Legitimate observation/question

bobongo

Helluva Engineer
Messages
7,051
Also to add, someone made the comment that Gailey was a good recruiter. Well the 2007 class was very good. However on average during his tenure his classes were mostly ranked in the mid 50's. Cpj in fact ranked mostly in the mid 40s. If you don't believe me go to Rivals and look at the class rankings for Tech. And what this tells me is what I have been saying. Offense does not affect recruiting. Maybe the types of offensive players, primarily QBs and O line, but that is about it.

I think Gailey had a good eye for diamonds in the rough. His recruiting classes were better than their rankings indicated, IMO.
 

bobongo

Helluva Engineer
Messages
7,051
There have been complaints about “on the job learning” with Collins. It was truer with Gailey. He either didn’t put appropriate effort into recruiting or didn’t understand it until the latter half of his coaching tenure, and a fair section of that was affected by NCAA recruiting penalties (flunkgate).

Short version: Gailey’s recruiting rankings are poorer than they should have been. O’Leary’s were better and probably a better yardstick, even with APR factored in


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I couldn't possibly disagree more with this. Gailey brought a lot of top-notch talent in here, far better than the rankings indicated. His biggest downfall was his inability to develop QB's, ironically.
 

Jacket in Dairyland

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,053
The problem as as always been at Tech is our curriculum limits recruiting. Now we have been able to get enough really good guys and develop some to field some pretty good teams in my 50 Tech years. But two things with that. We can get some pretty good 1st teams. But depth beyond that has always been the issue. If we have years with injuries, like 2015 and this year the depth issue becomes reality. As was stated earlier we will never field a team with the kind of talent that UGA, Bama, Auburn etc gets. We have to have schemes that work and better coaching. Dodd outcoached other teams. Friedgen out schemed teams just like CPJ. And on D Tenutta had a scheme that kept us in games during the Pro style Gailey years.
Agree totally in your comment, especially the depth issue.
 

Jacket in Dairyland

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,053
Look, if the basic problem is that our talent level is just ridiculously low as a team, especially on both lines, it becomes impossible tp win football games without using gimmicks like the triple option.

IF that is the case, Collins is NOT going to trash the young men who play. So, his explanations will be unsatisfactory because he has to make up something else to say.

Maybe, just maybe CPJ really was an offensive genius with the 3O and we over-performed by 3-4 wins on talent because he was that good. And maybe, just maybe, CGC will be fine once he gets his guys in.

I am as frustrated as anyone but I still think Collins gets a few years before we decide he is incompetent. All anyone can honestly say is that his first year...is ugly.
Unfortunately, I think the season may get even uglier. I was never a fan of CPJ for several reasons, but he was an offensive genius in his day. He could take lesser talent and beat many teams. I think CGC needs more time to build our talent and depth to compete. On balance the defense is better than last year, but the offense has been crippled by OL injuries and an inconsistent implementation of a scheme that fits the talent available(Peanut ??). Just my 2 cents.
 

GT Tennessee

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
239
Look, definitely valid comments and assessments. I just felt the option gave us an advantage and a chance in every game. However, I know CGC doesn’t have “his” type of players. The way we ran the ball against Clemson first game. IMO I feel if we were running the option with TO at QB we have a great chance to win that game. I don’t know maybe just a mix of frustration with how bad we look on Offense and how we use to at least be able to move the ball. Sorry just a frustrated fan
 

TheFlyest

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
838
Look, definitely valid comments and assessments. I just felt the option gave us an advantage and a chance in every game. However, I know CGC doesn’t have “his” type of players. The way we ran the ball against Clemson first game. IMO I feel if we were running the option with TO at QB we have a great chance to win that game. I don’t know maybe just a mix of frustration with how bad we look on Offense and how we use to at least be able to move the ball. Sorry just a frustrated fan

What? You think GT would have beaten Clemson running the option?
 

Jacket in Dairyland

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,053
Our coaches will always need to out think the other team's coaches, especially the teams you guys want to beat, UGAG and Clem's Son and any other top 15 recruiting factory. GT can get into the top 25 occasionally with recruiting, and maybe CGC can find a way to do it consistently (although with the current trajectory, I am concerned), but even with that, it will take master strategicians to win big.

For example, the ONLY team in the top 10 right now that isn't basically loaded with 4 and 5 star guys is Wisconsin, and I do believe their coaching staff is special.
What is UWs greatest strength, year in and year out ?? They are loaded with big uglies on their OL- size and DEPTH. What would Jonathan Taylor be able to do behind our current OL ??
 

slugboy

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
10,805
I couldn't possibly disagree more with this. Gailey brought a lot of top-notch talent in here, far better than the rankings indicated. His biggest downfall was his inability to develop QB's, ironically.

I agree about his inability to develop quarterbacks.

His first few years, he seemed to delegate a lot of the recruiting to his assistants. In the middle, he had flunkgate, which shrunk his classes (and unbalanced them—we were short of linemen). Towards the end, he was investing a lot more personal effort into recruiting.

