Is it Possible

[Skeptic]

As I understand it, one of the kids decommitted (you won't believe the autocorrect suggestions I get on that non-word), and one of them we parted with because of an incident with campus PD. I certainly share your concern, but I won't allow myself to be too worried about the whims of a 17 year old. Worrying about the performances of 19 year olds has proven stressful enough!

that was the bad experience, I suppose.

 

[LongforDodd]

What if he did?

Are you intimating that in camp, things had the possibility of turning out a lot worse than they did and PJ did what he reasonably thought was best...in camp?

 

[JacketFromUGA]

I guess my mentality is in every game one of the teams loses. Bad years are to be expected just as good years should be too. Having one bad year doesn't seem like a sky is falling scenario to me just as having one good year is not enough to proclaim us the best ever.

Losing happens. Do I want to do it all the time? Absolutely not but it does happen. We have 21 kids graduating from the football program and moving on with Tech degrees. That's a win in my book.


But I've always been criticized for not being competitive enough in my life. I just don't see the point of ruining your emotional state over something as frivolous as one season.

 

[B Lifsey]

We have 21 kids graduating from the football program and moving on with Tech degrees. That's a win in my book.

Definitely!!!

 

[Essobee]

Is it possible? I think so, depending on who you ask. I tend to cut coaches a lot of slack by remembering the famous Pepper Rogers statement, "How would you like to make your living by what goes through the minds of teenagers."

For an analogy, think about dogs and cats. Dogs, given to their nature, like to run in packs and follow the rules of the pack. Cats like to do whatever they want. Dogs tend to obey their leader/master. Cats don't care one way or the other unless they are hungry and can be enticed. Which ones would you rather try to herd in one direction?

I imagine that a similar thought goes through the minds of coaches when they recruit premier athletes to play a team sport. Do you spend a lot of time and money to attempt to recruit the physically and athletically superior player, "Mr. Wonderful", who is much loved by the fans and is all everything both in high school as well as in his own mind, or the less known and somewhat less gifted, "Mr. Team Player" who buys into your team, your system, and your university?

To add, if I were unable to consistently recruit four and five star players due to various constraints, I would definitely want team players where I could use precision technique and intelligence to my advantage. But if I could get whoever I wanted without constraints, then the popular game of "keep away" that showcases and capitalizes on superior player skills...especially at QB, receiver, and running back...would likely be a deciding factor. IOW, GA Tech's standard of coaching evaluation could easily be much different than Ugag's standard.

 

[reubenjet]

Not to be trite, but your beliefs are wrong. Performance in close games is largely a function of luck. The best teams aren't magically better in close games; they just play fewer of them.

I believe the best teams are better in close games because they are the better team. Example: Stanford beating Notre Dame was not luck...they executed when it counted most and their hard work paid off! This fact made them the better team. I agree that there is no "Magic" involved and it comes down to "execution".

 

[takethepoints]

Given the number of injured skill players we had this year, I'd say that Coach did an ok job. We lost too many one score games, but sometimes that happens. It isn't for nothing that we were ranked one of "the best bad teams" in that recent article.

But I wasn't expecting us to be super-fabulous this year; I predicted 8 - 4 in the fall before the injuries started. If I had know we would have played the whole year starting either 2 - 3 deep players or often out of position freshmen at our skill positions, I'd have said 6 - 6. I think we could have done that. We not only had a lot of inexperience on the field most of the year, but we played more games in the slop then any recent memory. I love our O - what old OL wouldn't - but it is a dry field offense, especially with inexperienced skill players who, on top of that, change almost every week. We had a lot of fumbles and lost a lot of yards this year because of pitch relationships not being right, people running to the wrong holes, and people learning how to edge block on the job. And, yes, I don't think the OL is anywhere near as bad as some here think.

But a good job? I know Coach wouldn't say that and neither would I.

 

[IronJacket7]

I'm tired of losing.

 

[JorgeJonas]

I believe the best teams are better in close games because they are the better team. Example: Stanford beating Notre Dame was not luck...they executed when it counted most and their hard work paid off! This fact made them the better team. I agree that there is no "Magic" involved and it comes down to "execution".

