CPJ Mad Bro

This thread is still going because there hasn't been a uniform reveal this week to monopolize your attention.
 
Techbert said:
In this thread, we have some fonts irrationally claiming the talent that CPJ inherited was deficient. This is professionally called "Rationalization" and is a logical fallacy. It is caused "when the individual deals with emotional conflict or internal or external stressors by concealing the true motivations for his or her own thoughts, actions, or feelings through the elaboration of reassuring or self serving but incorrect explanations".

Further clues of mental illness is these are typically the same fonts who get upset if anyone criticizes the level or maturity of talent that CPJ left to his successor, which was clearly inadequate in numbers to field a competitive P5 football team.
Click to expand...
Show me a SINGLE post that suggests that CPJ inherited a team deficient in talent, or left CGC a talented roster. You won't, because there are none. You are entirely projecting an argument onto people that are simply pointing out stats, which you conveniently ignore. Seems to me like your post only applies to you.

Before responding, please address the following:

1) We were projected to be last in the ACC by just about everybody, not just the 3-9 dude at Sports Illustrated. They knew damn well which players were on our roster, yet they thought we would suck. And yes, FWIW, I do agree that Chan would have been projected to win more than 3 and would have indeed done so. He was a pretty decent coach for us.

2) In case you were wondering why we were only expected to win 3 games, it's because we only out-talented 3 of our opponents.

From @goldmember post earlier - the number of rostered NFL players from teams on our schedule in 2008.

UGA - 26
Miami - 25
LSU - 23
Clemson - 22
UNC - 17
FSU - 13
UVA - 12
VT - 12
GT - 8
Miss State - 6
Duke - 4
BC - 0


3) Your personal list of players who "had talent" is absolutely laughable, given your disdain of others' use of subjectivity to make a point. Not to mention, you kind of defeated your own argument. Look at some of the guys you felt the need to point out as particularly "talented":

Jaybo Shaw - a guy who had to transfer to an FCS school
Cooper Taylor - another FCS transfer
Austin Barrick - a TE that had to play A-back and OL because we were so thin
Tevin Washington - love love love the guy, but really??? He was a 2 star with a grand total of one FBS offer


Nobody is saying the 2008 or 2009 teams were bad. By recent standards (my entire lifetime, honestly), they were very good. But they weren't "can't miss" rosters loaded with stars at every position. There were a few extremely talented players, a fairly solid starting lineup, and then the usual duct tape and baling wire to plug holes and hold everything together. And yes, I fully realize that the 2010-2018 rosters were just like that, sans the few stars. It's the reason CPJ never achieved that level of success again outside of 2014.
 
johncu said:
...


3) Your personal list of players who "had talent" is absolutely laughable, given your disdain of others' use of subjectivity to make a point. Not to mention, you kind of defeated your own argument. Look at some of the guys you felt the need to point out as particularly "talented":

Jaybo Shaw - a guy who had to transfer to an FCS school
Cooper Taylor - another FCS transfer
Austin Barrick - a TE that had to play A-back and OL because we were so thin
Tevin Washington - love love love the guy, but really??? He was a 2 star with a grand total of one FBS offer


...
Click to expand...
Shaw was a slip of the pen. You sell Taylor short and you know it. We don't know how well Barrick would have been as TE, but you have to respect a guy that was willing to play running back and offensive line, both. You also sell Washington short and you know it. Who cares what he did in HS?

You can correct your misunderstandings in the rest of your post by rereading this thread.
 
Techbert said:
Shaw was a slip of the pen. You sell Taylor short and you know it. We don't know how well Barrick would have been as TE, but you have to respect a guy that was willing to play running back and offensive line, both. You also sell Washington short and you know it. Who cares what he did in HS?

