This is another great reply!!!!
Dynasty-perhaps?
- Thread starter jayparr
- Start date
kyle.smith828
Jolly Good Fellow
- Messages
- 152
OH YES we dance all night ( in the groove).
Yo set to tango!
Legal Jacket
Ramblin' Wreck
- Messages
- 561
The standards are obviously different, but there is a bit of misdirection here. For starters, there are only 128 FBS schools that can make the playoffs. And the commentator was comparing us to Alabama (both FBS schools), not to an NFL team or to a high school team. It's also pretty clear that across all levels the only dynasties are the teams that compete for and win championships, either at the conference or overall level.
No NFL team has been considered a dynasty just by making the playoffs. Most teams have to make the superbowl several years in a row, and win at least one.
Same thing with high school - making the playoffs doesn't make you a dynasty. Most teams will have to win or make the finals of state, and do so for several years.
I don't see how college is that much different. uga doesn't have a dynasty. Yet they've been a top team for a long time. Even teams like FSU or Clemson, which have had serious contenders in conference and (at least re BCS) nationally the last 5 or so years are not considered dynasties. Probably the only "dynasty" of the last decade is at Alabama, since they've basically made the BCS 6/8 years under Saban, won 3 national titles, 3 sec titles, and finished in the top 10 7 years running. There really can also only be one, maybe two, dynasties at a time.
So while we are definitely on the right track, its way to early to say we are anything close to a dynasty.
PBR549
Ramblin' Wreck
- Messages
- 837
Thanks to Jayparr and all of you for this extremely entertaining thread. I love hearing the opinions of some of my favorite posters. I believe a dynasty in college football would have to be multiple championships. It's hard for me to call Bama or any one else a dynasty because I think the national championship is contrived. Put 8 or 16 teams in a playoff and win multiple times and I can call you a dynasty.
I know exactly what you are saying and that is a true dynasty. And if read my thread topic I am only asking is it possible. Also I have set my standard for our potential and therefore in my mind it would be so great that yes it is our dynasty! And just as I put forth a real potential end to CPJ's tenure I pretty much checked off all the reasons for my belief. We have never been in this kind of set up. At least not since the 50's. Thanks!
You just stated put up to 16 teams in the playoff and theres the dynasty. Well,I stated in a reply I would consider being the top 20! Not much difference whether making the final 16 or the top 20 whether there is a 16 teamer or not! Thanks!
PBR549
Ramblin' Wreck
- Messages
- 837
Yep, I'm just saying WIN a playoff multiple times in a 8 or 16 team playoff and I would consider that a dynasty.
TheGridironGeek
Jolly Good Fellow
- Messages
- 276
Yes my posts are always filled with misdirection. The good old CPJ reverse option. My real point is always "fight breast cancer" but while you're preoccupied with the other stuff, my pink ribbon-adorned B-back is up the middle for 12 yards.
No, really, what I was saying is that there are 200 college teams and they don't all have a level playing field (excuse the pun). So if GaSo wins their conference 4 out of the next 5 seasons, I would consider that a dynasty despite the Eagles still not being on par athletically with Alabama or Ohio State. The same way a small-enrollment HS is considered par excellence if they win their class bracket, despite not being able to compete with large urban schools.
I also think if you become the best program out of all the stringent academic programs, that's maybe a greater honor than being a dynasty-type factory team. I would definitely take GT to win an "all-geek" round-robin tournament over Stanford, Navy, Harvard, Yale etc.
Last edited:
dressedcheeseside
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 14,070
Northeast Stinger
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 9,804
Why do they all have their jersey sleeves pulled up over their pads? Is this some hip insider football thing I don't know about?I dunno, the Colorado School of Mines would give us a run for our money.
I would think #92 had something to do with it
AE 87
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 13,016
I dunno, the Colorado School of Mines would give us a run for our money.
Well, we did steal Ramblin Wreck from them
GTJake
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 1,956
- Location
- Fernandina Beach, Florida
Actually my optimism is not only JT, but of having a solid defense that can make some stops.
And most inportantly IMO ... Keep the hungar !!
