ACC Media Days

[TromboneJacket]

1) Straight from the ajc article at the end of last season: “Platitudes and catchphrases are no longer enough,” Garrett said. “It’s time to start winning. I’m of the belief that we need to be at eight or more wins next year.”

2) And you know that how? I don't think anyone on this board knows how much money was made available.

3) Was Yates the only guy on the field for those two games? I don't think so. The whole team put on a poor performance, acting like that is solely on him is absurd. Nobody is saying Yates was the top of P5 talent, jacketfan137 is claiming he wasn't a P5 player which is fundamentally untrue.

With regards to #2, I’d have to imagine that if the money was there to both fire Collins and pay another (more promising) coaching staff, the athletic department would have done so. You think they were afraid of how it would look firing a coach who only won 3 games a year for 3 seasons straight? No, it’s got to be a money thing. It doesn’t help to fire Collins before finishing year 4, get saddled with buying out his entire contract, and then get stuck hiring the equivalent of Jeff Fisher or Ken Whisenhunt because that’s the best we can afford while paying Collins not to coach. And then find ourselves in a similar if not worse situation a couple years later because, surprise surprise, the bargain bin coaching staff wasn’t up to the task of recruiting and competing against ACC programs.

 

[forensicbuzz]

1) Straight from the ajc article at the end of last season: “Platitudes and catchphrases are no longer enough,” Garrett said. “It’s time to start winning. I’m of the belief that we need to be at eight or more wins next year.”

2) And you know that how? I don't think anyone on this board knows how much money was made available.

3) Was Yates the only guy on the field for those two games? I don't think so. The whole team put on a poor performance, acting like that is solely on him is absurd. Nobody is saying Yates was the top of P5 talent, jacketfan137 is claiming he wasn't a P5 player which is fundamentally untrue.

It's 1 guy. He's not representative of the rest of the big $$ donors. There are people on this board that know how much money was available.

 

[LargeFO]

“It's 1 guy. He's not representative of the rest of the big $$ donors. There are people on this board that know how much money was available.”

I remember that article having multiple big donor quotes so it wasn’t just Garrett.

 

[Ibeeballin]

“It's 1 guy. He's not representative of the rest of the big $$ donors. There are people on this board that know how much money was available.”

I remember that article having multiple big donor quotes so it wasn’t just Garrett.

But Garrett is the only who said 8 wins

 

[yeti92]

With regards to #2, I’d have to imagine that if the money was there to both fire Collins and pay another (more promising) coaching staff, the athletic department would have done so. You think they were afraid of how it would look firing a coach who only won 3 games a year for 3 seasons straight? No, it’s got to be a money thing. It doesn’t help to fire Collins before finishing year 4, get saddled with buying out his entire contract, and then get stuck hiring the equivalent of Jeff Fisher or Ken Whisenhunt because that’s the best we can afford while paying Collins not to coach. And then find ourselves in a similar if not worse situation a couple years later because, surprise surprise, the bargain bin coaching staff wasn’t up to the task of recruiting and competing against ACC programs.

That is 100% speculation.

 

[yeti92]

It's 1 guy. He's not representative of the rest of the big $$ donors. There are people on this board that know how much money was available.

I didn't say he represented all big money donors. Who are the people on this board that would know that, and how would they know that?

 

[Heisman's Ghost]

About coach speak:

Sean McVay (Rams) does a great job breaking down a play and talking about anything that happened in a game at virtually any point in the game. I’d love to hear him break down a game as the coach of my team. Since he’s a Super Bowl coach, that’s not likely to happen any time soon.

Reporters talk about his freakish ability to recall and talk about any play from any point in time. Most NFL coaches are nowhere close to describing game action in that way. There are some coaches like Dean Pees who reporters love, who can give a great breakdown of part of a game.

That’s unusual. Reporters gush about Pees and McVay, but a big reason for that is that they don’t get anything nearly as useful or interesting out of other coaches.

For most coaches, I get little to nothing out of their press conferences. For example, I don’t think I’ve ever enjoyed a Nick Saban presser. The same with Jimbo Fisher. It’s really a shame because part of coaching can be communicating complex concepts clearly.

There are a few great speakers out there. We could hope for more out of Collins, and he gives a below-average presser, but he’s not out of the mainstream.

Looking at ACC Media days, is there a coach who said something memorable in a good way?

