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

[pbrown520]

Repeating the same thing while ignoring the massive deficiencies on our OL and DL BECAUSE of playing in the Option offense doesn't make your point correct.



Not sure where this "Year 3" belief suddenly came into play and why you lump me into a 5-year category???? I agree that we absolutely should start seeing results by year 3 and that it may mean trouble if not (unless we have another 2015'ish year like this one).

Your continued refusal to acknowledge our OL & DL shortcomings that are solely due to playing an option scheme for 11 years continues to undercut your argument that "It doesn't have anything to do with it."

Our OL and DL deficiencies for a conventional offense are absolutely due to the offense (really more the OL only - I think DL is really a function of tragedy more than anything else).

But even so, how is having an OL/DL that is deficient due to running the option any different than one that is deficient to other roster mismanagement or just lower than peer level recruiting? Answer is effectively it isn't. That is my point and it's absolutely correct. The only thing you're arguing about is how ****ty the results can be in year 1&2 and you want to heal it all on the option system. Fine - I don't much care. I'm just saying that it's not as monumental as you and the coaching staff like to make out - and you both constantly saying doesn't make it true.

You are also completely missing the point. Transitioning from the option doesn't make the transition monumental - it makes it unique. It's not any more difficult (at worst) to transition from the option as it would be to transition a cellar dweller team.

 

[RickStromFan]

Our OL and DL deficiencies for a conventional offense are absolutely due to the offense (really more the OL only - I think DL is really a function of tragedy more than anything else).

But even so, how is having an OL/DL that is deficient due to running the option any different than one that is deficient to other roster mismanagement or just lower than peer level recruiting? Answer is effectively it isn't. That is my point and it's absolutely correct. The only thing you're arguing about is how ****ty the results can be in year 1&2 and you want to heal it all on the option system. Fine - I don't much care. I'm just saying that it's not as monumental as you and the coaching staff like to make out - and you both constantly saying doesn't make it true.

You are also completely missing the point. Transitioning from the option doesn't make the transition monumental - it makes it unique. It's not any more difficult (at worst) to transition from the option as it would be to transition a cellar dweller team.

Again, not sure why you put words into my mouth. I've not said anything about how ****ty the results can be in ANY year. I've only pointed out that our biggest problem in this transition is our OL, which is due to the system we previously played in.

Year 2? Again, not sure where that's coming from. Please point out where I've remotely attempted to assign any blame for 2020 on anything. Heck, just point out where I've even referenced Year 2 (much less year 3 or year 5 )

Look, I get it - you don't like this coach and you're not happy with the results. I don't think anyone's pleased with the results.

But this OL is undersized and inexperienced, due to both the Option scheme and an avalanche of injuries, forcing us to play LITERAL WALK-ONs. Do you really think playing WALK ONs in the OL is just no big deal? I certainly agree that the 2019 injuries to the starting OLmen can't be blamed on the previous coach nor scheme. But the staggering lack of depth due to poor recruiting sure as hell can be.

Our skill guys are complete rookies. Anyone thinking these kids who spent a year or 2 red-shirting in an option scheme with ZERO in-game experience were just going to make a smooth transition to a 100%-different offensive scheme AND still with ZERO in-game experience is naive, to put it as politely as possible.

 

[bobongo]

Our OL and DL deficiencies for a conventional offense are absolutely due to the offense .

So it has nothing to do with losing starters Cooper, Lee, Braun, and Marshall and replacing them with a Vanderbilt backup? Good grief. That's just being downright intellectually dishonest.

 

[RickStromFan]

Well-said. I wish the perpetually disgruntled fans who were set on keeping the option offense and hiring Monken or Bohannon or Fritz would just take a season off. Make yourselves happy and go cheer for Army for a year. It's making the Tech message boards extremely toxic.

the refusal to acknowledge the deleterious effects of having to play walk-on OL due to injuries & lack of depth due to poor recruiting is just disingenuous.

Even PJ's scheme would've had major issues trotting out our current OL. Anyone who disagrees is willfully forgetting 2015.

Thankfully, service academy ball is gone and not coming back.

 

[pbrown520]

Again, not sure why you put words into my mouth. I've not said anything about how ****ty the results can be in ANY year. I've only pointed out that our biggest problem in this transition is our OL, which is due to the system we previously played in.

Year 2? Again, not sure where that's coming from. Please point out where I've remotely attempted to assign any blame for 2020 on anything. Heck, just point out where I've even referenced Year 2 (much less year 3 or year 5 )

Look, I get it - you don't like this coach and you're not happy with the results. I don't think anyone's pleased with the results.

