GT vs Pitt Postgame

[awbuzz]

OK question here not sure this is the best place but don't want to start a new topic.

This is a hypothetical question . It's 4 th down CPJ called a fake punt on our 33 yards line not theirs. I know unless we ask him we are only guessing but what do you think he was thinking?

1) I trust my opinion to pick up the first down.
2) I think we can fool them and the way the offense is playing they won't pick it up
3) I have no faith in our defense.
4 ) other

4 other
One of the coaches told him that it would work because of what Pitt had done earlier. ... Now if the runner had run as written up instead of running into the tackle... Who knows what would have happened.

 

[slugboy]

Peep the tweet under Wolken’s.

View attachment 4151

I’m sure he means “flexbone”. Ralph ran a lot of TO, and it’s smart to run on the Flats.

Wolken (in the root tweet) is a good sports reporter and just knows the fan base can get restless quickly.

Even if TStan weren’t a smart AD, the lesson that just about every AD learned from Tennessee is “be careful listening to the fan base, or you be sitting with them quickly”

It’s hard to make a good coaching hire. Making a good hire doesn’t fix the rest of the program. And, as you can see from FSU and Nebraska, new coaches don’t get that much latitude while rebuilding.

If I were looking for the next coach after CPJ, I’d look for one like Frost—running TO and RPO, hybrid QB, veer concepts—but passing enough to be good at it, and capable of finding diamonds in the rough. Or, a TCU style defensive coach who would bring in an offensive coordinator who runs an offense like I just described. Upending everything would put us in the wilderness for years.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[MWBATL]

OK question here not sure this is the best place but don't want to start a new topic.

This is a hypothetical question . It's 4 th down CPJ called a fake punt on our 33 yards line not theirs. I know unless we ask him we are only guessing but what do you think he was thinking?

1) I trust my opinion to pick up the first down.
2) I think we can fool them and the way the offense is playing they won't pick it up
3) I have no faith in our defense.
4 ) other

All of the above....(that's always the answer to multiple choice questions on tests at GT...)

 

[LibertyTurns]

Those will the $$ are the only ones that have influence over TStan. I supposed 40k fans can gang up & garner influence, but as apathetic as the general GT fan isI wouldn’thold that up as being likely.

Secondly, overhauling the coaching staff plus the entire GT organization is going to take a lot of $$. Good luck to TStan getting it out of our fanbase. Unlike the factories, GT grads with $$ tend to give their money to the academic side the house.

I guess my last point would be is let’s not do the same thing we've done in the past & expect a different outcome. At least you can say with CPJ we tried something different. Trying to compete with Top 30 programs in the same way they operate is unlikely to work. We’re going to need a different strategy if we're going that route. It’s already not working on defense. What makes anyone think it would work on offense as well?

I’m assuming most of us run businesses or are in significant leadership positions within our respective organizations. How many times has your BOD or leadership Team tried to waltz in some hero to “fix” what amounts to a broken system without giving the hero support & it worked out as planned? None in my experience.

 

[orientalnc]

I evacuated Oriental, NC due to Florence and have not had dependable internet. I will say my own snarky comment and probably not be around to hear the blowback. At least we did not squander a lead in the 4th quarter. This season looks a lot worse than I expected and I do not see things getting a ton better. Does that mean we need to fire our coach? I don't think so, but that call is up to the administration. We will never make football as important at GT as it is at uga and Clemson.

As for getting a new coach, CPJ said a while back he will leave if he thinks he isn't getting the job done as well as it can be done. If he really feels that way, he won't have to be fired.

