SI Triple Option Article (Willie Fritz is the Future)

That was a fascinating read. This quote stood out to me:

article said:
The other three Division I teams that currently run the old-school option are coached by longtime Johnson assistants at Navy: In the last two years, Army (led by Jeff Monken), Navy (Ken Niumatalolo) and FCS upstart Kennesaw State (Brian Bohannon) are 54–24 with five postseason wins between them.
Click to expand...

The offensive scheme is not the problem. It just isn't. If it was up to me, I'd figure out which one of those guys is the best recruiter and hire him when Johnson leaves.
 
GTlee said:
Yes! We have been absolutely dominating CFB since 2015!
Click to expand...
Can we all stop cherry picking years here? Yes we have been poor in recent years, but can we just all evaluate CPJ on his entire tenure (I'll even allow a discounting of 2008-2010 for Gailey recruits)? For the most part the problem isn't the offense, and when I say that I don't mean that the problem isn't the coach because cpj is ultimately responsible.

I'm fine with going to another offense, as I really just want the right coach. But we shouldnt disregard any coaches that uses the option purely because they use the option.
 
johncu said:
That was a fascinating read. This quote stood out to me:



The offensive scheme is not the problem. It just isn't. If it was up to me, I'd figure out which one of those guys is the best recruiter and hire him when Johnson leaves.
Click to expand...

Yes!
 
Diseqc said:
What coaches are hoping we drop the offense?

Not Dabo.
Not Cutcliffe.
Not Richt.

Maybe Fuente. But he sucks anyways.
Click to expand...
Even if the offense wasn’t good, opposing ACC coaches would want us to drop it simply because they have to set aside time to practice for it.
 
johncu said:
That was a fascinating read. This quote stood out to me:



The offensive scheme is not the problem. It just isn't. If it was up to me, I'd figure out which one of those guys is the best recruiter and hire him when Johnson leaves.
Click to expand...

The best recruiter will still have a hard time recruiting for that scheme in a P5 league. Kids will still flat-out not want to play in a scheme that runs the ball 65+ times a game, that abhors the Shotgun formation, that hates the TE, that cut blocks, etc etc.

We don't know but I'd bet good $$$ that the 54-24 record would be a bit different if these schools played the schedule we do. And frankly, I don't give a öööö about what pissant Kennesaw St is doing nor do I want to emulate a tiny redneck commuter school in any way, shape, or form.

Hot buttered Christ - are we now going to hold ourselves up to FCS Kennesaw ööööing St????
 
TypicalTechFan said:
Why must we continue to run the TO after the CPJ era? We didn’t run it before he got here.
Click to expand...

We won a natty without it. We had a Heisman candidate and all the excitement of that without it.

We've had none of that since and won't ever as long as we run CPJ's offense. Right now, we're not even beating the PITTs, UVAs, Dukes, and UNCs of the world anymore.
 
ramblinwreck24 said:
I honestly wish everyone would realize that the offense itself isn't the problem. It makes us unique, if we move on from CPJ, a younger coach with more enthusiasm is all we need. Monken would be the best hire. I know most of you don't agree but a lot of coaches at other schools are hoping we drop the offense with a new hire. They know it gives us an advantage.
Click to expand...

It clearly doesn't and our W-L record proves that. It also makes recruiting more difficult. With this scheme, we're now .500 at best vs the UVAs, Dukes, UNCs, and PITTs of the conference.

Repeating it and expecting different results....well, you know what that is. It's nice to pile up rushing stats but hell, when you run it 65+ times/game, you better get decent rushing #s. Meanwhile, attendance will continue to drop.
 
beej67 said:
.
Click to expand...
It’s changes like this that are honestly making me care less and less about college football. It does nothing for safety, but does a great job of ensuring that the factory schools don’t have to worry about losing to smaller schools and blowing up their precious bowl aspirations. If I wanted to watch a pro offense, I’d lobotomize myself and spend Sunday eating Doritos and watching Joe Buck be bad at his job.
 
DaDodd said:
It would be an easy transition to open up more passing.
Click to expand...

yep,
also the Tulane QB looks better than TM, of course he is running an Offense that allows some passing but the guy runs well also--scary
 
I crunched the numbers, and decided to look at the O'Leary and Gailey years vs the Johnson years against the four teams we're no longer going to be able to compete with†.

UNC:
  • 94-07: We went .710 against them, while everyone else* went .500
  • 08-17: We're clipping along at .600. Everyone else is doing .49
UVA:
  • 94-07: (the dark years) we had a ööööing .350 winning percentage against the Zima lovers. Everyone else was at .39 (which makes us slightly worse, which we all knew because öööö Hooville)
  • 08-17: We're beating them at a .600 rate, while everyone else is doing .650. (Again, slightly worse. Because, again, öööö Hooville).
Duke:
  • 94-07: (Lulz, Duke sucked in these days) .850. Everyone else, .820.
  • 08-17 (Cutcliffe is a bitch) .700, while everyone else is at .540
Pitt:
  • 94-07:
  • 08-17: We're .600 against Pitt, while everyone else is at .400. (If you include the turd we laid two weeks ago, we're .500 against Pitt)

So, for starters, Paul Johnson is at or above .600 against all of those teams. So, clearly we can still beat them. We're also near or better than the "average" team playing against the Impotent Four (We've been slightly worse than the average against UVA, because, again, öööö Hooville.) We're trending slightly down against UNC, doing way better against the Hoos (obligatory, öööö Hooville), and having a a little more trouble with Duke (and Duke as evidenced, has gotten way better). We're beating the average on Pitt.

*I didn't remove the Tech games from the "everyone else" team games. So when it says "everyone else", it really means their win percentage over that period. I am not running the advanced statistics needed to properly say whether or not we're better than a "replacement football team" against them.

† This is pure bullshit.
 
beej67 said:
This is great.
Click to expand...

Homer Rice is notably absent from that article and diagram.

https://www.si.com/vault/1968/11/04/550959/a-new-name-for-the-game-score-score-score

The tackle is in trouble because of the biggest vogue in college football—"Homer's Triple," as some call it, or the "Houston Veer," as others refer to it. It is a quarterback option play first devised by Cincinnati Coach Homer Rice, then expanded upon by Houston Coach Bill Yeoman.

jenkinsdiagram.jpg
 
Who would not want to be married to the option?

Some people like the option and want to keep the option. Some people believe that the school is going to have difficulty competing with other schools for the same players running the same plays.

GT going from working mans engineering school to MIT and the introduction of APR has changed the playing field.

Don't worry. CPJ will retire someday and there will be a new coach in the future. Until then, root for our boys in white and gold (and sometime navy).
 
ronricks said:
Why do people think we are married to running the option?
Click to expand...
I can't wait until we run the same offense as Vanderbilt and lose like Vanderbilt. Our colors are already kind of similar. Hey, we might even be as irrelevant as Vanderbilt too. I f'n can't wait! When was the last time Vanderbilt was in any meaningful game? They are so irrelevant you probably can't remember.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top