Legitimate observation/question

[Augusta_Jacket]

So you have put together a reasoned argument, but let me propose some alternate hypotheses and counter arguments:

1. Had we remained with the spread option (which I agree T Stansbury was getting too much political pressure against to keep) :
Ken N will never leave Navy -- not a viable candidate
Jeff Monken -- Even the Army boosters expected him to take the GT job once is came open.. I think you dismissed this choice too quickly.
Army boosters expect any successful coach to leave. It's what successful Army coaches usually do.
Brian Bohannon - Not including this season, he has 5 years as a head coach and 20 years as an assistant coach. I'm not convinced that you can dismiss him as too raw when our current head coach only has 2 years as a head coach and also has 20 years as an assistant coach.
5 years of a fledgling KSU program.
2. Had we gone with a shotgun based option offense: (this would have been my choice)
Willie Fritz - you also consider him too raw, but he has 23 years as a head coach and has already presided over a transition away from a spread option offense.
If instead you want to go young, go look at someone who runs Urban Meyer's offense - which is a spread option offense out of the shogun.
Willie Fritz has been a FBS HC since 2014. Had a couple of good years at GaSo but hasn't moved the needle at Tulane.
3. Standard NCAA offense -- No matter who you chose, you are looking at multi-year roster re-build.

At this point you have concluded "That leaves transforming the offense as the only real option".

Here I disagree in scope. Had we gone with a shotgun based option offense as opposed to our current strategy, which as best as I can tell is "blow it all up and start over", we would have had some drop off (which is natural in any coaching transition) but would have also been competitive while the roster was transitioned to a more traditional profile. Even if that coach did not work out, we would have had 3-4 competitive years (which, given the choices that have been made, we are already conceding we are not going have ), and could have then transitioned to a traditional NCAA offense without the pain of a lost 1/3 to 1/2 decade.

I answered some specifics in bold above, but wanted to come back to "shotgun based option offense" as I am not sure that's not what we are moving towards. You point out Urban Meyer, but he uses different player types in his option than what CPJ used in his. His OL tends to pull from the same pools as we are now looking in. He doesn't recruit multiple ABs and fullbacks aren't the primary RBs. Most of your shotgun spread offenses are option based these days. Even Gus at Auburn uses the same players the rest of the factories are recruiting, which is where the 3O was so different. CPJ used smaller more athletic OL for his scheme. He relied on ABs for perimeter blocking and as APB/WR hybrids. His QBs were rarely ever recruited by other P5 schools as QBs. Every single offense you refer to uses a different style of QB than what we have typically recruited to GT under CPJ.

For shotgun spreads to work, you have to have a QB capable of not only running, but making good reads prior to the snap and also being able to stand in the pocket and make his progressions in passing situations. You need an OL with the ability to give him time to make those progressions. It is generally known that it takes 2-3 years for most OL recruits to become good enough to start at a P5 school. Outside of the elite few, most QBs take a year or two to develop. Our roster had none of these players on it, so expecting a shotgun spread ala Meyer to succeed right away would be wishful thinking as well.

Now, that's just my opinion, but I say that as someone who would have been thrilled to see the flexbone remain at GT and who would have been fine with Monken, Fritz or Coach N. In the end, while I would have probably preferred to stay with a more CPJ oriented offense, I can completely understand why we moved away from it and increasingly believe it's necessity is a reality we need to come to grips with.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

That is true, it is in our play book, but there is a big difference between having the play in the repertoire, and being committed to running the system.
Of course, we could always go with the knee jerk reaction that perhaps our coaches just don't know how to teach it correctly...

I think it's more that we really don't have the right personnel to run that system effectively yet. I am betting we will look a lot more like the Meyer offense in a few years.

 

[stech81]

It would be interesting to know who, if anyone, turned down the job before Coach Collins accepted it...

