2 things: Thoughs on Bajakian and Jason Croom...

[oregonvol]

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.

We'll have to disagree here. I don't think Jones' offense was so explosive at Cincinatti. Certainly it wasn't so explosive as to give me great hope that it will succeed at this level. Their defense was much higher rated than their offense last year.

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.

That they are true freshmen is exactly my point. If they aren't capable of playing and running this system now, you can't know for a fact that they will be effective running this system in the future. And this system seems to rely heavily on the QB. And if you need one who is big and strong (which neither of them are) and can both run and pass effectively, shouldn't you be looking for something more certain or trying desperately to find better options than two guys that you know for certain are incapable now, but you hope will be capable one day?

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.

Fair enough. And we're winning with defense and I'm happy they are finding ways to win now. I just think there's cause to worry about the future when you have a veteran offensive line and decent running backs and you can't move the ball effectively on the ground. I just don't understand a system where the best plays for your pocket passer QB are for him to fake a run and hand it off over and over again. And I don't see the logic in doing it now just so you can do it next year. And I don't see how it will get better next year or in future years when we don't have any QB on our entire roster who is a real running threat.

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.

:hi:

It is sophistry to pretend that Malzahn's success at Auburn is the only example of him taking over the offense at a program and having offensive success in year 1. He did it at Tulsa. He did it at Auburn the first time. He did it at Arkansas State (and really, he did it at Arkansas too, although that was a much different system altogether).

 

[butchna]

True.

CBJ didn't hesitate to take two Elite-11 QBs that fit his system.

And Auburn is very talented. Chizik did not leave them talent-broke. Malzahn is not implementing the system. He was their OC a couple of years ago, and UA went to the championship game with this very system.

Speaking of their system. It is VERY explosive. They put up over 20 points in one half against Bama not long ago. It's probably fairly indicative of what we will look like with play makers.

Orange Crush is CRUSHING it today ...can't agree more!
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[MZTERRY]

take a look at our run averages. Lane is at 5.9 ypc and neal is at 5.7. Or close to that. We are 37th overall in run offense. The passing game will get better as the wrs mature and worley continues to improve. No answer on croom. He is a big wr that needs to start catching the ball

cant catch what's not thrown

 

[SamRebel35]

cant catch what's not thrown

Do yourself a favor and leave this thread.

 

[papatomany]

The system will be fine. The play calling is fine. No way to judge it with an inaccurate QB who doesn't run. Butch says he loves "big splash plays", and we will see more of them in the future.

As I've said elsewhere, many many coaches would have started one of the freshmen QBs from day one; taken a few lumps while still winning those early games and still being demolished by Oregon, then had a much better chance to be rolling by the Florida game. Other coaches approach it the way Butch did.

And, (broken record here) Lane is consistently better than Neal. The number of carries should be flipped.

 

[papatomany]

This was a really nice post by JAEvans24 about the scheme:

[thread]203879[/thread]

 

[VolunteerVandiver]

Obvious troll is obvious.

 

[Orange_Crush]

We'll have to disagree here. I don't think Jones' offense was so explosive at Cincinatti. Certainly it wasn't so explosive as to give me great hope that it will succeed at this level. Their defense was much higher rated than their offense last year.

We can agree to disagree. Perhaps we have differing definitions of 'explosive'. In any event, it was successful enough Saturday to take down the number 9/11 tem in the country. It was successful enough to take the #6 team to overtime.

That they are true freshmen is exactly my point. If they aren't capable of playing and running this system now, you can't know for a fact that they will be effective running this system in the future. And this system seems to rely heavily on the QB. And you need one who is big and strong (which neither of them are) and can both run and pass effectively, shouldn't you be looking for something more certain or trying desperately to find better options than two guys that you know for certain are incapable now, but you hope will be capable one day?

I don't think you understand the effect that 'freshmen' have on your point. (I think you invented the big/strong need at QB. Muchie Lageux was 6'5, 200 lbs, but even giving you that...) You sit promising freshmen to learn the system and get...? Bigger and stronger!

You will never have a sure thing. You most certainly don't give up on promising QBs because they are... Freshmen. With Two 6'4-plus Elite-11 QBs and the holes we need to fill, it's understandable that he would pass on a QB this year.

