The reports of the TO's death have been grossly exaggerated

[JacketFan137]

Ballin stopped posting breakdowns here because Quinlan began paying him for it.

Having longestday doing stuff was good back in the day even if he wasn’t an expert, sad no one else picked up that torch.

used to love longestday’s youtube videos. hope that dude is alright he was having a wild mental breakdown on twitter

 

[CEB]

i get the point you’re trying to make but that has more to do with the ease of the portal and how common it’s become than any coach. that’s something literally every school is dealing with. big guys are poaching talent off the little guys and any guy that’s buried in the depth chart at a big school is going to smaller schools to get playing time. welcome to college football in 2022

So does this provide another incentive to NOT run a system like the big boys? Do you run it to also prevent poaching? It would allow you to retain and train nearly your entire offense....

 

[JacketFan137]

So does this provide another incentive to NOT run a system like the big boys? Do you run it to also prevent poaching? It would allow to retain and train nearly your entire offense....

i don’t see how that would stop it honestly. in our mind tech is a wonderful place and we’d never leave but if the portal existed in the past you don’t think an air raid school would have loved to get darren waller, bebe, or smelter? what about on defense when the same thing happens?

i think you might have an idea easier time holding onto a backs as they’re often undersized and wouldn’t have a consistent role in too many offenses. maybe quarterbacks as well. o line would get little interest outside of once in a blue moon studs like shaq mason

the idea of running an option offense just so guys don’t transfer is bad. if you are having a problem with guys transferring either your team is bad or you’re coaching up players so good they’re getting looks from better schools. would rather be in the latter half

 

[CEB]

i don’t see how that would stop it honestly. in our mind tech is a wonderful place and we’d never leave but if the portal existed in the past you don’t think an air raid school would have loved to get darren waller, bebe, or smelter? what about on defense when the same thing happens?

i think you might have an idea easier time holding onto a backs as they’re often undersized and wouldn’t have a consistent role in too many offenses. maybe quarterbacks as well. o line would get little interest outside of once in a blue moon studs like shaq mason

the idea of running an option offense just so guys don’t transfer is bad. if you are having a problem with guys transferring either your team is bad or you’re coaching up players so good they’re getting looks from better schools. would rather be in the latter half

Well, I look at it more as an added benefit... not the impetus for running it.

I do agree on WR though. That’s the one position I think would be relentlessly poached. Schools would be salivating over good blocking wide receivers... they’d fill their heads with fantastic stories of QBs who will target them 10-12 times a game... we would lose them left and right

 

[4shotB]

"Assume two teams of equal talent on both sides of the ball - on the field and on the sidelines."

Sorry - I didn't see that. If everything else is equivalent (ceterus paribus) then it comes down to just this one thing - the team that makes the fewest mistakes (turnovers, penalties,etc.) on the day that they play. imo. Neither team has an advantage based on their scheme all other things being equal.

 

[Randy Carson]

I enjoy playing chess. I'm not great...disappointingly not great, actually.

But I mention this to make a point: one aspect of opening theory in chess is that the over the centuries, millions of players have studied the best opening moves to a depth of 15, 20, 25 moves. Especially with the rise of computer analysis, both players generally know these "theoretical best" lines by heart. It's only at that point that they are "out of book" - unless one of them decides to try a novelty.

Stay with me.

Now, one player may decide to play an opening which is technically not as good as another...but he knows it better than his opponent. This is true because no one - not even Grandmasters - can know all of the possible moves that can occur in all the openings. So, playing something unusual creates an advantage for the player employing it while the opposing player, who rarely sees this off-beat opening/defense, is the one at a disadvantage. (Side note: this is why fake punts, halfback passes, onside kicks and other "trick" plays work occasionally.)

Hopefully, you see where I'm going with this. The TO gives the school running it an edge. Other schools don't see it often enough to become proficient at it. Sure, they may still win the game because of their superior talent (just as a grandmaster will beat the patzer regardless), but the lesser team still has a chance to win because they are doing something different. And against less great teams (and here I'm thinking of EVERY team on our schedule other than Clemson and Georgia), Tech would have a reasonable chance to win - even win handily.

Chess...er, the TO...isn't everyone's game, of course. But I'm at a loss to understand how doing the same thing that everyone else is doing and prepping for week in and week out is going to result in great modern-era success for Tech - hear this - in light of the fact that other schools have more money, easier majors, and other systemic advantages over us.

Your move.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

X's and O's porn.

