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

[Northeast Stinger]

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

One year. Same could be said for two or three isolated years going back to 1970. We see what it could look like at Tech, in theory, but consistency of good defenses is not a thing at Tech, in my opinion.

2014 was an interesting year for the defense. Don’t know what the overall stats were but I remember prior to the season there was a lot of discussion about forcing fumbles and disguising coverage to encourage interceptions. They set that as a goal and by golly if they didn’t accomplish it. That defense had great team chemistry and seemed to do enough in every game to give us an even chance to win.

More I could say about the few years we were not mediocre on defense but I’ve made my point.

 

[JacketFan137]

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

no one has said that quote but you have to be honest with yourself some people want to pretend like we were a lot better than we were and our team didn’t have some fundamental flaws.

obviously anyone is trading that for what the last 3 seasons were, but i think some people are really lying to themselves here

 

[RonJohn]

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.

I have no problem saying that Johnson was ultimately responsible for the defensive performance. I have no problem saying that Johnson was ultimately responsible for recruiting. But are you willing to admit that GT wouldn't pay for the DCs that Johnson wanted? Are you willing to admit that Duke had double the recruiting support staff that GT had? Are you willing to admit that the TRAVEL staff for Clemson was as large as the ENTIRE football staff for GT back then?

The flexbone was extremely successful as an offense. Most years GT ran the flexbone the offense was in the top 25 offensive FEI. I see the majority of the issues with recruiting and defense as being related to GT getting so far behind the rest of P5 in funding. The HC is ultimately responsible, but the athletic department can't expect good results when they are spending much less than most other P5 football programs. I don't think the offense was anywhere near as much to blame as the lack of support for the program overall.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

no one has said that quote but you have to be honest with yourself some people want to pretend like we were a lot better than we were and our team didn’t have some fundamental flaws.

obviously anyone is trading that for what the last 3 seasons were, but i think some people are really lying to themselves here

Absolutely. Most people here have addressed what the perceived flaws were. Every scheme has flaws. But anecdotal hyperbole like I just addressed is uncalled for.

 

[4shotB]

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.

I don't quibble at all with your opinion nor do I have the time, energy or desire to want to change it. As Paul said, it is what it is.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

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

It’s self fulfilling prophecy in my opinion. We had 10 years of lots of our fans saying on message boards that no one wanted to come here and Paul couldn’t recruit. Hard for me to blame the TO when our own fans negativity recruited against us.

My dream was always for two things to happen. For Tech to get the dual option QB Paul wanted (without injury) and for Tech fans to be united behind the program.

Alas.

 

[ibeattetris]

paul was the head coach. he’s not the OC.

He was the head coach AND the OC. He was listed as both. Comments about him and his offense can be made in the vacuum of the offense because we didn't have to pay for an OC. CPJ the head coach still failed to field defenses. CPJ the OC did not.

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

The bolded part is the problem. What problems did the option bring? If the option "caused" a bad defense, then why has our defense regressed? What did the option actually bring to GT that caused problems?

People try draw these weird conclusions where "since GT runs the option, their defense must suck because the option" while ignoring every other potential variable. Maybe GT was bad on defense because there are systemic issues related to recruiting the DL necessary to run elite defenses at GT. Maybe the defenses were bad because we haven't had a competent DC since Tenuta. The college monetary arms race began while CPJ was our coach, and our AD at the time decided that he would rather sabotage CPJ to get him ran out as opposed to invest similarly to others (Duke had a bigger recruiting staff than GT, yet we blame CPJ and the option solely for bad recruiting lol). GT is still playing catch up to the arms race that other schools had a head start in.

I think CPJ was a great coach who was generally under appreciated by the loudest portion of the fan base. He retired and we moved on. I am fine with no more option. I take issue with blaming the option because it ignores all of the other issues that are plaguing GT. When all you think is "the option caused all our woes" you run into the current situation where you bring in a new OC and change nothing else and you end up worse than where you started.

 

[4shotB]

. I take issue with blaming the option because it ignores all of the other issues that are plaguing GT. When all you think is "the option caused all our woes" you run into the current situation where you bring in a new OC and change nothing else and you end up worse than where you started.

I 100% agree with this. I wish we would unite behind solving the root cause issues. At the end of the day, while this thread is entertaining, we are really deep in the weeds. I think those who don't attend/give/post here understand this and this is why our fan base is shrinking. Not the systems we do or do not employ. In 5-7 years, we will have 3 or 4 of us left in here fanning the flames in this debate.

