TechinItEasy
Dodd-Like
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2007
- Messages
- 13,058
I'm assuming they will play a good bit this week. Of course that also assumes that we are up by a good bit on the scoreboard.
Here's what chaps ****** about Chan
- Thread starter BarrelORum
- Start date
The young WRs are playing more as the year goes on. What bothers me a little about Dwyer is that I can't remember him doing anything inside in the games he's played. Outside speed is great, but sometimes the hole is inside. Until he learns to take it up field when the opportunity arises, TC and Grant seem to be the better choices.
Re: And here's yet another example.......
What? So you don't like the fact that he seems to know what he's talking about or that he dares you to ask JT?
What? So you don't like the fact that he seems to know what he's talking about or that he dares you to ask JT?
MaconGTfan
Flats Noob
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2006
- Messages
- 705
I haven't seen didley from Grant. He hasn't gotten that many carries, but he hasn't made the most of the ones he's gotten.
He seems to have a habit of simply lunging forward to the ground w/ the ball when about to be tackled as opposed to taking a tackler head on and at least attempting to break it. At least thats what I remember from last weeks game...maybe its just me.
GEETEELEE
USAUSAUSAUSA
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2002
- Messages
- 39,451
Grant's been a disappointment...he was highly thought of when he arrived, but a couple of nagging injuries and having to play behind PJ and TC has limited his minutes. Still, I think he's having a pretty good year considering his limited playing time. Yeah, he's easier to bring down than Choice, but he's quicker.
TechinItEasy
Dodd-Like
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2007
- Messages
- 13,058
I'm unimpressed with Grant as well. As someone just said, he seems to just fall forward in the pile.
So what if Dwyer wants to bounce outside...work on that in practice. But he will still put yards on the board in the game, unlike Grant
So what if Dwyer wants to bounce outside...work on that in practice. But he will still put yards on the board in the game, unlike Grant
They are working on it in practice. He will put yards up if taking it outside is the right move. If the hole is inside, so far he hasn't shown that he's ready to take it. He's a very good runner with things to work on. Grant has done a good job and picked up important yards against both Clemson and Miami taking the inside run when it was there and bouncing it out when that was the right move. He's averaging 4 ypc for the year without the benefit of playing against ND, Samford and UVA where Dwyer racked up most of his yards.
TampaJacket
Flats Noob
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2003
- Messages
- 831
BOR, Wow, that's the last time I ask you for specifics... ;)
After apologizing in advance for the length, please allow me to respond...
First off, Lonowski and McManus are both out, unless you know something I don't.
Before we jump into specifics, let's take a step back for a moment. My impression is the already-thin offensive line has been devastated by injury, and as a result has been shuffled around. After a strong start, they went through a stretch where critical mistakes may have cost us games. Overall, it is important to understand that they have also done a very good job on run blocking, and haven't allowed many sacks either -- key measurements of OL productivity. So, other than some critical mistakes, I'd say they are doing a very good job, given the challenges.
Last I heard, we had 7 healthy OL for 5 positions -- so everyone is going to have to play. I think that our OL is continuing to improve and if we can limit our mistakes and continue to run and protect, I think you are being too hard on (all but one ;) ) individuals. Here's how I'd start them:
RT - Smith/Howard
RG - Voss/Rhodes
C - Tuminello/Dunmon
LG - Dunmon/Rhodes
LT - Gardner/Howard
The first time a certain tackle holds, he get's replaced. ;)
Your criticism of the lack of OL depth is a valid one. Not sure how we got to where we are, frankly. We were thin to begin with and our few injuries have hurt.
But judging by overall results, in two of the three measurables as an OL, we are doing well above average, so I'm not sure that "calling for starter's heads" is warranted just yet.
In the order you raise them:
Jones of Burnett is CJT's decision, but if I had to guess, he'd say that Burnett has been burned a few times and he gets steadier play from DJ.
