Observation and Overreaction

[Pointer]

String together multiple10-2 9-3 seasons and that would be historically a dominate run. Also him winning 6-7 would be on par with our history.

I would love to see that.

When can we expect to start seeing this?
Keep in mind that we're in year two now.

 

[missingO'Leary]

Give me a break. This coach was left with a D2 roster. We didn’t even have a QB. Lazy recruiting has put GT football in this position not the coach who has been here a year and a half. This will be a simple analysis in a few years. Look at the players Gailey, Johnson, and Collins put into the pros and we’ll see who recruited and who didn’t. I’m sure Collins would have liked to have inherited a Nesbitt, Derrick Morgan, Vance Walker, Daryl Richard, and Morgan Burnett like Johnson did. I will say this - the previous staff absolutely put the best kicker into the NFL and this staff is no where close to that at the kicking position.

 

[missingO'Leary]

This is a joke and you should feel bad for posting it.

Agree, that D2 roster beat UNC and Virginia Tech on the road, beat Virginia and Miami, Fla. Stop putting down the roster he inherited. It may not have been full of players that suited his style of play, but they were not certainly bad players. They won 7 games and whether they did it running an offense you dont like doesnt matter.

 

[Oldgoldandwhite]

Serious question? What level of suck is acceptable and when do we get to complain?

 

[lv20gt]

We really need to stop enabling the coach and whining about the roster. Collins said it was his dream job, and he took it. Nobody twisted his arm; the scholarship roster was known; his schedule was known. Now to coin a phrase we need to shut up and dribble.

Sorry, but saying "he knew what the roster was before taking the job so he can't talk about it" is beyond stupid when transforming the roster was the central point to his hire in the first place. Yes, he knew coming in we had a roster ill suited to run what we wanted to. That doesn't suddenly make that roster not ill suited to run the system. Just because he knew of problems coming in doesn't make those problems no longer relevant.

 

[lv20gt]

Serious question? What level of suck is acceptable and when do we get to complain?

There is a difference between complaining and just unreasonably bashing. Complaining because we didn't intentionally sit on the ball in the first quarter so that we could get blown out by 6 TDs instead of 8 is just silly and complaining to complain. It's obvious that some posters are almost giddy to be able to point to it as a record setting loss and pretend that it was somehow significantly worse than any of the other times we've had the score named on us in the recent past.

For example, there is a difference between pointing at the Syracuse game and saying we need to clean up the mental mistakes and saying things like the team lacks discipline, Collin's isn't nasty enough to be a coach, and the like.

It also helps if you don't just show up after losses. When your last post is after the syracuse game and you don't post again until after the clemson game just to complain, then it won't be received the same as if you were here after the UL win as well commenting then. Likewise, if the criticism is brought up in an overall analysis of a game that includes positives and negatives it will be received better.

 

[Pointer]

Sorry, but saying "he knew what the roster was before taking the job so he can't talk about it" is beyond stupid when transforming the roster was the central point to his hire in the first place. Yes, he knew coming in we had a roster ill suited to run what we wanted to. That doesn't suddenly make that roster not ill suited to run the system. Just because he knew of problems coming in doesn't make those problems no longer relevant.

Nobody is saying that.

What we are saying is that some people associate all of the problems with the program currently with roster transformation or fit.

The issue is that the "problem" you're referencing has been used as a scapegoat as an excuse for all of our issues.

This is insulting and also ignores the fact that pretty much both lines of scrimmage were decimated by injuries at some point last year. This probably had more to do with anything, but it's just easier to blame option players for the team not being competitive.

Other than the Clemson game this year, the team has been competitive and that probably has and to do some (including progress in system installation) healthier lines of scrimmage.

Let's just stop using the CGC inherited option players at the excuse for all our problems, because they are still good players and are capable of much more than some on this site think.

 

[takethepoints]

What gets me about the season so far is that we are getting our heads handed to us by every good team we play. Not just beat; incinerated. That is very worrying indeed. It can't help team morale and it certainly doesn't help with the impression the program is trying to make.

I'm not sure what's behind this and it doesn't look like Collins has a good idea either. I'm also sure that this is driving him slowly nuts. I think he knows that his 7 year contract is like most of them: it doesn't actually exist. If we don't get decent soon, he'll get bought out. I don't know if he can pull this out or not either. A lot of good coaches get into situations where they simply can't get their teams over the top.

Well, it's easy to see what his next move is: beat BC. The two teams are similar in their inability to get their act together consistently. Tech can beat them if we can sustain things like we did in the second half of the Louisville game. If we get to the same number of wins as last year this early, there's every reason to think that we might set sail a little for the rest of the season.

 

[yeti92]

What gets me about the season so far is that we are getting our heads handed to us by every good team we play. Not just beat; incinerated.

What? Two of our 3 losses were 1 score games in the 4th quarter, only Clemson "incinerated" us.

