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

[pbrown520]

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.

Look, I'm not saying it won't take time, but you guys act like having to turn a roster over has never happened in college football. It doesn't really matter if it's coming from an option or not.

Collins should be given 3 years to succeed, that's it. Even if he had zero players on the roster that fit his scheme, he should be able to be really competitive in year 3. The option doesn't have anything to do with that. That we have seen over and over and over in college football. That's what I am saying. What the hell does running the option have to do with anything? Hell we saw UAB dismantle their entire team as in disband it completely then reinstate it and be in a bowl game in almost immediately and then winning their conference. That is a historic rebuild. Changing schemes isn't. It's just not.

This rhetoric from you guys and the coach sounds to me like you guys think we shouldn't measure success until like year 5 or something?

 

[pbrown520]

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.

I agree OL and DL are critical. It's also critical they fit your scheme. On the defensive side, we are no different than any other program changeover where you are missing some key pieces - I think you would agree that's happened a lot in CFB.

On the offensive side, we need to change over from the option. So, we currently have ***some*** of the OL that aren't a good fit, not all. How is that any different than a roster takeover where the talent level is so low relative to the competition that the program has been abysmal for years? It's not in any meaningful way. Same goes for the QB.

Transitioning from the option should not take longer than 3 years - if it does, it's on the coaches.

 

[LibertyTurns]

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.

You nailed it. We went flat and the others raced by us. The scheme that neutralized or more than compensated for disparities in 2010 not longer could bridge the 2019 gap. Hence we got the slow, progressive demise that was going to continue (still have the satisfying peaks but also the infuriating valleys) without a change in the basic fundamental way we operate our program.

 

[Sidewalking]

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.

A bit early to declare Thacker > Woody in each coach's year 1. We are trending down at the moment and our D rankings are bad. If you don't think it's fair to judge the current staff in year one of a change why judge the last DC that way when he came in with a pretty impressive resume?

 

[BonafideJacket]

You nailed it. We went flat and the others raced by us. The scheme that neutralized or more than compensated for disparities in 2010 not longer could bridge the 2019 gap. Hence we got the slow, progressive demise that was going to continue (still have the satisfying peaks but also the infuriating valleys) without a change in the basic fundamental way we operate our program.

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.

 

[buzzmaniac]

IIRC, GT has already undergone a similar offensive transition (from wishbone to a more traditional O) back in the late 70s.....though Pepper was coach both before and during the transition. Think we went from 6-5 in 77 to 7-5 in 78.

 

[smokey_wasp]

Look, I'm not saying it won't take time, but you guys act like having to turn a roster over has never happened in college football. It doesn't really matter if it's coming from an option or not.

Collins should be given 3 years to succeed, that's it. Even if he had zero players on the roster that fit his scheme, he should be able to be really competitive in year 3. The option doesn't have anything to do with that. That we have seen over and over and over in college football. That's what I am saying. What the hell does running the option have to do with anything? Hell we saw UAB dismantle their entire team as in disband it completely then reinstate it and be in a bowl game in almost immediately and then winning their conference. That is a historic rebuild. Changing schemes isn't. It's just not.

This rhetoric from you guys and the coach sounds to me like you guys think we shouldn't measure success until like year 5 or something?

We've all mostly been saying year 3

 

[rfripp68]

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

This is also a list of powerhouse programs and/or 10 win teams, so it's not really apples to apples. I'm not saying we shouldn't have more wins (in particular, at least one) but it's not like we are someone with the talent level of these you referenced. All were top 20 teams the year before whereas we haven't been ranked since week 3 of 2015...

Alabama - 8-4 (ranked #17) --> 8-4 - 1983

Oklahoma - 9-3 (#14) --> 7-4 - 1989

Nebraska - 10-3 (#18/19) --> 5-6 - 2004

Arkansas - 10-2 (#12/13) --> 3-8 - 1989

Notre Dame - 8-3 (#19/21) --> 7-6 - 1997

 

[bobongo]

I agree OL and DL are critical. It's also critical they fit your scheme. On the defensive side, we are no different than any other program changeover where you are missing some key pieces - I think you would agree that's happened a lot in CFB.

On the offensive side, we need to change over from the option. So, we currently have ***some*** of the OL that aren't a good fit, not all. How is that any different than a roster takeover where the talent level is so low relative to the competition that the program has been abysmal for years? It's not in any meaningful way. Same goes for the QB.

Transitioning from the option should not take longer than 3 years - if it does, it's on the coaches.

Oh, I'll go along with the 3 year limit. No problem there. Three years should be more than ample to get us back on our feet.

