Clemson under Swinney

yoshiki2

Georgia Tech Fan
Messages
91
As for Clemson recruiting, they have recently

1. Hit the jackpot on two QB's they recruited from Georgia
2. Filled up the DL pipeline.

#1 makes great WR's want to play there. With a sub par (for them) QB in 2017, they lost to Syracuse, should have lost to NC State, and were blown out by Bama. On #2, they made a great DC hire (remember when WV put 70 on them in the Orange Bowl a few years back), and that made DL's want to play there.

Wouldn't you love to watch the 1999 Friedgen offense go against their 2018 Venables defense?
It's so wonderful they took Lawrence to Clemson. Imagine him playing for the dogs..
 

Dustman

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,226
Looks similar until you read the courses involved.
Fair enough. I just saw a lot of their roster was History of Science and Technology. I still think we can easily compete at their level with this staff, and that starts with keeping in state talent.
 

takethepoints

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,912
IMO he did nothing for Tech other than add to the coffers and do some rebuilding. At Clemson he has done the same, but whether he has done more, or others have done it for him, and in spite of him is a question best answered by Clemson fans. The two Clemson ST holders that I know have no use for the man. Take that for what it's worth.
Does any fanbase like the AD 2 years in? In my not-so-linited experience, the answer is no. The longer they stay, the more they do things that tick some faction of the fans off. The only question is how many factions? When Mbob was finished at Tech he had everybody hopping mad at him, top to bottom. When Drad left, no so much. Same up in Tiggertown, I'd guess.
 

dressedcheeseside

Helluva Engineer
Messages
14,046
On Late Kick Live Ep. 144 discussed the reasons why they believe Ga Tech is college football's biggest sleeping giant, and what it would take to turn the Institute into an ACC title contender yet again.

Link

I like his overall message and think much of it has merit. However....

He compares us to ND and Stanford academically. A deeper understanding of specific course offerings he has not. If a blue chip recruit likes everything we're selling but doesn't want to "play school" he's not coming to GT. He could still go to ND and Stanford and pretend to play school because they have easier (less rigorous, less time demanding) majors and a lot of them to choose from.
 

gtwcf

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
516
DRad is a pretty good facility designer and project manager, but seemed to shortshrift the personnel parts of the job. Thought Mccamish would be enough to fix the basketball problem and went lowball on a coach. IMO, his only solid hire during his time at GT was CPJ. Our other sports fell off the map after Braine left.

He's a pretty good fit at Clemson with more deep pockets to pull from. The facilities there needed upgrades, and he'll do a decent job fixing that part. He's got a good team in place with the football team.

MBob shorted everything trying to get the books in order. But there are times where you need to spend money to make money. Did some decent personnel hiring at the lower levels, but I think bungled the MBB hire.

TS seems like he's up for the job and has a vision of what Tech should be and has done a decent job of opening the purse strings.
 
Messages
13,443
Location
Augusta, GA
Does any fanbase like the AD 2 years in? In my not-so-linited experience, the answer is no. The longer they stay, the more they do things that tick some faction of the fans off. The only question is how many factions? When Mbob was finished at Tech he had everybody hopping mad at him, top to bottom. When Drad left, no so much. Same up in Tiggertown, I'd guess.
DRad was at Tech for 6 years. He's been at Clemson for 6+ years. In both cases that's plenty of time to develop legitimate opinions on the man. I disagree that not many were mad at him when he left Tech; I personally know quite a few, and have read comments by even more, who were glad to see him go.
 

stech81

Helluva Engineer
Messages
8,726
Location
Woodstock Georgia
DRad was at Tech for 6 years. He's been at Clemson for 6+ years. In both cases that's plenty of time to develop legitimate opinions on the man. I disagree that not many were mad at him when he left Tech; I personally know quite a few, and have read comments by even more, who were glad to see him go.
I guess the question I would need to know about DRad which I have no idea was how good was he working with the Hill.
 

LibertyTurns

Banned
Messages
6,216
Stanford is not a STEM school. We are like CalTech, MIT, and Carnegie Melon. Which one is different? Stanford has said literally that they treat their athletes like special needs students.

