Observation and Overreaction

[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.

I really don't think things will be that bad. I actually think the program is headed in a good direction overall.

It's ok to get off to a bad start as long as we are correcting what we can and things are headed in the right direction. Looking at recruiting, that certainly seems to be the case.

By the end of year 3 maybe 4 we should have a good understanding of where things are going (not saying we need to have an amazing season by then, but a positive sign of the future)

I'm just tired of the same excuses.

 

[lv20gt]

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.

Nobody denies that injuries played a role. But nobody believes they tell the entire story. Some believed we had a terrible OC who shouldn't have ever been hired. Some believe it was due to having bad fitting pieces from the transition. If the argument was that all our struggles last year were due to injuries then fine, although I wouldn't agree, but a lot of people were laying that blame on the OC which means they obviously didn't hold that view.

Also, with regards to the use of the transition to explain thing what do you expect? The players are the ones who go out there and play, make plays, and make mistakes. When the discussion turns to why we are struggling then it will ultimately look at why the players aren't able to make more plays. And the truth is that the two positions where reps and experience make the most difference, OL and QB, are the two areas we've had the most issues and it's not a coincidence. There is also no shortcut to getting 3+ years of experience in a system. It takes 3+ years. So what, were you expecting the impact of the transitioning between systems to just magically disappear in 3 to 4 games, and we'd suddenly have a Line full of players recruited with this system's demands in mind and multiple years of development?

Sorry, but when our admin (not coaching staff) decided to go in a different direction than the option they made a decision that was going to have a big impact for several years. The impact will diminish as players get more experience in the system, and players with skill sets that the offense demands replace those who have different skillset, but they aren't just going to disappear over night.

 

[takethepoints]

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

When a team scores 49 points on you, you are incinerated by definition. That we were coming back on UCF - they were who I meant - doesn't mean they weren't beating our tails off for most of the game. They had dang near as many yards of total offense as Clemson did.

 

[JacketOff]

When a team scores 49 points on you, you are incinerated by definition. That we were coming back on UCF - they were who I meant - doesn't mean they weren't beating our tails off for most of the game. They had dang near as many yards of total offense as Clemson did.

That’s honestly such a terrible argument. Wake Forest scored 42 points on NC State, was NCSU “incinerated” by definition? What if I told you that NCSU won that game? Still incinerated?

Texas Tech scored 56 on Texas, but UT won the game. Were they “incinerated”?

Kentucky put up 41 on Ole Miss, but lost the game. Did they still “incinerate” them?

Staying with Ole Miss, they ran it up to 48 on the #2 team in the country (who just “incinerated” the Dwags) yet they lost by 2 touchdowns. Did Bama get incinerated and win the game anyway?

Virginia Tech scored 45 on UNC, and still lost by 11. Incineration?

Georgia Tech scored 46 points against Louisville. Anybody that watches that game would know how much of an “incineration” that was. Oh wait, it wasn’t. Louisville actually controlled most of the game.

Basing your definition of “incineration” on the final score of a game is meaningless. Especially in a day in age when teams are putting up 45+ points regularly.

 

[billga99]

I think the offense will get there this year and even more next year. But to have a winning record, we really do need to figure out both Defense (Collins background) and Special Teams. I am concerned on defense he is trying to play a University of Florida press coverage without the 4 and 5 Star players you need to make it work. That plus our struggle to recruit DTs and fast mobile linebackers is key to getting a strong defense. In terms of Special Teams, punter (this year) is fine. Kickoffs have been relatively okay as well. But our ability to return kickoffs has been mediocre (though more kickoffs these days are touchbacks). And our place kicking game has had both a problem with penetration and getting heights on kicks. To really be competitive, both Defense and Special Teams have to have a plan that will make us more successful moving forward.

 

[jacketup]

Sorry, but when our admin (not coaching staff) decided to go in a different direction than the option they made a decision that was going to have a big impact for several years. The impact will diminish as players get more experience in the system, and players with skill sets that the offense demands replace those who have different skillset, but they aren't just going to disappear over night.

First, I agree with you. This isn't a contradiction but a clarification.

Our athletic board decided to go in a different direction when they hired a coach who ran the option. The idea behind it was that being different would help because of our perceived recruiting limitations.

What the board ignored is that lots of big time schools ran the option. They abandoned it. Was it because it didn't work? No, because the NFL doesn't run it. Kids don't want to play in it.

