Willie Fritz and the spread option

AE 87

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,030
I will say it again: I want CGC to do well here. I am hopeful that the attention paid to establishing the juice and energy and effort culture will pay-off when our offense and defense begin to click.

However, we need to be honest that we haven't seen it yet. Those saying that our fanbase would not be satisfied with Fritz's work at Tulane, given its reaction to CGC are ignoring some basic facts:
1) Tulane was 3-9 in the year before Fritz was hired, not a bowl team which came in 2nd in its Pwr 5 division.
2) In Fritz's first year, he did not lose to his FCS opponent, he won 66-21.
3) In Fritz's first year, he beat both of his first 2 out of conf Gp5 opponents.
4) In Fritz's first year, his offense scored in every game.​

Again, just because we haven't seen much on the field to be excited about so far, this doesn't mean we won't see it. Let's get behind CGC and his staff as we stay in support of the Jackets.
 

MWBATL

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,589
Willie Fritz record at GSU and beyond:
9-3 2014
8-4 2015
Tulane:
4-8 2016
5-7 2017
7-6 2018


Jeff Monken's record at GSU and beyond:
10-5 (semi-finals) 2010
11-3 (semi-finals) 2011
10-4 (semi-finals) 2012
7-4 2013
Army:
4-8 2014
2-10 2015
8-5 2016
10-3 2017
11-2 2018

If want a former GSU coach, why choose Willie Fritz?
Problem is, we dont play Army's schedule....and we the issue still remains as to whether any coach can recruit the 3O at a P5 university with any decent results. I have a ton of respect for CPJ and the concept of trying to do something schematically to gain an edge, but it seemed to suffer as time went by and the recruiting stayed below average.
 

Longestday

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
2,856
@MWBATL only time will tell on recruiting. I have no doubt that it will uptick due to change in offense, but GT is not easy to recruit and harder to keep athletes on track for a degree.

I'm sure everyone will be on the bad wagon whenever the winning starts.
 

vamosjackets

GT Athlete
Featured Member
Messages
2,156
Problem is, we dont play Army's schedule....and we the issue still remains as to whether any coach can recruit the 3O at a P5 university with any decent results. I have a ton of respect for CPJ and the concept of trying to do something schematically to gain an edge, but it seemed to suffer as time went by and the recruiting stayed below average.
Do we play Tulane's schedule or Temple's schedule? But, you feel good about a coach who won 7 or 8 games with Temple's schedule, huh? Or one that won 4, 5, or 7 games with Tulane's schedule? Makes a lot of sense.

LOL ... any decent results... just a couple Orange bowls, an ACC-Championship, multiple Coastal titles, 3 Coach-of-the-year awards, 3 wins over UGA in Athens, a couple plays away from winning 2 more and actually going .500 against them, 4 points away from the CFP. And, all that with no defense AND WITH OUR BUDGET!!! But, that's not decent, though right? It couldn't be that you're just insanely biased against the option?

You say it suffered as time went by. Even last year we were 11th in the nation in offensive points per drive. We were 2 plays away last year from winning 9 in the regular season. Here's our # of wins: 9, 11, 6, 8, 7, 7, 11, 3, 9, 5, 7 ... The narrative of a downward trend simply does not fit the data. Here's the real narrative: We were almost always good, and sometimes we were ridiculously good when we had a just a couple of pieces. We had the pieces in the pipeline to be ridiculous again, with Graham/Yates/Knight at QB, a nasty OL (for the option, Lee, Braun, Cooper, Hansen, Quinney and good depth with Clark, Minihan, Maye, and Austin Smith looking like another potential monster as a developing option OL'man), a 3-4 headed monster at BB (Benson, Mason, Howard, Malloy, Amerson - one of those guys becomes a monster at AB), Malachi Carter, Jalen Camp, and Sanders at WR, Dontae Smith, Tobias Oliver, Cottrell, Jarrett, Ellison, Whatley, and Blancato at AB ... and a DC who at his last stop was top 20 every year past the first one. Again, this is with our budget... Nope, I don't see a downward trend with those personnel coming through on offense. I see the opposite.
 

smokey_wasp

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,486
Seems to me, for some (maybe for many), winning isn't the primary objective.

Not really fair and that's kinda the accusation that's been leveled at ya'll option loyalists, isn't it? Hopefully, winning is the primary objective for all of us, but we have a different idea of the path that will best get us there. It isn't as if the last 20 years of GT football have given us a definitive answer on that, either, if you look at the winning percentages.

Certainly there are some who unconditionally love or hate the previous scheme, but I don't think most of us fall into that category.
 

lv20gt

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,588
LOL ... any decent results... just a couple Orange bowls, an ACC-Championship, multiple Coastal titles, 3 Coach-of-the-year awards, 3 wins over UGA in Athens, a couple plays away from winning 2 more and actually going .500 against them, 4 points away from the CFP. And, all that with no defense AND WITH OUR BUDGET!!! But, that's not decent, though right? It couldn't be that you're just insanely biased against the option?


