A Thread to Rehash GT HC Comparisons

[Coloradojacket]

No we weren't we had one **** year plagued by injuries, bounced back to a 9 win season with a bowl win then we had a 5-6 year where we were competitive in every game but 2 and loss some close ones, then a 7-6 year that he retired.

Johnson's only problem in 17 and 18 was not having a QB to truly replace Thomas's arm (due to Ratliffe's injury and jordan's injury and johnson's injuries.) But the truth was there were three rule changes in the chamber for the 2019 season that likely got passed if Johnson had not retired that basically removed the ability to play that style of offense. Strangely as soon as johnson retired those rule changes were no longer talked about (because no one wants to make rules that only target the service academies.)

It said somethng when every team on our schedule would devote 30% of all practices, including spring, to stopping our offense. Not sure our current offense is paid that much attention to.

 

[ilovetheoption]

@ilovetheoption love having you around. Quick question: Do you think CPJ/Monken model is sustainable?

Where?

the CPJ/Monken is GOING to hold down recruiting. You will never recruit at a super high level doing what they do, so if you believe in your heart that your school is attractive enough that you might POSSIBLY be able to recruit your way to the top, then you're always going to have fans who pine for that.

That said, it just freaking works.

SO, if you're at a school like Kansas, or Wake Forest, (or Georgia Tech, I would have said), or any G5 program, and you've just never ever been able to recruit well, and there's no reason to believe you ever will, than yeah, I think it's SUPER sustainable.

You get your 7 wins, you occasionally get a kid like Justin Thomas, and maybe luck into a Rocky Long or something as your defensive coordinator, and your fans walk around with big smiles on their faces.

In the SEC, or a school that thinks they're something they're not? No, because the fans at those places believe they're one Lane Kiffin from top 20 recruiting classes and national championships and whatnot, and they'll ***** and moan and make it untenable for the AD.

 

[BleedGoldNWhite21]

You forget the fact that ACC teams had the offense figured out and the blocking rules changed. Why else do you think Johnson retired. His system was no longer potent. Now, if Johnson had started to incorporate a real passing game and recruited Tracy Ham types who could do it all then maybe you have a point regarding Monken. But, Oliver and Lucas Johnson could barely pass on a middle school level.

We averaged 33 points a game his last season. The offense was fine. We’ve scored 30 points once since CPJ left. I think a younger coach like Monken who could use CPJ’s players could have easily rejuvenated the program. But doners felt getting blown out by BC while running a “normal” offense was better. *shrugs*

 

[billga99]

The reality is Todd Stansbury made the change from the 3O to not only make the new offense more attractive to recruits and fans, but it would get more attention for donations. Of course, I am sure he wasn't expecting so much trouble on the defensive side of the ball. GT main issue is lack of money. They can make some of the revenue with increased ticket sales and I am sure that was a piece of the reasoning. If the results continue to be losing seasons and not being competitive, then it was a bad decision. I think at this point, 3 or 4 wins is all we can expect in 2020. So having another good recruiting class and having a winning season in 2021 are crucial to this working. If recruiting falls off and we have another losing season next year (with 3 losses already likely with GA, Clemson and at Notre Dame), decisions on the future get really tough.

 

[CuseJacket]

I'm not sure I'm welcome here right now, but I'm going to say the same thing I've been saying for 2 years:

When you hired Geoff Collins, you decided that you were going to run an experiment.

You ran an experiment with Paul Johnson, and that experiment was "because of the academic requirements of GT, we don't believe we're ever going to be able to recruit well enough to win by doing the same stuff everybody else does x's and o's wise, so we're going to do something completely different, and see if we can make people beat us left handed".

After 10 years, when he retired, you decided you wanted to run a DIFFERENT experiment, which was "You know what? I'm not ABSOLUTELY sold that GT can't recruit well enough to win that way, so lets get a staff of really really good recruiters, and see if we can make that happen".

So...fine...if you're going to hire a guy who is NOT particularly innovative in terms of x's and o's, but can recruit his balls off, then you give him 4 years to recruit his balls off, and have an entire program full of guys he recruited, and you just shut up and eat losses until then.

The reason is, when you don't do anything special scheme wise, and you just plan to win on having better jimmies and joes, you're going to get your *** kicked until you do, and when two guys are running the exact same scheme, a 21 year old is going to do it better than a 19 year old. When you win is when you have YOUR 21 year olds against THEIR 21 year olds, and yours are more talented, because they were higher recruited, and you landed them because you have a coach that can recruit well.