(Narduzzi got a lot of press, but mostly because he talked smack about Michigan State)

The absolute best in my limited experience was the quick post game radio commentary by Steve Spurrier when he coached at Florida. It was subtle and amazingly effective at deflating the "mighty Gators" as he called them when they were in danger of getting the big head after drilling some overmatched opponent during the 1990s heyday. Most coaches are just not going to say all that much. IIWII

 

[Heisman's Ghost]

no need to argue with my wife. I plan on getting a new one plus all new friends.

Strange. That is what my wife said about me.

 

[forensicbuzz]

I didn't say he represented all big money donors. Who are the people on this board that would know that, and how would they know that?

I will not reveal anyone's anonymity on the site, but there are at least a few very high-level donors I know do actually visit this site, or at least did in the past. This site isn't what it used to be (for good or bad). I understand if you don't want to believe me, as I'm an anonymous font on the internet too. I'm okay with that too.

 

[SteamWhistle]

The 8 win threshold was set by people of influence within the program, which probably comes with a +/-

5 seems like a major stretch after 3 win seasons for 3 seasons in a row. 6 is still extremely doubtful. 7 may work if the competitiveness is there. 8 is probably enough.

Can't understand why that's so hard to fathom...

Also can't understand how any of you guys are ok with 5 or 6 wins after 3 straight seasons of 3 wins.

Raise your standards....

Because it’s not realistic. You don’t fire someone after making their first bowl if you were committed to allowing 3 wins in year 3.

 

[Pointer]

fire
Because it’s not realistic. You don’t fire someone after making their first bowl if you were committed to allowing 3 wins in year 3.

I hear you, but I don't think it's about that. As discussed above, I think last year there was enough money to fire CGC, but not enough to hire a new staff.

This year the buyout goes way down, which changes everything.

Hear me out and I'm not trying to be obtuse. The main thing CGC had going for him initially was a recruiting uptick. That seems to have gone away. That, I think initially bought him some leeway.

If you don't have that and the best product you can put on the field after 4 years is 6 wins, pairing it with a disgruntled fan base and major boosters clamoring last year, it's tough to see a scenario where you keep CGC for going to a low level bowl game.

Now I think he's actually hired a decent offensive coordinator and he has a punchers chance of hitting a 7 (competitive 7) win or 8 win season. It would be hard to fire the guy if he finally gets something going on offense. Given that CGC has the coaching chops defensively, there will be hope he can turn things around on that side as well in future seasons (again he must show some life first this season).

And I admit to disliking CGC. He grates me on just adout every level. At the same time I know he's been a good position coach/coordinator in the past and he can recruit. I would love it if he were successful because that would be great for Tech. I'm just looking at this season realistically. I don't think anyone outside is the program would say we didn't give him a fair shake if he were let go at the end of this season though.


The summary here is, it's do or die for this staff and the margin for error is tiny.

 

[yeti92]

Hear me out and I'm not trying to be obtuse. The main thing CGC had going for him initially was a recruiting uptick. That seems to have gone away. That, I think initially bought him some leeway.

Wasn't that one of the main reasons Stansbury gave for retaining him last year, to hold recruiting together?

 

[Pointer]

Wasn't that one of the main reasons Stansbury gave for retaining him last year, to hold recruiting together?

Publicly, I think so, but it wasn't realistic to fire the guy last year because of the massive contract.

 

[stech81]

I really don't think the problem at Tech are the coaches and players. Start looking other places and it's more than some think.

 

[Techster]

I really don't think the problem at Tech are the coaches and players. Start looking other places and it's more than some think.

Outside of coaching, GT's issues have gone back many generations. It's not a surprise to anyone...and it's mentioned often when hiring coaches.

My issue with CGC is coaching. Pure and simple. I actually like everything he did to raise GT's profile, and I love that he doesn't back down on the recruiting trail. We just had a 4 star RB re-commit to us. I'm not sure I've ever seen a 4 star decommit then recommit to GT. Usually once those level of players decommit, they're gone for good. CGC and staff kept working the recruit and got him to recommit. To me, that's a sign of a good recruiter. I think if CGC were here back in the Stephon Tuitt days, GT would not have lost him to ND.

That said, CGC has me worried about the on the field product. His calling card, defense, has been one of the worst defensive units in all of college football. You can't blame that on "historical transition" or getting "his guys" in. Our defense has been the most talented (according to recruiting sites) side of the football team since we got here, and there was no "triple option personnel" issues. Most of our 4 stars are signed to that side of the ball. After 3 years, CGC should have something to show for it. We didn't...in fact, I believe CGC's year 3 defense will go down as one of the worst defensive units GT has fielded in a long time.

