Spring Practice

[GTpdm]

Yeah I'm worried about offense. I hate the shotgun spread garb that 95% of the nation runs.

I like I-form jumbo under center, weak and strong formations. Fullback on the field at all times along with one tight end and a lot of times two tight ends. I'm old school. Passing downs get in the gun with 3 wide and a TE or just go 4 wide. Pretty much Stanford style is what I love.

Fixed it before I could call you out...

 

[iceeater1969]

It’s almost certain to occur again this year vs Clem...very probable vs mutts. Anyone that thinks our talent is on par with them is just plain wrong.

I’m worried our OL will be a complete disaster with the moves of Lee and Morgan to DL. I’m not against the moves as I think they might be best for the individual players. The unit may take a big hit from it though.

Last year Scott Morgan was close to being at starter level at center. With arrival of long tall Quinney and w a healthy A Marshall the feared short fall of tackles (RSr stickle declared medical and left) was no more. Lee tried center .

Imo, hansen would be a better at dl. His
height is equal to no neck, long torso, short legs. His blocks were low and if he has added strength he would be a good dt.

The 2 grad transfers are coming in at ol and we have lots of game experience. On dl it's all untested. Not saying we don't need lots of coaching and scheme development because we do.

If your concern comes to fruition and ol has issues , we are really in a hole. I hope it's ok, but I hope u are wildly wrong.

Cant wait for spring game.

 

[ATL1]

Yeah I'm worried about offense. I hate the shotgun spread garb that 95% of the nation runs.

I like I-form jumbo under center, weak and strong formations. Fullback on the field at all times along with one tight end and a lot of times two tight ends. I'm old school. Passing downs get in the gun with 3 wide and a TE or just go 4 wide. Pretty much Stanford style is what I love.

My issue isn’t with scheme it’s that his offense at Temple lacked rhythm. It was paint drying stale. From what I understand his offense at Coastal was more explosive and fun to watch.

 

[Milwaukee]

Fixed it before I could call you out...

Lol damnit I think I said Stanford style or something to that effect, but I was referring to Harbaugh's Stanford when they were power power power.

 

[Milwaukee]

My issue isn’t with scheme it’s that his offense at Temple lacked rhythm. It was paint drying stale. From what I understand his offense at Coastal was more explosive and fun to watch.

I don't know anything about him tbh, I'm hoping for the best. Otherwise Collins will run him quick imo. Collins is on a 5 yr plan if he doesn't see results in 2-3 he'll make a change imo. I'm glad he's loyal and giving DP a chance, I'm pulling for DP.

 

[RamblinCharger]

How many years will it take for us to just talk about the team? Idk why the past needs to be brought up in a negative way in every thread. I’m looking forward to seeing what this team can do. All the hype is great. I hope it translates to wins. I think the defense will improve and the offense will take a step back. Hopefully we have better things to discuss after the spring game.

 

[kg01]

If this is a repost, so what. Read it twice

Pretty nice GT article on SI.com ...

https://www.si.com/college-football/2019/04/15/georgia-tech-offense-triple-option-geoff-collins

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Yeah I'm worried about offense. I hate the shotgun spread garb that 95% of the nation runs.

I like I-form jumbo under center, weak and strong formations. Fullback on the field at all times along with one tight end and a lot of times two tight ends. I'm old school. Passing downs get in the gun with 3 wide and a TE or just go 4 wide. Pretty much Stanford style is what I love.

It has worked pretty darn good for them. I could be wrong but I think it’s similar to what Wisconsin runs. They are always a smash mouth run the ball down your throat team. It’s worked for them too by and large.

 

[Techster]

https://amp.si.com/college-football...n-geoff-collins#click=https://t.co/nO9B7kFgXD

@ATL1 here's the Coastal Carolina link in a thread I posted in you asked for (BTW, you guys and gals should really pay me for my prescient knowledge of these things!):

Collins told his coaches early that Georgia Tech probably won’t run exactly what Temple ran last year on offense or defense. Once this personnel evaluation period wraps, the coaches can build what the 2019 Yellow Jackets will run. Offensive line coach Brent Key might suggest some things that worked at Alabama last year. Offensive coordinator Dave Patenaude might fall back on some schemes that worked in his final season at Coastal Carolina (2016), when the Chanticleers went 10-2 despite having to play six different quarterbacks because of injuries. That team was supposed to run a pass-first offense, but its final numbers (3,052 rushing yards, 5.2 yards per carry, 1,600 passing yards, 7.6 yards per attempt) looked closer to something one of Johnson’s teams at Georgia Tech or Navy might have posted.

https://gtswarm.com/threads/tech-offense.17954/

BTW, for those saying that GT recruiting has been an issue, and CPJ not being able to recruit along the DL (front seven for that matter), the article again touched on why CPJ's system was a hindrance. Something I mentioned a while back speaking to my friends who coach in HS. Recruiters FLAT OUT show pictures of our DLs and LBs walking to practice with knee braces on to help with the OL's cut blocks. One of them had a 5 star DL on the team that even visited GT (the kid ended up at UGA). The offense not only hurt us on that side of ball recruiting, but also on the defensive side of the ball.

Meanwhile, defensive linemen are told during recruiting that they’ll get cut blocked every day at practice if they sign with the option team. Even if this isn’t true, it makes it difficult to sign defensive linemen of prototypical size.

 

[Techster]

If this is a repost, so what. Read it twice

Pretty nice GT article on SI.com ...

https://www.si.com/college-football/2019/04/15/georgia-tech-offense-triple-option-geoff-collins

Dude, you totally got DTM'd by @ATL1

 

[alentrekin]

At coastal, Pat had mobile QBs. At Temple they tried a mobile QB at the start of the year but the better guy was a tall, strong armed pocket passer. I expect a lot of zone read, RPO, QB on the move stuff to hide the OL deficiencies and use our fast QBs to take away a safety.

One thing I noticed was how much temple got the ball to their playmakers, Wright, the other wideout down field and Armstead. I think they are as serious about scheme flexibility as position flexibility, to a point that it doesn't hinder recruiting and schematic consistency.

 

[AE 87]

Is it really that surprising that the smartest guy in the room had a blind spot he wasn't aware of? He was probably either ignorant of how his offense affected the defense and prospective players, or was aware of how it affected these things, but decided running the offense still gave us the best chance of winning.

Also, why does clarity in suggestions matter? Is it so you know who likes the previous staff and who doesn't? People can say "the previous defenses sucked, and that correlated with our weird offense, therefore moving toward a more normal offense will give us a better defense" without caring about the coach being ignorant or lying.

First, I greatly appreciate your willingness to take-on the question beyond making pot-shots, hand-waves at what "makes-sense", or other emotional appeals. You are right that having a blind-spot or ignorance could address some of the questions that I raised. Still, I think that CPJ repeating the same methodology with Woody after having the same/similar problem with three previous DCs continues to raise the other questions about ethics if that were the case, especially if it were as cut-and-dried as encouraging bend-don't-break while complaining about not being aggressive enough.

FWIW, all of my questions go toward answering your second paragraph and its questions. It is obviously not just so I know "who likes the previous staff and who doesn't" because that's irrelevant. It's so that I can understand the points which people are trying to make. It really is as simple as me trying to understand what others are trying to say. I know that the internet seems to be primed for irrational discourse. Those that seem to thrive are those who tell other people what they are trying to say and then attack them because this interpretation is evil.

So, I'm trying to buck this trend in online discourse by trying to push toward rational rather than simply emotional discourse. This thread exists because there are a significant number of people who continue to post challenges to the previous staff. As a fan of CPJ, I'm trying to understand their point. For example, I suspect that you would respond differently about your expression, "without caring about the coach being ignorant or lying," if you, and not CPJ, were the one whose integrity were being challenged. I suspect that you would want to understand what was actually being claimed about you (after you likely would react emotionally).

With this in mind, I think that three facts regarding that staff are pretty clear across the eleven years: (1) our offense was not popular stylistically but effective in scoring statistically against BCS-AQ/Pwr5, (2) our defense under-performed at the Pwr5 level, and (3) our team results were less than hoped-for--apart from the years where our O was lights-out. It was a constant source of discussion over the last 11 years why our D struggled, and that made sense. Since we now have a new coach who is bringing in a completely different culture, the question arises of why people want to continue to talk-down CPJ with new previously un-discussed claims about his role in our D.