As for the offensive line, it isn't just the transition and the "fit" that affects it, it's the extreme amount of attrition. We lost 4 of 5 starters, one to transfer (our best one), 2 to injury, and one to graduation. Yes, everyone loses linemen but couple that with the fact that we did not bring in any recruits last year - nada, zip. We replaced these four starters with one grad transfer who was a backup at Vanderbilt. The Vanderbilt backup is currently starting. Also couple this with the fact that our offensive line had little depth to begin with. This offensive line is at the lowest point I can remember in my 50 years of following Georgia Tech football.

I don't understand your question, "How is that different than a roster takeover where the talent level is so low relative to the competition that the program has been abysmal for years?" We weren't "abysmal" - were doing okay - but then there was massive attrition with little replacement or depth to fall back on. You can't expect an offense, transition or not, to just keep on chugging along with that degree of loss to its most important component, the offensive line.

 

[pbrown520]

We've all mostly been saying year 3

Fair enough. I personally think I haven't seen evidence of what I would call good coaching, but neither have I seen evidence of bad coaching. It's been meh or meh-bad-at-times. I thought and still think that we should be better, but that doesn't mean that this staff is bad.

For me, if we're not winning at least 7 in year 3, these guys have done a bad job of transitioning. Years 4&5 should begin to be special and if not, then the staff will most likely be an also ran type of staff.

 

[bobongo]

Fair enough. I personally think I haven't seen evidence of what I would call good coaching, but neither have I seen evidence of bad coaching. It's been meh or meh-bad-at-times. I thought and still think that we should be better, but that doesn't mean that this staff is bad.

For me, if we're not winning at least 7 in year 3, these guys have done a bad job of transitioning. Years 4&5 should begin to be special and if not, then the staff will most likely be an also ran type of staff.

No arguments there. I don't know how good or bad this staff will turn out to be, but given the hand they've been dealt in year one I just think they should be given time. Three years should be ample time to right this ship.

 

[BonafideJacket]

This is also a list of powerhouse programs and/or 10 win teams, so it's not really apples to apples. I'm not saying we shouldn't have more wins (in particular, at least one) but it's not like we are someone with the talent level of these you referenced. All were top 20 teams the year before whereas we haven't been ranked since week 3 of 2015...

Alabama - 8-4 (ranked #17) --> 8-4 - 1983

Oklahoma - 9-3 (#14) --> 7-4 - 1989

Nebraska - 10-3 (#18/19) --> 5-6 - 2004

Arkansas - 10-2 (#12/13) --> 3-8 - 1989

Notre Dame - 8-3 (#19/21) --> 7-6 - 1997

Very good point, and it is also true that most of these teams, with the exception of Alabama, regressed to some extent. In fact, the Arkansas dropoff is quite striking, but I understand there were significant off-the-field issues such as serious tension between Hatfield and Broyles that caused the former to leave for Clemson in late January. Arkansas was up the creek without a paddle on the eve of signing day and settled for Jack Crowe. Some of you old-timers may recall this better than me. Growing up in South Carolina, I do remember the tragedy of Ken Hatfield at Clemson though. He got a pretty raw deal from the fans as he tried to clean up Danny Ford's mess.

I promise did not cherry-pick powerhouse programs, I'm simply not aware of any other P5 teams that have made a dramatic shift from an option offense to a conventional one in a single season in the modern era (although, as @buzzmaniac posted, possibly GT in the late 70s). As I originally posted, I provided the information without comment because examples were requested. All inferences or assumptions based on this information belong to the infer-er or assumer.

 

[rfripp68]

Very good point, and it is also true that most of these teams, with the exception of Alabama, regressed to some extent. In fact, the Arkansas dropoff is quite striking, but I understand there were significant off-the-field issues such as serious tension between Hatfield and Broyles that caused the former to leave for Clemson in late January. Arkansas was up the creek without a paddle on the eve of signing day and settled for Jack Crowe. Some of you old-timers may recall this better than me. Growing up in South Carolina, I do remember the tragedy of Ken Hatfield at Clemson though. He got a pretty raw deal from the fans as he tried to clean up Danny Ford's mess.

I promise did not cherry-pick powerhouse programs, I'm simply not aware of any other P5 teams that have made a dramatic shift from an option offense to a conventional one in a single season in the modern era (although, as @buzzmaniac posted, possibly GT in the late 70s). As I originally posted, I provided the information without comment because examples were requested. All inferences or assumptions based on this information belong to the infer-er or assumer.

Oh definitely - and I'm not saying you did at all! I think it just proves that we are indeed in a big transition (arguable as to how big, certainly) and it is different than most transitions, even ones coming from the 3O. And when you add to that all of the injuries/losses to both lines it adds up to a pretty rough season.

Regardless, looking forward to seeing what this staff can do both recruiting and coaching. I think they will do a great job on the recruiting trail, as early results have shown, and I believe they can/will be good to very good coaches but of course time will tell. At the very least I think we will upgrade the talent level which gives the coaching a little more margin for error. And if this staff can't get it done with better talent, then the next guy who comes in will be (theoretically) in a much better situation. But Collins seems to want to be here and I think he's got the ability to get it done.

