Horrible Record

cyptomcat

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
866
Paul has to start going .500 against the big four in my opinion to keep his job. We all know Gailey couldn't win the big one but he beat Miami and Clemson on a regular basis. There was a stretch where we owned Clemson and beat Miami at least four in a row. We've always had trouble with VT no matter the coach but to me they seem like the one team we should compete with because there recruiting isn't that impressive.
Yeah Gailey did good against Miami and Clemson, but those teams were under different coaching, and they got fired for a reason.

A fair comparison would be pairing opponent coach and opponent, and then comparing records. For example records vs. Miami with Shannon, Clemson with Bowden, FSU with Bowden, Wake with Grobe etc.
 

DTGT

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
530
Imagine if you were a fan of VPI, Miami, Climpsin, or u[sic]ga. With their recruiting advantages over GT, what would you expect? Now ask the same question as a fan of UNC or UVA or Pitt.

It seems to me that we only have a baseline (instituion without reference to coaching staff) recruiting advantage over Duke and WF in the ACC. Yet, we've been competitive. In the last 6 years, only FSU, CU, and VPI have won more games. Georgie slaughters us in recruiting every year, and yet we've played them close most years.

We should absolutely not be satisfied with our final records over the last few years, but we should also have some perspective about how we got there. I would only think about changing coaches if I felt that the coach himself (a) was satisfied with average final results or (b) there was no evidence that the coach brought something to the table to get better results. At this point, CPJ passes both those tests while Chan did not, imo.
I agree with AE 87. CPJ consistently does more (wins) than he is expected to based purely on recruiting rankings. This is not to say our talent level is necessarily less than others, merely that the national media perceives it to be less.

Until we get a coach that can get us into the playoffs several years in a row and do well there, recruiting will be harder here than most other ACC schools. Based on who we are, I think our odds of that happening are higher with CPJ than with Nick Saban (he would struggle mightily here). Be a regular in the playoffs and it will rain 4 star players and the occasional 5 star.

1. CPJ's scheme can negate some talent differentials.
2. Negated talent differentials result in higher odds of getting to the playoffs and winning on a national stage.
3. Getting to the playoffs and winning on a national stage improves recruiting.
4. Improved recruiting improves our base level talent and top end talent.
5. Improved base level talent improves depth.
6. Improved depth and top end talent reduces the talent differential or flips the differential in our favor.
7. An improved talent differential combined with CPJ's scheme results in higher odds of winning again on a national stage.
 

alaguy

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,117
It is hard to beat good teams with inferior talent.Generally we have been recruiting in the 50s of rankings for several yrs.Now those admittedly are not absolutes but in general it tells us where we stand.
for ex--then look at the '13 class itself has been decimated.Recruiting decisions have hurt us.
To me, the fact that we have SIX Sr running backs ---with basically 3 DTs and 2 DEs says a whole lot.
 

forensicbuzz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,919
Location
North Shore, Chicago
People need to stop touting the recruiting rankings. They're for crap. They're not a gauge of talent on your team or how well you're recruiting. You can talk about individuals, to an extent, but to say we're less talented because we're in the 50's is bull. There's potentially more talent on a team ranked #55 with 16 3* recruits than the #32 team with 26 2*/3* recruits. The "rankings" are not a measure of our talent.
 

GTonTop88

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,013
Location
Gibson, GA
We have to have an offense scheme advantage like we do now. If we ran a pro style offense we might get a few decent recruits here and there, but teams would be prepared for us cause they see it on a daily basis. Then we would go up against the likes of UGA and VT with the same offense(that they practice against everyday) and dramatically less talent then expect to win. Haha
 

forensicbuzz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,919
Location
North Shore, Chicago
All this being said, I'm tired of reading people write "we have less talent" or "our defense doesn't have enough talent to compete." That bull. We have tremendously gifted athletes on the defense. I don't buy our lack of talent. I buy lack of execution, lack of coaching, lack of effort, but NOT lack of talent.
 

forensicbuzz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,919
Location
North Shore, Chicago
I think the scheme gives an advantage on offense. Going against the big boys, it's not about front-line talent. It never has been. The reason we've had difficulty in the past with the big boys is that their depth is to us like ours is to Georgia Southern. Our 1st string can compete with their 1's, but our 2's get blown away by their 2's. It's about finding enough kids that can (AND WANT TO) be successful at Tech to fill an 85-man roster. That's always been the most difficult part to Tech. We can get the 1st string guys to come with the promise of early playing time, but we can't consistently get that level of player to come to Tech and wait 2-3 years to see significant playing time. They can do that at another school that doesn't slam them academically.
 