You're entitled to your own beliefs, but not your own facts. Stanford, since 2007 (the year Harbaugh was hired), is 28-19 in one score games, boosted by a preposterous 8-2 in 2012. This year they're 2-1 in one score games (and won one because Wazzu shanked a short FG). Last year they were 1-4. What changed? It's probably worth mentioning that there was luck in the Notre Dame game. The Notre Dame QB didn't get into the end zone on their last possession, but the play stood. If they overturned it, and Notre Dame scored on the next play (which is reasonable given they would have been inside the 1) Stanford would not have had enough time to score themselves. They did what they had to do, but they were lucky to have even had the opportunity.

Alabama is the gold standard in the sport. Saban arrived in 2007. Their record in one score games since then? 17-14.

 

[Skeptic]

I believe the best teams are better in close games because they are the better team. Example: Stanford beating Notre Dame was not luck...they executed when it counted most and their hard work paid off! This fact made them the better team. I agree that there is no "Magic" involved and it comes down to "execution".

I still believe the major difference in 2014 and 2015 was that the '14 team always believed it could, and should, win, regardless of circumstances. The '15 acted sometimes -- Georgia for instance -- like it didn't even deserve to be out there. Give the '15 team the heart of '14 and we would have seen 7-8 wins. Sloppy and ugly. But wins.

 

[GTJake]

CPJ is the HC so he is ultimately responsible for this teams performance, that being said I think he may have been blind-sided by some of the circumstances surrounding this teams performance.
That along with the incredible amount of injuries and some instances of the ball not bouncing our way created the 2015 season.
Now that he has seen what needs to improve, and he was quoted as saying it was fixable, lets judge his coaching ability on how he sets about fixing it.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

You're entitled to your own beliefs, but not your own facts. Stanford, since 2007 (the year Harbaugh was hired), is 28-19 in one score games, boosted by a preposterous 8-2 in 2012. This year they're 2-1 in one score games (and won one because Wazzu shanked a short FG). Last year they were 1-4. What changed? It's probably worth mentioning that there was luck in the Notre Dame game. The Notre Dame QB didn't get into the end zone on their last possession, but the play stood. If they overturned it, and Notre Dame scored on the next play (which is reasonable given they would have been inside the 1) Stanford would not have had enough time to score themselves. They did what they had to do, but they were lucky to have even had the opportunity.

Alabama is the gold standard in the sport. Saban arrived in 2007. Their record in one score games since then? 17-14.

Here is GTs record in one score games since 2008: 20-24. This is the break down by year:
2008 5-2 (9-4)
2009 5-1 (11-3)
2010 2-4 (6-7)
2011 3-2 (8-5)
2012 0-3 (7-7)
2013 1-3 (7-6)
2014 3-3 (11-3)
2015 1-6 (3-9)

If you look at it closely, you can see we benefited in '08 & '09 by going 10-3 in close games. We regressed to the mean in 2010 & '11, partially due to the Nesbitt injury followed by the change in QBs to TW, and in '12 & '13 we just didn't get the bounces. '14 was a recovery to the mean and '15 saw the bottom fall out of close games. As long as '16 sees a statistical recovery, which it should, or better yet a run like '08 & '09, then I like our chances.

 

[JorgeJonas]

Here is GTs record in one score games since 2008: 20-24. This is the break down by year:
2008 5-2 (9-4)
2009 5-1 (11-3)
2010 2-4 (6-7)
2011 3-2 (8-5)
2012 0-3 (7-7)
2013 1-3 (7-6)
2014 3-3 (11-3)
2015 1-6 (3-9)

If you look at it closely, you can see we benefited in '08 & '09 by going 10-3 in close games. We regressed to the mean in 2010 & '11, partially due to the Nesbitt injury followed by the change in QBs to TW, and in '12 & '13 we just didn't get the bounces. '14 was a recovery to the mean and '15 saw the bottom fall out of close games. As long as '16 sees a statistical recovery, which it should, or better yet a run like '08 & '09, then I like our chances.

This is extremely important, because it shows something very critical. Tech has played 44 one score games since 2008. Alabama has played 31 one score games in one more year. The best teams don't really win more one score games, they just play fewer of them.

 

[yellojello]

This is extremely important, because it shows something very critical. Tech has played 44 one score games since 2008. Alabama has played 31 one score games in one more year. The best teams don't really win more one score games, they just play fewer of them.

Ok. If you are predicting regression to the mean, then you are basically re-stating David Braine's comment. Based on the very same stats 7-8 games is our mean win rate. So are you saying that regardless of who the coach is, we are going to be winning, 7-8 games on average? Or are you saying that, CPJ hasn't done a good enough job in keeping us out of enough 1 possession games?

