Life after Paul Johnson.... hypothetical question

[OldJacketFan]

I'd like a Chad Morris, Malzahn, Willie Fritz type of O. A run oriented spread that has more of a passing component.

All of which can be run out of the present offense The only thing I disagree with is out of their brand of O is insisting in keeping the QB in the shotgun.

 

[Yoda]

The only way I would go away from this scheme is 1. our recruiting limitations disappeared or 2. other ACC schools started running the the same scheme. Those who don't learn by history are bound to repeat it.

You saw what happened at GA Southern when PJ (as OC and HC) had equal or better talent than other teams. With players being equal, our scheme is far superior to any other scheme out there right now.

 

[bke1984]

I'm not sure we should be married to a system as a rule. There are plenty of coaches out there that run flexbone option systems, but I only know of one that has won the Orange Bowl and a Power-5 conference championship. Basically what I'm saying is that CPJ is the reason for our increased success more so than the system. If you put aside the handful of games where he's become stubborn, I think he's an incredible in-game coach.

When the time comes to hire a new guy, I just want us to get the best we can get for Georgia Tech, regardless of the system that is run. I think we've done that with three of our last five football coaches...all of which ran different systems.

 

[Foxyg]

You go hire the best coach you can get period. The pile of potential coaches to choose from for a TO head coach hasn't been picked over as much as the other pile of coaches that run more traditional stuff. I'm firmly convinced that Paul is a top 5 or 10 head coach in all of college football. His offense just means that 90% of the programs out there wouldn't give him a shot. I suspect that the best head coach we can get will be a TO coach.

 

[Ash]

Hire the best coach we can.
The best coach out there might not be the best coach for Tech.

 

[tech_wreck47]

Then the best coach available in that case is the option coach. And no, I don't see Tech bringing in an Urban Meyer, Jim Harbaugh, or Nick Saban, but we can certainly attract an up-and-coming Mike MacIntyre or Mark Dantonio or Gary Patterson or Chris Petersen or whoever, and any of those would do just as well if not better at Tech than Johnson. My fear is that we will get into this mentality (which we're already showing a LOT of signs of doing) that is HAS to be an option coach, that only an option coach has a good chance of winning at Tech, and that is just false and will hurt us in the future if we get into that mentality. But again, this is all just my personal opinion

If we were winning I wouldn't mind getting a coach that runs something Different it's just my opinion from seeing what has happened in the past not ruining the option that at GT the option helps us level the playing field because of the limitations we have as a school. Maybe there is a coach who could do well but there is only a handful of guys that are up and coming to choose from and that still doesn't mean they will pan out. I understand that's the same with the option coach but imo it just gives us the best chance at leveling the playing field and it's a safer pick to insure good football. Jmo

 

[TheTaxJacket]

Need to get an offense that allows us to maximize the players ability. Prostyle wont accomplish thay and that style of offense is exactly why UGA isnt more competitive. Gotta be spread based. Yomanser wants us to be a Michigan or a Clemson but the fact of the matter is we will never ever be that with our recruiting and restrictions with the hill. So the reality is that we are more aligned with Navy/Army in the athletes we can recruit and their commitment to the academic side of GT.

There is nothing wrong with that. We have had great success since we have had a coach that has a system that embraces that fact because it is fact. Our problems with becoming another Clemson or Michigan are much much deeper than what type of offense we run.

 

[Ibeeballin]

So we are basically back to square one with the perception over reality or is perception > success

Have a distinct identity is not bad. Honestly that is why teams like Texas can't get over the hump

Should we marry the option, no, but i definitely think we should be on in civil union with it. Success and wins should be the answer to any and every question we may have

 

[kg01]

So we are basically back to square one with the perception over reality or is perception > success

Have a distinct identity is not bad. Honestly that is why teams like Texas can't get over the hump

Should we marry the option, no, but i definitely think we should be on in civil union with it. Success and wins should be the answer to any and every question we may have

There's only 1 true candidate to replace CPJ (after he retires after winning a couple titles). That man's name is @Ibeeballin

 

[Ibeeballin]

There's only 1 true candidate to replace CPJ (after he retires after winning a couple titles). That man's name is @Ibeeballin

Get me on the Staff GTSwarm

 

[gtwcf]

I think Goose is about a year or 2 away from getting his NFL shot. I would think it would be hard to get him home.