I've missed this so much. Use to be a regular thing on this board.

These are the kinds of threads we encourage.

 

[JacketFan137]

I enjoy playing chess. I'm not great...disappointingly not great, actually.

But I mention this to make a point: one aspect of opening theory in chess is that the over the centuries, millions of players have studied the best opening moves to a depth of 15, 20, 25 moves. Especially with the rise of computer analysis, both players generally know these "theoretical best" lines by heart. It's only at that point that they are "out of book" - unless one of them decides to try a novelty.

Stay with me.

Now, one player may decide to play an opening which is technically not as good as another...but he knows it better than his opponent. This is true because no one - not even Grandmasters - can know all of the possible moves that can occur in all the openings. So, playing something unusual creates an advantage for the player employing it while the opposing player, who rarely sees this off-beat opening/defense, is the one at a disadvantage. (Side note: this is why fake punts, halfback passes, onside kicks and other "trick" plays work occasionally.)

Hopefully, you see where I'm going with this. The TO gives the school running it an edge. Other schools don't see it often enough to become proficient at it. Sure, they may still win the game because of their superior talent (just as a grandmaster will beat the patzer regardless), but the lesser team still has a chance to win because they are doing something different. And against less great teams (and here I'm thinking of EVERY team on our schedule other than Clemson and Georgia), Tech would have a reasonable chance to win - even win handily.

Chess...er, the TO...isn't everyone's game, of course. But I'm at a loss to understand how doing the same thing that everyone else is doing and prepping for week in and week out is going to result in great modern-era success for Tech - hear this - in light of the fact that other schools have more money, easier majors, and other systemic advantages over us.

Your move.

at the end of the day the schematic advantage may be true but whenever these discussions begin i feel like the schematic advantage is vastly overstated to the point it ignores reality. we were still losing to schools like duke and virginia and they really don’t have much better talent than us if at all. we still lost games to middle tennessee, usf, kansas, and got whooped in some bowl games. it wasn’t because of scheme we were losing those games. we got out coached, players on opposing teams stepped up whatever the case was. i say this just to point out scheme alone is not some inherent advantage. i wouldn’t even say in our good years scheme was what was carrying us to victory.

in the good seasons we always had a great qb, good b backs, one or two a backs that made plays, good wr’s and all of those guys were guys i think could have seen success anywhere regardless of scheme. when we didn’t have the talent like the injury riddled 2015 season or 17 where we didn’t have a qb, we weren’t very good. if scheme was the only answer why didn’t we consistently win 8+ games a season?

college football takes more than just scheme, just recruiting or just coaching. a lot more goes into it and no scheme is without its flaws. don’t let Patenaude and collins plant this idea in your head that we need some crazy scheme to find an edge. a good coach that can recruit guys, develop and mold them into productive players and get them to play sound fundamental football is what you need above all else regardless of scheme

 

[4shotB]

I enjoy playing chess. I'm not great...disappointingly not great, actually.

Your move.

I enjoy playing chess. I'm not great...disappointingly not great, actually.

But I mention this to make a point: one aspect of opening theory in chess is that the over the centuries, millions of players have studied the best opening moves to a depth of 15, 20, 25 moves. Especially with the rise of computer analysis, both players generally know these "theoretical best" lines by heart. It's only at that point that they are "out of book" - unless one of them decides to try a novelty.

Stay with me.

Now, one player may decide to play an opening which is technically not as good as another...but he knows it better than his opponent. This is true because no one - not even Grandmasters - can know all of the possible moves that can occur in all the openings. So, playing something unusual creates an advantage for the player employing it while the opposing player, who rarely sees this off-beat opening/defense, is the one at a disadvantage. (Side note: this is why fake punts, halfback passes, onside kicks and other "trick" plays work occasionally.)

Hopefully, you see where I'm going with this. The TO gives the school running it an edge. Other schools don't see it often enough to become proficient at it. Sure, they may still win the game because of their superior talent (just as a grandmaster will beat the patzer regardless), but the lesser team still has a chance to win because they are doing something different. And against less great teams (and here I'm thinking of EVERY team on our schedule other than Clemson and Georgia), Tech would have a reasonable chance to win - even win handily.

Chess...er, the TO...isn't everyone's game, of course. But I'm at a loss to understand how doing the same thing that everyone else is doing and prepping for week in and week out is going to result in great modern-era success for Tech - hear this - in light of the fact that other schools have more money, easier majors, and other systemic advantages over us.