You can correct your misunderstandings in the rest of your post by rereading this thread.
Click to expand...
No response to the last two, as I expected.
 
aeromech said:
Sorry I do not agree with your analysis at all. LSU manhandled the 2008 team and simply attacked it and mauled it. We didn't have the talent on the OL to counter punch and they were too physical and fast to be finessed. We saw the same thing happen in the Orange Bowl the following year with the 2009 roster. Both games we were totally dominated physically and no amount of scheme or game planning could have stopped it. The team wasn't mentally prepared to get run over by smash mouth football; but everyone was excited to be the biggest bowl we'd been to in a decade or more. Same with 2009, you can't argue we didn't want to be in the Orange Bowl because the roster Gailey left wasn't physical enough on the lines of scrimmage to compete.

There was no team in 1990 that would have physically mauled the 1990 GT anything like that. Some pundits thought Nebraska would be too big and strong for us and we know how that turned out.
Click to expand...
You know what, I had this discussion after the game itself, but people were emotional so I let it go. But this analysis is completely wrong (Iowa OTOH whipped us on both lines. Iowa also basically had NFL lines. LSU was not that good).

Here's the evidence.

1) Time of possession by quarter:
LSU - GT
Possession Time............... 30:41 29:19
1st Quarter................. 6:17 8:43
2nd Quarter................. 10:07 4:53
3rd Quarter................. 7:23 7:37
4th Quarter................. 6:54 8:06

Barring the disastrous 2nd quarter, Tech had as much or more possession than LSU in every quarter including the 1st one.

2) Tech Drives

GT 1st T20 11:52 Kickoff L43 10:20 Punt 4-37 1:32
GT 1st T33 08:08 Punt L07 01:03 *FIELD GOAL 13-60 7:05
GT 2nd T18 00:00 Punt T19 11:20 Fumble 0-1 0:00
GT 2nd T20 08:27 Kickoff T24 06:44 Downs 4-4 1:43
GT 2nd T20 05:21 Kickoff T24 03:12 Punt 3-4 2:09
GT 2nd T15 01:21 Kickoff L48 00:26 Interception 7-37 0:55
GT 3rd T19 14:55 Kickoff L46 11:01 Downs 8-35 3:54
GT 3rd T01 05:16 Downs T03 03:34 Punt 3-2 1:42
GT 3rd T38 01:48 Kickoff L14 13:17 Downs 7-48 3:31
GT 4th T17 07:43 Punt L06 02:37 Fumble 10-77 5:06
GT 4th T50 01:17 Punt L40 00:00 End of half 7-10 1:17

Besides the sequence of Fumble/Turnover on downs/Terrible Punt, Tech had 1 non game ending drive of less than 35 yards. We were able to move the ball in the 1st, 3rd and 4th quarters.

3) LSU drives

LSU 1st L40 15:00 Kickoff T00 11:58 *TOUCHDOWN 7-60 3:02
LSU 1st L16 10:20 Punt L20 08:08 Punt 3-4 2:12
LSU 1st L24 00:57 Kickoff T00 12:08 *TOUCHDOWN 8-76 3:49
LSU 2nd L45 12:06 Kickoff L45 11:20 Punt 3-0 0:46
LSU 2nd T19 11:20 Fumble T00 08:27 *TOUCHDOWN 6-19 2:53
LSU 2nd T24 06:44 Downs T00 05:21 *TOUCHDOWN 2-24 1:23
LSU 2nd T42 03:12 Punt T00 01:27 *TOUCHDOWN 4-42 1:45
LSU 2nd L08 00:26 Interception L07 00:00 End of half 1--1 0:26
LSU 3rd L46 11:01 Downs T01 05:16 Downs 11-53 5:45
LSU 3rd T22 03:34 Punt T36 01:56 *FIELD GOAL 4--14 1:38
LSU 4th L14 13:17 Downs T48 07:43 Punt 11-38 5:34
LSU 4th L06 02:37 Fumble L09 01:17 Punt 3-3 1:20


LSU's offense got us in the first drive where they scored a 40yd touchdown (note, they started at the 40 yard line, which indicates that we committed a penalty on the kickoff. That just goes to show how poor the mental makeup of the team was entering the game). Bu after that they punted with 4 yards and then had a genuinely good drive. After that all their points came off Tech mistakes giving them short fields against a non rested and demoralized Tech defense.

