UVA vs. Navy

[vamosjackets]

The circular logic they are using is mind boggling. Gimmick offense...smh.

Had to edit out and delete the rest to prevent anyone from getting their feelings hurt.

Yeah, I had written more too and decided to delete it to tone down the "harsh" factor.

 

[SteamWhistle]

The circular logic they are using is mind boggling. Gimmick offense...smh.

Had to edit out and delete the rest to prevent anyone from getting their feelings hurt.

It is a gimmick offense, look up the definition of gimmick. We use one every play. Nothing you say over a message board will hurt my feelings either, feel free to add in what ever insult you originally had. If me talking about our offense makes you angry enough to want to say something personal then I don't know what to tell you. I'm aware that other teams use gimmicks as well, but our offense is built around them. We are the only p5 in the country that runs it for a reason, Syracuse, Boston College and Wake Forrest all won more than us with less talent this year. Yeah Paul has 3 wins over UGA, an ACC title and Orange bowl, but he did that with 2 of the greatest QBs in GT history.

 

[Eli]

It is a gimmick offense, look up the definition of gimmick. We use one every play. Nothing you say over a message board will hurt my feelings either, feel free to add in what ever insult you originally had. If me talking about our offense makes you angry enough to want to say something personal then I don't know what to tell you. I'm aware that other teams use gimmicks as well, but our offense is built around them. We are the only p5 in the country that runs it for a reason, Syracuse, Boston College and Wake Forrest all won more than us with less talent this year. Yeah Paul has 3 wins over UGA, an ACC title and Orange bowl, but he did that with 2 of the greatest QBs in GT history.

In that case every offense is a gimmick offense. Paul had to develop the qbs. They didn't come here being great. Chan did none of those things with some of the best defenses we will probably ever see and the greatest player ever at Georgia Tech. And please do not bring up wake forest, boston college and Syracuse as part of your argument. Look at their last 10 years compared to ours. Boston college didn't win an acc game at one point in like 3 years.

 

[THWG]

I could care less what system we run as long as we win games with it. I honestly love watching the option at Tech, but if we decide to change philosophies in the near future, then I'm all for it as long as it leads to wins.

 

[tech_wreck47]

Middle Tennessee has less talent and beat us without running a gimmick offense. You don't have to have an equalizer to win.

Yes, but that’s not something that happens on a consistent basis.

 

[Eli]

Yes, but that’s not something that happens on a consistent basis.

I wonder why no other p5 team runs Mike leachs offense? Damn gimmick throwing the ball

 

[Techster]

I wonder why no other p5 team runs Mike leachs offense? Damn gimmick throwing the ball

I guess my sarcasm meter is off this morning, because...um...lol

 

[RamblinWreck92]

Flat line mediocrity is worse than sine curve mediocrity.

Sadly, that's the debate we're reduced to. Better to have won and lost than never to have won at all?

 

[jacketup]

Please share the other P5 team that runs the T0? Ask yourself why?

And while Eli is at it, he can identify how many other P5 teams have a head coach that is also the offensive coordinator and explain why.

This idea that the TO is somehow perfect for GT is just lame. O'Leary averaged 32.7 points/game from 97-01. The last 5 years Johnson has averaged 31.7 points/game. It's not the scheme.

We don't really run TO anyway. What Johnson is great at--and maybe the best--is designing blocking schemes. That's his expertise--not TO. He's a good offensive coordinator, but in modern college football you can't be the HC and the OC and do a good job at both. That's why our record over the last 8 years has been mediocre. He needs to pick one job or the other and become an expert OC or an expert HC and quit trying to do both.

 

[Techster]

Sadly, that's the debate we're reduced to. Better to have won and lost than never to have won at all?

Interesting discussion to have:

CPJ has gone to 3 ACCCGs, won 1. CPJ has taken us to 2 OBs, won 1. He's also had 3 losing seasons in 10 years.
Chan Gailey took GT to 1 ACCCG, but none of the major bowls. Went to a bowl game all 6 years of his time at GT. No losing seasons.

