GT v the Citadel Postgame Press Conference

[RamblinCharger]

Lots of talk from CGC, but the results look really poor so far. More upset with the decision making and the play calling on the offensive side than anything. TO is clearly a lot better than LJ yet we keep forcing LJ onto the field. TO should have started and played every down at QB today and we would've won the game by 2-3 TDs. Just asinine decision making. Really missed seeing CPJ yank a dude up by his face mask after a personal foul. So many stupid penalties, which to me = poor coaching.

 

[bobongo]

I’m talking about looking completely lost on O for third game in a row, this time with an unquestionably less talented opponent.

Pertaining to the OL, I doubt it. I've always thought OL is the most important component of a football team. I don't care how good you are at the other, "skilled" positions, if your OL is porous you aren't going to move the ball or win many games. All this talk about quarterbacks and tight ends and receivers is to ignore the glaring lack of talent and numbers along the ol' OL. It starts there, and for us it ends there.

 

[gt02]

Pertaining to the OL, I doubt it. I've always thought OL is the most important component of a football team. I don't care how good you are at the other, "skilled" positions, if your OL is porous you aren't going to move the ball or win many games. All this talk about quarterbacks and tight ends and receivers is to ignore the glaring lack of talent and numbers along the ol' OL. It starts there, and for us it ends there.

Just to be clear, you think Citadel has more talent on the O line than GT?

 

[iceeater1969]

Just to be clear, you think Citadel has more talent on the O line than GT?

I ll let him answer but imo, we are way more talented than citadel s ol.
I think we all agree they flawlessly run our old scheme. That scheme is money when the defense bails them out w after play unsportsmanlike penalties. While they got steady yards on bb dive ( w miss brandon) we eventually tightened up the middle and the tackle, but the jet sweep really killed us.

I was intrigued that thier tackles were so small - 230 and 240. They were able to double team to the inside with out chop blockin . Also when they ran the jet sweep, the runner was wide umopen till he got to edge. Did these smaller tackles get a blockbon our safeties or lb to keep them from running to sideline? Or were we over playing the middle and tookbour selves out if the play? ?
With our last smallish ol recruits I wonder if we were going to try using very small (250 )OT.

 

[GTRambler]

The Citadel’s offensive team out-executed Georgia Tech’s defensive team.

The Citadel’s defensive team out-executed Georgia Tech’s offensive team.

The Citadel’s coaching staff also out-coached and outperformed Georgia Tech’s coaching staff.

 

[bobongo]

Just to be clear, you think Citadel has more talent on the O line than GT?

Right now, with all the injuries and depletions - yes.

 

[slugboy]

T Carpenter s grandmother passed a day or 2 before the game. Kid sure played well and did nice job in interview.

Dang, that is awful.

 

[gt02]

Right now, with all the injuries and depletions - yes.

Wow. That is a completely unsupportable statement, but I guess we will disagree.

 

[bobongo]

Wow. That is a completely unsupportable statement, but I guess we will disagree.

It isn't worth quibbling about. The point is we are a P5 school without a P5 OL. If we're better than the Citadel, it isn't by much.

 

[gt02]

It isn't worth quibbling about. The point is we are a P5 school without a P5 OL. If we're better than the Citadel, it isn't by much.

I guess we will continue to disagree there. The OL certainly was not more effective than Citadel in our game, but to me that is a reflection on coaching and gameplan more than talent. I don't know how you can conclude that the OL is, or is not a P5 OL -- or frankly what that even means. But really, this is all besides my point. My point is our offensive game plan (to the extent we have one) is terrible. The OL can be the reason why when we are playing Clemson, but that is not a legitimate reason why we had no semblance of a game plan against the Citadel.

 

[SteamWhistle]

Please convey to the board examples you apparently have of the previous staff shunning blame. I recall just one, a misguided 4th and 20 or so when Johnson appeared to shift it to assistant coaches. That's over 11 years. But his standard was they have to coach better and they have to play better. Seems fair to me, but maybe you have selected quotes?

Watch Paul Johnson post USF. Dodged questions about Tobias being taken out and says we were going into score if Qua didn’t fumble. Asked about the defense multiple times and just kept saying gotta watch the tape and see what the players did wrong.

