Great interview with CPJ

[00Burdell]

APR might have been instituted while CGG was here but we (Tech) were not paying attention. That's what caused the whole problem as I recall.

I don't blame Gailey for that - he was hoodwinked by a handful of doofus staff members who didn't read the rules but represented that everything was OK.

CPJ isn't managing by assuming that everything is taken care of - he is checking to see that it is. That is what allowed him and mBob to petition the Hill for more exceptions.

You guys that are relatively new to the alumni club don't know what us oldtimers have been dealing with for so long and it probably isn't obvious how significant a development it is that the Hill and the Athletic Department have agreed to reinstate the rules that were in effect the last time we beat UGa three straight times.

 

[33jacket]

APR might have been instituted while CGG was here but we (Tech) were not paying attention. That's what caused the whole problem as I recall.

I don't blame Gailey for that - he was hoodwinked by a handful of doofus staff members who didn't read the rules but represented that everything was OK.

CPJ isn't managing by assuming that everything is taken care of - he is checking to see that it is. That is what allowed him and mBob to petition the Hill for more exceptions.

You guys that are relatively new to the alumni club don't know what us oldtimers have been dealing with for so long and it probably isn't obvious how significant a development it is that the Hill and the Athletic Department have agreed to reinstate the rules that were in effect the last time we beat UGa three straight times.

Flunkgate was gaileys second year and unrelated to apr. Apr rule started a year or two later. Flunkgate affected many sports at tech not just football. It was due to the schools loose and lack of oversight of SA period. Gt has NEVER lost one scholarship in football due to apr BS period. Ever.

Where gt got in trouble was playing ineligible players in the late 90s due to not keeping up with ncaa rules and we thought they were eligible but this was non apr related and non flunkgate related. This penalty was under chan. Reduction in ships. Because as you state we are dumb.

The rest u r spot on. This loosening of the reigns is a big deal and i HOPE paul takes full advantage

 

[daBuzz]

APR might have been instituted while CGG was here but we (Tech) were not paying attention. That's what caused the whole problem as I recall.

I don't blame Gailey for that - he was hoodwinked by a handful of doofus staff members who didn't read the rules but represented that everything was OK.

CPJ isn't managing by assuming that everything is taken care of - he is checking to see that it is. That is what allowed him and mBob to petition the Hill for more exceptions.

You guys that are relatively new to the alumni club don't know what us oldtimers have been dealing with for so long and it probably isn't obvious how significant a development it is that the Hill and the Athletic Department have agreed to reinstate the rules that were in effect the last time we beat UGa three straight times.

I guess I'm kind of a mid-timer, not a new guy or a strict old-timer. I'm 47 years old so I do remember.

But here's what needs to be pointed out:
- Gailey started at GT in 2002. APR started in 2004
- As 33Jacket stated, Flunkgate happened under Gailey but it had zero to do with APR.
- Flunkgate was because Frank Roper was in charge of academic compliance for student athletes. And pay really close attention here, please, because this is the MOST important thing I'll say. Frank Roper was put in that position BY THE HILL, NOT GT ATHLETICS. I've met Frank. He was (technically, he probably still is) a crotchedy old fart who thought he knew all he needed to know. Accordingly, he quit going to the annual meetings for NCAA compliance.
- The NCAA changed the rules regarding eligibility and made it so that, if your school had stricter academic requirements to maintain eligibility, your student athletes had to be eligible by NCAA AND your school's requirements to maintain eligibility. We had student athletes in several sports who were eligible by NCAA standards but not by GT's. (I could be wrong on the #'s but I think the NCAA required a 2.0 GPA and Tech required a 2.2).
- Anyway, because Frank Roper (again I point out...THE HILL'S ACADEMIC REPRESENTATIVE) didn't go to those meetings, he didn't know this. And thus, he incorrectly certified that all of our athletes were eligible to play.
- When it was pointed out to the GTAA that we were using the wrong set of requirements, an investigation was undertaken. We self-reported to the NCAA, games those athletes had played in were forfeited, and Frank Roper retired but the damage was already done.

I've posted this before but it needs to be stated as many times as necessary for people to understand:
- the Hill "relaxing" the standards back to where they were is a bit of a sham. Because they caused the problem in the first place.

