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

[VRTechFan]

GSU, Navy, or early GT CPJ? Absolutely.

Last several years CPJ? No. He saw he needed to adapt his offense and started to with the diamond stuff. Then just flat out abandoned it. I think that more than anything is why he retired. He knew what needed to be done because he had done it his entire career but no longer was up for doing it for whatever reason.

He did the diamond stuff because he thought he had his QB for the future in Vad Lee. We couldn't do the simple assignments in our base offense that CPJ abandoned the diamond formation. He said if we can't execute the basic formation, how are we going to be able to execute the other ones.

 

[Randy Carson]

Have you ever looked at those old photos of the Tech teams from the 50's & 60's? Crew cuts and flat tops and all that. There was no zillion-dollar NFL contract waiting for any of them.

(Most of the early NFL greats retired and got real jobs. I met Johnny Unitas once when I was on a sales call in Baltimore. He was working at a company that made printed circuit boards.)

So, why did these farm boys from GA, AL, & SC, etc want to play for Tech? Because of Bobby Dodd? A national championship ring?

A decent education?

It wasn't long after the war, was it? Think that experience or memory affected how they thought about their futures?

I dunno...maybe it's the rum...but I'm kinda wondering if there are guys out there like that today.

Might be too much to hope for.

Johnny "Mr. Clutch" Menger (ca. 1955)

 

[GTjunkie]

Hate the Triple Option

It's literally, one ****ing play. This is like saying, "hate bootleg".

 

[Randy Carson]

Now show the Middle Tennessee or Kansas game. Or Clemson 2016. Pull that up

Same year. 2016 vs #14 VT. (skip to 5:20 or 10:50 for a taste)

 

[GoJacketsInRaleigh]

It's literally, one ****ing play. This is like saying, "hate bootleg".

LOL come on man

 

[JacketFan137]

Have you ever looked at those old photos of the Tech teams from the 50's & 60's? Crew cuts and flat tops and all that. There was no zillion-dollar NFL contract waiting for any of them.

(Most of the early NFL greats retired and got real jobs. I met Johnny Unitas once when I was on a sales call in Baltimore. He was working at a company that made printed circuit boards.)

So, why did these farm boys from GA, AL, & SC, etc want to play for Tech? Because of Bobby Dodd? A national championship ring?

A decent education?

It wasn't long after the war, was it? Think that experience or memory affected how they thought about their futures?

I dunno...maybe it's the rum...but I'm kinda wondering if there are guys out there like that today.

Might be too much to hope for.

View attachment 13133
Johnny "Mr. Clutch" Menger (ca. 1955)

haircut looks terrible

 

[takethepoints]

Now show the Middle Tennessee or Kansas game. Or Clemson 2016. Pull that up

Well, since you insist …



I was at this game. I have seldom had so much fun at an athletic contest.

Oh, I bet you meant the 2009 game. Well, this one is more typical.

Update: Watch Peeples in this film. Looks like he's hardly moving, doesn't he? But, laws, he was fast.

 

[AlabamaBuzz]

Those arguing against the flexbone mainly just hated watching that type of offense. I understand your feelings - when Bammer and OK and Nebraska, just to name a few, ran similar offenses, I hated it as well, but those weren't my teams. So, when they crushed opponents will with it, I did not enjoy that domination.

BUT, I learned when the offense is MY team's offense, and especially knowing the difficulties and handicaps our STEM school faces, I loved it.

It will always work if executed, assuming that we aren't playing talent and coaching that is 40% or more better than what we have. It gives us a fighting chance, even with the rule changes, in my opinion. Sometimes we won because the other teams' talented players just "gave up" against it. Sometimes we won because the other teams' coaching staff had no idea how to prepare for it (I believe this is what happened with Missy St. in the Orange Bowl, and what is funny is that CGC knew he didn't want any part of it - he headed for UF and easier pickens)

But, I also believe there are other unique offenses with genius offensive gurus that would work at GT as well. But, I do believe we have to do something different scheme-wise. If it is "fun" for the kids and helps recruit some high 3 star (occasional 4 star) talent, then GREAT, but we are never going to out recruit enough teams to consistently win that way, and especially when we have a coach like we have now. GT needs the smartest guy on the field calling plays - and, again in my opinion, always will.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

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.

Let’s stick with the chess analysis.

Yes, a lesser player may have analyzed an unorthodox line, even an “off the book” move, taking it deep enough that it negates the advantage of a more highly rated player. That is a thing that happens in chess. Yes, I play a little bit too.

