Charles kelly

[sidewalkGTfan]

I think it is fair to say that Johnson is intensely loyal to his coaches and to his former players, many of whom he hires as coaches. I spent the summer reading Rick Atkinson's three-volume opus on the U.S. Army from the lae '30s through victory in Europe, and Tom Ricks's "Generals", about, well, U.S. generals. I do not recall which author observed that the difference in the military in WWII and today is that in WWII, generals got fired and performances improved. it did not always derail their career, but it replaced them with somebody more capable in that moment. But incompetence was not accepted.

It is not an overstatement to say Johnson doesn't fire anybody. Throw out a couple of DCs in 10 years and you have about done his firings. It is complicated by his hirings. Maybe the uniqueness of the offense requires him to hire former Navy players, to keep them on staff, and to promote them. I don't know. I don't even know it directly affects coaching skills or development. But the fact is they don't get fired no matter what happens on the field. It is admirable that Johnson takes all the heat, but those missed blocks, missed assignments, false starts, botched handoffs, bad tackling angles, missed tackles, horrible reads, all of it, is the responsibility of assistant coaches somewhere in the chain.

Whether that is an answer I don't know. But in the best melodramatic sense, mistakes were made. Who fixes them?

Loyalty to assistant coaches is fairly typical among the coaching ranks, it's not just a Paul Johnson thing. It's one of the main reasons Head Coaches get fired every year.

 

[buzzwilder]

I believe the new rule that allows staffs to add a 10th assistant goes into effect in Jan. Would love to bring Charles back if he's available. Good coach & really good recruiter.

And do people really believe a scout team comprised of guys recruited to run the option can give our D a competent look at a passing O? That's like thinking the Texas Tech scout team could give their D a good look vs the option.

 

[tech_wreck47]

I believe the new rule that allows staffs to add a 10th assistant goes into effect in Jan. Would love to bring Charles back if he's available. Good coach & really good recruiter.

And do people really believe a scout team comprised of guys recruited to run the option can give our D a competent look at a passing O? That's like thinking the Texas Tech scout team could give their D a good look vs the option.

What about a pro style pocket QB team trying to run a spread offense with their scout team? Sure you can put a RB as a QB but will he be able to throw like a running QB from another team? I highly doubt it, and yet other teams aren't using that as an excuse. Not to mention JJ and LJ are both capable QB's to run a scout team, both of which could possibly play QB at other schools in other systems.

 

[buzzwilder]

What about a pro style pocket QB team trying to run a spread offense with their scout team? Sure you can put a RB as a QB but will he be able to throw like a running QB from another team? I highly doubt it, and yet other teams aren't using that as an excuse. Not to mention JJ and LJ are both capable QB's to run a scout team, both of which could possibly play QB at other schools in other systems.

The only places still running pro-style offenses are schools loaded with 4 & 5 star players. Those schools are going to have success vs any style of offense because they have studs on the DL (& everywhere else)....it doesn't matter how well their scout team prepares them. Can't compare us to those situations IMO. Like CPJ says "physical superiority cancels all schemes".

Think about what our DL goes against in practice. Guys that were recruited to GT b/c they are maulers in the run game...typically 6'2 - 6'4 & 290-ish lbs. Maybe our pass rush looks like gangbusters in practice, who knows. But when they get in a game vs 6'5 - 6'6 long-armed guys that are used to pass blocking 40+% of the time, we struggle. It's just hard to replicate that.

 

[tech_wreck47]

The only places still running pro-style offenses are schools loaded with 4 & 5 star players. Those schools are going to have success vs any style of offense because they have studs on the DL (& everywhere else)....it doesn't matter how well their scout team prepares them. Can't compare us to those situations IMO. Like CPJ says "physical superiority cancels all schemes".

Think about what our DL goes against in practice. Guys that were recruited to GT b/c they are maulers in the run game...typically 6'2 - 6'4 & 290-ish lbs. Maybe our pass rush looks like gangbusters in practice, who knows. But when they get in a game vs 6'5 - 6'6 long-armed guys that are used to pass blocking 40+% of the time, we struggle. It's just hard to replicate that.

Still, we have JJ and LJ that are both capable runners and throwers. Not to mention there are plenty of defenses that we match with talent wise yet can't preform to the same level, and I'm not buying that our offense causes that BIG of a difference in our D play, maybe a little but not so much to where we have performance like Saturday.

 

[Jacketman1]

The only places still running pro-style offenses are schools loaded with 4 & 5 star players. Those schools are going to have success vs any style of offense because they have studs on the DL (& everywhere else)....it doesn't matter how well their scout team prepares them. Can't compare us to those situations IMO. Like CPJ says "physical superiority cancels all schemes".

Think about what our DL goes against in practice. Guys that were recruited to GT b/c they are maulers in the run game...typically 6'2 - 6'4 & 290-ish lbs. Maybe our pass rush looks like gangbusters in practice, who knows. But when they get in a game vs 6'5 - 6'6 long-armed guys that are used to pass blocking 40+% of the time, we struggle. It's just hard to replicate that.

Then how did Army's D perform so much better against Duke then we did? I suppose they have great pro style QBs on the scout team?

