And despite numerous apologists for his terrible passing game on this board, he embraces his team being one-dimensional.....
"I'm not looking to be balanced. I don't care about being balanced. I can find you a bunch of teams with losing records that were balanced...Be good at what you do."
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
BREAKING: Triple option coach runs the ball >90% of the time.
The balance vs. effectiveness argument has been done to death. You really want to start a whole thread over it?
But what about time of possession? BRB starting another thread/s
Well Paul Johnson being 1 dimensional leads to his team significantly leading the time of possession battle.
It really comes down to who has the better support staff.
via GIPHY
I've always wondered about that gif. Apparently, it's real.
https://boingboing.net/2017/09/13/the-story-behind-mr-rogers-jo.html
via GIPHY
This was one of the better gif responses I've seen on TKP. Well done sir.
If it was "effective" for Johnson, he would do it more. You really want to defend their "passing game" again? LOL Johnson doesn't even defend it.
It's effective because they're unbalanced. LOL
Nope... 2017... GT 99th in pass efficiency as a team.... Marshall was not in the top 110 in individual passing. Their passing game is only "effective" to VT fans who justify losing to them when they pass the ball. Any objective stat/measure shows you their passing game "sucks"... if they are "effective" so was VT under Stiney
Yeah, because they have a lot of incompletions. That doesn't mean they didn't throw for 10 touchdown passes last season. That's as many as Pitt's two starters combined and one fewer than BC's Anthony Brown.
Cool?
It was effective enough to beat us. That's the whole point of this discussion, no? You seem to prefer exclusively throwing our defense under the bus in this case rather than say the other team did some things right. The reality is somewhere in between.
If you looked at Washington State's rushing statistics you'd think they sucked too. The reality is they throw the ball >90% of the time, and when they run a halfback draw it catches the other team with their pants down. Their leading halfback averaged over 6ypc but only gained 522 yards. Does their running game suck? By your logic it does.
So, what objective stat are YOU using for labeling GT's passing game "effective" ? Your opinion? or "they beat us"? is that your evidence for their passing game being "effective" ? hell, show me a stat where their passing game is "mediocre"?? ACC touchdown passes more than Pitts QBs? is that your evidence?
I think a team that can throw an 80 yard touchdown pass after running the ball 15 times in a row ran an effective play. Don't you?
They beat us in part by completing a few long passes. Yes. Isn't that your opinion as well?
Georgia Tech doesn't need to throw for 300 yards to have an effective passing game within their offensive paradigm. All they need to do is complete a couple of deep balls. Are those plays not effective in your eyes because there aren't more of them?
The same number of touchdown passes as Pitt's QBs. No one is going to mistake Marshall for Kyle Rudolph. I thought it was a fair comparison.
So yes, your opinion... thought so. They were last in the ACC in completions, yards, TD passes. But, Beamer beat OSU in Columbus once... that makes him an "effective" coach against top 10 teams on the road by your logic. The fact that GT popped a couple of passes on VT last year does NOT make their passing game effective. EVERY stat backs my assertion.
Any team that throws the ball ~10 times a game for a handful of completions is going to rank near the bottom of the stat sheet in nearly every category. Congratulations. You still haven't proven that Georgia Tech's passing game isn't effective within their system.
They pop a couple of big passes on nearly everyone. How many of these passes need to be completed to cross your threshold of effectiveness? Sometimes it only takes one of those to win a game.
This is a false equivalence. Given that Georgia Tech hits a couple of deep passes per game, not per season, then a more fair comparison would be Beamer beating a top 10 team on the road once a season. If that were the case then yes that would make him an effective coach against top 10 teams on the road.
See point two
See point one
My threshold for effectiveness? Better than 99th in the country in efficiency and last in the ACC in every major passing category. That is my threshold. How about they finish 13th once in the ACC in passing? how about that?
You either flat out don't understand what effective means in this context, or you're being obtuse in a vain effort to consider yourself right. Others have shown below with stats just how effective Georgia Tech's passing offense is within their offensive system.
Now indulge me with your LOLs and quotation marks below oh master of diction and tact.