So basically, my point is GEOFF COLLINS IS WHO WE THOUGH HE IS. He's a slicky-boy recruiter who is nothing special with a play-sheet, and if you're going to win with him, it's likely going to be in a couple years. The downside is that you're going to suck for a while. The upside is that if it works, it's a SUPER sustainable model, because recruiting builds on itself.

When you hire a geoff collins type, you commit for 4 years, and you have to be willing to hear no evil and see no evil in the meantime.

It might suck, because you might get through 4 years, and realize that you were right in the first place, and GT really CAN'T consistently recruit well enough to win playing the same game everybody else does, but you have to give it those 4 years and REALLY find out. At least that way, you know one way or the other, really.

You are welcome here anytime. Thanks for the thoughtful post. We could use more of it vs. the knee-jerk fire/hire one-liners that don't encourage discussion.

I agree with the "give it time" approach given who we hired. And admittedly, I generally believe in "give it time" no matter the coach. Financially and competitively I think that gives us the best chance at longer term success.

I would love your outside opinion on this, and it's to 1) challenge the premise and 2) determine in advance what the hypothetical outcomes will mean, both good and bad.

1) Challenge the Premise
Paul Johnson's win % and ACC Championship game rate were the same as Chan Gailey's
(I am dismissing the 5-6 FBS year where we made the ACCCG due to DQ's from other teams and an anomaly year even for the ACC Coastal. 5-6 vs. FBS was basically Gailey's annual performance, but he did not have every other team in the Coastal stink all at once).

Some look at that as bashing Paul Johnson and being unappreciative, but let me be clear for my preference for CPJ over CCG, when it comes down to it. But we cannot ignore the data, which sometimes conflicts with emotion. Gailey's far superior defenses to Johnson's was his means to the end.

So basically, what did the CPJ tenure prove relative to Chan Gailey, the latter being a ho-hum X's and O's guy, but with an emphasis on defense and recruited a little better?

2) Determine in advance what the CGC outcome means (4 years from now)
Even if Collins fails, it does not mean we cannot compete via his methodology.

Let's say, for example, Collins recruits in the top 35 for the next 4 years but delivers results worse than a top 35 team. That is basically saying we can be a top 5-6 ACC team talent-wise, but the coach couldn't manage gameday.

To me what this one hypothetical says is that GT has a nice ceiling for recruiting talent, and maybe a competent coach is all we need to hold serve or supersede the Gailey and Johnson years.

This is a long way of saying the experiment has a lot of variables that could lead to conclusions other than "we can only compete with the under center (triple) option". The inverse hypothetical can be true that Collins succeeds, and that doesn't mean "the under center (triple) option held us back".

 

[JacketOff]

So 2016 was what, an abortion? Or even 2018, where we hung....66 on Louisville.

Then scored 14 against Duke the very next week. Allowed 49 points to a 7-6 South Florida team in a losing effort. Then played one of the most uninspired, flat games of the CPJ era against Minnesota in his last game as HC.

 

[jgtengineer]

Then scored 14 against Duke the very next week. Allowed 49 points to a 7-6 South Florida team in a losing effort. Then played one of the most uninspired, flat games of the CPJ era against Minnesota in his last game as HC.

Well seeing as ending in detroit was literally ACC sending a middle finger given where they finished in the coastal so same level of demoralization as usc faced when we beat them.

A lot the reason for USF's collapse in their season was injury. And the duke game... well without special teams miscues that game doesn't go like that.

But the truth is that yes we had issues in 2018. You know CPJ retiring did stansbury favors over being fired, both on the buyout front and on the allowing stansbury to get ahead on the coach search but yeah he should have stuck through 2019 honestly he probably gets 8 wins with tobias oliver in his offense.

 

[BleedGoldNWhite21]

You are welcome here anytime. Thanks for the thoughtful post. We could use more of it vs. the knee-jerk fire/hire one-liners that don't encourage discussion.

I agree with the "give it time" approach given who we hired. And admittedly, I generally believe in "give it time" no matter the coach. Financially and competitively I think that gives us the best chance at longer term success.

I would love your outside opinion on this, and it's to 1) challenge the premise and 2) determine in advance what the hypothetical outcomes will mean, both good and bad.

