Moon Crew on Runnin' up the Score

[Old-Fashioned UGA Hater]

Ya. Those 2 or 3 guys per year really did us wonders historically. I mean we were really a steady championship level team.

People act like we were a farm system and CPJ ruined it all.

You sound dumb talking about NFL talent as if we’ve won more than 2 conference titles in 30 years with all that “NFL talent.”

Ya. Those 2 or 3 guys per year really did us wonders historically. I mean we were really a steady championship level team.

People act like we were a farm system and CPJ ruined it all.

You sound dumb talking about NFL talent as if we’ve won more than 2 conference titles in 30 years with all that “NFL talent.”

I thought you didn't care anything about CPJ anymore with your big cry baby post where you literally could taste the salter tears rolling down your face. Talk about a big cry for the ages. Conference championships aren't the only level of success either. Besides CPJ got his conference championship with some of Gaily's NFL talent so you are the one that sounds stupid sir. Yes way back when Tech used to be known especially at WR for putting guys in the draft. When you have ZERO recruits going to the NFL or at least on their radar that is a glaring problem.

 

[Walton]

Ya. Those 2 or 3 guys per year really did us wonders historically. I mean we were really a steady championship level team.

People act like we were a farm system and CPJ ruined it all.

You sound dumb talking about NFL talent as if we’ve won more than 2 conference titles in 30 years with all that “NFL talent.”

2 things:

1) Yes for a program like GT 3-4 NFL players can make a huge difference. 2 on each side of the ball help a lot. I think Collins can recruit at a level that we have slightly more than that on most of our teams. The difference is that the Bamas/UGA/Osu have a ton of depth that allows for more injuries and other type of bad events.

2) Johnson's recruiting lead to the fact that GT hasn't had anyone drafted for 4 years going on 5 (outside of Butker and Collins' recruits). That is unprecedented in GT history and for the vast majority of ACC/SEC teams. It is normal at GT and even lower level Power 5 schools to average 1 player drafted per year.

 

[ElCidBUZZingFAN]

thought you didn't care anything about CPJ anymore with your big cry baby post where you literally could taste the salter tears rolling down your face. Talk about a big cry for the ages. Conference championships aren't the only level of success either. Besides CPJ got his conference championship with some of Gaily's NFL talent so you are the one that sounds stupid sir. Yes way back when Tech used to be known especially at WR for putting guys in the draft. When you have ZERO recruits going to the NFL or at least on their radar that is a glaring problem.

Not shocked you didn't get the point.

Tech has never *ever* had consistent NFL level talent. Going back to 2000 which is the earliest I've found the NFL keeps track, we basically average 2 to 3 players per year. On an 85 man roster, that's nothing.

So, why are we desperately trying to use NFL talent as some sort of marker of our program's success? What continued extended success are we longing for here with all this "but muh NFL talent" talk? We're a flash in the pan program, as our 2 conference titles in 30+years shows despite this mythical time period where we were dripping with "NFL talent."

 

[Old-Fashioned UGA Hater]

Not shocked you didn't get the point.

Tech has never *ever* had consistent NFL level talent. Going back to 2000 which is the earliest I've found the NFL keeps track, we basically average 2 to 3 players per year. On an 85 man roster, that's nothing.

So, why are we desperately trying to use NFL talent as some sort of marker of our program's success? What continued extended success are we longing for here with all this "but muh NFL talent" talk? We're a flash in the pan program, as our 2 conference titles in 30+years shows despite this mythical time period where we were dripping with "NFL talent."

I mean were you old enough to remember the O'leary years? Those were really fun and competitive seasons where we never won a conference championship. We don't have to be dripping with NFL talent but it is NECESSARY to have players who strive to be the very best at their art. Guess what you call the very best football players? NFL players! And 2-3 players a year is not nothing either.

 

[RamblinWreck92]

Except for those seven times when it wasn't.

and by 7, you meant 5.

edit: Ah, you mean good ol' stats. Which are worthless when you give up 55 points and lose.

 

[ElCidBUZZingFAN]

2 things:

1) Yes for a program like GT 3-4 NFL players can make a huge difference. 2 on each side of the ball help a lot. I think Collins can recruit at a level that we have slightly more than that on most of our teams. The difference is that the Bamas/UGA/Osu have a ton of depth that allows for more injuries and other type of bad events.