And CTR isn't that much younger than CPJ. Average age of HC hired this past year was 46, with the median much lower. I just don't see that happening. ADs want to hire future legends, so they almost have to be younger to meet that goal.

I can't see a pro-style coach coming in with the transition required without a lot of years and a lot of money. I think we could go to a pass based spread with our A-backs being slot types.

I'm hoping we have no idea who it's going to be because CPJ coaches at a value added level until he's 70.

 

[bke1984]

So we are basically back to square one with the perception over reality or is perception > success

Have a distinct identity is not bad. Honestly that is why teams like Texas can't get over the hump

Should we marry the option, no, but i definitely think we should be on in civil union with it. Success and wins should be the answer to any and every question we may have

Right now I completely agree...but it's just too unknown. If CPJ came out in two weeks and said he was retiring, I'd want us to go after Ken at Navy...but what happens if it's five or ten years down the road and all those other guys aren't doing so hot at their respective schools?

I completely agree with you that we need an identity...and honestly, I think our identity needs to be different than whatever the hot thing of the moment is. It's tough to do the exact same thing as everyone else and do it better than they do. If everyone ran the exact same schemes, the schools with the best players would pretty much always win. Whether the fan base likes it or not, running something different does give us a slight advantage when completing with teams that have better all around athletes than we do. Right now that's the flexbone spread option...in 10 years, that may need to be something different.

So I guess instead of dancing around the question I'll say this...we should stick with this system until it doesn't produce wins anymore or there is not a qualified coach out there that can run it at the level required for success.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

That's a common fallacy, though. Just because you go to a standard offense doesn't mean you need to hire a mediocre coach like Gailey. Even besides that obvious fallacy, did that system ever break a Top-3 in the country bowl streak, have the worst season since Bill Lewis, or even have a single losing season?

Now, I'm not advocating for Chan Gailey; I think he was mediocre at best, and don't get me wrong, I love CPJ. I love the triple option. I think that our highs have been better than our lows. But the argument isn't about whether I like the triple option over other systems or whether I like Coach Johnson or not: it's about whether we should move on from that scheme after he Johnson leaves. I think that if Georgia Tech allows it to become its identity, then we'll be forever known as that school and everything will revolve around that offense. That's just putting one more restriction on a school that already has a lot of inherent limitations. I personally want a different style so that GT fans don't fall into that exact same mentality that you're displaying above: triple option or bust. You can win with different offenses. In fact, 120 teams in the country win with a different offense. 25 of them were even better than Tech, according to the AP Poll that came out. It's not like the only way Tech can win is with the triple option, and I am afraid that another option coach hire will forever stigmatize GT as the same sort of school as Navy and Army. I don't want Tech to be a Navy or Army that overachieves with lesser talent. I want Tech to be a Michigan State. I want Tech to be a Clemson. I want Tech to bring in the best and win with the best. You saw what happened when you gave Ralph Friedgen great talent with Joe Hamilton. We don't have to be unique; we just have to win

And about being different, even Ralph Friedgen who you mentioned ran a pro-style system at Maryland and later Rutgers (I can't find any info about his style at Tech, but I would imagine it's the same), and his whole philosophy was balance: not run-heavy or pass-heavy (although it got increasingly more pass-heavy in his later years at Maryland, probably because defenses were catching up and the spread scheme was gaining more prevalence). The last time an option coach won the national championship was Tom Osborne in 1997. It's been 20 years, and it's not likely to change. I want Tech to win a National Championship. If we can do it with CPJ, great. If not, then there is not going to be any option coach out there that will guide us to that promised land. CPJ is the best out there, and anybody else is a step down. Why limit yourself to lesser coaches after CPJ leaves? You're purposely putting yourself a step behind the competition. If a great coach is available but he runs a different offense, I don't care about it. I just want the best coach. If it happens to be an option coach, that's fine. More likely than not, the best coach available will not be one. I'm just afraid that the same line of thinking you displayed above will be every GT fan's mentality if we hire another option coach. Instead of focusing on the offense, we should focus on the coach itself. CPJ has been great, but more likely than not a better coach than Candeto or whoever will be available, and he will likely run a different offense than CPJ, and as long as he wins that's OK. I'm just saying that it doesn't HAVE to be an option coach, and only looking at other option coaches means you're not looking at the hundreds of other options available, and as great as he's been for us I'd rather get the next Spurrier than the next Johnson

I don't want Tech to be a Navy or Army that overachieves with lesser talent.