 

[BonafideJacket]

Oh definitely - and I'm not saying you did at all! I think it just proves that we are indeed in a big transition (arguable as to how big, certainly) and it is different than most transitions, even ones coming from the 3O. And when you add to that all of the injuries/losses to both lines it adds up to a pretty rough season.

Regardless, looking forward to seeing what this staff can do both recruiting and coaching. I think they will do a great job on the recruiting trail, as early results have shown, and I believe they can/will be good to very good coaches but of course time will tell. At the very least I think we will upgrade the talent level which gives the coaching a little more margin for error. And if this staff can't get it done with better talent, then the next guy who comes in will be (theoretically) in a much better situation. But Collins seems to want to be here and I think he's got the ability to get it done.

Agreed! One last comparison - out of curiosity, I dug into the Arkansas story a little more. Apparently, a large number of players abandoned the team during the transition. And that was with retaining one of the current coaches as the new head coach. I've been fairly critical of CGC and his staff for some of their coaching decisions, but their ability to not only keep the team largely intact, but to instill such a unified sense of comradarie and common purpose is quite remarkable, and should be commended regardless of the results on the field to this point.

 

[Lee]

Very good point, and it is also true that most of these teams, with the exception of Alabama, regressed to some extent. In fact, the Arkansas dropoff is quite striking, but I understand there were significant off-the-field issues such as serious tension between Hatfield and Broyles that caused the former to leave for Clemson in late January. Arkansas was up the creek without a paddle on the eve of signing day and settled for Jack Crowe. Some of you old-timers may recall this better than me. Growing up in South Carolina, I do remember the tragedy of Ken Hatfield at Clemson though. He got a pretty raw deal from the fans as he tried to clean up Danny Ford's mess.

I promise did not cherry-pick powerhouse programs, I'm simply not aware of any other P5 teams that have made a dramatic shift from an option offense to a conventional one in a single season in the modern era (although, as @buzzmaniac posted, possibly GT in the late 70s). As I originally posted, I provided the information without comment because examples were requested. All inferences or assumptions based on this information belong to the infer-er or assumer.

The most recent team to make this transition was Nebraska per your list. I did some quick research and found that they had 9 Junior or Senior offensive lineman that were at least 6’3” and 300 lbs. There were at least 2 other OL that were the same height and weight but younger.

That was 15 years ago when players weren’t as big as they are now. I also don’t know what offense they transitioned to, but I highly doubt it’s similar to what we or most offenses run today. I would imagine it was still a run focused offense. So while they may have ran a similar offense prior to the coaching change, comparing that transition to this one isn’t close IMO.

For reference, we had 4 (including Southers) going into this season that fit the height/weight and are Juniors or seniors. 2 of which are out for the season and have been for most of the year. 3 fit that are freshman. I didn’t look to see who was scholarship or not because I wasn’t sure on Nebraska’s roster either.

 

[Jim Prather]

No arguments there. I don't know how good or bad this staff will turn out to be, but given the hand they've been dealt in year one I just think they should be given time. Three years should be ample time to right this ship.

And I guess that is the difference between us... You see this staff as having been handed a train wreck... I see this staff as having created the train wreck with their decisions.
Unfortunately there is no way to resolve which opinion is correct - as GT fans we can only hope that things don't remain a train wreck...

 

[RickStromFan]

Look, I'm not saying it won't take time, but you guys act like having to turn a roster over has never happened in college football. It doesn't really matter if it's coming from an option or not.

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.

Collins should be given 3 years to succeed, that's it. Even if he had zero players on the roster that fit his scheme, he should be able to be really competitive in year 3. The option doesn't have anything to do with that. That we have seen over and over and over in college football. That's what I am saying. What the hell does running the option have to do with anything? Hell we saw UAB dismantle their entire team as in disband it completely then reinstate it and be in a bowl game in almost immediately and then winning their conference. That is a historic rebuild. Changing schemes isn't. It's just not.

This rhetoric from you guys and the coach sounds to me like you guys think we shouldn't measure success until like year 5 or something?

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."

 

[ElCidBUZZingFAN]

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

2008. You'll get a kick out of this. At Georgia Tech.

 

[RickStromFan]

A bit early to declare Thacker > Woody in each coach's year 1. We are trending down at the moment and our D rankings are bad. If you don't think it's fair to judge the current staff in year one of a change why judge the last DC that way when he came in with a pretty impressive resume?

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.

 

[BleedGoldNWhite21]

I have criticized the coaching staff quite a bit, but the idea behind this thread is a joke.


Also, again being someone who has criticized the coaching staff quite a bit, I think it’s fair to question things happening now(as I clearly have), but no one’s job is on the line for the first two years. If we aren’t bowling by the end of Year 3, I’ll start thinking we hired a clunker(I already worry, but the jury is still out).