So, let me try and explain. There are facts, and there are interpretation of facts. There are statements, and there are interpretations of statements. A mature test of any interpretation of facts or statements is how well this interpretation fits with other known facts and/or statements. An immature test is how well it fits with what I already believed or with what I hoped were true. Another immature response is to simply apply no test at all and just choose an interpretation based on who said it or where the majority opinions are located.

I'm trying to avoid immature responses by asking those who are making the new claims what their understanding of the situation is. We've had 11 years of CPJ taking ownership publicly for both sides of the ball while at the same time saying that his input is to encourage the D to be more aggressive, get more pressure on the passer, and for a few years "stop running a 2-gap DL." If he was actually telling the DC that he wanted them to be less aggressive, not worry about getting pressure on the QB, etc, then that would be big news and change my opinion of CPJ. So, I want those who are making the new claim to help me understand the new perspective in light of what we've heard for 11 years.

I think we see what you're trying to do but that's just not fair, or accurate. We have former players right here that have SAID Paul wouldn't let the DC be aggressive as he'd like. We've had Wes Friggin Durham speak on it on his radio show within the past 6 months; he flat out said Woody wasn't the only one that couldn't unleash the dogs all the way like he wanted either. He said the "guys before him" dealt with the same thing.

Now you can choose to believe these statements or not. I don't know why you wouldn't, hell some of it is coming from a PLAYER that played D under the man. There's no conspiracy here AE, I don't think there is anyways.

But for you to basically get mad because you don't believe it and draw this weird line in the sand about "If you don't agree then you're calling Paul Johnson a stupid idiot and a LIAR to boot" is a little nutty. Lol that's a little ridiculous wouldn't you say?

Thanks. If you have a link where I could hear that Wes Durham perspective, I'd like to hear it. With respect to the comments from a player who played for CPJ, I am assuming that you are talking about @Ibeeballin, and I am a fan of him as both a player and a contributor to this forum. I think his recent shots against CPJ (which he rejects as shots) differ from what he's posted previously, so I am trying to understand.

You completely misunderstand me. I'm not doubting him, I'm asking questions trying to understand him. I have set his comments about CPJ telling his DC's to play soft (paraphrase) next to CPJ"s public comments about wanting his D to be more aggressive. I am asking him to offer his understanding of how these comments are reconciled.

I’m not sure why people thinks it’s silly for CPJ to try to cover his *** in the media why preaching something different to his staff

(assuming you meant "while" instead of "why")
As has been said, it's not an issue of whether it's silly. It's an issue of whether its ethical.

Am I right in understanding this comment as you saying that this is what CPJ was doing: He was calling-out his D to the media for not doing what he wanted when they were doing what he demanded from the DC?

 

[MidtownJacket]

First, I greatly appreciate your willingness to take-on the question beyond making pot-shots, hand-waves at what "makes-sense", or other emotional appeals. You are right that having a blind-spot or ignorance could address some of the questions that I raised. Still, I think that CPJ repeating the same methodology with Woody after having the same/similar problem with three previous DCs continues to raise the other questions about ethics if that were the case, especially if it were as cut-and-dried as encouraging bend-don't-break while complaining about not being aggressive enough.

FWIW, all of my questions go toward answering your second paragraph and its questions. It is obviously not just so I know "who likes the previous staff and who doesn't" because that's irrelevant. It's so that I can understand the points which people are trying to make. It really is as simple as me trying to understand what others are trying to say. I know that the internet seems to be primed for irrational discourse. Those that seem to thrive are those who tell other people what they are trying to say and then attack them because this interpretation is evil.

So, I'm trying to buck this trend in online discourse by trying to push toward rational rather than simply emotional discourse. This thread exists because there are a significant number of people who continue to post challenges to the previous staff. As a fan of CPJ, I'm trying to understand their point. For example, I suspect that you would respond differently about your expression, "without caring about the coach being ignorant or lying," if you, and not CPJ, were the one whose integrity were being challenged. I suspect that you would want to understand what was actually being claimed about you (after you likely would react emotionally).