Because of the curriculum at Tech, we are probably always going to have to deal with "lesser talent" across the board. All I am saying is that our next coach should be one who can maximize that talent, and that is probably harder to do in "conventional" offenses than it is with a Johnson-type offense

Why limit yourself to lesser coaches after CPJ leaves?

I don't think anybody is limiting us to "lesser coaches." We should always strive to get the best, but remember, the best "conventional" coaches can get better and higher paying jobs elsewhere, so we would be back on the coaching carousel again and for perptuity.

as great as he's been for us I'd rather get the next Spurrier than the next Johnson

Well, who wouldn't, but do you think "the next Spurrier" would stay long enough to produce as well as Johnson has? And I for one don't think we've seen the best of Johnson yet.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

Michigan State. They don't recruit any better than we do, yet they do better than we do on a consistent basis.

I understand the limitations Tech has. I understand the academic standards. That's why I think it's not logical to put one more limitation on yourself when you already have so many; get the best coach available, not the best option coach available. You can win without the option, believe it or not. I love Johnson, but I fear and would hate for us to go the route of Georgia Southern, where it's option or bust

Because they are in the Big10, they get more notoriety than Tech does, or would under probably any coach, but they don't in fact do that much better. I think we would have beat them worse than we did Miss State in the 2014 Orange Bowl, if they had been put there.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Lots of good stuff on this thread. Apologies for the long post here and going in different directions, but I just read through this entire thread for the first time and there are a couple different topics I want to add commentary to. With the usual disclaimers that I have no idea what I'm talking about.

First, if anybody wants to refer to something as a High School Offense, can we all finally agree that its Alabama? OMG, did you guys watch that game? Hurts cannot throw - and their running plays had almost no variation. They are just built with strong, NFL-ready 5 Star players and they expect them to break tackles and that's how they move the ball. That was the most boring, uncreative offense I've watched in a long, long time.

Second, our own offense really isn't that much different than many other teams that run HUNH and spread offenses...except for maybe that we've been taking all the snaps from under center. We also don't throw the ball as much, but I would say that's more a function of who we have in the receiving position. In 2014, we threw the ball 200 times/25% of the time (Smelter/Waller). This year was closer to 20% of the time, with about 4 less pass attempts per game. Clemson, by comparison, this year was about 50/50. Our running the ball so much is also a direct result (I think) that we are damned good at it, so why not do it if you average 6 yards per rush. Deshuan Watson was arguably THE BEST quarterback in the entire country this year, with world class receivers, and he only averaged 7.9 yards per pass attempt. And with that came 17 Interceptions.

Many people feel the Wishbone is the most difficult offense to defend against. Our offense is not the Triple Option, as that is just one play. Its probably most correctly described as something like the Flexbone (a flexible wishbone). That means instead of using a Tight End with a couple backs, we disguise which side the 'strong side' is by placing an A-Back on each side of the line. So the defense has to line up without any foresight into which side the 'strong side' is. Then we send an A-Back in motion, which creates a strong side (the other A-Back can function as a Tight End and block), but also gives us another advantage, which is that the A-Back is now in full speed motion, giving us both the 'strong side' B-Back run, a QB keep, and an A-Back option. The Triple Option itself is a little unique, but a heck of a lot of what we do is not if you really think about it. The other thing I like about it is that you can run a ton of different variants out of the exact same plays. This is a great benefit if you see tendencies in the defense.

With regards to another topic that was on here, beating georgia, lets face it - they are currently in about 3rd place in this recruiting cycle. They are always a top 10 recruiting class. We are at a severe disadvantage to them talent-wise every single year (as would like 8-10 other ACC teams be every year as well, and with the usual caveats that we also have the 'Tech disadvantages'). I'd love to beat them every year, but any time we beat them its a surprise and we should all celebrate it. Speaking of recruiting rankings, this year will be a good example of why recruiting rankings suck. We typically carry classes of 17-18 players, compared to 25-28 for teams like georgia and Alabama (and volume directly factors into the rankings). They rotate through players like hamburgers on a grill. What should matter more is average star rating. If we actually cared about the well being of these student athletes, then we should penalize teams that have to recruit so many players. With the academic seniors that aren't returning (like Fromayan) and the transfers, we might end up taking 22-23 recruits in this class. As a result, we'll probably end up with a good class ranking (for us) of around #30. See, that's all you have to do - churn through your players like crazy. If we could force even more players out, we could improve our ranking even further and take additional players. (Yes, I am kidding.) For example, Alabama currently has the #1 ranked recruiting class according to Rivals - they have 26 commits currently. georgia is 3rd with 23. Michigan is 4th with a whopping 27. And there is almost a month left until NSD. Its a ridiculous game.

