Mostly “Fire Geoff Collins”, some reminiscing, maybe bourbon or other distractions

Eli

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,712
Lots of formations only about 6 plays so yes. a ton of option. Both in 1990 and with joe. So really you have to go back to what? one year of curry to find us not having success with an option offense? We also did a lot of veer but i don't think you really understand what you are watching well enough to have a discussion on it given your takes.
Don’t forget Godsey in the flexbone vs uga. That damn option on the flats

 

jgtengineer

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,066
Don’t forget Godsey in the flexbone vs uga. That damn option on the flats



That's not really a flex bone that's more of a veer triple off Motion to I. Now we did actually use some flexed wing formations in Fridges offense however. Mainly when he was doing run and shoot stuff with joe (though he favored the singleback flex (outside reciever off the line inside reciever on it with a Tight end to the boundary) formation when he was doing a lot of that. Dez White vs UVA was out of that formation I think with Dez basically running a slant inside the flanker's fly route to clear out the throwing lane.
 

Eli

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,712
That's not really a flex bone that's more of a veer triple off Motion to I. Now we did actually use some flexed wing formations in Fridges offense however. Mainly when he was doing run and shoot stuff with joe (though he favored the singleback flex (outside reciever off the line inside reciever on it with a Tight end to the boundary) formation when he was doing a lot of that. Dez White vs UVA was out of that formation I think with Dez basically running a slant inside the flanker's fly route to clear out the throwing lane.

I call it the flex but it’s out of habit . Paul ran this play all night vs FSU in 2009
with Anthony Allen being the single motion man
 

tmhunter52

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,466
I call it the flex but it’s out of habit . Paul ran this play all night vs FSU in 2009
with Anthony Allen being the single motion man

Watching that GT-FSU video, I was struck by the physicality of that GT team compared to GT football now. I wish we could get more hard, mean, toughness like that and less of the prissy, sideline dancing and flag-ball play that seems currently our norm. Is that seemingly less physical football play part of the Collins culture or is that the state of college football in general these days?
 

pbrown520

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
586
What made 3O work for CPJ (when it worked) was that he was a wizard of it and could call it masterfully. Not that the scheme itself is a plug and play cheat mode.
Paul said this himself. He said it wasn't the only thing you could run, but he was a firm believer in having a system and sticking to that system.

I firmly believe that tech could win with a lot of different systems, but I believe that Tech won't win with a vanilla system with coaches who are unimaginative and predictable. The only time those coaches are successful is when their teams out athlete others. No, I don't mean predictable to us in the stands - I mean predictable to the opposing coaches. Additionally I think the lack of execution is a big sign of not only talent, but also how you prepare. I don't think GT prepares well right now, for whatever reason.
 

slugboy

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
11,725
Some people act like act Like Johnson’s record wasn’t almost identical to Gailey’s. Who ran the most basic offense one could imagine. Basic pro style or 3O, we were basically the same over the duration. The basic set is up for success with next coach, the 3O was devestating for the next coach. Gailey was better for GT football than Johnson
Gailey's offense might have been basic, but the defense raised a lot of eyebrows. Other coaches called the Gailey (Tenuta) defense "gimmicky" just like the Flexbone.
 

bobongo

Helluva Engineer
Messages
7,739
Gailey's offense might have been basic, but the defense raised a lot of eyebrows. Other coaches called the Gailey (Tenuta) defense "gimmicky" just like the Flexbone.
And our offense was pedestrian while our defense was stellar. Go figure...
 

jgtengineer

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,066
And our offense was pedestrian while our defense was stellar. Go figure...

Sad thing was it didn't have to be. We flirted with the power spread concepts in reggies freshman and sophmore years. But rather than embrace what reggie was good at (throwing on the move and running the ball) we tried to square peg round hole him into being a pocket passer.
 

takethepoints

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,145
Since 2020 Tech has signed (or currently committed for the 22 class) more 4 star players than: Michigan State, Virginia, Pitt, Arizona State, Iowa, Iowa State, Cinicinnati, UCLA, Nebraska, South Carolina, Baylor, Texas Tech, and Stanford just to name a few. Acquiring talent is not the problem at all. The problem is developing that talent and putting them in the right places to be successful during games.

