Offense transition

[UgaBlows]

Why do we keep re-litigating all this? It’s Groundhog day, everyday on GTswarm.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

As usual, we are talking past one another. Your post was about QBs and how we didn't recruit dual threat types under Paul as well as expected because Paul was hired too late or something like that. That's simply not true and I pointed that out. Now, if you had said the entire recruiting program under Paul, I would still have disagreed, though nowhere near as strongly. We had some areas - same ones as today, apparently - where we didn't recruit well. Here in particular I would point to the DL. We came close (Truitt, Holiday) to turning even that around, but didn't. So … no, I wouldn't have said that our recruiting was just fine for the last 11 years; there are always going to be problems (you didn't hear it here first, but wait for a year or so then come back to this post) getting Clemson-type quality depth at Tech. Final word on this from me: if Dedrick hadn't been fired over a badly out-dated administrative policy, Tech would be coming off two straight seasons with at least 8/9 wins and this board would be moaning and groaning about Dedrick leaving for the pros after his junior year. Yes. He was that important. Oh, and Paul would still be coach.

Now, as to Stansbury. He wasn't all that thrilled when Paul resigned - you can look at pretty much the same pundits a week earlier. He did what he had to, however, and Coach was a solid hire. And, of course, he's done everything in the AD's power to back the narrative that Coach wants. He has to: if we don't recruit a lot better - another way of saying putting more money into the program - then we will have a real problem on our hands. And I suspect that recruiting will improve; at least, we'll have better "recruiting rankings".

And don't make out that I'm all offended about posts that disparage Paul. The worse of these are not worth much in the way of a reply. Yours generally are. You simply misread my post into some kind of blanket defense of Paul. He was a really good coach for us, but he wasn't perfect. We'll see if Coach can do better Real Soon Now.

A very well articulated post that captures how a lot of us feel. Very few, if any, posters here hate the current coach or think the previous coach was without fault. All want GT football to succeed on it’s current path. Many think it will happen inspite of legitimate reservations.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Stopped reading after your second sentence because it’s flat out untrue.

George O’Leary - 61%
Chan Gailey - 58%
Paul Johnson - 57%

In terms of Wins it's absolutely correct. In terms of % it's second to GOL.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

I mean, they're not all alike and it does matter whether you're one of the better 1,300 kids ranked as a 3* vs one of the worst. Have you seen the offer sheets our three stars have? Compare that to the last decade of offer sheets. And yes, I know that we snagged a good number of athletes with impressive offer lists in the past (Bruce Jordan Swilling has the most impressive list I've ever seen from a GT commit), but on aggregate, the guys who are committing to Collins are more impressive than the guys who committed to Johnson. And it should be expected for that to improve as relationships are built. Remember that he's only been on campus for about 6 months.

It's weird that a good number of our own fans are so resistant to positive changes.

Your key sentence was that he has only been on the job 6 months. That is the entire lynchpin for all of these conversations in my opinion. Give the guy time and hopefully things will improve dramatically. That is certainly my hope.

But finding some marginal difference in recruiting at this stage and proclaiming that the messiah has come sounds like the kind of irrational exuberance that preceded the last stock market crash.

 

[Boomergump]

Paul Johnson presided over the most prolific era (10+ years) of GT offensive football, so there really is no logical complaint about recruiting on that side of the ball. We got who we needed to run our style of offense. The recruiting problem was finding guys to play DL, especially on the interior. If you can't find those guys, it doesn't matter what you do everywhere else on the D. Unfortunately, CPJ also presided over one of the worst defensive eras as a result. You can't look at star rating when recruiting for our O as much as you can for D. It will never be proven how much the system affected the recruiting on the DL, but I don't have a strong argument against it either.

I welcome a shift to good defensive football and hopefully enough good offense. Transitions are tough. The current regime has my full support.
throughout.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Paul Johnson presided over the most prolific era (10+ years) of GT offensive football, so there really is no logical complaint about recruiting on that side of the ball. We got who we needed to run our style of offense. The recruiting problem was finding guys to play DL, especially on the interior. If you can't find those guys, it doesn't matter what you do everywhere else on the D. Unfortunately, CPJ also presided over one of the worst defensive eras as a result. You can't look at star rating when recruiting for our O as much as you can for D. It will never be proven how much the system affected the recruiting on the DL, but I don't have a strong argument against it either.

I welcome a shift to good defensive football and hopefully enough good offense. Transitions are tough. The current regime has my full support.
throughout.

Would love to see a good defense.

The challenge of getting a good DT or NT has been around a long time. Once you get past the top 20 defensive interior linemen in the country it is hard to find ready made game changers. More than any other position in football, in my opinion, most teams hope for players who can develop into steady performers. But stars at these positions are few.

