Is it mostly us or them?

[Milwaukee]

We are worse at damn near every position than we were in 2008 and 2009.

Something that jumped out at me the other day when I'd gone down the rabbit hole of GT videos on youtube was the size and speed of the guys of the guys running with Tarrant on this punt return:



Mario Butler, Morgan Burnett, Cooper Taylor, Sed Griffin, Dominique Reese, Jerrard Tarrant. We were big and fast. We are now short and slow. We looked like we belonged on the field against Clemson. We have not looked like that physically in years.

Recruiting.

 

[GTFLETCH]

I've thought about this for a long time and can't come to a definitive conclusion. Is our success or failure mostly dependent on our personnel and coaching or is it mostly on how other teams on our schedule have evolved over time? There's no doubt the competition in the ACC has improved over the last decade. Even Duke is no longer a penciled in W at the start of the season.

But it can also be argued that teams we regularly face have come up with certain strategies or practice routines that have them better prepared to face our offense since '08 and '09 where the element of surprise and unfamiliarity was on our side. Having defensive players that have faced our offense for 2, 3 and even 4 years in a row has to have a positive affect for our opponents, right? Same goes for DC's that have faced us repeatedly?

That said, our O was very good in '14 and pretty darn good in '16, too. Which is a bigger factor for our success, our personnel or the combined affect of our opponents improvements in coaching, athletes, experience? Is there now a blueprint? I know if we had equal talent, there would be no blueprint, but what about with our current roster? Last year, if you had a very fast MLB, and a stout DL, our O was in serious trouble. D's were basically selling out on the horizontal run game and paying little attention to the dive or pass (the vertical parts of the O). Imo, Mills was a much bigger loss than I previously thought.

To answer my own question, I'm leaning on us over them. With the right personnel, our O is awesome and it doesn't matter what the defense does. There are answers to the tactics that were successful against us last year. The real question is will we be better at executing them this year?

Ok to answer your question we need to look at Georgia Tech football from 1995 to present:

GO- avg 7.4 wins per season
6-5
5-6
7-5
10-2
8-4
9-3
7-5

CG- avg 7.3 wins per season
7-6
7-6
7-5
7-5
9-5
7-5

CPJ- avg 7.6 wins per season
9-4
11-3
6-7
8-5
7-7
7-6
11-3
3-9
9-4
5-6

So what I see is that GT from 1995 on has probably recruited the same..thus why we avg about 7.5 wins from 1995 to present.... So since our recruiting hovers around talent that should win around 7 games a year.... Our Success (Beating UGA, Clemson, Miami, a Bowl Game) is based on our Coaching staff....Thus why some folks like CPJ better than Chan.... CPJ is 3-7 while chan was 0-7 (GO was 3-4 vs UGA)

I do not think CPJ offense gives us an advantage... If it did you would see CPJ avg more wins per season than GO or Chan, but he hasn't... Since most everyone agrees that the ACC has improved in football since 2009...It would be interesting if our recruiting would improve if we had a different offensive scheme with all the changes to ACC football in recent years.

 

[Milwaukee]

Since you're obviously not going to stop babbling about how bad you want a coaching change, how about at least admit that while the lows are lower with his scheme the highs are higher with his scheme. Most will trade a few ****ty seasons for an eventual playoff spot. I love the fight you're showing, but you're not going to talk anyone into changing their minds about him by posting it over and over and over and over and over and over and over...and over and over and over and over...and over and over and over and over again. We know where you stand, it's well documented.

 

[GTFLETCH]

Since you're obviously not going to stop babbling about how bad you want a coaching change, how about at least admit that while the lows are lower with his scheme the highs are higher with his scheme. Most will trade a few ****ty seasons for an eventual playoff spot. I love the fight you're showing, but you're not going to talk anyone into changing their minds about him by posting it over and over and over and over and over and over and over...and over and over and over and over...and over and over and over and over again. We know where you stand, it's well documented.

I just answered a post.... While it may seem I am being harsh... I actually have supported CPJ through the years... When folks were down on Vad transfers I was all i on JeT... One of the first... Why is everyone upset when I do not agree with the Group think... crazy

 

[dressedcheeseside]

I just answered a post.... While it may seem I am being harsh... I actually have supported CPJ through the years... When folks were down on Vad transfers I was all i on JeT... One of the first... Why is everyone upset when I do not agree with the Group think... crazy

I have a question for you: would you trade higher highs coupled with lower lows over consistent mediocrity? Avg records hold less importance with me than it seems with you.

 

[Fatmike91]

I'll answer both questions:

1st - It's mostly us.


2nd -

I have a question for you: would you trade higher highs coupled with lower lows over consistent mediocrity? Avg records hold less importance with me than it seems with you.

Yes - 100%. We've been below average since the Orange Bowl, but I'd be happy for a decade or two with another Natty.

/

 

[Ash]

I would be happy with getting to where Auburn is...huge swings high to low season to season, but some of those highs get you to the Championship.

 

[stech81]

I would be happy with more beer. But that is another story. I know I drink too much but I'm fine with it.

 

[bobongo]

I would be happy with more beer. But that is another story. I know I drink too much but I'm fine with it.

But would you prefer a steady diet of Michelob, or would you rather alternate between a bottle of Spaten Oktoberfest and a stale can of Old Milwaukee. That's the question...

 

[MikeJackets1967]

But would you prefer a steady diet of Michelob, or would you rather alternate between a bottle of Spaten Oktoberfest and a stale can of Old Milwaukee. That's the question...

