CPJ is a hot head on the sidelines?

[takethepoints]

I think one of the reasons - nay, the primary reason - the press talks about Coach's "personality" is that he is a hard interview for them. You don't get too much in the way of "human interest" stories from him, he isn't a person to wear his religious or political convictions (Georgians tend to think, incorrectly, that the two coincide) on his sleeve, and he seems constitutionally incapable of the kind of heavy duty sucking up that many in the press corps expect. This is especially the case for TV; the sports people on TV can't get decent interview footage on him during games and his press conferences are interesting to football fans but almost nobody else. They resent this, especially in a state where for so many years his main rival for attention (Richt) made a science out of playing to the media first. Result = they have to write about something and his "personality" is what's left.

Most of this is bovis stercus, of course, and, imho, every Tech fan should ignore it. Completely.

A helpful link:

http://blogs.transparent.com/latin/latin-profanity-how-to-swear-in-latin/

 

[Skeptic]

I think one of the reasons - nay, the primary reason - the press talks about Coach's "personality" is that he is a hard interview for them. You don't get too much in the way of "human interest" stories from him, he isn't a person to wear his religious or political convictions (Georgians tend to think, incorrectly, that the two coincide) on his sleeve, and he seems constitutionally incapable of the kind of heavy duty sucking up that many in the press corps expect. This is especially the case for TV; the sports people on TV can't get decent interview footage on him during games and his press conferences are interesting to football fans but almost nobody else. They resent this, especially in a state where for so many years his main rival for attention (Richt) made a science out of playing to the media first. Result = they have to write about something and his "personality" is what's left.

Most of this is bovis stercus, of course, and, imho, every Tech fan should ignore it. Completely.

A helpful link:

http://blogs.transparent.com/latin/latin-profanity-how-to-swear-in-latin/

You are pretty much on target, particularly as regards TV. They have airtime to fill and "we got to block better" or tackle better or play defense better won't do it. It's odd that in Annapolis he was well liked and respected by the reporters, maybe because he and his offense made Navy respectable again. But to me the biggest factor seems, at least to me, is that those whines are coming from people who don't like him anyway. He could do a Nelson Eddy on the sidelines and they would demand Janet McDonald. I am guessing just based on my own experience, not at this level, that if a player needs constant reassurance or pampering, the warm fuzzies all week, then Tech and Johnson is the wrong place for them from the get-go and if they come anyway and then transfer, it is better for both.

 

[jwsavhGT]

He could do a Nelson Eddy on the sidelines and they would demand Janet McDonald

How many people on here know who they are?

 

[JorgeJonas]

It seems to me that most of the criticism aimed at Johnson for his demeanor - and other coaches, too - is based on a post hoc narrative. Saban wins because of his intensity, but Johnson (or Will Muschamp, by way of example) are hotheads, and that's why they lose. Neither is true, because neither have made any attempt at isolating variables.

 

[OldJacketFan]

How many people on here know who they are?

I know OF them

 

[PBR549]

Anyone remember the Bear Bryant interview with The Jim Lampley when halftime interviews were in their infancy? This is football not Entertainment Tonight!

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

How many people on here know who they are?

Showing my age, but I do. LOL

 

[first&ten]

I think one of the reasons - nay, the primary reason - the press talks about Coach's "personality" is that he is a hard interview for them. You don't get too much in the way of "human interest" stories from him, he isn't a person to wear his religious or political convictions (Georgians tend to think, incorrectly, that the two coincide) on his sleeve, and he seems constitutionally incapable of the kind of heavy duty sucking up that many in the press corps expect. This is especially the case for TV; the sports people on TV can't get decent interview footage on him during games and his press conferences are interesting to football fans but almost nobody else. They resent this, especially in a state where for so many years his main rival for attention (Richt) made a science out of playing to the media first. Result = they have to write about something and his "personality" is what's left.

Most of this is bovis stercus, of course, and, imho, every Tech fan should ignore it. Completely.

A helpful link:

http://blogs.transparent.com/latin/latin-profanity-how-to-swear-in-latin/

When it comes to interviews or any interaction with the media, you have to remember, these people can help you or hurt you. However you present yourself, that's what the viewing public perceives you to be.

 

[Skeptic]

How many people on here know who they are?

Apparently, two. I'll be seeing youuuuu....

 

[Skeptic]

Neither is true, because neither have made any attempt at isolating variables.

Now doggone it there you go talking engineering stuff again. Or something like that.

 

[GaTech4ever]

It seems to me that most of the criticism aimed at Johnson for his demeanor - and other coaches, too - is based on a post hoc narrative. Saban wins because of his intensity, but Johnson (or Will Muschamp, by way of example) are hotheads, and that's why they lose. Neither is true, because neither have made any attempt at isolating variables.

Let's say Employee A and Employee B always leave work 30 minutes earlier than anyone else, but Employee A produces at a consistently higher level than Employee B (could be due to age, motivation, education, etc.). Would you not tell Employee B to stay until everyone else leaves, even if you weren't sure that was the true reason for his lack of performance? Employee A is successful as hell leaving 30 minutes early, so it's obvious that cannot be assumed as the reason Employee B is unsuccessful. However, until you can isolate those variables and drill into the real reason for his performance, why wouldn't you ask Employee B to do everything he can to give himself an advantage?

I don't know of anyone who says CPJ's demeanor loses us games. I love the edge he coaches with. But if I was him, I'd be doing everything I can to keep up with his fellow ACC Coastal coaches, and that includes doing what he can do better his perception. If he doesn't give a damn about perception, then I really hope he starts winning more consistently.