</off soapbox>

 

[Techster]

I'm not so sure the offense is the reason for the one-dimensionality. Keeping in mind that PJ coached at Hawaii, a pass-happy team, I would assume it's more of a personnel issue. Vad was the best thrower we've had up until now. I've seen flashes with JT but only time will tell. I really would like to see more short passing plays instead of run run run deeeeep bomb run run run...

If you do some research, you'll find that Hawaii at the time CPJ was the OC wasn't necessarily "pass happy", they were just pass happy for a CPJ offense. That lasted about 2 years until the QB (I forget his name) graduated, and CPJ went back strictly to the flexbone we know today. The QB, for all the pass happy talk, never broke 3,000 yards which is the norm today. BYU with Ty Detmer during that era is what we would call a pass happy team. That BYU Lavell Edwards offense was the precurser to what we now know as the Air Raid offense...which, ironically, borrows concepts from the Run and Shoot...the very same concepts CPJ runs now in our passing game. That Hawaii offense you speak of is definitely NOT the June Jones Run and Shoot offense that's synonymous with the modern day Hawaii offense.

I've been holding out hope that CPJ would expand more on those passing concepts, but with the Vad fallout, I really don't see it. My hope (against hope maybe) is that CPJ will try to do with Matthew Jordan what we all were envisioning with Vad. We saw a little of it in certain games like Duke, Pittsburgh, and UGA...but to be honest, we just don't have the personnel to protect the QB long enough, and the WRs who are nuanced and gifted enough to run all the passing plays. Not to mention, those passing concepts are time intensive, much like our running concepts. In the college game with time limits on practice, it's either or. That's why I think Vad may have been much better in our system as each season passed (no pun intended) as all those reps carried over every year. Here's hoping JT and MJ will help CPJ take this offense to the next level we all have been waiting for.

 

[Techster]

In my opinion, no, that isn't the reason he was brought in. He was brought in to win as many games as possible.

I think many people, and you appear to be one, believe that GT will never get a high number of NFL-type bodies in and CPJ is therefore the best coach for a situation such as ours.

While I don't think we'll ever be a 4- or 5-star factory of talent, I do believe that O'Leary and Gailey's recruiting in his latter years do prove that we are indeed capable of getting enough NFL-caliber talent to be more than competitive.

This is nothing more than my opinion so you don't have to agree or disagree with it, but I believe a coach running a traditional spread option offense where you throw the ball more than 12 times per game could be VERY successful at GT. An offense such as Malzahn's at Auburn would even be a fairly easy transition from the one we run now. And removing that "run only" stigma, combined with the easing of the # of exceptions should be enough that we can be competitive in recruiting to the point where we are at least a team that is in the top 25 every year.

I don't think we'll ever be a consistent top 10 team...too many restrictions with the obvious reasons: calculus requirement, few # of majors, limited # of top-caliber athletes who can perform at GT academic levels, etc. But I look at what was a program that experienced top 25's fairly regularly and find myself wishing for those days...instead of the consistent .500'ish records that result in a top 40, 50 or in one case, 70 ranking.

Dude, you're so spot on with all of that. GT does have the ability to attract high tier talent...it's been done under every coach. No, we haven't done it in bunches like UGA or other factory schools, but we got enough elite talent to compete with the factory schools that we were competitive with them. I pointed this out in another thread, but GT has always been a destination for some of the top dual threat QBs (and non dual threat QBs) in the Southeast. GT use to also be considered the top destination for elite talent that UGA didn't want (see Nesbitt...wanted him at safety, Dwyer...wanted Caleb King more, Morgan Burnett...no clue what they were thinking, etc.). We also had the ability to attract high tier talent outside of the Southeast as well. For all this talk about APR and rigorous course loads, we're seeing top tier talent leaving the state and take just as rigourous a courseload elsewhere (Vaughters at Stanford, Josh Dobbs at UT, Tuitt at Notre Dame).