 

[alagold]

Paul Johnson presided over the most prolific era (10+ years) of GT offensive football, so there really is no logical complaint about recruiting on that side of the ball. We got who we needed to run our style of offense. The recruiting problem was finding guys to play DL, especially on the interior. If you can't find those guys, it doesn't matter what you do everywhere else on the D. Unfortunately, CPJ also presided over one of the worst defensive eras as a result. You can't look at star rating when recruiting for our O as much as you can for D. It will never be proven how much the system affected the recruiting on the DL, but I don't have a strong argument against it either.

I welcome a shift to good defensive football and hopefully enough good offense. Transitions are tough. The current regime has my full support.
throughout.

Boomer,
I agree.But not only did we have a weak DEF from lack of DL but" in general" the Def had problems recruiting as many said practicing vs the TO hurts your chances for Pros.(which only might be true). But also, practicing against PJs offense with heavy option running and very poor passing hurt the DEf in real games.(which probably was true)

 

[RickStromFan]

It’s not weird. They’ve built up an entire worldview about how Tech can’t recruit/compete and Collins has come in and said it can and they can’t handle it.

Not really their fault for building up that worldview - the previous regime used it constantly. Prior to 2008, you never really heard that sort of excuse making even though everyone knows we're tougher academically than almost every other football school.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Boomer,
I agree.But not only did we have a weak DEF from lack of DL but" in general" the Def had problems recruiting as many said practicing vs the TO hurts your chances for Pros.(which only might be true). But also, practicing against PJs offense with heavy option running and very poor passing hurt the DEf in real games.(which probably was true)

It made for fewer possessions to defend too. You must take the good with the bad when you’re criticizing.

 

[takethepoints]

Not really their fault for building up that worldview - the previous regime used it constantly. Prior to 2008, you never really heard that sort of excuse making even though everyone knows we're tougher academically than almost every other football school.

This could be due to two things.

It looks like you believe that it was about making excuses - you're always saying that - for not winning 8-9-10 games every year.

But it could be because Paul wasn't one to pull punches, especially when he got starved of recruiting resources. So he belly-ached about not being able to field the operation he needed, but (wisely) held his tongue about who was to blame for it. This led some people we know to think he was making excuses when all he was doing was describing the actual situation he found himself in as he watched our ACC rivals pile cash on their recruiting efforts.

Now, given that I have heard every single Tech coach from Bobby Dodd on moan and groan about the restrictions Tech's academics put on their recruiting efforts and how they needed more support to overcome them, I'm more inclined to think the second option is correct. And to wonder why you aren't remembering all the complaining I have heard down through the years.

Well, as I keep saying, we are now in a huge natural experiment to see if Coach is right and more money + a "cultural change" can lead to better recruiting. The results won't be conclusive and it'll take (I think) at least 2 or 3 years to see roughly what they are. I hope he's right and that he continues to get the support he needs, no matter what the results next season are.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Not really their fault for building up that worldview - the previous regime used it constantly. Prior to 2008, you never really heard that sort of excuse making even though everyone knows we're tougher academically than almost every other football school.

Our former AD, (Dave Braine), made all kinds of excuses about GT football prior to 2008, and he wasn't a singular voice either, but don't let that muddle the revisionist history.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

This could be due to two things.

It looks like you believe that it was about making excuses - you're always saying that - for not winning 8-9-10 games every year.

But it could be because Paul wasn't one to pull punches, especially when he got starved of recruiting resources. So he belly-ached about not being able to field the operation he needed, but (wisely) held his tongue about who was to blame for it. This led some people we know to think he was making excuses when all he was doing was describing the actual situation he found himself in as he watched our ACC rivals pile cash on their recruiting efforts.

Now, given that I have heard every single Tech coach from Bobby Dodd on moan and groan about the restrictions Tech's academics put on their recruiting efforts and how they needed more support to overcome them, I'm more inclined to think the second option is correct. And to wonder why you aren't remembering all the complaining I have heard down through the years.

Well, as I keep saying, we are now in a huge natural experiment to see if Coach is right and more money + a "cultural change" can lead to better recruiting. The results won't be conclusive and it'll take (I think) at least 2 or 3 years to see roughly what they are. I hope he's right and that he continues to get the support he needs, no matter what the results next season are.

This should get the blue ribbon for concise encapsulation of the perennial challenge of high academics and lack luster administration support for big time football programming that is the Tech reality.

 

[stech81]

On a side note here , did you know the most popular pencil is the number 2 and not the number 1?

 

[RickStromFan]

This could be due to two things.

It looks like you believe that it was about making excuses - you're always saying that - for not winning 8-9-10 games every year.

