Locker room issues?

[GaTech4ever]

It’s well-known that this same issue happened at UNC with the Butch Davis to Larry Fedora transition. To the point where it essentially became Butch’s guys vs. everyone else even years later. Fedora couldn’t escape it and it was a huge part of his demise there.

 

[TromboneJacket]

Wouldn't this be a normal occurrence for almost any new coach? A new way of doing things, new coaches to which to prove oneself, new coaches preferring new players can cause resentment... all normal stuff. It may have been worse because almost the first thing said was roster management, which basically is code for we need to get better players. If a new boss comes in at your job and the first thing he says is that you're not good enough and we need to replace you, even if it's to the group as a whole - how does one feel about that? So, IF there were additional locker room issues above and beyond the norm, then that is on CGC...
Also - he mentioned publicly many times how the team had bought in.
By the way - I'm not a CGC hater, but definitely not a fan of some of the ways he does things.

Maybe, maybe not. It depends on the old coach and the new coach. Sometimes a new coach comes in because the old one left for greener pastures, and the new coach is similar enough that it’s an easy transition. And it depends on the players; they are people too, after all. And maybe this is why Collins had an easier time at Temple than Tech. He had worked with Matt Rhule several times in his career, so he was familiar with the way Rhule did things and knew what to expect from his players. It’s possible that maybe CPJ’s players tended to have a chip on their shoulder because many of them weren’t highly rated by the recruiting services and felt overlooked by the teams we were playing. It’s possible that because CPJ saw potential in them where others didn’t, they became fiercely loyal to him and then felt like Collins saw them the same way as the coaches who overlooked them, redirecting that anger from opponents to their own head coach, thus turning what was previously a strength into a weakness. CPJ may not have had a unique way of running a program, but he recruited differently from most other coaches at this level.

To make a Star Wars analogy ( for those who follow some of the new material), it’s like Collins was used to leading Regs (standard soldiers with whom standard strategies, tactics, procedures, and leadership are effective), but CPJ’s players were the Bad Batch (a ragtag group of misfits with skills that weren’t inferior to the regs, but different and needed a leader who could not only figure out how to use these unusual skills effectively but also manage these unconventional personalities).

While Collins has done a great job recruiting, his focus on improving recruiting likely alienated many of the returning players immediately and bred resentment that’s hampered our cohesion.

Regardless of how we got to this point, this is the year that we need better results. Collins has had 3 years to turn over the roster and develop young players. Regardless of whether my speculation is accurate, we should have the players and coaches in place to win more games. I really hope we manage to succeed.

 

[LoganGTweed]

In yesterday's Locked On podcast that Byrce Koon does he talked a lot about issues with players (primarily from CPJ recruits but some CGC recruits) not being bought in and causing major issues in the locker room. He also mentioned that most if not all the guys that were not bought in have now left the program.

If this is the case, which Bryce seems to be certain is it, then that likely contributed to many of the issues we had last year especially on D. I felt like most of the defensive play calls were not bad but broke down cause of miscommunication or players being out of position. If the players don't believe/trust in the coaching staff then they will likely do their own thing and end up out of position.

Thought I would start this thread to see what others thought about Bryce's comments and also to see if anyone here had any further insights into what is/was actually going on. Please don't turn this into a CPJ vs CGC or Fire CGC debate. The focus is more on the player dynamic not the coaches.

This is off topic and doesn’t really matter but is bryce a georgia fan? when they won the NC he was likes and retweets were popping up on my timeline and they were all celebrating georgia? Doesn’t matter just curious

 

[tomknight]

Yeah, it feels like “here we go again” Another year 0.

EVERY coaching change we’ve ever had at Tech had an initial year of players loyal to a different coaching style not buying into the new coach’s ways. That’s not news.

What is news is when a coach doesn’t resolve that after the first year. To still be blaming that almost four years in is a coaching problem not a player problem. Players who buck the system should not be starters and certainly are not “above the line.”

who says the coach is blaming anything? some dude hosting a podcast trolling for ad revenue said it.