4) Offensive Stats

FIRST DOWNS................... 19 15
Rushing..................... 10 7
Passing..................... 7 7
Penalty..................... 2 1
NET YARDS RUSHING............. 161 164
Rushing Attempts............ 35 40
Average Per Rush............ 4.6 4.1
Rushing Touchdowns.......... 4 0
Yards Gained Rushing........ 179 180
Yards Lost Rushing.......... 18 16
NET YARDS PASSING............. 163 150
Completions-Attempts-Int.... 17-27-0 8-25-1
Average Per Attempt......... 6.0 6.0
Average Per Completion...... 9.6 18.8
Passing Touchdowns.......... 1 0
TOTAL OFFENSE YARDS........... 324 314
Total offense plays......... 62 65
Average Gain Per Play....... 5.2 4.8

Someone looking at those stats would be hard pressed to tell which team won and which team lost. They would imagine it was a hard close fought game ending 24-21 or something.

LSU had 10 more total yards than Tech. Tech had 4.8 yards per play, including averaging 4.1 yards per rush and 6 yards per passing attempt. These are not numbers from a team that was being whipped at the line.

We were averaging a first down every 2 plays. This is not a team that was being whipped at the line of scrimmage.


Tech had the horses to play against LSU, but for whatever reason entered the game playing scared, and consequently made a bunch of unforced errors. And that is why we lost.
 
rghoae said:
You know what, I had this discussion after the game itself, but people were emotional so I let it go. But this analysis is completely wrong (Iowa OTOH whipped us on both lines. Iowa also basically had NFL lines. LSU was not that good).

Here's the evidence.

1) Time of possession by quarter:
LSU - GT
Possession Time............... 30:41 29:19
1st Quarter................. 6:17 8:43
2nd Quarter................. 10:07 4:53
3rd Quarter................. 7:23 7:37
4th Quarter................. 6:54 8:06

Barring the disastrous 2nd quarter, Tech had as much or more possession than LSU in every quarter including the 1st one.

2) Tech Drives

GT 1st T20 11:52 Kickoff L43 10:20 Punt 4-37 1:32
GT 1st T33 08:08 Punt L07 01:03 *FIELD GOAL 13-60 7:05
GT 2nd T18 00:00 Punt T19 11:20 Fumble 0-1 0:00
GT 2nd T20 08:27 Kickoff T24 06:44 Downs 4-4 1:43
GT 2nd T20 05:21 Kickoff T24 03:12 Punt 3-4 2:09
GT 2nd T15 01:21 Kickoff L48 00:26 Interception 7-37 0:55
GT 3rd T19 14:55 Kickoff L46 11:01 Downs 8-35 3:54
GT 3rd T01 05:16 Downs T03 03:34 Punt 3-2 1:42
GT 3rd T38 01:48 Kickoff L14 13:17 Downs 7-48 3:31
GT 4th T17 07:43 Punt L06 02:37 Fumble 10-77 5:06
GT 4th T50 01:17 Punt L40 00:00 End of half 7-10 1:17

Besides the sequence of Fumble/Turnover on downs/Terrible Punt, Tech had 1 non game ending drive of less than 35 yards. We were able to move the ball in the 1st, 3rd and 4th quarters.

