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

[Northeast Stinger]

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.

So many things at Tech involve “we will never know.”

For as long as I can remember.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

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)_/¯

And you could see CPJ fuming at Roof game after game. But firing Roof was a big political gamble because he was so beloved as a Tech legend.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

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.

I confess I prefer to discuss apples if we are discussing apples, and oranges if we are discussing oranges.

My problem (and a bias I freely admit) is that to me some people just don’t like “option football” and so they held CPJ responsible for things that they were far more patient with when other coaches were here. This could be injuries that killed an offensive line or took down key players, special teams problems, mediocre defensive play and on and on.

The outcome I want is for people to quit blaming one particular offensive scheme for everything that has typically gone wrong with our teams for as long as I can remember.

And to be clear, I do not have to have “option football” back at Tech to be happy. I want whatever wins. The “pro style” mantra by some seems like an overly simplistic solution to me and too much of a reaction against something rather than an endorsement for something.

I would love to see what Deion Sanders could do here.

 

[tomknight]

yet one particular offensive scheme is credited with everything that has gone well forever. Including the revisionist memories where we never lost.

 

[Randy Carson]

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

Great question. One of the knock-offs against the TO (at least one that I thought had possible merit) is the idea that our D was constantly practicing against an offense that they will never face in a game. Is that right?

Wouldn't the Defense be working out against a scout team running whatever offensive scheme that week's opponent utilized?

(And why do I hear a crowd chanting "Rudy! Rudy!" as I'm typing this?)

 

[lv20gt]

My problem (and a bias I freely admit) is that to me some people just don’t like “option football” and so they held CPJ responsible for things that they were far more patient with when other coaches were here. This could be injuries that killed an offensive line or took down key players, special teams problems, mediocre defensive play and on and on.

Yes, how dare people hold the head coach responsible for things such as defense and special teams.

 

[Squints]

yet one particular offensive scheme is credited with everything that has gone well forever. Including the revisionist memories where we never lost.

So much of this board is someone imagining a guy, tricking themselves into believing that guy exists, and then getting mad about it.

Poster child right here.

 

[4shotB]

Great question. One of the knock-offs against the TO (at least one that I thought had possible merit) is the idea that our D was constantly practicing against an offense that they will never face in a game. Is that right?

Wouldn't the Defense be working out against a scout team running whatever offensive scheme that week's opponent utilized?

(And why do I hear a crowd chanting "Rudy! Rudy!" as I'm typing this?)

I don't think anyone who posts here or follows the program closely thought our 1's on D were practicing against our own scheme. As you say, we were repping against the scout team getting ready for the next week's opponent.

WTBS, I would imagine that it was being whispered in the ears of recruits. Whether it was true or not doesn't matter. All is fair in love, war AND recruiting.

 

[CuseJacket]

I don't think anyone who posts here or follows the program closely thought our 1's on D were practicing against our own scheme. As you say, we were repping against the scout team getting ready for the next week's opponent.

WTBS, I would imagine that it was being whispered in the ears of recruits. Whether it was true or not doesn't matter. All is fair in love, war AND recruiting.

We did practice 1's on 1's, though not exclusively.

Spring was 1's on 1's.
Spring game was 1's on 1's.
Fall scrimmages were 1's on 1's.

Game week prep was not.

So there's truth to practicing against it. The degree to which that mattered could be the debate, but I doubt anyone convinces anyone of anything.

 

[CEB]

I don't think anyone who posts here or follows the program closely thought our 1's on D were practicing against our own scheme. As you say, we were repping against the scout team getting ready for the next week's opponent.

WTBS, I would imagine that it was being whispered in the ears of recruits. Whether it was true or not doesn't matter. All is fair in love, war AND recruiting.

I agree... that’s bunk. If we were really running our first team D against option every week, that would explain a lot!

Northeast holding serve nicely here.

As for the defense question, I think it’s far simpler than we’re making it. You’re going to be good at what you emphasize. I am sure CPJ wanted a better defense but I also suspect it was never going to be a point of emphasis. It could’ve been improved with more and better staff, certainly, but honestly, a big part of the team identity was control the clock, control the ball, put up points and have just enough resistance on D that your opponent starts pressing and helping your D off the field. Death March, bend don’t break, rinse, repeat. Turnovers were gravy... doubly demoralizing.
When we struggled it was when teams could slow the offense enough early to play from in front. “Duh, score more points and play good defense...” but seriously, we didn’t relinquish leads, and that usually wasn’t due to our defense.