So, the result was predictable. It worked for the first 2 years, when we were 20-7 (18-7 FBS). Then the prior staff's recruits were gone and recruiting was harder. Over the next 9 years we were 53-53 (FBS). The talent level declined, and the prior staff "retired".

Why our board ever thought the option would work long term when schools like Alabama, Oklahoma and others abandoned it is beyond me. Our AD didn't want an option coach, and was overruled by the board. So he left for Clemson (I don't know if his boy Muschamp would have worked out either).

But back to your point, the board went in a different direction 13 years ago, not two years ago. That 13 year old decision is asking for payback now, and that is what we are seeing. It was predictable. Fortunately, we hired a coach who can recruit, so this situation will get fixed.

Some people need to understand that college football, unlike basketball, isn't a game for freshmen at most positions. It takes recruiting first, then development. That takes time. Collins understands this. Fortunately, we have an AD who does too. Some of our fans, not so much.....

 

[TheJuiceIsLoose]

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.

I think everyone should stop complaining about the Klimpson game

They dominated both LoS's

One of those T-Fr DLs is Myles Murphy from Hillgrove HS & Powder Springs, he was 5* and here's the hurtful part, he planned on Majoring in Mech Engr, yet he never gave GT a serious look at all, coming from the same HS as the Days Boys

Stop complaining about our OC, he's not that bad, but he has to scheme around some OLine issues that we need to work out

Stop complaining about our T-Fr QB, QBs are taught to never make plays that lose yardage, it screws up the playbook that your OC has to work with, our young QB is trying like hell to avoid negative plays and this has led to some bad decisions & untimely TOs, for those complaining about our QB, I'll bet anything I own that if he's at UGA right now they're favored to make the CFP. QBs need to be confident in his OLine, when the OLine gets beat regularly, it artificially speeds up the QBs "internal clock" and it leads to mistakes, all the way up to guys like Brady & Aaron Rodgers, and so far our OLine need to improve at pass-pro

As far as the Roster goes, we have to accept blame for that as GT Fans. We had the chance to choose to be like Bama and "process & Roster Mgmt" our way to more success on the Field (within the Rules) or be "nice guys" and do things the GT way

We chose the latter

Personally, I'm a firm believer in "processing & Roster Mgmt" because it does the Player no good at all, for example, what good did it do to honor Jordan Yates' scholarship when we all knew he was a bad fit for the new system

Had we "processed & Roster Mgmt'd" in the right way we'd have more depth in key Areas, and less angst among Fans on these msg boards

I usually lurk and take in others Comments, but after the Clemmons game it seemed like there was a lot of unfair attacks on CGC & The Team, just wanted to add my $.02 in

I think we beat BC pretty good, they won't be ready for Gibbs in the open field and on wheel routes, and I don't think they'll have the overall Team Speed to keep our Off. in check, they aren't explosive on O themselves so they can't run away from us and take Gibbs out of the Game - that bodes very well for out chances to win

GT - 37

Catholics - 24

 

[lv20gt]

Why our board ever thought the option would work long term when schools like Alabama, Oklahoma and others abandoned it is beyond me. Our AD didn't want an option coach, and was overruled by the board. So he left for Clemson (I don't know if his boy Muschamp would have worked out either).

I'll address this on its own because I still think Johnson was 100% the right decision when we hired him. The biggest reason for this is that Johnson was great at developing an offense by combining aspects of other offenses in different ways. Ultimately that was my biggest issue with Johnson. The offense seemed to stagnate, not in a during the game sense, but in an adapting to the changing landscape of college football sense. I think he recognized the need for that which is why we tried a little with Vad Lee to change some, but for whatever reason it seemed Johnson was just not comfortable with that and abandoned it early to go back to what he was more comfortable with. To me, that was the time where the biggest advantage Johnson had left because while the option was a good enough designed system, what made it special was his ability to adapt it.

I don't think it was a bad decision as I think it was logical. It could have worked. Same reason I have no problem with the Pastner hire in basketball even if ultimately it doesn't turn out well. I think there was logic in both cases.

But back to your point, the board went in a different direction 13 years ago, not two years ago. That 13 year old decision is asking for payback now, and that is what we are seeing. It was predictable. Fortunately, we hired a coach who can recruit, so this situation will get fixed.

It was both. When we hired Johnson we knew there were risks of a bad transition, both initially and on the back end if we decided later to go in a different direction. But we still had the chance to continue going with the option and decided instead to try go all in on improving recruiting. We decided to turn left 13 years ago and the pull a u turn 2 years ago. Both are decisions and both have effects on today.

