Does Paul Johnson's Scheme Hurt Georgia Tech?

[homestarunner93]

Stars are ineffective because they try to rank kids who play on different levels in high school against different competition. It is almost impossible to rank those kids when they don't play against each other. The ranking works for those 5 stars because they're all on the circuit playing each in camps, competing all the time. But those 2-4 stars that are not always in the camps, it is impossible to correctly gauge those kids with precision needed to accurately determine their potential.

A team like GT will not get many 5 stars. Hell most teams don't get 5 stars in general. They, like most teams make up their teams with 3-4 stars and some 2 stars. Rivals and Scout accurately gets the 5 stars right usually in their success at the next level, but fail miserably trying to project the other kids. It's not their fault either. It's too difficult to see film and kids at camps of schools.

Coaches have a footprint area to recruit, so they watch these kids from 8th grade on and are able to project where a kid may end up in their program.

You're argument for the various reasons why coaches offer is negligible at best. I have never heard of kids being offered at D-1 programs to boost their GPA. I've heard rumors of kids being offered to get another teammate, but I think that is almost too rare to really believe. This is because its a very dangerous situation to do so. Taking a recruit for hopes of getting his teammate can easily backfire.



So your expectations have Navy as a BCS title contender to be a threat? So is Clemson not a threat because they have never been in a BCS bowl, let alone the championship game? Sorry for the jab, but had to throw it there.



Ah so your in the class that believes that since other coaches aren't using it, then it must be a joke. Nebraska built a powerhouse out of it. The triple option faded out due to the desire to have a 6'4" 225 QB with a rocket arm ala Peyton Manning in which passing was the name to the game. But with the rise of dual threat QB, we're seeing more option attacks and may see more triple options.

If the triple option is so easy to stop then why have coaches failed to do so thus far in Johnson's coaching career? I just think you feel its not a sexy offense and therefore don't take it seriously, even though it is one of the most effective offenses out there with high success rate and low risk.

Hell the spread option utilizes motion and the QB in a non traditional manner. With wildcat offenses, you see this all the time in the spread. Does that mean Alabama was using a gimmicky offense against Arkansas for having the RB taking direct snaps?

They "fail miserably" on four and three star guys? That's not even close to true, both sites do a pretty good job on judging talent. That's not true about them not being able to see kids at camp, that's why they have separate reporters for each team, so they can watch them in camp and evaluate them. I figured you might be able to reckon that one, I guess not.

Teams definitely offer GPA boosters over people that they might have to stash in a Prep School because they're dumb/had bad advice. Clemson offered and signed Daniel Andrews to help get Jamie Harper, it certainly didn't "kill" the program.

No, I don't expect Navy to be a championship contender, but Paul Johnson would have to take them there to be a legitimate threat. Which is why I said he wasn't one there, because he wasn't ever going to take them to a BCS Bowl, that should have been fairly clear. Also, dumbass, Clemson won the Football National Championship game over Nebraska in 1982 (1981 championship). Nice swing and miss on that one.

Again, if the triple option was so wildly successful, it would be more widely utilized, period. Most coaches aren't idiots, if it gives them a chance to win, screw a big QB with a big arm. You do what wins games. If coaches were so worried about being so prototypical, then everyone would run a pro-style offense. Good teams have had success stopping the option, it isn't an unstoppable offense. Johnson has had success at Georgia Southern and Navy, hardly powerhouses. People are going to pay more attention at Georgia Tech, which is why I said he would have more trouble with it.

Yes, God yes, the Wilcat is a gimmick. Alabama's offense as a whole isn't, but that formation sure as hell is. If all Alabama ever ran was the Wildcat, then they would have a gimmicky offense. Just because its a gimmick doesn't mean it can't be successful as you apparently believe.

[Mr. October]

They "fail miserably" on four and three star guys? That's not even close to true, both sites do a pretty good job on judging talent. That's not true about them not being able to see kids at camp, that's why they have separate reporters for each team, so they can watch them in camp and evaluate them. I figured you might be able to reckon that one, I guess not.