I also agree that if GT starts running an offense similar to Baylor, Oregon, Auburn, or Ohio State, some of the top tier offensive talent in the state would line up to come here. QBs want to throw the ball, and WRs want to catch the ball...and they want to do it in offenses that showcase their talent for the NFL. That's why guys like Nesbitt, Dwyer, Calvin Johnson, Demaryius Thomas, etc. came here to play under Gailey even though he never won more than 7 games outside of 2006. The state of Georgia has been churning out top tier QB, WR, and RB talent the past 5 years...and GT just hasn't been able to capitalize on it. Kids just don't want to play in our offense...that's just the flat out truth. Our most prolific offensive players under CPJ have flat out said if CPJ was the coach, they probably would not have chosen GT. CPJ is a successful coach because of his system, but he also has to make a choice of whether he wants prove to the world his system can be succesfull (it can as evidence with top tier talent in 2008 and 2009) or if he wants to adapt his offense to attract all the top tier talent GT's home state is churning out that's heading to other schools.

As DaBuzz said, and I wholeheartedly agree, GT may never be a consistent top 10 team, but we should be consistently in the top 25. It's been done in the O'Leary era, and in 2008 and 2009. GT has too much too offer, and GT's home state talent is too plentiful for settling at barely breaking .500 every year. That's not to say there won't be rebuilding years, but those should be the exception, not the norm.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

I completely agree with you on this. For our two minute drill however, I think something must be changed. Not saying that shotgun is the answer for the two minute drill, but maybe a play calling communication so that the players get the play in much faster.

IMO out 2 min drill is fine. Where we flub up is in the clutch in the red zone. We have tendency to drop the ball in clutch moments at the end of games. Rarely have trouble driving down the field in the 2 min

 

[dressedcheeseside]

I guess I'm kind of a mid-timer, not a new guy or a strict old-timer. I'm 47 years old so I do remember.

But here's what needs to be pointed out:
- Gailey started at GT in 2002. APR started in 2004
- As 33Jacket stated, Flunkgate happened under Gailey but it had zero to do with APR.
- Flunkgate was because Frank Roper was in charge of academic compliance for student athletes. And pay really close attention here, please, because this is the MOST important thing I'll say. Frank Roper was put in that position BY THE HILL, NOT GT ATHLETICS. I've met Frank. He was (technically, he probably still is) a crotchedy old fart who thought he knew all he needed to know. Accordingly, he quit going to the annual meetings for NCAA compliance.
- The NCAA changed the rules regarding eligibility and made it so that, if your school had stricter academic requirements to maintain eligibility, your student athletes had to be eligible by NCAA AND your school's requirements to maintain eligibility. We had student athletes in several sports who were eligible by NCAA standards but not by GT's. (I could be wrong on the #'s but I think the NCAA required a 2.0 GPA and Tech required a 2.2).
- Anyway, because Frank Roper (again I point out...THE HILL'S ACADEMIC REPRESENTATIVE) didn't go to those meetings, he didn't know this. And thus, he incorrectly certified that all of our athletes were eligible to play.
- When it was pointed out to the GTAA that we were using the wrong set of requirements, an investigation was undertaken. We self-reported to the NCAA, games those athletes had played in were forfeited, and Frank Roper retired but the damage was already done.

I've posted this before but it needs to be stated as many times as necessary for people to understand:
- the Hill "relaxing" the standards back to where they were is a bit of a sham. Because they caused the problem in the first place.

</off soapbox>

Thanx for the info.

As far as apr hurting us while helping the factories, I still think that is the case. Everybody pines for the Bobby Ross days. Half or more of those guys would never get in today. Ross' guys didn't have apr and didn't have to graduate players. Guys could take remedial courses in those days. His grad rates were appalling. GOL did better than Ross graduating guys but he's still a good ways off the mark from what we have now under CPJ. If all this is bs, please set me straight because it's mostly bases on what I've read on the boards over the years. Also, you can bet the hill loves the new grad rates and would tie coach's hands in minute if they started to fall.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Unfortunately we're not balanced.

I wasn't even saying WE need to be more balanced. I'm saying teams will not continue to be so pass oriented indefinitely. Feel free to make your own points on our offense but please don't misconstrue my point.

 

[daBuzz]

Thanx for the info.

As far as apr hurting us while helping the factories, I still think that is the case. Everybody pines for the Bobby Ross days. Half or more of those guys would never get in today. Ross' guys didn't have apr and didn't have to graduate players. Guys could take remedial courses in those days. His grad rates were appalling. GOL did better than Ross graduating guys but he's still a good ways off the mark from what we have now under CPJ. If all this is bs, please set me straight because it's mostly bases on what I've read on the boards over the years. Also, you can bet the hill loves the new grad rates and would tie coach's hands in minute if they started to fall.