With this in mind, I think that three facts regarding that staff are pretty clear across the eleven years: (1) our offense was not popular stylistically but effective in scoring statistically against BCS-AQ/Pwr5, (2) our defense under-performed at the Pwr5 level, and (3) our team results were less than hoped-for--apart from the years where our O was lights-out. It was a constant source of discussion over the last 11 years why our D struggled, and that made sense. Since we now have a new coach who is bringing in a completely different culture, the question arises of why people want to continue to talk-down CPJ with new previously un-discussed claims about his role in our D.

So, let me try and explain. There are facts, and there are interpretation of facts. There are statements, and there are interpretations of statements. A mature test of any interpretation of facts or statements is how well this interpretation fits with other known facts and/or statements. An immature test is how well it fits with what I already believed or with what I hoped were true. Another immature response is to simply apply no test at all and just choose an interpretation based on who said it or where the majority opinions are located.

I'm trying to avoid immature responses by asking those who are making the new claims what their understanding of the situation is. We've had 11 years of CPJ taking ownership publicly for both sides of the ball while at the same time saying that his input is to encourage the D to be more aggressive, get more pressure on the passer, and for a few years "stop running a 2-gap DL." If he was actually telling the DC that he wanted them to be less aggressive, not worry about getting pressure on the QB, etc, then that would be big news and change my opinion of CPJ. So, I want those who are making the new claim to help me understand the new perspective in light of what we've heard for 11 years.



Thanks. If you have a link where I could hear that Wes Durham perspective, I'd like to hear it. With respect to the comments from a player who played for CPJ, I am assuming that you are talking about @Ibeeballin, and I am a fan of him as both a player and a contributor to this forum. I think his recent shots against CPJ (which he rejects as shots) differ from what he's posted previously, so I am trying to understand.

You completely misunderstand me. I'm not doubting him, I'm asking questions trying to understand him. I have set his comments about CPJ telling his DC's to play soft (paraphrase) next to CPJ"s public comments about wanting his D to be more aggressive. I am asking him to offer his understanding of how these comments are reconciled.



(assuming you meant "while" instead of "why")
As has been said, it's not an issue of whether it's silly. It's an issue of whether its ethical.

Am I right in understanding this comment as you saying that this is what CPJ was doing: He was calling-out his D to the media for not doing what he wanted when they were doing what he demanded from the DC?

[emoji1432]This guy DEFINITELY doesn’t post from an iPhone.

On the real though, big props for a well thought out response.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ncjacket79]

My issue isn’t with scheme it’s that his offense at Temple lacked rhythm. It was paint drying stale. From what I understand his offense at Coastal was more explosive and fun to watch.

Curious but which games did you watch. They were pretty effective against UCF

 

[Milwaukee]

[emoji1432]This guy DEFINITELY doesn’t post from an iPhone.

On the real though, big props for a well thought out response.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lol read it slower, maybe? He's still trying to frame his ridiculous stance as "so you're saying Paul Johnson is a liar?" to someone who was actually in the huddles. His wordy post is just camouflage Re: last paragraph especially.

 

[DieselTeeth]

First, I greatly appreciate your willingness to take-on the question beyond making pot-shots, hand-waves at what "makes-sense", or other emotional appeals. You are right that having a blind-spot or ignorance could address some of the questions that I raised. Still, I think that CPJ repeating the same methodology with Woody after having the same/similar problem with three previous DCs continues to raise the other questions about ethics if that were the case, especially if it were as cut-and-dried as encouraging bend-don't-break while complaining about not being aggressive enough.

FWIW, all of my questions go toward answering your second paragraph and its questions. It is obviously not just so I know "who likes the previous staff and who doesn't" because that's irrelevant. It's so that I can understand the points which people are trying to make. It really is as simple as me trying to understand what others are trying to say. I know that the internet seems to be primed for irrational discourse. Those that seem to thrive are those who tell other people what they are trying to say and then attack them because this interpretation is evil.