Rivals has a main staff of 7 people with a total about 20 people covering teams. You can call them reporters, but they're about a step above bleacherreport as far as reporting goes. I'm not disrespecting the work they do because it's very good, but very limited. They can view them at the big time camps sponsored by Nike, but the team camps are too difficult for many of these guys to go to all over the place. They also look at potential on measurables and ability at positions they project but not what position a team is looking for the prospect. For instance, VTs backup QB was the #1 TE in the nation when the Hokies signed him, but the recruiting services never considered him as a QB.

And the recruiting services get players wrong at a huge rate. Just look at the 2007 Rivals 250. Look at how many of the 4 stars they got wrong as far as projection, many of whom are not with a D-1A program or buried on the depth chart. It happens every year because it is an inexact science of judging talent against each other that play on different levels in high school all across the country. Look at the top 10 teams in recruiting for 2006 and tell me how many of them were legitimate title contenders in 2009.

Teams definitely offer GPA boosters over people that they might have to stash in a Prep School because they're dumb/had bad advice. Clemson offered and signed Daniel Andrews to help get Jamie Harper, it certainly didn't "kill" the program.

Coaches more often go after the kid who'll have to attend a prep school for the fact that they can prep to qualify. He can get his school work together while playing against high competition than in high school. It's become a very popular option for kids and coaches. Coaches are not going to go after a kid to boost GPA. I have never heard of it. Coaches may like a kids character, which helps the equation, but they aren't going to recruit a kid solely because of his grades.

Don't quote me for saying "kill" when I never said that. I said it could be dangerous to offer a kid in hopes of landing his teaming because you could use the spot for another player if you never plan on using that player and only want him to lure in others. If you are constantly trying that with fringe players to get their friends, then you are in trouble.

Either way, both of your situations are very rare if they happen at all.

No, I don't expect Navy to be a championship contender, but Paul Johnson would have to take them there to be a legitimate threat. Which is why I said he wasn't one there, because he wasn't ever going to take them to a BCS Bowl, that should have been fairly clear. Also, dumbass, Clemson won the Football National Championship game over Nebraska in 1982 (1981 championship). Nice swing and miss on that one.

I thought we were talking about BCS national championships since I was talking about BCS bowls, but I guess I needed to clarify that. But it's always good to refer to a record that you weren't even alive for to justify your teams accomplishments.

Anyways, your expectations are out of whack if you really believe you're a threat only if you can compete for a national championship. Only about 4 teams can say that at the end of any given year.

Again, if the triple option was so wildly successful, it would be more widely utilized, period. Most coaches aren't idiots, if it gives them a chance to win, screw a big QB with a big arm. You do what wins games. If coaches were so worried about being so prototypical, then everyone would run a pro-style offense. Good teams have had success stopping the option, it isn't an unstoppable offense. Johnson has had success at Georgia Southern and Navy, hardly powerhouses. People are going to pay more attention at Georgia Tech, which is why I said he would have more trouble with it.

It once was widely utilized, but like most trends it faded out for the spread. It doesn't mean it's a gimmick because other teams aren't using it. Teams stopped using it because defenses started lining 8 men in the box to prevent it, which entered the spread offense to counter it. But Johnson's triple option requires a big WR that's a deep threat to keep offenses honest, which is why Demaryius Thomas had a great year, despite only have a few catches a game. But there is nothing different in concept that you don't see in the spread. Both utilize motion, deception, speed, and power. Hell the spread will probably fade out sometime in the future and the triple option may become a trend once again, as we are seeing more teams using option plays recently.

Yes, God yes, the Wilcat is a gimmick. Alabama's offense as a whole isn't, but that formation sure as hell is. If all Alabama ever ran was the Wildcat, then they would have a gimmicky offense. Just because its a gimmick doesn't mean it can't be successful as you apparently believe.

But you're argument was that the triple option was gimmicky because you couldn't be successful in a big program because it needs lesser talent to use. If the wildcat is using higher talent and is successful then why is it gimmicky?