3) LSU drives

LSU 1st L40 15:00 Kickoff T00 11:58 *TOUCHDOWN 7-60 3:02
LSU 1st L16 10:20 Punt L20 08:08 Punt 3-4 2:12
LSU 1st L24 00:57 Kickoff T00 12:08 *TOUCHDOWN 8-76 3:49
LSU 2nd L45 12:06 Kickoff L45 11:20 Punt 3-0 0:46
LSU 2nd T19 11:20 Fumble T00 08:27 *TOUCHDOWN 6-19 2:53
LSU 2nd T24 06:44 Downs T00 05:21 *TOUCHDOWN 2-24 1:23
LSU 2nd T42 03:12 Punt T00 01:27 *TOUCHDOWN 4-42 1:45
LSU 2nd L08 00:26 Interception L07 00:00 End of half 1--1 0:26
LSU 3rd L46 11:01 Downs T01 05:16 Downs 11-53 5:45
LSU 3rd T22 03:34 Punt T36 01:56 *FIELD GOAL 4--14 1:38
LSU 4th L14 13:17 Downs T48 07:43 Punt 11-38 5:34
LSU 4th L06 02:37 Fumble L09 01:17 Punt 3-3 1:20


LSU's offense got us in the first drive where they scored a 40yd touchdown (note, they started at the 40 yard line, which indicates that we committed a penalty on the kickoff. That just goes to show how poor the mental makeup of the team was entering the game). Bu after that they punted with 4 yards and then had a genuinely good drive. After that all their points came off Tech mistakes giving them short fields against a non rested and demoralized Tech defense.

4) Offensive Stats

FIRST DOWNS................... 19 15
Rushing..................... 10 7
Passing..................... 7 7
Penalty..................... 2 1
NET YARDS RUSHING............. 161 164
Rushing Attempts............ 35 40
Average Per Rush............ 4.6 4.1
Rushing Touchdowns.......... 4 0
Yards Gained Rushing........ 179 180
Yards Lost Rushing.......... 18 16
NET YARDS PASSING............. 163 150
Completions-Attempts-Int.... 17-27-0 8-25-1
Average Per Attempt......... 6.0 6.0
Average Per Completion...... 9.6 18.8
Passing Touchdowns.......... 1 0
TOTAL OFFENSE YARDS........... 324 314
Total offense plays......... 62 65
Average Gain Per Play....... 5.2 4.8

Someone looking at those stats would be hard pressed to tell which team won and which team lost. They would imagine it was a hard close fought game ending 24-21 or something.

LSU had 10 more total yards than Tech. Tech had 4.8 yards per play, including averaging 4.1 yards per rush and 6 yards per passing attempt. These are not numbers from a team that was being whipped at the line.

We were averaging a first down every 2 rushes. This is not a team that was being whipped at the line of scrimmage.


Tech had the horses to play against LSU, but for whatever reason entered the game playing scared, and consequently made a bunch of unforced errors. And that is why we lost.
Click to expand...
See the Tennessee game for another example. Of course, Tennessee should have been an easy win.
 
JJacket said:
See the Tennessee game for another example. Of course, Tennessee should have been an easy win.
Click to expand...

Who was the aback coach in 2017. Seems like we had a solid 3 year run of abacks fumbling in the redzone.
 
[
rghoae said:
You know what, I had this discussion after the game itself, but people were emotional so I let it go. But this analysis is completely wrong (Iowa OTOH whipped us on both lines. Iowa also basically had NFL lines. LSU was not that good).

Here's the evidence.

1) Time of possession by quarter:
LSU - GT
Possession Time............... 30:41 29:19
1st Quarter................. 6:17 8:43
2nd Quarter................. 10:07 4:53
3rd Quarter................. 7:23 7:37
4th Quarter................. 6:54 8:06

Barring the disastrous 2nd quarter, Tech had as much or more possession than LSU in every quarter including the 1st one.

