A Message our Players (Reposted from the other site.)

[GTJake]

Bullied by Clemson, maybe. Bullied by Georgia, maybe. Duke? I hope it has not come to that.

Yeah I know, that was my first thought as well ... let that sink-in for a minute ??

 

[Yoda]

There's a rumor that CPJ and Cutcliffe could not stand each other. Cutcliffe openly made fun of CPJ's offense, especially when it comes to success of GT offensive players in the NFL.

When they asked Cutcliffe about his use of the spread (triple) option, who everyone credits CPJ for creating, he cited Army's success with it as why they've incorporated. One last F U from Cutcliffe to CPJ. Talk about being petty.

They obviously hated each other.

 

[gt69hjcollins]

How often were the prognosticators wrong about Tech? But that is not the point of this post.

Still not sure about being a hater or bad fandom.

As a fan, I "hate' it when Tech loses. I hate it when my family sits in blistering noon games and sees Tech lose to a team with less talented players. I hate it when players give their heart, soul and body to win a game and come up short. I hate it when officials blow calls. I hate it when coaches mess up.

I think all of us hate to lose.

I don't think that makes fans haters or bad fans when we discuss Tech football and complain about a 1-5 season so far.

I think how a fan responds to this adversity determines whether they are a good fan or not. Being positive and trying our best to focus on the positives and the future help the situation, and bitching and complaining about the negatives not so much. I am also disappointed with not so good results, but I admire any player that plays their heart out under these circumstances and does not complain. I love my Jackets!!!!

 

[LibertyTurns]

Tariq was also quoted in the AJC that we got "bullied" by Duke in the First Half ... lets hope Tariq puts this message up on the door into the weight room !

Really, that was a quote? Tell me we didn’t really do this.

 

[GTJake]

Really, that was a quote? Tell me we didn’t really do this.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Really, that was a quote? Tell me we didn’t really do this.

Tariq is what - 19 years old? I doubt he's using that word in the same way you might use it.

 

[LibertyTurns]

Tariq is what - 19 years old? I doubt he's using that word in the same way you might use it.

I understand this is year 0 of the most massive program overhaul ever in the history of the world and I have to get used to the new norm of GT being like the factories, but damn can we just slow the ride down the hill?

 

[jojatk]

When people only allow blaming our players and their lack of talent for our other losses, they are suggesting that talent was also at fault against the Citadel.

In other words, if talent was not the explanation for the Citadel loss, then something else was. That something else would also potentially be part of our other losses.

It is not a personal attack @jojatk to say that people blaming talent alone for losses to Duke etc must think that was also true vs Citadel. It's logic.

I don't think it's logical to assume that people who are blaming talent for losses to Duke and UNC think that's the only reason for those losses. Nor do I think it's logical to say that if someone thinks talent is the main reason why we lost to UNC but don't, in the same sentence say "but that's not why we lost to Citadel", that that must mean they think the same is true about Citadel. It's a very unsafe assumption, in my experience, to make when interacting on a message board that a person will give you all the context or even in a single post or even a single thread. For example, when I'm talking about the UNC game I will reference that our biggest issue was the relative strengths of our OL and DL versus theirs. That doesn't mean that I think our coaches called a perfect game. It doesn't mean that I think our coaches made all the right decisions leading up to that game. But I do think that they could have gotten everything right and we still would have lost that game because we couldn't even get close to their QB. And if you infer from what I said that I think the same is true about the Citadel game then you'd be dead wrong. I think I've made myself pretty clear in other posts that we lost the Citadel game because the coaches did a poor job in a number of areas from play calling to game preparation but MOSTLY in losing control of the team. I think they let the "fun" aspect go so far that we saw lack of discipline both on the field and off it AND since they didn't do a good job preparing the team and calling the game that the talent we have wasn't enough to overcome those coaching screw-ups.

However, I do think it's fair to say that many people think that the biggest problem we have is the overall talent level. I also believe that's our biggest problem vis a vis many of our opponents. And I don't look at the Duke game and think "wow, if not for a bunch of coaching screw-ups we win that game," unlike Citadel where I absolutely say that. But again, that doesn't mean I think the coaches couldn't have done better against Duke.

 

[gt69hjcollins]

The thing was is it was going to be his offense he was surrendering. It was going to be evolving it. The thing that doesn't track is Johnson tried the hands off defense thing with Groh. it failed. Erk was the AD before johsnon was hired back from navy where he was the OC. it went Erk Stowers then elwood then Johnson. And Johnson was originally a defensive coach for Erk. Erk had him build an offense out of the formations and styles they hated defending.

But there was probably another reason for the story you heard. The defensive cooardinator of Georgia Southern at the time was Rusty Russell. Erk's son. So yeah pretty sure Russell was acting as the DC even from the AD position. Also Sewak was listed as OC during that time.