Fair enough. And we're winning with defense and I'm happy they are finding ways to win now. I just think there's cause to worry about the future when you have a veteran offensive line and decent running backs and you can't move the ball effectively on the ground. I just don't understand a system where the best plays for your pocket passer QB are for him to fake a run and hand it off over and over again. And I don't see the logic in doing it now just so you can do it next year. And I don't see how it will get better next year or in future years when we don't have any QB on our entire roster who is a real running threat.

Thankfully, UT football success doesn't hinge on what you understand about CBJ's offense. Again, I'm not trying to be a smart-***, I too am just using logic. CBJ has won all the ones his talent would indicate he would win. He's beaten one his talent wouldn't indicate he woushd beat. He took another to overtime.

Oh, and if you don't see our two freshmen QBs as "running threats", you are not following UT football as of late.

It is sophistry to pretend that Malzahn's success at Auburn is the only example of him taking over the offense at a program and having offensive success in year 1. He did it at Tulsa. He did it at Auburn the first time. He did it at Arkansas State (and really, he did it at Arkansas too, although that was a much different system altogether).

Let's back up and look at the two points I made, together, that you called sophistry.

(1) Those teams had the talent to run their systems.

That is not sophistry. It is stating the self-evident.

• The system was implemented.
• The team was successful running the system.
• Therefore, it is self-evident that the team had the talent to run the system.

(2) Even if they had not had the talent, they still would have implemented their system. This is because they do not want to go through the growing pains of teaching a system, with its blocking techniques, routes, vocabulary, etc... twice.

One of the biggest problems with our team is that they have had to learn so many darn systems. It's not as easy as some may think.

:hi:

 

[BACKDOC]

I complained that they kept calling for screen plays, and they never worked. But on the other hand no turnovers.

 

[oregonvol]

We can agree to disagree. Perhaps we have differing definitions of 'explosive'. In any event, it was successful enough Saturday to take down the number 9/11 tem in the country. It was successful enough to take the #6 team to overtime.

What are you trying to argue here? That any team that wins big games necessarily has an explosive offense and one that will continue to succeed in the future? Really? That's your "logic"? So, I guess Randy Sanders was an offensive mastermind because we beat a highly ranked Miami team once.

I don't think you understand the effect that 'freshmen' have on your point. (I think you invented the big/strong need at QB. Muchie Lageux was 6'5, 200 lbs, but even giving you that...) You sit promising freshmen to learn the system and get...? Bigger and stronger!

You will never have a sure thing. You most certainly don't give up on promising QBs because they are... Freshmen. With Two 6'4-plus Elite-11 QBs and the holes we need to fill, it's understandable that he would pass on a QB this year.

How successful was Legaux? Around 1700 yds passing, around 300 rushing last year. 13 pass TDs to 9 INTs. Is that really impressive? And how successful would he have been against SEC defenses?

Once again, Cincinatti's defense was much higher ranked than the offense last year.

Thankfully, UT football success doesn't hinge on what you understand about CBJ's offense. Again, I'm not trying to be a smart-***, I too am just using logic. CBJ has won all the ones his talent would indicate he would win. He's beaten one his talent wouldn't indicate he woushd beat. He took another to overtime.

This thread wasn't a referendum on Jones' ability to win games. I think he's doing great overall and I said it's great that he's got the defense playing well and he's finding ways to win.

But, we're talking about the offense here. I think there is cause for concern as to how it will work going forward and whether it will ever improve into one of the better offenses in the SEC.

It's like when Randy Sanders was our OC. You were probably one of the folks who thought everything was good because we were still winning alot of games. But, a critical eye could see that things weren't improving, that the style was stagnant, and that, eventually, throwing the ball across the field on WR screens to gain 2 yards play after play was going to hurt more than help.

Oh, and if you don't see our two freshmen QBs as "running threats", you are not following UT football as of late.

I don't even know what this means. But I think anyone would agree that they are smaller and much much less successful runners than the only QBs to ever run a system like this effectively in the SEC.

Let's back up and look at the two points I made, together, that you called sophistry.

(1) Those teams had the talent to run their systems.

That is not sophistry. It is stating the self-evident.