2) Johnson's recruiting lead to the fact that GT hasn't had anyone drafted for 4 years going on 5 (outside of Butker and Collins' recruits). That is unprecedented in GT history and for the vast majority of ACC/SEC teams. It is normal at GT and even lower level Power 5 schools to average 1 player drafted per year.

If we're using NFL talent as a catch all for "we need better talent", then sure - I'm for it. It's quite obvious our defensive talent particularly is/was abysmal. However, I'm simply saying I'd take a Joe Hamilton (yes, he was a 7th rounder but he never was NFL material in the sense I think we're talking about) over a Matthew Stafford or a Harvey Middleton over a Mohamed Massaquoi.

 

[smokey_wasp]

If we're using NFL talent as a catch all for "we need better talent", then sure - I'm for it. It's quite obvious our defensive talent particularly is/was abysmal. However, I'm simply saying I'd take a Joe Hamilton (yes, he was a 7th rounder but he never was NFL material in the sense I think we're talking about) over a Matthew Stafford or a Harvey Middleton over a Mohamed Massaquoi.

There are definitely great college players who don't have NFL size or skill sets. I'd take a Tim Tebow in a heartbeat, as well. But I do think we are all using "NFL talent" as a general measuring stick for having better overall talent. And it's *mostly* accurate.

I would add, though, that putting players in the NFL has merit in its own right. What a bummer it has been the last few years to not even see our guys get combine invites and have nobody but Butker to root for at the next level.

 

[BrentwoodJacket]

I believe the free year will benefit our program more than most. The key is whether the NCAA temporarily increases the 85 limit.
Retaining Johnson and Clayton would definitely help us on the line. It is possible that one or both may decide to pursue the NFL. It would be nice to retain Harvin but I think he will be kicking on Sundays next year.
I am not sure about the other seniors. Howard, Swilling, Owens, Carpenter and Camp are possibilities if they want to stay.
Where we should benefit is the overflow from the loaded programs. We can also leverage our graduate programs and location to attract transfers.

 

[GT65_UGA89]

I think what "happened" had nothing to do with CGC. It probably had to do with the fact that he was going to have to compete with the winner of the Georgia-Alabama game for the #1 spot, and the way to do that was to run up the score...

I have thought this as well. Recall that last season Clemson kept DROPPING in the polls to where in the first week of November they were actually ranked #5 in the CFP rankings. This despite, other than UNC, winning ACC games by 5 TD’s or more.

 

[18in32]

Dabo is doing what is in the best interests of Clemson University. Why in the world would y’all not like him? His job is not to make Georgia Tech or Geoff Collins feel better about themselves. It’s bizarro world when y’all get mad at another coach for winning a game for his team and recruiting good players. I appreciated the butt kicking because that is what sports are about. The only lesson a GT and Collins should take away is not to whine about the meanie team who beat them is to get to work so it doesnt happen again. Right now Boston College is preparing to kick our butts. Are we upset about that or are we hard at work to prevent it? It’s not their fault if they do.

I think its bizarro world to go for it twice on fourth down when you're up by 50+ points. I'm not angry at Dabo or Clemson and they're still the only other team in the ACC that I kinda like, but I do think this was poor sportsmanship.

 

[18in32]

The TO was equally as ineffective against them. The score just looked closer because we held the ball until the final second of the snap count and ran it the whole time. Paul Johnson got clobbered his last 4 years against Clemson just like Collins. That’s why he quit. He knew he could no longer compete.

"the score just looked closer" = the score was actually closer

Slowing the game down against a stronger opponent is just rudimentary good clock management that you'll find in any sport. Obviously it wouldn't have had an effect on the outcome in this case because we played so very, very badly. But if we'd played our best, it could've been an important part of a strategy to keep us in the game and give us a puncher's chance at the end.

 

[theStingT]

Different kind of threat that was eventually neutralized and therefore not really a threat any longer.

Yes, the Clemson of 8-10 years ago is not the Clemson of today. ATL is one of his main recruiting areas. CGC's message to recruits that the 404 is the ultimate place to reside and play ball at is certainly getting under the skin of 2 car-salesmen type coaches in cow towns east of us.

 

[BigDanT]

You need to go 10-12 before you go 12-0. That’s how we beat Clemson and Georgia. We need to win all the other games before we can really start comparing.

 

[beej67]

"the score just looked closer" = the score was actually closer

Slowing the game down against a stronger opponent is just rudimentary good clock management that you'll find in any sport. Obviously it wouldn't have had an effect on the outcome in this case because we played so very, very badly. But if we'd played our best, it could've been an important part of a strategy to keep us in the game and give us a puncher's chance at the end.

