Andrew Thacker

[leatherneckjacket]

If you offer the entire coaching staff including the head coach one year contracts, most will leave. If the head coach only has a one year deal, no one is going to hitch their career to that. They just won’t do it.

Well, most of the assistants are on one year contracts, which is typical for assistants.

If they offer Key a one year contract, there is zero percent chance he will accept that.

 

[Buzzbomb]

Well, most of the assistants are on one year contracts, which is typical for assistants.

If they offer Key a one year contract, there is zero percent chance he will accept that.

Most of the new assistants received 2 year deals, & you can’t blame them with the uncertainty of the Head Coach.

 

[Skeptic]

Is it just me, or is our defense playing like their hair is on fire after the HC change? I feel like I have been blaming Thacker for the poor defense, but I'm wondering now if CGC might have been the issue. Is it just me?

You can't go wrong in blaming Collins for everything that has happened, will happen, or might happen. He was an Alibi Ike whiner that added new depth to boobery. Think about it: his take of team "culture" was to standoutside the clubhouse door telling each player "I love you" as they entered after another loss.

 

[leatherneckjacket]

Most of the new assistants received 2 year deals, & you can’t blame them with the uncertainty of the Head Coach.

I cannot find anything on Turner's, Long's, Weinke, Alexander's, or Daniel's contracts, which means means they either have one year left on their two year contract or are year to year. Either way, it is unusual for putting all your assistants on more than a one year contract.

 

[jojatk]

I cannot find anything on Turner's, Long's, Weinke, Alexander's, or Daniel's contracts, which means means they either have one year left on their two year contract or are year to year. Either way, it is unusual for putting all your assistants on more than a one year contract.

I don't know about the others but Long got a 2 year deal and I thought I read his second year was completely guaranteed.

 

[leatherneckjacket]

I don't know about the others but Long got a 2 year deal and I thought I read his second year was completely guaranteed.

That is probably correct. I know Tavares also received a two year deal. Not sure about the others. Regardless, if we keep them, they are already on contract for another year. If they are year to year, we can let them go at minimal cost. If they are all on two year contracts, then it becomes tricky if we decide to move on from Key, bring in a new HC, and he or the new AD decide to completely overhaul the staff. This is why I am hoping Key does well enough to stay as full time HC. For me that means four more wins or three if one of them is Ugag.

 

[Buzzbomb]

I cannot find anything on Turner's, Long's, Weinke, Alexander's, or Daniel's contracts, which means means they either have one year left on their two year contract or are year to year. Either way, it is unusual for putting all your assistants on more than a one year contract.

They will be paid through June 30, 2024….unless leaving on their own accord.

 

[UgaBlows]

If Key gets hired he will get a 4-5 year contract. The buyout is where we should try to think proactively i.e. not make it huge.

 

[slugboy]

This isn't Thacker, but it's a hill the defense has to climb. Here is the "contribution" of our punting game to the final score:

Duke, believe it or not, was our worst punting day (and Clemson had TWO blocked punts). Duke had one returned for a TD and one really long return that both changed the momentum of the game.

Opponent	Punting EPA	Punts Blocked	Opp TD Directly from Punt
Clemson	-7.38​	2​	0​
Ole Miss	-9.51​	1​	0​
UCF	-8.78​	1​	1​
Pitt	-0.22​	0​	0​
Duke	-12.9​	0​	1​

For UCF, I felt like the blocked punt shifted the momentum from GT to UCF. Then the wheels came off in the 4th. Also, you're not beating many teams by scoring 10 points, unless you're Iowa. Per ESPN:

 

[Techwood Relict]

no dancing or other stupid ****

I can't define stupid ****, but I know it when I see it. - Coach Potter Stewart

 

[forensicbuzz]

I’m at the point where I believe we should ink the entire current staff, including the HC, to a 1 year contract for 2023. Put an annual renewal for 25-50% pay increase for the next 4 years if they hit their targets.

No blocked punts, no punt returns for TD, etc. Yeah, also stuff like make a bowl game and no dancing or other stupid ****.

That might work if not for the recruiting angle. You'll never get top recruits with that type of uncertainty.

 

[GT33]

If you offer the entire coaching staff including the head coach one year contracts, most will leave. If the head coach only has a one year deal, no one is going to hitch their career to that. They just won’t do it.

Assistants typically get 1 year contracts.

My point may not have been clear enough. Key and those guys should be confident enough they can turn this around now that the impediment is gone. Give them an incentive laden contract that goes to a more permanent or longer term arrangement with large pay increases for hitting wickets like bowl games, wins, etc.