Messages
2,077
The record of CPJ against the 4 main rivals of Tech will be the reason why I think he will ultimately get fired. If he doesn't start winning against Miami, VT, Clemson and UGA, or I should say if we go 0-4 against those guys this year, I think its going to be very uncomfortable around the office down on the flats.

why isn't it uncomfortable now? Why does he have to 0-4 (again) to make it uncomfortable?
 
Messages
2,077
Paul has to start going .500 against the big four in my opinion to keep his job. We all know Gailey couldn't win the big one but he beat Miami and Clemson on a regular basis. There was a stretch where we owned Clemson and beat Miami at least four in a row. We've always had trouble with VT no matter the coach but to me they seem like the one team we should compete with because there recruiting isn't that impressive.

Gailey had the advantage of playing Tommy Bowden Clemson. But Paul Johnson had Randy Shannon Miami and beat him once.
 

Oldgoldandwhite

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,981
The big 4 always has the Jimmy's and Joes. When they get a good coach, it is even tougher to beat them. Imagine if we had to go against Les Myles, Nick Saban, Steve Spurrier, and their like every year at Miami, VT, and Clemson? If Spurrier had the dawg talent, he would have several more NC's to his resume.
 

AE 87

Helluva Engineer
Messages
12,967
To me, the fact that we have SIX Sr running backs ---with basically 3 DTs and 2 DEs says a whole lot.

I'm not sure where/how you got to SIX Srs at RB.

We have 4 RS Srs at AB and 1 true Sr at BB who were recruited as scholarship guys. Of those 4 RS Srs at AB, 1 was recruited as a QB and 1 as a BB. So, I'm not sure those numbers are that out of whack.

You're right that we're light at DL numbers but two points mollify how badly that hit recruiting decision: (1) up until last year we were only recruiting for 3 DL, and (2) that's also where we've been hit with unforeseen injuries and attrition.
 

danny daniel

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,102
I'm not sure where/how you got to SIX Srs at RB.

We have 4 RS Srs at AB and 1 true Sr at BB who were recruited as scholarship guys. Of those 4 RS Srs at AB, 1 was recruited as a QB and 1 as a BB. So, I'm not sure those numbers are that out of whack.

You're right that we're light at DL numbers but two points mollify how badly that hit recruiting decision: (1) up until last year we were only recruiting for 3 DL, and (2) that's also where we've been hit with unforeseen injuries and attrition.
I think you left out Days. There are 6 senior RBs.
 

AE 87

Helluva Engineer
Messages
12,967
I think you left out Days. There are 6 senior RBs.

Thanks, yeah I counted him as former QB but didn't get him counted correctly because I skipped him as an AB and didn't get him as a BB.

BB. Sr. Laskey (BB)
BB. RS Sr. Synjyn (QB)
AB. RS Sr Perkins (BB)
AB. RS Sr Zenon (AB)
AB. RS Sr Hill (AB)
AB. RS Sr Bostic (AB)
 

alaguy

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,117
I'm not sure where/how you got to SIX Srs at RB.

We have 4 RS Srs at AB and 1 true Sr at BB who were recruited as scholarship guys. Of those 4 RS Srs at AB, 1 was recruited as a QB and 1 as a BB. So, I'm not sure those numbers are that out of whack.

You're right that we're light at DL numbers but two points mollify how badly that hit recruiting decision: (1) up until last year we were only recruiting for 3 DL, and (2) that's also where we've been hit with unforeseen injuries and attrition.