I did but you won't find it in the paper

 

[Animal02]

Hopefully the AD can fire CGC before year 4 instead of after... And we can find the next Georgia Oleary... I am schocked that so many are ok with tanking for 3 years just to win 6 or 7 games in year 4 or 5

So am I ....and it is not like TStan did a major search. It appears he took the first one that said "Pick me pick me"

 

[Animal02]

No, what would have been unacceptable would have been for the AD to try to continue the 3O until GT football simply fell into total irrelevance. If Paul Johnson, for all his brilliance and skill, couldn't sustain it as a viable offense then none of the others who currently run it would have been able to either. There is no reason to think that GT has to have a stylized, unique brand to be successful. There are plenty of programs around the country who are relevant without it, none of whom have the tradition of Georgia Tech or the recruiting base of Atlanta and the Southeast.

We do need top notch coaching because we are not an athletic factory, and due to the fact we have a relatively small alumni base, financial resources, and fewer majors. With the current level of financial resources available we couldn't afford to hire a "sure thing", so ADTS picked someone with excitement and a plan for the transition. I am not sold on CGC or this staff, but I am sold on the fact that the transition had to be made and that we should support him until he's had enough time to prove he was the wrong choice. And that amount of time certainly extends beyond one season and a couple of head scratching losses.

The "transition" did not need to be made, and certainly not in the manner it which it is taking place. And accepting multiple losing seasons simply to return to the status quo......which is what will happen......is beyond asinine and will likely do long lasting damage.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

So am I ....and it is not like TStan did a major search. It appears he took the first one that said "Pick me pick me"

Please explain how you came to this conclusion. ADs often make coaching decisions and hires in a relatively short time. The timing of the CGC hire was not unusual by any means. Considering the impetus to have a HC in place to help salvage the recruiting class a week and a half before signing day I thought TStan did well. I sometimes understand your takes regarding CGC, though often I don't agree with them, but your take here seems petulant at best.

 

[Vespidae]

So am I ....and it is not like TStan did a major search. It appears he took the first one that said "Pick me pick me"

Hard to say. I'm always surprised that AD's don't have a slate of candidates at all times. When I ran a business, we usually had 3-5 candidates for every skill position we had so that if one left we could fill it in a very short timeframe. Sometimes within the same week.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

The "transition" did not need to be made, and certainly not in the manner it which it is taking place. And accepting multiple losing seasons simply to return to the status quo......which is what will happen......is beyond asinine and will likely do long lasting damage.

I've explained above why I feel it need to be made, even though I didn't prefer the transition be made at all. Can you please give a factual rundown of how we could have avoided it and which specific coaches we should have hired? I've detailed why I don't believe Monken would have come, and Coach N has turned down several offers from schools previously and has stated his desire to retire at Navy, so who exactly should have been HC?

 

[JorgeJonas]

Please explain how you came to this conclusion. ADs often make coaching decisions and hires in a relatively short time. The timing of the CGC hire was not unusual by any means. Considering the impetus to have a HC in place to help salvage the recruiting class a week and a half before signing day I thought TStan did well. I sometimes understand your takes regarding CGC, though often I don't agree with them, but your take here seems petulant at best.

I think he was too interested in hiring someone with connections to the school. That was the only reason to even consider Whisenhunt. I know it shouldn’t inform my opinion of his hiring Collins, but I think it made me a skeptic of everything he has done since because it suggests his reasoning for a decision is poor and he unnecessarily limited his pool of candidates.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

I think he was too interested in hiring someone with connections to the school. That was the only reason to even consider Whisenhunt. I know it shouldn’t inform my opinion of his hiring Collins, but I think it made me a skeptic of everything he has done since because it suggests his reasoning for a decision is poor and he unnecessarily limited his pool of candidates.

I can totally understand this viewpoint. I was as aghast as anyone at the thought of KW being hired as our new HC. I still don't think it changes the calculus on the need to move away from the flexbone. IMO, Monken was the only viable option as a CPJ style replacement so any other coach was going to be a transition. I just don't think the right long term move, think 2-3 coaches down the line, was to continue with the CPJ-style option but rather to rip off the band aid and deal with it now, while the boosters are primed to fund it.