• The system was implemented.
• The team was successful running the system.
• Therefore, it is self-evident that the team had the talent to run the system.

(2) Even if they had not had the talent, they still would have implemented their system. This is because they do not want to go through the growing pains of teaching a system, with its blocking techniques, routes, vocabulary, etc... twice.

One of the biggest problems with our team is that they have had to learn so many darn systems. It's not as easy as some may think.

:hi:

Yep, you're right, I can't argue with the "logic" that if a coach installs a system and it is effective, then it means that he had the right talent, but if it isn't effective then it means that he didn't have the right talent. You got me there. And it makes perfect sense too as long as we all understand that all systems are equally effective and all coaches are equally good at their jobs. Yep, I can't see any point in trying to argue with that "logic".

 

[tnmarktx]

Croom is freshman WR, that is doing a good job, considering he has a 1st year starting QB. He is making plays and appears to be giving his all for Tennessee.

/thread

 

[volsbrock]

I think Croom is going to turn into a very valuable receiver but don't like a guy his size making a beeline for the sideline when he can turn it up field and gain several more yards on a much smaller back. He has the physical tools to dominate a DB

 

[wmcovol]

we fail to realize that the talent level is still down at Tennessee. Very young WRs, no talent at TE means even an experienced QB is going to struggle in the passing game. That said, I think its Jones plan to try to shorten the game vs SEC teams as much as possible.

Give the OC credit for having GREAT play calls available for the 4th down plays vs uga. They not only got the first down but two basically changed the game.

 

[oregonvol]

Give the OC credit for having GREAT play calls available for the 4th down plays vs uga. They not only got the first down but two basically changed the game.

I will say those 4th down calls were excellent

 

[Orange_Crush]

What are you trying to argue here? That any team that wins big games necessarily has an explosive offense and one that will continue to succeed in the future? Really? That's your "logic"? So, I guess Randy Sanders was an offensive mastermind because we beat a highly ranked Miami team once.




How successful was Legaux? Around 1700 yds passing, around 300 rushing last year. 13 pass TDs to 9 INTs. Is that really impressive? And how successful would he have been against SEC defenses?

Once again, Cincinatti's defense was much higher ranked than the offense last year.








This thread wasn't a referendum on Jones' ability to win games. I think he's doing great overall and I said it's great that he's got the defense playing well and he's finding ways to win.

But, we're talking about the offense here. I think there is cause for concern as to how it will work going forward and whether it will ever improve into one of the better offenses in the SEC.

It's like when Randy Sanders was our OC. You were probably one of the folks who thought everything was good because we were still winning alot of games. But, a critical eye could see that things weren't improving, that the style was stagnant, and that, eventually, throwing the ball across the field on WR screens to gain 2 yards play after play was going to hurt more than help.






I don't even know what this means. But I think anyone would agree that they are smaller and much much less successful runners than the only QBs to ever run a system like this effectively in the SEC.



Yep, you're right, I can't argue with the "logic" that if a coach installs a system and it is effective, then it means that he had the right talent, but if it isn't effective then it means that he didn't have the right talent. You got me there. And it makes perfect sense too as long as we all understand that all systems are equally effective and all coaches are equally good at their jobs. Yep, I can't see any point in trying to argue with that "logic".

I made a distinction between "explosive" and successful.

I never thought Randy Sanders was the answer. The last bastion of failed debaters is to put words in others' mouth.

Freshman QBs get bigger. I believe I made that point rather clearly.

I merely stated that the teams that you listed as "successful" obviously had the talent to be successful because they were... successful. Please find anywhere that I stated any failure of a system was definitively a lack of the right talent. That was never even a point of discussion. You invented it. [Let me rephrase after verifying our discussion... The point in question was about whether those teams had the players to implement their system. So, to rephrase... What in the **** are you talking about?] Again... Putting words into someone's mouth is the last bastion of a failed debater.

With that said, you are proving that any discussion with you is fruitless, thus I bid you good day.

:hi:

 

[oregonvol]

I made a distinction between "explosive" and successful.

I never thought Randy Sanders was the answer. The last bastion of failed debaters is to put words in others' mouth.

Freshman QBs get bigger. I believe I made that point rather clearly.

