LSU "Exposed" Georgia Tech

00Burdell said:
Let's face it guys. That was our big chance and we blew it.

We'll get more chances but let's be honest about the damage done by that game.
Click to expand...

I agree. Those back-to-back Thursday night games could have gone a long way in establishing a positive identity with pollsters. Unfortunately, the identity we established was ugly and doubtful.
 
lonestarjacket said:
I was flabbergasted to hear Dr. Lou talk only about the unfortunate failings of UNC rather than success of GT. BUT IT WAS ONLY TWO GAMES SINCE HE LEARNEDLY EXPLAINED THE SUCCESS OF THE T.O. IN THE CLEMSON GAME, POINTING OUT THE VARIOUS BLOCK EXECUTIONS.
Click to expand...

Dr. Lou is an aging snake-oil salesman, and the product he is selling is himself. He is an attention whore and will do or say anything for attention, which equals money. My guess is that his children don't like him and so he's afraid to stop working, since he knows nobody else will ever support him. If they wanted him to wear mascot uniforms and call people sweetheart, he'd even do that. (Oh wait, wrong whore.) There is no reason to take anything he says seriously. How is Notre Dame's national championship run going?

I swear, I think ESPN "analysts" wake up in a drunken stupor, take B12 shots in the studio, are handed a list of talking points, start talking, and never think about what they're saying. I know it has been said before that their positions are given to them by production people on some of those lame point-counterpoint segments. Lou's "point" is to be a ranting geezer who knows a bunch of trite one-liners.

The sports media is as bad as the general news media now. It's not about reporting; it's about three things: (1) filling time; (2) giving the consumer what it wants regardless of the truth; (3) the ego of the reporter. We will probably never know what most of these people actually think about the triple option or Georgia Tech. They may not think at all.
 
GiveEmHellJackets said:
The sports media is as bad as the general news media now. It's not about reporting; it's about three things: (1) filling time; (2) giving the consumer what it wants regardless of the truth; (3) the ego of the reporter. We will probably never know what most of these people actually think about the triple option or Georgia Tech. They may not think at all.
Click to expand...

I agree, and I also agree with those saying we blew a chance to turn aaround those perceptions.

It is frustrating that supposed experts and analysts spread misinformation and don't bring up the obvious reasons why any one game with any one team is not an indicator of success.

Yet, it is a fact that our team(coach, players, etc) blew three chances on a national stage to do some "marketing" with the media and common perception about our team and CPJ's offense.
 
So did GT expose UNC last Saturday? Do we now have the blueprint to stopping the Heels?
 
The whole thing still kind of pisses me off. GT is held to a much higher standard for having an atypical offense, like our wins don't really count. I've seen many pro offense teams get dominated by poor line play which is, well, exactly what happened to us at Miami. Wow, who would have thought that? Team fails to block and team has trouble offensively. Who knew?

CPJ's pretty much a lone wolf out there, even though Leach, Meyer and RichRod say they really run similar schemes, just with forward passes instead of backward passes. Oh well, I think our record in the end will prove the media wrong that we've been "figured" out.
 
floridajacket said:
The whole thing still kind of pisses me off. GT is held to a much higher standard for having an atypical offense, like our wins don't really count. I've seen many pro offense teams get dominated by poor line play which is, well, exactly what happened to us at Miami. Wow, who would have thought that? Team fails to block and team has trouble offensively. Who knew?

CPJ's pretty much a lone wolf out there, even though Leach, Meyer and RichRod say they really run similar schemes, just with forward passes instead of backward passes. Oh well, I think our record in the end will prove the media wrong that we've been "figured" out.
Click to expand...

Paul Johnsons record at Tech is probably better than any other ACC coach at their current school with MAYBE the exception of Beamer. I know he beats Bowden cause CPJ is at 70 and Bowden is definitely in the 60s.
 
Beamer is at 65.9(217-112)

Bowden is at 72.8(368-137)

Johnson is at 71.9(118-44)

Of course it's a really awful comparison considering the amount of time PJ's been at D1 compared to the other two.
 
Virginia Tech showed everyone the blueprint for beating Miami. Who'd have thunk that if you hit the QB and score more points than them, you'll have a real good shot at winning. I wish we had known this 2 weeks ago......

It's just one of those time where you have to remember that 95% of people on Earth are dumbasses.
 
I think you guys are taking this "blueprint" thing too personally and a bit in the wrong way. Conventional offenses are already blueprinted because so many teams use them and people have figured out ways to stop most TYPES of conventional offenses. The question USUALLY is whether or not someone is ABLE to execute on any of the "blueprints" for a conventional, pro-style offense.

The one things that bugs me about the "blueprint" talk is the insinuation that there's one way to stop our offense and that's all you need. I don't think there's this one, all powerful "blueprint" to stop the triple option. I think LSU showed one way to stop what GT was doing in only the 13th game of running the triple option. Some other teams this year have shown that it is possible to disrupt us as well if we are not executing on the blocking bit. UNC probably tried to do the same things that Clemson, Miami, and LSU tried to do and despite having terrific athletes weren't able to stop us because, surprise, we exploited the things that they weren't able to cover AND we blocked better so some of the things they did were neutralized.