 

[WreckinGT]

I believe the best teams are better in close games because they are the better team. Example: Stanford beating Notre Dame was not luck...they executed when it counted most and their hard work paid off! This fact made them the better team. I agree that there is no "Magic" involved and it comes down to "execution".

That game proves the opposite point in my opinion. Kizer was down before the goal line when he scored Notre Dame's go ahead touchdown. If the play was called correctly then more time runs off the clock and Notre Dame likely still scores from the 1 foot line. Stanford also got a nice gift on the drive right after that with a face mask penalty on the opening play. It wasn't just execution, they did get a little lucky at the end.

 

[JorgeJonas]

Ok. If you are predicting regression to the mean, then you are basically re-stating David Braine's comment. Based on the very same stats 7-8 games is our mean win rate. So are you saying that regardless of who the coach is, we are going to be winning, 7-8 games on average? Or are you saying that, CPJ hasn't done a good enough job in keeping us out of enough 1 possession games?

I'm not predicting regression to the mean next year. That's the gambler's fallacy. I do think over a large enough sample, it'll come out to around .500. However, no, I don't believe any coach means we're a 7-8 win team a year. We could hire a terrible coach and be a 2 win team. We might one day find a coach who can elevate the program beyond where it is today, but I don't know who that coach is, or he exists. So, yes, barring some sort of structural change, I do think most years we will find ourselves in the middle of the pack. The key - for me, at least - is that the coach we have give us the boom years. This is a school that has had four ten win seasons since 1957. Alabama has had four since 2011.

As for Johnson, I'd actually say he's done a good job of keeping us out of one score games. We played 7 in 12 games this year, but only 6 in 14 last year. And in the games decided by more than eight points over the past two years, we are 10-3. I'm not sure what your expectation here is, though.

 

[takethepoints]

I'm not predicting regression to the mean next year. That's the gambler's fallacy. I do think over a large enough sample, it'll come out to around .500.

See, this is what I like about Tech fan sites. You don't usually run into the phrases "regression to the mean", "gambler's fallacy", and "large enough sample" at SEC fan boards.

 

[awbuzz]

What if he did?

IIRC - @DrJacket posted back in the spring/late summer that CPJ had commented to him something along the lines of "does that look like a bowl team?" I.e. we didn't look that good in the spring nor in the fall...

 

[yellojello]

I'm not predicting regression to the mean next year. That's the gambler's fallacy. I do think over a large enough sample, it'll come out to around .500. However, no, I don't believe any coach means we're a 7-8 win team a year. We could hire a terrible coach and be a 2 win team. We might one day find a coach who can elevate the program beyond where it is today, but I don't know who that coach is, or he exists. So, yes, barring some sort of structural change, I do think most years we will find ourselves in the middle of the pack. The key - for me, at least - is that the coach we have give us the boom years. This is a school that has had four ten win seasons since 1957. Alabama has had four since 2011.

As for Johnson, I'd actually say he's done a good job of keeping us out of one score games. We played 7 in 12 games this year, but only 6 in 14 last year. And in the games decided by more than eight points over the past two years, we are 10-3. I'm not sure what your expectation here is, though.

I know you didn't predict regression to the mean next year. I didn't state anything of that sort in my post. The rest of your post is basically reaffirming Dave Braine. So you chose that option over Johnson having done a bad job. Basically you are saying that CPJ is going to average 7-8 wins with a higher variance than, for example our previous HC.

 

[JorgeJonas]

I know you didn't predict regression to the mean next year. I didn't state anything of that sort in my post. The rest of your post is basically reaffirming Dave Braine. So you chose that option over Johnson having done a bad job. Basically you are saying that CPJ is going to average 7-8 wins with a higher variance than, for example our previous HC.

I didn't say Johnson did a bad job, because I can't think of a time where I would have done anything differently with the information he had available at the time (maybe I wouldn't have run that play where Stewart threw off the reverse in the rain against Miami, but that's all I can think of now). If you would like to have that discussion, I'm all ears. As for the balance of your comment, sure, I think that's reasonable. And I guess I'm comfortable with that. This year sucked. There's no way around that, but I don't think it's a trend. I'd like to know what your expectations are, though, because at the root of all this, that's the issue.