Naysayers for CPJ can say one of the ACCCGs and OB is due to Gailey's players, and one of the ACCCGs was due to Miami and UNC having to self ban themselves ahead of getting smacked by the NCAA. He was also given 10 years here versus Chan's 6 years.

Naysayers for Chan can say he never beat UGA, never won an ACC title despite having one of the most talented GT rosters in 2006 (seriously, look at the guys that would go on to the NFL from that team). Chan also had to clean up some of O'Leary's mess with the NCAA, developed talent that was rated subpar by today's standards, and got fired just as he started to "figure out" recruiting. When he "figured it out", they fired him and CPJ was the beneficiary of a talented roster.

Bottom line. No coach ever has it easy at GT.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Interesting discussion to have:

CPJ has gone to 3 ACCCGs, won 1. CPJ has taken us to 2 OBs, won 1. He's also had 3 losing seasons in 10 years.
Chan Gailey took GT to 1 ACCCG, but none of the major bowls. Went to a bowl game all 6 years of his time at GT. No losing seasons.

Naysayers for CPJ can say one of the ACCCGs and OB is due to Gailey's players, and one of the ACCCGs was due to Miami and UNC having to self ban themselves ahead of getting smacked by the NCAA. He was also given 10 years here versus Chan's 6 years.

Naysayers for Chan can say he never beat UGA, never won an ACC title despite having one of the most talented GT rosters in 2006 (seriously, look at the guys that would go on to the NFL from that team). Chan also had to clean up some of O'Leary's mess with the NCAA, developed talent that was rated subpar by today's standards, and got fired just as he started to "figure out" recruiting. When he "figured it out", they fired him and CPJ was the beneficiary of a talented roster.

Bottom line. No coach ever has it easy at GT.

Eh, the real question is do the occasional highs outweigh the occasional lows? I say yes. I'd rather have 3 super exciting years in ten than none. Even if I have to endure 3 crap years.

 

[Techster]

Eh, the real question is do the occasional highs outweigh the occasional lows? I say yes. I'd rather have 3 super exciting years in ten than none. Even if I have to endure 3 crap years.

Let's be real: GT fans are gonna b!tch no matter what.

 

[tech_wreck47]

I wonder why no other p5 team runs Mike leachs offense? Damn gimmick throwing the ball

That dude is awesome lol

 

[Eli]

And while Eli is at it, he can identify how many other P5 teams have a head coach that is also the offensive coordinator and explain why.

This idea that the TO is somehow perfect for GT is just lame. O'Leary averaged 32.7 points/game from 97-01. The last 5 years Johnson has averaged 31.7 points/game. It's not the scheme.

We don't really run TO anyway. What Johnson is great at--and maybe the best--is designing blocking schemes. That's his expertise--not TO. He's a good offensive coordinator, but in modern college football you can't be the HC and the OC and do a good job at both. That's why our record over the last 8 years has been mediocre. He needs to pick one job or the other and become an expert OC or an expert HC and quit trying to do both.

Just off the top of my head mark richt is the oc at Miami

 

[vamosjackets]

It is a gimmick offense, look up the definition of gimmick. We use one every play. Nothing you say over a message board will hurt my feelings either, feel free to add in what ever insult you originally had. If me talking about our offense makes you angry enough to want to say something personal then I don't know what to tell you. I'm aware that other teams use gimmicks as well, but our offense is built around them. We are the only p5 in the country that runs it for a reason, Syracuse, Boston College and Wake Forrest all won more than us with less talent this year. Yeah Paul has 3 wins over UGA, an ACC title and Orange bowl, but he did that with 2 of the greatest QBs in GT history.

I followed your advice:
Gimmick: a trick or device intended to attract attention, publicity, or business. (first definition to pop up on google)

I seriously don't follow your logic.

And, here's what I would've typed but decided to delete because it may sound harsh or may get the thread derailed even more:
Every American should have to pass a class in logic in order to graduate high school. Here in the post-modern world, we have gone away from logic due to the failings of modernism, and replaced it almost completely with feelings. There is no truth, or if there is, then logic can't get you there, so whatever feels right to you is right. "Logic" follows feelings rather than feelings following from logic. Non-sequiturs, red-herrings, straw-men ... these are how the marketing and retail industry tick - they rely on the public's inability to identify a logically-flawed argument to get people to trade money for what they're selling. So, let's put a car or clothes or beer or soap or whatever on a commercial with attractive women or a picture of a desirable lifestyle where everybody is smiling. The logic is:
Premise 1: You want this lifestyle (or girl or whatever).
Premise 2: People who use this product have this lifestyle.
Conclusion: Buy this product, and you will also have this lifestyle.

