Started By
Message
re: Kirby and Georgia letting Fields and Eason walk
Posted on 12/23/19 at 8:42 pm to atlanta917
Posted on 12/23/19 at 8:42 pm to atlanta917
quote:
It can be successful with multiple senior first round pick RB’s, elite o-line, and elite defense. That’s just a lot to ask for. Spread offenses have more snowball potential than prostyle.
Sure. Can you name an OC that can be successful with bad players?
It's a chicken and egg situation. Which is more important? Can a great OC succeed with poor players, or can a poor OC succeed with great players?
2
Posted on 12/23/19 at 9:13 pm to DawgsLife
Fields went to OSU because he knew he could be developed by Ryan Day to the max. The scheme was perfect and the talent around him is elite. Nobody talks about their WR's but they are as good as any in the country... Olave, KJ Hill, Victor, Garett Wilson, Mack. With that kind of an arsenal that gives an elite OL all the advantages to open up holes for a guy like Jk Dobbins.
Fields has got it made their. He would have never had that opportunity at Georgia, not because of talent, but because of coaching and the outdated scheme.
Fields has got it made their. He would have never had that opportunity at Georgia, not because of talent, but because of coaching and the outdated scheme.
Posted on 12/23/19 at 9:26 pm to sabes que
FWIW, I don't think Georgia lost much by letting Eason walk. Doesn't impress me at all.
Posted on 12/23/19 at 9:58 pm to bayou prince
Yeah, I think whoever says Kirby was wrong for letting Eason walk should be getting a shovel full of shite. The criticism as to Fields is pretty obvious and makes sense.
Eason is a statue that went 7-5 this year in the Pac10. In his first year at UGA he lost to Florida, Georgia Tech, Tennessee, Ole Miss and Vanderbilt and barely beat Missouri on a fourth down buzzer beater. Good arm, decent QB, but we got an immediate upgrade with Fromm. If you don't see that you're either stupid or a troll.
Eason is a statue that went 7-5 this year in the Pac10. In his first year at UGA he lost to Florida, Georgia Tech, Tennessee, Ole Miss and Vanderbilt and barely beat Missouri on a fourth down buzzer beater. Good arm, decent QB, but we got an immediate upgrade with Fromm. If you don't see that you're either stupid or a troll.
Posted on 12/23/19 at 10:20 pm to sabes que
This is an original topic that definitely needed its own thread for discussion. Bravo OP.
This post was edited on 12/23/19 at 10:21 pm
Posted on 12/24/19 at 6:29 am to fibonaccisquared
Fields is easily one of the most gifted QB's i have ever seen, and if healthy, i think you will see that in the playoffd.
Posted on 12/24/19 at 6:33 am to DawgsLife
quote:
Sure. Can you name an OC that can be successful with bad players?
Look at the 4 playoff teams. How many of them have an offense similar to UGA’s? How many times did Chaney’s offense make the natty/playoffs without 2 senior first round picks at RB?
Posted on 12/24/19 at 6:41 am to bayou prince
quote:
Fields went to OSU because he knew he could be developed by Ryan Day to the max. The scheme was perfect and the talent around him is elite. Nobody talks about their WR's but they are as good as any in the country... Olave, KJ Hill, Victor, Garett Wilson, Mack. With that kind of an arsenal that gives an elite OL all the advantages to open up holes for a guy like Jk Dobbins.
Absolutely true.
Posted on 12/24/19 at 7:01 am to atlanta917
quote:
Look at the 4 playoff teams. How many of them have an offense similar to UGA’s? How many times did Chaney’s offense make the natty/playoffs without 2 senior first round picks at RB?
It's easy to pick something out and point at that as the reason we struggled, and then ignore many other factors, such as experience, etc.
I mean, you could say the same about defense. None of the playoff teams run the same defense, either, but would you argue we should change our defense?
My point stands. Every successful OC has really good players, and every bad OC has bad players.....as a whole.
But are the players good because they are good, or because the system(OC) makes them look good? Are they bad, or does the system (OC) make them look bad?
A good OC can make average players look excellent and a bad OC can make good players look bad.
That's why you see no name QB's put up huge numbers some years, and you see players you've never heard of before light it up in the NFL.
Posted on 12/24/19 at 7:43 am to DawgsLife
At this point, ignoring the effectiveness of the power spread schemes at OSU, LSU, Bama, OU, etc seems foolish. It’s effective, simpler to pick up (which is critical when about 25% of your roster turns over every season), and is very QB friendly.