But the lesser player even with a prepared, tricky, line, has to play perfectly. They can’t bungle a combination, leave a piece on-pris, or do any other patzer thing. So, running a TO system in football, for instance, means you can’t afford ill timed turnovers, holding penalties or dropped passes. I think some Tech fans envied teams that had such a talent advantage (higher rating in chess) that they didn’t have to worry about catastrophic mistakes ending a drive or losing the game.

Bear with me a little longer. In chess you can play an unorthodox line or rarely used gambit but the question is always “is your position sound?” Where TO fans and anti-TO fans get cross wise with each other is over whether or not an offense is fundamentally sound or whether it has some kind of fatal flaw that will get exposed.

If the chess analogy holds, then one can argue that it is possible to be both unorthodox and play sound positional chess, or in football, have a unique system that is fundamentally sound.

Thanks for using the chess analogy. I’ve always thought of a good football matchup as a chess game.

 

[gorcone]

Those arguing against the flexbone mainly just hated watching that type of offense. I understand your feelings - when Bammer and OK and Nebraska, just to name a few, ran similar offenses, I hated it as well, but those weren't my teams. So, when they crushed opponents will with it, I did not enjoy that domination.

BUT, I learned when the offense is MY team's offense, and especially knowing the difficulties and handicaps our STEM school faces, I loved it.

It will always work if executed, assuming that we aren't playing talent and coaching that is 40% or more better than what we have. It gives us a fighting chance, even with the rule changes, in my opinion. Sometimes we won because the other teams' talented players just "gave up" against it. Sometimes we won because the other teams' coaching staff had no idea how to prepare for it (I believe this is what happened with Missy St. in the Orange Bowl, and what is funny is that CGC knew he didn't want any part of it - he headed for UF and easier pickens)

But, I also believe there are other unique offenses with genius offensive gurus that would work at GT as well. But, I do believe we have to do something different scheme-wise. If it is "fun" for the kids and helps recruit some high 3 star (occasional 4 star) talent, then GREAT, but we are never going to out recruit enough teams to consistently win that way, and especially when we have a coach like we have now. GT needs the smartest guy on the field calling plays - and, again in my opinion, always will.

OMG.....I just connected some dots and realized the connection...Geoff was the Defensive Coordinator for Mississippi State that GT demolished in the 2014 Orange Bowl. He came to GT to make us look as bad as possible since that was his only opportunity for success.

 

[jgtengineer]

This thread has me intrigued enough to ask this question. If having a unique scheme is so advantageous why is no one proposing the single wing, the T formation , the wishbone or the I formation? These are all cutting edge offensive schemes in their day but no one is (apparently) pushing them as far as I can tell. What is it about the TO that differentiates itself from any of the aforementioned offensive schemes that no one seems to be clamoring for? Is it because y'all have seen the TO and not the others? Is it something else? Believe it or not, this is an honest and good faith question.

Short answer actually is all of those formations are builtni to the flex bone using motion we ran all thr same plays that exist in those offenses. Calhoun at aiforce still runs those formations

 

[CEB]

This thread has me intrigued enough to ask this question. If having a unique scheme is so advantageous why is no one proposing the single wing, the T formation , the wishbone or the I formation? These are all cutting edge offensive schemes in their day but no one is (apparently) pushing them as far as I can tell. What is it about the TO that differentiates itself from any of the aforementioned offensive schemes that no one seems to be clamoring for? Is it because y'all have seen the TO and not the others? Is it something else? Believe it or not, this is an honest and good faith question.

I saw a couple responses to this but I’ll go ahead and officially put my head on the chopping block
I’ll just start by throwing out the I... if we can’t recruit lineman, power football is suicide. In my opinion, this is an example of a detrimental unique approach. If we start getting lineman, that’s just gravy. we can be even more successful with spread/ option/ misdirection stuff.
As jgtengineer says, the “flexbone” or “spread option” we ran incorporates elements of all of those. The formation gives more options than any of those alone and it works with a personnel package that is pretty well suited to players you can get when you aren’t in the top half of power 5. It’s balanced like the wishbone, but puts A Backs in better position as downfield threat and better angle for second level blocks. You can run all of the veer, single wing, wishbone concepts from it. My personal opinion is that it’s interesting as well as effective... I love to geek out on schemes in football and basketball (give me a motion, flex, back cut offense every day of the week and twice on Sunday: one on one clear out stuff is crap... not to derail). Zone blocking is boring... but if we can find a way to win with it, I’m on board.
As for other “schemes” with regard to football, I am open to them. I’d be interested in opening up run and shoot elements, although some here would go into convulsions if we did it from “that” formation.
Air raid? Maybe, but the one thing we seem to find around these parts are really good backs... seems a shame not to run the ball. One issue id have with air raid (if I haven’t given enough fuel to the discussion yet) is that I would lose my **** if we lined up in the shotgun on 4th and goal at the 1.

