Run Pass Ratio

smokey_wasp said:
Duke was the only game we slung it a ton, though, it seems like. I mean, we were 70-30 run against Clemson. I agree that we have seemingly figured out the right package of plays our guys can execute, but I think ratio is overrated.
Click to expand...

Clemson was an outlier. It seemed like we were mostly trying to minimize the hits on LJ by playing TO a lot. Plus, the playcalling with TO is run heavy due to his skill set.

Not to be overlooked, I think this was about the first game where the starting OL had actually played as a unit before.
 
You guys all know it's truth and there is no way to deny it with any logic. Football isn't about appearances, it's about getting that W. We can appear like we have abandoned a run based offense all we want, but if we are trying to climb the ladder, then the wins have to come.

Maybe I am the delusional one here in thinking that if we had won 2-3 more orange bowls, that we wouldn't have traded coaches. The reality is the way that some people around here talk, I think people would have still have been wanting to trade away a winning coach just like those cucks did at ugag.

We all realize that CGC needs time to work, and that recruiting/system implementation is going to take awhile. That is fine, but don't cut off the nose in spite of the face until the unit is ready. Run the ball!
 
gambler said:
You guys all know it's truth and there is no way to deny it with any logic. Football isn't about appearances, it's about getting that W. We can appear like we have abandoned a run based offense all we want, but if we are trying to climb the ladder, then the wins have to come.

Maybe I am the delusional one here in thinking that if we had won 2-3 more orange bowls, that we wouldn't have traded coaches. The reality is the way that some people around here talk, I think people would have still have been wanting to trade away a winning coach just like those cucks did at ugag.

We all realize that CGC needs time to work, and that recruiting/system implementation is going to take awhile. That is fine, but don't cut off the nose in spite of the face until the unit is ready. Run the ball!
Click to expand...
This is one of the most bizzare posts I've ever seen here. I suppose it is best to ask about the "delusional" paragraph. You think we would want to trade away a coach with 4 Orange Bowl wins?

Anyway, and I'm hesitant to continue this conversation because your post is so bizzare, do you think wins lead to great recruits or do great recruits lead to wins? Which comes first in your mind, the chicken or the egg?
 
Last edited:
This season was about laying the foundation for future years; it would have been wasteful to have installed a hybrid system that was very run heavy just to try and win 1 or 2 more games this season. I'm very glad they didn't do that. Some coaches do that, then you look up in season 4 and your team either regresses or is stuck at 7 wins a year because there is no upside and you hindered the transition by trying to win a couple of more games in season 1.

This was a year "zero" season. If you want, judge next season as a year 1 for a new coach. I've been consistent that I'm not doing that until Year 3.
 
GTCrew said:
This is one of the most bizzare posts I've ever seen here. I suppose it is best to ask about the "delusional" paragraph. You think we would want to trade away a coach with 4 Orange Bowl wins?

Anyway, and I'm hesitant to continue this conversation because your post is so bizzare, do you think wins lead to great recruits or do great recruits lead to wins? Which comes first in your mind, the chicken or the egg?
Click to expand...

What's bizarre is that this is confusing to you. What I'm saying is people were bitching about a coach with a winning record, and while not consistent every year we did trade him away for what IS, at this point, a downgrade. Time will tell if that changes but yes, I am saying that people around here talk like they would still have looked for a change even if we had some more trophies, simply because of the system.

Now as far as you chicken and egg question goes, you can't even answer that. You can have a ton of mediocre players and win a championship if they are on the same page, but you can also take a 5 star roster and piss away title games.

However, I know that recruits aren't looking at 2-9 records and thinking how they can bring the program out of the abyss. Wins do draw players because the best players want exposure. Bama and Clemson don't have excellent recruiting classes because they host losing records regularly.

I agree that the coaching staff has to play what they have, and I commend them for honoring the existing roster for the next several years. But the run is our existing strength and we should be catering to that strength until the new system is in place. There is no reason to avoid running because they want to be seen as moving away from a run based offense. That is what is causing these extra losses.
 