 

[Randy Carson]

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.

Was the Black Watch an exception to the years of defensive problems?

 

[Randy Carson]

I don't think anyone who posts here or follows the program closely thought our 1's on D were practicing against our own scheme. As you say, we were repping against the scout team getting ready for the next week's opponent.

WTBS, I would imagine that it was being whispered in the ears of recruits. Whether it was true or not doesn't matter. All is fair in love, war AND recruiting.

In that case, I would answer, "NO, I don't think running the TO limits our program as a whole."

If I'm wrong, @4shotB, please explain.

 

[jgtengineer]

yet one particular offensive scheme is credited with everything that has gone well forever. Including the revisionist memories where we never lost.

In truth one particular scheme has been responsible for all of our success at GT outside of 1 year that we lost a championship game 9-6 to wake.

Bobby Dodd ran the bone or the Power run game. Heisman ran the power run with play action passing. Alexander ran the similar single wing. Pepper ran the bone option game. Ross ran the friedgin option/ multiple offense, O'leary ran the fridgin option/multiple offense. and johnson ran the bone/ option offense.

All of these schemes outside of the early dodd power game relied on deception misdirection and scheming an advantage. When tech has tried to just line up and do what the other schools are doign for the trend at the time. We have lost horribly.

 

[JacketFan137]

And you could see CPJ fuming at Roof game after game. But firing Roof was a big political gamble because he was so beloved as a Tech legend.

at the same time it has always bothered me that the option or bust crowd refused to accept that paul was the head coach. he’s not the OC. that defense is just as much on him as the offense and special teams.

i really have no problem with the option as an offense. i just don’t understand why so many people refuse to accept the other problems it brought, and the only response when you bring that up is “bUt CoLLinS iS BaD!!” that is not really what anyone is arguing at this point.

 

[Randy Carson]

at the same time it has always bothered me that the option or bust crowd refused to accept that paul was the head coach. he’s not the OC. that defense is just as much on him as the offense and special teams.

i really have no problem with the option as an offense. i just don’t understand why so many people refuse to accept the other problems it brought, and the only response when you bring that up is “bUt CoLLinS iS BaD!!” that is not really what anyone is arguing at this point.

And I have no problem blaming CPJ for the lousy defense and special teams. So there.

Now, please explain how running the TO created or contributed to these problem areas. I really would like to understand this.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

at the same time it has always bothered me that the option or bust crowd refused to accept that paul was the head coach. he’s not the OC. that defense is just as much on him as the offense and special teams.

i really have no problem with the option as an offense. i just don’t understand why so many people refuse to accept the other problems it brought, and the only response when you bring that up is “bUt CoLLinS iS BaD!!” that is not really what anyone is arguing at this point.

That’s a false comparison and misleading.


Paul said many times publicly that he was not happy with the defense. Yes, I cut him slack because he was not given the support he asked for to get who he wanted. Blaming that on the TO just doesn’t even make sense.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

yet one particular offensive scheme is credited with everything that has gone well forever. Including the revisionist memories where we never lost.

Could you please quote for me who has said that?

 

[Randy Carson]

Could you please quote for me who has said that?

Aw...now you're just running up the score!

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Including the revisionist memories where we never lost.

Literally no one these boards has ever said that....

 

[JacketFan137]

That’s a false comparison and misleading.


Paul said many times publicly that he was not happy with the defense. Yes, I cut him slack because he was not given the support he asked for to get who he wanted. Blaming that on the TO just doesn’t even make sense.

it’s not the triple option it’s just the pitfalls of running it. it hampers recruits on both sides of the ball/the coaches running the option can’t recruit. either way, it’s an issue and somehow paul gets a pass for that and it’s mind boggling.

if we can bring an option coach that can run a good defense and actually recruit the athletes needed to compete ON BOTH SIDES OF THE BALL im all ears. so far that doesn’t exist