JJ over Thomas, if I had to guess, would be centered on JJ coming back from injury. I hear he's practicing well and deserved the start. He's had a rough stretch, true, but he's also done a lot at WR for GT.
I like Donnley as much as the next guy, but he's caught, what, 3 balls in 7 games. Granted, that catch last week was KEY, and he may be the next coming of CJ for all I know, and I hope he is, but he hasn't shown it (yet!).
Grant over Dwyer, from what I understand, is a combination of Grant playing well and Dwyer not running inside well enough. I can't wait to see what Dwyer's got any less than the next guy, but Grant has proven he's more versatile over the years and adds a different dimension to TC also.
I'd wager two walk-ons are returning punts because the "playmakers" can't catch the ball consistently. Gailey has consistently played undersized "good hands" "run it up the gut" types at PR, for a while, and our last one (Rhino) was quite successful. In addition, statistically, we are doing quite well in this category. It's a percentage thing, and Gailey is known for playing the percentages on the conservative side.
As for MJ, it has appeard to me, when he's played against the run, he's not done well, and that's why I suspect he's not in there. Also his replacement is quite good at run support, and is also a senior (see experience versus raw talent argument below).
Basically, BOR, I believe your argument comes down to two things (please correct me if I'm wrong):
#1 -- You don't like conservative head coaches.
#2 -- You prefer raw talent over experience.
There's nothing wrong with either position, and I agree with one and disagree with another.
As a fan, I don't like conservative head coaching any more than the next guy. But I've become resigned to the fact that no matter how much I complain about it on a message board, he isn't going to change. Furthermore, it is hard to argue that conservative coaching doesn't wins games (although perhaps to a lesser extent in college). In football, if you run the ball, play solid defense, and don't make mistakes, you will win a lot more than you'll lose. Our coach epitomizes this, and it doesn't make for very fan-friendly games. However, it has also led to very consistent results albeit just a touch lower than many had hoped. Without the "spark" of less risk-averse coaching philosophy (and the performance peaks and valleys that would certainly result), many fans fall deep into a very understandable mediocrity depression. However, I'm hopeful that with time, Chan will allow Bond to open up, and we'll show a gambling offense just like we do on defense. When that happens, if we can continue to get top 20 talent in here for a few more seasons -- watch out.
As far as raw talent versus experience, it is easy to fall into the trap of "this guy looks so much better" than the person he's playing behind, but just how much do we factor experience and ability to execute a play into that judgement, and are we undervaluing experience over apparent athletic ability. Clearly, MJ or MB or DD or JD bring a great deal of athletic talent to the plate, but if they can't stop the run, misread a blitz call, run a hook rather than a post, or take a run outside when it was supposed to go inside, and this causes a play to blow up in our face, who will we blame? What I'm trying to say is that this downside must be factored into who plays when, and it is surely not an easy decision. My sense is that Chan values experience more than other coaches and is slow to take some out of starting roles, and I'd probably add that this goees back to his sense of character and committment. But as part of his overall philosophy, a successful one overall, it's hard to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Just like the backup quarterback is always the favorite player on a struggling team, it is easy to point to who's starting and say this player or that player is better. However, we don't have even a small percentage of the information the coaches have when standing in judgement over them, we have the advantage of hindsight, and I believe as fans we fall into the trap of underestimating experience in terms of who starts and plays the most.
It comes down to this:
Chan is who he is. He's not going to change his overall philosophy on coaching, so you better just get used to it. He will be slow to change, but has shown the ability to make the right choices.
In closing, with both off-the-field (Rad & recruiting) and on-the-field (Bond, ST, etc.) performance trending in the right direction, I'm very optimistic that with some stability we will turn medocrity corner onto relevant avenue in the next year or two -- but do we, as fans, have the patience for this? That's the key question in my mind, and I think beating Georgia is the key to making that turn.
