I have not seen any hype videos from any of the assistant coaches lately ...

[pbrown520]

I have actually taken time away from this board due to how nasty and illogical people have gotten. I don't understand why nobody realizes that this is a huge transition and we are not going to win much. Deal with it.

Its crazy that there is a collection of well educated men (and women) who have nothing more to do than snipe and ***** about truly insignificant things in YEAR 0 of a rebuild unlike any other in FBS football in recent memory.

Please grow up!

Not sure why the staff and the fans keep saying this. At the very worst, you cannot convince me that taking over the GT program is any worse than rebuilding say Cal or Arkansas will be or pick any other program where there is a team that's not performing well (say consistently winning 8 or 9 games). Remember Syracuse before Babers or even better before Marrone? How about Louisville after Kragthorpe? GT has not been a cellar dweller team like some make out.

Now, is it going to take time, sure. Is it like trying to rebuild Marshall after that tragedy or like SMU after the death penalty - no. "Rebuilding" a program that is like GT currently is has happened many times in recent college football.

 

[BleedGoldNWhite21]

The hugest transition of all time!

Careful. This may get deleted. Apparently harmless jokes count as “trolling” to the mods. It sucks we can’t lighten the mood with harmless ribbing, due to the sensitive crowd. We’re 1-5. Self-deprecating humor makes 1-5 a bit more fun. It’s not “disrespecting” the staff or whatever.

 

[RickStromFan]

Not sure why the staff and the fans keep saying this. At the very worst, you cannot convince me that taking over the GT program is any worse than rebuilding say Cal or Arkansas will be or pick any other program where there is a team that's not performing well (say consistently winning 8 or 9 games). Remember Syracuse before Babers or even better before Marrone? How about Louisville after Kragthorpe? GT has not been a cellar dweller team like some make out.

Now, is it going to take time, sure. Is it like trying to rebuild Marshall after that tragedy or like SMU after the death penalty - no. "Rebuilding" a program that is like GT currently is has happened many times in recent college football.

Converting a small'ish team with a run-heavy option offense to something that involves more passing and stand-up blocking actually has NOT happened many times in recent college football.

 

[RickStromFan]

Careful. This may get deleted. Apparently harmless jokes count as “trolling” to the mods. It sucks we can’t lighten the mood with harmless ribbing, due to the sensitive crowd. We’re 1-5. Self-deprecating humor makes 1-5 a bit more fun. It’s not “disrespecting” the staff or whatever.

I hope it doesn't get deleted. The sensitivity is everywhere though.

 

[pbrown520]

Converting a small'ish team with a run-heavy option offense to something that involves more passing and stand-up blocking actually has NOT happened many times in recent college football.

Who cares what offense you come from. It doesn't really matter if you have to turn the roster over to fit the new scheme. The exact type of transition may be different, but the scope of it isn't - and that's what actually matters. Unless of course you think that GT now is worse than some of the other programs from an overall talent perspective. I don't think we are. There are a few areas of dire need, but we don't have a roster that's bereft of talent top to bottom like some other programs that have seen a recent rebuild.

For that matter, the exact phrasing was unlike any other. Really? I would say there are more similarities than dissimilarities to some of the others.

 

[BleedGoldNWhite21]

I hope it doesn't get deleted. The sensitivity is everywhere though.

It goes both ways, yes, I agree.

 

[bikeseat]

The hugest transition of all time!

OK, I will bite. Find me another P5 transition between coaches that is this extreme.

 

[bikeseat]

Not sure why the staff and the fans keep saying this. At the very worst, you cannot convince me that taking over the GT program is any worse than rebuilding say Cal or Arkansas will be or pick any other program where there is a team that's not performing well (say consistently winning 8 or 9 games). Remember Syracuse before Babers or even better before Marrone? How about Louisville after Kragthorpe? GT has not been a cellar dweller team like some make out.

Now, is it going to take time, sure. Is it like trying to rebuild Marshall after that tragedy or like SMU after the death penalty - no. "Rebuilding" a program that is like GT currently is has happened many times in recent college football.

