2022 Spring Football Practice

CEB

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,610
I realize that few things in life are either/or, and don’t know if this has been researched or quantified or not, but I wonder whether most fans would rather win, style of offense be damned, or play a particular style of offense (“big boy” football) against teams that may be better funded, better coached, more attractive to rated recruits and just more committed overall to “winning” and have a program that cannot seem to turn the corner. Somebody, perhaps the big donors, chose the latter, but I wonder if that represents the “druthers” of the majority of Tech fans.
I don’t know if this was the beginnings of a poll or just philosophical musings.... but put me down for “winning.” Win ugly, win nasty, win gimmicky, win unapologetically. There is no “wrong” way to win and there is no good way to lose. That’s pretty much it.
I hope that everyone involved is making decisions because they believe it will be a winning decision. Plotting better ways to lose inevitably results in losing.
 

billga99

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
821
Since this is about Spring Practice (I think or thought), there are 3 things I am really looking for.
1. An offensive scheme which allows us to make much quicker throws when we pass. I honestly don't think we are going to realistically have an upgrade on the OL replacing 3 starters. But we can make the OL look better if we don't asked them to block for 4+ seconds. That also requires quicker decision by the QB who hopefully will be coached up with a QB coach.
2. On defensive, quit giving up big plays. The majority of these were confusion in the defensive backfield brought on partly by lack of a pass rush. But keeping the play in front of the backs and giving up a 15 yard play is certainly better than all of the long TD passes we gave up last year.
3. Improving special teams including finding a replacement FG kicker.

If we can do 1, I think the offense will improve and score more points. If we can do 2, maybe we can hold more teams to FGs or more optimistically punts. If we can do 3, maybe turn some of those possessions into FGs when we need to. All of these obviously require better schemes and better coaching to get the players in a position to be more successful.
 

gville_jacket

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
767
1. An offensive scheme which allows us to make much quicker throws when we pass. I honestly don't think we are going to realistically have an upgrade on the OL replacing 3 starters. But we can make the OL look better if we don't asked them to block for 4+ seconds. That also requires quicker decision by the QB who hopefully will be coached up with a QB coach.
On point 1 here, I'm cautiously optimistic. Will replacing 3 starters and 2 top back-ups be difficult? Yes absolutely, however, let's also look at what we're gaining. Of course the two transfers are still a bit of an unknown, but we are also gaining a healthy Williams and a more experienced/developed Franklin and Leftwich. Also, I think Vaipulu and Green should be ready to step in off the bench this year as well as still having Lay who's been serviceable off the bench.

All that said, we need the transfers to step in as starters and stay healthy. I'd imagine just from a numbers stand point, we may try to go after another veteran transfer on the OL.
 

FlatsLander

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
913
Here’s the article we’ve been expecting for months
Geoff Collins taking larger role in coaching Georgia Tech defense


https://www.ajc.com/sports/georgia-...rgia-tech-defense/37MUF6ROLRBRPFSAKGTB6WRWBE/

(Via AJC News)
It's beyond parody that CGC focused on the offense for at least all of last year and possibly the 2 years prior. Why would he think he needed to have his hands on the offense more than the defense? Patenaude had been a coach for like 20 years and CGC has shown to produce good defenses. Why on earth would he watch Thacker, who's been a DC for like 5 years, drown while he attempts to help a 20 year offensive coaching veteran?
 

JacketFan137

Banned
Messages
2,536
Since this is about Spring Practice (I think or thought), there are 3 things I am really looking for.
1. An offensive scheme which allows us to make much quicker throws when we pass. I honestly don't think we are going to realistically have an upgrade on the OL replacing 3 starters. But we can make the OL look better if we don't asked them to block for 4+ seconds. That also requires quicker decision by the QB who hopefully will be coached up with a QB coach.
2. On defensive, quit giving up big plays. The majority of these were confusion in the defensive backfield brought on partly by lack of a pass rush. But keeping the play in front of the backs and giving up a 15 yard play is certainly better than all of the long TD passes we gave up last year.
3. Improving special teams including finding a replacement FG kicker.

If we can do 1, I think the offense will improve and score more points. If we can do 2, maybe we can hold more teams to FGs or more optimistically punts. If we can do 3, maybe turn some of those possessions into FGs when we need to. All of these obviously require better schemes and better coaching to get the players in a position to be more successful.
the only thing about the o line is they were absolutely atrocious for large stretches last year so improving upon that isn’t even a high bar. the depth is a question for sure but i think there’s a better chance than people realize that the o line is an improvement

if we can just get a few more guys in the mix to cover for some injuries we should be in a decent spot
 

Northeast Stinger

Helluva Engineer
Messages
10,790
I don’t know if this was the beginnings of a poll or just philosophical musings.... but put me down for “winning.” Win ugly, win nasty, win gimmicky, win unapologetically. There is no “wrong” way to win and there is no good way to lose. That’s pretty much it.
I hope that everyone involved is making decisions because they believe it will be a winning decision. Plotting better ways to lose inevitably results in losing.
10,000 times this.
 