Guys could take remedial classes under Ross and O'Leary. I have no insider knowledge regarding Ross but I have spoken to many of the players during O'Leary's term, including a few of the ones who have told me point blank, "I'd never be admitted under today's standards". As I've posted before, Daryl Smith was one of those. But just because they could take remedial classes, I don't know of any personally who actually did.

As a matter of fact, every person I talked to about O'Leary mentioned that GOL was so much of a micro-manager and so fanatical about knowing everything that was going on with the program, that he had GA's going daily and following students to classes to make sure they went to class. Players who missed any class suffered through punishment runs and other creative types of "go to class" incentives. Further, almost every one of the players I spoke to about GOL went out of their way to mention that they don't put any credence into the stories of how APR would have hurt GOL had it been implemented while he was there. Ironically, most of them mentioned that the professors teaching his players' classes almost universally liked GOL and appreciated the fact that he was making the SA's actually attend and be good students. It was the management and admissions part of "the hill" that didn't like GOL.

On a side note, a few of them also mentioned that GOL was one of those coaches whom you either loved or hated. Most of the team loved him but a small portion of the team hated his micromanaging. It was said that he scheduled things down to the absolute minute and that if you showed up on time for a 6pm meeting you were considered late...because on-time meant being 5 or 10 minutes early.

I also heard a story about a player who showed up for the team bus as they were leaving for an away game and the bus was scheduled to leave at something like 6:14 am. At 6:14 the bus starts rolling and the player is running to catch up to the bus. O'Leary wouldn't let the bus driver stop the bus to pick up the player and it wasn't until the bus stopped for a red light about 2 blocks later that the player caught up and banged on the door. O'Leary allowed the driver to open the door and let the player on the bus. But the player who told me that smiled and said, "Everybody got the message after that though. When we were scheduled to leave, sometimes we would be there 20 or 30 minutes early because no one wanted to be left at home and you knew O'Leary wasn't gonna stop for your a**."

 

[GTRanj]

IMO out 2 min drill is fine. Where we flub up is in the clutch in the red zone. We have tendency to drop the ball in clutch moments at the end of games. Rarely have trouble driving down the field in the 2 min

We throw lots of INT's in 2-minute drill though. Maybe quicker play calling and no-huddle means we can run the option instead of passing (which lets face it we're not the best at when they know we are going to pass).

 

[GTNavyNuke]

There's a lot to digest in this link for all of 2013 passing attempts. http://www.cfbstats.com/2013/team/255/passing/offense/situational.html

What jumps out at me is that

• We NEVER threw on 3rd and 1-3. Don't know how many times it was, but it sure was a lot more than zero time. CPJ predictable?
• Looking at 3rd and more than 3 or 4th, we didn't do very well with an average 115 rating for the 4 remaining categories.
• When we were tied or losing (and people knew we were going to pass), our QB rating averaged 96.
• When we were winning, our QB rating was 166 (people didn't know we were going to pass).

When we had to pass, we sucked. Q.E.D.

So I go back to what I posted a few days ago. It depends whether we needed to pass or not. I think we were usually in shotgun when we had to be, not because we wanted to be. {The causation here was the game situation, not the formation IMHO. Probably shame on CPJ for throwing out BS.}

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Guys could take remedial classes under Ross and O'Leary. I have no insider knowledge regarding Ross but I have spoken to many of the players during O'Leary's term, including a few of the ones who have told me point blank, "I'd never be admitted under today's standards". As I've posted before, Daryl Smith was one of those. But just because they could take remedial classes, I don't know of any personally who actually did.

As a matter of fact, every person I talked to about O'Leary mentioned that GOL was so much of a micro-manager and so fanatical about knowing everything that was going on with the program, that he had GA's going daily and following students to classes to make sure they went to class. Players who missed any class suffered through punishment runs and other creative types of "go to class" incentives. Further, almost every one of the players I spoke to about GOL went out of their way to mention that they don't put any credence into the stories of how APR would have hurt GOL had it been implemented while he was there. Ironically, most of them mentioned that the professors teaching his players' classes almost universally liked GOL and appreciated the fact that he was making the SA's actually attend and be good students. It was the management and admissions part of "the hill" that didn't like GOL.