 

[bobongo]

I guess we will continue to disagree there. The OL certainly was not more effective than Citadel in our game, but to me that is a reflection on coaching and gameplan more than talent. I don't know how you can conclude that the OL is, or is not a P5 OL -- or frankly what that even means. But really, this is all besides my point. My point is our offensive game plan (to the extent we have one) is terrible. The OL can be the reason why when we are playing Clemson, but that is not a legitimate reason why we had no semblance of a game plan against the Citadel.

I agree with that, but that having been said we are still not going to win many games with this OL. If we were just an okay OL before (and that might be generous), when it was designed for an option offense, how good could it be in a transition and losing two starters and one experienced backup in the offseason, and bringing in one Vandy backup to replace those three losses? And then, on top of that, the losses we've already seen on the OL this year to our best linemen? The cruel fact is that we are a ragtag bunch on OL with few p5 offers (no, it's not a P5 OL). Both of us have it right. The gameplan was awful, and the OL is badly depleted. But you can win more games in the longrun with bad game plans than you will with an OL that is this far below the line. That's certainly no excuse for a bad gameplan, but right now we are way, way below the line on the OL.

 

[gt02]

I agree with that, but that having been said we are still not going to win many games with this OL. If we were just an okay OL before (and that might be generous), when it was designed for an option offense, how good could it be in a transition and losing two starters and one experienced backup in the offseason, and bringing in one Vandy backup to replace those three losses? And then, on top of that, the losses we've already seen on the OL this year to our best linemen? The cruel fact is that we are a ragtag bunch on OL with few p5 offers (no, it's not a P5 OL). Both of us have it right. The gameplan was awful, and the OL is badly depleted. But you can win more games in the longrun with bad game plans than you will with an OL that is this far below the line. That's certainly no excuse for a bad gameplan, but right now we are way, way below the line on the OL.

Well better recruiting can change the talent level. Not sure how we can change the game planning.

 

[Skeptic]

Watch Paul Johnson post USF. Dodged questions about Tobias being taken out and says we were going into score if Qua didn’t fumble. Asked about the defense multiple times and just kept saying gotta watch the tape and see what the players did wrong.

I think you'd have a tough sales job convincing people that stating the obvious is throwing a player under the bus. I just don't buy it. (Really, did you expect him to say the fumble was all his fault, mea culpa? I can't count the times a coach has made some reference to scoring except for a fumble, an interception, wrong hole, etc. I never considered that tossing a player under the bus and never saw them accused of it.) That's just not a serious example. As for the defense I guess I will have to find the tape and get the exact quote and context. Did he say, that is, to "watch what the players did wrong" or did he say "Watch the tape and see for yourself?"

I think this business is really about personal coaching preferences and comfort. Johnson didn't bother me as I played for several coaches in multiple sports made of the same stuff. I can grant he bothered others, so one size does not fit all. I played point guard (HS) on a team that won a district championship one year and a state championship the next, and the coach gave me exactly one compliment, one, and that was years later at a reunion. He balanced that earlier by benching me to get my head turned around.

I will ignore the Oliver part since I am not a fan.

 

[bobongo]

Well better recruiting can change the talent level. Not sure how we can change the game planning.

True, that.

I don't want anyone to get me wrong, as I have all respect for guys out there busting their butts and doing the best they can. I don't doubt their effort. But the numbers aren't there and our best talent is on the bench, injured. We're in big trouble along the OL.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Please, the insinuation that any such thing is lost on CGC, Thacker, T.C., Key, Marco is absurd and you dont believe it.

The transition has gone worse than i thought because we had, i thought, some super athletes that would shine at qb & wr. They might still.

The bad recruiting, or maybe just lack of depth at OL & DL is hurting.

OL injuries could kill us.

It’s way worse and deeper than talent and you know it.

 

[Skeptic]

Love the commitment, Fire, plan, and goals.

Cares more than just setting records for one side of the ball.

We are just screwed somewhat because we could not/ would not recruit more OL & DL due to having the numbers to put 4 men in the backfield every play.