Regardless though, my main point was that a lot of the issues we are going through now don't rest at either Johnson's or Collins' feet. You don't hire Johnson unless you want him to run the option and you don't hire Collins if you expect him to continue to do it.

 

[Vespidae]

I'll address this on its own because I still think Johnson was 100% the right decision when we hired him. The biggest reason for this is that Johnson was great at developing an offense by combining aspects of other offenses in different ways. Ultimately that was my biggest issue with Johnson. The offense seemed to stagnate, not in a during the game sense, but in an adapting to the changing landscape of college football sense. I think he recognized the need for that which is why we tried a little with Vad Lee to change some, but for whatever reason it seemed Johnson was just not comfortable with that and abandoned it early to go back to what he was more comfortable with. To me, that was the time where the biggest advantage Johnson had left because while the option was a good enough designed system, what made it special was his ability to adapt it.

I don't think it was a bad decision as I think it was logical. It could have worked. Same reason I have no problem with the Pastner hire in basketball even if ultimately it doesn't turn out well. I think there was logic in both cases.



It was both. When we hired Johnson we knew there were risks of a bad transition, both initially and on the back end if we decided later to go in a different direction. But we still had the chance to continue going with the option and decided instead to try go all in on improving recruiting. We decided to turn left 13 years ago and the pull a u turn 2 years ago. Both are decisions and both have effects on today.

Regardless though, my main point was that a lot of the issues we are going through now don't rest at either Johnson's or Collins' feet. You don't hire Johnson unless you want him to run the option and you don't hire Collins if you expect him to continue to do it.

This is a thoughtful and well reasoned post. Now, my stream of consciousness ...

Bear Bryant could care less what offense he ran as long as he won. His game philosophy was built around a strong defense and preventing mistakes on offense. He even said it ... offense doesn’t matter.

That was 50 years ago. Times have changed.

Nick Saban described the TO as THE most explosive offense. But, the game has changed dramatically even in the last 15 years. And ... it’s difficult to recruit players to a system the NFL doesn’t use.

The big donors hated the TO even when we won. The GTAA wanted to get rid of it in 2013, but couldn’t pull it off.

Long story short ... we have to evolve even to maintain a respectable 8-4 overall. Otherwise, we become Vanderbilt.

 

[ncjacket79]

First, I agree with you. This isn't a contradiction but a clarification.

Our athletic board decided to go in a different direction when they hired a coach who ran the option. The idea behind it was that being different would help because of our perceived recruiting limitations.

What the board ignored is that lots of big time schools ran the option. They abandoned it. Was it because it didn't work? No, because the NFL doesn't run it. Kids don't want to play in it.

So, the result was predictable. It worked for the first 2 years, when we were 20-7 (18-7 FBS). Then the prior staff's recruits were gone and recruiting was harder. Over the next 9 years we were 53-53 (FBS). The talent level declined, and the prior staff "retired".

Why our board ever thought the option would work long term when schools like Alabama, Oklahoma and others abandoned it is beyond me. Our AD didn't want an option coach, and was overruled by the board. So he left for Clemson (I don't know if his boy Muschamp would have worked out either).

But back to your point, the board went in a different direction 13 years ago, not two years ago. That 13 year old decision is asking for payback now, and that is what we are seeing. It was predictable. Fortunately, we hired a coach who can recruit, so this situation will get fixed.

Some people need to understand that college football, unlike basketball, isn't a game for freshmen at most positions. It takes recruiting first, then development. That takes time. Collins understands this. Fortunately, we have an AD who does too. Some of our fans, not so much.....

This is the best post I’ve seen in years. Back in the old days on the Hive there was a thread when PJ was hired. A number of us said we would pay the price when he left. That wasn’t a criticism of Paul or his offense, it was just an observation of what you expressed.

 

[SOWEGA Jacket]

Dude you are so one sided it's not even funny anymore.

It’s not me wanting to bash the current coach of GT But others. I loved Johnson and I like Collins. Johnson knew it was time to go which is why he left GT. Collins could have come in and not honored any of the commits in the 2019 class but he didnt do that. He also didn’t just out right cut guys. He tried to bring the team and fan base together but after the Citadel loss so many of you just ran to the extreme of bashing our coach even though if you sat in the stadium you saw why. Graham was injured and we didn’t have a QB and oh by the way the Citadel played a great game and had great QB play. And you guys haven’t let it go since.