I didn't put words in your mouth. Rather than respond to my criticisms regarding the offense, you fell back on the "well, it was good enough to beat South Carolina" argument. I never argued that it wasn't. You were the one who tried to change the subject and it seemed clear that you were trying to simply equate wins with offensive success, as if one was always proof of the other. I was pointing out the fault in that argument. We have won big games in the past with mediocre offenses relying on defense. However, I think it's a bad idea to assume that will always work or to simply be complacent and not try to improve your offense.

Yes, freshman QBs get bigger. But Tebow was big when he got to college. Newton was big when he got to college. Neither Dobbs nor Ferguson is going to get that big, nor become that kind of an effective runner.

I merely stated that the teams that you listed as "successful" obviously had the talent to be successful because they were... successful. Please find anywhere that I stated any failure of a system was due to lack of the right talent. That was never even a point of discussion. You invented it. Again... Putting words into someone's mouth is the last bastion of a failed debater.

With that said, you are proving that any discussion with you is fruitless, thus I bid you good day.

:hi:

Wait...what? You haven't been arguing that the run option will be effective with different talent? You think what we're running is an effective demonstration of Butch's system? Okay, I clearly misunderstood you.

I thought that you were arguing that we didn't have the right talent to run Butch's system and that was why we have so many 3 outs and difficulty sustaining drives.

But you don't think it's the talent now? You think it's the system? Or that frequent 3 and outs are how the system is supposed to work?

Okay, sorry, obviously I was confused.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Yes, freshman QBs get bigger. But Tebow was big when he got to college. Newton was big when he got to college. Neither Dobbs nor Ferguson is going to get that big, nor become that kind of an effective runner.

And your point is?

Josh Dobbs is currently about 6'3/200.
Ferg is 6'3 185ish.

You don't think both could put on a healthy 25 pounds in s&c?

By the way, you've never proven a QB has to be Tebow's size to be successful in this scheme. You've also admitted you don't understand it, so...

Who should we listen to here?

Wait...what? You haven't been arguing that the run option will be effective with different talent? You think what we're running is an effective demonstration of Butch's system? Okay, I clearly misunderstood you.

What on earth does the above have to do with the misinformation you threw out in your last post?

I thought that you were arguing that we didn't have the right talent to run Butch's system and that was why we have so many 3 outs and difficulty sustaining drives.

How is that a definitive statement per all schemes/teams/coaches such as the misinformation you threw out per my point?

But you don't think it's the talent now? You think it's the system? Or that frequent 3 and outs are how the system is supposed to work?

Okay, sorry, obviously I was confused.

I absolutely believe it's talent. I can say that our issue is talent without making definitive, sweeping statements such as you attributed to me.

I'll remind you, the point in question was whether other teams had the correct players to run the systems they implemented. I said they did. You claimed that self-evident facts were "sophistry".

Remember?

Where's the smh smiley?

 

[butchna]

We can agree to disagree. Perhaps we have differing definitions of 'explosive'. In any event, it was successful enough Saturday to take down the number 9/11 tem in the country. It was successful enough to take the #6 team to overtime.





I don't think you understand the effect that 'freshmen' have on your point. (I think you invented the big/strong need at QB. Muchie Lageux was 6'5, 200 lbs, but even giving you that...) You sit promising freshmen to learn the system and get...? Bigger and stronger!

You will never have a sure thing. You most certainly don't give up on promising QBs because they are... Freshmen. With Two 6'4-plus Elite-11 QBs and the holes we need to fill, it's understandable that he would pass on a QB this year.






Thankfully, UT football success doesn't hinge on what you understand about CBJ's offense. Again, I'm not trying to be a smart-***, I too am just using logic. CBJ has won all the ones his talent would indicate he would win. He's beaten one his talent wouldn't indicate he woushd beat. He took another to overtime.

Oh, and if you don't see our two freshmen QBs as "running threats", you are not following UT football as of late.



Let's back up and look at the two points I made, together, that you called sophistry.

(1) Those teams had the talent to run their systems.

That is not sophistry. It is stating the self-evident.

• The system was implemented.
• The team was successful running the system.
• Therefore, it is self-evident that the team had the talent to run the system.

(2) Even if they had not had the talent, they still would have implemented their system. This is because they do not want to go through the growing pains of teaching a system, with its blocking techniques, routes, vocabulary, etc... twice.

