There's a phrase called "the exception that proves the rule." It's been around for a long time. You might want to look it up and learn what it means.
I'm not trying to be a smart-***. If you want to take it there, we can just part ways now and no hard feelings.
You listed two plays in one game. I can point to many more plays this year. It doesn't seem like "exception". It seems more like improvement.
If you want to see what CBJ's system is capable of, you can see it fully implemented at UC. It was explosive there, too.
Wait, we have 2 elite QBs on our roster that fit this system? Then why aren't they playing? Why on earth did he start Peterman at the Swamp if he had these guys and they were so good?
They are true freshmen. Obviously, they are not ready to play and don't give us the best chance to win
at this time.
Again, I'm not trying to be a smart-***, but I have to ask... Do you really not understand this? If not, I'll leave the discussion to you and move along. Seriously. I don't think you're dumb. If you won't admit this much, you're arguing for the sake of argument.
You do realize that every coaches' system changes year to year with their personnel right? Sometimes it changes in the middle of a year when a pocket QB goes down and you have a more mobile guy come in (or vice versa). That's happened plenty of times. You're saying Jones' system is uniquely rigid and complex that it can't be altered for personnel? That you have to keep running QB option plays with a QB that can barely (and hardly ever does) run, simply so you can run them next year?
No coach that I know of changes their system completely. They may change the amount that they call certain plays within their system, but I promise you they do not change their system.
I think CBJ and staff are actually doing that. They've said that they are only calling the plays that the team are executing well in practice. They've
said that's what they are doing.
But a "system" entails blocking philosophy, etc... And blocking philosophies, etc... generally cater to the system as a whole. You won't generally see a staff change that up "in the middle of the season".
You saw CBJ change his emphasis successfully when he had a more pure passing QB than he did when he had a dual threat. He never changed his "system", but he changed his playcalling and succeeded.
I wish I could believe this. But those systems always seem to take advantage of the passing game and use alot of different routes and throw the ball around alot. Sumlin and Kingsbury and Malzahn have put up huge offensive numbers everywhere they have been and with all kinds of players. Jones didn't put up those kinds of numbers at Cincinatti.
Jones has always been run-first, just as Malzahn is. He has always also had a very successful passing attack.
At UT this year, we've had Worley, Peterman and freshmen receivers. You sure you want him to throw it around and forego the run?
Our system seems more like Rich Rodriguez and Urban Meyer's gimmicky option stuff and both of those have questionable success in major conference play without a super QB who is very good at running.
OK. I understand you better. I'll leave it at that.
It seems rather like sophistry to declare "well, since they are successful, they already had the players to run it." But, Sumlin and Malzahn have each taken over a number of programs and had offensive success right out of the gate. It's kind of convenient that all of those programs just happened to have just the right players for them each time. They clearly adjusted their systems to get the most out of their personnel.
It seems more like sophistry to claim that Malzahn is implementing his system this year, after recruiting to it and winning a MNC with it, at Auburn, as the OC.
[Edit:] Would you consider something that is self-evident to be sophistry? I propose that:
[*]A system is implemented.
[*]There is success in that system.
[*]There are players to succeed in that system.
:hi:
