Confused by Tony Elliott Support

[MikeJackets1967]

I don't know much about Elliott beyond what can be extrapolated by Clemson's success.

Personally, I'm wary of any "factory" candidates. The formula at Clemson or Alabama is very different than what is needed at Georgia Tech. CPJ has opined often that the guys with reputations as "great recruiters" usually get that at schools that always finish in the top 10. (Pastner had a reputation as a great recruiter, and now it would appear that had a lot to do with Memphis.)

If an assistant is hired, there's going to be a learning curve on and off the field. I'm skeptical that the fans pushing for guys like Elliott and Key will suddenly be patient while he learns on the job.

I'd rather have an Up and Coming assistant or Mid Major head coach than an NFL retread who would probably bring in NFL retread assistant coaches and the coaching staff wind up having no college football experience

 

[AlabamaBuzz]

Many believe he will be the "magical personality" that will overcome the Institute's recruiting woes.

 

[33jacket]

.

 

[GT_05]

On one hand I’m concerned about all the same Elliot question marks.

On the other hand I see the potential.

Ultimately, we won’t be in the interview(s) but I would think Stansbury will see the potential going in but have the same questions/concerns. Elliot’s charisma and plan on how to build Tech as a legitimate program will be revealed there and we typical fans won’t have the luxury of seeing the fullness of Tony Elliot. Stansbury will.

It has been interesting that here on this board every conversation seems to come back to Elliot. I like Collins and Satterfield and am open to others but Elliot is the sexy topic.

From what I know about the names being tossed around (Elliott, Collins, Satterfield, Brown), I think I’d be fine with any of them. My major concern, based on comments I’ve read here, is that none of them will get an interview and the Wiz will be our guy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[flounder]

Many believe he will be the "magical personality" that will overcome the Institute's recruiting woes.

Yeah, it's the same debate we've been having ever since CPJ came here: does our recruiting suck because we run the flexbone or do we run the flexbone because our recruiting sucks. I'm definitely in the CPJ camp on this question, but, in the interest of science, I would be willing to see what Elliott could do.

I just hope that if Elliott comes here and our recruiting doesn't improve that we can reach an agreement that our issues are structural and can't be fixed by a coach no matter how good.

 

[Madison Grant]

I don't know much about Elliott beyond what can be extrapolated by Clemson's success.

Personally, I'm wary of any "factory" candidates. The formula at Clemson or Alabama is very different than what is needed at Georgia Tech. CPJ has opined often that the guys with reputations as "great recruiters" usually get that at schools that always finish in the top 10. (Pastner had a reputation as a great recruiter, and now it would appear that had a lot to do with Memphis.)

If an assistant is hired, there's going to be a learning curve on and off the field. I'm skeptical that the fans pushing for guys like Elliott and Key will suddenly be patient while he learns on the job.

In fairness to Pastner, there's a whole lot of distractions and controversies messing with the bad recruiting haul this year, from Adidas to LaBarrie to Ron Bell. I'm more concerned about the results on the court there.

 

[AlabamaBuzz]

Yeah, it's the same debate we've been having ever since CPJ came here: does our recruiting suck because we run the flexbone or do we run the flexbone because our recruiting sucks. I'm definitely in the CPJ camp on this question, but, in the interest of science, I would be willing to see what Elliott could do.

I just hope that if Elliott comes here and our recruiting doesn't improve that we can reach an agreement that our issues are structural and can't be fixed by a coach no matter how good.

Exactly, Flounder. Here is my take (opinion only):

I believe that CPJ's system did impact recruiting, and I believe where it hurt the most was in the front 7 on D, where the guys we needed to get were negatively recruited against with stuff like "they will block your knees" in practice, and "you won't see a system that prepares you for the NFL".

This next part is ONLY my belief, so others will differ obviously in their beliefs, but I think the small % reduction in our recruiting ability though (still hard no matter what at the Institute due to a myriad of reasons, mostly because we are a STEM school only) was countered often by the unique offense. When the talent gap was TOO large though, and when the other team had good coaching, it made winning very difficult. I also leaned on believing PJ was our best option (no pun intended) in this new world of big boy, big $$ CFB.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Hiring the right assistant has seemed to work out well for some programs.