That ought to do it

 

[Randy Carson]

Let’s stick with the chess analysis.

Yes, a lesser player may have analyzed an unorthodox line, even an “off the book” move, taking it deep enough that it negates the advantage of a more highly rated player. That is a thing that happens in chess. Yes, I play a little bit too.

But the lesser player even with a prepared, tricky, line, has to play perfectly. They can’t bungle a combination, leave a piece on-pris, or do any other patzer thing. So, running a TO system in football, for instance, means you can’t afford ill timed turnovers, holding penalties or dropped passes. I think some Tech fans envied teams that had such a talent advantage (higher rating in chess) that they didn’t have to worry about catastrophic mistakes ending a drive or losing the game.

Bear with me a little longer. In chess you can play an unorthodox line or rarely used gambit but the question is always “is your position sound?” Where TO fans and anti-TO fans get cross wise with each other is over whether or not an offense is fundamentally sound or whether it has some kind of fatal flaw that will get exposed.

If the chess analogy holds, then one can argue that it is possible to be both unorthodox and play sound positional chess, or in football, have a unique system that is fundamentally sound.

Thanks for using the chess analogy. I’ve always thought of a good football matchup as a chess game.

So awesome. Thanks.

You're spot on: the question is whether the TO is positionally sound. I feel like it is; CPJ always seemed to find a way to put more Jimmy's at the point of attack than they had Joe's.

The other question is that of "style". Are you an attacking player or do you prefer quiet positional games?

And here's the rub: I think some fans want to see a QB slinging the ball all over the field on every play. Others prefer three...okay, make that five yards in a cloud of dust. But interestingly, the TO allowed Tech to what? Lead the nation in long plays from scrimmage? I forget exactly what that stat was, but the D never knew when we were going to rip off a 65-yd RUN or even throw one over the top when the backs had drawn up too close in run support. And watching the QB make a last second pitch to a back who went virtually untouched into the end zone? Magic.

At the end of the day, the TO is both unorthodox (providing an edge) and positionally sound (meaning it's playable).

So, have we checkmated the haters?

 

[Techster]

jay jones was the one i thought was gonna be special. he was a freak athlete. felt similarly about ratliffe. taquon, oliver (and eventually yates in the future) i think just weren’t good enough passers to keep good defenses honest. best years by far were nesbitt and jt and i really think that’s cause they were at least a threat in the passing game

If the Tevin Washington years had a defense, we would be speaking about him differently. That dude led some near elite level offenses.

 

[4shotB]

So, have we checkmated the haters?

These are great posts and you have certainly sold us on the valid points about this system as an offensive system.

You seem interested in the debate so let's continue. However, the O is just one leg of a 3 legged stool if you will. The skeptics (myself included) think that, as good as an offensive system as it was/is, the effects on the other two legs ( D and ST) come with a price. Over 10 years and multiple DC's, we never really fielded a top defense. IIRC, we were pleading to be even average (50-60) ranked defense. We all concede on the point that CPJ's program WAS better than whatever it is we are now. So, let's table that as a talking point in this conversation.

How would you respond to the question that the TO limits (or appears to limit) what your program can do as a whole?

ETA: I never was or have considered myself a "hater" fwiw.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

So awesome. Thanks.

You're spot on: the question is whether the TO is positionally sound. I feel like it is; CPJ always seemed to find a way to put more Jimmy's at the point of attack than they had Joe's.

The other question is that of "style". Are you an attacking player or do you prefer quiet positional games?

And here's the rub: I think some fans want to see a QB slinging the ball all over the field on every play. Others prefer three...okay, make that five yards in a cloud of dust. But interestingly, the TO allowed Tech to what? Lead the nation in long plays from scrimmage? I forget exactly what that stat was, but the D never knew when we were going to rip off a 65-yd RUN or even throw one over the top when the backs had drawn up too close in run support. And watching the QB make a last second pitch to a back who went virtually untouched into the end zone? Magic.