 

[YlJacket]

I like the way you are thinking, but

1. I would definitely challenge the Administration to be much more aggressive with the BOR about expanding GT's curriculum. I don't think the Hill wants to do that, and I very much blame them for that. Until we start reading headlines in the AJC about squabbling between the Hill and the BOR I will not believe they are trying to improve things;
2. The idea some fonts hold (I'm looking at you @Animal02 ) that academics is sacrosanct and should never be modified in any way for athletics is frankly unrealistic. If you wish to go down that path, the entire alumni base needs to be prepared to become Tulane or Rice or even MIT in athletics. The Hill should be honest with its alumni about this issue (and watch Roll Call donations drop). It is a silly concept as well, because nothing being suggested in any way cheapens the value of GT degrees or harms the rest of the school in any way. There is plenty of data that suggests that a robust athletic program helps a university with its recognition and reputation, and very little data that I can find which says that making some reasonable accommodations for athletics in any way hurts the university.
3. I do agree that this offense has worn out its welcome, and another offense that would be popular with recruits would be a superior path to try. There simply is not enough talent on the field to seriously compete at a high level. I find it offensive that GT would undertake any endeavor and decide that being mediocre at it is acceptable. A new coach is likely necessary to achieve this (and I like CPJ).

IMHO you are asking the wrong question or rather asking for too far a leap by GT. I don't think GT is going to add majors just for the FB team - and in reality I don't think they should. Somewhere in this thread someone quoted Peterson as saying he isn't going to make decisions for the whole institute just for 400 or so athletes. And as much as I disagree with him on a lot of things, on that one I agree with him.

More to the point, the reason I think it is the wrong question is that what we should be looking for is how to get a limited number of key playmakers in school that we don't have the ability to do now. Be that a QB, a running back, LB or DL. We have the ability to get legit 3 star talent in consistently which puts us in the mix with most any team out there (assuming we develop them correctly) but we find ourselves looking for a key guy who can make a play on O or D. That is an achievable goal and one that Stansbury should be able to get out of the hill/Peterson in the short term. Say 5 exceptions to 4 units of math or a slightly lower SAT score that otherwise isn't getting through. We are near perfect on the academic side - probably too perfect - and should have the capital to go get these types of exemptions. May even cost us a ship down the road when some kids mucks up. But that envelope should be pushed.

We already have non calculus or light math majors. Ones that fit with the Institute mission. So I personally don't think that is the issue. I think it is a combination of 1) exceptions as described above for key playmaker, 2) popularity or rather image of the offense as you described above and 3) coaching and development of players and scheme and 4) (personal opinion here) beyond offensive scheme I don't get the impression we are recruiting animals even in the waters we can fish in. I could well be wrong on #4 as it is from way afar.

If and when Stansbury goes to recruit another coach for GT FB, he is going to have to have the exceptions thing in his pocket or he will not get the coach he wants. We aren't getting Saban or the like regardless but we have to get a legit ACC level coach. Numbers 2,3 and 4 will be up to the coach.

 

[alagold]

I stopped donating cuz of the disease called clough. And Peterson is as bad

Bud is WORSE-at least Cloughhe was not stealing/wasting money by his uncontrolled VPs .(I think)

 

[pbrown520]

Peep the tweet under Wolken’s.

View attachment 4151

Isn't that Yates' coach? I like Yates a lot and I think he can be a good dual threat guy. However, GT is one of the only P5 offenses he would have a shot at playing QB in. It's also not real likely that he would play QB in any system that doesn't ask a QB to run a good bit. I could be wrong (hopefully so), but he doesn't look like he will ever be a great pure passer, but looks more like the type that will be quite good passing by creating chaos with his legs.

 

[year_of_the_swarm]

I hate to say this, but GT is giving up lots of points and big plays because TQM just can't throw the ball. He really does look like a DB or RB throwing it. Like when you call a fake punt or some kind of a trick play that requires a WR or RB to throw it. Thats what he looks like.

They need a guy who can throw the ball.. Even on the big pass play yesterday that Camp dropped, he underthrew it badly and it should have been a TD.

Address the passing capability and improve the defense and next year is back on track.