Laskey,Days,Zenon,Perkins,Hill,Bostic --are all SR running backs--looks like 6 to me - btw:pJ is always saying a QB can be changed to a running back-- they have been pretty average about like Golden is as a Safety
my point is it seemed at the time(around 3-4 yrs ago ) and it turned out so--we just added a running back on the tail-end of recruiting instead of a DL- just like last yr we added the Lynch guy saying we "don't need anymore DLs"-- gee, how did that turn out?
 

GTNavyNuke

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
7,576
Location
Poquoson Virginia
You people are crazy. You act like Georgia Tech Football was so great before Paul Johnson. Be careful what you wish for. Paul Johnson has been more successful at Tech than any other coach during his tenure besides Bobby Dodd. You guys act like we owned the big 4 before Johnson got here. Johnson has highest winning percentage of any coach at Tech over his tenure.

http://gtswarm.com/threads/70-years-of-gt-football-–-comparing-teams-under-different-coaches.2501/

I think O'Leary was better. But I agree with your general point.
 

GTNavyNuke

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
7,576
Location
Poquoson Virginia
People need to stop touting the recruiting rankings. They're for crap. They're not a gauge of talent on your team or how well you're recruiting. You can talk about individuals, to an extent, but to say we're less talented because we're in the 50's is bull. There's potentially more talent on a team ranked #55 with 16 3* recruits than the #32 team with 26 2*/3* recruits. The "rankings" are not a measure of our talent.

Forensic, let's take this up in the off season like we always do. Recruiting rankings (averaged over a 4 year period) correlate about 40% with team performance measured by end of year power rankings. Having a lot more recruits helps too to increase the number of players who pan out since there is so much development between Jr/Sr year in HS and college.

But going to the next step, I think that we are doing better in recruiting and this year we will see the best class under CPJ. And that class will help a lot 2 to 4 years from now.
 

GT Man

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
898
1. Beat the beatable teams that are considered "good" like duh u and the turkeys.
2. Win coastal on regular basis
3. Get better press
4. Get better recruits
5. Rinse and repeat

We are on track. Step 1 starts tomorrow at noon.
 

forensicbuzz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,919
Location
North Shore, Chicago
Forensic, let's take this up in the off season like we always do. Recruiting rankings (averaged over a 4 year period) correlate about 40% with team performance measured by end of year power rankings. Having a lot more recruits helps too to increase the number of players who pan out since there is so much development between Jr/Sr year in HS and college.

But going to the next step, I think that we are doing better in recruiting and this year we will see the best class under CPJ. And that class will help a lot 2 to 4 years from now.
I understand what you're saying, and I agree about taking this to the off-season, but I'm tired of reading about how we have such a dearth of talent, especially on defense. I think we have about as much talent as usual, people need to stop. We're putting the same number of kids in the pros as before and we're graduating more than ever. My opinion, and this especially applies to the defensive side of the ball, is that we've had piss-poor coaching for a while now. When Charles Kelly was here, our DB's were pretty stout. Wommack's last year those guys were getting after it. Then CAG came in and made the defense too complicated for the guys to "play" and we got tentative. Now, I think we are woefully lacking in DB coaching. The safeties take horrible angles, the coverage skills aren't what they should be. These guys are as talented or more talented than the guys we had in the backfield 5 years ago (sans one MB), they just don't play well. I don't know how big a recruiter Coach Speed is, but I'm not impressed with how prepared the DB's are. I'm not close enough to the program to know who has responsibility for what, but whoever is teaching these DB's needs to take a serious look in the mirror.
 

GTNavyNuke

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
7,576
Location
Poquoson Virginia
Got it. I agree that taking bad angles and no playing your position aren't "talent" of size/speed/strength. It's more between the ears and coaching.

We have 6 players on the D 2 deep who are Fr or RFr. But all the backfield is starting all Jr/Sr except maybe WILL where it's (Davis)So or Marcordes (rJr).

So our players are experienced and the coaches are the same as last year. I don't know what's changed except for the Sr we lost last year. But looking back, we were 85th in passing D last year. So that supports your point........ to be continued ....... let's hope we start showing some growth against VT today on D.
 
Top