Jimmy Robinson

[thwg]

I remember Nix got hammered for calling a reverse on 3rd and 1, a play that Fridge went to on occasion even on 3rd and 1. The difference was that Fridge's worked and Nix didn't, probably because Fridge knew when to throw down paper.

And the OC vs. DC game is more like chess where you both play at the same time, like RPS. There's still luck involved.

Anyway, I find Robinson intriguing as an OC choice if Edsall is hired. I remember Spurrier, after all, jumping from Tech's QB coach to Duke's HC and winning the ACC.

I think spurrier went from GT QB coach to some USFL coach or something. He left GT in 79 I think and his first head coachign gig was a few years later in the USFL I think. He went to Duke after the USFL in 87 I believe.

 

[GEETEELEE]

What we DO know is that he has no Coordinator experience or head coaching experience at either the college or NFL level. So why again are we discussing hiring him again? Because he is a "Tech" man?

If what I was hearing at the time was true, Robinson came very close to being our HC instead of Gailey. I dunno why that would be other than he was a Tech man. Anyway if it were true, it's not surprizing he would be mentioned as a candidate once again.

However, we have a new AD, and I doubt that being a Tech man carries a whole lot in the way of qualification with him.

 

[kirbee]

That's were "detailed," and "stochastic," and "match-up based" come into play.

Like, for instance, the end of the Maryland game, since that's fresh in our minds and a topic of wide conversation around here. We went with a draw on 3rd and 15 to try and get some yards for the fieldgoal kicker. We also went with a running play so we'd be able to eat more time off the clock, since we'd have to give the ball back to Maryland even if we made it. Chan also commented after the game that their decision to go with a run was based on knowing Maryland's defensive tendencies in that yardage situation, which goes back to stochastics. Plus our strength is the running game, which goes back to match-ups. All that led to us choosing a running play - a draw. So then we threw 'rock' and they threw 'paper' and we lost.

So a better OC (or better HC) might not have chosen our play based on all that, but chosen our play based on what play he thought Maryland was going to call. Scissors to their paper.

It's a simplified analogy, not a bad one. (most analogies seek to simplify situations to make them clearer) What I mean when I say "I want an OC that's better at RPS" is that I want an OC that correctly intuits what defense the other team is likely to use, and choses plays that work against that.

And more to the point, I don't want a head coach who has no experience doing that.

First off, I'm LMAO at the RPS debate. Great stuff.

Second, regarding the Maryland game draw call. Maryland's d-coord is apparently good at RPS because he studied the GT tape and saw us call a draw play with huge success on 3rd and long against ND and Clemson. So he knew we were not throwing (ironic word choice) the rock, but hoping to open a hole with the scissors. He threw the rock (blitz) and busted our scissor.

 

[71YellowJacket]

Yes, BOR,

We need a coach with a great resume, like Gailey. Oh, bad example.. Wonder if Callahan is available, oops my bad. How about GO'L? Well, what do you see in a resume?

And , no I'm not avocating for Robinson. But, I for one wouldn't mind hiring someone who is rising up the ladder, if there were suffient reason to believe they would stay beyond the first 9 game winning season (for reasons other than being turned down by Pittsburg and Miami.....

I like how people are willing to back or not back a potential coach based on unknowns. What we DO know is that he has no Coordinator experience or head coaching experience at either the college or NFL level. So why again are we discussing hiring him again? Because he is a "Tech" man?

That's the dumbest reason I've heard. He does not have enough experience and hiring him is taking a MAJOR gamble.

 

[beej67]

Second, regarding the Maryland game draw call. Maryland's d-coord is apparently good at RPS because he studied the GT tape and saw us call a draw play with huge success on 3rd and long against ND and Clemson. So he knew we were not throwing (ironic word choice) the rock, but hoping to open a hole with the scissors. He threw the rock (blitz) and busted our scissor.

Exactly. See, Chan is bad at RPS not because he doesn't take all the factors into account, but because everyone knows he's going to take all the factors into account and follow them unerringly, thereby telegraphing his play. Chan needs to take a step back from asking himself what the other guy's tendencies are, and start asking himself what his own tendencies are, because that's what's getting him out RPSed in games.

 

[haywire83]

Exactly. See, Chan is bad at RPS not because he doesn't take all the factors into account, but because everyone knows he's going to take all the factors into account and follow them unerringly, thereby telegraphing his play. Chan needs to take a step back from asking himself what the other guy's tendencies are, and start asking himself what his own tendencies are, because that's what's getting him out RPSed in games.

I move that we start calling it Rochambeau, or RCB for short.

 

[SMoney]

Exactly. See, Chan is bad at RPS not because he doesn't take all the factors into account, but because everyone knows he's going to take all the factors into account and follow them unerringly, thereby telegraphing his play. Chan needs to take a step back from asking himself what the other guy's tendencies are, and start asking himself what his own tendencies are, because that's what's getting him out RPSed in games.

This entire discussion reminds me of a quote from the movie The Princess Bride - It all comes down to this - do we want to hire Vizzini or the man in black as our next coach?

Man in Black: All right. Where is the poison? The battle of wits has begun. It ends when you decide and we both drink, and find out who is right... and who is dead.
Vizzini: But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of you: are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet or his enemy's? Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.
Man in Black: You've made your decision then?
Vizzini: Not remotely. Because iocane comes from Australia, as everyone knows, and Australia is entirely peopled with criminals, and criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you.
Man in Black: Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
Vizzini: Wait til I get going! Now, where was I?
Man in Black: Australia.
Vizzini: Yes, Australia. And you must have suspected I would have known the powder's origin, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.
Man in Black: You're just stalling now.
Vizzini: You'd like to think that, wouldn't you? You've beaten my giant, which means you're exceptionally strong, so you could've put the poison in your own goblet, trusting on your strength to save you, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But, you've also bested my Spaniard, which means you must have studied, and in studying you must have learned that man is mortal, so you would have put the poison as far from yourself as possible, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.
Man in Black: You're trying to trick me into giving away something. It won't work.
Vizzini: IT HAS WORKED! YOU'VE GIVEN EVERYTHING AWAY! I KNOW WHERE THE POISON IS!
Man in Black: Then make your choice.
Vizzini: I will, and I choose - What in the world can that be?
Vizzini: [Vizzini gestures up and away from the table. Roberts looks. Vizzini swaps the goblets]
Man in Black: What? Where? I don't see anything.
Vizzini: Well, I- I could have sworn I saw something. No matter.First, let's drink. Me from my glass, and you from yours.
Man in Black, Vizzini: [they drink ]
Man in Black: You guessed wrong.
Vizzini: You only think I guessed wrong! That's what's so funny! I switched glasses when your back was turned! Ha ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well-known is this: never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha...
Vizzini: [Vizzini stops suddenly, and falls dead to the right]
Buttercup: And to think, all that time it was your cup that was poisoned.
Man in Black: They were both poisoned. I spent the last few years building up an immunity to iocane powder.