 

[forensicbuzz]

Yes, by the middle of his 2nd year is was over with. And the season started turning around. The team was playing like a team by then. And his locker room was CRAZY bad to start with.

He was also a seasoned, hard-nosed head coach with George O'Leary and Ralph Friedgen as his coordinators. I could see why, between Ross and O'Leary, the bad actors either changed their tune or left. They wouldn't put up with anyone's ****. CGC is not the same level of experience or the same type of coach, so I could see it taking longer.

 

[chewybaka]

Maybe, maybe not. It depends on the old coach and the new coach. Sometimes a new coach comes in because the old one left for greener pastures, and the new coach is similar enough that it’s an easy transition. And it depends on the players; they are people too, after all. And maybe this is why Collins had an easier time at Temple than Tech. He had worked with Matt Rhule several times in his career, so he was familiar with the way Rhule did things and knew what to expect from his players. It’s possible that maybe CPJ’s players tended to have a chip on their shoulder because many of them weren’t highly rated by the recruiting services and felt overlooked by the teams we were playing. It’s possible that because CPJ saw potential in them where others didn’t, they became fiercely loyal to him and then felt like Collins saw them the same way as the coaches who overlooked them, redirecting that anger from opponents to their own head coach, thus turning what was previously a strength into a weakness. CPJ may not have had a unique way of running a program, but he recruited differently from most other coaches at this level.

To make a Star Wars analogy ( for those who follow some of the new material), it’s like Collins was used to leading Regs (standard soldiers with whom standard strategies, tactics, procedures, and leadership are effective), but CPJ’s players were the Bad Batch (a ragtag group of misfits with skills that weren’t inferior to the regs, but different and needed a leader who could not only figure out how to use these unusual skills effectively but also manage these unconventional personalities).

While Collins has done a great job recruiting, his focus on improving recruiting likely alienated many of the returning players immediately and bred resentment that’s hampered our cohesion.

Regardless of how we got to this point, this is the year that we need better results. Collins has had 3 years to turn over the roster and develop young players. Regardless of whether my speculation is accurate, we should have the players and coaches in place to win more games. I really hope we manage to succeed.

Makes sense, in selling new recruits how bad they are needed and consequently have a shot to start immediately which by nature would create a rift with the carry over folk from the previous administration...

Tuff nut, thank you for elucidating.

 

[g0lftime]

Pr

So, in summary, we are saying that Collins had to deal with what every other new coach has dealt with. Just might be taking him longer.

Problem goes away if winning after second or third year and going to bowls. Hasn't happened for him and prior coach was winning more than he lost. A lot of the older guys are probably staying to get their degree.

 

[CEB]

For what it's worth, this is all rampant speculation on my part....
When CGC was brought in, he was brought in to usher in a completely new era of GT football. As part of that, there was, by design, emphasis on “out with the old.” In my opinion, there was too much emphasis on the “out with the old” part. It came off as “the scheme is bad, the talent / personnel is lacking and this is going to be a Herculean effort to rebuild a respectable program.” Some fans were fired up, but for some fans it came off way wrong. As off-putting as that was to some fans, imagine what the locker room felt like. The guys working their butts off for the last coach we’re more invested than any of us and its not a stretch to think that a lot of kids took away a message of “this whole thing is broken and I don’t think you guys are good enough to fix it.” I don’t know if there is dissension in the ranks or a toxic locker room or what. All accounts are CGC is a good guy most players like. But it’s obvious coaching transitions are always hard on the existing players and the messaging here was overplayed enough to make it seem pretty reasonable for some guys to become disgruntled and disinterested.
Hopefully thats not the case and even if it were, winning will fix it. If the wins don’t come, we may be in for another round of disenfranchised guys...

