Biggest need for 2016 (offense edition)

[Skeptic]

Yes. All we need to do is execute every assignment at an extremely high level or have a freak WR and this offense works like a charm. No need to even try and think of ways to improve upon what we do.

And this is different from other offenses how? I have seen what happens to the OSU and Clemson offenses, for instance, when a play is not executed, or when one of their outstanding receivers -- frankly I don't like the term "freak", or "stud" or the like, and they should be banned as not conducive to English -- drops a catchable ball. Every offense I have seen looks to get a WR one on one with a D back, and having him make a play. My HS offense ran like that. Sure, ruboffs, straight out picks and the like, but at the end, one guy makes a play.

 

[Skeptic]

Godhigh was great, there's no doubt. The rest of them had done nothing up to that point and didn't do that much after. If Waller was better, why didn't he start? We all know PJ values blocking from his WR's and that is why Summers started over him. Is he an easier target to throw to? Yes. Did he give the effort on a consistent basis that you want? Not that year. Smelter 2013 compared to Smelter 2014 was not even close either. If you think because his name didn't change that he was the same player, you didn't watch him play too closely.

Anyways, the whole point of this conversation was not to do an apples to apples comparison of 2013-2015 anyways. It was to show that the comment about what we did in 2013 not working was false.

You can't really do an apples to apples comparison to any year. Players improve (or should improve) year to year. I'm sure Justin would love to have Dwyer as a bback and Baybay on the edge. What you say is true, that having more upperclassman playing is better than less, but I wouldn't say having a sophomore qb in his first year starting is an experienced team. QB is the most important position on the field and we were very green at that spot in 2013 and still put up 35+ ppg. If anything that proves what we did that year did work more than the opposite.

A small quibble. I for one thought Smelter was very good in 2013. Surprised at the conversion, but very pleased, and my recollection is that he blocked as well in '13 as '14. At the time I thought I was watching closely. I am not sure which A backs you are talking about, though.

 

[Lee]

A small quibble. I for one thought Smelter was very good in 2013. Surprised at the conversion, but very pleased, and my recollection is that he blocked as well in '13 as '14. At the time I thought I was watching closely. I am not sure which A backs you are talking about, though.

Smelter was very physical from the get go and has always been a great athlete. I never said he wasn't good either, just that he wasn't the same player in his first as he was in his 2nd. He was a very good player in 2013, but he made great strides to make himself a more complete WR from 2013 to 2014 IMO.

 

[BLKJacket]

Always said his best job of recruiting was his first year and in my mind only he inherieted a great bunh of talent........I will put up Chans folksvs PJs ....Chan could recruit but his mentality was Pros and College players

Am I missing something? I've heard this argument made before about Chan being a better recruiter then PJ is but i don't see it. Admittedly I didn't follow GT Football (or college football in general for that matter) that closely during the Chan years so I cant compare what I see now to what we had then. But just going back and comparing the class rankings (i know we hate recruiting rankings here but thats all I've got) it looks to me like PJ's recruiting classes have been pretty comparable to Chan's. Chan's 2007 class was great but other than that the rankings are pretty similar.

Are the rankings THAT misleading where the talent Chan was able to put on the field was much better than PJ's even though the rankings are similar? Or are we only remembering Chan's last class when judging his recruiting ability. Hoping someone can shed some light here....

I pulled the numbers below from Rivals, but I also checked Scout and 247Sports. All suggest that our class rankings have been pretty similar since 2002 (except 2007) with PJ maybe even having a slightly higher avg.

Chan:
2002 - #63
2003 - #50
2004 - #79
2005 - #62
2006 - #52
2007 - #18

PJ:
2008 - #49
2009 - #49
2010 - #43
2011 - #41
2012 - #57
2013 - #85
2014 - #47
2015 - #39

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Didn't say they were.

With regards to the level of competition, you're right, both teams were pretty good. In fact, Duke has owned PJ and his offense the past 2 years. Even last year's, most efficient offense ever. In 2013 though, "the failed experiment year," we blew them out. Vad threw for 4 TD's and ran for another. That's the last time we've played well against them.

Again, I'm not calling for a grand overhaul to the scheme. You said what we did in 2013 didn't work. I disagree and provided evidence to back up what I said. You have just given an opinion, which you are entitled to, but that doesn't prove what you said is true.

Am I missing something? I've heard this argument made before about Chan being a better recruiter then PJ is but i don't see it. Admittedly I didn't follow GT Football (or college football in general for that matter) that closely during the Chan years so I cant compare what I see now to what we had then. But just going back and comparing the class rankings (i know we hate recruiting rankings here but thats all I've got) it looks to me like PJ's recruiting classes have been pretty comparable to Chan's. Chan's 2007 class was great but other than that the rankings are pretty similar.

Are the rankings THAT misleading where the talent Chan was able to put on the field was much better than PJ's even though the rankings are similar? Or are we only remembering Chan's last class when judging his recruiting ability. Hoping someone can shed some light here....

I pulled the numbers below from Rivals, but I also checked Scout and 247Sports. All suggest that our class rankings have been pretty similar since 2002 (except 2007) with PJ maybe even having a slightly higher avg.

Chan:
2002 - #63
2003 - #50
2004 - #79
2005 - #62
2006 - #52
2007 - #18

PJ:
2008 - #49
2009 - #49
2010 - #43
2011 - #41
2012 - #57
2013 - #85
2014 - #47
2015 - #39

It's a tough call in my book, but as much a fan as I am of CPJ, I'd give the nod to Chan and here's why.

The true measure of recruiting success is not on the front end but on the back. How they actually perform on the college field says a lot more than what subscription peddling recruiting 'experts' say about high schoolers. We've always been a team built on project players, your proverbial 'diamonds in the rough.' Well, the true measure is how many actually turn out to be diamonds and how many are just pretty rocks. Imo, we had more diamonds with Chan than CPJ. Some of it's been plain ol' bad luck attrition hurting CPJ, but a lot of it has been guys not panning out as hoped.

That said, there's a lot to be excited about moving forward. Last year's haul is still very promising and I'm excited to see those guys develop and hopefully turn us back into that team nobody looks forward to playing.

 

[Mack]

He tried new things with Vad and it didn't work.

Agree..cannot believe Vad ever came to Tech to run the option........good job by PJ but it was clear Vad was a spread qb not a snap under center guy.

 

[Mack]

Am I missing something? I've heard this argument made before about Chan being a better recruiter then PJ is but i don't see it. Admittedly I didn't follow GT Football (or college football in general for that matter) that closely during the Chan years so I cant compare what I see now to what we had then. But just going back and comparing the class rankings (i know we hate recruiting rankings here but thats all I've got) it looks to me like PJ's recruiting classes have been pretty comparable to Chan's. Chan's 2007 class was great but other than that the rankings are pretty similar.

Are the rankings THAT misleading where the talent Chan was able to put on the field was much better than PJ's even though the rankings are similar? Or are we only remembering Chan's last class when judging his recruiting ability. Hoping someone can shed some light here....

I pulled the numbers below from Rivals, but I also checked Scout and 247Sports. All suggest that our class rankings have been pretty similar since 2002 (except 2007) with PJ maybe even having a slightly higher avg.

Chan:
2002 - #63
2003 - #50
2004 - #79
2005 - #62
2006 - #52
2007 - #18

PJ:
2008 - #49
2009 - #49
2010 - #43
2011 - #41
2012 - #57
2013 - #85
2014 - #47
2015 - #39

Dont worry about ranking but look at Chans NFL guys vs PJ..........and if we want to compare Chan and PJ are on same win loss stat.7-5 etc.According to Scout today we are 67..need to be better to compete.

 

[Stinger90]

I guess the recruiting class that were apart of last year weren't any good either. But as you and others on another board about this year team and staff were full of excuses from injuries, etc. I could make list that was said but it would take away from this thread.

 

[alagold]

Am I missing something? I've heard this argument made before about Chan being a better recruiter then PJ is but i don't see it. Admittedly I didn't follow GT Football (or college football in general for that matter) that closely during the Chan years so I cant compare what I see now to what we had then. But just going back and comparing the class rankings (i know we hate recruiting rankings here but thats all I've got) it looks to me like PJ's recruiting classes have been pretty comparable to Chan's. Chan's 2007 class was great but other than that the rankings are pretty similar.

Are the rankings THAT misleading where the talent Chan was able to put on the field was much better than PJ's even though the rankings are similar? Or are we only remembering Chan's last class when judging his recruiting ability. Hoping someone can shed some light here....

I pulled the numbers below from Rivals, but I also checked Scout and 247Sports. All suggest that our class rankings have been pretty similar since 2002 (except 2007) with PJ maybe even having a slightly higher avg.

Chan:
2002 - #63
2003 - #50
2004 - #79
2005 - #62
2006 - #52
2007 - #18

PJ:
2008 - #49
2009 - #49
2010 - #43
2011 - #41
2012 - #57
2013 - #85
2014 - #47
2015 - #39

BLK,
were your numbers done a short time after signing day? or when?--it is much more accurate to look 4 yrs after to see the sucess of a class or guy

 

[Mack]

I guess the recruiting class that were apart of last year weren't any good either. But as you and others on another board about this year team and staff were full of excuses from injuries, etc. I could make list that was said but it would take away from this thread.

well if it is not recruiting then it must be poor coaching.............go back not sure I have said a thing about injuries and breaks they are part of football.

 

[BLKJacket]

BLK,
were your numbers done a short time after signing day? or when?--it is much more accurate to look 4 yrs after to see the sucess of a class or guy

Not sure when Rivals calculates these numbers, but my guess is its done a short time after signing day and probably not updated much once completed. If you know somewhere that recalculates class rankings after 3-4 years please post here. I would love to take a look at that.

 

[alagold]

Not sure when Rivals calculates these numbers, but my guess is its done a short time after signing day and probably not updated much once completed. If you know somewhere that recalculates class rankings after 3-4 years please post here. I would love to take a look at that.

someone must but don't know where

 

[Stinger90]

well if it is not recruiting then it must be poor coaching.............go back not sure I have said a thing about injuries and breaks they are part of football.

I have mention about our injuries, you and other replied that they were excuses and are a part of the game.I agree it's apart of the game but it affects the game when you're freshmen that don't have the experience that it takes to run our offense. You've question why we keep losing players because of our coach. There's a lot of reason why players leave (here and other schools). Tech is not for everyone but they all knew what they were committing to when they sign to go here. I said that our coach has taken blame about things, you and others have said that our coach throws people under the bus and takes no responsibility, in which I posted a You Tube of his press conference showing the opposite. I posted about our new recruit that committed around Christmas because you guys were saying how not going to a bowl will be another reason our recruiting will suffer. You guys stated that all we do is dive, dive, dive and dive some more. Well, part of the option is the dive play. I'm not saying that we should run it every play, but it is a major part of our offense. You know this, you coached high school football.

Mack, I have a lot of respect for you (your a great person) and some others on that other board. I understand people are not happy. I'm not happy with this year, our players and coaches were not either. You've said if Stanford can do..we should be able to do it as well. It's still comparing apples to oranges. I wish it wasn't. The main thing is we all want to see Georgia Tech be successful, on and off the field.

 

[iceeater1969]

I have mention about our injuries, you and other replied that they were excuses and are a part of the game.I agree it's apart of the game but it affects the game when you're freshmen that don't have the experience that it takes to run our offense. You've question why we keep losing players because of our coach. There's a lot of reason why players leave (here and other schools). Tech is not for everyone but they all knew what they were committing to when they sign to go here. I said that our coach has taken blame about things, you and others have said that our coach throws people under the bus and takes no responsibility, in which I posted a You Tube of his press conference showing the opposite. I posted about our new recruit that committed around Christmas because you guys were saying how not going to a bowl will be another reason our recruiting will suffer. You guys stated that all we do is dive, dive, dive and dive some more. Well, part of the option is the dive play. I'm not saying that we should run it every play, but it is a major part of our offense. You know this, you coached high school football.

Mack, I have a lot of respect for you (your a great person) and some others on that other board. I understand people are not happy. I'm not happy with this year, our players and coaches were not either. You've said if Stanford can do..we should be able to do it as well. It's still comparing apples to oranges. I wish it wasn't. The main thing is we all want to see Georgia Tech be successful, on and off the field.

A good response.

One point - on the "we are not Stanford".
Yes they have 1. higher SAT, 2. better course offerings, and recruit nationally.

We will have 2 small classes cominhg in 17/18 so we must get quality.

Question since we can only change 3, how much would u increase contributions to ADD recriuting effort in=
A. current areas?
B. big cities in football areas.
C. BOTH( slit 40 for A and 60 for B). ?
I am for C and would increase by 50 percent for a targeted contribution.

(I feel this money would result in a better w/l record and thus revenue to gtaa.)

 

[Skeptic]

well if it is not recruiting then it must be poor coaching.............go back not sure I have said a thing about injuries and breaks they are part of football.

Yes, and strikeouts are part of baseball but you don't expect one in every at-bat. Not to acknowledge their '14 impact is just to willfully blind one's self to the facts on the ground, so to speak. I think, for instance, that Clemson is talented and deep -- their O-line, D-line and receiving corps demonstrates it, but pile all those injuries on and try to guess if they would have made the NC game. We know the answer.

 

[JacketFromUGA]

Yes, and strikeouts are part of baseball but you don't expect one in every at-bat.

Are you a Braves fan? Because as a Braves fan I do.

 

[Skeptic]

Are you a Braves fan? Because as a Braves fan I do.

Oh, worse. Much worse. Dodgers. Omigod the misery of my summer's discontent.

 

[Mack]

Yes, and strikeouts are part of baseball but you don't expect one in every at-bat. Not to acknowledge their '14 impact is just to willfully blind one's self to the facts on the ground, so to speak. I think, for instance, that Clemson is talented and deep -- their O-line, D-line and receiving corps demonstrates it, but pile all those injuries on and try to guess if they would have made the NC game. We know the answer.

bet you if Clemson had the injuries we had.they would still have done better than we have done this yea....called talent and recruiting.

 

[Mack]

I have mention about our injuries, you and other replied that they were excuses and are a part of the game.I agree it's apart of the game but it affects the game when you're freshmen that don't have the experience that it takes to run our offense. You've question why we keep losing players because of our coach. There's a lot of reason why players leave (here and other schools). Tech is not for everyone but they all knew what they were committing to when they sign to go here. I said that our coach has taken blame about things, you and others have said that our coach throws people under the bus and takes no responsibility, in which I posted a You Tube of his press conference showing the opposite. I posted about our new recruit that committed around Christmas because you guys were saying how not going to a bowl will be another reason our recruiting will suffer. You guys stated that all we do is dive, dive, dive and dive some more. Well, part of the option is the dive play. I'm not saying that we should run it every play, but it is a major part of our offense. You know this, you coached high school football.

Mack, I have a lot of respect for you (your a great person) and some others on that other board. I understand people are not happy. I'm not happy with this year, our players and coaches were not either. You've said if Stanford can do..we should be able to do it as well. It's still comparing apples to oranges. I wish it wasn't. The main thing is we all want to see Georgia Tech be successful, on and off the field.

Sounds like you are a PJ man my friend......no further info is necessary...yeah look at the number of guys who run this offense and how many HS teams run it..if it is so good then why not everyone get on the wagon....dive dive dive is pretty boring when you dont get results.......

 

[Skeptic]

bet you if Clemson had the injuries we had.they would still have done better than we have done this yea....called talent and recruiting.

I don't argue that point, though Clemson had its share of injuries and departures as well. (The receiver corps was down to a walk-on.) But we can revisit recruiting until we are blue in the face, and it is just silly to think we're going to haul in those 4 and 5-stars. I know it seems odd, but not a whole bunch of people either want or have the talent for what GT teaches. I don't, for instance, and my guess is you did not attend the school. The only point is that we tend to see ourselves as outliers. Everybody else, particularly football players, would flock to GT if only the mystical "better recruiter" showed up. We are not, but we are in the great majority. I can still be a Tech fan while fleeing in terror from those equations and whatnot.