Just my (perhaps rambling) opinion, respectfully submitted --- and if you're still reading this -- I thank you for your time and the opportuntiy to respond...Mike
p.s. GO JACKETS!
After apologizing in advance for the length, please allow me to respond...
First off, Lonowski and McManus are both out, unless you know something I don't.
Before we jump into specifics, let's take a step back for a moment. My impression is the already-thin offensive line has been devastated by injury, and as a result has been shuffled around. After a strong start, they went through a stretch where critical mistakes may have cost us games. Overall, it is important to understand that they have also done a very good job on run blocking, and haven't allowed many sacks either -- key measurements of OL productivity. So, other than some critical mistakes, I'd say they are doing a very good job, given the challenges.
Last I heard, we had 7 healthy OL for 5 positions -- so everyone is going to have to play. I think that our OL is continuing to improve and if we can limit our mistakes and continue to run and protect, I think you are being too hard on (all but one ;) ) individuals. Here's how I'd start them:
RT - Smith/Howard
RG - Voss/Rhodes
C - Tuminello/Dunmon
LG - Dunmon/Rhodes
LT - Gardner/Howard
The first time a certain tackle holds, he get's replaced. ;)
Your criticism of the lack of OL depth is a valid one. Not sure how we got to where we are, frankly. We were thin to begin with and our few injuries have hurt.
But judging by overall results, in two of the three measurables as an OL, we are doing well above average, so I'm not sure that "calling for starter's heads" is warranted just yet.
In the order you raise them:
Jones of Burnett is CJT's decision, but if I had to guess, he'd say that Burnett has been burned a few times and he gets steadier play from DJ.
JJ over Thomas, if I had to guess, would be centered on JJ coming back from injury. I hear he's practicing well and deserved the start. He's had a rough stretch, true, but he's also done a lot at WR for GT.
I like Donnley as much as the next guy, but he's caught, what, 3 balls in 7 games. Granted, that catch last week was KEY, and he may be the next coming of CJ for all I know, and I hope he is, but he hasn't shown it (yet!).
Grant over Dwyer, from what I understand, is a combination of Grant playing well and Dwyer not running inside well enough. I can't wait to see what Dwyer's got any less than the next guy, but Grant has proven he's more versatile over the years and adds a different dimension to TC also.
I'd wager two walk-ons are returning punts because the "playmakers" can't catch the ball consistently. Gailey has consistently played undersized "good hands" "run it up the gut" types at PR, for a while, and our last one (Rhino) was quite successful. In addition, statistically, we are doing quite well in this category. It's a percentage thing, and Gailey is known for playing the percentages on the conservative side.
As for MJ, it has appeard to me, when he's played against the run, he's not done well, and that's why I suspect he's not in there. Also his replacement is quite good at run support, and is also a senior (see experience versus raw talent argument below).
Basically, BOR, I believe your argument comes down to two things (please correct me if I'm wrong):
#1 -- You don't like conservative head coaches.
#2 -- You prefer raw talent over experience.
There's nothing wrong with either position, and I agree with one and disagree with another.
As a fan, I don't like conservative head coaching any more than the next guy. But I've become resigned to the fact that no matter how much I complain about it on a message board, he isn't going to change. Furthermore, it is hard to argue that conservative coaching doesn't wins games (although perhaps to a lesser extent in college). In football, if you run the ball, play solid defense, and don't make mistakes, you will win a lot more than you'll lose. Our coach epitomizes this, and it doesn't make for very fan-friendly games. However, it has also led to very consistent results albeit just a touch lower than many had hoped. Without the "spark" of less risk-averse coaching philosophy (and the performance peaks and valleys that would certainly result), many fans fall deep into a very understandable mediocrity depression. However, I'm hopeful that with time, Chan will allow Bond to open up, and we'll show a gambling offense just like we do on defense. When that happens, if we can continue to get top 20 talent in here for a few more seasons -- watch out.