[desertrat218]

They "fail miserably" on four and three star guys? That's not even close to true, both sites do a pretty good job on judging talent. That's not true about them not being able to see kids at camp, that's why they have separate reporters for each team, so they can watch them in camp and evaluate them. I figured you might be able to reckon that one, I guess not.

Teams definitely offer GPA boosters over people that they might have to stash in a Prep School because they're dumb/had bad advice. Clemson offered and signed Daniel Andrews to help get Jamie Harper, it certainly didn't "kill" the program.

No, I don't expect Navy to be a championship contender, but Paul Johnson would have to take them there to be a legitimate threat. Which is why I said he wasn't one there, because he wasn't ever going to take them to a BCS Bowl, that should have been fairly clear. Also, dumbass, Clemson won the Football National Championship game over Nebraska in 1982 (1981 championship). Nice swing and miss on that one.

Again, if the triple option was so wildly successful, it would be more widely utilized, period. Most coaches aren't idiots, if it gives them a chance to win, screw a big QB with a big arm. You do what wins games. If coaches were so worried about being so prototypical, then everyone would run a pro-style offense. Good teams have had success stopping the option, it isn't an unstoppable offense. Johnson has had success at Georgia Southern and Navy, hardly powerhouses. People are going to pay more attention at Georgia Tech, which is why I said he would have more trouble with it.

Yes, God yes, the Wilcat is a gimmick. Alabama's offense as a whole isn't, but that formation sure as hell is. If all Alabama ever ran was the Wildcat, then they would have a gimmicky offense. Just because its a gimmick doesn't mean it can't be successful as you apparently believe.

This is quite hilarious. Clemson did manage to win that 1 championship and William "Refrigerator" Perry was a big part of that. Good for you, even though you weren't even alive then. In the meantime, Nebraska did win 5 national championships, went to a bowl game 37 years in a row, won 43 conference championships, 3 heisman trophies, 9 outland trophies, etc. Congrats on your 1 championship though!

[Mr. October]

This is quite hilarious. Clemson did manage to win that 1 championship and William "Refrigerator" Perry was a big part of that. Good for you, even though you weren't even alive then. In the meantime, Nebraska did win 5 national championships, went to a bowl game 37 years in a row, won 43 conference championships, 3 heisman trophies, 9 outland trophies, etc. Congrats on your 1 championship though!

No offense, but I think you completely missed the point. Homestarrunner wasn't taking a shot at Nebraska in his post. He was just pointing out that I missed Clemson's national championship, although I was trying to discuss BCS bowls...No need to get defensive about Nebraska, especially in an ACC thread.

[desertrat218]

No offense, but I think you completely missed the point. Homestarrunner wasn't taking a shot at Nebraska in his post. He was just pointing out that I missed Clemson's national championship, although I was trying to discuss BCS bowls...No need to get defensive about Nebraska, especially in an ACC thread.

I saw it more as a shot at the triple option offense. I could bring up several other programs that had a lot of success with it, like Oklahoma, Arkansas, Alabama, to name a few. The main reason why those schools changed their offenses was because the NFL changed. When the NFL changed their rules to favor the passing game, more teams went to the passing game. You no longer had to dominate at the line to win football games if you could throw the ball instead. As the NFL teams made this change, more recruits wanted to play in a system that would better prepare them for a future in the NFL. This made recruiting much more difficult for the teams running the triple option. The offense is still highly effective with a smart QB running it.

[Mr. October]

I saw it more as a shot at the triple option offense. I could bring up several other programs that had a lot of success with it, like Oklahoma, Arkansas, Alabama, to name a few. The main reason why those schools changed their offenses was because the NFL changed. When the NFL changed their rules to favor the passing game, more teams went to the passing game. You no longer had to dominate at the line to win football games if you could throw the ball instead. As the NFL teams made this change, more recruits wanted to play in a system that would better prepare them for a future in the NFL. This made recruiting much more difficult for the teams running the triple option. The offense is still highly effective with a smart QB running it.