I am a bit confused as the rules require four men in the backfield and seven on the line on offense. The four is not an optional number. I never heard nor read that we refused to recruit for the lines because we spent scholarships on running backs. Can you confirm this in some way, as in roster comparisons with other P5 schools? It is very hard for me to think any coach would recruit backs and then ignore linemen to block for the same backs.

 

[g0lftime]

I ll let him answer but imo, we are way more talented than citadel s ol.
I think we all agree they flawlessly run our old scheme. That scheme is money when the defense bails them out w after play unsportsmanlike penalties. While they got steady yards on bb dive ( w miss brandon) we eventually tightened up the middle and the tackle, but the jet sweep really killed us.

I was intrigued that thier tackles were so small - 230 and 240. They were able to double team to the inside with out chop blockin . Also when they ran the jet sweep, the runner was wide umopen till he got to edge. Did these smaller tackles get a blockbon our safeties or lb to keep them from running to sideline? Or were we over playing the middle and tookbour selves out if the play? ?
With our last smallish ol recruits I wonder if we were going to try using very small (250 )OT.

On the toss sweep it looked they had numbers on the edge and just blocked our pursuit. Bad angles at times and their back was a tough runner with speed. Overall we did not look prepared to stop the TO. A lot of teams in the PJ era thought they could play "assignment" football and not a lot of extra prep and we put up big numbers on them. We should have studied how Duke played against our TO. They probably did the best at handling it without having dominant players. I think we just flat out overlooked this team.

 

[Skeptic]

I agree with that, but that having been said we are still not going to win many games with this OL. If we were just an okay OL before (and that might be generous), when it was designed for an option offense, how good could it be in a transition and losing two starters and one experienced backup in the offseason, and bringing in one Vandy backup to replace those three losses? And then, on top of that, the losses we've already seen on the OL this year to our best linemen? The cruel fact is that we are a ragtag bunch on OL with few p5 offers (no, it's not a P5 OL). Both of us have it right. The gameplan was awful, and the OL is badly depleted. But you can win more games in the longrun with bad game plans than you will with an OL that is this far below the line. That's certainly no excuse for a bad gameplan, but right now we are way, way below the line on the OL.

First, we still have to give this new guy a fair shot even if his first steps are wobbly. I thought a seven-year contract, seven recruiting classes, was way more than fair, but that is a done deal, over with, and the AD may have to answer for that. As for a depleted offensive line, well. It may be Collins' first rodeo but it won't be his last, so he had better get used to losing key players, and in a hurry. One doesn't have to be on the field to know how hard those licks are, just in the vicinity. 300-pounders running into and tripping over one another is not common activity.

I think it is as true in business as it is in sports: I cannot count the times I've seen a successor or replacement manager take a job and then proceed to gnash his or her teeth over the dreadful state of inherited affairs, thus buying a couple or three years -- they hope -- before blame attaches to them. (If Dabo leaves Clemson, and he won't, wait for the first peals of woe from his successor. It won't be long.)

 

[Animal02]

First, we still have to give this new guy a fair shot even if his first steps are wobbly. I thought a seven-year contract, seven recruiting classes, was way more than fair, but that is a done deal, over with, and the AD may have to answer for that. As for a depleted offensive line, well. It may be Collins' first rodeo but it won't be his last, so he had better get used to losing key players, and in a hurry. One doesn't have to be on the field to know how hard those licks are, just in the vicinity. 300-pounders running into and tripping over one another is not common activity.

I think it is as true in business as it is in sports: I cannot count the times I've seen a successor or replacement manager take a job and then proceed to gnash his or her teeth over the dreadful state of inherited affairs, thus buying a couple or three years -- they hope -- before blame attaches to them. (If Dabo leaves Clemson, and he won't, wait for the first peals of woe from his successor. It won't be long.)

I cannot count the times in business where I have seen the new team come in and want to put their own stamp / imagine on a company which results in disgruntled clients, pissed off clients and lost revenue...and in several cases, the business folds.....all because the new team (typically junior partners buyout) think they know best despite decades of a successful business practice. Just saying.