But this OL is undersized and inexperienced, due to both the Option scheme and an avalanche of injuries, forcing us to play LITERAL WALK-ONs. Do you really think playing WALK ONs in the OL is just no big deal? I certainly agree that the 2019 injuries to the starting OLmen can't be blamed on the previous coach nor scheme. But the staggering lack of depth due to poor recruiting sure as hell can be.

Our skill guys are complete rookies. Anyone thinking these kids who spent a year or 2 red-shirting in an option scheme with ZERO in-game experience were just going to make a smooth transition to a 100%-different offensive scheme AND still with ZERO in-game experience is naive, to put it as politely as possible.

Haha, you're putting words "in my mouth" as much or more. My original point is that the transition isn't any more "monumental" in any significant way than many other coaching transitions. When did I say it was going to be "smooth"?

 

[pbrown520]

So it has nothing to do with losing starters Cooper, Lee, Braun, and Marshall and replacing them with a Vanderbilt backup? Good grief. That's just being downright intellectually dishonest.

Of course that matters, but I am willing to concede that talented option OL could struggle in a new system, particularly early.

 

[pbrown520]

the refusal to acknowledge the deleterious effects of having to play walk-on OL due to injuries & lack of depth due to poor recruiting is just disingenuous.

Even PJ's scheme would've had major issues trotting out our current OL. Anyone who disagrees is willfully forgetting 2015.

Thankfully, service academy ball is gone and not coming back.

So now part of the problem is injuries. Is it safe to say that would apply during any transition and not just confined to one coming from an option offense? Deleterious? Haha

 

[RickStromFan]

Haha, you're putting words "in my mouth" as much or more. My original point is that the transition isn't any more "monumental" in any significant way than many other coaching transitions. When did I say it was going to be "smooth"?

you said it shouldn't be that difficult and isn't a monumental task, all evidence to the contrary.

Your original point is incorrect for reasons already listed.

 

[RickStromFan]

So now part of the problem is injuries. Is it safe to say that would apply during any transition and not just confined to one coming from an option offense? Deleterious? Haha

Nice job ignoring the part about "the previous scheme's lack of recruiting resulted in almost no depth on the OL, thus why we are having to start Walk Ons".

I guess the fact that you are finally admitting serious issues on the OL (you do consider having to play Walk Ons in game 4 to be a bit of a problem, right?) is a step in the right direction.

 

[jgtengineer]

Sorry but Coach Woody's defense stunk in the first and last games last year. His defense was terrible at tackling, terrible at angles-to-ball-carriers, terribly stupid soft pass coverage, etc. This is based on observation of an entire season.

Thack's D has taken a step backwards (or more likely, the competition has taken 3 steps forward of Temple and Citadel) but we still are fundamentally more sound at this point under year 1 of Thack than after the Detroit Debacle of Coach Woody. We aren't missing so many open-field tackles, not as much arm tackling, better angles taken to ball carriers, and no more dumb 10-yds-off-LOS pass coverage.

Part of this has to do with the assistant coaches. Right now we have upgrades at every position coach on defense. and maybe an upgrade at DL jury is still out on coleman. The guys seem to be making the ride hand moves but he may not have the best eye for talent yet as he's new at coaching.

 

[white coffey]

the refusal to acknowledge the deleterious effects of having to play walk-on OL due to injuries & lack of depth due to poor recruiting is just disingenuous.

You do realize that there is not a significant difference between walk-ons and scholarship players at the D1 level? Especially at GT. Teams are still limited on their rosters, and coaches aren't going to waste a spot on someone who can't play. Many of our walk-ons come to GT because of the education and give up very lucrative scholarship offers at other schools, and many of them don't even pursue scholarship offers at other schools because they want the particular education that GT offers. They also bust their butts EVERY DAY, and they certainly don't need anyone on this board minimizing their contributions to this football team. If GT wants to turn its back on the walk-on program, heaven help us all!!! Some of you think getting "better players" is going to be easy for GT. It's not. So instead of tearing down players, I will simply say ... thank you Will Lay and all of our hard working walk-ons!!

 

[JacketOff]

You do realize that there is not a significant difference between walk-ons and scholarship players at the D1 level? Especially at GT. Teams are still limited on their rosters, and coaches aren't going to waste a spot on someone who can't play. Many of our walk-ons come to GT because of the education and give up very lucrative scholarship offers at other schools, and many of them don't even pursue scholarship offers at other schools because they want the particular education that GT offers. They also bust their butts EVERY DAY, and they certainly don't need anyone on this board minimizing their contributions to this football team. If GT wants to turn its back on the walk-on program, heaven help us all!!! Some of you think getting "better players" is going to be easy for GT. It's not. So instead of tearing down players, I will simply say ... thank you Will Lay and all of our hard working walk-ons!!