True. I like Elliott, and I am not opposed to him coaching at GT, but I AM a bit leery of hiring assistants because the success rate of finding the "right" one isn't very high.

 

[Animal02]

Exactly, Flounder. Here is my take (opinion only):

I believe that CPJ's system did impact recruiting, and I believe where it hurt the most was in the front 7 on D, where the guys we needed to get were negatively recruited against with stuff like "they will block your knees" in practice, and "you won't see a system that prepares you for the NFL".

This next part is ONLY my belief, so others will differ obviously in their beliefs, but I think the small % reduction in our recruiting ability though (still hard no matter what at the Institute due to a myriad of reasons, mostly because we are a STEM school only) was countered often by the unique offense. When the talent gap was TOO large though, and when the other team had good coaching, it made winning very difficult. I also leaned on believing PJ was our best option (no pun intended) in this new world of big boy, big $$ CFB.

D Line recruiting is going to be tough regardless of the O. We don't have Turf management or Parks and Rec degrees to hide them in.

 

[jgtengineer]

OK first to the poster that insinuated CPJ quit because he retired. If he had quit he would have done so spurrier style mid season after clemson. Instead he helped us turn it around and he is leaving the Team at least in the condition he found it, a 7-8 win squad. The man's been coaching for 40 years, he deserves to be able to retire.

AS for elliot. I'm still fo the opinion that our OC hire is alot more important. If we are trying to go with an OC/HC again and the plan is to retain woody ( who is one of the better dc's out there) Elliot is not a bad hire. He is clemson's rungame coordinator. He knows rushing schemes and we are going to be run heavy. (i'd laugh if he even kept some of the flexbone. Also don't be surprised if you see it started being added into other teams we play's offense in the future now that johnson is gone. )

He's probably going to be the cheapest option too. we could probably pay him 2.5 mil. The main thing is we need a QB coach. A good one. That is dedicated solely to QBs. There are some good ones out of the market in the private sector we might be able to target.

I am hoping i have time to do some youtube videos on offensive schemes in general during the offseason as work and family life permits. We've been educated primarily in flexbone offensive for 11 years and it may help.

 

[jeffgt14]

Let's look at the list of qualifications:
1. First name doesn't start with K
2. Last name doesn't start with W
3. Doesn't rely on hall of fame NFL quarterbacks to make him look good
4. Name does not rhyme with Ben Thisenhunt
5. Did not play for Tech in the early 80's
6. Wouldn't be hired solely because he's buddies with our AD
7. Has college experience
8. Is not a former NFL head coach with a .400 winning %
9. First name has 4 letters instead of 3
10. Can recruit

 

[gtphd]

Somebody please help me out. I'm confused about why Tony Elliott seems to be such a high prospect for the HC position on this board. I'd really like to hear from some of the CPJ bashers on this one.

The question is: If you had a choice between these two, which one would you take? That is the decision that you are making:

1) a coach with 22 years of head coaching experience, two DI-AA National Championships, the 4th winningest head coach currently in college football, and a 3-time ACC Coach of the Year (along with MANY other accomplishments including an 86% graduation rate), and

2) a young assistant coach who isn't even his team's sole offensive coordinator, whose only accomplishment is apparently the assistant coach of the year in 2017, and that's about it.

What about this since we’re throwing in retired coaches:

3) College Football Hall of Fame Coach. Head coach of Auburn and Clemson. Won 6 conference titles and a national championship. Invented the forward pass. Also, will coach basketball, baseball, and serve as Athletic Director.



At the end of the day, it’s about the best available coach who wants to come to GT. We should compare them considering risk (e.g. standard deviation of likely outcomes) and reward (average expected outcome). Low risk, high reward coaches (e.g. Saban and Meyer) are out of our price range (except for Art Briles, who comes with other baggage). High risk, low reward coaches shouldn’t exist in FBS.