Your move.

Great post. However, my impression is that we did not see this play out here with the acknowledged chessmaster if you will, especially after people adjusted to it However, I think the recent 3 years have numbed our senses and has clouded our perception of how things were at the end. I think we forget that we were about a .500 team in his last 3 or 4 years as a number of things happened. I get that he had other factors playing against him as well...staffing, budget, etc. But that effort against Minnesota in his last game looked like we have more or less the last 3 years albeit without some of the bizarre timeouts and whatnot. Even in our good years, when we lost at the LOS against the Iowa's, LSU's, et al we looked inept at best. I am not trying to disparage Paul Johnson...I supported him when he was here and wish him the best in retirement. I loved his personality and thought he was a good fit for GT in that regard.

In summary, we are hoping for a mgic bullet when in reality we need to be addressing systemic issues that plague the program and make this an attractive job and not one we need to hide with smoke and mirrors.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

I enjoy playing chess. I'm not great...disappointingly not great, actually.

But I mention this to make a point: one aspect of opening theory in chess is that the over the centuries, millions of players have studied the best opening moves to a depth of 15, 20, 25 moves. Especially with the rise of computer analysis, both players generally know these "theoretical best" lines by heart. It's only at that point that they are "out of book" - unless one of them decides to try a novelty.

Stay with me.

Now, one player may decide to play an opening which is technically not as good as another...but he knows it better than his opponent. This is true because no one - not even Grandmasters - can know all of the possible moves that can occur in all the openings. So, playing something unusual creates an advantage for the player employing it while the opposing player, who rarely sees this off-beat opening/defense, is the one at a disadvantage. (Side note: this is why fake punts, halfback passes, onside kicks and other "trick" plays work occasionally.)

Hopefully, you see where I'm going with this. The TO gives the school running it an edge. Other schools don't see it often enough to become proficient at it. Sure, they may still win the game because of their superior talent (just as a grandmaster will beat the patzer regardless), but the lesser team still has a chance to win because they are doing something different. And against less great teams (and here I'm thinking of EVERY team on our schedule other than Clemson and Georgia), Tech would have a reasonable chance to win - even win handily.

Chess...er, the TO...isn't everyone's game, of course. But I'm at a loss to understand how doing the same thing that everyone else is doing and prepping for week in and week out is going to result in great modern-era success for Tech - hear this - in light of the fact that other schools have more money, easier majors, and other systemic advantages over us.

Your move.

Caveats before I reply to this: I am a HUGE 3O fan and was/am an ardent supporter of CPJ. My favorite part of this board used to be Longestday(?)s video review of the play calling and @ilovetheoption breakdowns.

When CPJ retired, my first impulse was to hire Monken, Coach N, Bohannon, or one of the CPJ disciples to run the program. After talking with some friends who are high School football coaches, I was convinced this was not a very good idea. CPJ was, to use your analogy, a grandmaster of his offense. Not just a grandmaster, but the 20 time reigning world champion grandmaster. NOONE knew that offense better than he did, and none of his disciples are anywhere near as close to being as good as he is at it. If GT was still a 7 win team with upside under CPJ, chances are we'd be a borderline bowl team with limited upside under any other COJ disciple. CPJ excelled in adapting even with in drives and his coaching tree isn't to that level. Now, while a lot of us would take being a borderline bowl team with limited upside right now, we would have howled if the new coach had come in and had a 5 win season. Since we couldn't get the same level of coaching talent, a new offensive scheme was required.

Caveat: I do NOT think that we considered this in our move away from the 3O, rather I believe boosters were simply tired of the "option."

The next thing my coaching friends told me was that OL was going to be the longest pole in the tent and replacing, developing, and deploying a functioning ol with proper depth was a work of several years. The most charitable answer I got was 3-4 years at the earliest, more likely 5-6. So far, this has proven to be eerily accurate.

I was also told then that they were extremely surprised we hired a defensive guy to rebuild a team who's offense was going to require a drastic rebuild, and then put that rebuild into the hands of an OC with no P5 experience. I tried to give CDP a lot of grace (after all, his first coaching gig was at my Alma Mater) but it was fairly clear after year two he was in WAY over his head.