As far as raw talent versus experience, it is easy to fall into the trap of "this guy looks so much better" than the person he's playing behind, but just how much do we factor experience and ability to execute a play into that judgement, and are we undervaluing experience over apparent athletic ability. Clearly, MJ or MB or DD or JD bring a great deal of athletic talent to the plate, but if they can't stop the run, misread a blitz call, run a hook rather than a post, or take a run outside when it was supposed to go inside, and this causes a play to blow up in our face, who will we blame? What I'm trying to say is that this downside must be factored into who plays when, and it is surely not an easy decision. My sense is that Chan values experience more than other coaches and is slow to take some out of starting roles, and I'd probably add that this goees back to his sense of character and committment. But as part of his overall philosophy, a successful one overall, it's hard to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Just like the backup quarterback is always the favorite player on a struggling team, it is easy to point to who's starting and say this player or that player is better. However, we don't have even a small percentage of the information the coaches have when standing in judgement over them, we have the advantage of hindsight, and I believe as fans we fall into the trap of underestimating experience in terms of who starts and plays the most.
It comes down to this:
Chan is who he is. He's not going to change his overall philosophy on coaching, so you better just get used to it. He will be slow to change, but has shown the ability to make the right choices.
In closing, with both off-the-field (Rad & recruiting) and on-the-field (Bond, ST, etc.) performance trending in the right direction, I'm very optimistic that with some stability we will turn medocrity corner onto relevant avenue in the next year or two -- but do we, as fans, have the patience for this? That's the key question in my mind, and I think beating Georgia is the key to making that turn.
Just my (perhaps rambling) opinion, respectfully submitted --- and if you're still reading this -- I thank you for your time and the opportuntiy to respond...Mike
p.s. GO JACKETS!
Last edited:
BarrelORum
Mediocre Poster
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2002
- Messages
- 16,274
First off, good response and a fair one. At certain positions I do. LG is one of them. I also think we have a defense that can afford to give Burnett significant playing time at FS against teams like Army, Maryland, and UVA. Experience at the tackle position is far moe important than experience at the guard position. I also think Dunman has been around long enough that he needs to see game time if he is going to produce. Of course he burned me in the Maryland game because of his 3 penalties, but I personally feel he's playing out of position. He needs to be playing Center. In which case, you can move Tuminello to guard.
Well see, for me that is the major problem and is what we can disagree on. We SHOULD win more games than we lose and pure statistics show that. But when our opponents are evenly matched or superior to us, we lose far more than we win. In fact there are several games where the conservative mentality has flat out cost us wins. Chan needs to get it through his thick head that you cannot run a conservative ball control offense at the college level. 1.) the kids aren't disciplined ennough to run it without falling apart and 2.) there is not enough continuity and cohesiveness at the college level to be successful with that type of play. When you are paired against high powered offenses that have the ability to score quick, once you get down, as we have proven time and again, you cannot bounce back. The kids know that the game plan doesn't afford for quick strikes, so mentally they are shot once they get down 2 scores. Maryland showed us they have the ability to come back, but before we took the lead, our coach shut the program down by going conservative and flat out cost us that game.
Wish in one hand and poop in the other and tell me which one fills up first.
I would tend to agree, but MJ can stop the run. Show me a time where he didn't show the ablity to stop the run. As far as Dwyer. If the kid gets positive yardage, why the hell do you care if he ran outside when he was supposed to run inside? He's got the highest yard per carry average.
I don't have to get used to it, because if he keep on this path, he's going to be fired Tampa. Chan needs to change. The writing is on the wall. and if he doesn't change, then he is gone. That is very true. If you think Chan is in good favors with the powers that be, then you are mistaken.
Think about what you just said. 1.) You have no proof that he has turned us in the right direction. The results don't show that. 2.) You are willing for a coach to get 8 years to show solid improvement? Are you kidding me? Do you know how much can be accomplished in 8 years?
I enjoyed reading your response. I did.
