Athletic Director's Update

Sebastian GT

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
331
This is a nice well written letter and I'm sure heartfelt but let's be real here. Facilities are not the primary reason we can't competently complete a forward pass. Scheme and coaching have way more to do with it. Facilities are not the reason we are faking punts from our own 20 yard line in the first quarter. I could go on and on with this. We are not a very well coached team right now and Johnson has admitted as much.

Look I'm glad we have Stansbury as the AD instead of Mr. Invisible Bobinski and whether I agree with everything he's done so far or not I think he truly cares about GA Tech and I would rather have him picking our next coach vs Bobinski for sure. But there are bigger problems here than facilities etc... Yes those are issues but there are bigger issues right now on the field/sidelines that need to be addressed and most every Tech fan knows it.
 
ATL1

ATL1

Helluva Engineer
Messages
7,377
This a fine letter and all. I truly believe the man is committed to getting it right. That said, it’s time to move on from CPJ.

Paul Johnson and his offense is just too polarizing, for him to get the full commitment he seeks. If he wants to remove the barriers then he’s going to have to start from the top.
 
GTRX7

GTRX7

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,524
Location
Atlanta
Ash said:
An actual passing tree, not just 3 kinds of verticals.
Click to expand...

So by "credible," you don't mean effective, you just mean complex. Fine. By that definition, I agree.

However, if we are talking effective, I would just offer this:
2009 - #1 in the county in yards/attempt; # 12 QB rating -- 11 wins
2011 - #1 in the country in yards/attempt; # 14 QB rating -- 8 wins
2012 - #2 in the country in yards/attempt; #35 QB rating -- 7 wins
2014 - #3 in the country in yards/attempt; # 12 QB rating -- 11 wins
2016 - # 4 in the country in yards/attempt; # 16 QB rating -- 9 wins

Seems like, when we have the personnel to run it, the passing scheme can be quite effective. When we don't, it is not. See 2017: # 42 yds/pass & #100 QB rating and 2018: #90 yds/pass & #119 QB rating.

Personally, I am fine with our passing scheme, but am disappointed we have not been able to reliably recruit and maybe more importantly retain the talent to implement it consistently. That, of course, is on CPJ too. And that is my frustration with CPJ, not his passing scheme.

http://www.cfbstats.com/2018/leader/national/team/offense/split01/category02/sort02.html
 
Dustman

Dustman

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,246
H-Wade said:
I'll be there too, just like every home game this year. I'm just saying the reason we are 1-3 is not because of a lack of resources. Of course if we had better resources we would probably have a better record, BUT that is not the reason we lost to USF and Pitt, it's not like they have great resources. That's all I'm saying.
Click to expand...
I think we could easily be 2-2 or 3-1 at this point. More resources don't guarantee wins. But it's what we need to be able to say we could easily be 4-0.
 

jgtengineer

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,968
bke1984 said:
Lol ok
Click to expand...

We converted turnovers into 14 points. one turnover was committed by lawrence on a screen the other by brice.

With bryant clemson did not move the ball at all

in the end he was 6/10 for 56 yards and they weren't running it well with him either as we were keying on the run. Even assuming the one coverage bust still happens and bryant easily makes that layup( he would i'd only trust marshall to miss that throw), two fo those touchdowns would have been bat downs or picks that lawrence threw. His arm is just that good. If we stop them we have more chances to move the ball a few more turnovers and we possibly win it like in 2014. If bryant takes a hit and they have to put the other kid in they are stuck with a stoudt like qb.
 

wvGT11

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,283
Great letter, and much needed. I will reserve till the end of season. If this week is what lights the fire for coach and players then great, much needed.
If not what next, we still end the season in a bad way, you can't expect to come back again and tell fans and alum that the problem is money and support.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
 

g0lftime

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,912
The facilities and fan support are all about recruiting. When people are unhappy with the program they don't tend to open up their check books and don't buy season tickets. Now recruiting will be important in the future regardless of who the coach is. It will be easier to attract a new coach with better facilities and lots of fans at the games. Duke sold Cutcliffe on a commitment to increase the budget and new facilities. It was led by several very successful former players.
 
jchens_GT

jchens_GT

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
573
Location
Georgia
Dustman said:
Quit talking about USF and Pitt. TStan is talking about Clemson, Miami, and Ugag when he refers to fighting above our weight class. He is right on point with this letter. Use your passion to support our program.

I will be at the BG game Saturday, and the rest of the home games this year.
Click to expand...

As others have said. This.
 