But the reason there's so much talk about a "blueprint" with us is because we are fairly unique in the style of offense we run and I think the only one in a BCS conference that runs the triple option (note that I'm not suggesting we're the only ones who run a "spread type offense").
 
GiveEmHellJackets said:
This is simple: LSU and Miami exposed and stopped us. So did Clemson for the most part. Anytime we win now, it's because the other team either did not know about or could not execute the blueprint. Any team that has film of the LSU or Miami games and does not screw up beats us handily. We are not a good team and we can't impose our will on anyone; our only hope is for the other team to play terribly.
Click to expand...
Yeah this is 100% correct
 
JOJATK said:
But the reason there's so much talk about a "blueprint" with us is because we are fairly unique in the style of offense we run and I think the only one in a BCS conference that runs the triple option (note that I'm not suggesting we're the only ones who run a "spread type offense").
Click to expand...

Yeah, we get it.

We know the answer to the rhetorical question, "Why?" But it doesn't make it any less stupid, especially for people with extensive experience in the past either playing or coaching football.

The same thing was said of just about any unique offense that was successful. It was true of the West Coast offense when it was new. It was true of the Run 'n Shoot.

Houston college and pro teams were EXTREMELY successful with the run 'n shoot. When it sputtered in a game or two people proclaimed defenses had "caught up." Yet those who followed the teams realized they continued to have long term success AFTER defenses had supposedly "caught up".

Now, elements of the run n' shoot are standard in many variations of pro offenses and in the spread passing attacks. But we no longer hear of the pure run 'n shoot. But that is NOT because defenses caught up or figured it out (even though they did get better at defending it). It is because it because it is now SOP for high powered passing attacks. It is no longer considered unique.

The assumption that irks us is that it is ONLY successful because it is unique.

The "blueprint" isn't a state secret and has never been. Play assignment football and don't make mistakes. Then it is a matter of individual blocking executions versus defenders, just like most other offenses. But that "blueprint" is not as easy to execute as it is to describe. (And the easiest way to stop the offense is to let it stop itself through poor execution.)

P.S.
While I am suspicious of plans to stop systems. I do believe in plans to stop individuals. Nebraska figured that the secret to stopping Tyrod Taylor is the same as stopping Mike Vick. Instead of aggressively trying to sack him and giving him big running opportunities just contain him and force him to pass to be successful.

That also is a tried-and-true strategy in football and basketball. Stop the big stars first and make someone else on the team beat you.
 
lonestarj, that's fair. I understand where you're coming from. I guess it just doesn't bother me as much because I look at it as the fact that the sports commentators and sports reporters and web sites are entertainers now and not so much journalists. What that means to me is that they are playing to the lowest common denominator that doesn't know much about the game and so they paint with broad brush strokes.
 
Lionheart said:
Virginia Tech showed everyone the blueprint for beating Miami. Who'd have thunk that if you hit the QB and score more points than them, you'll have a real good shot at winning. I wish we had known this 2 weeks ago......

It's just one of those time where you have to remember that 95% of people on Earth are dumbasses.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct! The fact that they got hits on QB early was significant too. I was yelling at the TV (as if by magic they could hear me in Miami) for someone from GT to get a hat on Jacory Harris, even if it meant taking a 15 yard unsportsmanlike penalty. In the long run we would have been better off.
 
lonestarjacket said:
OK, that subject has been beaten to death. And the counters to that theory have also been beaten to death. But seeing it come up again with EVERY opponent and mentioned again from many analysts. Taking off my gold-colored glasses, I am still left with a burning question for those proposing our "exposure".

Why doesn't anyone say, "Georgia Tech was exposed by Gardner-Webb?"

For those on this board, it is a bit of a rhetorical question. But why do people insist on pointing to that one game when we played poorly and were "stopped" in games before and after LSU?

If we were truly "exposed" by LSU, then we should have run roughshod over everyone before that game and we should have been stopped easily by everyone after that game.
Click to expand...


I happen to think contrary to the popular opinion. I don't believe that LSU dominated us as the score says or completely figured us out.

Yes, they did come out and flat out junk punch us. But our kill shot came at the hands of key field position turnovers.

Did LSU have a good game plan and play us well? Yes, but We did eventually move the ball on them. Unfortunately, it came later. But, it's not like they drew a line in the sand and dared us to cross it.

I think we did more of "killing ourselves" than they "flat out killed us"

I do however think that they did the best job obviously of shutting us down but they were defending champs and had a month to prepare for it. Most teams don't get that luxury, not to mention that we were a helluva lot more 1 dimensional then than we currently are
 
84 Civil said:
You are absolutely correct! The fact that they got hits on QB early was significant too. I was yelling at the TV (as if by magic they could hear me in Miami) for someone from GT to get a hat on Jacory Harris, even if it meant taking a 15 yard unsportsmanlike penalty. In the long run we would have been better off.
Click to expand...

I originally posted that with sarcasm, especially the score more points than them thing, but I agree with what you said so I won't pick at you about it :biggthumpup:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top