I know exactly what effective means.. and you call me obtuse.. You make an erroneous claim, back it up with opinions an anecdotes and "they beat us, so they can pass effectively" and call me obtuse. Their head coach acknowledges they are not a balanced or efficient team in terms of passing. They are dead last in the conference in every passing stat, and their QB is awful at everything except completing the rare bomb. Obtuse? they are a triple option team, they pass the ball less than 10% of the time.. sometimes they get lucky and complete one. Your refusal to call it what it is is what is obtuse. THEY CANT PASS... Ray Charles can see that. whatever your myriad of subjective reasons.. they are terrible at throwing the football efficiently or effectively. EVERY stat indicates this... with the exception or "yards per completion" - which is not a measure of "effective" at all.
Correct. They're effective though.
Let's go back to your first comment.
This is the perfect encapsulation of your flawed premise. It isn't just that GT doesn't pass because they're bad at it. They don't pass because they don't pass. That's how they create big plays by passing. It's like saying Washington State can't run the ball because they only get 50 yards per game on the ground on 8 carries. It isn't that they're bad at it. It's that they don't run the ball.
Stats without context are useless and you are purposely ignoring context.
"THEY CANT PASS"
Except for when they can, for long touchdowns, against teams that are selling out to stop their run game. Which is the entire basis of their passing game. It is extremely effective at what it is designed to do. No one is saying they are efficient at running a high volume fun-and-gun system, just that the amount of touchdowns or explosive plays that they generate out of the few times they throw the ball is pretty effective.
Maybe stop thinking that "effective" can only mean throwing a large volume of passes and completing them at a high percentage for a lot of yards. This is not the case for all offensive systems. Instead think of what would be considered an "effective" passing game within Johnson's offense. In context, it is pretty damn effective. By design, the best case scenario for Johnson's passing game is to pop a few explosive plays when the defense is napping/out of position. It is rather effective at accomplishing its designed goal.
Admittedly I have not gone back and watched or read Johnson's entire comments and maybe he spoke to efficiency at another time, but in the quote you referenced in our original post he never said he didn't think they were efficient, he said they weren't balanced.
The truth is, Johnson is a very bright offensive mind. He's a master of in game adjustments. Bud Foster is a very good defensive mind as well. There's a reason that almost every year GT rushes for a season low when we play them. Foster knows how to defend against the triple option, but it puts his corners on islands. It's pretty telling that in both games against them in the Fuente era our offense has played like pure dogshit and it still generally takes them throwing up prayers or having short fields from turnovers to beat us. I'm sure Johnson would much rather just run the ball down our throats and win that way. To your point, he probably also knows that with his QB and WR talent, he's not going to win year in and year out by catching our corners off guard in the passing game.
In my mind, Foster is doing the right things against GT. He's had corners get beat a few times and that's unfortunate. What we really need to beat GT is points on the board (preferably early) and to not turn the ball over. Fuente just has not figured out how to do that.
I'll start by saying Bud is awesome. However, giving up the huge chunk plays against GT the past two years are brutal.
The past two loses, GT has gashed the D for multiple rush/pass TDs.
Oh it is brutal to watch, absolutely. I just don't think the problems are with Bud's scheme. 2016 I lay at the feet of turnovers that both prevented us from scoring early and allowed them to do so. 2017 I put at the feet of GT getting lucky by hitting some bombs in the passing game. I just refuse to believe that what won them the game last season will happen consistently. It definitely still sucked to watch!
The offense HAS to score more against GT than they have. Simple as that IMO. GTs defense is not that good. We gotta get out of our own heads.
The two touchdowns last year were over the middle and took advantage our our safeties if I remember correctly. That was a soft spot in our pass defense last year in general. I think Pitt took advantage of it as well.
Nobody defends on the message boards and nobody defends it on the field either, that's why GT completes long passes every game of the season
I wish someone would just kick him in the
ballschinAre you suggesting he's a "Ballchinian"? What makes you so sure?
If only I could figure out how to make it CPJ's face on the alien and Bud Foster's on Tommy Lee Jones... I would watch this clip everyday.
He has beaten us two years in a row so cannot really talk down on it right now...
Somehow it feels like it always surprises us. And then we can't--with all this Fu-power--find an offensive plan. Lather rinse repeat.
"Never half-ass two things. Whole-ass one thing."
-Ron Swanson
That sounds familiar.
And yes, Paul Johnson and Ron Swanson would never talk to one another and consider each other great friends.
Like dirty as hell cut blocks at the knees?
Obligatory "Fuck that guy!"
another dcwilson thread that doesn't understand the difference between an effective passing game, an efficient passing game, and a balanced offensive game plan?
Roll your eyes all you want... show me a statistic that shows their passing game is any of what you say it is. Thanks
Ahhh yes... "Effective passing game = Beating Virginia Tech" That logic is so superior, it should be your doctoral thesis.