 

[jgtengineer]

Defense is far harder to recruit for than offense truthfully. What Johnsons style of offense allowed us to do was cut down on the hardest position to recruit in college football (Tackles and Tight ends). Take advantage of the mobile QB being what was needed. And simplified our need son taht side of the ball. Also DT's and our Tackles shared skillsets in common (ripping to the second level etc).

I always thought we were attempting to run the wrong defenses under johnson. A 3-3-5 stack blitizing defense with a 2-3-6 Dime might have worked better for us. That scheme doesn't require a 2 gap DL as its predicated on blitzing atleast two of the backers for run fits and using a rover back SS. Woody's scheme was a 3-4 version of it but truthfully I think we didn't really have the DL for the 3-4 version that still relies on a 2 gap nose. We also flirted with parts of the 3-3-5 scheme under wommack as a nickle package.

Rich Rodriguez's west virginia teams were amazing at runnin the 3-3-5 stack concepts I just wish we could have tried it for a bit while Johnson was the head coach. It is a bit of a leaky defense where if they offense catches you in the wrong stunt you are going to give up a big play. But when paired with a ball control suffocating offense the havoc created and turnovers are worth the risk imo.

Johnson as a coach seemed to prefer ODD fronted defenses everywhere he was.

 

[forensicbuzz]

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.

The issue with the spread option was all perception. The opposing coaches recruited against it and successfully tainted the lazy announcers to hype it as a "high school offense," which then made it all the more difficult to secure top-of-the-line recruits. They also negatively recruited defensive players regarding what would prepare them for the pros. It doesn't matter what the truth is, perception is reality and the reality became that it was not a sexy offense and it wouldn't prepare you for the next level (offensively or defensively) regardless that that was a crock of ****.

 

[rodandanga]

Defense is far harder to recruit for than offense truthfully. What Johnsons style of offense allowed us to do was cut down on the hardest position to recruit in college football (Tackles and Tight ends). Take advantage of the mobile QB being what was needed. And simplified our need son taht side of the ball. Also DT's and our Tackles shared skillsets in common (ripping to the second level etc).

I always thought we were attempting to run the wrong defenses under johnson. A 3-3-5 stack blitizing defense with a 2-3-6 Dime might have worked better for us. That scheme doesn't require a 2 gap DL as its predicated on blitzing atleast two of the backers for run fits and using a rover back SS. Woody's scheme was a 3-4 version of it but truthfully I think we didn't really have the DL for the 3-4 version that still relies on a 2 gap nose. We also flirted with parts of the 3-3-5 scheme under wommack as a nickle package.

Rich Rodriguez's west virginia teams were amazing at runnin the 3-3-5 stack concepts I just wish we could have tried it for a bit while Johnson was the head coach. It is a bit of a leaky defense where if they offense catches you in the wrong stunt you are going to give up a big play. But when paired with a ball control suffocating offense the havoc created and turnovers are worth the risk imo.

Johnson as a coach seemed to prefer ODD fronted defenses everywhere he was.

The reason he favored Odd fronts, and the reason that the Academies still do, IMO, is that DL players are the hardest to recruit and with Odd fronts you have less of them you have to find. Especially the space eating DT's, which might have the lowest supply of all positions.

 

[tomknight]

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

That's what this whole thread is about. It is all sunshine and roses about how great things used to be, without reference to the times that it was really bad.

CPJ was infinitely more successful than CGC has been so far, and CGC has earned his criticism. But some folks are waxing poetically about how unstoppable the prior scheme was, and making the leap that scheme is what we have to do now.

It was really successful, except for when it really wasn't.

Simple point.

 

[ibeattetris]

It was really successful, except for when it really wasn't.

South Carolina only scored 7 against Georgia. I guess normal offenses are successful, until they aren't.
Miami only scored 9 against TAMU. I guess normal offenses are successful, until they aren't.
Auburn only scored 12 against Penn St. I guess normal offenses are successful, until they aren't.
Nebraska only scored 14 against Oklahoma. I guess normal offenses are successful, until they aren't.
GT scored 0 against Ole Miss. I guess normal offenses are successful, until they aren't.

Of course the triple option wasn't successful literally 100% of the time. There is not a single offensive or defensive scheme that is. The *majority* of the time, GT's offense put us in situations to win, and throughout the entire tenure of CPJ, we averaged above a top 25 offense.

 

[lv20gt]

So to summarize under CPJ

When the defense had issues it was because Johnson wasn't allowed to hire who he wanted.
When recruiting had issues it was because the whole world including the administration and fans was out to get him and he got no support.
When the offense had issues it was because of injuries and bad luck.

Damn it must really suck when life itself is out to get you.