OR

Premise 1: You want to be happy.
Premise 2: People who use this product are happy.
Conclusion: Use this product and you'll be happy.


Why does this argument not lead to truth? Can you spot the flaw? Is it unsound or invalid? Most people rely on feelings to make decisions rather than truth, which is what companies rely on because it drives sales. This is also how politics and campaigns often work and why we're in the polarized mess we're in right now. One side has especially gone away from logic to the route of feelings (although over the last year or so it's sometimes indistinguishable), but both use flawed logic all the time. If every American could become just somewhat appreciative of logic, we would have a better society, though still far from perfect.

In our case it's:
Premise 1: Recruiting is the key to a successful program.
Premise 2: Recruiting rankings are the key to recruiting.
Premise 3: CPJ's system hurts recruiting rankings.
Conclusion: CPJ's system keeps us from having a successful program.
Flaws: 1. Due to inherent academic, cultural, and financial factors we will never win over our rivals by recruiting alone. 2. CPJ's system actually takes advantage of the types of players we can get, which is why we turned QB's who weren't sure-fire successes for other programs into two of the greatest QB's in our history (assuming we're talking about JT and JfN). 3. Recruiting rankings are not the key to recruiting, especially for our offense, although they are unquestionably correlated. 4. CPJ's recruiting has been on par with GT's history, so his offense hurting recruiting is not a proven fact. Therefore, this argument does not lead to truth because it is unsound.

Or worse:

Premise 1: Offenses that work are never stopped.
Premise 2: We were stopped in that game (or on that play, or possibly even we had a bad season, depending on one's attention span)
Conclusion: Our offense doesn't work.
Flaws: Premise 1 is false. Therefore this argument does not lead to truth because it is unsound.

Here's my evaluation of your particular logic with the "gimmick" comment:
Premise 1: A gimmick is a trick intended to attract attention.
Premise 2: Our offense tries to attract attention to 3 different possible ball carriers in order to open up space for the actual ball carrier.
Conclusion: Our offense is a gimmick offense.

So, my 2 responses to you are:
1. OK, so we're a gimmick. Is that supposed to be an insult (like calling someone a nerd)??? I would hope we would be a gimmick. If you don't use every player on the field to open up space for the actual ball carrier, then you're going to be really bad at football. Using this logic, I'd be flattered rather than insulted for you to call what I'm doing a gimmick. I hope to God our defense becomes more of a gimmick defense!!!
OR
2. According to your logic, literally every play in every sport that has an offense and defense is a gimmick (from both the offensive and defensive standpoints).

Here is my logic for CPJ's offense:
Premise 1: A numbers advantage gives a greater probability of success on a given play.
Premise 2: The option is defined by a numbers advantage.
Conclusion: The option gives a generally greater probability of success on a series of plays.

AND

Premise 1: The option utilizes different players in key spots than those who would be successful in more conventional offenses.
Premise 2: We can more easily recruit players that aren't built for success in conventional offenses.
Conclusion: The option better utilizes players we can more easily recruit.

AND

Premise 1: It is likely that offenses that have been very successful in the very recent past can be very successful again, all other factors being equal.
Premise 2: CPJ's offense has been very successful in the very recent past.
Conclusion: If all other factors are equal, it is likely that CPJ's offense will be successful again.

 

[tech_wreck47]

And while Eli is at it, he can identify how many other P5 teams have a head coach that is also the offensive coordinator and explain why.

This idea that the TO is somehow perfect for GT is just lame. O'Leary averaged 32.7 points/game from 97-01. The last 5 years Johnson has averaged 31.7 points/game. It's not the scheme.