How about we run more when the opponent is weak against the run and pass more when the opponent is weak against the pass. Maybe even run when the opponent thinks we will pass and pass when they think we will run. I know these are new concepts for GT.
 
gambler said:
What's bizarre is that this is confusing to you. What I'm saying is people were bitching about a coach with a winning record, and while not consistent every year we did trade him away for what IS, at this point, a downgrade. Time will tell if that changes but yes, I am saying that people around here talk like they would still have looked for a change even if we had some more trophies, simply because of the system.
Click to expand...
I was personally fine with PJ, but our declining trajectory was undeniable. He didnt win 4 OBs, and he sure as öööö didnt have one in his future.

Now as far as you chicken and egg question goes, you can't even answer that. You can have a ton of mediocre players and win a championship if they are on the same page,
Click to expand...
No. Thats not correct at all. That is where you are nuts. We are done here. There isnt a single MNC team in my lifetime that had a ton of mediocre players. Lombardi himself aint beating Alabama and Clemson back to back with Elon recruits.
but you can also take a 5 star roster and piss away title games.

However, I know that recruits aren't looking at 2-9 records and thinking how they can bring the program out of the abyss. Wins do draw players because the best players want exposure. Bama and Clemson don't have excellent recruiting classes because they host losing records regularly.

I agree that the coaching staff has to play what they have, and I commend them for honoring the existing roster for the next several years. But the run is our existing strength and we should be catering to that strength until the new system is in place. There is no reason to avoid running because they want to be seen as moving away from a run based offense. That is what is causing these extra losses.
Click to expand...
 
gambler said:
What's bizarre is that this is confusing to you. What I'm saying is people were bitching about a coach with a winning record, and while not consistent every year we did trade him away for what IS, at this point, a downgrade.
Click to expand...
Chan Gailey had a winning record. I believe someone crunched the numbers and CPJ's W/L average was only slightly above CCG's. I'm only speculating but based on what I've seen so far this season CPJ would have dipped below CCG's average had he stayed.

A winning record isn't good enough, and no one gives a shit about historical averages or anything else. If you don't want to try to compete with the best then you shouldn't play.
 
GTCrew said:
I was personally fine with PJ, but our declining trajectory was undeniable. He didnt win 4 OBs, and he sure as öööö didnt have one in his future.

No. Thats not correct at all. That is where you are nuts. We are done here. There isnt a single MNC team in my lifetime that had a ton of mediocre players. Lombardi himself aint beating Alabama and Clemson back to back with Elon recruits.
Click to expand...

I'll see you here in 4 or 5 years after we have results to observe. Then assuming the results are positive, in another 2 years after that when you're complaining that we haven't recruited well enough or that the weather is wrong or some other existential nonsense.

I can make several examples of mediocre teams winning games they are outmatched in on a weekly basis, but you won't listen to that reasoning because it's beyond you. The only difference is getting to that consistent level to do it week in and out. Coaching and desire makes that happen.

In fact, I believe there is a thread 3 rows up about day this day in history.... we had a few top tier players but the talent level wasn't skewed in our favor that year for sure.

In the meantime, run the ball with what we have to win more games. If you're arguing with that, then you don't have any legs to stand on.
 
gambler said:
I'll see you here in 4 or 5 years after we have results to observe. Then assuming the results are positive, in another 2 years after that when you're complaining that we haven't recruited well enough or that the weather is wrong or some other existential nonsense.

I can make several examples of mediocre teams winning games they are outmatched in on a weekly basis, but you won't listen to that reasoning because it's beyond you. The only difference is getting to that consistent level to do it week in and out. Coaching and desire makes that happen.

In fact, I believe there is a thread 3 rows up about day this day in history.... we had a few top tier players but the talent level wasn't skewed in our favor that year for sure.

In the meantime, run the ball with what we have to win more games. If you're arguing with that, then you don't have any legs to stand on.
Click to expand...