While there is no denying that walk ons bust their a** day in and day our just like all the other players, maybe even more so, it’s just simply not true that most walk ons are close to being as talented as scholarship guys. It’s just the way the system works. It’s also not true that a lot of Tech’s walk ons are turning down “lucrative scholarship offers” to play ball at GT. Heck, some of our scholarship players don’t even have any other P5 offers besides GT, much less walk ons.

It probably is true that a lot of walk ons choose GT because of the education, but they also know that playing opportunities will be few and far between. Most walk ons aren’t expected to get any playing time, much less starting and playing significant minutes like we currently have. Just think about it logistically. 85 scholarships is basically 4 deep on both sides of the ball. If you’ve recruited well and have had good luck with attrition and injuries, you really wouldn’t ever need to play a walk on, unless of course they earn their spot and beat out a scholarship guy (see Baker Mayfield and Hunter Renfroe).

It’s tough that walk ons kind of get s*** on across this board, but it’s what they signed up to do. Most of them will graduate with a GT degree and be set up for life and become great Tech men. They just don’t happen to be great Tech football players.

 

[DeepSnap]

While there is no denying that walk ons bust their a** day in and day our just like all the other players, maybe even more so, it’s just simply not true that most walk ons are close to being as talented as scholarship guys. It’s just the way the system works. It’s also not true that a lot of Tech’s walk ons are turning down “lucrative scholarship offers” to play ball at GT. Heck, some of our scholarship players don’t even have any other P5 offers besides GT, much less walk ons.

It probably is true that a lot of walk ons choose GT because of the education, but they also know that playing opportunities will be few and far between. Most walk ons aren’t expected to get any playing time, much less starting and playing significant minutes like we currently have. Just think about it logistically. 85 scholarships is basically 4 deep on both sides of the ball. If you’ve recruited well and have had good luck with attrition and injuries, you really wouldn’t ever need to play a walk on, unless of course they earn their spot and beat out a scholarship guy (see Baker Mayfield and Hunter Renfroe).

It’s tough that walk ons kind of get s*** on across this board, but it’s what they signed up to do. Most of them will graduate with a GT degree and be set up for life and become great Tech men. They just don’t happen to be great Tech football players.

JO, you nailed it.

As a former walk-on who played & then coached Frog walkons, even back in the dark ages there were/are always talent differences between the PWOs & the schollys. It may be size, strength, speed, quickness, or any of a number of other things, but most just want to get a great education and have a chance of running out behind the Reck in front of a crowd at BDS. If you get to play, great, but you know what you're "signing" up to do & be. The Baker Mayfields, Hunter Renfroes, Sean Bedfords, and John Ivemeyers are the 1/10th of 1% of all walkons who make it. It's not denigrating to the walkons, but rather a statement of reality.

But if you're counting on walkons to be your safety net, you are in deep kimchi. See 2015 when we had a ton of injuries and had true freshmen & walkons seeing significant snaps en route to a lucky 3-9. Same for 1968. The old Nebraska teams prided themselves on the use of walkons, but it was usually special teams, IIRC. And if it weren't for being a specialist as a DeepSnapper, I would never have even been on the Dress List for a game.

Personal example: In 1969, Andy Mayton, Pete Cordrey et al Cs were hurt leading up to us playing Tulane down in the old Sugar Bowl in NOLA. That left the starter John Callan & yours truly to do all the practice snaps during Team Period the whole week leading up to the game. We went to NOLA with yours truly listed as the 2nd unit C. Fortunately, John Callan didn't suffer any sort of debilitating injury & I only went on the field for punts and our lone PAT. BTW, John was 6-4, 220 & I was 5-11 & 205. Think there wasn't a talent, size, strength, etc., delta between us?

 

[Matt E]

You and @bikeseat are of course 100% correct regarding the current off-the-field atmosphere and that does bleed into on-the-field performance. However, the structure of the game itself has not significantly changed since the advent of the modern era 50-60 years ago. I.e. fundamentals largely remain the same, rules have remained fairly consistent, roster size has not changed, etc. That's the area I was focusing my response on, the schematic and roster implications of shifting from an option offense to a non-option one. I'd argue the mechanics of that have not changed much in that time frame and the P5 examples are still fairly relevant.

What has changed since then: Television. The programs you cited were powerhouses at that time and household names. If you wanted to be on TV and get exposure and were a top recruit, there where 10-15 schools that provided that opportunity, many of which are on that list. Id argue that the transition would have included changing from the option to a different style, but with superior talent to most of the teams they played.