We don't really run TO anyway. What Johnson is great at--and maybe the best--is designing blocking schemes. That's his expertise--not TO. He's a good offensive coordinator, but in modern college football you can't be the HC and the OC and do a good job at both. That's why our record over the last 8 years has been mediocre. He needs to pick one job or the other and become an expert OC or an expert HC and quit trying to do both.

So we have almost averaged the same amount of points against WAY better competition and less possessions (I’d assume).

What people are ignoring is, there is no other power 5 team that recruits in the 40’s and has all the hurdles CPJ has yet has had the success he has had. Actually he’s had more success than probably 80 percent of other programs. IMO that’s because of what we do, and actually shows he’s a great coach, to take recruiting classes like he has and take them to multiple ACCCG, and Orange Bowls. People forget what other programs in the country are doing and that very very few are consistent teams. They just look at what their team has done and wonder why it’s not better when not many teams have it better.

 

[Eli]

So we have almost averaged the same amount of points against WAY better competition and less possessions (I’d assume).

What people are ignoring is, there is no other power 5 team that recruits in the 40’s and has all the hurdles CPJ has yet has had the success he has had. Actually he’s had more success than probably 80 percent of other programs. IMO that’s because of what we do, and actually shows he’s a great coach, to take recruiting classes like he has and take them to multiple ACCCG, and Orange Bowls. People forget what other programs in the country are doing and that very very few are consistent teams. They just look at what their team has done and wonder why it’s not better when not many teams have it better.

http://www.espn.com/college-footbal...ll-group-head-coaches-calling-their-own-plays

There are now two more I know of richt and Lincoln riley. But the entire list is really impressive. So for anyone to say it can't be done is ignorant

 

[SteamWhistle]

I followed your advice:
Gimmick: a trick or device intended to attract attention, publicity, or business. (first definition to pop up on google)

I seriously don't follow your logic.

And, here's what I would've typed but decided to delete because it may sound harsh or may get the thread derailed even more:
Every American should have to pass a class in logic in order to graduate high school. Here in the post-modern world, we have gone away from logic due to the failings of modernism, and replaced it almost completely with feelings. There is no truth, or if there is, then logic can't get you there, so whatever feels right to you is right. "Logic" follows feelings rather than feelings following from logic. Non-sequiturs, red-herrings, straw-men ... these are how the marketing and retail industry tick - they rely on the public's inability to identify a logically-flawed argument to get people to trade money for what they're selling. So, let's put a car or clothes or beer or soap or whatever on a commercial with attractive women or a picture of a desirable lifestyle where everybody is smiling. The logic is:
Premise 1: You want this lifestyle (or girl or whatever).
Premise 2: People who use this product have this lifestyle.
Conclusion: Buy this product, and you will also have this lifestyle.

OR

Premise 1: You want to be happy.
Premise 2: People who use this product are happy.
Conclusion: Use this product and you'll be happy.


Why does this argument not lead to truth? Can you spot the flaw? Is it unsound or invalid? Most people rely on feelings to make decisions rather than truth, which is what companies rely on because it drives sales. This is also how politics and campaigns often work and why we're in the polarized mess we're in right now. One side has especially gone away from logic to the route of feelings (although over the last year or so it's sometimes indistinguishable), but both use flawed logic all the time. If every American could become just somewhat appreciative of logic, we would have a better society, though still far from perfect.

In our case it's:
Premise 1: Recruiting is the key to a successful program.
Premise 2: Recruiting rankings are the key to recruiting.
Premise 3: CPJ's system hurts recruiting rankings.
Conclusion: CPJ's system keeps us from having a successful program.
Flaws: 1. Due to inherent academic, cultural, and financial factors we will never win over our rivals by recruiting alone. 2. CPJ's system actually takes advantage of the types of players we can get, which is why we turned QB's who weren't sure-fire successes for other programs into two of the greatest QB's in our history (assuming we're talking about JT and JfN). 3. Recruiting rankings are not the key to recruiting, especially for our offense, although they are unquestionably correlated. 4. CPJ's recruiting has been on par with GT's history, so his offense hurting recruiting is not a proven fact. Therefore, this argument does not lead to truth because it is unsound.

