Willie Fritz and the spread option

[smokey_wasp]

I remember a Sunday night NFL game a few years ago when they rotated through the starting lineups stating their name and when they went to school. There were three starters from one team that went to FCS schools. The NFL spends a lot more money finding talent from a much smaller pool than colleges do. If you have ability, they will find you.

In general, yes, the NFL will find you if you have the talent. But if you don't have the tape, they may not find you as high in the draft as they should, which could cost you a lot of $

 

[RespectAPA]

I mean, so far it has NOT appealed to the elite players everyone covets. That's not an opinion at this point - it's fact. It's one of several reasons other P5 schools flat-out aren't running this scheme nor came after PJ for openings nor Monken nor Ken N.

While we're talking about things that are not opinion, but fact, Ken N was hired at Arizona. The fact that it fell out after the Tate tweet doesn't change the fact that option coaches are taken seriously among people in the know.

 

[UgaBlows]

The NFL scouts and finds the players who can play, it doesnt matter where they play or what system they play in. That’s proven by the WR’s that made it to the NFL despite catching miniscule passes per game. The lack of player representation in the NFL by GT is an indictment on CPJ’s recruiting, not his scheme

 

[smokey_wasp]

While we're talking about things that are not opinion, but fact, Ken N was hired at Arizona. The fact that it fell out after the Tate tweet doesn't change the fact that option coaches are taken seriously among people in the know.

He wasn't hired. They were reportedly close, though, as was BYU. But you are kind of burying the lede: the fact that the players revolted against the proposed hire. I think there are a handful of schools who would do well to consider it, but AD's don't want to deal with the negative reactions from fans, nor the wave of players entering the portal. Remember: transferring was a little harder back when we hired CPJ. Dunno if we could keep a Demaryus Thomas type of player under those circumstances today.

 

[SteamWhistle]

You are conflating two different topics.
1. GT recruited NFL-level OL'men or not.
2. NFL-level OL'men were able to go to the NFL from GT or not.

Those are two completely different topics. You started with topic #2 and arguing that OL'men would go to the NFL from factories and wouldn't go from GT. But, now you've moved to topic #1 and are arguing that GT didn't recruit NFL-level OL'men. Do you see how that's not the same thing?

If, for some reason, you want to argue that GT didn't recruit any NFL-level OL'men outside of Shaq, I wouldn't argue with you, I would agree with you. We had a LOT of trouble recruiting NFL-level OL'men, but were able to recruit a lot of good OL'men for our system.

I don't know what you mean by "Uzzi, Parker both should've went".We already talked about Uzzi. I'm the one that brought him up. Injuries prevented him from going to the NFL. He had to have surgery after his senior season and couldn't play anymore. There was interest in him from NFL scouts, and it's unfortunate. Wasn't the first or last time a career was ended by injury. Are you talking about Parker Braun?? He transferred and is now still playing college football for Texas. I have no idea what your point is about him.

You still haven't named anyone that GT or its scheme "held back" from the NFL. You're going to have to do that to have any sort of argument at all. It seems to me that every single NFL-level talent GT had at any position on offense (and defense for that matter) went to the NFL, and you're going to have a very difficult time proving otherwise. I have evidence on this side of the argument. You have exactly zero evidence on that side. It's over.

The whole time I’ve been saying Tech couldn’t recruit or produce NFL talent because of the scheme and you could only give me one example.

 

[vamosjackets]

The whole time I’ve been saying Tech couldn’t recruit or produce NFL talent because of the scheme and you could only give me one example.

Exactly!! I rest my case.


Or, if you want to ignore the strictly logical fallacy you're committing here, let's base it on evidence. Let's compare my example of the GT option scheme "producing" NFL talent to your example of GT's option scheme holding back NFL talent ... oh, that's right, you don't have one. It's not your fault though. The reason you don't have an example is because there aren't any.

 

[Animal02]

Exactly!! I rest my case.


Or, if you want to ignore the strictly logical fallacy you're committing here, let's base it on evidence. Let's compare my example of the GT option scheme "producing" NFL talent to your example of GT's option scheme holding back NFL talent ... oh, that's right, you don't have one. It's not your fault though. The reason you don't have an example is because there aren't any.

NFL talent accounts for what? About 2% of all players. With the extremely limited resources for recruiting as well as the academic issues..... doesn't even make a lot of sense to chase them with the rest of the crowd.

 

[TheFlyest]

The NFL scouts and finds the players who can play, it doesnt matter where they play or what system they play in. That’s proven by the WR’s that made it to the NFL despite catching miniscule passes per game. The lack of player representation in the NFL by GT is an indictment on CPJ’s recruiting, not his scheme

Both and maybe a little more.

 

[SteamWhistle]

NFL talent accounts for what? About 2% of all players. With the extremely limited resources for recruiting as well as the academic issues..... doesn't even make a lot of sense to chase them with the rest of the crowd.

NFL talent accounts for Paul’s 2 best seasons. His 2 best teams had more NFL talent then the rest of his other teams combined. It’s crazy what NFL Dlineman and Olineman can do in college and we saw it in 2009 and 2014. The people who think Paul won with subpar talent are just ignoring the facts. Years where we had average talent Tech was just average. I don’t get the argument that Paul was a do more with less guy his recruiting was on Par with Gailey’s and their winning % was pretty much the same too.