 

[ATL1]

Isn't that Yates' coach? I like Yates a lot and I think he can be a good dual threat guy. However, GT is one of the only P5 offenses he would have a shot at playing QB in. It's also not real likely that he would play QB in any system that doesn't ask a QB to run a good bit. I could be wrong (hopefully so), but he doesn't look like he will ever be a great pure passer, but looks more like the type that will be quite good passing by creating chaos with his legs.

Yates is a really good passer.

 

[Vespidae]

I'm going by the Forbes list of the top 25 STEM-centric schools, which not only includes engineering, but science, technology, and math as well. We are the only one listed that is in a power 5 conference. Most of the schools on the list you cite have a much broader curriculum than Georgia Tech, and the few that don't have no football team at all.

I'm not making the "we can't do better because we are such a good school" argument. I'm trying to show how we CAN do much better, precisely USING the fact that we are such a good school to our advantage by recruiting NATIONALLY.

Stanford and ND both recruit nationally.

 

[bobongo]

Stanford and ND both recruit nationally.

Exactly. Why we don't do the same is beyond me.

 

[alentrekin]

Lifelong sidewalk fan whose family graduated. If tech could add new legitimate degree programs, then sure. MIT has a pretty good anthropology department, but you still have to take calculus to graduate. The thought of making a school that intentionally provides less opportunities for athletes so they can produce more wins makes me want to vomit.

There are kids who can pass calculus and play football. We should push BOR to level up the opportunities for folks to advance, not fantasizing about UNC style blacktracking.

 

[THWG]

Lifelong sidewalk fan whose family graduated. If tech could add new legitimate degree programs, then sure. MIT has a pretty good anthropology department, but you still have to take calculus to graduate. The thought of making a school that intentionally provides less opportunities for athletes so they can produce more wins makes me want to vomit.

There are kids who can pass calculus and play football. We should push BOR to level up the opportunities for folks to advance, not fantasizing about UNC style blacktracking.

I honestly believe that the calculus requirement doesn't hurt us that much and It's just the lack of majors. If the BOR would allow Tech to add education majors for STEM subjects then I think that we would see more higher rated recruits willing to come in.

 

[OldJacketFan]

Stanford and ND both recruit nationally.

And have 3 to 4 times the numbers of majors than Tech. Don't get me wrong, Tech should recruit nationally but it's not the panacea some would have you think it is

 

[Vespidae]

And have 3 to 4 times the numbers of majors than Tech. Don't get me wrong, Tech should recruit nationally but it's not the panacea some would have you think it is

There is no correlation between the number of majors and execution. Tennessee has far more majors than Tech and ran their own program into the ground.

We can recruit smart kids who play ball. Can we develop them and get them to execute? No.

 

[stech81]

Yates is a really good passer.

I saw a 6 month old throw his pacifier 10 yards at the store today, but I didn't get his name and I not sure that it wasn't a girl but it was a nice throw.

 

[OldJacketFan]

There is no correlation between the number of majors and execution. Tennessee has far more majors than Tech and ran their own program into the ground.

We can recruit smart kids who play ball. Can we develop them and get them to execute? No.

It damn sure has to do whether or not a SA wants to come to a school. There are a number of intelligent SAs out there but if you don't offer a degree program that interest them why would they come to your school?

 

[Vespidae]

It damn sure has to do whether or not a SA wants to come to a school. There are a number of intelligent SAs out there but if you don't offer a degree program that interest them why would they come to your school?

Georgia Tech is an “Institute” .... it is not and never has been a land grant university. Fundamentally changing the mission of the school is heretical only to win football games.

Having said that, there are dozens of land grant uni’s that have the athletes and still suck.

We must recruit 3/4’s and develop them. Just like 100 other schools. But we don’t.

 

[awbuzz]

I saw a 6 month old throw his pacifier 10 yards at the store today, but I didn't get his name and I not sure that it wasn't a girl but it was a nice throw.

Don't care if it is a "she" or not. If she can take the hits, make good decisions run and throw, let's offer a scholly now so the parents can make sure she takes the right classes in the future!