On a side note, a few of them also mentioned that GOL was one of those coaches whom you either loved or hated. Most of the team loved him but a small portion of the team hated his micromanaging. It was said that he scheduled things down to the absolute minute and that if you showed up on time for a 6pm meeting you were considered late...because on-time meant being 5 or 10 minutes early.

I also heard a story about a player who showed up for the team bus as they were leaving for an away game and the bus was scheduled to leave at something like 6:14 am. At 6:14 the bus starts rolling and the player is running to catch up to the bus. O'Leary wouldn't let the bus driver stop the bus to pick up the player and it wasn't until the bus stopped for a red light about 2 blocks later that the player caught up and banged on the door. O'Leary allowed the driver to open the door and let the player on the bus. But the player who told me that smiled and said, "Everybody got the message after that though. When we were scheduled to leave, sometimes we would be there 20 or 30 minutes early because no one wanted to be left at home and you knew O'Leary wasn't gonna stop for your a**."

Thanks again for the info.

You're probably right about APR not affecting GOL. His grad rates exceeded 50% which is the bare minimum to be in compliance. (To be accurate, you need 50% of your players on track to graduate, not graduate per se) I'm not sure how much he exceeded 50%, but I don't think it was by very much. It was also before flunkgate and probation so I doubt he'd be allowed that today. I get what you're saying about the Hill being responsible for flunkgate, though. In the final analysis, I think if GOL came to GT today, he'd have to be more selective in who he offered than he did back in the day.

 

[link3945]

There's a lot to digest in this link for all of 2013 passing attempts. http://www.cfbstats.com/2013/team/255/passing/offense/situational.html

• We NEVER threw on 3rd and 1-3. Don't know how many times it was, but it sure was a lot more than zero time. CPJ predictable?

From the same website we had 66 rushing attempts on 3rd and 1-3, and converted 47 of them (~71%). Predictable or not we were still incredibly effective on 3rd and short.

 

[GTNavyNuke]

From the same website we had 66 rushing attempts on 3rd and 1-3, and converted 47 of them (~71%). Predictable or not we were still incredibly effective on 3rd and short.

Thanks, I thought about rush data later. You are exactly right. And this 71% is why I think we should go for 2 almost every time. If we average 1.4 points per conversion, that beats the 1. Near the end of a game when 1 would win it and a few other situations, I'd go for 1. Otherwise 2.

FWIW, other teams converted against our D 72% (13 of 18) when rushing on 3rd and 1-3. Their passing efficiency in conversion was only 7 of 16 (44%) so rushing is the way to go.

Looking at the other rush data for 3rd and distance we see what I felt was the case - you know when we are more likely to pass:
3 rd & 4-6; pass 18 times and rush 20 times -1/2 time pass
3rd & 7-9; pass 21 times and rush 10 times - 2/3 times pass
3rd & 10+; pass 27 times and rush 13 - 2/3 pass
4th; pass 5 times and rush 13 times - 1/4 pass

 

[00Burdell]

Thanks, I thought about rush data later. You are exactly right. And this 71% is why I think we should go for 2 almost every time.

The three yards between the 3 and the goal line are a lot tougher than the three yards between the 50 and the 47.

Judging by the difference between xtra points kicked and TDs scored, it looks to me like we attempted 6 2 point conversions in 2012 and 1 in 2013. Out of those seven attempts, we only converted one of them.

 

[GTNavyNuke]

The three yards between the 3 and the goal line are a lot tougher than the three yards between the 50 and the 47.

Judging by the difference between xtra points kicked and TDs scored, it looks to me like we attempted 6 2 point conversions in 2012 and 1 in 2013. Out of those seven attempts, we only converted one of them.

Thanks for the stats. We obviously need more practice Your point is valid. The stat was for basically 0 to 3 yards which averages about 1 1/2 to 2 yards for the stat. 3 yards is what it takes for a 2 pointer? (Not 2 1/2, I can't remember.)

I still think with our running game operating and having just driven on the defense we should be able to make it more often than not. But I didn't realize we were so bad in 2012 and tried 6 times. Must have tried passing {:sarcasm}.

 

[00Burdell]

Thanks for the stats.

