Philosophical Question re Paul Johnson

[Topper]

This is not in the "I told you so vein" but, what if we had been able to get Paul Johnson instead of JJ? I was a Johnson supporter who changed my mind during JJs first bowl game, but I always loved the option offense. Does anyone think that Johnson could have been successful here?

My limited playing experience led me to believe that option teams require less talented O Linemen, and take pressure off of the defense, allowing teams with less talent to be competitive above their talent level.

I remember that a lot of people felt that JJs offense would be more exciting and would draw more fans to the games. Of course that proved to be untrue.

[Charleston Pony]

I don't think there is any question that Johnson would have done well here...he's been successful everywhere he has been, but it was never a possibility as he got the "better offer" that JJ never got. Johnson knew Georgia and was a good hire for Ga Tech considering they were, relatively speaking, in a position similar to where SMU found themselves at the time (by that I mean they were having a tough time winning recruiting battles against SEC schools for players close to home)

[DanFreibergerForHeisman]

I dreaded the idea of watching the triple option then and I still do.

As far as your question, it sure seems like that gimmick offense would have been more sustainable, so we would probably be in better shape overall (at least results-wise) today, but who knows?

[redpony]

IMO PJ might have had a quicker turn around because he probably would have kept JWill and used a lot of the existed players. Longer term- who knows. His O is somewhat boring but when you look at Navy and their results they seem to be able to use a similar system and remain reasonably successful.

[lwjr]

Considering the option style of offense has been around since the late 60's, I don't think you can call it a, gimmick offense.

[DanFreibergerForHeisman]

Considering the option style of offense has been around since the late 60's, I don't think you can call it a, gimmick offense.

True, but it's in the category of the run and shoot of "ways to theoretically compete with lesser talent".

I want a coach who will line up in a spread or whatever and go toe-to-toe with the other team with comparable talent.

Maybe I am a dreamer.

[sbsmith]

This is not in the "I told you so vein" but, what if we had been able to get Paul Johnson instead of JJ? I was a Johnson supporter who changed my mind during JJs first bowl game, but I always loved the option offense. Does anyone think that Johnson could have been successful here?

My limited playing experience led me to believe that option teams require less talented O Linemen, and take pressure off of the defense, allowing teams with less talent to be competitive above their talent level.

I remember that a lot of people felt that JJs offense would be more exciting and would draw more fans to the games. Of course that proved to be untrue.

Johnson would have won here and moved on pretty quickly. One of his assistants would probably be our HC right now.

[Topper]

Considering the option style of offense has been around since the late 60's, I don't think you can call it a, gimmick offense.

True, but it's in the category of the run and shoot of "ways to theoretically compete with lesser talent".

I want a coach who will line up in a spread or whatever and go toe-to-toe with the other team with comparable talent.

Maybe I am a dreamer.

I want that too, but I don't see much comparable talent on our roster any time soon. One advantage of running an option offense is that there isn't much competition for athletes who fit the scheme. Particularly smaller O linemen. It is also an opportunity for running backs to actually carry the ball quite a bit more often than in those spreads.

[alyssa]

Remember coaches are still complaining about the SMU way.

[gord]

Considering the option style of offense has been around since the late 60's, I don't think you can call it a, gimmick offense.

True, but it's in the category of the run and shoot of "ways to theoretically compete with lesser talent".

I want a coach who will line up in a spread or whatever and go toe-to-toe with the other team with comparable talent.

Maybe I am a dreamer.

Who cares what offense he runs as long as he wins? For a school with no wins right now, there seems to be a lot of people -- yourself included -- worrying about running the perfect offense, with no mention of WINS. I think PJ has won four division titles since he's been at Ga Tech -- I laugh at the 'gimmick' offense thing, especially considering 10-plus years ago, a four-WR passing offense was considered a 'gimmick' offense -- and he's only had one losing season in his career. But you're worried about his offense? Please.

[Digetydog]

Considering the option style of offense has been around since the late 60's, I don't think you can call it a, gimmick offense.

While not a "gimmick offense," Johnson's offenses are definitely well outside the current norm for college football.

Current Norm: Offense for CFB
1) Some sort of Spread/Air Raid/Pistol using multiple WR sets to spread out the defense. A few programs use "pro set" offenses.
2) These offenses need either a passing QB or a dual threat QB depending upon the system.
3) Every defense in the US is built to defend these types of offenses and most defenses can get "good" practice against their own offenses and/or the scout teams.

With the Option, you get a few advantages:
1) Defenses have problems getting ready to face you. AND
2) Recruiting - there are still HS programs out there running the option. If there is a Lance McElhennney or Jammelle Holloway out there, he can play for you or he can learn a new position. Thus, you get the best "option" players in the country.
3) Believe it or not, Paul Johnson's offense is really a variation of the spread. The genius of his system is that he uses the best of the Wishbone in a system that allows for a passing attack.
http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/ ... on-offense

June's offense was only effective when teams weren't ready for it.

[ghost]

SMU should be one of the easiest places in the nation to recruit football players. Great area with so many top pro sports teams and things to do, great job market for after graduation, beautiful campus, giving the players a $300,000 education compared to UT and AGS $125,000 education, a higher stipend checks for the players than other teams in Texas including TCU. All a coach has to do is be proactive, aggressive and get out there and live in those high school coaches offices and go to the track meets, basketball games and football games. Word spreads fast. Don't have to recruit the top 100 players, #101 thru 300 will win national championships if you know how to coach...ie motivate, coach the x and os and instill discipline in the program. doesn't hurt if you are a dynamic speaker and can motivate the metroplex. SMU must change it's image from a snob school with a few rich people running everything to one that is considered Dallas Team....college not pro! The "woe is me" attitude has to change. Nobody likes a whiner but everyone likes a hard worker who earns it.

[CA Mustang]

..., a higher stipend checks for the players than other teams in Texas including TCU.

Has that been confirmed or just wishful thinking?

[gostangs]

ghost - agree with you completely - other than the national champion thing. You have to recruit a fair number of the top 100 players in the country to compete for that. Don't know many exceptions

[dirtysouthpony]

I live in Atlanta, and Johnson is a mixed bag here. Tech fans are constantly complaining about his lack of recruiting, their inability to beat UGA, their gimmick offense.... sound familiar? They have a small stadium that only sells out for UGA, Clemson and maybe Chapel Hill. Urban school, with challenging majors for athletes. Not media friendly. PJ was really on the hotseat last year. They were manhandled by Midldle Tennessee last season, but they continually make bowls. That makes the program healthier than the current state here at SMU. When you sum it all up, PJ would have been a mixed bag. He would not have engaged the community or the local high school coaches, but he would win games. I think he would have kicked major but in the AAC.