He was talking about decent recruiting results, and a lot of the results you did talk about were during 08-09 on the back of recruits that were recruited by others. No matter how many different ways you say it, 08, 09, and 14 were just 3 years. We had one notable year with Johnson having his own recruits. It was a great year. It was also a fluke.

We had the pieces in the pipeline to be ridiculous again, with Graham/Yates/Knight at QB, a nasty OL (for the option, Lee, Braun, Cooper, Hansen, Quinney and good depth with Clark, Minihan, Maye, and Austin Smith looking like another potential monster as a developing option OL'man), a 3-4 headed monster at BB (Benson, Mason, Howard, Malloy, Amerson - one of those guys becomes a monster at AB), Malachi Carter, Jalen Camp, and Sanders at WR, Dontae Smith, Tobias Oliver, Cottrell, Jarrett, Ellison, Whatley, and Blancato at AB

You listed a ton of names of people who hadn't proven anything. We weren't set up to be great on offense again. We were closer to being set up for another 2015. Also, Braun was gone regardless.
 

Pointer

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,801
... Hopefully, winning is the primary objective for all of us, but we have a different idea of the path that will best get us there. It isn't as if the last 20 years of GT football have given us a definitive answer on that, either, if you look at the winning percentages.

Certainly there are some who unconditionally love or hate the previous scheme, but I don't think most of us fall into that category.

Completely agree and I hope it works out, I really do, but many of us are skeptical for a good reason.

We could be wrong, which is why I haven't posted much lately. This year is what it is, but I do want to see some results soon. Winning the next couple years would be great (I mean a winning record, which isn't asking for much) but more importantly, I want to see all these 4 and 5 star recruits we've been promised. So far I'm not seeing that in this class. It's actually pretty status quo.

But I hope I'm wrong, I hope the current projected path to success works, that would be fantastic.
 

vamosjackets

GT Athlete
Featured Member
Messages
2,156
Not really fair and that's kinda the accusation that's been leveled at ya'll option loyalists, isn't it? Hopefully, winning is the primary objective for all of us, but we have a different idea of the path that will best get us there. It isn't as if the last 20 years of GT football have given us a definitive answer on that, either, if you look at the winning percentages.

Certainly there are some who unconditionally love or hate the previous scheme, but I don't think most of us fall into that category.
I don't think of myself as an "option-loyalist", though I can see why you would think of me that way. I do think that it has indisputable schematic/mathematical advantages, which is why I really like it. But, if there was a scheme that produced the same or better with equal talent, I'd like that scheme just as much. If someone wanted to bring Mike Leach or a Mike Leach protege here because they felt it gave us a scheme that would be to our advantage, I'd be completely on board with that. I certainly wouldn't be able to argue against it because the data back up that argument. (Side note: This was also why I really liked the Nate Woody hire - his scheme is extremely different than any other out there in college football and it had proven to be extremely effective over a long period of time, which is why I think it could've been very good here. That doesn't make me a "Slant-50 loyalist".)

If we're going to try to win by out-recruiting everyone (and I would love it if we could do that) I would have to question the sense in that approach.

Genuine question with hope for fruitful discussion: Do you think we're going to be able to win by out-recruiting everyone?
 

Pointer

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,801
...recruits. It was a great year. It was also a fluke.



You listed a ton of names of people who hadn't proven anything. We weren't set up to be great on offense again. We were closer to being set up for another 2015. Also, Braun was gone regardless.
You just like to discredit anything from the previous staff. 14 was a success because although the defense wasnt good, they got a lot of take-aways. Hence the great season.

Also was 2016 a fluke?

We all don't have to be so hostile, but at least try to be factual.
 

Pointer

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,801
I don't think of myself as an "option-loyalist", though I can see why you would think of me that way. I do think that it has indisputable schematic/mathematical advantages, which is why I really like it. But, if there was a scheme that produced the same or better with equal talent, I'd like that scheme just as much. If someone wanted to bring Mike Leach or a Mike Leach protege here because they felt it gave us a scheme that would be to our advantage, I'd be completely on board with that. I certainly wouldn't be able to argue against it because the data back up that argument. (Side note: This was also why I really liked the Nate Woody hire - his scheme is extremely different than any other out there in college football and it had proven to be extremely effective over a long period of time, which is why I think it could've been very good here. That doesn't make me a "Slant-50 loyalist".)

If we're going to try to win by out-recruiting everyone (and I would love it if we could do that) I would have to question the sense in that approach.

Genuine question with hope for fruitful discussion: Do you think we're going to be able to win by out-recruiting everyone?
Post of the year!

This is Georgia tech, we should be out smarting/out scheming everyone.

Also why I was so excited about Nate Woody and why I love the option, but yes Id be all for a Mike Leach style air raid offense!!
 
Top