2) Tech Drives

GT 1st T20 11:52 Kickoff L43 10:20 Punt 4-37 1:32
GT 1st T33 08:08 Punt L07 01:03 *FIELD GOAL 13-60 7:05
GT 2nd T18 00:00 Punt T19 11:20 Fumble 0-1 0:00
GT 2nd T20 08:27 Kickoff T24 06:44 Downs 4-4 1:43
GT 2nd T20 05:21 Kickoff T24 03:12 Punt 3-4 2:09
GT 2nd T15 01:21 Kickoff L48 00:26 Interception 7-37 0:55
GT 3rd T19 14:55 Kickoff L46 11:01 Downs 8-35 3:54
GT 3rd T01 05:16 Downs T03 03:34 Punt 3-2 1:42
GT 3rd T38 01:48 Kickoff L14 13:17 Downs 7-48 3:31
GT 4th T17 07:43 Punt L06 02:37 Fumble 10-77 5:06
GT 4th T50 01:17 Punt L40 00:00 End of half 7-10 1:17

Besides the sequence of Fumble/Turnover on downs/Terrible Punt, Tech had 1 non game ending drive of less than 35 yards. We were able to move the ball in the 1st, 3rd and 4th quarters.

3) LSU drives

LSU 1st L40 15:00 Kickoff T00 11:58 *TOUCHDOWN 7-60 3:02
LSU 1st L16 10:20 Punt L20 08:08 Punt 3-4 2:12
LSU 1st L24 00:57 Kickoff T00 12:08 *TOUCHDOWN 8-76 3:49
LSU 2nd L45 12:06 Kickoff L45 11:20 Punt 3-0 0:46
LSU 2nd T19 11:20 Fumble T00 08:27 *TOUCHDOWN 6-19 2:53
LSU 2nd T24 06:44 Downs T00 05:21 *TOUCHDOWN 2-24 1:23
LSU 2nd T42 03:12 Punt T00 01:27 *TOUCHDOWN 4-42 1:45
LSU 2nd L08 00:26 Interception L07 00:00 End of half 1--1 0:26
LSU 3rd L46 11:01 Downs T01 05:16 Downs 11-53 5:45
LSU 3rd T22 03:34 Punt T36 01:56 *FIELD GOAL 4--14 1:38
LSU 4th L14 13:17 Downs T48 07:43 Punt 11-38 5:34
LSU 4th L06 02:37 Fumble L09 01:17 Punt 3-3 1:20


LSU's offense got us in the first drive where they scored a 40yd touchdown (note, they started at the 40 yard line, which indicates that we committed a penalty on the kickoff. That just goes to show how poor the mental makeup of the team was entering the game). Bu after that they punted with 4 yards and then had a genuinely good drive. After that all their points came off Tech mistakes giving them short fields against a non rested and demoralized Tech defense.

4) Offensive Stats

FIRST DOWNS................... 19 15
Rushing..................... 10 7
Passing..................... 7 7
Penalty..................... 2 1
NET YARDS RUSHING............. 161 164
Rushing Attempts............ 35 40
Average Per Rush............ 4.6 4.1
Rushing Touchdowns.......... 4 0
Yards Gained Rushing........ 179 180
Yards Lost Rushing.......... 18 16
NET YARDS PASSING............. 163 150
Completions-Attempts-Int.... 17-27-0 8-25-1
Average Per Attempt......... 6.0 6.0
Average Per Completion...... 9.6 18.8
Passing Touchdowns.......... 1 0
TOTAL OFFENSE YARDS........... 324 314
Total offense plays......... 62 65
Average Gain Per Play....... 5.2 4.8

Someone looking at those stats would be hard pressed to tell which team won and which team lost. They would imagine it was a hard close fought game ending 24-21 or something.

LSU had 10 more total yards than Tech. Tech had 4.8 yards per play, including averaging 4.1 yards per rush and 6 yards per passing attempt. These are not numbers from a team that was being whipped at the line.

We were averaging a first down every 2 plays. This is not a team that was being whipped at the line of scrimmage.


Tech had the horses to play against LSU, but for whatever reason entered the game playing scared, and consequently made a bunch of unforced errors. And that is why we lost.
Click to expand...

Oh for Pete's sake, just look a couple of posts above you. LSU had 23 NFL bound players on their roster. We got beat 38-3 and couldn't even force our way into the end zone in garbage time. Whoop-tee-do if we had almost as much possession time, and almost as much yardage; LSU slept through the second half.
 