Erk was never the AD. He was the head coach and a terrific one at that.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

I don't think it's logical to assume that people who are blaming talent for losses to Duke and UNC think that's the only reason for those losses. Nor do I think it's logical to say that if someone thinks talent is the main reason why we lost to UNC but don't, in the same sentence say "but that's not why we lost to Citadel", that that must mean they think the same is true about Citadel. It's a very unsafe assumption, in my experience, to make when interacting on a message board that a person will give you all the context or even in a single post or even a single thread. For example, when I'm talking about the UNC game I will reference that our biggest issue was the relative strengths of our OL and DL versus theirs. That doesn't mean that I think our coaches called a perfect game. It doesn't mean that I think our coaches made all the right decisions leading up to that game. But I do think that they could have gotten everything right and we still would have lost that game because we couldn't even get close to their QB. And if you infer from what I said that I think the same is true about the Citadel game then you'd be dead wrong. I think I've made myself pretty clear in other posts that we lost the Citadel game because the coaches did a poor job in a number of areas from play calling to game preparation but MOSTLY in losing control of the team. I think they let the "fun" aspect go so far that we saw lack of discipline both on the field and off it AND since they didn't do a good job preparing the team and calling the game that the talent we have wasn't enough to overcome those coaching screw-ups.

However, I do think it's fair to say that many people think that the biggest problem we have is the overall talent level. I also believe that's our biggest problem vis a vis many of our opponents. And I don't look at the Duke game and think "wow, if not for a bunch of coaching screw-ups we win that game," unlike Citadel where I absolutely say that. But again, that doesn't mean I think the coaches couldn't have done better against Duke.

The fact of the matter is our talent (average star rating rank) in the ACC over the last 4 classes is 9th out of 14. Duke, by comparison is 8.5 out of 14. But even North Carolina, who over the last 4 years of classes has averaged 5.25 in the ACC comes in at an average star rating during that time of about 3.10. So even with them you're not talking about someone with an overwhelming talent advantage (Clemson by comparison has averaged a 3.8 average star rating). That's what the data actually says - our talent is just a hair below average in the conference, and our average star rating is either better than or within 0.1 of about two-thirds of the conference.

The problem is not that we have no talent. The problem is not that we have coaches who don't understand football. In my personal opinion, the coaches have decided rather than try and win games by playing to our strengths, they're ripping the bandaid off and forcing our team to run the long term schemes in the hopes that going all-in now will make us that much better for it in year 2 and in year 3.

 

[AE 87]

I don't think it's logical to assume that people who are blaming talent for losses to Duke and UNC think that's the only reason for those losses. Nor do I think it's logical to say that if someone thinks talent is the main reason why we lost to UNC but don't, in the same sentence say "but that's not why we lost to Citadel", that that must mean they think the same is true about Citadel. It's a very unsafe assumption, in my experience, to make when interacting on a message board that a person will give you all the context or even in a single post or even a single thread. For example, when I'm talking about the UNC game I will reference that our biggest issue was the relative strengths of our OL and DL versus theirs. That doesn't mean that I think our coaches called a perfect game. It doesn't mean that I think our coaches made all the right decisions leading up to that game. But I do think that they could have gotten everything right and we still would have lost that game because we couldn't even get close to their QB. And if you infer from what I said that I think the same is true about the Citadel game then you'd be dead wrong. I think I've made myself pretty clear in other posts that we lost the Citadel game because the coaches did a poor job in a number of areas from play calling to game preparation but MOSTLY in losing control of the team. I think they let the "fun" aspect go so far that we saw lack of discipline both on the field and off it AND since they didn't do a good job preparing the team and calling the game that the talent we have wasn't enough to overcome those coaching screw-ups.

However, I do think it's fair to say that many people think that the biggest problem we have is the overall talent level. I also believe that's our biggest problem vis a vis many of our opponents. And I don't look at the Duke game and think "wow, if not for a bunch of coaching screw-ups we win that game," unlike Citadel where I absolutely say that. But again, that doesn't mean I think the coaches couldn't have done better against Duke.

I appreciate what you are saying; however, you are not responding to my post. I did not say "when people are blaming talent." I said, "when people only allow blaming our players." There are some who resist any questioning of our coaching at all or any suggestion that coaching, including play-calling, may be a driver in our lack of success.

So, I think it is legitimate to raise talent as an issue resulting in a loss. However, I question whether it translates to how badly we're losing. I just can't accept that no difference in coaching could have resulted in us stopping Duke from scoring in the first half. I just can't accept that no difference in coaching could have resulted in our offense scoring against Temple. We are not talking just about losing. We're talking about losing horribly and performing really badly on both sides of the ball.

Fwiw, I think we may be closer in our opinions than this discussion may make it appear.

 

[gtg391z]

The problem is not that we have coaches who don't understand football.

Instead of looking at the recruiting stats to form your opinion, how about watching the actual game. Its clear, from watching the game, what our problem are right now.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Instead of looking at the recruiting stats to form your opinion, how about watching the actual game. Its clear, from watching the game, what our problem are right now.

Okay so the recruiting experts who spend their lives evaluating talent are all wrong but you know better.

What’s especially sad about your comment is that this roster is largely the same as it’s always been. Suddenly they suck and don’t know how to play football after previously knowing how to?