JacketFan137

Banned
Messages
2,536
It's beyond parody that CGC focused on the offense for at least all of last year and possibly the 2 years prior. Why would he think he needed to have his hands on the offense more than the defense? Patenaude had been a coach for like 20 years and CGC has shown to produce good defenses. Why on earth would he watch Thacker, who's been a DC for like 5 years, drown while he attempts to help a 20 year offensive coaching veteran?
my guess (which is pure speculation) is that there was a lot more pressure on the offense to perform than the defense. year 3 the whispers of bringing back the option we’re getting louder and people were losing patience. the defense was, until about halfway through the season, just bad/mediocre. then the wheels fell off. the offense was not winning hearts and minds and ultimately the mark collins will leave on tech for better or for worse was moving us away from the 3O.

now was it the right decision? probably not but i would imagine that was the thought process
 

TechBurn

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
269
Location
Dunlap TN
My understanding is that his name was not pronounced anything like the spelling. Something like MAC SHAN with the middle letters silent. Talented quarterback as I recall but did not get a whole lot of help from his line.
iirc You, sir, are correct with the pronunciation ,,, Eddie was also somewhat ambidextrous ….. He could throw the ball 65+ yards right handed, and 40 yards left handed, with accuracy,,,
In the early 70s, it was said that one of the field maintenance guys could throw the ball 100 yards !! Never saw it, though,,,,
 

Northeast Stinger

Helluva Engineer
Messages
10,790
My understanding is that his name was not pronounced anything like the spelling. Something like MAC SHAN with the middle letters silent. Talented quarterback as I recall but did not get a whole lot of help from his line.
Yes. Mac-Shan was the way we were told to pronounce it, even said that way by Tech announcers and Atlanta papers. Years later Eddie said his name was pronounced Maca-shan.
 

FlatsLander

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
913
my guess (which is pure speculation) is that there was a lot more pressure on the offense to perform than the defense. year 3 the whispers of bringing back the option we’re getting louder and people were losing patience. the defense was, until about halfway through the season, just bad/mediocre. then the wheels fell off. the offense was not winning hearts and minds and ultimately the mark collins will leave on tech for better or for worse was moving us away from the 3O.

now was it the right decision? probably not but i would imagine that was the thought process
That may be, but I would think a defensive guy like CGC would put as much effort as possible into the defense, his expertise, to make sure at least we have something to lean on. Looking at our national FBS rankings, the offense was generally 30 spots better (around 78 for total yards, yards/play, rushing, passing) than our defense for the same categories. The offense needed far less help than the defense did. Let's just hope we can at least crack the top 65 in either offense or defense so we're not scraping the bottom anymore.
 

Oldgoldandwhite

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,762
It's beyond parody that CGC focused on the offense for at least all of last year and possibly the 2 years prior. Why would he think he needed to have his hands on the offense more than the defense? Patenaude had been a coach for like 20 years and CGC has shown to produce good defenses. Why on earth would he watch Thacker, who's been a DC for like 5 years, drown while he attempts to help a 20 year offensive coaching veteran?
Plus he had Key as Assistant HC.
 

JacketFan137

Banned
Messages
2,536
That may be, but I would think a defensive guy like CGC would put as much effort as possible into the defense, his expertise, to make sure at least we have something to lean on. Looking at our national FBS rankings, the offense was generally 30 spots better (around 78 for total yards, yards/play, rushing, passing) than our defense for the same categories. The offense needed far less help than the defense did. Let's just hope we can at least crack the top 65 in either offense or defense so we're not scraping the bottom anymore.
yeah i think patenaude was bad but i do think he made due with what he had and all things considered that 78 spot is actually higher than i would expect considering we didn’t score a point in the last two games.

if our defense was in the 80s or 70s we probably play in a bowl game too. it’s just really perplexing that our DBs were basically all upper classmen and they played like crap. offense is on/barely behind schedule in the process of transitioning and the defense just somehow regressed to historically bad numbers.
 

alagold

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,732
Location
Huntsville,Al
That may be, but I would think a defensive guy like CGC would put as much effort as possible into the defense, his expertise, to make sure at least we have something to lean on. Looking at our national FBS rankings, the offense was generally 30 spots better (around 78 for total yards, yards/play, rushing, passing) than our defense for the same categories. The offense needed far less help than the defense did. Let's just hope we can at least crack the top 65 in either offense or defense so we're not scraping the bottom anymore.
If you remember, O'learly was a DEF coach and yet as head coach his Defenses were pretty poor.
 

stinger 1957

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,473
If you remember, O'learly was a DEF coach and yet as head coach his Defenses were pretty poor.
It was intended that way in order to show case the"Fridge's" offense to help him get a HC job, that's how GOL got Ralph to come back to GT and coach, he had an NFL OC job at the time if I remember correctly.
 

sgreer

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
402
It's beyond parody that CGC focused on the offense for at least all of last year and possibly the 2 years prior. Why would he think he needed to have his hands on the offense more than the defense? Patenaude had been a coach for like 20 years and CGC has shown to produce good defenses. Why on earth would he watch Thacker, who's been a DC for like 5 years, drown while he attempts to help a 20 year offensive coaching veteran?
My opinion was that he was over selling the transition to the new offense to show potential recruits that GT was is an offense that throws the football.
 

SOWEGA Jacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,075
My opinion was that he was over selling the transition to the new offense to show potential recruits that GT was is an offense that throws the football.
Absolutely. His thought process was correct but his execution was as bad as Wile E. Coyote. At this point nothing matters but winning games. The fans have turned on him, the players have turned on him, and the recruits have turned on him. The only thing he has succeeded at is increasing his net worth. If that was his goal when he got into coaching then he is a success. If his goal was to be a successful head coach then that ship has sailed.
 
Top