Since it has happened many times, please show me examples of a P5 team moving from the 3O to a more conventional offense. As we are all engineer's here, I prefer to work with actual hard facts rather than feelings. Please show me some examples and I will cede your point

 

[Madison Grant]

So, all the hype videos are nothing?

OK.

And the option will never again darken the doors of Georgia Tech football. OK.

 

[bke1984]

It’s a big transition for sure. Going into the season I rationally thought the ceiling was around 6 games and the floor was 2. 4-5 would be ok. I don’t think we’re going to get there, and it’s not unrealistic that we could end up 1-11. Injuries have contributed, but I can’t let go of the fear that our staff doesn’t know how to maximize what they have. It’s a moot point, but there’s one or two other coaches I’m sure would have 3 wins right now. I don’t say this to say that we hired the wrong guy, but more so to stress that I think this staff isn’t getting the most out of the team right now.

 

[BonafideJacket]

Since it has happened many times, please show me examples of a P5 team moving from the 3O to a more conventional offense. As we are all engineer's here, I prefer to work with actual hard facts rather than feelings. Please show me some examples and I will cede your point

Presented without comment, here's a non-exhaustive list of teams that have done it in the modern era along with their records the last year of the option and first year without:

Alabama - 8-4 --> 8-4

Oklahoma - 9-3 --> 7-4

Nebraska - 10-3 --> 5-6

Arkansas - 10-2 --> 3-8

Notre Dame - 8-3 --> 7-6

I'm sure there are others considering how predominant the offense was at one point in time, but those are the ones I could remember off the top of my head when I chased this down a couple of weeks ago.

 

[smokey_wasp]

Presented without comment, here's a non-exhaustive list of teams that have done it in the modern era along with their records the last year of the option and first year without:

Alabama - 8-4 --> 8-4

Oklahoma - 9-3 --> 7-4

Nebraska - 10-3 --> 5-6

Arkansas - 10-2 --> 3-8

Notre Dame - 8-3 --> 7-6

I'm sure there are others considering how predominant the offense was at one point in time, but those are the ones I could remember off the top of my head when I chased this down a couple of weeks ago.

What years were these? 1980's?

 

[BonafideJacket]

What years were these? 1980's?

Varies between 1980s and 2000s:

Alabama - 8-4 --> 8-4 - 1983

Oklahoma - 9-3 --> 7-4 - 1989

Nebraska - 10-3 --> 5-6 - 2004

Arkansas - 10-2 --> 3-8 - 1989

Notre Dame - 8-3 --> 7-6 - 1997

I also vaguely remember Syracuse running the option under Pasqualoni in the early 2000s but could be misremembering.

 

[bobongo]

Who cares what offense you come from. It doesn't really matter if you have to turn the roster over to fit the new scheme. The exact type of transition may be different, but the scope of it isn't - and that's what actually matters. Unless of course you think that GT now is worse than some of the other programs from an overall talent perspective. I don't think we are. There are a few areas of dire need, but we don't have a roster that's bereft of talent top to bottom like some other programs that have seen a recent rebuild.

For that matter, the exact phrasing was unlike any other. Really? I would say there are more similarities than dissimilarities to some of the others.

It's not a one-size-fits-all transition.

Elsewhere on the team we have a decent amount of talent, but where it matters most - in the trenches - we do not. And that's what actually matters most, in fact it's paramount. You can have the "skilled" position players on offense but if you are weak, and I mean really weak, up front, you are not going to move the football with any consistency and you are going to have a lot of trouble winning games. Couple that with like deficiencies on the defensive line and you're really in trouble. You can compensate for problems elsewhere on the team, even QB, but not on the lines. If you have weak lines you are in the soup and you aren't getting out of it until you fix that, and that applies whether you're Nick Saban or Butch Jones. Period. Selah.