I have no idea why we are relitigating the LSU game, but we unfortunately happened to play them at the Quickening from a mediocre team to a powerhouse. It really is that simple.
 
Techbert said:
I have no idea why we are relitigating the LSU game, but we unfortunately happened to play them at the Quickening from a mediocre team to a powerhouse. It really is that simple.
Click to expand...

Didn’t we get to experience the same thing with Urban Meyer at Utah?
 
ElCidBUZZingFAN said:
Didn’t they win the natty the year before?
Click to expand...
Yes, but that did not say much for a college football team. They lost a lot. We were good but not great in 1991 for example. Neither were dynasties.

LSU started strong but settled into a mire of craptitude for most of the season. Something happened between the end of their regular season and our bowl to release the sleeping giant.
 
Techbert said:
Yes, but that did not say much for a college football team. They lost a lot. We were good but not great in 1991 for example. Neither were dynasties.

LSU started strong but settled into a mire of craptitude for most of the season. Something happened between the end of their regular season and our bowl to release the sleeping giant.
Click to expand...
They finished 4 of the last 5 years finishing in the Top 5 with ‘07 being their second natty in as many years.

That’s powerhouse or dynasty territory.
 
johncu said:
Show me a SINGLE post that suggests that CPJ inherited a team deficient in talent, or left CGC a talented roster. You won't, because there are none. You are entirely projecting an argument onto people that are simply pointing out stats, which you conveniently ignore. Seems to me like your post only applies to you.

Before responding, please address the following:

1) We were projected to be last in the ACC by just about everybody, not just the 3-9 dude at Sports Illustrated. They knew damn well which players were on our roster, yet they thought we would suck. And yes, FWIW, I do agree that Chan would have been projected to win more than 3 and would have indeed done so. He was a pretty decent coach for us.

2) In case you were wondering why we were only expected to win 3 games, it's because we only out-talented 3 of our opponents.

From @goldmember post earlier - the number of rostered NFL players from teams on our schedule in 2008.

UGA - 26
Miami - 25
LSU - 23
Clemson - 22
UNC - 17
FSU - 13
UVA - 12
VT - 12
GT - 8
Miss State - 6
Duke - 4
BC - 0


3) Your personal list of players who "had talent" is absolutely laughable, given your disdain of others' use of subjectivity to make a point. Not to mention, you kind of defeated your own argument. Look at some of the guys you felt the need to point out as particularly "talented":

Jaybo Shaw - a guy who had to transfer to an FCS school
Cooper Taylor - another FCS transfer
Austin Barrick - a TE that had to play A-back and OL because we were so thin
Tevin Washington - love love love the guy, but really??? He was a 2 star with a grand total of one FBS offer


Nobody is saying the 2008 or 2009 teams were bad. By recent standards (my entire lifetime, honestly), they were very good. But they weren't "can't miss" rosters loaded with stars at every position. There were a few extremely talented players, a fairly solid starting lineup, and then the usual duct tape and baling wire to plug holes and hold everything together. And yes, I fully realize that the 2010-2018 rosters were just like that, sans the few stars. It's the reason CPJ never achieved that level of success again outside of 2014.
Click to expand...


1. They thought we would suck because our players did not fit the system. If Chan didn’t get fired they’d probably pick 7 wins in keeping with tradition.

3. Cooper Taylor - transferred due to illness, was drafted in the fifth round, and was a better defensive player than every Johnson recruit not named Attaochu or Gotsis.
 
This thread helps me understand why America is so bitterly divided over things like income inequality and gender dysphoria. Because people who are not actually talking to one another, cannot seem to distinguish sincere from insincere, rhetoric from analysis, fact from opinions, etc. I mean, this thread is full of some incredibly trivial disputes over the tiniest differences that have somehow been magnified and polarized into 'factions'.

The internet has ruined everything.

(Except the CFA app. Love that thing.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top