He did bring in some talented players, but if not for flunkgate and his first couple of years, his class rankings would have looked more like O’Leary’s.

And I’m not sure if you were clear on my point—if he had taken recruiting as seriously or done it as well for his entire coaching tenure as he did in the last couple of years, and realized that academic progress was something to watch out for, his classes would have been visibly higher ranked than Johnson’s. As it is, they average about the same.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

smokey_wasp

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,486
Look, if the basic problem is that our talent level is just ridiculously low as a team, especially on both lines, it becomes impossible tp win football games without using gimmicks like the triple option.

IF that is the case, Collins is NOT going to trash the young men who play. So, his explanations will be unsatisfactory because he has to make up something else to say.

Maybe, just maybe CPJ really was an offensive genius with the 3O and we over-performed by 3-4 wins on talent because he was that good. And maybe, just maybe, CGC will be fine once he gets his guys in.

I am as frustrated as anyone but I still think Collins gets a few years before we decide he is incompetent. All anyone can honestly say is that his first year...is ugly.

I agree with all of this. CGC is not gonna come out and say that he needs more players. CPJ performed absolute wizardry to win 7 games last year, IMO. And then we lost a ton of production. The 2017-2019 Jacket, to my eyes, have been the most overmatched athletically that I've seen since I really started paying attention during the GOL years.
 
Last edited:

bobongo

Helluva Engineer
Messages
7,051
I agree about his inability to develop quarterbacks.

His first few years, he seemed to delegate a lot of the recruiting to his assistants. In the middle, he had flunkgate, which shrunk his classes (and unbalanced them—we were short of linemen). Towards the end, he was investing a lot more personal effort into recruiting.

He did bring in some talented players, but if not for flunkgate and his first couple of years, his class rankings would have looked more like O’Leary’s.

And I’m not sure if you were clear on my point—if he had taken recruiting as seriously or done it as well for his entire coaching tenure as he did in the last couple of years, and realized that academic progress was something to watch out for, his classes would have been visibly higher ranked than Johnson’s. As it is, they average about the same.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Not sure if flunkgate was his fault. Wasn't that a snafu in the front office or something? Should he have known they were using inaccurate gradients to measure academic progress? Refresh my memory.
 

COJacket

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
794
Location
Colorado Springs, CO
And recruiting means nothing if you cannot coach. You could not run a car dealership with just a bunch of salesmen hanging at the front door......you need the mechanic and accountants etc. Being a head coach is no different.
If it was solely about recruiting ...FSU would be a top 15 every year.
And FSU is just one example Miami and Georgia under Richt , UCLA and Southern Cal, Texas, Michigan this year, and this list is goes on and on. You need both. If I can only pick one I pick coaching.
 

Boaty1

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,104
Butch was laughed out of Knoxville. He did bring some stability to a program that needed it, but in the end lost the locker room, the fan base, and every SEC game.

Right but wasn’t he still better than Dooley, Kiffin and Pruitt? I mean at some point Tennesse just has to accept who they are.
 

Vespidae

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,967
Location
Auburn, AL
Right but wasn’t he still better than Dooley, Kiffin and Pruitt? I mean at some point Tennesse just has to accept who they are.

Tennessee "BELIEVES" that they are an elite program. But that was 20 plus years ago that they won a natty.

Is Butch better than Kiffin? No. Whatever your position on Kiffin, he is a genius OC and had experience as a head coach. Butch played band in college and never played college ball.

Is Butch better than Dooley? Dooley was perceived as a good recruiter and polished ... but not a good coach.

Is Butch better than Pruitt? No. Pruitt is taking the Vols through a very painful period to get the system and players UT needs to compete for SEC titles. Butch was unable to do that. Or even wanted to ...
 

gtg391z

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
459
Well, Butch Jones > CPJ( this was proven on the field) so if CGC = CBJ then we are still in better position than before.
 

slugboy

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
10,805
Not sure if flunkgate was his fault. Wasn't that a snafu in the front office or something? Should he have known they were using inaccurate gradients to measure academic progress? Refresh my memory.

O’Leary kept tabs on academic progress. Gailey thought that the academic advisory team would keep that all sorted out. He may have even been told that was the case. We were changing academic calendars and adopting APR, and the advisors screwed up with a large group of kids. (I’m not entirely sure about the academic calendars—I thought we’d moved to semesters earlier than that, but that was part of the explanation at the time.)
We got hit twice—good players became ineligible and we got hit with recruiting sanctions.
It’s a mistake in a couple of areas—he screwed up and trusted them, and as CEO of the football team he’s got a responsibility to make sure all phases of the program under him are operating correctly. You don’t have to do it yourself, but you gotta look at the reports and ask some tough questions.
And, the AD screwed up in a big way in that regard too. As a coach and an AD you can delegate, but you’ve got to verify. Academics can’t entirely be someone else’s job.
 
Top