1) Challenge the Premise
Paul Johnson's win % and ACC Championship game rate were the same as Chan Gailey's
(I am dismissing the 5-6 FBS year where we made the ACCCG due to DQ's from other teams and an anomaly year even for the ACC Coastal. 5-6 vs. FBS was basically Gailey's annual performance, but he did not have every other team in the Coastal stink all at once).

Some look at that as bashing Paul Johnson and being unappreciative, but let me be clear for my preference for CPJ over CCG, when it comes down to it. But we cannot ignore the data, which sometimes conflicts with emotion. Gailey's far superior defenses to Johnson's was his means to the end.

So basically, what did the CPJ tenure prove relative to Chan Gailey, the latter being a ho-hum X's and O's guy, but with an emphasis on defense and recruited a little better?

2) Determine in advance what the CGC outcome means (4 years from now)
Even if Collins fails, it does not mean we cannot compete via his methodology.

Let's say, for example, Collins recruits in the top 35 for the next 4 years but delivers results worse than a top 35 team. That is basically saying we can be a top 5-6 ACC team talent-wise, but the coach couldn't manage gameday.

To me what this one hypothetical says is that GT has a nice ceiling for recruiting talent, and maybe a competent coach is all we need to hold serve or supersede the Gailey and Johnson years.

This is a long way of saying the experiment has a lot of variables that could lead to conclusions other than "we can only compete with the under center (triple) option". The inverse hypothetical can be true that Collins succeeds, and that doesn't mean "the under center (triple) option held us back".

All frustration and joking aside, of course we have to give Collins more time. 1.5 seasons is obviously not enough. However, I do think Gailey coached in a much easier ACC and in a college football where the haves had not quite obliterated the have nots in resources. I believe Johnson would have had much more success in the ACC of the early 2000s before our resources were so outnumbered.

 

[augustabuzz]

I'll make an offer- to @Ibeeballin, or whoever wants to defend Collins at this point. I'll bet $1000 that Collins, before he is fired or leaves, will never give Tech a better season than CPJ did, and will never have a better winning percentage over his time at Tech than CPJ did. If he meets either of those criteria, you win, if he meets neither I win.

Were you not around in 1996? Lots of people wanted to change QBs because he was making mistakes like Sims. This continued into the middle of his second year when the light began to flicker. In 1999 R-Sr Joe Hamilton won the Davey O'Brien award and should've won the Heisman.

 

[AlabamaBuzz]

I'm not sure I'm welcome here right now, but I'm going to say the same thing I've been saying for 2 years:

When you hired Geoff Collins, you decided that you were going to run an experiment.

You ran an experiment with Paul Johnson, and that experiment was "because of the academic requirements of GT, we don't believe we're ever going to be able to recruit well enough to win by doing the same stuff everybody else does x's and o's wise, so we're going to do something completely different, and see if we can make people beat us left handed".

After 10 years, when he retired, you decided you wanted to run a DIFFERENT experiment, which was "You know what? I'm not ABSOLUTELY sold that GT can't recruit well enough to win that way, so lets get a staff of really really good recruiters, and see if we can make that happen".

So...fine...if you're going to hire a guy who is NOT particularly innovative in terms of x's and o's, but can recruit his balls off, then you give him 4 years to recruit his balls off, and have an entire program full of guys he recruited, and you just shut up and eat losses until then.

The reason is, when you don't do anything special scheme wise, and you just plan to win on having better jimmies and joes, you're going to get your *** kicked until you do, and when two guys are running the exact same scheme, a 21 year old is going to do it better than a 19 year old. When you win is when you have YOUR 21 year olds against THEIR 21 year olds, and yours are more talented, because they were higher recruited, and you landed them because you have a coach that can recruit well.

So basically, my point is GEOFF COLLINS IS WHO WE THOUGH HE IS. He's a slicky-boy recruiter who is nothing special with a play-sheet, and if you're going to win with him, it's likely going to be in a couple years. The downside is that you're going to suck for a while. The upside is that if it works, it's a SUPER sustainable model, because recruiting builds on itself.

When you hire a geoff collins type, you commit for 4 years, and you have to be willing to hear no evil and see no evil in the meantime.

It might suck, because you might get through 4 years, and realize that you were right in the first place, and GT really CAN'T consistently recruit well enough to win playing the same game everybody else does, but you have to give it those 4 years and REALLY find out. At least that way, you know one way or the other, really.