One of the biggest problems with our team is that they have had to learn so many darn systems. It's not as easy as some may think.

:hi:

Adopt me
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[Orange_Crush]

Yep, you're right, I can't argue with the "logic" that if a coach installs a system and it is effective, then it means that he had the right talent, but if it isn't effective then it means that he didn't have the right talent. You got me there. And it makes perfect sense too as long as we all understand that all systems are equally effective and all coaches are equally good at their jobs. Yep, I can't see any point in trying to argue with that "logic".

As a reminder, cochise... This was your response to being shown how illogical you are. You followed with... illogical misrepresentations of the points and argument.

I can say that those teams had the right talent to be successful, because... they were successful.

I can say (in a specific instance) that UT doesn't have the right talent to run its scheme by... looking specifically at the talent and their skillsets.

See how that works?

I'll also remind you that the question was not about whether this scheme would work in the SEC. It was a question about why CBJ implemented this scheme, with this roster, instead of implementing another scheme, and then changing it later on when he had "his guys" to run it.

Remember? Or do you just want to keep moving the goal-posts to match your 3-and-out posts?

Again... Whether due to a lack of reasoning skills, or a desperation to win an argument on flawed points, you're proving fruitless in discussion. This will be my last response.

 

[butchna]

Why do I get a mental image of Whack A Mole...following this thread
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[Volfan2012]

I know you can expect a run of first down 95 percent of the time and it will be handed off to Neal. I really can't judge him other than that seems like Worley is still learning the offense makes some misreads. He may limited in his calls because of the personnel. I'd like to see us air it out to North on first at least once a game.

 

[oregonvol]

And your point is?

Josh Dobbs is currently about 6'3/200.
Ferg is 6'3 185ish.

You don't think both could put on a healthy 25 pounds in s&c?

By the way, you've never proven a QB has to be Tebow's size to be successful in this scheme. You've also admitted you don't understand it, so...

Who should we listen to here?

Where have you proven that this sort of system will succeed in the SEC without someone like Tebow?

What on earth does the above have to do with the misinformation you threw out in your last post?



How is that a definitive statement per all schemes/teams/coaches such as the misinformation you threw out per my point?



I absolutely believe it's talent. I can say that our issue is talent without making definitive, sweeping statements such as you attributed to me.

I'll remind you, the point in question was whether other teams had the correct players to run the systems they implemented. I said they did. You claimed that self-evident facts were "sophistry".

Remember?

Where's the smh smiley?

Yeah, I'm confused on this whole line.

You said that Malzahn, Sumlin, Kingsbury, etc. fielded successful offenses their first year at each stop because they had the right talent, correct? And you said that the evidence of this "right talent" was simply the fact that they were successful, correct? (this is like a textbook example of a circular reasoning fallacy)

And you have argued that our offensive system isn't as successful simply because we don't have the right talent, right? Where am I misunderstanding you?

You're saying that in Malzahn, Sumlin, etc's case the result proves the talent's ability, right? And in Jones' case, the result proves the talent's inability, right? So it seems like you're discounting/or unwilling to analyze each systems' actual merits or the abilities of the coaches implementing them. Which is fine. You don't have to. But I don't understand why you have problem with me doing so. And I don't really understand where I put words in your mouth.

But, if you don't want to discuss an offensive system and its implementation and simply want to discuss the pure talent of the athletes playing in it, then I'['m not sure why we're even having this exchange.

 

[Orange_Crush]

OK. I'm breaking my 'no more responses' rule because you asked for clarification, and I am happy to give it.

Where have you proven that this sort of system will succeed in the SEC without someone like Tebow?

I don't need to because I made no such mandate that it would. You are the one that said that it wouldn't be successful, so you need the proof.

I said that I believe that it can. My reason for this opinion is that it has scored enough points to take #6 UGA to overtime, and beat #9/11 SCe-- with an immobile, inaccurate passer. If your position is that it is only your opinion that it can't, cool. I'm not too interested in proving opinions with you.

Yeah, I'm confused on this whole line.

Apparently.

