquished the job. So Patenaude only had practice to go by. Going into the second season the eventual starter, Russo, didn't win the job right away (as he didn't win it the prior year) but once he got in the game he took it and hasn't let go. I think we'll see him later this season. My point being that he's in a bit of a similar situation here with guys who have so little playing time in games, though the one guy who does hasn't shown the ability to pass effectively.

 

[jojatk]

Pretty sad that you believe and excuse a head coach paid millions to make decisions cannot make such determinations after multiple weeks of practice and needs a couple of dozen plays for the light bulb to come on.

George O'Leary and Ralph Friedgen, who I revere as one of the greatest offensive minds in football, had plenty of time to identify the starting QB after Joe Hamilton. He even had Goose Godsey on the roster for 2 years and wasn't 100% sure he was the guy. Goose barely beat out Andy Hall, who had also been on the roster for a year under Ralph. So even after having seen the two guys in practice for multiple years, Ralph Friedgen, an offensive genius, couldn't figure out for sure who would be the guy. And in our first game that year (UCF, since the BCA game was canceled), Godsey struggled and Hall came in to play but he struggled as well. And I think most of us will remember that 3rd & 18 play Goose completed to Jon Muyres and the rest, as they say, is history.

Going back a bit further we see Bobby Ross had all kinds of problems identifying a starting QB. His first year we went back and forth between Darrell Gast and Rick Strom. His second year he tried so hard to turn Lee Williamson into the guy but ended up going with Todd Rampley.

My point is that having multiple weeks of practice doesn't always tell you who the right guy is when the lights come on in the stadium and the guys lined up across from you are NOT your teammates. Sometimes you have to see how they react under game conditions before making that call. I think this criticism of our new coaches is a bit of a reach.

 

[bobongo]

OP is saying CGC teams appear to be slow starting/taking a while to find themselves and find success. Sure , no clear QB, but, and this is huge, it isn't like a new QB came in at temple, that QB was there all along. So the question is, is it taking coach P too long to identify the talent?

I don't know about the Temple situation so I'll take your word for that.

But in the present situation, the coaches have one QB who has experience and two with little to no experience who have, perhaps, greater upside potential. This, along with the fact that we were playing the best college football team in the world in our first game, seems tailor-made for an in-game QB tryout. Going with Oliver throughout would have drawn criticism that we're leaving our best passers on the bench and not giving them the experience they need. Going with Graham throughout would have drawn criticism that we're throwing a noobie to the wolves in his first start. Pretty much the same with Johnson.

We as fans should realize this is a no-win situation for the coaching staff. Whatever they did was going to be criticized (unless we'd exploited our 1.2% chance of beating Clemson). Lots of positions aren't nailed down at this point - why not QB? I'm sure the staff would prefer to have an experienced guy who's head and shoulders above the rest to start from day one. But if they don't, they'd hardly be served to pretend that they do. I want to see all three QB's on Saturday. I want to see what they can do.

 

[Animal02]

George O'Leary and Ralph Friedgen, who I revere as one of the greatest offensive minds in football, had plenty of time to identify the starting QB after Joe Hamilton. He even had Goose Godsey on the roster for 2 years and wasn't 100% sure he was the guy. Goose barely beat out Andy Hall, who had also been on the roster for a year under Ralph. So even after having seen the two guys in practice for multiple years, Ralph Friedgen, an offensive genius, couldn't figure out for sure who would be the guy. And in our first game that year (UCF, since the BCA game was canceled), Godsey struggled and Hall came in to play but he struggled as well. And I think most of us will remember that 3rd & 18 play Goose completed to Jon Muyres and the rest, as they say, is history.

Going back a bit further we see Bobby Ross had all kinds of problems identifying a starting QB. His first year we went back and forth between Darrell Gast and Rick Strom. His second year he tried so hard to turn Lee Williamson into the guy but ended up going with Todd Rampley.