 

[JacketFan137]

South Carolina only scored 7 against Georgia. I guess normal offenses are successful, until they aren't.
Miami only scored 9 against TAMU. I guess normal offenses are successful, until they aren't.
Auburn only scored 12 against Penn St. I guess normal offenses are successful, until they aren't.
Nebraska only scored 14 against Oklahoma. I guess normal offenses are successful, until they aren't.
GT scored 0 against Ole Miss. I guess normal offenses are successful, until they aren't.

Of course the triple option wasn't successful literally 100% of the time. There is not a single offensive or defensive scheme that is. The *majority* of the time, GT's offense put us in situations to win, and throughout the entire tenure of CPJ, we averaged above a top 25 offense.

i think if it didn’t look so futile at times against uga and clemson that would have absolved a lot of the complaints. some years like 2016 against clemson felt exactly like our offense has felt this year. i think venables just had johnson’s number bad and there was no way we were gonna do anything about that

 

[ibeattetris]

So to summarize under CPJ

When the defense had issues it was because Johnson wasn't allowed to hire who he wanted.
When recruiting had issues it was because the whole world including the administration and fans was out to get him and he got no support.
When the offense had issues it was because of injuries and bad luck.

Damn it must really suck when life itself is out to get you.

Strawman.

No one is saying those are literally the only reason. I raise issues that also contributed to where GT is today. And by ignoring those issues you allow them to propagate further.

Was CPJ the best recruiter? Of course not. Did CPJ ask for more resources repeatedly and be denied them? Yes. Both of these things can be true, and putting 100% of the blame either way is disingenuous. It's still incredibly fair to say that CPJ was restricted in recruiting, and *could* have been better with more resources. He also might not have been.

 

[Squints]

So to summarize under CPJ

When the defense had issues it was because Johnson wasn't allowed to hire who he wanted.
When recruiting had issues it was because the whole world including the administration and fans was out to get him and he got no support.
When the offense had issues it was because of injuries and bad luck.

Damn it must really suck when life itself is out to get you.

Imagining a guy.

Tricking themselves into believing that guy exists.

And then getting mad about it.

CPJ broke yall's brains.

 

[CEB]

It’s self fulfilling prophecy in my opinion. We had 10 years of lots of our fans saying on message boards that no one wanted to come here and Paul couldn’t recruit. Hard for me to blame the TO when our own fans negativity recruited against us.

My dream was always for two things to happen. For Tech to get the dual option QB Paul wanted (without injury) and for Tech fans to be united behind the program.

Alas.

The other disingenuous points on recruiting:
Because we didn’t recruit as well as some think we should’ve... “you can’t recruit to the option... you’re always at disadvantage”
Recruiting rankings are the only thing you can point to in evaluating recruiting success, but no recruiting services are ranking guys (particularly QBs and OL) based on how well they fit an option scheme.
Recruiting rankings get revisited years later based upon actual performance, and we typically trended up. That could be because they don’t rank option fits very well or because we develop talent. In either case, it makes the freshman year ranking of the class irrelevant (if it ever had relevance to start).
That said, I would’ve loved to recruit better. That was part of the allure of the experiment; power 5 recruiting to the option... I don’t think anything was proven conclusively (big leap, right?)
Finally, I’ve seen many people here claim that offensive and defensive efficiency rankings really aren’t that difference between 30 and 60 rankings. But people are losing their minds if we’re ranked 60 in recruiting vs 30.
For what it’s worth, I want to be recruiting in the 30s or even the 20s. For us, unfortunately, it will be a lagging indicator because we’re going to have to win first to approach that.

 

[JacketFan137]

So to summarize under CPJ

When the defense had issues it was because Johnson wasn't allowed to hire who he wanted.
When recruiting had issues it was because the whole world including the administration and fans was out to get him and he got no support.
When the offense had issues it was because of injuries and bad luck.

Damn it must really suck when life itself is out to get you.

there were a few things out of his control that really did hurt us. our b backs for like 4 years couldn’t stop smoking pot, didn’t show up to meetings, and failed out. would love to know why that position had so many random issues lol

we had some qb transfers and injuries.

aj gray was a special player that got ruled medically ineligible before he ever got to contribute.

he didn’t have it easy but ultimately these are things that all schools deal with it was just magnified cause we are a small program so any of our contributors going down is a big blow vs uga who can just play a different 4* when their player spends the night with clarke county police

 

[JacketFan137]

CPJ broke yall's brains.

can say that in both directions.

i see two sides, people saying the option is our only path to success and the people that think it’s the worst thing ever seen on a football field. neither is right and both look equally hilarious.

personally i don’t mind the actual offense just the baggage that comes with it.