Very true. Good point.

[homestarunner93]

It once was widely utilized, but like most trends it faded out for the spread. It doesn't mean it's a gimmick because other teams aren't using it. Teams stopped using it because defenses started lining 8 men in the box to prevent it, which entered the spread offense to counter it. But Johnson's triple option requires a big WR that's a deep threat to keep offenses honest, which is why Demaryius Thomas had a great year, despite only have a few catches a game. But there is nothing different in concept that you don't see in the spread. Both utilize motion, deception, speed, and power. Hell the spread will probably fade out sometime in the future and the triple option may become a trend once again, as we are seeing more teams using option plays recently.



But you're argument was that the triple option was gimmicky because you couldn't be successful in a big program because it needs lesser talent to use. If the wildcat is using higher talent and is successful then why is it gimmicky?

I don't think I need to respond to anything above what I quoted, but I know for a fact Ryan Bartow at TigerIllustrated is evaluating kids over SC, NC, GA, and FL for sure. So there a hell of a lot better than bleacher report guys for damn sure.

The triple option WAS popular, but its a gimmick because it isn't traditional. Team put 8 guys in the box, its easy to stop when gameplanned for, and it isn't a traditional and widely used offense. That certainly defines gimmick for me.

That wasn't my argument at all. My argument was since it was a gimmick, it would be tough to have it succeed at a high level school in today's CFB scene. Not that the fact that it couldn't succeed made it a gimmick, that has to do with formations and the way its run. And the Wildcat is a gimmick too, flukey offenses can be useful and highly effective, in doses. I don't think its smart to run them the whole game, and your Wildcat example doesn't really hold up as their isn't a damn team in FBS that runs the Wildcat as their base offense.

This is quite hilarious. Clemson did manage to win that 1 championship and William "Refrigerator" Perry was a big part of that. Good for you, even though you weren't even alive then. In the meantime, Nebraska did win 5 national championships, went to a bowl game 37 years in a row, won 43 conference championships, 3 heisman trophies, 9 outland trophies, etc. Congrats on your 1 championship though!

Yep, and Nebraska was 0-1 in championship games against Clemson too. Even though I wasn't taking shots at them, OK.

I saw it more as a shot at the triple option offense. I could bring up several other programs that had a lot of success with it, like Oklahoma, Arkansas, Alabama, to name a few. The main reason why those schools changed their offenses was because the NFL changed. When the NFL changed their rules to favor the passing game, more teams went to the passing game. You no longer had to dominate at the line to win football games if you could throw the ball instead. As the NFL teams made this change, more recruits wanted to play in a system that would better prepare them for a future in the NFL. This made recruiting much more difficult for the teams running the triple option. The offense is still highly effective with a smart QB running it.

That was the whole point of me making the thread, thank you for backing up what I was saying.

[desertrat218]

I don't think I need to respond to anything above what I quoted, but I know for a fact Ryan Bartow at TigerIllustrated is evaluating kids over SC, NC, GA, and FL for sure. So there a hell of a lot better than bleacher report guys for damn sure.

The triple option WAS popular, but its a gimmick because it isn't traditional. Team put 8 guys in the box, its easy to stop when gameplanned for, and it isn't a traditional and widely used offense. That certainly defines gimmick for me.

That wasn't my argument at all. My argument was since it was a gimmick, it would be tough to have it succeed at a high level school in today's CFB scene. Not that the fact that it couldn't succeed made it a gimmick, that has to do with formations and the way its run. And the Wildcat is a gimmick too, flukey offenses can be useful and highly effective, in doses. I don't think its smart to run them the whole game, and your Wildcat example doesn't really hold up as their isn't a damn team in FBS that runs the Wildcat as their base offense.



Yep, and Nebraska was 0-1 in championship games against Clemson too. Even though I wasn't taking shots at them, OK.



That was the whole point of me making the thread, thank you for backing up what I was saying.