You said that Malzahn, Sumlin, Kingsbury, etc. fielded successful offenses their first year at each stop because they had the right talent, correct? And you said that the evidence of this "right talent" was simply the fact that they were successful, correct? (this is like a textbook example of a circular reasoning fallacy)

I believe that you should brush up on your basic logic. It is not. There is circular reasoning:

The Bible is the Word of God.
Why?
Because the Bible says so.

That is circular reasoning. (There is no actual evidence provided in the argument. It would take more evidence from without to prove it, such as fulfilled prophecy, etc... But the argument is insufficient to prove itself true because it relies on itself to be true with no evidence within.)

That team had the right players to be successful, because that team was successful.

That is self-evidence. The evidence (they were successful) is built into the argument. It relies on a self-evident fact within its construction to prove itself true.

[Edit: Look at it this way. It is not circular reasoning because the proof is outside of the argument-- the results being the proof, and the argument is just a reference to the proof, not the proof itself. Easier? lol]

There is a distinct an huge difference.

And you have argued that our offensive system isn't as successful simply because we don't have the right talent, right? Where am I misunderstanding you?

That is not how you communicated my argument. You communicated its as such:

Yep, you're right, I can't argue with the "logic" that if a coach installs a system and it is effective, then it means that he had the right talent, but if it isn't effective then it means that he didn't have the right talent.

I never argued that "if a coach implements a system and it's not effective, then it means that he didn't have the right talent."

Again... I argued that:

If those coaches that were successful were successful, it is self-evident that they had the talent to be successful. Because they were successful!

If Butch Jones is not successful with this system yet, it is because he does not have the right players to execute it right now.

I can argue that specifically because we can look specifically at specific players and their specific skillsets.

I have to look at specifics because there is no self-evident facts to prove the assertion.

You're saying that in Malzahn, Sumlin, etc's case the result proves the talent's ability, right? And in Jones' case, the result proves the talent's inability, right? So it seems like you're discounting/or unwilling to analyze each systems' actual merits or the abilities of the coaches implementing them. Which is fine. You don't have to. But I don't understand why you have problem with me doing so. And I don't really understand where I put words in your mouth.

In the case of Malzahn, etc... I don't have to analyze each system. The results prove the argument. They were successful with players, so they had players that they could be successful with.

In the case of CBJ, I did not use the same mode of analysis because there is no self-evident facts that allows a general analysis. I analyzed the system, and the players, and made a separate statement.

But, if you don't want to discuss an offensive system and its implementation and simply want to discuss the pure talent of the athletes playing in it, then I'['m not sure why we're even having this exchange.

Then I'll remind you. You stated that you don't understand why CBJ would implement this system without the players to run it, and we began discussing the system vs the talent to run it.

I'm not interested in discussing that with you for several reasons.

You have already admitted that you don't understand the system.

You have already proven that you don't understand the system... i.e. You do not see its similarities to Auburn, A&M, (even Oregon), etc... (This actually created a contradiction in your stance, though, because you equated our system to UA when you included Cam Newton as the type of big QB we need to run this system.)

You have already shown that you don't understand the system... i.e. Thinking that CBJ doesn't like to pass. Historically, he is 52% run/48% pass.

Other teams have proven that this system can be successful at a high level.

You tend to resort to fallacies and rudeness, as opposed to actual discussion.


Good day to you.

:hi:

 

[oregonvol]

OK. I'm breaking my 'no more responses' rule because you asked for clarification, and I am happy to give it.



I don't need to because I made no such mandate that it would. You are the one that said that it wouldn't be successful, so you need the proof.

Huh? Where did I say it wouldn't be successful without Tebow? I've never made that statement that I can recall. Are you just trying to put words in my mouth?

I have in the past pointed to multiple examples where it wasn't successful in the SEC without a big running quarterback and I can't think of an example where it was, so I've wondered why you think it would be. All you have offered is that we have freshmen that may get bigger. But you haven't offered any evidence that they are running threats or that they will be able to run an offense next year that they can not run now.

I said that I believe that it can. My reason for this opinion is that it has scored enough points to take #6 UGA to overtime, and beat #9/11 SCe-- with an immobile, inaccurate passer. If your position is that it is only your opinion that it can't, cool. I'm not too interested in proving opinions with you.