 

[RyanS12]

Because they are in the Big10, they get more notoriety than Tech does, or would under probably any coach, but they don't in fact do that much better. I think we would have beat them worse than we did Miss State in the 2014 Orange Bowl, if they had been put there.

I agree with you about beating Mich St but they had Narduzi as DC at the time while Miss St lost there's. That would've been an absolute old school war. That D was solid. Almost like Iowa's in 2009. It would've bee a great game. I think we win but more than likely by a FG or so.

 

[Sideways]

Then what you're saying is that Ralph would have been fired from Tech much earlier, because Tech doesn't get the athletes Maryland does (he consistently recruited in the Top 30, while Tech resides outside the Top 50 currently). Chan would get fired anywhere else too. It doesn't have to be those two guys: it can be ANYONE. Running the option under center might be what's best for Tech right now, because that is the best our staff can recruit. Get a staff who can recruit in the Top 30's and you can do well with most any offense. Here's my question for you: do you think that Georgia Tech can win the National Championship with an option coach that is not Coach Johnson? In my mind, no, we won't even get close. If that's the case, then strive to do better. But that's ignoring the whole point of this my entire argument: don't limit yourself even more by saying you can only choose from these certain coaches because we have to run this particular style of offense and no other.

People are starting to think that only an option coach can win at Tech, and that's just not true. THAT is what I'm worried will happen: that people will get so caught up in the triple option and get so set in their way and stubborn that they will refuse any other type of offense. That can't become Tech's identity, because it will come back and bite us in the butt if it does. It takes a good coach that understands and can coach around Tech's limitations to win at GT. Johnson is one of those. He's a great coach. But he's not the only one, and there is no guarantee that any of his assistants will do the same, or that a option coach will win as much as he does. We fired a coach for only averaging 8 wins a season. I am unwilling to go back to that mediocrity, and it doesn't matter what offense we run. And yes, I know that there's no guarantee a coach with a different system will do better than CPJ, but at least we're looking at ALL of our options and not just those that run a particular offense. That is my reasoning behind moving on from the option when CPJ is done, and you can disagree with it all you want, but that's what I'm starting to see happen, that's my fear, and I'm sticking to my opinion

You are correct in your opinion that other offenses can win at Tech. However, the current academic climate goes back to (more or less) the infamous Flunkgate and the Hill has been shall we say less than supportive of our football program. Until more support, financial and otherwise is forthcoming I do not see much benefit to doing what everyone else in the country is doing. If recruiting restrictions were to be relaxed, curriculum offerings expanded, recruiting budget, oh let's be generous doubled, then by all means have at it your way. Coach Johnson's system and its various offshoots with Monken and all the rest simply give us (at this point in time) the best way to be competitive. What Tech has achieved in football since 2000 is nothing short of miraculous given the total slavish devotion to win at all costs mentality that we currently face.

 

[Yomanser]

A flaw in your line of argument. There is no combination of coaches that could be hired at Tech and consistently recruit in the top 30s.

Reasons: the way these rankings are generated, the unethical treatment of student athletes needed to rise in the rankings (related to the first point on how they are quantified), the fact the Institute only gives bachelor of science degrees, apr effect, further institutional limitations that have led to the football program consistently recruiting at a specific level historically without regard to coaching staff, the yahoo news investigative report that 100% of 5-star recruits accept bagmen bribes in choosing their school, and that 75% of 4 stars accept bribes . . . and on and on.

However, if your point is more limited to when you have an opening you go get the best coach you can find, to the best of your ability to judge who is the best, and let that coach determine the offense, then I totally agree with you.