Blue Ribbon aint too bad

 

[CLHarperJackt]

I would say it is more us than them.
Our comparative level of recruiting in the nation dropped significantly under Gailey, as compared to O'Leary, and it has not significantly risen under Johnson. In AZ in the late 90's that there was a local sports radio conversation about how they wished for ASU to rise to the level of recruiting and on the field performance and consistency of GT under O'Leary. Since 2003 now I too find myself wishing for GT to rise to the level of recruiting of GT under O'Leary.

 

[augustabuzz]

I would say it is more us than them.
Our comparative level of recruiting in the nation dropped significantly under Gailey, as compared to O'Leary, and it has not significantly risen under Johnson. In AZ in the late 90's that there was a local sports radio conversation about how they wished for ASU to rise to the level of recruiting and on the field performance and consistency of GT under O'Leary. Since 2003 now I too find myself wishing for GT to rise to the level of recruiting of GT under O'Leary.

Flunkgate happened.

 

[awbuzz]

The Vol's game! If Mills had been with us and taken the last pitch out of the game we win no doubt!

... If TM had pitch to KB we'd have won.

Edit: If I'd gone to the next page before responding I'd have seen that @Supersizethatorder-mutt had already made this point.

 

[jayparr]

... If TM had pitch to KB we'd have won.

Edit: If I'd gone to the next page before responding I'd have seen that @Supersizethatorder-mutt had already made this point.

Yes indeed he did! And thanks to both of you!!!

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Flunkgate happened.

And NCAA probation .... and...
APR.

The world was a much different place in the last millennium.

 

[stech81]

But would you prefer a steady diet of Michelob, or would you rather alternate between a bottle of Spaten Oktoberfest and a stale can of Old Milwaukee. That's the question...

Being old and fat I go for diet beer ( Bud Light)

 

[takethepoints]

Being old and fat I go for diet beer ( Bud Light)

Shame on you! That stuff is swill, Either give up beer (that's what I've done) or go ahead and drink decent brew and accept the consequences!

Not, of course, that there's anything wrong with that.

 

[Sideways]

I've thought about this for a long time and can't come to a definitive conclusion. Is our success or failure mostly dependent on our personnel and coaching or is it mostly on how other teams on our schedule have evolved over time? There's no doubt the competition in the ACC has improved over the last decade. Even Duke is no longer a penciled in W at the start of the season.

But it can also be argued that teams we regularly face have come up with certain strategies or practice routines that have them better prepared to face our offense since '08 and '09 where the element of surprise and unfamiliarity was on our side. Having defensive players that have faced our offense for 2, 3 and even 4 years in a row has to have a positive affect for our opponents, right? Same goes for DC's that have faced us repeatedly?

That said, our O was very good in '14 and pretty darn good in '16, too. Which is a bigger factor for our success, our personnel or the combined affect of our opponents improvements in coaching, athletes, experience? Is there now a blueprint? I know if we had equal talent, there would be no blueprint, but what about with our current roster? Last year, if you had a very fast MLB, and a stout DL, our O was in serious trouble. D's were basically selling out on the horizontal run game and paying little attention to the dive or pass (the vertical parts of the O). Imo, Mills was a much bigger loss than I previously thought.

To answer my own question, I'm leaning on us over them. With the right personnel, our O is awesome and it doesn't matter what the defense does. There are answers to the tactics that were successful against us last year. The real question is will we be better at executing them this year?

You seem to be asking if our difficulties on offense last year and I suppose 2015 were due more to our own shortcomings or to changes our opponents have made. I lean towards it being mostly on ourselves. One poster observed problems at tackle which is understandable that position has been an ongoing concern for years. It is hard to recruit players big enough to play tackle and fast enough to make the downfield blocks required by this offense. In addition, there is the Mills factor. Yes, Kirvonte did a fine job in replacing Mills and Marshall (don't forget about him) but Mills had that "It" factor. He was a perfect fit for our offense and the Bback position. Don't ask me what the "It" factor is I know it when I see it. Kind of like Justice Potter Stewart on the Supreme Court asked about pornography. He said "I can't define it but I know it when I see it" Same thing with Mills. He was a guy that a defense HAD to account for. He was a guy that defensive players would look at and point to in warm ups . "Yeah, that's the dude that can beat us" One other factor is not having a true threat on the outside. Ricky was very good but he was not Bey Bey, not Steven Hill and not Smelter.

Sure defenses make adjustment, practice for our offense and do special drills to defeat cut blocks and all that other stuff but if some son of a ***** is going at your knees and you see Lynch or Marshall come zipping by there is not going to be much you can do about it. Put enough people on their tails and this offense will go. Control the ball, shorten the game, limit the other team's possessions and be sound on both defense and special teams and we will win a lot of games. It's really not that complicated.

 

[CLHarperJackt]

Flunkgate happened.

-

And NCAA probation .... and...
APR.

The world was a much different place in the last millennium.

Flunkgate and our reaction to it would be on us and not on them.
NCAA probation and our reaction would be on us and not on them.
APR is universal.
The world being a much different place in the last millennium is a universal.
So how do these factors point to it not being more of an us and less of them issue?

 

[augustabuzz]

Flunkgate was too many O'Leary recruits not being equipped to handle the academics. As a result, the administration put handcuffs on Chan Gailey and Paul Johnson. They have slowly released some restriction, but it is not anything like was allowed to O'Leary.