Your take is well appreciated on this site, at least by me, and I am sure by many others.

I think we have seen the current experiment before, although I will give it to CGC, that we have never seen it with his marketing and media campaigning skills. Most of us who believe this newest experiment will end in misery believe that the landscape of college football has never been more different that it is now - the haves have and the have-nots do not have. I believe if Clemson was starting now like they did over 10 years ago, it would be tough for them as well, but of course, not as tough as it is for a STEM school with GT's academic rigor reputation along with limited majors.

So, although I desperately want to see CGC succeed in this, the reason I never believed he would is because I would be extremely surprised of 2 things:

1. someone with his personality and marketing skills could also be a top 10 HC when it comes to strategy, leadership, discipline, and gameday decision making.
2. that he could ever sustain anything better than top 25-30 recruiting at GT, which would still be awesome recruiting historically

This year, without seeing a team prepared to start games and the amount of turnovers and penalties, I have only been solidified in my concerns related to number 1 above.

Most of our success since the 1960's, and it hasn't been much, was due to special offensive minds - Fridge and PJ. I don't care what the overall record comparison looks like with Chan and PJ, for example, because we all know Chan did not have a great offensive mind and could not develop QB's. (and never beat UGAG and never won an ACC 'ship) I believe PJ and Fridge did do this, probably even more with Fridge. Also, the more difficult time to compete at GT was from 2008-2019 - much more difficult in my opinion than Chan's era. That last statement may not be true, but I would think the offenses did not have as much advantage as they do today and over the last 10-12 years. Back then, you could possibly win a game 10-7, but most likely not today.

 

[laoh]

Were you not around in 1996? Lots of people wanted to change QBs because he was making mistakes like Sims. This continued into the middle of his second year when the light began to flicker. In 1999 R-Sr Joe Hamilton won the Davey O'Brien award and should've won the Heisman.

Joe Ham had the advantage of a really great OC.
Sims?

 

[slugboy]

Well seeing as ending in detroit was literally ACC sending a middle finger given where they finished in the coastal so same level of demoralization as usc faced when we beat them.

A lot the reason for USF's collapse in their season was injury. And the duke game... well without special teams miscues that game doesn't go like that.

But the truth is that yes we had issues in 2018. You know CPJ retiring did stansbury favors over being fired, both on the buyout front and on the allowing stansbury to get ahead on the coach search but yeah he should have stuck through 2019 honestly he probably gets 8 wins with tobias oliver in his offense.

The ACC didn’t say “Paul Johnson gets the Quick Lane Bowl for his Swan Song”. The conference works out the bowl agreements, and the bowls pick their teams with some limits. We fell into the basement of the bowl games, even with the idea that a lot of fans would like to see Paul Johnson’s finale. Every bowl picking before the Quick Lane bowl picked someone else. The ACC did not route us to the Quick Lane bowl.

Paul Johnson did not retire because he felt energized and had more in the tank. If you want to say that 2009 Paul Johnson finds 7 wins last year, I understand that, but I’m not sure why you think 2019 Paul Johnson would.

 

[takethepoints]

I agree with your assessment of Woody, but he was not the DC at Army last year. I was hired January, 2020

My bad. Oth, they are 6 -1 now and became the first team to line up a bowl bid.

 

[Coloradojacket]

Were you not around in 1996? Lots of people wanted to change QBs because he was making mistakes like Sims. This continued into the middle of his second year when the light began to flicker. In 1999 R-Sr Joe Hamilton won the Davey O'Brien award and should've won the Heisman.

What changed for Joe....CRF returned to Tech for the 1997 season. His prior OC was no CRF.

 

[augustabuzz]

Joe Ham had the advantage of a really great OC.
Sims?

Hamilton was also in his 3rd year (R-So) when it happened for him.

 

[augustabuzz]

What changed for Joe....CRF returned to Tech for the 1997 season. His prior OC was no CRF.

Maturity.

 

[SOWEGA Jacket]

Johnson could have survived the rule changes if he simply used his system as designed and allowed the A-Backs to actually be receivers instead of 160 pound blockers. Johnson allowed his system to become a QB keep offense instead of what it was at Southern.