My point is what you said in your last statement, that if you have an opening find the best coach available and let him determine the offense, not let the offense dictate what coach you get; however, I disagree with you on your point that there is nobody that can consistently keep Tech recruiting in the Top 30s. Take Mississippi State for example: before Dan Mullen, Mississippi State consistently recruited around the number 45 spot. Since Mullen was hired, they've consistently recruited at around the number 25 spot. Before Jim Harbaugh, Stanford recruited around the high 50s, and since have dropped to consistently recruiting in the Top 20s. For many reasons, Mississippi State and Stanford are not good examples to compare to, but what they do indicate is that the right coach paired with institutional support CAN increase recruiting rankings, sometimes dramatically. I think with Stansbury we have that institutional support, and we will see if we have the right recruiting staff soon enough. However, that is all besides the point at hand, which you noted above in your last sentence, and I'm glad that we can agree on that

If we were winning I wouldn't mind getting a coach that runs something Different it's just my opinion from seeing what has happened in the past not ruining the option that at GT the option helps us level the playing field because of the limitations we have as a school. Maybe there is a coach who could do well but there is only a handful of guys that are up and coming to choose from and that still doesn't mean they will pan out. I understand that's the same with the option coach but imo it just gives us the best chance at leveling the playing field and it's a safer pick to insure good football. Jmo

Absolutely, and I totally understand where you're coming from. That is certainly a valid reasoning for wanting an option coach. I just don't want Tech to be tied down to one particular scheme. Tech should do whatever it can to ensure it can be the best it can, and in my mind making the option Tech's identity will ensure that Tech can't do that, and that GT has to instead do the best that it can within those certain parameters (do the best it can through option coaches), similar to what we've experienced with recruiting (do the best we can with guys that can handle the Institute's coursework). The latter has prevented us from doing better in that area, so I don't want to fall into the trap of the former, that we have to go option and there is no other way, because I see that limiting us as well. Tech should not feel tied to one particular system, but should do the best it can with whatever system will help it to win. Perhaps in the future that will be the option, and if so we might have to go that route, but the biggest reason that I don't want another option coach after Johnson is simply because I'm already starting to see people get so tied to that particular system that they refuse to look at other options, and that will hurt us in the future. I don't think it's that way with you, and I totally understand your reasoning, but my biggest fear is that Tech will limit itself even more, and we can't afford that. Just my personal opinion on another option coach after CPJ

Because of the curriculum at Tech, we are probably always going to have to deal with "lesser talent" across the board. All I am saying is that our next coach should be one who can maximize that talent, and that is probably harder to do in "conventional" offenses than it is with a Johnson-type offense


I don't think anybody is limiting us to "lesser coaches." We should always strive to get the best, but remember, the best "conventional" coaches can get better and higher paying jobs elsewhere, so we would be back on the coaching carousel again and for perptuity.


Well, who wouldn't, but do you think "the next Spurrier" would stay long enough to produce as well as Johnson has? And I for one don't think we've seen the best of Johnson yet.

I refuse to believe that there is absolutely nothing that GT can do to obtain greater talent. Even with all of its institutional limitations, Tech should be able to recruit in the Top 30s with the right coach running the program at its maximum efficiency. By saying that the coach HAS to run the triple option, you aren't limiting yourself to lesser coaches, but you are limiting yourself from all of the other possibilities, some of which may be better than another option coach. I think that the fear that the coach will move on from Tech is a reason a lot of people don't want to hire an up-and-coming coach, or why they want someone who might stay for a long time, or might want another option coach, but consider 2 things: the coach may end up not leaving Tech if he does very well, or even if he does, his extended run of good results will have upgraded the program in a way that we can make a similarly good hire and retain that hire (similar to what Houston is going through). It's not all bad if a coach leaves; it is kind of a blow, but if that coach did well (George O'Leary) they leave Tech in a good position. So maybe the next Spurrier wouldn't stay long enough to produce as well as CPJ has (maybe he might stay longer and produce better; who knows), but he will have at the very worst left the program in a very good position. But again, this isn't an argument about Coach Johnson; I like him and want him to stay as long as he wants. What I don't want is for Tech to feel obligated to hire a coach who runs the same offense and thus limit itself of its options. I don't want an offense to be the identity of the program. I don't want to be tied down and impose another restriction on a program that already has so many. That's what I fear might happen if we hire another option coach, and considering the amount of people who argue that the option is the only way for Tech to win (which is untrue), my fears aren't completely unfounded

Because they are in the Big10, they get more notoriety than Tech does, or would under probably any coach, but they don't in fact do that much better. I think we would have beat them worse than we did Miss State in the 2014 Orange Bowl, if they had been put there.