 

[TheSilasSonRising]

You do realize that there is not a significant difference between walk-ons and scholarship players at the D1 level? Especially at GT. Teams are still limited on their rosters, and coaches aren't going to waste a spot on someone who can't play. Many of our walk-ons come to GT because of the education and give up very lucrative scholarship offers at other schools, and many of them don't even pursue scholarship offers at other schools because they want the particular education that GT offers. They also bust their butts EVERY DAY, and they certainly don't need anyone on this board minimizing their contributions to this football team. If GT wants to turn its back on the walk-on program, heaven help us all!!! Some of you think getting "better players" is going to be easy for GT. It's not. So instead of tearing down players, I will simply say ... thank you Will Lay and all of our hard working walk-ons!!

Now this is the kind of comic relief we need this season.

Thx.

 

[Poodlehead]

As a walkon many moons ago, I can say that Deepsnap speaks the truth.

 

[TheTechGuy]

the refusal to acknowledge the deleterious effects of having to play walk-on OL due to injuries & lack of depth due to poor recruiting is just disingenuous.

Even PJ's scheme would've had major issues trotting out our current OL. Anyone who disagrees is willfully forgetting 2015.

Thankfully, service academy ball is gone and not coming back.

Taking a shot at service academy football while we look like Rutgers on the field is...interesting.

 

[RickStromFan]

Taking a shot at service academy football while we look like Rutgers on the field is...interesting.

I'm a big fan of the service academies. I just don't want their brand of football on the Flats.

GO ARMY
BEAT NAVY

 

[RickStromFan]

You do realize that there is not a significant difference between walk-ons and scholarship players at the D1 level?

and there goes your credibility.

 

[white coffey]

JO, you nailed it.

As a former walk-on who played & then coached Frog walkons, even back in the dark ages there were/are always talent differences between the PWOs & the schollys. It may be size, strength, speed, quickness, or any of a number of other things, but most just want to get a great education and have a chance of running out behind the Reck in front of a crowd at BDS. If you get to play, great, but you know what you're "signing" up to do & be. The Baker Mayfields, Hunter Renfroes, Sean Bedfords, and John Ivemeyers are the 1/10th of 1% of all walkons who make it. It's not denigrating to the walkons, but rather a statement of reality.

But if you're counting on walkons to be your safety net, you are in deep kimchi. See 2015 when we had a ton of injuries and had true freshmen & walkons seeing significant snaps en route to a lucky 3-9. Same for 1968. The old Nebraska teams prided themselves on the use of walkons, but it was usually special teams, IIRC. And if it weren't for being a specialist as a DeepSnapper, I would never have even been on the Dress List for a game.

Personal example: In 1969, Andy Mayton, Pete Cordrey et al Cs were hurt leading up to us playing Tulane down in the old Sugar Bowl in NOLA. That left the starter John Callan & yours truly to do all the practice snaps during Team Period the whole week leading up to the game. We went to NOLA with yours truly listed as the 2nd unit C. Fortunately, John Callan didn't suffer any sort of debilitating injury & I only went on the field for punts and our lone PAT. BTW, John was 6-4, 220 & I was 5-11 & 205. Think there wasn't a talent, size, strength, etc., delta between us?

Good post, and you are right that there are clear differences between most PWO and scholarship players. I should have clarified, as I am not insane or delusional!

On average, yes, there is a big difference. Are PWOs going to be better than your top 10 or top 20 0r even top 50 players? No, but there is no clear line between the "bottom" of the scholarship players and the "top" of the PWOs. There are always quite a few PWOs who are better than quite a few scholarship players. There is no significant difference at the line.

I'll bet that DeepSnap thought he was better than a lot of scholarship players at times, especially late in his college career. It could have been effort, or desire, or simply talent that developed late. For example, is a 3-year PWO automatically "worse" than a freshman scholarship player? Some of you might say that the PWO would be given a scholly if that was the case, but that's just not the way it happens.

As for JacketOff's statement: "It’s also not true that a lot of Tech’s walk ons are turning down 'lucrative scholarship offers' to play ball at GT." You are incorrect. Ask any of our current walk-ons about their other options. Many of them had full scholarship offers at smaller schools. Some of those were $40-$50K per year at private schools with a guaranteed 4 years. That's a $200K scholarship, and I call that lucrative. Many of the partial scholarships were still $25K-30K per year. But some of our PWOs are paying out of state tuition of $40-50K per year to go to GT. That's a big swing.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, and I'm certainly not starting an argument. I'm just saying that we should appreciate all of our GT student athletes, including our walk-ons that so many people want to infer are garbage players.