My point is that having multiple weeks of practice doesn't always tell you who the right guy is when the lights come on in the stadium and the guys lined up across from you are NOT your teammates. Sometimes you have to see how they react under game conditions before making that call. I think this criticism of our new coaches is a bit of a reach.

If it were a between two, it would not be nearly the issue.

 

[bobongo]

If it were a between two, it would not be nearly the issue.

I know I said I want to see all three Saturday, but in fact it might be between two. Johnson only played three snaps.

 

[stinger 1957]

I'm sorry but I'm having a real problem with these people that have these high expectations when we are in a major, major, major transition and change over. I would have thought football knowledgeable fans would understand at least some part of that, I don't have any expectations for this year or next. Let the coaches do what they need to do to make this change over, it ain't easy folks, to repeat it ain't easy folks, you got to go with what you got.

 

[Animal02]

I don't know about the Temple situation so I'll take your word for that.

But in the present situation, the coaches have one QB who has experience and two with little to no experience who have, perhaps, greater upside potential. This, along with the fact that we were playing the best college football team in the world in our first game, seems tailor-made for an in-game QB tryout. Going with Oliver throughout would have drawn criticism that we're leaving our best passers on the bench and not giving them the experience they need. Going with Graham throughout would have drawn criticism that we're throwing a noobie to the wolves in his first start. Pretty much the same with Johnson.

We as fans should realize this is a no-win situation for the coaching staff. Whatever they did was going to be criticized (unless we'd exploited our 1.2% chance of beating Clemson). Lots of positions aren't nailed down at this point - why not QB? I'm sure the staff would prefer to have an experienced guy who's head and shoulders above the rest to start from day one. But if they don't, they'd hardly be served to pretend that they do. I want to see all three QB's on Saturday. I want to see what they can do.

I know I said I want to see all three Saturday, but in fact it might be between two. Johnson only played three snaps.

The biggest factor with it is practice time. NCAa limits the hours, so that time is precious. If you truly are prepping with 3 QBs, those limited number of snaps at practice are split three ways, each with his own style, which IMO does a disservice to the entire O.. The longer it goes on the cumulative harm it does. It also deprive the O of a natural leader. On the other hand, it could be a head fake to keep the opponent off guard

 

[bobongo]

The biggest factor with it is practice time. NCAa limits the hours, so that time is precious. If you truly are prepping with 3 QBs, those limited number of snaps at practice are split three ways, each with his own style, which IMO does a disservice to the entire O.. The longer it goes on the cumulative harm it does. It also deprive the O of a natural leader. On the other hand, it could be a head fake to keep the opponent off guard

That's a good point about the downside of a QB battle with limited practice time. But there are other factors to consider. I'm sure every coach would prefer to have a clear cut starter from day one.

But there are upsides. One upside to having a QB battle is the competition aspect of it. Another is getting experience in case the eventual starter goes down. Everything has to be factored in. Eventually we'll have a confirmed starter. If we can get our starter in place before the rest of the conference season starts, and win in the meantime, it will all be for the best.

 

[jojatk]

If it were a between two, it would not be nearly the issue.

While I do agree that having 3 QBs from which we are choosing IS a bigger problem than if it was just 2, I don't think the fact that there are three guys reflects poorly on the coaches but rather the fact that we have three guys who have not distanced themselves from one another. I believe we are in a fairly unique situation where not only are we changing coaches but making a dramatic change in system that requires the QB to make far, far more reads that include passing options than before. And that's something that none of them have been doing for at least a year (Graham) and more (Johnson, Oliver). It would be one thing if we were going from one offense that had a decent chunk of passing to another offense that had a decent chunk of passing concepts even if those concepts were different. That's hard enough. But we're making a humongous change.

 

[Animal02]

That's a good point about the downside of a QB battle with limited practice time. But there are other factors to consider. I'm sure every coach would prefer to have a clear cut starter from day one.