That is not to say we can't beat Clemson or be a great team. Hell, Paul Johnson beat Clemson FIVE TIMES, on inferior talent, budget, facilities, etc.
I’m not sure what History, Science and Technology is but I don’t believe they’re splicing genes, doing brain surgery or developing new rockets.

We can find a way to win if the leadership is committed to having successful athletic programs. The last 20 years we might have we’ll have tried a crapping up a rope (a measure harder than pissing).
 

YJMD

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,601
To compete for titles, you have to have a high level of talent, but it certainly doesn't have to be elite recruiting across the board. Clemson certainly did the defense smartly, focusing on an elite position group (DL) where there are very limited resources on the top end. When you combine that with top 3 in the nation quarterbacks in Lawrence and Watson, you have distinguished yourself from all but 2 or 3 other teams virtually guaranteed.
 

iceeater1969

Helluva Engineer
Messages
8,966
DRad was at Tech for 6 years. He's been at Clemson for 6+ years. In both cases that's plenty of time to develop legitimate opinions on the man. I disagree that not many were mad at him when he left Tech; I personally know quite a few, and have read comments by even more, who were glad to see him go.
I would like to know what we built that put us in 220,000,000 in debt as the school endowment has increased iirc by 4-500,000,000.?
Also why are we on interest only payments.
 

gtwcf

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
516
I would like to know what we built that put us in 220,000,000 in debt as the school endowment has increased iirc by 4-500,000,000.?
Also why are we on interest only payments.

Most of it is the monstrosity of the North Stands and redoing the East Stands and adding the South Stands.
 

BurdellJacket

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
478
Location
Atlanta
Stanford is not a STEM school. We are like CalTech, MIT, and Carnegie Melon. Which one is different? Stanford has said literally that they treat their athletes like special needs students.

That is not to say we can't beat Clemson or be a great team. Hell, Paul Johnson beat Clemson FIVE TIMES, on inferior talent, budget, facilities, etc.

X 1000. Go get'm @bwelbo !!!!
 

Skeptic

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,372
Yes we can accomplish this. But the important part about clemsons rise was money. Prior to the venables hire and the ability to pay him a g5 hc a part to be a.c. clemson was good but not great.

If we had the funding and ability to pay assistants across the board as well as a recruiting staff in the 30s we could do something similar. Its always been about resources
Sorry, but the important part about Clemson's rise was Swinney. It was an incredible hire by Terry Don Phillips, the AD, who picked a position coach over a coordinator as interim coach (though recommended by Bowden) because he attended all the practices and watched Swinney coach his receivers, starters through walk-ons, with the same intensity and attention, and capped it by watching the players from all position groups gravitate to Swinney in the locker room. And then it was Phillips and Radakovich who were smart enough to stay out of his way while he built the program his way and served as more than adequate buffers. Let's not forget it was Swinney who fired Steele as DC, and Swinney who hired Venables, spurred by Steele's opposition to his up-tempo offense and Venables' enthusiastic endorsement of it. The importance of money can't be overlooked, but Swinney has evolved as a generational coach. It is possible to get money. Getting the coach is a tougher nut, and getting another Swinney is, well, highly problematic.
 

Skeptic

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,372
It does help to have a good defensive coordinator that is a little ( lot ) crazy and teams are scared to give him a head coaching job. And Clemson does pay him and all the coaches well.
Well, intense, yes. Crazy, no. And he has had major offers. But consider the culture Swinney has installed. He had a kid in HS, great player, another below, supposedly a greater player, everybody winds up at Clemson and both Swinney and Venables get to live out their own dream: to coach their sons on a national championship team. All of this is to say I agree he probably would not be a great HC because that is a completely different animal than a coordinator. Swinney cannot show his face without being deluged with autograph and picture crowds, speaks everywhere to everybody ... and that is a special personality. On top of that, he can coach on the field.
 

TheSilasSonRising

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,729
Stanford is not a STEM school. We are like CalTech, MIT, and Carnegie Melon. Which one is different? Stanford has said literally that they treat their athletes like special needs students.

That is not to say we can't beat Clemson or be a great team. Hell, Paul Johnson beat Clemson FIVE TIMES, on inferior talent, budget, facilities, etc.

I don't think our talent was inferior the times PJ beat CU.
 
Top