Yes, there are upsets every week in college football. No one single team is pulling them off consistently. No team is going to consistently overcome talent disadvantages, regardless of "coaching and desire". You are bringing up FSU 2015 when we were 3-9 that year. What?

As for running the ball winning more games, we have run plenty to start with. Additional running may have won the Citadel game, but thats it.
 
gambler said:
I'll see you here in 4 or 5 years after we have results to observe.
Click to expand...
Agreed! Now stfu!
Then assuming the results are positive, in another 2 years after that when you're complaining that we haven't recruited well enough or that the weather is wrong or some other existential nonsense.
Click to expand...
Where is this coming from. I have no delusions and no excuses.

I can make several examples of mediocre teams winning games they are outmatched in on a weekly basis, but you won't listen to that reasoning because it's beyond you.
Click to expand...
Who the heck said upsets don't happen? .
The only difference is getting to that consistent level to do it week in and out. Coaching and desire makes that happen.
Click to expand...
Thats your plan? Coaching and desire? Nobody pulls off a MNC with 15 straight upsets.

In fact, I believe there is a thread 3 rows up about day this day in history.... we had a few top tier players but the talent level wasn't skewed in our favor that year for sure.
Click to expand...
What was our overall record that year? Did we not have the coaching and desire?

In the meantime, run the ball with what we have to win more games. If you're arguing with that, then you don't have any legs to stand on.
Click to expand...
You are remarkably shortsighted. The kind of kid who eats the marshmallow before the psychologist finishes his sentence. Thankfully, nobody on staff is listening to you.
 
GTCrew said:
Agreed! Now stfu! Where is this coming from. I have no delusions and no excuses.

Who the heck said upsets don't happen? . Thats your plan? Coaching and desire? Nobody pulls off a MNC with 15 straight upsets.

What was our overall record that year? Did we not have the coaching and desire?

You are remarkably shortsighted. The kind of kid who eats the marshmallow before the psychologist finishes his sentence. Thankfully, nobody on staff is listening to you.
Click to expand...

Past your bedtime son, I hope you're drinking so you can justify this broken rhetoric and the fugly woman you're with in the morning. Good luck.
 
gambler said:
Past your bedtime son, I hope you're drinking so you can justify this broken rhetoric and the fugly woman you're with in the morning. Good luck.
Click to expand...
You must be new around here. Someone needs to set you straight.

I sense some projection...
 
gambler said:
We all realize that CGC needs time to work, and that recruiting/system implementation is going to take awhile. That is fine, but don't cut off the nose in spite of the face until the unit is ready. Run the ball!
Click to expand...
I just wanted to highlight the dumbest thing you will have read yesterday.

CGC has already elevated recruiting to a historical level. It did not take a while.

System implementation only takes a while if you teach the whole team the wrong system then only teach them the right system years in. That doesnt make sense. We will be way better off next year and the year after if it is our second and third years in the same system, not the first year of our third system in three years.
 
gambler said:
What's bizarre is that this is confusing to you. What I'm saying is people were bitching about a coach with a winning record, and while not consistent every year we did trade him away for what IS, at this point, a downgrade. Time will tell if that changes but yes, I am saying that people around here talk like they would still have looked for a change even if we had some more trophies, simply because of the system.

Now as far as you chicken and egg question goes, you can't even answer that. You can have a ton of mediocre players and win a championship if they are on the same page, but you can also take a 5 star roster and piss away title games.

However, I know that recruits aren't looking at 2-9 records and thinking how they can bring the program out of the abyss. Wins do draw players because the best players want exposure. Bama and Clemson don't have excellent recruiting classes because they host losing records regularly.

I agree that the coaching staff has to play what they have, and I commend them for honoring the existing roster for the next several years. But the run is our existing strength and we should be catering to that strength until the new system is in place. There is no reason to avoid running because they want to be seen as moving away from a run based offense. That is what is causing these extra losses.
Click to expand...

Trolling?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top