So, I'm trying to buck this trend in online discourse by trying to push toward rational rather than simply emotional discourse. This thread exists because there are a significant number of people who continue to post challenges to the previous staff. As a fan of CPJ, I'm trying to understand their point. For example, I suspect that you would respond differently about your expression, "without caring about the coach being ignorant or lying," if you, and not CPJ, were the one whose integrity were being challenged. I suspect that you would want to understand what was actually being claimed about you (after you likely would react emotionally).

With this in mind, I think that three facts regarding that staff are pretty clear across the eleven years: (1) our offense was not popular stylistically but effective in scoring statistically against BCS-AQ/Pwr5, (2) our defense under-performed at the Pwr5 level, and (3) our team results were less than hoped-for--apart from the years where our O was lights-out. It was a constant source of discussion over the last 11 years why our D struggled, and that made sense. Since we now have a new coach who is bringing in a completely different culture, the question arises of why people want to continue to talk-down CPJ with new previously un-discussed claims about his role in our D.

So, let me try and explain. There are facts, and there are interpretation of facts. There are statements, and there are interpretations of statements. A mature test of any interpretation of facts or statements is how well this interpretation fits with other known facts and/or statements. An immature test is how well it fits with what I already believed or with what I hoped were true. Another immature response is to simply apply no test at all and just choose an interpretation based on who said it or where the majority opinions are located.

I'm trying to avoid immature responses by asking those who are making the new claims what their understanding of the situation is. We've had 11 years of CPJ taking ownership publicly for both sides of the ball while at the same time saying that his input is to encourage the D to be more aggressive, get more pressure on the passer, and for a few years "stop running a 2-gap DL." If he was actually telling the DC that he wanted them to be less aggressive, not worry about getting pressure on the QB, etc, then that would be big news and change my opinion of CPJ. So, I want those who are making the new claim to help me understand the new perspective in light of what we've heard for 11 years.



Thanks. If you have a link where I could hear that Wes Durham perspective, I'd like to hear it. With respect to the comments from a player who played for CPJ, I am assuming that you are talking about @Ibeeballin, and I am a fan of him as both a player and a contributor to this forum. I think his recent shots against CPJ (which he rejects as shots) differ from what he's posted previously, so I am trying to understand.

You completely misunderstand me. I'm not doubting him, I'm asking questions trying to understand him. I have set his comments about CPJ telling his DC's to play soft (paraphrase) next to CPJ"s public comments about wanting his D to be more aggressive. I am asking him to offer his understanding of how these comments are reconciled.



(assuming you meant "while" instead of "why")
As has been said, it's not an issue of whether it's silly. It's an issue of whether its ethical.

Am I right in understanding this comment as you saying that this is what CPJ was doing: He was calling-out his D to the media for not doing what he wanted when they were doing what he demanded from the DC?

Lol read it slower, maybe? He's still trying to frame his ridiculous stance as "so you're saying Paul Johnson is a liar?" to someone who was actually in the huddles. His wordy post is just camouflage Re: last paragraph especially.

That was quite a post, and appreciate your thoughts, what does this have to do with spring practice??

 

[Milwaukee]

That was quite a post, and appreciate your thoughts, what does this have to do with spring practice??

Diesel, don't make me meet you in the Publix parking lot down there hoss.

 

[DieselTeeth]

Anybody but you.

 

[MidtownJacket]

Lol read it slower, maybe? He's still trying to frame his ridiculous stance as "so you're saying Paul Johnson is a liar?" to someone who was actually in the huddles. His wordy post is just camouflage Re: last paragraph especially.

Just reread both his post and yours to make sure I wasn’t crazy, and stand by my point. He laid out an admittedly wordy post asking for clarification on the issues hand. Are people suggesting CPJ instructed his staff to be less aggressive for some reason then crowed in the media about wanting them to be more aggressive?

To me that is the crux of this disagreement. Some people are advancing a proposal that CPJ for an unexplained reason wanted our defense to play soft while appearing to be annoyed by it. I just don’t buy that. Full stop.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Milwaukee]

I think you're falling for the trap, Midtown. That's what he does.

Oh well I'm heading to bed, I'm in a food coma.