And most inportantly IMO ... Keep the hungar !!
Yaller Jacket
Ramblin' Wreck
- Messages
- 955
I think this thread says something about this board. If you had posted such a purely optimistic sentiment on other boards, you would have probably be shouted down for being delusional, premature, etc etc. It's uplifting to have purely positive talk not be ridiculed.
My two cents: Much hangs on who comes in after JT. We have the first and biggest piece -- coaching stability. We reached national prominence under O'Leary and Ross and both immediately left. With Paul Johnson and Ted Roof seemingly anchored, we are in good shape there. Our recruiting looks to have risen to a new level and we are getting more big time athletes. But in our offense ( or maybe all offenses) good teams have a good quarterback. Great teams have a great quarterback.
My two cents: Much hangs on who comes in after JT. We have the first and biggest piece -- coaching stability. We reached national prominence under O'Leary and Ross and both immediately left. With Paul Johnson and Ted Roof seemingly anchored, we are in good shape there. Our recruiting looks to have risen to a new level and we are getting more big time athletes. But in our offense ( or maybe all offenses) good teams have a good quarterback. Great teams have a great quarterback.
redmule
Ramblin' Wreck
- Messages
- 664
I agree about the QB being the key. In the last roughly 30 years, we have had 5 good QBs IMHO. Dewberry, Jones, Hamilton, Godsey, and Thomas. Dewberry and Godsey were awful and became very good as redshirt juniors. Hamilton just barely escaped being benched as a redshirt sophomore. Thomas, like Hamilton, hit his stride midway his redshirt sophomore year. Jones was good from the start as a redshirt freshman even though he lost his first three starts.
The point is that we have to develop QBs. Twice we signed the top QB in the country, Dudish in the 60's and Davis in the 90's. Neither worked out either thru their own problems or our coaches problems. Friedgen was obviously the best at developing QBs we ever had (Jones, Hamilton, Godsey), and Gailey the worst. (Want to know what might have been? Imagine either one of those three QB's throwing to Calvin and handing off to Choice for a couple of seasons and then despair at how unfair life is.) I wonder what Donnie Davis would have become with four years under Friedgen. Johnson seems to be good at getting the most out of his QB's capabilities at running the TO (Nesbitt, Washington, Thomas). You could say that Nesbitt and Thomas worked out very well for us. Washington gave everything he had, but it wasn't enough and that means that Johnson failed to get a good enough QB in his early recruiting (Sims, Days, Lee). Since most of our good QBs over the years, even under Friedgen, did not become good until their redshirt sophomore years or even later, I don't think we should be writing off Jordan just yet who has never played a down. Barring injury, we have a QB good enough to win 10+ games for the next couple of years. We should be looking at a R-Jr or R-Soph as his replacement. Historically, that is when our good QB's hit their stride.
Back to the OP's question. First, what constitutes a dynasty? To me, in the next 5 years, if we win 4 against uga, win 2 ACC championships, make the playoffs twice, never win less than 9 in a regular season, and win 5 post season games, we would have a dynasty. Especially when combined with last year. It seems to me that the odds of us having a very, very good run is as high as it has been since the 50's. The situations that bedeviled us in the past after good seasons about losing coaches, losing large numbers of players or our best players, poor recruiting, and lack of depth seem to be as good as they have been since maybe the 50's. If we aren't at the beginning of a dynasty now, then us Old Farts (50+) will probably never see one. I can only hope that whatever supernatural being it is that controls football destiny will not be so cruel as to rip the cup of dynasty away from the lips of this long suffering, faithful fan after only the briefest taste last fall.