Only 1 of those 13 players has transferred, and with Bryce Gowdy’s tragedy only 2 of them aren’t on the roster. The problem isn’t keeping talent, either.
Took a quick look at 247. I'm not sure where you are getting your figures. According to 247, we have recruited 8 four stars since 2020. Stanford has brought in 13, Iowa 10, UCLA 13, and so on. I think you must be including high school rankings of transfers, but I didn't take the time to find out, largely because I don't think those are very accurate. 247 Includes a revised - and almost always lower - rating for transfers. We are doing better then Pitt (11 wins in 2020) and Virginia (6 wins), but it doesn't seem to be doing us much good.

But your point is well taken; we've done ok with recruiting over the last 3 years, despite a bad record. I might add also that while we didn't do as well - according to conventional ratings - during Paul's time at Tech our production on both sides of the ball was better as was our record. Running a system offense has its advantages.
 
Last edited:

Oldgoldandwhite

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,840
Coming out of the triple option has led to the worst 3 year stretch of GT football in you tell me how long.

Never going back to that offense. Thank god.
I don’t think that correlation is correct. Some will be using that excuse for the next 100 years. And I don’t think it’s ever coming back, but I’m tired of excuses.
We lost to several teams that we should have beaten running the Wing T or the Single Wing.
 

Oldgoldandwhite

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,840
The ACC finished with the most teams in the top 20 of the CFP rankings of anybody. Couldn’t have been that bad.

Baylor and Utah are not re rioting juggernauts. We flipped a 4 star qb from Baylor coming of 3 straight 3 win seasons this year for example.
I’m only seeing 4. Several conferences have that or more.
 

JacketOff

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,009
Took a quick look at 247. I'm not sure where you are getting your figures. According to 247, we have recruited 8 four stars since 2020. Stanford has brought in 13, Iowa 10, UCLA 13, and so on. I think you must be including high school rankings of transfers, but I didn't take the time to find out, largely because I don't think those are very accurate. 247 Includes a revised - and almost always lower - rating for transfers. We are doing better then Pitt (11 wins in 2020) and Virginia (6 wins), but it doesn't seem to be doing us much good.

But your point is well taken; we've done ok with recruiting over the last 3 years, despite a bad record. I might add also that while we didn't do as well - according to conventional ratings - during Paul's time at Tech our production on both sides of the ball was better as was our record. Running a system offense has its advantages.
My numbers came from Rivals and have nothing to do with transfers in. It’s purely HS signees or commits. Georgia Tech has signed or has currently committed more 4 stars (according to Rivals) than all of the schools I listed.
 

takethepoints

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,145
My numbers came from Rivals and have nothing to do with transfers in. It’s purely HS signees or commits. Georgia Tech has signed or has currently committed more 4 stars (according to Rivals) than all of the schools I listed.
Oh. Well, 247 and Rivals often, shall we say, disagree. In general, I like 247 better, but it's a matter of choice. It might have been better to include ratings from both in the original post. Or in mine, for that matter.

As the French say, tant pis.
 

augustabuzz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,412
Took a quick look at 247. I'm not sure where you are getting your figures. According to 247, we have recruited 8 four stars since 2020. Stanford has brought in 13, Iowa 10, UCLA 13, and so on. I think you must be including high school rankings of transfers, but I didn't take the time to find out, largely because I don't think those are very accurate. 247 Includes a revised - and almost always lower - rating for transfers. We are doing better then Pitt (11 wins in 2020) and Virginia (6 wins), but it doesn't seem to be doing us much good.

But your point is well taken; we've done ok with recruiting over the last 3 years, despite a bad record. I might add also that while we didn't do as well - according to conventional ratings - during Paul's time at Tech our production on both sides of the ball was better as was our record. Running a system offense has its advantages.
For recruiting ratings, I prefer Rivals.
 
Top