Michigan State absolutely does better than Tech does, and the only reason they get notoriety is because Mark Dantonio elevated the program to that level. Before Mark Dantonio, dating back to George Perles in 1983, Michigan State averaged 5.9 wins a season. Under Dantonio, they averaged 9.8 wins a year before this season. Dantonio has posted five (5!) 11+ win seasons in only one more year than CPJ (10 seasons, so half of his seasons have had 11 or more wins, and CPJ has never gotten more than 11 wins at Tech, something Dantonio has done twice), a #3 national ranking, an undefeated 14-0 season, wins in 2 major NY6/BCS bowls (wins in the Rose Bowl and Cotton Bowl), made the college football playoffs, and has only had one losing season (a familiar 3-9 season) in his 10 years as head coach. Everyone likes to note that CPJ has 4 9-win seasons at Tech, something that had only been done 17 times before him, but in that same regard Mark Dantonio has 6 9-win seasons, something that had only been done at Michigan State 9 times before him. Even the great Nick Saban (who left Michigan State after three 6-win seasons, one 7-win season, and a final 9-win season without ever winning a bowl game) couldn't do what Dantonio has done, and left complaining that MSU was second to everyone in the region and they'd never be great when they had Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State around them recruiting the same guys and getting the better talent (sound familiar?). To me, Michigan State (a state school with a bigger and more prominent in-state rival) is the epitome of what I want Tech to become

I too think that the 2014 GT team would have beaten them (we were almost unstoppable and it took FSU's best game that season to just barely beat us), but to say that Michigan State would do just as well with any coach or that they don't do better than Tech is just wrong. But again, all of that is besides the point, the point being that we don't have to be tied down to one single offense and that Tech should pursue the best coach regardless of offense, but that I personally hope that Tech gets a coach that doesn't run the option because I don't want the option to become Tech's identity. Again, this is all just my own personal opinion

 

[Yomanser]

You are correct in your opinion that other offenses can win at Tech. However, the current academic climate goes back to (more or less) the infamous Flunkgate and the Hill has been shall we say less than supportive of our football program. Until more support, financial and otherwise is forthcoming I do not see much benefit to doing what everyone else in the country is doing. If recruiting restrictions were to be relaxed, curriculum offerings expanded, recruiting budget, oh let's be generous doubled, then by all means have at it your way. Coach Johnson's system and its various offshoots with Monken and all the rest simply give us (at this point in time) the best way to be competitive. What Tech has achieved in football since 2000 is nothing short of miraculous given the total slavish devotion to win at all costs mentality that we currently face.

No, the best coach gives us the best way to be competitive. The offense is secondary to what CPJ has done. If we only look to hire someone who runs that offensive style, then we are limiting ourselves unnecessarily and overlooking other options that might be even better. This trap that only the option allows us to be competitive is why I don't want another option coach after CPJ. The best coach will allow us to be competitive, regardless of offense, but my personal reason for wanting a coach that doesn't run the option is to ensure that the program doesn't fall into the same mentality that you're displaying, that it can't be great without running the option. GT can and will be competitive without the option, and putting one more constraint on Tech by requiring the coach to run the option is counterproductive to making GT the best program it can be

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

My point is what you said in your last statement, that if you have an opening find the best coach available and let him determine the offense, not let the offense dictate what coach you get; however, I disagree with you on your point that there is nobody that can consistently keep Tech recruiting in the Top 30s. Take Mississippi State for example: before Dan Mullen, Mississippi State consistently recruited around the number 45 spot. Since Mullen was hired, they've consistently recruited at around the number 25 spot. Before Jim Harbaugh, Stanford recruited around the high 50s, and since have dropped to consistently recruiting in the Top 20s. For many reasons, Mississippi State and Stanford are not good examples to compare to, but what they do indicate is that the right coach paired with institutional support CAN increase recruiting rankings, sometimes dramatically. I think with Stansbury we have that institutional support, and we will see if we have the right recruiting staff soon enough. However, that is all besides the point at hand, which you noted above in your last sentence, and I'm glad that we can agree on that