What exactly are you even arguing anymore?
I mean it was literally two passes that beat us. Therefore it was effective. It was the exact same case in 2016 as well.
Seriously. In that game GT went 2/8 passing for 2 touchdowns and 140 yards. If a certain play averages you 70 yards and a touchdown 25% of the time that you run it I would call that "effective". High risk/high reward, but effective.
2014, 4th down, Enter Sandman, Completed Pass, Field Goal. Ball Game.
Just so we're clear, GT beat 4 garbage teams last year. And VT. Draw your own conclusions.
I think GT's 2017 passing game is about 15.7% of the their total offensive plays and 21.5% of their total offensive yards. This is evidenced by an average of 10.7 passes per game for an average of 84.3 passing yards per game balanced against an average of 57.5 rushes per game for an average of 307.4 yards per game.
https://www.ncaa.com/stats/football/fbs/current/team/741
Yeah, but there weren't enough of those for them to really be effective.
And this is the nuance that dcwilson never discusses before he starts insulting the argument anyone makes for why GT has an effective offensive system. We can see pretty clearly that GT uses the run to dictate game tempo, limit opponents' possessions, and to set up a few downfield passing shots every game. It's stupid to talk about GT's "passing game", because it's a total offensive system that is not a "passing game" and a "running game".
GT would have better passing efficiency (which has a real formula and depends greatly on completion percentage) numbers if they schemed in 5-6 more easy completions throughout the course of the game that brought their comp% numbers up at the expense of YPC.
However, there isn't a stat for "effective". We can only judge whether or not a play is "effective" based on its results, and to tell a bunch of VT fans on a VT forum that GT doesn't have an effective passing game months after we watched GT's "ineffective" passing game put that game away is a fool's errand at best and trolling at worst. (Re-read my post and then re-read dcwilson's reply asking for stats. There's a disconnect.)
If a heavyweight boxer has a 6-6 record with the six losses by decision and the six wins by uppercut KO, does that mean he doesn't have an "effective" uppercut?
99th in the country in pass efficiency last year. period. Your spin is hilarious, and meaningless. And again, Lefty was REALLY EFFECTIVE as VT's OC... if you disagree with me, you are just wrong- stats and facts be damned
Actually, I thought he made a pretty good point, bud. They may not be good at the pass efficiency stat, but they don't have a traditional passing game, so that measurement is off for them. For what they do (the occasional downfield shot after an opponent starts cheating against the run), they get good results, so they are efficient at what they do.
Right, and I'm looking for an objective way to quantify "the occasional shot downfield after opponents cheat the run".. can't find it.. so I'l use dead last in every meaningful ACC passing stat and their coach acknowledging such as my argument.
That stat is yards per catch, bud. Maybe tracking data could compare YPC compared to xYPC and give you some sort of differential, but I don't think football tracking data is there yet. Just because there isn't a stat for it doesn't mean there's not a genuine football case for it, though
If this isn't the most dcwilson40 comment ever...
Of course when taken in context.. shouting that Scott Leoffler was an EFFECTIVE OC at VT- no matter what the stats say is what they are arguing with regarding GT.
But you're the only one doing that.
No, you are the one claiming the 14th ranked passing game in the ACC in every listed stat is "effective".. so I'll play along and state as fact that "Scott Leoffler was EFFECTIVE"... I have zero stats to back it up... but he hit a few plays, so I'll argue with you all day that he was EFFECTIVE in Beamer's system...despite his offense being in the 100's... THAT is EXACTLY what you are doing with the GT passing game.
Every listed stat except for the one that you think is meaningless anyway because it doesn't support what you're saying.
I'm backing up my argument. You're strawmanning about Loeffler.
Wow dude. You're dense AF. It would probably be good for you to take a break from the keyboard and get some fresh air for a few days
What spin? What do you think I'm arguing? What do you think effective means? What do you think efficient means? Why do you use them as if you think every other commenter thinks they're interchangeable?
Maybe you guys should just call each other and discuss this on the phone.
Exactly what I was going to post! Their YPComp is insane when compared to anyone who doesn't run the Triple Option.
Opening this thread be like
So many questions....
Looks to me like dropping sodium, or similar thing that reacts with water.
I prefer to believe that they were fishing with grenades.