 

[Animal02]

I've explained above why I feel it need to be made, even though I didn't prefer the transition be made at all. Can you please give a factual rundown of how we could have avoided it and which specific coaches we should have hired? I've detailed why I don't believe Monken would have come, and Coach N has turned down several offers from schools previously and has stated his desire to retire at Navy, so who exactly should have been HC?

I had spoken at length to a West Point player / recent grad the summer if '18. It was apparently generally accepted and anticipated that Monken would go after the Tech job when CPJ retired.

 

[JorgeJonas]

I can totally understand this viewpoint. I was as aghast as anyone at the thought of KW being hired as our new HC. I still don't think it changes the calculus on the need to move away from the flexbone. IMO, Monken was the only viable option as a CPJ style replacement so any other coach was going to be a transition. I just don't think the right long term move, think 2-3 coaches down the line, was to continue with the CPJ-style option but rather to rip off the band aid and deal with it now, while the boosters are primed to fund it.

I think I agree with you on this. The point you made earlier about there being an absence of coaches that are able to teach the players the system and how to execute it was excellent, and it changed my mind. I am convinced we had to stop running that particular system. I am less convinced we had to do what everyone else is doing, which is what Collins has chosen.

 

[Animal02]

I think he was too interested in hiring someone with connections to the school. That was the only reason to even consider Whisenhunt. I know it shouldn’t inform my opinion of his hiring Collins, but I think it made me a skeptic of everything he has done since because it suggests his reasoning for a decision is poor and he unnecessarily limited his pool of candidates.

Me as well.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

I had spoken at length to a West Point player / recent grad the summer if '18. It was apparently generally accepted and anticipated that Monken would go after the Tech job when CPJ retired.

Interesting. I have a friend on staff at USMA who indicated otherwise.

 

[Vespidie]

For those touting 3 years before the miracle transformation should take place, what is your basis? I'll remind you that football and basketball transformations are quite different due to numbers alone (24 versus 5). A 3 year basketball turnaround. No doubt. Under the same exact circumstances, a 3 year football turnaround is absolute fantasy unless you're coaching pee-wee football.

If you're strictly talking about the defensive side of the ball, then I'll give that to you. That is a quasi-realistic expectation that is attainable due to the nature of defensive football. Read, react, attack.

As for the offensive side of the ball, you're confusing fandom expectations with the harsh reality of not having an OL conducive to run the proposed offense that the new staff wants to run, as well as a QB that feels confident enough to stand in the pocket behind said inexperienced OL.

3 years of CGC recruits provides us with, at best, RS-Sophs manning positions across the board leaving the remaining positions from the previous regime. Again people are claiming that we don't have the personnel to line up against our opponents, yet the same people are stating 3 years is the magic number for success. It just seems a bit difficult and foolish to reconcile the two.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

I think I agree with you on this. The point you made earlier about there being an absence of coaches that are able to teach the players the system and how to execute it was excellent, and it changed my mind. I am convinced we had to stop running that particular system. I am less convinced we had to do what everyone else is doing, which is what Collins has chosen.

I think I agree with you with the minor quibble being I am not sure we can properly judge yet what CGC has chosen since he doesn't have the pieces in place to run what he wants to. It most likely will be some variant of the same offense everyone else is running, but we will run it with recruiting classes in the high 20's/low 30's and hope that is enough talent to make a difference. If he moves the needle and gets us consistently into the top 20 recruiting we may stand a punchers chance of winning 8 games a year.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

For those touting 3 years before the miracle transformation should take place, what is your basis? I'll remind you that football and basketball transformations are quite different due to numbers alone (24 versus 5). A 3 year basketball turnaround. No doubt. Under the same exact circumstances, a 3 year football turnaround is absolute fantasy unless you're coaching pee-wee football.