With the way so many GT fans are treating Collins I hope he decides after this season to own it and do what has to be done. In other words cut the fat of guys who have no position and just can’t get it done. We all know who they are as we see if every week. I’m sure BC will again amplify the fact that many GT juniors and seniors are freaking slow and can’t cover.

 

[jacket_fan]

I’m sure BC will again amplify the fact that many GT juniors and seniors are freaking slow and can’t cover.

Please quit bashing players.

 

[BleedGoldNWhite21]

First, I agree with you. This isn't a contradiction but a clarification.

Our athletic board decided to go in a different direction when they hired a coach who ran the option. The idea behind it was that being different would help because of our perceived recruiting limitations.

What the board ignored is that lots of big time schools ran the option. They abandoned it. Was it because it didn't work? No, because the NFL doesn't run it. Kids don't want to play in it.

So, the result was predictable. It worked for the first 2 years, when we were 20-7 (18-7 FBS). Then the prior staff's recruits were gone and recruiting was harder. Over the next 9 years we were 53-53 (FBS). The talent level declined, and the prior staff "retired".

Why our board ever thought the option would work long term when schools like Alabama, Oklahoma and others abandoned it is beyond me. Our AD didn't want an option coach, and was overruled by the board. So he left for Clemson (I don't know if his boy Muschamp would have worked out either).

But back to your point, the board went in a different direction 13 years ago, not two years ago. That 13 year old decision is asking for payback now, and that is what we are seeing. It was predictable. Fortunately, we hired a coach who can recruit, so this situation will get fixed.

Some people need to understand that college football, unlike basketball, isn't a game for freshmen at most positions. It takes recruiting first, then development. That takes time. Collins understands this. Fortunately, we have an AD who does too. Some of our fans, not so much.....

I don’t think anyone on this board ever doubted that top tier talent didn’t want to play in the offense. It was the belief that we didn’t need top-tier talent because we could out-scheme people and that would be a good fit for us because we traditionally don’t get top-tier talent anyways. The stats back that up. The offense was never the problem. Our problem under CPJ was the defense. The Offensive scheme had no affect on defensive recruiting. The offense didn’t really need any better recruiting. We were constantly in the top 30 in scoring every year. And if we were able to build a better defense we could have easily averaged around 10 wins a season without changing our offensive players. If we were winning like that then we’d probably have gotten more talent on offense eventually too, because people like to play for a winner.

Our Points per game:

2018: 33
2017: 27.2
2016: 27.7
2015: 25.6
2014: 37.8
2013: 29.1
2012: 31.6
2011: 31.9
2010: 24.8
2009: 33.5
2008: 24.2

Now look at points per game for the 50th best Defense every year:
2018: 25.9
2017: 26.1
2016: 26.7
2015: 26.5
2014: 26.2(It was us!)
2013: 25.8
2012: 26.6
2011: 25.3
2010: 24.7
2009: 24.8
2008: 23.6

A 50th ranked defense is not asking for much. That would have been enough for us to win a lot of games with the exact same offense. Now, was poor defensive recruiting/development primarily a money thing or primarily a flaw of CPJ? That’s up for debate, but I would guess the chances of succeeding on that side would be better with more money than without it. That said, whether it’s fair or not, he ultimately failed on that end and the special teams. However, this board’s belief in the scheme over talent on offense was proven time and time again correct. It didn’t translate to as many wins as we wanted because the defense was a disaster.

Another thing you mentioned that is deeply incorrect is the claim DRad left because of the Option. He’s a Clemson alum. Of course he went there when he had the opportunity. The option had nothing to do with it. CPJ and DRad both liked each other and have spoken fondly of each other a lot. CPJ thanked him by name in his retirement speech and DRad released a public statement when CPJ retired. He wasn’t his first choice, but insinuating CPJ and his offense was why DRad left is just flat out wrong.


Coach Collins insinuated we’d go bowling this year when he said last Christmas he wouldn’t have another Christmas off this year. Why should we have lower expectations than our coach? I don’t think anyone is realistically expecting a 9-2 season or anything. We want competitive football and a look at improvement and I think, aside from a few haters, we’ve mostly been fair regarding that. We’ve been very complimentary after the two wins. This board was NOT that doom and gloom when we lost to UCF. We were down one score in the 4th against a very good football team and it got away from us. However, we were(fairly so, I’ll add) upset when we were down 17-0 to a bad Syracuse team and lost. Getting a spanking by 66 points from the most likely eventual national champion doesn’t help the medicine go down, either. That it is what it is, though. We’re 2-3 with six games to go. I think we could go 3-3 the rest of the way. I actually think most of this board would find a 5 win season acceptable due to being in the second season of a massive rebuilding process and the pandemic situation.