Something "moneyballish" everyone (even CPJ I think) needs to better understand about slowing the game down:

Possessions have randomness. No possession is perfect. There's dice thrown in each one, because play calling is fundamentally a game of very complicated rock paper scissor, and individual errors (turnovers, defensive scores) can swing the outcome of a possession wildly.

For a weaker team, reducing the total number of possessions means the randomness of one or two drives is more important than it would be in a game with a lot of possessions. The option was objectively better at producing upsets against better teams because of this. It was also objectively worse at beating teams we overmatched, because two turnovers might kill 20% of our possessions (in a 10 possession game) instead of, say, 10% of them in a 20 possession game.

The hurry up offense creates more possessions in a game, which is like adding more innings in a baseball game. The more possessions in a game, the more the game's outcome becomes weighted towards the dominant team.

When we run hurry up, and our opponent runs hurry up, the chance of an upset goes way down. That's good for us when we have the better team, and worse for us when they have the better team.

See how this works? The extra possessions give the dominant team more attempts to overcome errors, so the game outcome becomes less random. A perfect offense should be able to flip a switch between very fast whenever you're behind, and very slow whenever you're ahead.

Don't expect to beat Clemson ever again until we have better players than they do. And when they have a 50 million dollar Football Player Resort that gives college players a better overall lifestyle than most NFL rookies, good luck getting better players than they do.

 

[beej67]

See how this works? The extra possessions give the dominant team more attempts to overcome errors, so the game outcome becomes less random. A perfect offense should be able to flip a switch between very fast whenever you're behind, and very slow whenever you're ahead.

If I was a coach with the players to do it, I would have two completely different offensive squads, a fast squad and a slow squad, and each of the squads would only practice "fast football" or "slow football." Different QB, different OL, different WRs for each squad. The Fast Squad would run Mike Leach stuff, practice like Mike Leach practices, etc, and get really good at that one thing. The slow squad (to keep things vaguely similar) would run Arkansas Wildcat, squeezing every drop out of the play clock, and get really good at that other thing. Roster limitations would make this really tough, but teams like Clemson could easily do it.

Against teams better than me, I would open with Wildcat. Against teams worse than me I'd open with run and shoot. After the first quarter I'd change it up to Run and Shoot if I'm behind, or Wildcat if I'm ahead. The entire system would work around dictating the number of possessions in the game to be in my favor, depending on the talent of my opponent.

PJ's system (in theory) was supposed to be able to produce both. The limitation was practice time - no player can learn all the complexities of run and shoot and option because there's just too much to learn to be good at both. So you get over that by having two squads, and your opponent is boned because their one defensive squad can't possibly prep for both.

 

[johncu]

If I was a coach with the players to do it, I would have two completely different offensive squads, a fast squad and a slow squad, and each of the squads would only practice "fast football" or "slow football." Different QB, different OL, different WRs for each squad. The Fast Squad would run Mike Leach stuff, practice like Mike Leach practices, etc, and get really good at that one thing. The slow squad (to keep things vaguely similar) would run Arkansas Wildcat, squeezing every drop out of the play clock, and get really good at that other thing. Roster limitations would make this really tough, but teams like Clemson could easily do it.

Against teams better than me, I would open with Wildcat. Against teams worse than me I'd open with run and shoot. After the first quarter I'd change it up to Run and Shoot if I'm behind, or Wildcat if I'm ahead. The entire system would work around dictating the number of possessions in the game to be in my favor, depending on the talent of my opponent.

PJ's system (in theory) was supposed to be able to produce both. The limitation was practice time - no player can learn all the complexities of run and shoot and option because there's just too much to learn to be good at both. So you get over that by having two squads, and your opponent is boned because their one defensive squad can't possibly prep for both.

That's a great idea, but I don't even think you need two squads. As long as your "fast" WRs could block, the only thing you'd need to change are the skill players in the backfield - maybe even just the QB.

 

[Tampa Jacket]

We will get some of the players they want over time. Not all, but some. And that is the threat. We were out of that game for a while and Clemson used our absence to its advantage. All of those high 3 stars that Clemson got early in Dabo’s tenure built what they have now. Those were players we would have competed for and gotten some of them had we been recruiting on the same planet. Those guys built a solid program which led to the 4 and 5 star monster they have now. And they still recruit a lot of those high 3 guys. Clemson looks to suffer most from us being back in the game because of their reliance on Georgia recruits and the fact that they aren’t a big state u like uga or Alabama.