We all get something- they get a job next year with potential for a long term deal, we get coaching that doesn’t suck.

Maybe something like win 2 more games and get a year extension at 15% raise, 3 more wins and 20% raise and 2 years, 4 more wins this year and get a 2 yr extension with a 33% pay increase, win 5 more games and get a 3 yr extension with a 40% raise, win 6 games and get a 3 yr with a 50% raise? Give them some incentive to perform.

Next year renegotiate the same way. 6 wins gets them another extension, 7 wins adds 2 years, 8 or more wins adds 3 years. Tie in pay increases to number of wins also that way if we crap the bed, we’re not paying for it. If they succeed, they get rich.

 

[GT33]

That might work if not for the recruiting angle. You'll never get top recruits with that type of uncertainty.

Nobody’s got certainty any more. Players don’t get enough playing time, they go to portal. They don’t like what they got, they go to the portal. The old rules no longer apply even for guys getting a lot of playing time like Gibbs, Domineck, Ivey, etc. Coaches get canned every year, assistants leave for promotions, etc. This isn’t pre-Bobby Ross days any more.

 

[leatherneckjacket]

Assistants typically get 1 year contracts.

My point may not have been clear enough. Key and those guys should be confident enough they can turn this around now that the impediment is gone. Give them an incentive laden contract that goes to a more permanent or longer term arrangement with large pay increases for hitting wickets like bowl games, wins, etc.

We all get something- they get a job next year with potential for a long term deal, we get coaching that doesn’t suck.

Maybe something like win 2 more games and get a year extension at 15% raise, 3 more wins and 20% raise and 2 years, 4 more wins this year and get a 2 yr extension with a 33% pay increase, win 5 more games and get a 3 yr extension with a 40% raise, win 6 games and get a 3 yr with a 50% raise? Give them some incentive to perform.

Next year renegotiate the same way. 6 wins gets them another extension, 7 wins adds 2 years, 8 or more wins adds 3 years. Tie in pay increases to number of wins also that way if we crap the bed, we’re not paying for it. If they succeed, they get rich.

Right.... and if you are not guilty you should go ahead and talk to the police or FBI without a lawyer.

No one that is worth hiring will ever accept a one year contract as a Head Coach. It is ridiculous to suggest this.

 

[GTLorenzo]

Assistants typically get 1 year contracts.

My point may not have been clear enough. Key and those guys should be confident enough they can turn this around now that the impediment is gone. Give them an incentive laden contract that goes to a more permanent or longer term arrangement with large pay increases for hitting wickets like bowl games, wins, etc.

We all get something- they get a job next year with potential for a long term deal, we get coaching that doesn’t suck.

Maybe something like win 2 more games and get a year extension at 15% raise, 3 more wins and 20% raise and 2 years, 4 more wins this year and get a 2 yr extension with a 33% pay increase, win 5 more games and get a 3 yr extension with a 40% raise, win 6 games and get a 3 yr with a 50% raise? Give them some incentive to perform.

Next year renegotiate the same way. 6 wins gets them another extension, 7 wins adds 2 years, 8 or more wins adds 3 years. Tie in pay increases to number of wins also that way if we crap the bed, we’re not paying for it. If they succeed, they get rich.

That all sounds great in theory, but in reality, no one would do that deal from the coaches perspective. Sort of like the guy who said last week, tell Key not to get an agent and will save the 2%. Just not realistic. Do we want to play football at a high level or do we want to continue to be a laughingstock in college football like we have been the last three years with Collins in charge? Trying to give someone a one-year contract as head coach with crazy incentives will be laughed at all over the media world.

 

[GaTech4ever]

Were those issues against UCF? I sincerely don’t remember. And it’d be hard for me to concede these points because they feel more subjective.

And if they were issues (ex: timing of play calls), is it possible we were struggling because UCF was up tempo and Pitt/Duke were plodding? I recall us struggling a few times to be set vs Duke, fwiw.

It’s hard for me to adjust my POV that @UCF we were excellent on until late 4Q. Maybe @GaTech4ever can share the defensive PFF or @slugboy has advanced stats to normalize against the quality of the O, relative to last two games.

Our team defense grades week-by-week, according to PFF:

Week 1: 68.2
Week 2: 70.1
Week 3: 54.9
Week 4: 67.4
Week 5: 72.7
Week 6: 69.5

 

[jacket_fan]

If Key takes this team to a bowl and wins I will vote for him to be President. Seriously. Two weeks ago folks on this forum were looking for one more win. I have ragged Key for the poor play on the OL but his success as HC cannot be overlooked. There are 3 more wins possible and even a decent showing against the dawgs and he gets my support.