If I remember this correctly I believe this was film set of some sort. That's an actual grenade and the guy just held on too long.
via GIPHY
As far as efficiency:
*GT was #2 in the nation in Yards Per Completion with 21.56 yards per completion
*Not a sort-able column on NCAA's website, but by my count (which could be off 1 or 2 spots) they were 35th in yards per attempt with 7.79 ypa.
*They also had 10 TDs on only 119 attempts. Not sure where that ranks nationally in terms of TD/attempt, but I'd venture to say throwing a TD on 8.4% of your attempts is probably near the top. For comparison OK State who is a pass first team and was #3 in the nation in passing efficiency, threw the ball 503 times and had 37 TDs. That is throwing a TD on 7.4% of their attempts.
So, I would say the stats are pretty clear that GT is efficient in the passing game. Certainly not pretty, but absolutely efficient.
With that being said . . . EFF PAUL JOHNSON!!!
Efficient =/= Explosive. The stats you provided are indicative of an explosive passing game. Efficient is high completion percentage and first down percentage (on what percentage of passes do you gain a first down).
I didn't know explosives were a measurable and meaningful football statistic!
I would argue that depends on what you're trying to produce. Efficient means producing something with as little wasted effort as possible. If your goal in the passing game is to produce first downs, you're right, they don't do that very well comparatively. If your goal in the passing game is to produce TDs, then TD/attempt is how you would measure efficient. I'd say Johnson passes to score as evidenced by the fact that almost all of their passes are downfield. It's the entire paradox of his system. He doesn't measure success in the passing game the same way Fuente would, but that doesn't mean it isn't producing exactly what he wants it to.
I may be listening to too much Podcast Ain't Played Nobody, where one of the two regulars is Bill Connelly, creator of the S&P+ Rankings. He came up with a list of "Five Factors of College Football" that signify the true quality of a team, and two of those factors are Efficiency, which essentially boils down to "success rate" or how often you succeed at your intended goal (first downs and scoring on offense, low-yardage plays and turnovers on defense), and Explosiveness, or big-play potential.
2/8 passing is not a very high "success rate", but averaging 70 yards on those two completions indicates a lot of "big-play potential". In Paul Johnson's case (and using the lingo highlighted above), this is effective because his entire gameplan relies on an efficient run game meant to open up the defense for an explosive passing game.
No worries, I just looked a websters definition of efficient and made up my own way of looking at it, so football educated people probably agree with you a lot more than me! At any rate, I think we're basically saying the same thing, that Paul Johnson's passing attack gives him exactly what he wants from it. At the end of the day, that's all that really matters.
Also, thanks for doing the legwork to produce these stats. This is the best factually based argument on the board if you ask me.
No sweat, you're very welcome.
I was trying to quantify if GT is "effective" per their goals, not looking at the statistic "passing efficiency". I would still argue that they are efficient at what they're trying to accomplish. I have no doubt that PJ could scheme up a higher completion percentage if he wanted to. But that's not his goal, if he's throwing he's trying to pop a big play. That's why the stat "passing efficiency" is not the best comparison to teams running modern offenses.
I was expecting more GIF responses to the OP. C'mon TKP, entertain me!
Fascinating....
wat bout mayo tho
Two things to be taken from this thread:
1) Chinballs still needs a punch to the face
2) the definition of "effective" is not the same as "efficient"
Third thing:
3) Bud Foster ALWAYS gets the pass.
Ding, ding, ding, ding! We have a winnah!
FFS why does every one of these dcw threads turn into such a pissing contest
Old proverb: Never argue with a fool, people passing by may not be able to tell the difference.
Coach Paul Chinball's idea of balance is to take out the left and right knees of any opposing player.
If the NCAA was serious about player safety, he wouldn't have a job.
Dc i think you just have an bad habit of making pointless threads on here. Please just stop posting
A bad hobbit you say?
Shit
nah, i'm not cool with that. He definitely has issues conveying his thoughts without aggression but he's not inflammatory. He should be able to post as freely as others.
I have less an issue with what he says than how he says it. People say controversial things on here all the time, but rarely does it devolve into these kind of massive meltdowns. It reminds me a lot of the same behavior that people got fed up with when it came to Bender a few years back.
oh yeah, I agree with you on that. He is close to full Bender sometimes. But I am against restricting anyone from creating posts. Unless Joe banhammers him.
hard disagree. he could stand to work on tone but it's nice to have some other opinions
Agree - love hearing different thoughts/opinions. Generally, I always learn something from it, or it makes me think a little more on a certain topic. Tone means a lot though.