I’d like to see an investigation into Clemson’s recruiting practi

Something "moneyballish" everyone (even CPJ I think) needs to better understand about slowing the game down:

Possessions have randomness. No possession is perfect. There's dice thrown in each one, because play calling is fundamentally a game of very complicated rock paper scissor, and individual errors (turnovers, defensive scores) can swing the outcome of a possession wildly.

For a weaker team, reducing the total number of possessions means the randomness of one or two drives is more important than it would be in a game with a lot of possessions. The option was objectively better at producing upsets against better teams because of this. It was also objectively worse at beating teams we overmatched, because two turnovers might kill 20% of our possessions (in a 10 possession game) instead of, say, 10% of them in a 20 possession game.

The hurry up offense creates more possessions in a game, which is like adding more innings in a baseball game. The more possessions in a game, the more the game's outcome becomes weighted towards the dominant team.

When we run hurry up, and our opponent runs hurry up, the chance of an upset goes way down. That's good for us when we have the better team, and worse for us when they have the better team.

See how this works? The extra possessions give the dominant team more attempts to overcome errors, so the game outcome becomes less random. A perfect offense should be able to flip a switch between very fast whenever you're behind, and very slow whenever you're ahead.

Don't expect to beat Clemson ever again until we have better players than they do. And when they have a 50 million dollar Football Player Resort that gives college players a better overall lifestyle than most NFL rookies, good luck getting better players than they do.

You don’t have to have better players to win a particular game in any sport. Underdogs win sometimes. But the players can’t be as completely overmatched as the players on our current roster. They have zero chance to beat Clemson or UGA using any strategy. There was an anonymous ACC coach who was quoted a couple of years ago in the ACC preseason as saying something to the effect “...a few of a Georgia Tech’s players could play for other P5 teams.” We won’t know anything until a couple of more recruiting cycles when Collins gets his own players in here. Then we will begin to understand the potential for our future.

 

[aeromech]

I’d like to see an investigation into Clemson’s recruiting practi

You don’t have to have better players to win a particular game in any sport. Underdogs win sometimes. But the players can’t be as completely overmatched as the players on our current roster. They have zero chance to beat Clemson or UGA using any strategy. There was an anonymous ACC coach who was quoted a couple of years ago in the ACC preseason as saying something to the effect “...a few of a Georgia Tech’s players could play for other P5 teams.” We won’t know anything until a couple of more recruiting cycles when Collins gets his own players in here. Then we will begin to understand the potential for our future.

We should know next year. If we don't go .500 by year 3 it should be a wake up for everyone. We could still go .500 this year. If in year 3 we are still seeing historic losses it is a bad omen.

 

[GoGATech]

Time to put this öööö to bed. Here's a comparison for you. Would you rather:

A)Have 70 hung on you by the #1 team when you are in year 2 of a complete rebuild, and you're just essentially going through the motions in the 2nd half?

-or-

B)Have 70 hung on you by the #23 team in the Orange bowl when you are ranked #15 and you're trying the entire game?

Because "B" is exactly what happened to Clemson in 2012 with 22 future NFL players on the roster including Sammy Watkins, Andre Ellington, DeAndre Hopkins, Vic Beasley, and Grady Jarret.

 

[johncu]

Time to put this öööö to bed. Here's a comparison for you. Would you rather:

A)Have 70 hung on you by the #1 team when you are in year 2 of a complete rebuild, and you're just essentially going through the motions in the 2nd half?

-or-

B)Have 70 hung on you by the #23 team in the Orange bowl when you are ranked #15 and you're trying the entire game?

Because "B" is exactly what happened to Clemson in 2012 with 22 future NFL players including Tajh Boyd, Sammy Watkins, Andre Ellington, DeAndre Hopkins, Vic Beasley, and Grady Jarret.

I was there for both A and B. Both ööööing sucked. If that Orange Bowl game wasn't bad enough, I had to sit through a Train mini-concert at halftime and then be shouted at and spit on by a drunk WVU frat/sorority section for about an hour until they finally turned on each other, started a full-on brawl amongst themselves, fell down the stairs, and got escorted out by the cops.

Also of note, Clemson's DC was fired not long after the game, and replaced with Brent Venables. I'd say that worked out okay in the long run.