You must have failed reading comprehension.

[Mr. October]

I don't think I need to respond to anything above what I quoted, but I know for a fact Ryan Bartow at TigerIllustrated is evaluating kids over SC, NC, GA, and FL for sure. So there a hell of a lot better than bleacher report guys for damn sure.

Well you put way too much emphasis in these recruiting "analysts". They fail more than the succeed. And I said they were a step above bleacher report in terms of reporting.

The triple option WAS popular, but its a gimmick because it isn't traditional. Team put 8 guys in the box, its easy to stop when gameplanned for, and it isn't a traditional and widely used offense. That certainly defines gimmick for me.

That wasn't my argument at all. My argument was since it was a gimmick, it would be tough to have it succeed at a high level school in today's CFB scene. Not that the fact that it couldn't succeed made it a gimmick, that has to do with formations and the way its run. And the Wildcat is a gimmick too, flukey offenses can be useful and highly effective, in doses. I don't think its smart to run them the whole game, and your Wildcat example doesn't really hold up as their isn't a damn team in FBS that runs the Wildcat as their base offense.

So everyone has to do it for you to think it's not gimmicky. What about Gus Malzahn's no huddle offense? Is that gimmicky, even though most teams don't use it. Both coaches though have shown that their "gimmicky" offenses have succeeded at high levels, and done so fairly easily, much easier than you think is possible. BTW, Malzahn ran the wildcat primarily at Arkansas back in 06 and it worked.

[homestarunner93]

So everyone has to do it for you to think it's not gimmicky. What about Gus Malzahn's no huddle offense? Is that gimmicky, even though most teams don't use it. Both coaches though have shown that their "gimmicky" offenses have succeeded at high levels, and done so fairly easily, much easier than you think is possible. BTW, Malzahn ran the wildcat primarily at Arkansas back in 06 and it worked.

I didn't say everyone has to do it, but it has to be a system that is widely used and cast players in a traditional role. A no-huddle offense isn't gimmicky. No-huddle offenses are pretty widely used, I wouldn't call it gimmicky because players are all in their traditional positions, and it has little to do with the actual play. That's more pre-snap than anything. No, the Wildcat was not Arkansas' primary offense. They ran high doses of it because Casey Dick sucked...well..dick, and they had 3 good RBs, two of which were drafted in the first round of the draft.

[homestarunner93]

You must have failed reading comprehension.

You basically restated part of my discussion in the OP. I'm guessing you didn't read this whole thread, you just started getting butt-hurt when your precious Nebraska was mentioned negatively.

[desertrat218]

You basically restated part of my discussion in the OP. I'm guessing you didn't read this whole thread, you just started getting butt-hurt when your precious Nebraska was mentioned negatively.

The only one that got butt hurt was yourself when you were proven wrong. If you wanna see a gimmicky offense, watch Boise State. Running a triple option out of the power I is unstoppable when you have the proper personnel for it, that has always been true and it remains true. Come talk to me when you're memory of football goes back more than the last 5 years.

[homestarunner93]

The only one that got butt hurt was yourself when you were proven wrong. If you wanna see a gimmicky offense, watch Boise State. Running a triple option out of the power I is unstoppable when you have the proper personnel for it, that has always been true and it remains true. Come talk to me when you're memory of football goes back more than the last 5 years.

"Proven wrong?" In what way? The triple option doesn't look unstoppable to me, not in today's game. Sorry, but you're still reliving Nebraska's glory days, but the game changes.

[desertrat218]

"Proven wrong?" In what way? The triple option doesn't look unstoppable to me, not in today's game. Sorry, but you're still reliving Nebraska's glory days, but the game changes.

You must be about 14 years old. Nobody that actually knows anything about college football and the overall sport in general would make such ridiculous statements.

[homestarunner93]

You must be about 14 years old. Nobody that actually knows anything about college football and the overall sport in general would make such ridiculous statements.

Ok, based on what? If the triple option was so dominant, more teams would run it. Plain and simple.