 

[Animal02]

I believe the new rule that allows staffs to add a 10th assistant goes into effect in Jan. Would love to bring Charles back if he's available. Good coach & really good recruiter.

And do people really believe a scout team comprised of guys recruited to run the option can give our D a competent look at a passing O? That's like thinking the Texas Tech scout team could give their D a good look vs the option.

Yes. You simply do not give these kids enough credit.....and I would hazard a guess that the scout teams are composed not just of kids recruited for the option.

 

[Animal02]

The only places still running pro-style offenses are schools loaded with 4 & 5 star players. Those schools are going to have success vs any style of offense because they have studs on the DL (& everywhere else)....it doesn't matter how well their scout team prepares them. Can't compare us to those situations IMO. Like CPJ says "physical superiority cancels all schemes".

Think about what our DL goes against in practice. Guys that were recruited to GT b/c they are maulers in the run game...typically 6'2 - 6'4 & 290-ish lbs. Maybe our pass rush looks like gangbusters in practice, who knows. But when they get in a game vs 6'5 - 6'6 long-armed guys that are used to pass blocking 40+% of the time, we struggle. It's just hard to replicate that.

Just about every scout team is going to be composed of lesser athletes....every team has the same issues. Your argument is nonsense.

 

[Animal02]

I don't understand why folks don't recognize this.

I have to wonder if they ever played ball....or maybe it was at a school that had 23 players on the team. We had 60-70.…...and another 25 on the freshman team.....at a H.S. school of 450. I think we had 3-4 scrimmage all year with the D1 against the O1. I was the starting center, but 3rd string DT....we were that deep.

 

[buzzwilder]

Then how did Army's D perform so much better against Duke then we did? I suppose they have great pro style QBs on the scout team?

Not sure what their "pro style" QB has to do with anything. He only passed for 177 yds. Our problem was stopping the run...and IMO that looked like a lack of effort combined with our offenses inability to move the ball, which repeatedly put our tired D back on the field. But I agree, Army's D should never look better than ours.

 

[buzzwilder]

Just about every scout team is going to be composed of lesser athletes....every team has the same issues. Your argument is nonsense.

Of course every team has lesser players on the scout team. But those schools run more pass friendly offenses than we do, so their scout team is comprised of a passing QB and pass blocking OL, etc.

 

[augustabuzz]

Not sure what their "pro style" QB has to do with anything. He only passed for 177 yds. Our problem was stopping the run...and IMO that looked like a lack of effort combined with our offenses inability to move the ball, which repeatedly put our tired D back on the field. But I agree, Army's D should never look better than ours.

How many did he get rushing? 108 yds. Not bad for a "pro-style" QB who actually runs the option.

 

[Goatman93]

Really? I'm surprised

Of course they aren't, same holds true for all teams, not just at GT. The scout team isn't usually composed of the biggest, fastest, etc. players on the squad.

Okay genius, what’s the problem?

 

[Skeptic]

Then how did Army's D perform so much better against Duke then we did? I suppose they have great pro style QBs on the scout team?

Well, after all, Army did go wild in the air. Once, was it? The juxtaposition of Army beating Duke and Duke battering Tech a week later -- and Army of all the spread option knockoffs is almost a carbon copy of the Tech offense -- makes no sense. But so did that mercy killing by Clemson in 2015. One can but conclude that Duke's motivation to keep us out of a bowl was greater than our motivation to get into one ... and that is a very disturbing possibility.

 

[LongforDodd]

How many did he get rushing? 108 yds. Not bad for a "pro-style" QB who actually runs the option.

While no one layed a hand on him during that long TD run. No one...

 

[awbuzz]

Okay genius, what’s the problem?

Are you saying that Oklahoma's, Clemson's, etc. (list every BCS team except GT) Scout Team has players that are good enough to be starters - at the time of the scrimmage, and for players that are not being disciplined - for their team? If so, I am not sure that we can discuss "what's the problem".

ProblemS include depth, injuries (which affects depths), ability and actual execution. I can run as fast as I can, train hard, have tons of desire, but Usain Bolt will still blow my doors off in a 100 M dash, even if I'm given a 10 meter head start. So would KirVonte, Clinton and most if not all of out current football.

 

[grandpa jacket]

Then how did Army's D perform so much better against Duke then we did? I suppose they have great pro style QBs on the scout team?

Great point, something else i wonder why do CPJ disciples do better after they leave from GT or CPJ i.e. Bohannon, Monken, Niahmatalolo, somethings is fishy.

 

[Oldgoldandwhite]

Simple solution. Make Roof Assistant Head Coach in charge of recruiting and football operations or whatever, give him a raise, and hire a coordinator. Or deja vu all over again.

 

[tech_wreck47]

Great point, something else i wonder why do CPJ disciples do better after they leave from GT or CPJ i.e. Bohannon, Monken, Niahmatalolo, somethings is fishy.

They don't play a schedule anything close to what GT plays.

 

[tech_wreck47]

Simple solution. Make Roof Assistant Head Coach in charge of recruiting and football operations or whatever, give him a raise, and hire a coordinator. Or deja vu all over again.

Same thing I said. He can even be over special teams. Do this and add a D coordinator who can recruit well, and let him bring in his own position coaches he likes.