Absolutely, and I totally understand where you're coming from. That is certainly a valid reasoning for wanting an option coach. I just don't want Tech to be tied down to one particular scheme. Tech should do whatever it can to ensure it can be the best it can, and in my mind making the option Tech's identity will ensure that Tech can't do that, and that GT has to instead do the best that it can within those certain parameters (do the best it can through option coaches), similar to what we've experienced with recruiting (do the best we can with guys that can handle the Institute's coursework). The latter has prevented us from doing better in that area, so I don't want to fall into the trap of the former, that we have to go option and there is no other way, because I see that limiting us as well. Tech should not feel tied to one particular system, but should do the best it can with whatever system will help it to win. Perhaps in the future that will be the option, and if so we might have to go that route, but the biggest reason that I don't want another option coach after Johnson is simply because I'm already starting to see people get so tied to that particular system that they refuse to look at other options, and that will hurt us in the future. I don't think it's that way with you, and I totally understand your reasoning, but my biggest fear is that Tech will limit itself even more, and we can't afford that. Just my personal opinion on another option coach after CPJ



I refuse to believe that there is absolutely nothing that GT can do to obtain greater talent. Even with all of its institutional limitations, Tech should be able to recruit in the Top 30s with the right coach running the program at its maximum efficiency. By saying that the coach HAS to run the triple option, you aren't limiting yourself to lesser coaches, but you are limiting yourself from all of the other possibilities, some of which may be better than another option coach. I think that the fear that the coach will move on from Tech is a reason a lot of people don't want to hire an up-and-coming coach, or why they want someone who might stay for a long time, or might want another option coach, but consider 2 things: the coach may end up not leaving Tech if he does very well, or even if he does, his extended run of good results will have upgraded the program in a way that we can make a similarly good hire and retain that hire (similar to what Houston is going through). It's not all bad if a coach leaves; it is kind of a blow, but if that coach did well (George O'Leary) they leave Tech in a good position. So maybe the next Spurrier wouldn't stay long enough to produce as well as CPJ has (maybe he might stay longer and produce better; who knows), but he will have at the very worst left the program in a very good position. But again, this isn't an argument about Coach Johnson; I like him and want him to stay as long as he wants. What I don't want is for Tech to feel obligated to hire a coach who runs the same offense and thus limit itself of its options. I don't want an offense to be the identity of the program. I don't want to be tied down and impose another restriction on a program that already has so many. That's what I fear might happen if we hire another option coach, and considering the amount of people who argue that the option is the only way for Tech to win (which is untrue), my fears aren't completely unfounded



Michigan State absolutely does better than Tech does, and the only reason they get notoriety is because Mark Dantonio elevated the program to that level. Before Mark Dantonio, dating back to George Perles in 1983, Michigan State averaged 5.9 wins a season. Under Dantonio, they averaged 9.8 wins a year before this season. Dantonio has posted five (5!) 11+ win seasons in only one more year than CPJ (10 seasons, so half of his seasons have had 11 or more wins, and CPJ has never gotten more than 11 wins at Tech, something Dantonio has done twice), a #3 national ranking, an undefeated 14-0 season, wins in 2 major NY6/BCS bowls (wins in the Rose Bowl and Cotton Bowl), made the college football playoffs, and has only had one losing season (a familiar 3-9 season) in his 10 years as head coach. Everyone likes to note that CPJ has 4 9-win seasons at Tech, something that had only been done 17 times before him, but in that same regard Mark Dantonio has 6 9-win seasons, something that had only been done at Michigan State 9 times before him. Even the great Nick Saban (who left Michigan State after three 6-win seasons, one 7-win season, and a final 9-win season without ever winning a bowl game) couldn't do what Dantonio has done, and left complaining that MSU was second to everyone in the region and they'd never be great when they had Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State around them recruiting the same guys and getting the better talent (sound familiar?). To me, Michigan State (a state school with a bigger and more prominent in-state rival) is the epitome of what I want Tech to become

I too think that the 2014 GT team would have beaten them (we were almost unstoppable and it took FSU's best game that season to just barely beat us), but to say that Michigan State would do just as well with any coach or that they don't do better than Tech is just wrong. But again, all of that is besides the point, the point being that we don't have to be tied down to one single offense and that Tech should pursue the best coach regardless of offense, but that I personally hope that Tech gets a coach that doesn't run the option because I don't want the option to become Tech's identity. Again, this is all just my own personal opinion

There is just too much in your post to respond to for now. But I will say this -- Tech has NEVER EVER had top 30 recruiting classes, no matter who the coach was. I really don't care what Mullen has done at Miss State. A kindergarten graduate could probably qualify to play there. As far as Mich State goes, they are PERCEIVED to be great because they are in the Big 10 and get tons of attention (SEC anyone?). But I think the MYTH of the Big 10 was totally shattered this year by just about everybody. I frankly don't think they would beat the mutts, and the mutts did not even have a very good team.