 

[RickStromFan]

While we're talking about things that are not opinion, but fact, Ken N was hired at Arizona. The fact that it fell out after the Tate tweet doesn't change the fact that option coaches are taken seriously among people in the know.

No he wasn't. ARI withdrew interest once Tate's tweet went public.

 

[BleedGoldNWhite21]

Commendable reply, but:
(a) Dang...I thought that three (or less) losses in a season was something that we are shooting for; three losses pretty much means at least a 10-win season.

...but on the other hand...

(b) Yeah, those those particular losses were painful. I just wanted to remind everyone that the later wins over top-ranked teams were fact, too...and I think they outweigh the earlier losses.

I guess my main point was that I'm kinda tired of seeing the 2014 season being used as the hapless child in a hostile divorce..."Mom" and "Dad" just need to butt out and let 2014 be what it was—exceptional.

It is odd that you say it was a great season "but".....but two losses mid season....but a close loss to a great FSU team in the ACCCG. Guess it's just a matter of parsing the difference between great or very good? I think by Tech standards both 2014 and 1998 were great seasons. Not as great as 1990 but great.

I totally agree and freely admit bias here: I had season tix in the late 90s and saw just about every game in 1998, including the fun Bowl win over hated Notre Dame. JoeHam and those WRs are some of my favorite alltime GT football players and really helped us get out of the B**L** doldrums. Plus, it led to the BS failed Heisman candidacy in 1999 and the start of 3 in a row over the mutts after a lengthy drought against those jerks.

I don't have the personal connection with the 2014 team, though enjoyed watching the mutt and OB wins.

Interesting discussion here.

Both seasons were great and no harm on which team one may prefer(and personal bias certainly plays a factor in these kinds of things. For example, I have a very soft spot for the mediocre 2005 team due to the fact that watching Tech football that season helped me during a difficult time). However, I think the 2014 team definitely had more milestones against a tougher schedule(based on opponent’s final records and final rankings).

1998’s team played 7 teams that went bowling and beat 6 of them.

2014’s team played 11 teams that went bowling and beat 8 of them

1998’s team beat three teams that finished ranked in the top 25. (UGA #12,UVA #18, ND #22)

2014’s team beat three teams that finished ranked in the top 25. (UGA #9, MSU #11, Clemson #15)

1998’s team finished #9 after winning The Gator Bowl.

2014’s team finished #8 after winning The Orange Bowl


The Orange Bowl win was obviously a huge win historically for us, being our first win in a major bowl since the 1960s and it was against a good SEC team that spent like a month ranked #1. The win against UGA was also huge and historic. It’s our only win against a top 10 UGA team post WWII(maybe ever, but I couldn’t find rankings pre-1944) and it happened IN ATHENS IN OT! On top of that, we ended the season with three straight games against teams that were ranked in the top ten at kickoff and we went 2-1 against them. That never happens to us. To add to the “historic” aspect of our season, ESPN had to change the way they calculate offensive efficiency because our offense literally broke their formula it was so successful, which is pretty funny.

Regarding the losses, both teams lost to elite FSU teams. 2014 lost to a good Duke team(9-4) and a bad UNC team(6-7). 1998 lost to a bad Boston College team(4-7). You can say 2 losses is better than 3, and that’s true, but 2014 also played two more games. And again, based on opponents records and rankings, 2014 had a tougher schedule.

The 2014 team was also more competitive in their losses. 1998’s team lost their two games by a combined 37 points while the 2014 team lost its three games by a combined 15 points, with all three being one position games.

I think the 2014 team wins based on the historic wins and the literal stat breaking machine that was our offense, but the 1998 team was awesome in its own right.

 

[vamosjackets]

NFL talent accounts for Paul’s 2 best seasons. His 2 best teams had more NFL talent then the rest of his other teams combined. It’s crazy what NFL Dlineman and Olineman can do in college and we saw it in 2009 and 2014. The people who think Paul won with subpar talent are just ignoring the facts. Years where we had average talent Tech was just average. I don’t get the argument that Paul was a do more with less guy his recruiting was on Par with Gailey’s and their winning % was pretty much the same too.

So you're saying Paul's 2014 team had more talent than Clemson, Ugag, FSU, and MSU (not to mention VT, Miami, UNC, UVA, etc)? What about that argument you were making earlier about Paul not being able to recruit and/or produce NFL talent with his system? Contradiction?

The reason it's often said that CPJ was a "do more with less" coach is because, normally, he had less than his opponents and yet beat them most of the time. His recruiting ranking was usually lower than most of the ACC, yet he usually finished near the top of the ACC.

BTW, CCG was also known as a "do more with less" coach as well, and for the same reason (recruiting ranking vs season ranking). Many will say that was because CJT's defenses were the ones doing more with less (which they most definitely did).

 

[Sidewalking]

Midway through the season and Tech fans are still arguing about the last coach. That says a lot right there. Surely this argument can't continue logically next year also? If so............

 

[UgaBlows]

Midway through the season and Tech fans are still arguing about the last coach. That says a lot right there. Surely this argument can't continue logically next year also? If so............

It’s groundhog day, everyday for us