I found a source for two-point conversion attempts/makes. Since CPJ arrived, we are 7 for 14.

Not quite as bad as I mischaracterized it.

 

[iceeater1969]

gtnavynuke- you and others have good data!
Have u ever compared for Coach Johnson s period some stats that shows why we seem so out of gas on defense in fourth quarter. 2008 it seemed the bad guys were out of gas too 2013 not so.

A.
Everyone seemed to blame tevin ( not Nesbit) or Groh (too complicated) or lately tired players on defense ( lack backup talent). These are clearly facts that make for a bad end of game-experience.


Would a year by year ( non fcs) game by game of the time of possession by quarter, or drive time or number of blitzes or 3 and outs be able to pinpoint anything or would we just get noise? Blitz stats probably don't exits by quarter.
Hope you have some info.


My gut says coaches have so little faith in players they are afraid to blitz . They hope to muddle along and squeak by in fourth quarter . Seems like early in the year and early in each game we should be highly aggressive with blitz packages liberally using backups that practice for that. I would rather be down by say 10 at half with a tiring opponent defense and a fresh Tech d than up by 7 with a gassed tech d and a fresh opponent d.

Sure appreciate detail posts

 

[GTNavyNuke]

I found a source for two-point conversion attempts/makes. Since CPJ arrived, we are 7 for 14.

Not quite as bad as I mischaracterized it.

LOL, the truth is an elusive thing. You didn't mischaracterize, just said what you had found. I guess we can blame 5 of the 6 misses on TW. {:kidding, sort of}

 

[GTNavyNuke]

gtnavynuke- you and others have good data!
Have u ever compared for Coach Johnson s period some stats that shows why we seem so out of gas on defense in fourth quarter. 2008 it seemed the bad guys were out of gas too 2013 not so.

A.
Everyone seemed to blame tevin ( not Nesbit) or Groh (too complicated) or lately tired players on defense ( lack backup talent). These are clearly facts that make for a bad end of game-experience.


Would a year by year ( non fcs) game by game of the time of possession by quarter, or drive time or number of blitzes or 3 and outs be able to pinpoint anything or would we just get noise? Blitz stats probably don't exits by quarter.
Hope you have some info.


My gut says coaches have so little faith in players they are afraid to blitz . They hope to muddle along and squeak by in fourth quarter . Seems like early in the year and early in each game we should be highly aggressive with blitz packages liberally using backups that practice for that. I would rather be down by say 10 at half with a tiring opponent defense and a fresh Tech d than up by 7 with a gassed tech d and a fresh opponent d.

Sure appreciate detail posts

There are others who know a lot more than I do. Some on this board work for companies which generate sports data.

I have to go on travel but here is the site that I know of which has 4th quarter data. What you can see here is that we give up more rushing yards in the fourth quarter than the second or third.... for 2013. But the worst qtr was the first. That could be a sign of good coaching that we got better after the first hit and then got tired. That is what I "feel" from memory of the games, but my memory during the games was impaired. http://www.cfbstats.com/2013/team/255/rushing/defense/situational.html At the top of the screen you'll see years. We did pretty well on rush D in the fourth quarter in 2008. Most years the rush D didn't get that much worse in the 4th.

Our passing D in the 4th qtr was the best of the game last year at least as far as QB rating. http://www.cfbstats.com/2013/team/255/passing/defense/situational.html

But this really doesn't answer your question. I have the following thoughts:
1) The other team wants to win and generally pulls out the stops in the 4th qtr, just like we would like to do.
2) 2009 was the best year by far we had in the fourth quarter. We won most of the close ones. We have argued forever about why. I think it was JN and the team chemistry. Give me a team full of JNs and we win a NC. They would savage their way to a win.
3) Last year was Roof's first year for the D. We were much better than previous years and good in the fourth. It really doesn't matter much to me about the previous year's since Groh is fortunately no longer a factor.
4) Last year I didn't see us getting tired like we were in previous years. I credit that to the S&C coach and Roof. The stats you talk about may show I am wrong.
5) I hear you about playing all out on D. You either stop the other team or they score quick. That was the essence of Tenuta's D. I think that best matches up with our O these days -- ball and clock control. We just have to score more often and for the first time last year, the O was weaker than D or ST. So if the O comes back, a Tenuta approach probably makes sense.