 

[bikeseat]

Varies between 1980s and 2000s:

Alabama - 8-4 --> 8-4 - 1983

Oklahoma - 9-3 --> 7-4 - 1989

Nebraska - 10-3 --> 5-6 - 2004

Arkansas - 10-2 --> 3-8 - 1989

Notre Dame - 8-3 --> 7-6 - 1997

I also vaguely remember Syracuse running the option under Pasqualoni in the early 2000s but could be misremembering.

Are there any modern examples?

 

[TheSilasSonRising]

CPJ knows about football.

There is a reason he retired when he did.

 

[BonafideJacket]

Are there any modern examples?

Probably a matter of perspective, but all of these examples are from the modern era. I.e. the on-field rules are largely the same, post scholarship limits, two platoon system, influence of television, etc. While true historians view the modern era as post-1936 (introduction of the AP Poll), the general consensus among most fans is that the modern era is defined as either a) the start of the two platoon system in the 1960s or b) introduction of scholarship limits and division I subdivisions in the early 1970s. Some folks argue it should be a bit a later, early 1980s when TV's influence really took off. Either way all of these examples are recent enough to be applicable. Football has changed some of course but by and large it's the same game.

Curious what you would define as modern? Is there some cardinal event that noted the start of that era? For instance, I've heard people say the 2005 Rose Bowl as the start of the offensive explosion we are currently in. I don't necessarily agree as that has been a slow evolution of style and not necessarily structure.

ETA: I could see a truly new era dawning soon due to the influence of safety concerns. We are gradually working our way there, but dramatic changes to the rules would not be surprising within the next decade.

 

[GTjunkie]

The hugest transition of all time!

Yeah, I thought Jack Lengyel had a pretty monumental transition, but boy was I wrong.

 

[RickStromFan]

Who cares what offense you come from. It doesn't really matter if you have to turn the roster over to fit the new scheme. The exact type of transition may be different, but the scope of it isn't - and that's what actually matters. Unless of course you think that GT now is worse than some of the other programs from an overall talent perspective. I don't think we are. There are a few areas of dire need, but we don't have a roster that's bereft of talent top to bottom like some other programs that have seen a recent rebuild.

For that matter, the exact phrasing was unlike any other. Really? I would say there are more similarities than dissimilarities to some of the others.

We're just simply going to be in polite disagreement (as well as with the others who've Liked my opinion). The "few areas of dire need" (OL and DL) have such a massive effect on the entirety of the offensive and defensive scheme changes that...if you don't see that, it's honestly not worth discussing.

The rest of our non-OL talent are guys with zero in-game experience (Graham and the completely-ignored WR Corps and Jordan Mason). They're performing well and getting better each week but were literally rookies with ZERO experience coming into this season. The D secondary talent is doing well for the most part - it's a good group of talented kids already in place that aren't undersized and/or learning entirely new schemes. If anything, Thack has taken the Coach Woody reins off and let the kids play. Thack's done a much better job with fundamentals than Woody was doing.

 

[bikeseat]

Probably a matter of perspective, but all of these examples are from the modern era. I.e. the on-field rules are largely the same, post scholarship limits, two platoon system, influence of television, etc. While true historians view the modern era as post-1936 (introduction of the AP Poll), the general consensus among most fans is that the modern era is defined as either a) the start of the two platoon system in the 1960s or b) introduction of scholarship limits and division I subdivisions in the early 1970s. Some folks argue it should be a bit a later, early 1980s when TV's influence really took off. Either way all of these examples are recent enough to be applicable. Football has changed some of course but by and large it's the same game.

Curious what you would define as modern? Is there some cardinal event that noted the start of that era? For instance, I've heard people say the 2005 Rose Bowl as the start of the offensive explosion we are currently in. I don't necessarily agree as that has been a slow evolution of style and not necessarily structure.

ETA: I could see a truly new era dawning soon due to the influence of safety concerns. We are gradually working our way there, but dramatic changes to the rules would not be surprising within the next decade.

Call me young but the difference between CFB in 2010 and 2019 is larger than 2010 and 1990. The levels of investment and funding & facilities arms races is another world.