 

[Heisman's Ghost]

That’s honestly such a terrible argument. Wake Forest scored 42 points on NC State, was NCSU “incinerated” by definition? What if I told you that NCSU won that game? Still incinerated?

Texas Tech scored 56 on Texas, but UT won the game. Were they “incinerated”?

Kentucky put up 41 on Ole Miss, but lost the game. Did they still “incinerate” them?

Staying with Ole Miss, they ran it up to 48 on the #2 team in the country (who just “incinerated” the Dwags) yet they lost by 2 touchdowns. Did Bama get incinerated and win the game anyway?

Virginia Tech scored 45 on UNC, and still lost by 11. Incineration?

Georgia Tech scored 46 points against Louisville. Anybody that watches that game would know how much of an “incineration” that was. Oh wait, it wasn’t. Louisville actually controlled most of the game.

Basing your definition of “incineration” on the final score of a game is meaningless. Especially in a day in age when teams are putting up 45+ points regularly.

I miss the good ole days when " incinerated" was to lose 14 to 7.

 

[jacketup]

Another thing you mentioned that is deeply incorrect is the claim DRad left because of the Option. He’s a Clemson alum. Of course he went there when he had the opportunity. The option had nothing to do with it. CPJ and DRad both liked each other and have spoken fondly of each other a lot. CPJ thanked him by name in his retirement speech and DRad released a public statement when CPJ retired. He wasn’t his first choice, but insinuating CPJ and his offense was why DRad left is just flat out wrong.

Radakovich is an Indiana University of Pennsylvania alum. He got an MBA from Miami. They wear orange, but that doesn't make him a Clemson alum.

I didn't say that Radakovich didn't want to run the option, but Mushchamp was his guy. He was overruled by the board who wanted Johnson. When you don't let an AD hire the football coach, you may as well fire him. But it's probably correct that he didn't see a future in the option.

And another thing you got wrong: The offense does impact defensive recruiting. Players on D don't want to practice against an offense that they would not see in the NFL. That was used against us on the recruiting trail.

If your point is correct that the option doesn't impact defensive recruiting, then why was our defensive recruiting so bad? Look at the ATL for the front 7 and you will see that.

If you want to say that Johnson's staff was loaded with guys who were poor recruiters, I would agree. Coach McCollum did pretty well as a recruiter, which shows that we could have done better with a better staff with more McCollum level recruiters.

 

[Skeptic]

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.

It makes the whining about no longer relevant.

 

[Skeptic]

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.

Well, okay. But the "previous" staff also put a outstanding offensive guard and one of the NFL's best tight ends into play, and neither was highly recruited out of HS. Alabama or Georgia it is not, but they could play for anybody by the time they finished at Tech.

 

[Milwaukee]

Well, okay. But the "previous" staff also put a outstanding offensive guard and one of the NFL's best tight ends into play, and neither was highly recruited out of HS. Alabama or Georgia it is not, but they could play for anybody by the time they finished at Tech.

I think this entire argument/thread is dumb but anyway...you named 2 players from an entire decade of football rosters and thought you made some sort of point? It’s all silly anyway, the guy you’re arguing with is silly, you’re silly, I’m silly, etc. It’s all silly.

 

[SOWEGA Jacket]

Well, okay. But the "previous" staff also put a outstanding offensive guard and one of the NFL's best tight ends into play, and neither was highly recruited out of HS. Alabama or Georgia it is not, but they could play for anybody by the time they finished at Tech.

I’m a Johnson guy but the data doesn’t lie regarding NFL players. And Waller did close to nothing at GT. Glad he got his life together but even if he gets to the Hall of Fame the fact is he wasted his college career.

 

[SOWEGA Jacket]

Please quit bashing players.

If me calling a general group of unnamed players slow is bashing then you must watch games on mute. Every announcer calls players “to slow” or “to short” to cover X. There is no bashing going on. It’s called discussing. What are we suppose to say when every WR from UCF, Syracuse, and Clemson runs past our defensive players to catch a pass? Is it bashing if I say Gibbs is pretty darn fast? This isn’t freaking rec ball where we all go to Dairy Queen after the game. If a player doesn’t like how people describe his play then do something about it.