 

[Pointer]

Johnson could have survived the rule changes if he simply used his system as designed and allowed the A-Backs to actually be receivers instead of 160 pound blockers. Johnson allowed his system to become a QB keep offense instead of what it was at Southern.

We are playing 3rd string qb the last two years is what happened.

People quickly use the excuse that last year we didn't have a qb, but neglect to recognize that for '17 and '18.

Taquan was a great player and tech athlete, but he was not an option qb

 

[takethepoints]

The ACC didn’t say “Paul Johnson gets the Quick Lane Bowl for his Swan Song”. The conference works out the bowl agreements, and the bowls pick their teams with some limits. We fell into the basement of the bowl games, even with the idea that a lot of fans would like to see Paul Johnson’s finale. Every bowl picking before the Quick Lane bowl picked someone else. The ACC did not route us to the Quick Lane bowl.

Paul Johnson did not retire because he felt energized and had more in the tank. If you want to say that 2009 Paul Johnson finds 7 wins last year, I understand that, but I’m not sure why you think 2019 Paul Johnson would.

I think this gives the ACC a bit too little credit for bowl picks. They can put the thumb on the scale; they didn't.

I think Paul had gotten tired of having to fight negative opinion in the fan base. 2018 is a great example. We lose our starting BB for the second year in a row (Mills doesn't get fired and we win 9 games in 17 and 18) and the team loses 3 games in a row. Then they come back and:

• Humiliated VT at Lane Stadium (I think future generations of Turkey Fns will suddenly pee their pants on the anniversary of that game and never realize why)

• Humiliated Louisville every bit as bad

• Beat UNC, Miami, and UVA in a row

And lost to Puke (a sore point with everybody, as usual) and to the #2 (if I remember right) UGA team. And ended up 7 - 5. And during all this a giant chorus of boo-birds appeared right here and went after the team after every win.

Well, I'd have had second thoughts about continuing after that, especially if I had as little to prove as Paul did. But if he had come back, I think we would have won 8 - 9 games because he had the pieces. One thing people tend to forget is that the spread option is a system offense; if you have the pieces, you win. 2018 is a fine example. After Benson went down we had some real trouble against USF, Pitt, and, of course, Clemson. But once the two-headed monster got untracked we were competitive in every game except against the Dwags.

But … that's water under the bridge. The folks who wanted Paul gone - and who seem conspicuous in their absence nowadays - got their wish and he quit. Now what we have to do is hope we can begin to find solutions soon. If we keep losing like we have the last two weeks - free pass with ND and da U - then things could get interesting at Todd's digs directly.

 

[Pointer]

I think this gives the ACC a bit too little credit for bowl picks. They can put the thumb on the scale; they didn't.

I think Paul had gotten tired of having to fight negative opinion in the fan base. 2018 is a great example. We lose our starting BB for the second year in a row (Mills doesn't get fired and we win 9 games in 17 and 18) and the team loses 3 games in a row. Then they come back and:

• Humiliated VT at Lane Stadium (I think future generations of Turkey Fns will suddenly pee their pants on the anniversary of that game and never realize why)

• Humiliated Louisville every bit as bad

• Beat UNC, Miami, and UVA in a row

And lost to Puke (a sore point with everybody, as usual) and to the #2 (if I remember right) UGA team. And ended up 7 - 5. And during all this a giant chorus of boo-birds appeared right here and went after the team after every win.

Well, I'd have had second thoughts about continuing after that, especially if I had as little to prove as Paul did. But if he had come back, I think we would have won 8 - 9 games because he had the pieces. One thing people tend to forget is that the spread option is a system offense; if you have the pieces, you win. 2018 is a fine example. After Benson went down we had some real trouble against USF, Pitt, and, of course, Clemson. But once the two-headed monster got untracked we were competitive in every game except against the Dwags.

But … that's water under the bridge. The folks who wanted Paul gone - and who seem conspicuous in their absence nowadays - got their wish and he quit. Now what we have to do is hope we can begin to find solutions soon. If we keep losing like we have the last two weeks - free pass with ND and da U - then things could get interesting at Todd's digs directly.

Yeah you're absolutely correct.

And like @ilovetheoption pointed out so well in another thread, we are in a new experiment. We are going to see if elite recruiting can be done at Tech. I'm just not sure that that is AD TSTAN's vision as well given he relatedly had said develope our 3 stars. Either way, we need to get to elite recruiting for this to be successful.

We shall see in the next year or two.