 

[lv20gt]

The problem is not that we have no talent. The problem is not that we have coaches who don't understand football. In my personal opinion, the coaches have decided rather than try and win games by playing to our strengths, they're ripping the bandaid off and forcing our team to run the long term schemes in the hopes that going all-in now will make us that much better for it in year 2 and in year 3.

You claim that our coaches don't understand football yet constantly purpose that we should have continued to run the TO, excuse me, "play to our strengths", while trying to recruit to a completely different offense.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

You claim that our coaches don't understand football yet constantly purpose that we should have continued to run the TO, excuse me, "play to our strengths", while trying to recruit to a completely different offense.

Actually I said the opposite of what you just accused me of. I apologize for the double negatives...probably lead you astray.

 

[jgtengineer]

Erk was never the AD. He was the head coach and a terrific one at that.

yes he was. I couldn't remember if he was the AD or not but i did remember his son was CPJ's dc.
https://www.ajc.com/sports/college/when-paul-johnson-was-statesboro/oJexMpHogbjMeibUhfHeFO/

 

[gtg391z]

Okay so the recruiting experts who spend their lives evaluating talent are all wrong but you know better.

What’s especially sad about your comment is that this roster is largely the same as it’s always been. Suddenly they suck and don’t know how to play football after previously knowing how to?

Again, recruiting is subjective. I'm actually watching the game. Also, age matters, we don't have a large senior class. That hurts all teams when they are this young.

Who, currently on the Oline, did we recruit in the last 4 years?

 

[lv20gt]

Actually I said the opposite of what you just accused me of. I apologize for the double negatives...probably lead you astray.

My mistake. Even so, there wasn't an option to do anything other than rip the bandaid off with this staff. No coach is going to waste time practicing things they don't have any intent to run long term. You certainly aren't going to practice and run one system, while trying to recruit to a different one.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Again, recruiting is subjective. I'm actually watching the game. Also, age matters, we don't have a large senior class. That hurts all teams when they are this young.

Who, currently on the Oline, did we recruit in the last 4 years?

Losing Braun to transfer and losing 3 guys to injury has hurt no doubt.

Not taking a single OL in last year's class hurt. I don't think CGC can take any blame on that, as he had a limited window, and a limited number of spots available to fill by the time he started.

In the previous 3 years to last year, we took Harrison Jump, Mike Maye, Austin Smith, Connor Hansen, Zach Quinney, Mike Minihan, Charlie Clark, Parker Braun, Kenny Cooper, and Jahaziel Lee.

 

[jojatk]

The fact of the matter is our talent (average star rating rank) in the ACC over the last 4 classes is 9th out of 14. Duke, by comparison is 8.5 out of 14. But even North Carolina, who over the last 4 years of classes has averaged 5.25 in the ACC comes in at an average star rating during that time of about 3.10. So even with them you're not talking about someone with an overwhelming talent advantage (Clemson by comparison has averaged a 3.8 average star rating). That's what the data actually says - our talent is just a hair below average in the conference, and our average star rating is either better than or within 0.1 of about two-thirds of the conference.

The problem is not that we have no talent. The problem is not that we have coaches who don't understand football. In my personal opinion, the coaches have decided rather than try and win games by playing to our strengths, they're ripping the bandaid off and forcing our team to run the long term schemes in the hopes that going all-in now will make us that much better for it in year 2 and in year 3.

I both agree and disagree. But in both cases I appreciate your point and analysis and conclusions.

Agree

• the coaches are ripping off the band-aid
• Duke and UNC don't have an "overwhelming" talent advantage in terms of athletic ability

Disagree

• Our OL and DL recruiting, which are the places I've noted as having the biggest issues right now, has not been as close to Duke and UNC as the overall rankings or star rankings suggest **

Looking at Duke and UNC (and I didn't cherry pick them, they're just the two we've faced so far besides Clemson) I looked back to the 2015-2019 recruiting classes. UNC is similar to us in that they have a new coaching staff. They're transition is much less than ours but it's a change so I think UNC's advantages were more about pure talent. And the recruiting numbers I saw (please look at the caveats below where I talk about why the numbers are flawed, I get it, I find the numbers interesting but not the whole story) suggest that UNC's DL recruiting over that span has been a lot better than our OL recruiting. Similarly their OL recruiting has been quite a lot better than our DL recruiting. Duke, on the other hand, has what I think is a pretty good coaching staff and while the numbers don't show a big disparity on the line of scrimmage like it does vs UNC we still come out below them on DL vs OL and OL vs DL recruiting numbers. I think, however, that they are really well coached (boy is that hard to say regarding Duke's staff!!!) and in that game we saw a combination of somewhat better talent who have been in one system for a long time vs somewhat less talent that are in a brand new system.

** caveats: I only went through the 247 numbers, I'm not a huge fan of those numbers in isolation but they are interesting in comparison rather than absolute value, sometimes the numbers are so wrong it's not even funny (Daniel Jones was rated 0.7898 coming out of HS), and I didn't cross-reference with guys who are actually still on the teams and playing those actual positions but rather I only used the reported positions in the recruiting database. These are my way of saying there's tons of flaws in this discussion about recruiting and it's purely academic and doesn't account at all for coaching once the guys get there.