 

[CEB]

Maybe, maybe not. It depends on the old coach and the new coach. Sometimes a new coach comes in because the old one left for greener pastures, and the new coach is similar enough that it’s an easy transition. And it depends on the players; they are people too, after all. And maybe this is why Collins had an easier time at Temple than Tech. He had worked with Matt Rhule several times in his career, so he was familiar with the way Rhule did things and knew what to expect from his players. It’s possible that maybe CPJ’s players tended to have a chip on their shoulder because many of them weren’t highly rated by the recruiting services and felt overlooked by the teams we were playing. It’s possible that because CPJ saw potential in them where others didn’t, they became fiercely loyal to him and then felt like Collins saw them the same way as the coaches who overlooked them, redirecting that anger from opponents to their own head coach, thus turning what was previously a strength into a weakness. CPJ may not have had a unique way of running a program, but he recruited differently from most other coaches at this level.

To make a Star Wars analogy ( for those who follow some of the new material), it’s like Collins was used to leading Regs (standard soldiers with whom standard strategies, tactics, procedures, and leadership are effective), but CPJ’s players were the Bad Batch (a ragtag group of misfits with skills that weren’t inferior to the regs, but different and needed a leader who could not only figure out how to use these unusual skills effectively but also manage these unconventional personalities).

While Collins has done a great job recruiting, his focus on improving recruiting likely alienated many of the returning players immediately and bred resentment that’s hampered our cohesion.

Regardless of how we got to this point, this is the year that we need better results. Collins has had 3 years to turn over the roster and develop young players. Regardless of whether my speculation is accurate, we should have the players and coaches in place to win more games. I really hope we manage to succeed.

This is me acknowledging that I walked away from my last post twice, took an hour to finish it and I could’ve saved us all a lot of time if I had just waited, read yours and hit the Like button

 

[DiffusedAcorn]

This is a very interesting thing, and I'm not sure of anything but I do have a thought of sorts. Maybe the massive disappointment that was the secondary can partially be credited to this. A lot of those guys before the year we assumed were veteran leaders that we were squeezing an extra year out of due to covid. But it would answer a lot of questions about their untimely massive regression if the whole time these guys didn't really want to be here.

Again, not trying to single out any players here and not making any concrete statements, just an interesting speculation.

 

[jackets55]

I am inclined not to believe the insinuation without names. Any coach that has players that don't attempt to contribute still on the roster after just 1 year, doesn't need to be leading anything, particularly when it is too easy to pick up new players via the portal. Why would defensive players not buy in? The offense was supposedly the major transition but we didn't transition we used the "cold turkey" process. Now I could imagine that offensive players knew they could compete and win using portions of the old scheme, but there was no way in hell that was going to happen. So we racked up losses which by the current HC's own words, winning didn't matter, only change mattered. Players want to win, so I could see where that would piss off some of the old players. Nobody wants to be a doormat. Even if that is true, water over the dam.

 

[augustabuzz]

I am inclined not to believe the insinuation without names. Any coach that has players that don't attempt to contribute still on the roster after just 1 year, doesn't need to be leading anything, particularly when it is too easy to pick up new players via the portal. Why would defensive players not buy in? The offense was supposedly the major transition but we didn't transition we used the "cold turkey" process. Now I could imagine that offensive players knew they could compete and win using portions of the old scheme, but there was no way in hell that was going to happen. So we racked up losses which by the current HC's own words, winning didn't matter, only change mattered. Players want to win, so I could see where that would piss off some of the old players. Nobody wants to be a doormat. Even if that is true, water over the dam.

It is sometimes difficult to get people to reveal their hidden resentments.

 

[RonJohn]

If this is the case, which Bryce seems to be certain is it, then that likely contributed to many of the issues we had last year especially on D. I felt like most of the defensive play calls were not bad but broke down cause of miscommunication or players being out of position. If the players don't believe/trust in the coaching staff then they will likely do their own thing and end up out of position.

If your scenario is accurate and the players were playing poorly because they didn't believe/trust in the coaching staff and were not responding to the coaching, then it IS STILL the coaches fault. If players will not listen and do what you are telling them to do, then said players should not be in the field. It would be better to play smaller/slower guys who try to do what they are supposed to do than incredible athletes who will not do what they are supposed to do.