That's like hiring CPJ for his triple option, then the offense sputtering rushing the ball. I can overlook the offense, as there was some serious personnel issues, but when your offensive FEI (#78 in 2021) outranks your defense (#112 in 2021) in year 3, that's a BIG issue in my book. Both sides were bad, but the side CGC made his reputation on was historically bad.

 

[cthenrys]

Outside of coaching, GT's issues have gone back many generations. It's not a surprise to anyone...and it's mentioned often when hiring coaches.

My issue with CGC is coaching. Pure and simple. I actually like everything he did to raise GT's profile, and I love that he doesn't back down on the recruiting trail. We just had a 4 star RB re-commit to us. I'm not sure I've ever seen a 4 star decommit then recommit to GT. Usually once those level of players decommit, they're gone for good. CGC and staff kept working the recruit and got him to recommit. To me, that's a sign of a good recruiter. I think if CGC were here back in the Stephon Tuitt days, GT would not have lost him to ND.

That said, CGC has me worried about the on the field product. His calling card, defense, has been one of the worst defensive units in all of college football. You can't blame that on "historical transition" or getting "his guys" in. Our defense has been the most talented (according to recruiting sites) side of the football team since we got here, and there was no "triple option personnel" issues. Most of our 4 stars are signed to that side of the ball. After 3 years, CGC should have something to show for it. We didn't...in fact, I believe CGC's year 3 defense will go down as one of the worst defensive units GT has fielded in a long time.

That's like hiring CPJ for his triple option, then the offense sputtering rushing the ball. I can overlook the offense, as there was some serious personnel issues, but when your offensive FEI (#78 in 2021) outranks your defense (#112 in 2021) in year 3, that's a BIG issue in my book. Both sides were bad, but the side CGC made his reputation on was historically bad.

This…. Run all the excuses out we want, he’s been a bad head football coach. Maybe he turns it around this year, but this is year 6 as a HC. Maybe the new assistants around him supplement him and let him be successful, but there is no reason to bet on his ability as a HC at this point.

 

[4shotB]

Most of our 4 stars are signed to that side of the ball.

I could be wrong but mst of our highly rated D recruits over the last 4-6 years have all been DB's. Our D line and LB recruiting has not been up to similar standards although I do know we have some very young DT's that were 4 stars. Our DL and LB play has been abysmal now for 7-8 (10?) years. So I thinking recruiting rankings are skewed if all the highest rated recruits are all S's and CB's. Of course I am too lazy to look up the data so I am hoping someone else will to prove me wrong.

 

[yeti92]

I think if CGC were here back in the Stephon Tuitt days, GT would not have lost him to ND.

We lost Tuitt because momma got paid. Geoff wouldn't have been able to change that.

I could be wrong but mst of our highly rated D recruits over the last 4-6 years have all been DB's. Our D line and LB recruiting has not been up to similar standards although I do know we have some very young DT's that were 4 stars. Our DL and LB play has been abysmal now for 7-8 (10?) years. So I thinking recruiting rankings are skewed if all the highest rated recruits are all S's and CB's. Of course I am too lazy to look up the data so I am hoping someone else will to prove me wrong.

Yep we have something like 8 former 4 star DBs, maybe 4 DL/DE, 2 LB.

 

[slugboy]

I could be wrong but mst of our highly rated D recruits over the last 4-6 years have all been DB's. Our D line and LB recruiting has not been up to similar standards although I do know we have some very young DT's that were 4 stars. Our DL and LB play has been abysmal now for 7-8 (10?) years. So I thinking recruiting rankings are skewed if all the highest rated recruits are all S's and CB's. Of course I am too lazy to look up the data so I am hoping someone else will to prove me wrong.

There aren't a ton of 5* DTs, and you'll often see two of them going to Alabama every year. Every time I look, the DTs are all off the board already and we aren't even in the mix. There are more 5* LBs out there (and you'll also see them gravitate to the traditional top 15 recruiting teams).
I think there just aren't as many 5* DTs as other positions, but I don't think there's the same skew for LB.
I understand us not getting the 5* DTs based on the numbers, and I'm happy to have gotten the high 4* DTs we got (who should be great). I'm more frustrated that we haven't killed it recruiting LBs.

Looking at other 4-2-5 defenses, they tend to showcase safeties and hide LBs. Just my opinion, but I've watched other teams in the 4-2-5, and the LBs have been anonymous. You may have to be an exceptional LB to stand out in a 4-2-5.

 

[yeti92]

nm