Ash

Ash

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
779
GTRX7 said:
Personally, I am fine with our passing scheme, but am disappointed we have not been able to reliably recruit and maybe more importantly retain the talent to implement it consistently.
Click to expand...

I submit that our passing tree and the ability to recruit for it are connected more than you think. Why would a talented receiver come to GT to run straight down the field every down, blocking on most of them? Why not go to a school that gives you more opportunities to catch the ball? Our simple scheme may work when we have talent in it just like any other will, but if we can't get the kids in to run it, what good is it? And don't even get me started on the QB side of the equation. If a converted running back is throwing to you at GT, wouldn't you rather go someplace that has a passing QB under center?
 
ibeattetris

ibeattetris

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,604
jgtengineer said:
We converted turnovers into 14 points. one turnover was committed by lawrence on a screen the other by brice.

With bryant clemson did not move the ball at all

in the end he was 6/10 for 56 yards and they weren't running it well with him either as we were keying on the run. Even assuming the one coverage bust still happens and bryant easily makes that layup( he would i'd only trust marshall to miss that throw), two fo those touchdowns would have been bat downs or picks that lawrence threw. His arm is just that good. If we stop them we have more chances to move the ball a few more turnovers and we possibly win it like in 2014. If bryant takes a hit and they have to put the other kid in they are stuck with a stoudt like qb.
Click to expand...
Lawrence looked pretty good, but I think he benefitted a lot from our defense missing assignments more than anything else.


I think the majority of posters on this board are throwing a touch down on this play. That doesn't take away from the game Lawrence had, but we gave him some of those completions. The defense video slow down in the other thread highlights that we are beating ourselves more than we are being beat.
 

jgtengineer

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,968
Ash said:
I submit that our passing tree and the ability to recruit for it are connected more than you think. Why would a talented receiver come to GT to run straight down the field every down, blocking on most of them? Why not go to a school that gives you more opportunities to catch the ball? Our simple scheme may work when we have talent in it just like any other will, but if we can't get the kids in to run it, what good is it? And don't even get me started on the QB side of the equation. If a converted running back is throwing to you at GT, wouldn't you rather go someplace that has a passing QB under center?
Click to expand...

It is a misconception that our passing tree is simple. Our passing tree runs the most NFL route in all of football. The option route. 80 percent of our passing game is based off option routes and one on one coverage. The problem is it takes both the receiver and the QB being able to read the defense the same way. When that doesn't happen you get the crap we have seen this year.

Option routes are something that NFL teams struggle to teach receivers, but the best recievers, especially slot receivers are masters of them ( wes welker, pretty much anyone but the burner receiver in new englands scheme, jones and sanu run a ton of them, calvin johnson as well.)

You see I would sell something different. We have yet to have a WR1 not get a shot in the nfl. Not all of them make it but we have yet to have one not ( maybe Greene woudl count but he didn't stay here). So if you are an NFL talent at receiver my pitch would be, yeah we might not throw it 40 times a game. But if you are 1 of 2 starters for us you will get mayeb 5 to 10 targets a game which is normal, and because you are usually 1v1 and not catching from the slot over the middle, your injury risk is lower, lower injury risk better chance to get the nfl. And i bet that is the pitch we give receivers. And i bet its working until they ask this question. " Can i major in communications?"
 

jgtengineer

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,968
ibeattetris said:
Lawrence looked pretty good, but I think he benefitted a lot from our defense missing assignments more than anything else.


I think the majority of posters on this board are throwing a touch down on this play. That doesn't take away from the game Lawrence had, but we gave him some of those completions. The defense video slow down in the other thread highlights that we are beating ourselves more than we are being beat.
Click to expand...



I was throwing the bryant thing out because it was obvious that the poster i was responding too wouldn't be able to see the intricacies of why lawrence was able to do what he did. Call it a dumbing down of my argument to the audience measure.
 
RamblinWreck92

RamblinWreck92

Banned
Messages
746
H-Wade said:
I'll be there too, just like every home game this year. I'm just saying the reason we are 1-3 is not because of a lack of resources. Of course if we had better resources we would probably have a better record, BUT that is not the reason we lost to USF and Pitt, it's not like they have great resources. That's all I'm saying.
Click to expand...

Agreed. We have plenty of resources for a PK to make PATs and for a Kickoff Return team to be coached to not give up a historic back-to-back KO Return TDs. The resource angle is a lazy excuse for those 2 losses.

HS PKs make more PATs with much, much less resources than we have.
 
Top