 

[jwsavhGT]

Apparently, two. I'll be seeing youuuuu....

Will you answer too-oo-oo-oo-oo. I hate when songs keep recycling through my head.

 

[Buzz776g]

Let's say Employee A and Employee B always leave work 30 minutes earlier than anyone else, but Employee A produces at a consistently higher level than Employee B (could be due to age, motivation, education, etc.). Would you not tell Employee B to stay until everyone else leaves, even if you weren't sure that was the true reason for his lack of performance? Employee A is successful as hell leaving 30 minutes early, so it's obvious that cannot be assumed as the reason Employee B is unsuccessful. However, until you can isolate those variables and drill into the real reason for his performance, why wouldn't you ask Employee B to do everything he can to give himself an advantage?

I don't know of anyone who says CPJ's demeanor loses us games. I love the edge he coaches with. But if I was him, I'd be doing everything I can to keep up with his fellow ACC Coastal coaches, and that includes doing what he can do better his perception. If he doesn't give a damn about perception, then I really hope he starts winning more consistently.

I see your point, but at every place I've ever worked both A and B would be told to stay 'till closing time.

In today's workplace, would that mean A would be looking for another employer to better utilize and appreciate his skills, talents and abilities? Probably so, and more power to him. But both should have to abide by the rules of that workplace, whatever they may be.

 

[JorgeJonas]

Let's say Employee A and Employee B always leave work 30 minutes earlier than anyone else, but Employee A produces at a consistently higher level than Employee B (could be due to age, motivation, education, etc.). Would you not tell Employee B to stay until everyone else leaves, even if you weren't sure that was the true reason for his lack of performance? Employee A is successful as hell leaving 30 minutes early, so it's obvious that cannot be assumed as the reason Employee B is unsuccessful. However, until you can isolate those variables and drill into the real reason for his performance, why wouldn't you ask Employee B to do everything he can to give himself an advantage?

I don't know of anyone who says CPJ's demeanor loses us games. I love the edge he coaches with. But if I was him, I'd be doing everything I can to keep up with his fellow ACC Coastal coaches, and that includes doing what he can do better his perception. If he doesn't give a damn about perception, then I really hope he starts winning more consistently.

If the manager was that simplistic or that incapable of identifying the reasons for his employees' performance, I'd fire him. If, however, the manager was looking into reasons why performance is what it is, he might be inclined to consider whether the accounts employee A was responsible for were more successful economically and therefore had more money to spend, or whether employee A had a team of people supporting his accounts and providing better service to his clients. And if employee B had been consistently successful at other companies and had been consistent here but missed his number once, I would probably let him keep doing his job lest I be distracted by noise, not signal.

 

[RonJohn]

But if I was him, I'd be doing everything I can to keep up with his fellow ACC Coastal coaches, and that includes doing what he can do better his perception. If he doesn't give a damn about perception, then I really hope he starts winning more consistently.

I completely disagree with that. An NCAA head football coach should worry about: Developing young men, winning, and complying with NCAA rules. The only perceptions he should worry about are the perceptions that his coaches, players, players' families, recruits, and rectuits' families have about him. Anyone who worries about what sports commentators or anonymous people on a sports forum think about him doesn't have the character to be a head coach.

 

[Skeptic]

Anyone remember the Bear Bryant interview with The Jim Lampley when halftime interviews were in their infancy? This is football not Entertainment Tonight!

Don't remember those, but Lampley for sure. One of the all-time great overrated -- 5 star in his own mind, 1 in viwers -- and full of himself "personalities" ever.

 

[Legal Jacket]

I think it's pretty calculated too. Wish I could find the quote, but it's pretty clear he tailors his motivation style to each player. Some players need to be yelled at. Some players need the disappointed dad treatment. Some players you can just leave alone because they get it and will fix it.

 

[PBR549]

Don't remember those, but Lampley for sure. One of the all-time great overrated -- 5 star in his own mind, 1 in viwers -- and full of himself "personalities" ever.

Bear had no problem putting him in his place. I'm sure somebody can post a link. I'm not that savvy.

 

[GaTech4ever]

I completely disagree with that. An NCAA head football coach should worry about: Developing young men, winning, and complying with NCAA rules. The only perceptions he should worry about are the perceptions that his coaches, players, players' families, recruits, and rectuits' families have about him. Anyone who worries about what sports commentators or anonymous people on a sports forum think about him doesn't have the character to be a head coach.

I agree that is all NCAA coaches should worry about. However, I think you are missing my point. How do recruits and their families gain a perception of him before they allow him to walk in their house? I think you all are vastly underestimating the power of the media in 2016. You don't think recruits look at coaches' interviews and think, "Man, I would go to war for that guy." Whether or not it should matter is beside the point. The fact is it does matter.

 

[bke1984]

I agree that is all NCAA coaches should worry about. However, I think you are missing my point. How do recruits and their families gain a perception of him before they allow him to walk in their house? I think you all are vastly underestimating the power of the media in 2016. You don't think recruits look at coaches' interviews and think, "Man, I would go to war for that guy." Whether or not it should matter is beside the point. The fact is it does matter.

Can't worry about this sort of stuff. I work at a private company with a very passionate president. Sometimes he can get really intense...similar to what you see from PJ on the sidelines......very similar, actually. Is he a bad boss because of it? Absolutely not...in fact, he's the best boss I've ever had. He's just passionate about what he does...similar to Johnson. So I like to think of it this way...this might be the sort of stuff these kids are going to have to deal with in the real world some day. Perhaps it's preparing them for life after football?