Last I checked we are all talking about opinions, here. No one has any scientific proofs for what will happen in the future, these are all educated guesses and impressions based on observable fact. So, if you don't want to discuss those, I'm not sure why we're trading essays here.

I wish I could share your belief that a system that results in wins now will continue to result in wins despite how it looks. I've been down this road before. I remember folks saying how because we pulled out a victory with shaky play from someone like Rick Clausen, we were bound to get better and better. It doesn't always work out that way.

Right now we seem to be relying on our defense and limiting mistakes on offense, and hoping to pull out a narrow victory and that's a good strategy at this point, given how limited our offense has been. But that said, I don't understand the reasoning that because we are succeeding now, largely in spite of our offense, that means that our offense will necessarily improve in the future. One has nothing to do with the other.

I believe that you should brush up on your basic logic. It is not. There is circular reasoning:



That is circular reasoning. (There is no actual evidence provided in the argument. It would take more evidence from without to prove it, such as fulfilled prophecy, etc... But the argument is insufficient to prove itself true because it relies on itself to be true with no evidence within.)



That is self-evidence. The evidence (they were successful) is built into the argument. It relies on a self-evident fact within its construction to prove itself true.

[Edit: Look at it this way. It is not circular reasoning because the proof is outside of the argument-- the results being the proof, and the argument is just a reference to the proof, not the proof itself. Easier? lol]

There is a distinct an huge difference.

You took the result (offensive success) and used it as proof of something different (talent). You offered no other evidence. Your logic is sound only if talent and success are the same things and talent necessarily produces success (and conversely success is always the result of talent) regardless of other factors. And if that's the case and you truly believe that, then why are you even on here discussing the offensive system?

If those coaches that were successful were successful, it is self-evident that they had the talent to be successful. Because they were successful!

If Butch Jones is not successful with this system yet, it is because he does not have the right players to execute it right now.

I can argue that specifically because we can look specifically at specific players and their specific skillsets.

I have to look at specifics because there is no self-evident facts to prove the assertion.



In the case of Malzahn, etc... I don't have to analyze each system. The results prove the argument. They were successful with players, so they had players that they could be successful with.

In the case of CBJ, I did not use the same mode of analysis because there is no self-evident facts that allows a general analysis. I analyzed the system, and the players, and made a separate statement.

Yeah, same deal as above. Now we're just going in circles.

"If coach A is successful with their system it's because they had the right talent"

"But if coach B is not successful with their system it is because they did not have the right talent"

That's your stance, right? Got it. There's really nothing further for me to discuss with you if you don't believe the system itself or who implements it should be considered a factor.

You have already proven that you don't understand the system... i.e. You do not see its similarities to Auburn, A&M, (even Oregon), etc... (This actually created a contradiction in your stance, though, because you equated our system to UA when you included Cam Newton as the type of big QB we need to run this system.)

Seriously, does any non-Vol fan out there think of our system as remotely comparable to Oregon's?

You have already shown that you don't understand the system... i.e. Thinking that CBJ doesn't like to pass. Historically, he is 52% run/48% pass.

Where did I say Butch Jones doesn't like to pass?

Other teams have proven that this system can be successful at a high level.

You tend to resort to fallacies and rudeness, as opposed to actual discussion.


Good day to you.

:hi:

Yeah, sure, you've been the very model of logical and polite debate. Rather than offer any evidence beyond success=talent, it's always best to just say your opponent doesn't understand what they are talking about. Well done.

 

[deaconkane]

Yeah, I'm still not sold on Bajakian's offense. It doesn't seem to have much potential to be really explosive. Maybe it is hamstrung at the moment with personnel, but when you tell me that you need top level players to run your system effectively, I think "You know what system is effective with top level players? ALL OF THEM." Why run a system if it doesn't give the players you have an advantage?

The thing that most worries me are the comparisons with Meyer's system (which only really worked well in the SEC with Tim Tebow running it) and the fact that we don't have, nor are we recruiting a big strong running QB like Tebow or like Lefevour that they had at Central Michigan. I just don't see how this system will ever be particularly explosive and I find it odd that we are using a system that seems designed to feature a big strong running QB when we don't have one and don't look like getting one anytime soon.

We dont run read option, we run zone option. Different offenses.