Of the two remaining buckets, fans tend to like high risk, high reward coaches (e.g. Paul Johnson) over low risk, low reward coaches (Chan Gailey) because they like the excitement around having the potential to win it all. An up and coming coordinator from a top team with 4* and 5* recruiting is a high risk, high reward option. On the other side, Whisenhunt would be a low risk, low reward option.

Athletic Directors have different incentives. They don’t want to be fired. If TStan hires a coach who wins a national championship, that’s great, but it doesn’t put TStan in a different position (he still has the same job). On the other hand, if TStan hires a guy who only wins 3 games for his first two years, TStan could get fired. So his bias it to prevent that. He’ll take Whisenhunt and 6-win seasons over a risk of getting fired.

 

[g0lftime]

True. I like Elliott, and I am not opposed to him coaching at GT, but I AM a bit leery of hiring assistants because the success rate of finding the "right" one isn't very high.

Even if Elliot is offered the job, he might not take it. That goes with all of them being mentioned.

 

[gtg391z]

I don't know where we are going with this hire but the guy needs head coaching experience. I'm ok with Ken but will be fine with whoever Stansbury decides on. I highly doubt it will be Elliott.

 

[AlabamaBuzz]

D Line recruiting is going to be tough regardless of the O. We don't have Turf management or Parks and Rec degrees to hide them in.

I agree, Animal, but I do believe the negative recruiting against the O may have hurt a little more, especially with LB's we might could have gotten. With that said, I wish PJ was not leaving.

 

[AlabamaBuzz]

I agree, Animal, but I do believe the negative recruiting against the O may have hurt a little more, especially with a few LB's we might could have brought in, but I did say "might". With that said, I wish PJ was not leaving.

 

[gtphd]

I don't know where we are going with this hire but the guy needs head coaching experience. I'm ok with Ken but will be fine with whoever Stansbury decides on. I highly doubt it will be Elliott.

Let’s say you want a Clemson or Alabama or Ohio State like program. Are you better off hiring a head coach from App State and hope they can figure it out or hire a coordinator from Clemson/Alabama/Ohio State and hope they can replicate the blue print? I’d take the coordinator. Ideally you’d want someone who has 12 years under Saban, but that person wouldn’t come to Tech.

 

[laoh]

Many believe he will be the "magical personality" that will overcome the Institute's recruiting woes.

So all the sudden, this guy is the solution to all of our recruiting woes due to academic constraints and money...

 

[Madison Grant]

So all the sudden, this guy is the solution to all of our recruiting woes due to academic constraints and money...

Muh Tech Man

 

[boger2337]

Somebody please help me out. I'm confused about why Tony Elliott seems to be such a high prospect for the HC position on this board. I'd really like to hear from some of the CPJ bashers on this one.

The question is: If you had a choice between these two, which one would you take? That is the decision that you are making:

1) a coach with 22 years of head coaching experience, two DI-AA National Championships, the 4th winningest head coach currently in college football, and a 3-time ACC Coach of the Year (along with MANY other accomplishments including an 86% graduation rate), and

2) a young assistant coach who isn't even his team's sole offensive coordinator, whose only accomplishment is apparently the assistant coach of the year in 2017, and that's about it.

Is that acceptable? Is that seriously the best that GT can do? I'm not trying to be overly negative, but seriously, how do the CPJ bashers rationalize that trade?

What are you seeing in Tony Elliott that I just don't see??

WC

Do you want an older coach say 55+ who may bail on tech with things get rough? Because they will. Or do you want a young up and coming coach with something to prove. KW would be a coach that if things didn't work out easily he would just retire. Hes screwed enough people out of checks by being a terrible head coach.

At least with elliot it will be a cheaper buy, and a guy with fire in his belly ready to fight to be a factory school. Whisenhunt would be one to stay status quo. 6-8 wins. Elliot is boom or bust. Either a complete failure, or we are talking 9-12 wins a year. He can relate to the kids as well. Much more popular with the you get crowd and kids actually know him. Nobody outside of GT knows whisenhunt, as they shouldn't.