But there are upsides. One upside to having a QB battle is the competition aspect of it. Another is getting experience in case the eventual starter goes down. Everything has to be factored in. Eventually we'll have a confirmed starter. If we can get our starter in place before the rest of the conference season starts, and win in the meantime, it will all be for the best.

As I said...two, it would not be an issue....three it is

 

[jojatk]

The biggest factor with it is practice time. NCAa limits the hours, so that time is precious. If you truly are prepping with 3 QBs, those limited number of snaps at practice are split three ways, each with his own style, which IMO does a disservice to the entire O.. The longer it goes on the cumulative harm it does. It also deprive the O of a natural leader. On the other hand, it could be a head fake to keep the opponent off guard

That's a very fair statement regarding the practice time and that's part of why I agree completely that having 3 presents a bigger problem than just 2. And I also agree that the longer it goes on the worse we are for this season. My personal preference would be to go with Graham and live with the mistakes he'll make. As a fan I'd be far more forgiving of losses or bad plays knowing the guy is a freshman who's more of a gambler than Oliver and potentially Lucas (I say potentially because I only have what others have said regarding Lucas being more steady and consistent vs James being more explosive and taking more chances).

I'm in a position where I was prepared from day one of CPJ's tenure that when he was no longer our head coach that the next head coach would have a fairly tough transition to make. And I was a fan of the choice to hire CPJ and I am glad he was our coach because I both enjoyed his offense most years AND because I am a fan of him as a human being. But I always felt the transition away from his offense would take a while so I've been preparing myself that it's going to take a while regardless of how talented the kids are. So my comment is NOT about lack of talent.

 

[iceeater1969]

Having 3 qb w distinctly different skill sets makes the opponent plan for different game plans

This is a non problem.

By way Rhule s first year at baylor went w qb A over qb B and they sucked. Then went w B and did very good.. Fans love coach r but still wonder about rhule not going w B.

 

[Animal02]

That's a very fair statement regarding the practice time and that's part of why I agree completely that having 3 presents a bigger problem than just 2. And I also agree that the longer it goes on the worse we are for this season. My personal preference would be to go with Graham and live with the mistakes he'll make. As a fan I'd be far more forgiving of losses or bad plays knowing the guy is a freshman who's more of a gambler than Oliver and potentially Lucas (I say potentially because I only have what others have said regarding Lucas being more steady and consistent vs James being more explosive and taking more chances).

I'm in a position where I was prepared from day one of CPJ's tenure that when he was no longer our head coach that the next head coach would have a fairly tough transition to make. And I was a fan of the choice to hire CPJ and I am glad he was our coach because I both enjoyed his offense most years AND because I am a fan of him as a human being. But I always felt the transition away from his offense would take a while so I've been preparing myself that it's going to take a while regardless of how talented the kids are. So my comment is NOT about lack of talent.

The coaches just need to pick their poison and move forward...yes one, or maybe two will be disappointed......but we are playing "big boy football" now.

 

[jojatk]

The coaches just need to pick their poison and move forward...yes one, or maybe two will be disappointed......but we are playing "big boy football" now.

We are in complete agreement on this point!

 

[Animal02]

We are in complete agreement on this point!

Watch out, you maybe labeled a "hater" for agreeing with me.

 

[jojatk]

Watch out, you maybe labeled a "hater" for agreeing with me.

I am a risk taker...

 

[FlatsLander]

For our purposes, "pro style" is an open and vague term that means "not the triple option". It means players will develop skills that translate to the pros. OL will pass block, QBs will pass a good amount, WRs will run routes and catch passes. What the playbook actually looks like will change year to year based on personnel. So there wilk be plenty of option and running this year. Eventually, we will want to have a pretty balanced offense. But its "player based" as in we aren't tied to a specific scheme.

I think Pro-style means not only that, but also that the offense is defined by who we have rather than being a system offense like CPJ's 3O.