Or worse:

Premise 1: Offenses that work are never stopped.
Premise 2: We were stopped in that game (or on that play, or possibly even we had a bad season, depending on one's attention span)
Conclusion: Our offense doesn't work.
Flaws: Premise 1 is false. Therefore this argument does not lead to truth because it is unsound.

Here's my evaluation of your particular logic with the "gimmick" comment:
Premise 1: A gimmick is a trick intended to attract attention.
Premise 2: Our offense tries to attract attention to 3 different possible ball carriers in order to open up space for the actual ball carrier.
Conclusion: Our offense is a gimmick offense.

So, my 2 responses to you are:
1. OK, so we're a gimmick. Is that supposed to be an insult (like calling someone a nerd)??? I would hope we would be a gimmick. If you don't use every player on the field to open up space for the actual ball carrier, then you're going to be really bad at football. Using this logic, I'd be flattered rather than insulted for you to call what I'm doing a gimmick. I hope to God our defense becomes more of a gimmick defense!!!
OR
2. According to your logic, literally every play in every sport that has an offense and defense is a gimmick (from both the offensive and defensive standpoints).

Here is my logic for CPJ's offense:
Premise 1: A numbers advantage gives a greater probability of success on a given play.
Premise 2: The option is defined by a numbers advantage.
Conclusion: The option gives a generally greater probability of success on a series of plays.

AND

Premise 1: The option utilizes different players in key spots than those who would be successful in more conventional offenses.
Premise 2: We can more easily recruit players that aren't built for success in conventional offenses.
Conclusion: The option better utilizes players we can more easily recruit.

AND

Premise 1: It is likely that offenses that have been very successful in the very recent past can be very successful again, all other factors being equal.
Premise 2: CPJ's offense has been very successful in the very recent past.
Conclusion: If all other factors are equal, it is likely that CPJ's offense will be successful again.

I never used gimmick as an insult. You took it that way, also Chan had successful offenses to but he was fired. This is College Football what you did means nothing, Les Miles won national championship and was fired. If we continue to settle for mediocrity because he beat Georgia a couple of times then Tech will continue to miss bowl games. It is what it is, the offense doesn’t sell seats and recently hasn’t won ball games. It’s a gimmick offense that makes it almost impossible to recruit. I Gurantee you Chan would’ve had just as much success with Nesbitt, Dwyer and DT. The 2007 Class might’ve saved Chan’s job if GT let it. I really don’t get what your little logic rant was about either, completely off topic telling me I don’t use logic because you finally agreed with my point that we run a gimmick offense.

 

[jacobchbe]

I never used gimmick as an insult. You took it that way, also Chan had successful offenses to but he was fired. This is College Football what you did means nothing, Les Miles won national championship and was fired. If we continue to settle for mediocrity because he beat Georgia a couple of times then Tech will continue to miss bowl games. It is what it is, the offense doesn’t sell seats and recently hasn’t won ball games. It’s a gimmick offense that makes it almost impossible to recruit. I Gurantee you Chan would’ve had just as much success with Nesbitt, Dwyer and DT. The 2007 Class might’ve saved Chan’s job if GT let it. I really don’t get what your little logic rant was about either, completely off topic telling me I don’t use logic because you finally agreed with my point that we run a gimmick offense.

 

[tech_wreck47]

I never used gimmick as an insult. You took it that way, also Chan had successful offenses to but he was fired. This is College Football what you did means nothing, Les Miles won national championship and was fired. If we continue to settle for mediocrity because he beat Georgia a couple of times then Tech will continue to miss bowl games. It is what it is, the offense doesn’t sell seats and recently hasn’t won ball games. It’s a gimmick offense that makes it almost impossible to recruit. I Gurantee you Chan would’ve had just as much success with Nesbitt, Dwyer and DT. The 2007 Class might’ve saved Chan’s job if GT let it. I really don’t get what your little logic rant was about either, completely off topic telling me I don’t use logic because you finally agreed with my point that we run a gimmick offense.

I think that’s your mistake. You think we are settling for mediocre, but we haven’t even been mediocre over the span of 10 years. Sure we have had some years like that, but overall it’s not true. We have actually been better than about 80 percent of college teams in the country. I know we all want to win, but the fact is we are better than most programs.