 

[Pointer]

There is a difference between complaining and just unreasonably bashing. Complaining because we didn't intentionally sit on the ball in the first quarter so that we could get blown out by 6 TDs instead of 8 is just silly and complaining to complain. It's obvious that some posters are almost giddy to be able to point to it as a record setting loss and pretend that it was somehow significantly worse than any of the other times we've had the score named on us in the recent past.

For example, there is a difference between pointing at the Syracuse game and saying we need to clean up the mental mistakes and saying things like the team lacks discipline, Collin's isn't nasty enough to be a coach, and the like.

It also helps if you don't just show up after losses. When your last post is after the syracuse game and you don't post again until after the clemson game just to complain, then it won't be received the same as if you were here after the UL win as well commenting then. Likewise, if the criticism is brought up in an overall analysis of a game that includes positives and negatives it will be received better.

This is a very fair post, especially the last part.

 

[lv20gt]

Nobody is saying that.

What we are saying is that some people associate all of the problems with the program currently with roster transformation or fit.

The issue is that the "problem" you're referencing has been used as a scapegoat as an excuse for all of our issues.

This is insulting and also ignores the fact that pretty much both lines of scrimmage were decimated by injuries at some point last year. This probably had more to do with anything, but it's just easier to blame option players for the team not being competitive.

Other than the Clemson game this year, the team has been competitive and that probably has and to do some (including progress in system installation) healthier lines of scrimmage.

Let's just stop using the CGC inherited option players at the excuse for all our problems, because they are still good players and are capable of much more than some in this site think.

You are more concerned with defending Johnson or the option from anything that is even slightly a negative against it that it blinds you.

The fact is the OL we had last year had injuries. That played a part. Whether you want to or not that is saying that the players we had playing weren't good enough, and injuries forced us to play them. Regardless of the reason behind it you are still admitting that the players not being good enough was a reason.

Second, the fact is OL play is predicated on muscle memory and repetitions, and the previous offense didn't get the OL the reps they needed or build the muscle memory they needed to have success in the current offense. Sorry, but the lack of an OL with experience in the current system was a huge issue last year, and is still a significant factor this year. For some, they just aren't a good fit and likely won't ever be. For others it's just a matter that they need the reps and experience that were lacking. The latter are more likely to be playing last year and this, and this year they are better because they have more of what they were lacking. That is still an issue directly related to the transition.

Other than the Clemson game this year, the team has been competitive and that probably has and to do stuff healthier lines of scrimmage.

Two of our starters started 11 and 12 games last year. They are better this year because they got some of the reps and experience in this system that they weren't able to before. Two others are a a transfer who wasn't here last year and a true freshman that wasn't here last year. So yeah, both of those things deal with the issue of the transition. One, taking players who needed time before they were ready to play getting more time, and new faces coming in and replacing players that were worse fits. It's telling that we are much better in part because we're playing a true freshman at tackle.

The realty is the transition played a huge role in our struggles last year and continues to this year. Last year we had a QB recruited for a completely different offense and his skill set showed that. This year we have a QB recruited specifically for this offense and we've seen significant improvement. It's not a coincidence. However, we're still having to play a true freshman, and the issues that come with that, because we don't have a junior or senior QB with a skill set fit for this offense who has experience in the offense. That is directly related to the transition.

The previous offense didn't have TEs at all. We now have TEs and, when healthy, relying on true sophomores, freshmen, or converted long snappers. That is directly a result of the transition of offenses.

 

[Pointer]

You are more concerned with defending Johnson or the option from anything that is even slightly a negative against it that it blinds you.

The fact is the OL we had last year had injuries. That played a part. Whether you want to or not that is saying that the players we had playing weren't good enough, and injuries forced us to play them. Regardless of the reason behind it you are still admitting that the players not being good enough was a reason.

Second, the fact is OL play is predicated on muscle memory and repetitions, and the previous offense didn't get the OL the reps they needed or build the muscle memory they needed to have success in the current offense. Sorry, but the lack of an OL with experience in the current system was a huge issue last year, and is still a significant factor this year. For some, they just aren't a good fit and likely won't ever be. For others it's just a matter that they need the reps and experience that were lacking. The latter are more likely to be playing last year and this, and this year they are better because they have more of what they were lacking. That is still an issue directly related to the transition.



Two of our starters started 11 and 12 games last year. They are better this year because they got some of the reps and experience in this system that they weren't able to before. Two others are a a transfer who wasn't here last year and a true freshman that wasn't here last year. So yeah, both of those things deal with the issue of the transition. One, taking players who needed time before they were ready to play getting more time, and new faces coming in and replacing players that were worse fits. It's telling that we are much better in part because we're playing a true freshman at tackle.

The realty is the transition played a huge role in our struggles last year and continues to this year. Last year we had a QB recruited for a completely different offense and his skill set showed that. This year we have a QB recruited specifically for this offense and we've seen significant improvement. It's not a coincidence. However, we're still having to play a true freshman, and the issues that come with that, because we don't have a junior or senior QB with a skill set fit for this offense who has experience in the offense. That is directly related to the transition.

The previous offense didn't have TEs at all. We now have TEs and, when healthy, relying on true sophomores, freshmen, or converted long snappers. That is directly a result of the transition of offenses.