Finally, Ilovetheoption said it best. We made a gamble that we could leverage recruiting in the ATL and southeast to run a more NFL like offense and compete. So far that's been a bust. Recruiting is improved (rankings don't tell the whole story there) but even that improvement has shown how little it does without development and proper deployment of talent. I don't think the experiment HAS to be a failure, but I don't think a defensive oriented coach is going to fix our issues. We need an offensive mind to come in here and start deploying our talent properly. Whether that's with a scheme or simply tempo is immaterial, we need dedicated help on that side of the ball.

 

[awbuzz]

I also think that CPJ didn't work at recruiting as much as he c/should have because he believed that he could out-scheme the defense. ...

or, just maybe, funding wasn't there to do so...

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

In summary, we are hoping for a mgic bullet when in reality we need to be addressing systemic issues that plague the program and make this an attractive job and not one we need to hide with smoke and mirrors.

Spot on, but in our case, we have to work on both simultaneously. We cannot afford to bleed fans, and with uga ascendant right now, we need to be relevant in Georgia to keep what few sidewalk fans we have.

 

[Randy Carson]

Great post. However, my impression is that we did not see this play out here with the acknowledged chessmaster if you will, especially after people adjusted to it However, I think the recent 3 years have numbed our senses and has clouded our perception of how things were at the end. I think we forget that we were about a .500 team in his last 3 or 4 years as a number of things happened. I get that he had other factors playing against him as well...staffing, budget, etc. But that effort against Minnesota in his last game looked like we have more or less the last 3 years albeit without some of the bizarre timeouts and whatnot. Even in our good years, when we lost at the LOS against the Iowa's, LSU's, et al we looked inept at best. I am not trying to disparage Paul Johnson...I supported him when he was here and wish him the best in retirement. I loved his personality and thought he was a good fit for GT in that regard.

In summary, we are hoping for a mgic bullet when in reality we need to be addressing systemic issues that plague the program and make this an attractive job and not one we need to hide with smoke and mirrors.

Thanks.

If CPJ did not have the support he needed to upgrade our facilities, hire better assistants at higher salaries and so forth, then the demise of Tech football is NOT a result of playing option football (or of CGC for that matter). The constant harping against his "high school offense" - when voiced against CPJ by Tech fans - is indicative of their style preferences and nothing more. It's my contention that in the NIL-world of big money athletics, we HAVE to do something different to gain whatever competitive advantage we can because we are at a disadvantage in so many other ways.

But hey, we can go out and hire the best and brightest of the up-and-coming young coaches playing the same offense that every other team is playing. And we'll need to hire the perfect candidate not once but every 3-5 years because the bigger programs will lure them away with more money time and time again. (This is the transfer portal for coaches.)

But at least no one will make fun of us.

 

[JacketFan137]

Thanks.

If CPJ did not have the support he needed to upgrade our facilities, hire better assistants at higher salaries and so forth, then the demise of Tech football is NOT a result of playing option football (or of CGC for that matter). The constant harping against his "high school offense" - when voiced against CPJ by Tech fans - is indicative of their style preferences and nothing more. It's my contention that in the NIL-world of big money athletics, we HAVE to do something different to gain whatever competitive advantage we can because we are at a disadvantage in so many other ways.

But hey, we can go out and hire the best and brightest of the up-and-coming young coaches playing the same offense that every other team is playing. And we'll need to hire the perfect candidate not once but every 3-5 years because the bigger programs will lure them away with more money time and time again. (This is the transfer portal for coaches.)

But at least no one will make fun of us.

looking at it like this is a defeatist attitude and shows me that you just have a bias for the option. there’s no reason georgia tech is incapable of doing what wakeforest has done. plenty of other schools have turned things around with similar constraints in budget and fan support.

we need to hire the best coach we can get period. regardless of scheme or anything else. if they run the option so be it, but idk i think you are painting up this advantage to be much more significant than it is

 

[tomknight]

Thanks.

If CPJ did not have the support he needed to upgrade our facilities, hire better assistants at higher salaries and so forth, then the demise of Tech football is NOT a result of playing option football (or of CGC for that matter). The constant harping against his "high school offense" - when voiced against CPJ by Tech fans - is indicative of their style preferences and nothing more. It's my contention that in the NIL-world of big money athletics, we HAVE to do something different to gain whatever competitive advantage we can because we are at a disadvantage in so many other ways.

But hey, we can go out and hire the best and brightest of the up-and-coming young coaches playing the same offense that every other team is playing. And we'll need to hire the perfect candidate not once but every 3-5 years because the bigger programs will lure them away with more money time and time again. (This is the transfer portal for coaches.)