 

[roadkill]

This isn't Thacker, but it's a hill the defense has to climb. Here is the "contribution" of our punting game to the final score:
View attachment 13284
Duke, believe it or not, was our worst punting day (and Clemson had TWO blocked punts). Duke had one returned for a TD and one really long return that both changed the momentum of the game.

Opponent	Punting EPA	Punts Blocked	Opp TD Directly from Punt
Clemson	-7.38​	2​	0​
Ole Miss	-9.51​	1​	0​
UCF	-8.78​	1​	1​
Pitt	-0.22​	0​	0​
Duke	-12.9​	0​	1​

For UCF, I felt like the blocked punt shifted the momentum from GT to UCF. Then the wheels came off in the 4th. Also, you're not beating many teams by scoring 10 points, unless you're Iowa. Per ESPN:

View attachment 13285

While there is no question that the PR6 (punt return for TD) and a subsequent long return for good field position were critical to the final score, I find it hard to believe that our punting game gave away 13 points. Maybe I missed something. Hoping that "fixing" the special teams continue to be a point of emphasis.

 

[slugboy]

While there is no question that the PR6 (punt return for TD) and a subsequent long return for good field position were critical to the final score, I find it hard to believe that our punting game gave away 13 points. Maybe I missed something. Hoping that "fixing" the special teams continue to be a point of emphasis.

When you see an EPA (expected points added) or a PPA (same thing, different initials), they correlate every play with the final score. One of my stats professors brought it up when I was an undergrad ages ago. For example, they’d worked out the correlation for an interception as adding a couple of points to the defending team’s final score, and an interception returned for a touchdown was correlated with more than 7 points for the final score. Why? The explanation they had was that there actually was some momentum to it—you got the 6 for the TD and the defensive team shifted the overall course of the game by a few more points from the interception, including taking a scoring chance away from the other team.

But, the explanation they gave is a rationalization. The big idea is that they've taken thousands of games and hundreds of thousands of plays and mathematically correlated each play to the final score. First downs help. First downs on the opponent's side of the field count more. The closer you get to the goalline, the more that yard is worth in getting points--mathematically. (That's another reason not to punt from your opponent's 39 yard line--the payoff for you getting that first down is worth the risk from not punting).

Even in the last six minutes of the game, there was a punt returned for a TD, a punt nearly returned for a TD that put us on our heels, and another punt that wasn’t great that did lead to a TD. They helped Duke a LOT.

The punt returned for a TD had an expected points added of 5.87 for them--you can rationalize that as "we had a chance to answer back" (we didn't). The second punt, where we netted 10 yards, was worth an EPA of about 2 points. They're "Expected" points--they don't necessarily convert, but the odds of getting points are good when you start on the other team's side of the field.

On the other hand, there were 3-and-outs and other sequences that subtracted from their expected score. If you look at the 3rd and goal that Duke had in the first half, we picked them off--that went from them expecting at least a field goal to getting absolutely nothing--and us getting the ball.

And, if you look at the game, Duke got two touchdowns in the game--an easy one off of a punt return, and a hard one that took forever even with multiple penalties helping them move the ball. Not were kicked off from us being crummy in punt coverage. The punt returns were the easiest and quickest way they had to get points or get close to points.

If someone is looking, it was punt returned for a TD, then three plays by our offense, punt returned to our 44 where we scrapped and got the ball back on downs, then four plays by our offense, a punt that should have been aimed for a sideline but went for a touchback instead, and then a TD helped by penalties.

The 3-and-outs in the late 4th were also hugely negative for us, and let them in the game. Those had a negative EPA for us. It all adds up in the end.

 

[85Escape]

That all sounds great in theory, but in reality, no one would do that deal from the coaches perspective. Sort of like the guy who said last week, tell Key not to get an agent and will save the 2%. Just not realistic. Do we want to play football at a high level or do we want to continue to be a laughingstock in college football like we have been the last three years with Collins in charge? Trying to give someone a one-year contract as head coach with crazy incentives will be laughed at all over the media world.

I'm the 'crazy guy', and again I say that I know that no coach will go without an agent. My gosh, is hyperbole so difficult to recognize these days? Do I hate agents...yes. They are parasites that appear to me to work for their own benefit more than the player's (see Freddie Freeman.) But the fact that you can't let that go says more about you than me!

What I find interesting is the concern about being a laughing stock. Why should we give a crap? Just win, baby.

So many Tech fans appear more tired of losing at the water cooler than they are tired of the team losing on the field.