TampaJacket
Flats Noob
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2003
- Messages
- 831
While I would agree that "it's about who performs better", wouldn't you agree that talent and experience are the two primary factors in predicting "who performs better", and one of the fundamental differences between BOR's viewpoint and CCG's viewpoint is how to value talent and experience....Mike
p.s. BOR, I'll be back for you later this afternoon. ;)
ContactBuzz
Probably Drinks Cosmopolitans
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2002
- Messages
- 15,219
Welcome to StingTalk, Yoggi Berra.
TampaJacket
Flats Noob
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2003
- Messages
- 831
So it seems we agree with the exception of who should start at center. Candidly, I'm not sure who's right, but I can also apprecaite how important having a good center is to the quarterback, and I'm not close enough to the team to know who's better -- Tuminello or Dunman. Lacking evidence one way or the other, I'm happy with the coach's decision, particularly given the OL's measurables being, as a whole, largely positive.
BOR, you usually make very cogent arguments, but this one completely lost me.
How does "pure statistics" show that we should win more than we lose? And wouldn't those same statistics also show that we should lose more than win against better teams?
I just don't get it -- am I missing something?
I'm not sure that I agree that "going coservative" has "flat out cost us that game" or any games. In the game in question, I would point at a certain tackle's hold, and a missed field goal as just as relevant to the end result as a conservative play call on third down and long -- and remember that hindsight is always 20-20. If that "conservative" play gains 5 yards, or the kicker makes the field goal, or the hold never takes place, we win that game partially because of the conservative play.
But even the conservative nature of our head coach has cost us games, it could also be said that "going conservative" has also won us a few games, too.
All that said, I believe that you have hit on a point which bears repeating -- it is questionable if a ball-control offense can be effectively run at GT. To me, ball control offenses are best run when you have better physical ability (particularly offensive lines) than the teams you go up against. However, it is probably unrealistic to believe that this would be the case given the overall talent level in the ACC, particuarly on the defensive side of the ball.
So I believe, for several reasons, that we should build upon our strengths -- we have athletes who, in general, are more academically advanced than many of our opponents. We should use this to our advantage, just like we do on the defensive side of the ball, by playing a very complex offense (think Fridge). Candidly, this is my biggest criticism of Gailey and the offenses that we've run over the years -- we aren't playing to our strengths.
I suggest your review the footage of the BC game and pay attention to MJ.
As for Dwyer, it would be shortsighted to look at yards-per-carry as a judge of performance. While I am hopefuly he will be our next great back, remember the majority of his carries were in mop-up duty or against lesser competitoin.
In addition, defenses have caught on to Dwyer's penchant for running to the outside, and his recent performance has shown to be the case.
I believe that time will be the truest judge of the accuracy of this comment, but will add that I disagree for several reasons:
1) Chan is changing. It's just been more measured than many would have hoped. However, it is hard to disagree that every single change Chan has made has been a good one.
2) The buy-out required, along with a weak GTAA balance sheet, has our hands tied with respect to firing him.
3) What evidence do you have that Chan is not "in favors with the powers that be", as I've not seen any evidence (other than some fan divisiveness) to suggest this is the case.
Actually, I do have quite a bit of proof what I said is correct. On ST, it is clear our performance has improved, and I find it distressing if you don't agree. Similarly on recruiting, while stars/rankings aren't the perfect judge of talent, our recent strong recruiting classes seem to indicate it is.
Although there is not as much proof, I'd say that most would agree that our recent upgrades at AD and OC were both steps up compared to who preceeded them.
To answer your question, yes, I think 8 years is a long time to wait for improvement, but I also think that the current coach has had a number of very challenging situations (not of his making) that have limited his ablity to achieve his (and our!) goals, but again, I see trends headed in the right direction, and I also see a great deal of value in consistency when it comes to head coaching.
Thank you for the kind words, and the feelings are mutual.
GO JACKETS!...Mike
Last edited: