1. Welcome to Georgia Tech Swarm! JOIN US and be a part of the SWARM! GO JACKETS! THWg!

Bill Connelly's Georgia Tech Preview

Discussion in 'Georgia Tech Football' started by Lotta Juice, May 16, 2019.

  1. Lotta Juice

    Lotta Juice Ramblin' Wreck

    Heisman's Ghost likes this.
  2. bwelbo

    bwelbo Helluva Engineer

    Another idiot predicts our worst year in the last 25 years. Despite having been through several different coaches and offensive/defensive schemes before without having bad seasons, somehow this season will just be different. Despite all the historical data contradicting him, he just knows in his gut that he's right. Despite the fact people predict horse **** like this every year on us and they're wrong, he just knows in his gut that he's going to be right. Idiots.
  3. Ibeeballin

    Ibeeballin GT Athlete Featured Member

    Yep. Seeing our win probability at 25% for VT is enough to dismiss this article and data
  4. iceeater1969

    iceeater1969 Helluva Engineer

    If there is one year to be a debbie downer prognosticator, this is it. In the past its been laughable how the dogged gt.

    For some reason j am getting more optimistic. We seem to be getting physically stronger and actually ran plays in the spring game - evenbhad some long passes. I think they are dead wrong
    gtpi likes this.
  5. RyanS12

    RyanS12 Helluva Engineer

    I still say 7-5. Hell, even if we go 5-7 we more than likely will make a Bowl. Lol there’s 100 of them now.
  6. SidewalkJacket

    SidewalkJacket Helluva Engineer

    The data may be crap, but the article itself is a great look at the transition from CPJ to CGC. Very objective about both eras.
    majorQ9, okiemon, ThatGuy and 4 others like this.
  7. Gold1

    Gold1 Helluva Engineer

    I feel like no national writers realise we beat VT every year
    coldbeer, Jacketman, CTJacket and 2 others like this.
  8. a5ehren

    a5ehren Helluva Engineer

    What, specifically, do you think is wrong?

    Are we not replacing almost all of our offensive production from last year?
    Are we not replacing almost all of our defensive production from last year?

    Do you think that teams replacing a ton of starters on both sides of the ball tend to have success? If so, why?

    Do you think our previously poor (by star rankings) recruiting on offense won't have an effect now that we aren't running a TO system?

    What reason do you have to think that our defense will be enough better to overcome the decline on offense?

    I think the numbers are way too high on VT, but moving that game to a 50/50 toss-up instead of 25/75 only gets you to 4 projected wins. Flagging USF/Temple/Duke/UNC as automatic wins like you'd have to do to project a 7-win season is not a rational thing to do.

    The other numbers seem relatively fair, and the piece even notes that the system doesn't really know how to handle this kind of transition, along with noting Collins' history of starting slow and finishing strong:
  9. g0lftime

    g0lftime Helluva Engineer

    We seem to do better as underdogs. Even under PJ.
  10. slugboy

    slugboy Moderator Staff Member

    He’s one of the sharpest sports stats geeks around. It’s about as accurate and unbiased forecasts you could hope for.
    The one thing we have going for us is that it’s a transition year and we have a whole new staff. That makes it hard to forecast, but you’d expect a dip rather than a bump. If we overachieve, enjoy it.
    If he’s forecasting a rough year, then take the wins as gifts.

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    majorQ9, gopackgo, Sheboygan and 4 others like this.
  11. Techster

    Techster Helluva Engineer

    This pretty much sums it up, and what a lot of us have been saying all along:

    S&P+ is not programmed to consider drastic scheme changes, but it still projects Tech to fall from 74th to 89th overall. And with a schedule that features two of the top three teams in the country (Clemson and Georgia), plus two others in the top 30, that leaves minimal margin for error. In fact, though the Jackets are projected to scrounge out three or four wins, they’re a projected favorite in only one: a week three visit from The Citadel.

    We saw at Temple that Collins is willing to take his time finding answers. In both instances, his Owls started the season slowly before figuring things out late.

    This is an obvious transition year, and the best-case scenario might be Tech playing better in November than September, scoring a late upset or two, and then signing a top-20 class in February. That’s the most realistic best-case, anyway.

    If we lose early but we're taking positive steps every game, IMO, that's fine. Especially if we're winning games later...since there's a pretty big game at the end of November. :)
    majorQ9, yrp, CTJacket and 2 others like this.
  12. MGTfan

    MGTfan Helluva Engineer

    I hope Vegas agrees with him and gives us an O/U of 4. If so, I’ll either be winning or losing a lot of money at season’s end.
    Gtbowhunter90 and Silk3 like this.
  13. RyanS12

    RyanS12 Helluva Engineer

    Maybe it’s just me but it always feels like a program transitioning to a new coach/scheme seems to always out preform expectations the first year and year 2 is the drop off season.
    coldbeer, Sheboygan and Gtbowhunter90 like this.
  14. bwelbo

    bwelbo Helluva Engineer

    What I said - it completely ignores history. When CPJ was hired, it was going to be a transition year (oops). Same thing before. We've changed head coaches and offensive/defensive schemes SEVERAL times, not just once, over the last 25 years. And yet, we have 1 single year under 0.500 in ACC play in the last 25 years. Not 1 single other ACC school can say that.

    I mean sure, we could win only 4 games. But based on the last 25 years, we have a 7x higher chance of winning the Coastal Division than of winning only 4 games.

    Remember last year? Pre-season we were predicted to finish like 11th in the ACC. Same bull**** - we never finish there. And where did we finish? 4th. Happens every year. Idiots.
  15. bobongo

    bobongo Helluva Engineer

    From the article: "With all the recruiting chops in the world, you can slow yourself down if your offense can't find an identity". Could someone explain concretely what that nebulous term "identity" means? I've never quite understood this "identity" stuff. Sounds like just another word for offensive style, but whether the pundits say you've got "identity" simply depends on whether it's successful. So Patenaude had "identity" problems? From the article: "This was an ongoing problem for Temple and Patenaude". Well, he ran an up tempo, balanced offense both years, right? Sounds like Temple's "identity" was set, but is just used here as another word for making the offense offense work consistently.

    Prediction: If we can get some good blocking up front and move the ball the football pundits say we have "identity", and if we don't, they will say we struggle with "identity".
  16. a5ehren

    a5ehren Helluva Engineer

    The numbers are not with your feeling.

    Most coaching changes establish their new equilibrium in Year 2 or 3, depending on previous program state.
  17. takethepoints

    takethepoints Helluva Engineer

    Wish I thought I could say he's wrong. I think he is, but he's also made a very solid case. The main problem with that case is that it is based on some suppositions that probably aren't true.

    The main problems I see with his offensive outlook are at WR and OL. True, we don't have many WRs coming back who have caught a lot of balls recently. And we almost never did under Paul because we didn't throw much. But, if Patenaude's reaction is any indication, we have good WRs already and we'll have more coming in. I expect Camp and Sanders (provided he avoids injury) to have great years and Brown and Cottrell could as well. The speed and hands are there and, if that doesn't work, there always brute strength. I also don't have any real fears about the OL. Key seems to think we are still "a work in progress", but he also seems to think the talent is there. I think he's right; if you can learn to block in the spread option, the shotgun blocking schemes are nothing. Then all it takes is more work in the weight room and a willingness to carry more of a gut. Not a problem, imho. Oh, and I don't think QB will be an issue.

    On D, unfortunately, I think he's right, especially after Brandon's death. Our one saving grace there is that Coach is as much a D specialist as Paul was an offensive one. I think we'll be a trifle thin up front, but we could be ok, if not great.

    And all that said, I don't really have a clue about how good we'll be next year.
  18. bwelbo

    bwelbo Helluva Engineer

    Now having said that, this time next year when we're heading into the 2020 season (where we play 10 games against teams that were ranked last year), if they said "The schedule is too damn tough" and predict 4 or 5 wins, I would give them a thumbs up for at least pointing out something rational that is materially different than the past. But a lot of the ACC is a quasi-dumpster fire with player turnover - its not like Duke, Pitt, UNC, Virginia, or Virginia Tech are in a very stable, unbeatable position.

    Heisman's Ghost likes this.
  19. a5ehren

    a5ehren Helluva Engineer

    Our history with Head Coach changes is inconclusive, at best:
    Curry -> Ross --- 5-5-1 -> 2-9 (I wasn't alive, don't know what happened)
    Ross -> Lewis --- 8-5 -> 5-6 (Bill Lewis was a bad coach, and they lost a lot of talent)
    Lewis -> O'Leary --- 1-10 -> 6-5 (Bill Lewis was a very bad coach)
    O'Leary -> Chan --- 8-5 -> 7-6 (Chan Gailey Equilibrium)
    Chan -> CPJ --- 7-6 -> 9-4 (Dwyer + Nesbitt + maybe our best defensive talent since Ross + a better Coach)
    CPJ -> Collins --- 7-6 -> ??? (Losing a ton of starters...beyond that, who knows)
  20. MWBATL

    MWBATL Helluva Engineer

    I do think UVa will beat us and be a much better team this year. Their QB was SOLID last year.

Share This Page