Wow dude. I got nothing to say to you.

And I'm the one who's blind...

 

[jacket_fan]

I don't think posters complaining about the loss to Clemson should be surprising. Or offend.

I hope we see a well coached team this Saturday. I would like to see different blitz packages than just run a linebacker into a guard and act like that is an effective blitz. We have had a least one successful corner blitz, and would like to see that work. Would also like to see better coverage. It is easier to watch coverage when you are there live and don't have to depend on camera angles. But against Clemson it looked like there was a blown coverage or just a talent mismatch on many plays. Maybe simplify the number of keys on each play or play more man than just Swilling.

Really do need a W to flush last week out of the system.

 

[Scubapro]

Serious question? What level of suck is acceptable and when do we get to complain?

The answer I get from folks is we can go 2-10 for five years before we can complain. I don't think the whole building has to burn down for us to say there is a problem.

 

[yeti92]

The answer I get from folks is we can go 2-10 for five years before we can complain. I don't think the whole building has to burn down for us to say there is a problem.

If we were to go 2-10 for five straight years, the program would be 6 feet under.

The fact is the OL we had last year had injuries. That played a part. Whether you want to or not that is saying that the players we had playing weren't good enough, and injuries forced us to play them. Regardless of the reason behind it you are still admitting that the players not being good enough was a reason.

Yea, it's CPJ's fault that all the scholarship linemen got injured and the walk-ons we had starting weren't actually four-stars, what a crappy coach.

 

[JacketOff]

The answer I get from folks is we can go 2-10 for five years before we can complain. I don't think the whole building has to burn down for us to say there is a problem.

There’s nobody who thinks it’s acceptable to go 2-10 this year, or for 3 more years following. Everybody expected this year to be tough record wise again. But what everyone wanted was to see improvement on the field, even if it didn’t necessarily translate to wins. It’s safe to say that there is a lot of visible improvement. QB play, the OL, and the DL have taken the biggest steps forward, with WRs and RBs getting more talent as well. LBs/Nickel have gotten a lot of help from better DL play, and I think as a whole are better than they were last year. I think everyone can agree the secondary has regressed for one reason or another, or moved laterally at the very least.

The general consensus for the vast majority of CGC backers has been year 3 will be the year that the record really starts to shift up, and year 4 will be the year when everything is in place and we’ll see where the transformation takes us. Not winning 6 games next year will be a major disappointment, and if we don’t win 7+ in year 4 I think CGC’s seat will be extremely hot. My personal expectations are 4 wins this year, 6 next year, and 8 in year 4. I think that’s reasonably in line with other’s views. This year’s team was not supposed to have a winning record. Tech was picked to finish last in the ACC. Most writers and coaches thought Tech would only win 1 game. We’re not behind schedule, but I don’t think we’re necessarily ahead of schedule either. IMO, we’re right on time.

 

[lv20gt]

Yea, it's CPJ's fault that all the scholarship linemen got injured and the walk-ons we had starting weren't actually four-stars, what a crappy coach.

CPJ wasn't mentioned at all in that quote. Not everything is a slight against your lord and savior. The point was that the "it's disrespectful to our athletes" argument is bunk when you just turn around and do the same thing to a different group of players.


But in general it wasn't CPJ's job to get his players ready to run Collins' scheme. It was his job to get them ready to run his scheme. Saying that the issues we have now are largely due to the transition of offenses isn't a criticism of Johnson. It's not even a criticism of the option offense. It's just a statement of the dynamic that comes from choosing to go from one offense to another. Not everything is an attack on the previous scheme.

 

[forensicbuzz]

The answer I get from folks is we can go 2-10 for five years before we can complain. I don't think the whole building has to burn down for us to say there is a problem.

And this staff should have enough time to fix the problem before you complain. The problem is people were complaining before Game 1 last year. So, go ahead and complain. I'll just use the ignore button because there's no accounting for biased stupidity.

 

[Pointer]

If we were to go 2-10 for five straight years, the program would be 6 feet under.

Yea, it's CPJ's fault that all the scholarship linemen got injured and the walk-ons we had starting weren't actually four-stars, what a crappy coach.

 

[Pointer]

CPJ wasn't mentioned at all in that quote. Not everything is a slight against your lord and savior. The point was that the "it's disrespectful to our athletes" argument is bunk when you just turn around and do the same thing to a different group of players.


But in general it wasn't CPJ's job to get his players ready to run Collins' scheme. It was his job to get them ready to run his scheme. Saying that the issues we have now are largely due to the transition of offenses isn't a criticism of Johnson. It's not even a criticism of the option offense. It's just a statement of the dynamic that comes from choosing to go from one offense to another. Not everything is an attack on the previous scheme.

Ok last one.

The problem isn't criticism, the problem is the never ending use of the excuse of option players being the issue for last and this year's struggles.

If you can't understand that when starters and their backups go down, there's an expected drop off, then I don't know what to tell you. But nice try there attempting to turning the tables.