If you're strictly talking about the defensive side of the ball, then I'll give that to you. That is a quasi-realistic expectation that is attainable due to the nature of defensive football. Read, react, attack.

As for the offensive side of the ball, you're confusing fandom expectations with the harsh reality of not having an OL conducive to run the proposed offense that the new staff wants to run, as well as a QB that feels confident enough to stand in the pocket behind said inexperienced OL.

3 years of CGC recruits provides us with, at best, RS-Sophs manning positions across the board leaving the remaining positions from the previous regime. Again people are claiming that we don't have the personnel to line up against our opponents, yet the same people are stating 3 years is the magic number for success. It just seems a bit difficult and foolish to reconcile the two.

I think it will be between 3-8 years. Three years is IF Collins and Thacker can get our defense playing at an elite level. Collins made his mark with defense, and he inherited some good players there, as well as shown particular prowess in recruiting defense, so I am optimistic that he can move the needle in that direction. If our defense can start holding opponents, it will allow our offense the opportunity to win a few games each year that we may have struggled in otherwise. That's how we beats USF this year after all.

 

[JacketOff]

For those touting 3 years before the miracle transformation should take place, what is your basis? I'll remind you that football and basketball transformations are quite different due to numbers alone (24 versus 5). A 3 year basketball turnaround. No doubt. Under the same exact circumstances, a 3 year football turnaround is absolute fantasy unless you're coaching pee-wee football.

If you're strictly talking about the defensive side of the ball, then I'll give that to you. That is a quasi-realistic expectation that is attainable due to the nature of defensive football. Read, react, attack.

As for the offensive side of the ball, you're confusing fandom expectations with the harsh reality of not having an OL conducive to run the proposed offense that the new staff wants to run, as well as a QB that feels confident enough to stand in the pocket behind said inexperienced OL.

3 years of CGC recruits provides us with, at best, RS-Sophs manning positions across the board leaving the remaining positions from the previous regime. Again people are claiming that we don't have the personnel to line up against our opponents, yet the same people are stating 3 years is the magic number for success. It just seems a bit difficult and foolish to reconcile the two.

3 year turnarounds at both Minnesota and Baylor provide evidence to the contrary... Monken had a 3 year turnaround at Army. Dabo’s record at Clemson was average until year 4 after only winning 6 in year 3. Ed Ogeron won 10 games for the first time in year 3 at LSU.

I’m not sure why you think it’s impossible to change the trajectory of a program in 3 years.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

3 year turnarounds at both Minnesota and Baylor provide evidence to the contrary... Monken had a 3 year turnaround at Army. Dabo’s record at Clemson was average until year 4 after only winning 6 in year 3. Ed Ogeron won 10 games for the first time in year 3 at LSU.

I’m not sure why you think it’s impossible to change the trajectory of a program in 3 years.

Minnesota and Baylor weren't ditching the 3O and didn't have rosters packed with 3O personnel...
Monken was a 3O coach hired to replace a 3O coach and inherited players recruited to play in a 3) scheme...
Clemson's recruiting was excellent before Dabo ever got there, and he wasn't overhauling offensive scheme. The indictment on the former coach was he never utilized the talent he had...
Orgeron also inherited a team with a history of top 10 recruiting classes and has an unstoppable offense but also a defense that just surrendered 600+ yards to a mediocre Texas A&M team...

I am not sure you are making realistic comparisons...

 

[g0lftime]

Year 3 should be a good indicator of real progress. JG or Yates should have proven experience by then. The OL recruits should have numbers and a year of coaching with strength/conditioning work. We need some bigs on the DL. We are getting manhandled there. VPI ran on us at will. I am still amazed we stopped them on the goal on that last drive. I expect a winning season by year 3. I am also assuming Gleason redshirts next year and will not start in 2021 over experienced JG or Yates. Time will tell.