But at least no one will make fun of us.

well, the constant carping about CPJ and how me must run the 3O is also style preference.

reading this thread would have you believe that we were national champs every other year during the last regime. We had some really good years, but we had some stinkers too.

currently, we are having some really whopper sized stinkers.

romantically jonesing for CPJ and his offensive scheme, and having our memories dull the rough edges, ain't helping out of the mess we're in now.

 

[JacketFan137]

well, the constant carping about CPJ and how me must run the 3O is also style preference.

reading this thread would have you believe that we were national champs every other year during the last regime. We had some really good years, but we had some stinkers too.

currently, we are having some really whopper sized stinkers.

romantically jonesing for CPJ and his offensive scheme, and having our memories dull the rough edges, ain't helping out of the mess we're in now.

just need someone to remind us that collins sucks and has gone 3-9 every year and this thread will have officially completed the lifecycle of a swarm thread

 

[bobongo]

In summary, we are hoping for a mgic bullet when in reality we need to be addressing systemic issues that plague the program and make this an attractive job and not one we need to hide with smoke and mirrors.

No doubt, but in the very near term the thing that needs fixing is the coaching situation, which along with recruiting (part of coaching) will translate to Ws on the field which will help fix all the other things underneath. This is an example of a building that needs to be renovated from the top down. More work has to be done to the foundation, but the immediate concern has to be the top, because the roof is leaking badly.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

well, the constant carping about CPJ and how me must run the 3O is also style preference.

reading this thread would have you believe that we were national champs every other year during the last regime. We had some really good years, but we had some stinkers too.

currently, we are having some really whopper sized stinkers.

romantically jonesing for CPJ and his offensive scheme, and having our memories dull the rough edges, ain't helping out of the mess we're in now.

If discussion about the 3O irritates you, might I suggest you not read a thread titled The Reports of the TO's Death Have Been Grossly Exaggerated...

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

just need someone to remind us that collins sucks and has gone 3-9 every year and this thread will have officially completed the lifecycle of a swarm thread

If discussion about the 3O irritates you, might I suggest you not read a thread titled The Reports of the TO's Death Have Been Grossly Exaggerated...

 

[Randy Carson]

Caveats before I reply to this: I am a HUGE 3O fan and was/am an ardent supporter of CPJ. My favorite part of this board used to be Longestday(?)s video review of the play calling and @ilovetheoption breakdowns.

When CPJ retired, my first impulse was to hire Monken, Coach N, Bohannon, or one of the CPJ disciples to run the program. After talking with some friends who are high School football coaches, I was convinced this was not a very good idea. CPJ was, to use your analogy, a grandmaster of his offense. Not just a grandmaster, but the 20 time reigning world champion grandmaster. NOONE knew that offense better than he did, and none of his disciples are anywhere near as close to being as good as he is at it. If GT was still a 7 win team with upside under CPJ, chances are we'd be a borderline bowl team with limited upside under any other COJ disciple. CPJ excelled in adapting even with in drives and his coaching tree isn't to that level. Now, while a lot of us would take being a borderline bowl team with limited upside right now, we would have howled if the new coach had come in and had a 5 win season. Since we couldn't get the same level of coaching talent, a new offensive scheme was required.

Caveat: I do NOT think that we considered this in our move away from the 3O, rather I believe boosters were simply tired of the "option."

The next thing my coaching friends told me was that OL was going to be the longest pole in the tent and replacing, developing, and deploying a functioning ol with proper depth was a work of several years. The most charitable answer I got was 3-4 years at the earliest, more likely 5-6. So far, this has proven to be eerily accurate.

I was also told then that they were extremely surprised we hired a defensive guy to rebuild a team who's offense was going to require a drastic rebuild, and then put that rebuild into the hands of an OC with no P5 experience. I tried to give CDP a lot of grace (after all, his first coaching gig was at my Alma Mater) but it was fairly clear after year two he was in WAY over his head.

Finally, Ilovetheoption said it best. We made a gamble that we could leverage recruiting in the ATL and southeast to run a more NFL like offense and compete. So far that's been a bust. Recruiting is improved (rankings don't tell the whole story there) but even that improvement has shown how little it does without development and proper deployment of talent. I don't think the experiment HAS to be a failure, but I don't think a defensive oriented coach is going to fix our issues. We need an offensive mind to come in here and start deploying our talent properly. Whether that's with a scheme or simply tempo is immaterial, we need dedicated help on that side of the ball.

Thank you. This is very insightful.