Posted on 12/24/19 at 7:48 am to Crowknowsbest
quote:
At this point, ignoring the effectiveness of the power spread schemes at OSU, LSU, Bama, OU, etc seems foolish. It’s effective, simpler to pick up (which is critical when about 25% of your roster turns over every season), and is very QB friendly.
I'm not arguing against it. Just saying with the right personnel most schemes can be effective and with the wrong personnel any scheme can fail.
Posted on 12/24/19 at 7:58 am to DawgsLife
quote:
I'm not arguing against it. Just saying with the right personnel most schemes can be effective and with the wrong personnel any scheme can fail.
To me, it seems much easier to find and develop the right personnel for that scheme. The learning and development process doesn’t take as long.
Posted on 12/24/19 at 8:09 am to sabes que
Fields was at UGA? I didn’t notice, thanks for pointing out
Posted on 12/24/19 at 8:11 am to sabes que
This is unfortunately the new college football. any team that recruits at a high level will suffer losses like this in the near future.
Posted on 12/24/19 at 8:16 am to Crowknowsbest
quote:
To me, it seems much easier to find and develop the right personnel for that scheme. The learning and development process doesn’t take as long.
Maybe, but I will tell you this....with inexperienced WRs it is tough going to a complicated pass offense.You have to understand and know what routes the other receivers are running.
When you are runnign multiple WR sets, a receiver is now knowing 4 and sometimes 5 (if a RB is going out on a route) different routes and the variations of thta route according to what the DBs do.
The reason you see two and sometimes 3 receivers in the same area as a thrown ball is because somebody forgot what routes the other receivers were running or misread the DB coverages. From a receiver standpoint it is much easier to have fewer routes out there. The modern game is much, much, MUCH more complicated than when I played. I'm not sure i could play in the modern schemes. Crap. I wasn't particularly good in the old fashioned schemes!
Posted on 12/24/19 at 8:18 am to jryanw
quote:
This is unfortunately the new college football. any team that recruits at a high level will suffer losses like this in the near future.
Alabama has been through it...Georgia has been through it...LSU will go through it.
The only teams that might not go through it are teams who are not recruiting at a very high level.
People act like the Fields situation is something unique. The last 3 Heisman winners were transfer QBs.
Burrow
Murray
Mayfield
If Fields wins it next year he would make 4 in a row.
This post was edited on 12/24/19 at 8:20 am
Posted on 12/24/19 at 8:25 am to atlanta917
quote:
It was because Fromm led a team to a natty where as Fields hadn't taken a collegiate snap.
Saban did the same with Jalen in spite of the fact that Tua played better when he came into the games, often with the same offensive players vs the same defensive players, and in spite of the fact the receivers were nearly in revolt, and the O.C. wanted to go with Tua at least by the Auburn game. It took that Auburn game, and the first half of the national title game vs UGA, in both which Jalen played horribly, to convince Saban to play Tua the 2nd half, and he won the national title. Tua admitted later that had he not gotten the chance to play he'd have transferred.
Posted on 12/24/19 at 8:33 am to DawgsLife
quote:
with inexperienced WRs it is tough going to a complicated pass offense.
Right, which is why I want one that is less complicated. Spread concepts are relatively simple and more similar to what most of the player ran in high school.
Posted on 12/24/19 at 8:38 am to jryanw
quote:
This is unfortunately the new college football. any team that recruits at a high level will suffer losses like this in the near future.
Yep. Really puts the pressure on the head coach to pick the right kid. Kirby picked wrong this time. Doesn’t mean he will next time.
Posted on 12/24/19 at 8:45 am to John Milner
quote:
Saban did the same with Jalen in spite of the fact that Tua played better when he came into the games, often with the same offensive players vs the same defensive players, and in spite of the fact the receivers were nearly in revolt, and the O.C. wanted to go with Tua at least by the Auburn game. It took that Auburn game, and the first half of the national title game vs UGA, in both which Jalen played horribly, to convince Saban to play Tua the 2nd half, and he won the national title. Tua admitted later that had he not gotten the chance to play he'd have transferred.
Honest questions...
1. Do you believe Jalen Hurts cost Alabama a NC?
2. Do you believe if Hurts had remained Starter, he would have cost you a NC?
3. Knowing what you know now, (Tua's injury history) do you wish Hurts had remained the starter?
Tua's injury arguably cost your team another playoff birth this year. Last year, I'm not sure either could have led Alabama over Clemson.
I actually hate hypothetical situations because nobody can say for certain. But I was curious as to your take.
Page 7 of 9
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News