The point is that we have to develop QBs. Twice we signed the top QB in the country, Dudish in the 60's and Davis in the 90's. Neither worked out either thru their own problems or our coaches problems. Friedgen was obviously the best at developing QBs we ever had (Jones, Hamilton, Godsey), and Gailey the worst. (Want to know what might have been? Imagine either one of those three QB's throwing to Calvin and handing off to Choice for a couple of seasons and then despair at how unfair life is.) I wonder what Donnie Davis would have become with four years under Friedgen. Johnson seems to be good at getting the most out of his QB's capabilities at running the TO (Nesbitt, Washington, Thomas). You could say that Nesbitt and Thomas worked out very well for us. Washington gave everything he had, but it wasn't enough and that means that Johnson failed to get a good enough QB in his early recruiting (Sims, Days, Lee). Since most of our good QBs over the years, even under Friedgen, did not become good until their redshirt sophomore years or even later, I don't think we should be writing off Jordan just yet who has never played a down. Barring injury, we have a QB good enough to win 10+ games for the next couple of years. We should be looking at a R-Jr or R-Soph as his replacement. Historically, that is when our good QB's hit their stride.
Back to the OP's question. First, what constitutes a dynasty? To me, in the next 5 years, if we win 4 against uga, win 2 ACC championships, make the playoffs twice, never win less than 9 in a regular season, and win 5 post season games, we would have a dynasty. Especially when combined with last year. It seems to me that the odds of us having a very, very good run is as high as it has been since the 50's. The situations that bedeviled us in the past after good seasons about losing coaches, losing large numbers of players or our best players, poor recruiting, and lack of depth seem to be as good as they have been since maybe the 50's. If we aren't at the beginning of a dynasty now, then us Old Farts (50+) will probably never see one. I can only hope that whatever supernatural being it is that controls football destiny will not be so cruel as to rip the cup of dynasty away from the lips of this long suffering, faithful fan after only the briefest taste last fall.
dressedcheeseside
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 14,070
According to Wiki: a sports dynasty is a team that dominates their sport or league for an extraordinary length of time.
The word dominate needs to defined and agreed upon as well.
dom·i·nate
ˈdäməˌnāt/
verb
By those definitions, I doubt any current team qualifies as a college football dynasty, not even Alabama. I doubt we ever accomplish it, either. Doesn't mean we can't be very good for a long time, but to be a dynasty means to be the best team over a long period of time.
The word dominate needs to defined and agreed upon as well.
dom·i·nate
ˈdäməˌnāt/
verb
- have a commanding influence on; exercise control over.
"the company dominates the market for operating system software"
synonyms: control, influence, exercise control over, command,be in command of, be in charge of, rule, govern,direct, have ascendancy over, have mastery over;More - be the most important or conspicuous person or thing in.
By those definitions, I doubt any current team qualifies as a college football dynasty, not even Alabama. I doubt we ever accomplish it, either. Doesn't mean we can't be very good for a long time, but to be a dynasty means to be the best team over a long period of time.
Northeast Stinger
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 9,804
It's just me but I hate it whenever someone throws Washington under the buss. He ran the option as well as any quarterback CPJ has had. Unfortunately he had a lousy offensive line and none of his WRs could catch consistently and his defense never held a lead for him.
I honestly think that comparing quarterbacks is not as easy as it looks.
If Washington and JT traded teams I suspect Washington's game would improve immeasurably and JT's game would fall off substantially. Having a great offensive line and receivers who can dominate a secondary help a quarterback's performance quite a bit.
For what it is worth, among all time passing leaders at Tech, Reggie Ball shows up third, putting him ahead of a lot of fan favorites. (You think throwing to Calvin Johnson made his stats better?) If one looks at total offense leaders Reggie Ball is second all time at Tech, just behind Joe Hamilton and ahead of Shaun Jones. But I would rather have Washington at quarterback than Ball and I certainly would rather have Shaun Jones.
So I guess I am saying there are intangibles that make one to one comparisons of quarterbacks a little more complicated.
Very good reply! You are right about all the QBS except for thing that I have stated since JT first announce he was coming our way. And that is I stated he was 5* QB in our system. Knowing he was rated a $ star as an athlete. I did no he was going to be the leader that he is. Just listen to his OB mvp Acceptance speech!! Also I believe it was $th 15 against Ga So. when in the huddle he said "we can do this!".
Dressed, This is for fun not to be technical. I will not explain my idea on this again as I already did. But hey I appreciate the reply and keeping this going!