I am not conceding that your scenario is accurate, just stating that if it were, the coaches should have addressed it early on. I also see the players looking to the sideline until after the ball is snapped as a sign that the play calls were not getting to the players in time to know what they were supposed to do on given plays. The secondary appeared to be confused very often this past year. Some of that might be on the players, but I am certain that at least some of it was on the coaches.

 

[IM79]

Yes, by the middle of his 2nd year is was over with. And the season started turning around. The team was playing like a team by then. And his locker room was CRAZY bad to start with.

Ross record first three years was :
1987 2-9
1988 3-8
1989 7-4

 

[DiffusedAcorn]

If your scenario is accurate and the players were playing poorly because they didn't believe/trust in the coaching staff and were not responding to the coaching, then it IS STILL the coaches fault. If players will not listen and do what you are telling them to do, then said players should not be in the field. It would be better to play smaller/slower guys who try to do what they are supposed to do than incredible athletes who will not do what they are supposed to do.

I am not conceding that your scenario is accurate, just stating that if it were, the coaches should have addressed it early on. I also see the players looking to the sideline until after the ball is snapped as a sign that the play calls were not getting to the players in time to know what they were supposed to do on given plays. The secondary appeared to be confused very often this past year. Some of that might be on the players, but I am certain that at least some of it was on the coaches.

I don't agree with everything here, but I will say that this entire season my biggest gripe with the defensive coaching was that I couldn't understand why we still had some of the under performing veterans playing ahead of guys. Of course, I don't know as much as the coaches about which guys on the team are best, but the refusal to sit some of the veterans really seemed like a bad decision from the outside.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Ross record first three years was :
1987 2-9
1988 3-8
1989 7-4

Exactly. 5 of those losses were one possession losses. My memory (questionable) is that included loses by 1,2, or 3 points.

But my main memory is that the team looked disciplined and solid, platoons getting on and off the field etc. I thought they would win more in his third year based on what I was seeing but at least he had a winning season by 3rd year.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

For what it's worth, this is all rampant speculation on my part....
When CGC was brought in, he was brought in to usher in a completely new era of GT football. As part of that, there was, by design, emphasis on “out with the old.” In my opinion, there was too much emphasis on the “out with the old” part. It came off as “the scheme is bad, the talent / personnel is lacking and this is going to be a Herculean effort to rebuild a respectable program.” Some fans were fired up, but for some fans it came off way wrong. As off-putting as that was to some fans, imagine what the locker room felt like. The guys working their butts off for the last coach we’re more invested than any of us and its not a stretch to think that a lot of kids took away a message of “this whole thing is broken and I don’t think you guys are good enough to fix it.” I don’t know if there is dissension in the ranks or a toxic locker room or what. All accounts are CGC is a good guy most players like. But it’s obvious coaching transitions are always hard on the existing players and the messaging here was overplayed enough to make it seem pretty reasonable for some guys to become disgruntled and disinterested.
Hopefully thats not the case and even if it were, winning will fix it. If the wins don’t come, we may be in for another round of disenfranchised guys...

This seems like a reasonable interpretation. I always wondered when CGC was running down the size, physicality and energy level of the “inherited” players how that made them feel.

 

[Sheboygan]

Seems clear that is what next year is all about...a make or brake year 4

"break " ........sorry, I couldn't help myself

 

[Sheboygan]

Yep. And from what we have seen on gameday he seems to be less well equipped than most to deal with it. Maybe he learns / gets help this year. He needs one or both...

Agreed. IMO , if he thinks he is not the problem and just hiring new coaches will fix things, he may not survive. I think he MUST have both to last for more than next year.

 

[forensicbuzz]

I'm just not buying this. It may be that he lost some of the locker room, but I think he had the locker room, to begin with. There were always going to be those who kept quiet and waited to be shown, but I don't think anyone didn't play their hardest when on the field. These guys are competitors and no one is going to do less than the best they can because they all have aspirations and a piss-poor effort won't help them achieve their aspirations.