At the end of the day, the TO is both unorthodox (providing an edge) and positionally sound (meaning it's playable).

So, have we checkmated the haters?

I think they always try to argue themselves into a draw by threefold repetition of their positions

Yes, the offense is sound, hence arguments against always veer off (see what I did there?) into side arguments about recruiting, problems with defense, rule changes and so forth. But the main argument always seems rooted in some aesthetic notion of new versus old. Horrors, more than half of my chess books are descriptive notation and my newer ones are algebraic. What ever shall I do miss Scarlet!

 

[Northeast Stinger]

These are great posts and you have certainly sold us on the valid points about this system as an offensive system.

You seem interested in the debate so let's continue. However, the O is just one leg of a 3 legged stool if you will. The skeptics (myself included) think that, as good as an offensive system as it was/is, the effects on the other two legs ( D and ST) come with a price. Over 10 years and multiple DC's, we never really fielded a top defense. IIRC, we were pleading to be even average (50-60) ranked defense. We all concede on the point that CPJ's program WAS better than whatever it is we are now. So, let's table that as a talking point in this conversation.

How would you respond to the question that the TO limits (or appears to limit) what your program can do as a whole?

ETA: I never was or have considered myself a "hater" fwiw.

Correlation does not equal causation.

I understand your point I just don’t buy it.

Your theory makes sense, in theory, but I’ve followed Tech football for 60 years and defense has always been a problem, especially recruiting a great defensive tackle. Sure, once a decade you might find an Adam Gotsis but they are the exception to the rule.

If CPJ had been able to hire the best defensive coordinators, especially the ones he wanted, maybe that side of the ball could have been better. But I see no evidence that spread option football out of the flexbone in and of itself made our defense worse. Our current “pro style” offense certainly has not delivered the better results on defense that we were promised.

Even with CGC I try to separate out what the failings of his system are versus the circumstances beyond his control that have plagued every coach who has ever come to Tech.

 

[4shotB]

I think they always try to argue themselves into a draw by threefold repetition of their positions

Yes, the offense is sound, hence arguments against always veer off (see what I did there?) into side arguments about recruiting, problems with defense, rule changes and so forth. But the main argument always seems rooted in some aesthetic notion of new versus old. Horrors, more than half of my chess books are descriptive notation and my newer ones are algebraic. What ever shall I do miss Scarlet!

What outcome would meet your approval in this conversation? Serious question...how would you like this conversation to end? I think a holistic approach is realistic and not unreasonable. It appears that you want to limit it to just a discussion about the offense. I am reading your post correctly? The offense WAS very effective at times. I (and I believe most others) are waving the white flag here on this singular point of the discussion.

 

[4shotB]

If CPJ had been able to hire the best defensive coordinators, especially the ones he wanted, maybe that side of the ball could have been better.

This may be true. It is a shame that we will never know. Perhaps if CPJ had the resources of a Clemson or Ohio State we would know and this debate would not be necessary. Perhaps if he had those resources, half the teams in college football would be running his system.

 

[JacketFan137]

These are great posts and you have certainly sold us on the valid points about this system as an offensive system.

You seem interested in the debate so let's continue. However, the O is just one leg of a 3 legged stool if you will. The skeptics (myself included) think that, as good as an offensive system as it was/is, the effects on the other two legs ( D and ST) come with a price. Over 10 years and multiple DC's, we never really fielded a top defense. IIRC, we were pleading to be even average (50-60) ranked defense. We all concede on the point that CPJ's program WAS better than whatever it is we are now. So, let's table that as a talking point in this conversation.

How would you respond to the question that the TO limits (or appears to limit) what your program can do as a whole?

ETA: I never was or have considered myself a "hater" fwiw.

my biggest gripe with our defense was mostly philosophy. we know how killer a turnover could be if we got one and then drained 6 minutes off the clock en route to a touchdown. our defense was terrible most of the time and average on a good day. i think we would have been better off with a really aggressive defense that just blitzed like crazy and did everything possible to create 1 or 2 turnovers a game.

in 2014 which is probably the consensus best paul team i can remember multiple games we just got a timely pick or a fumble and that killed the game. some of the ted roof years killed me cause our guys would line up 10 yards off the line of scrimmage and just let teams dink and dunk us. this took away our TOP advantage and allowed other teams to sustain long drives. our offense was not built to matchup against that kind of team. we were gonna allow points anyway. no harm in going for broke and playing high risk high reward ¯\_(ツ)_/¯