But it could be because Paul wasn't one to pull punches, especially when he got starved of recruiting resources. So he belly-ached about not being able to field the operation he needed, but (wisely) held his tongue about who was to blame for it. This led some people we know to think he was making excuses when all he was doing was describing the actual situation he found himself in as he watched our ACC rivals pile cash on their recruiting efforts.

Now, given that I have heard every single Tech coach from Bobby Dodd on moan and groan about the restrictions Tech's academics put on their recruiting efforts and how they needed more support to overcome them, I'm more inclined to think the second option is correct. And to wonder why you aren't remembering all the complaining I have heard down through the years.

Well, as I keep saying, we are now in a huge natural experiment to see if Coach is right and more money + a "cultural change" can lead to better recruiting. The results won't be conclusive and it'll take (I think) at least 2 or 3 years to see roughly what they are. I hope he's right and that he continues to get the support he needs, no matter what the results next season are.

Except he didn't quite get entirely 'starved of recruiting resources'. For starters, it's now becoming clear that, from the words of numerous HS coaches in the metro area, we had almost no local HS presence during most of PJ's tenure. There's absolutely no excuse for that, since you don't need any money to announce your presence and recruiting costs are literally the cost to fill up gas tanks.

Additionally, PJ griped and DID get at least one thing in 2011 - an 88,000 sq. foot indoor practice facility literally billed to "provide a recruiting edge". At the time, it was considered to be one of the best indoor facilities in the southeast. As we've all often stated, we aren't a Factory and aren't going to generate IPTAY money. That PJ got exactly what he'd asked for here is proof that the spigots weren't entirely turned off during his tenure.

https://www.ajc.com/sports/college/...ovide-recruiting-edge/QiesehC4QE0uId7I77SbjP/

I don't argue that PJ was resource-limited from recruiting outside our SE region but pretending that the guy literally asked for and didn't receive recruiting resources is Revisionist History, at best.
Nor do I argue about our academic restrictions (I actually mentioned those in the post you responded to, I think). Perhaps it's just the internet, which makes all quotes visible in ways that (ex) Boss Ross never dealt with but I don't recall any coaches prior to PJ bellyaching about academics. Additionally, it's not like he wasn't a tad familiar with such a restrictive atmosphere, having spent years at Navy. Rare was the time when PJ said anything that built up GT. While some here like that sort of candor, others find it asinine to kick the school that's hired you to win games the way he occasionally did.
I think his scheme worked against recruiting as much as the other mentioned restrictions did. I also thought the lack of a recruiting bump after 2014 was telling, as was the fact that 2017 & 2018 occurred with players recruited after 2014. It was clear we needed a change and I'm happy of the one we made. It's nice to see some positivity down on the Flats again.

 

[Coloradojacket]

So as I have said many tines. It is Tech and the front 7 on defense that has always been the challenge. If we can improve that then we will at least see better defense. That being said those positions are not exactly filled with the kind of kids that can make it at Tech. At least from trying to get 2 deep in those positions. We have always struggled on defense. In 1999 we had one of the best offenses in the country....and we needed it to outscore opponents. But beyond recruiting it still comes down to coaching. CPJ was one of the best at this as his long record has proved. Let's hope we have the right guys at OC and DC. If you want an example of great recruiting and bad coaching....look no further than the last 15 years at Miami.

 

[Animal02]

So as I have said many tines. It is Tech and the front 7 on defense that has always been the challenge. If we can improve that then we will at least see better defense. That being said those positions are not exactly filled with the kind of kids that can make it at Tech. At least from trying to get 2 deep in those positions. We have always struggled on defense. In 1999 we had one of the best offenses in the country....and we needed it to outscore opponents. But beyond recruiting it still comes down to coaching. CPJ was one of the best at this as his long record has proved. Let's hope we have the right guys at OC and DC. If you want an example of great recruiting and bad coaching....look no further than the last 15 years at Miami.

FSU the last couple

 

[Heisman's Ghost]

Paul Johnson presided over the most prolific era (10+ years) of GT offensive football, so there really is no logical complaint about recruiting on that side of the ball. We got who we needed to run our style of offense. The recruiting problem was finding guys to play DL, especially on the interior. If you can't find those guys, it doesn't matter what you do everywhere else on the D. Unfortunately, CPJ also presided over one of the worst defensive eras as a result. You can't look at star rating when recruiting for our O as much as you can for D. It will never be proven how much the system affected the recruiting on the DL, but I don't have a strong argument against it either.

I welcome a shift to good defensive football and hopefully enough good offense. Transitions are tough. The current regime has my full support.
throughout.

Make no mistake, it will be a difficult transition. I just finished reading Athlon's take on our team and it is not pretty. Fine, we tend to do better when people think we are going to be terrible. What I found interesting was their little box of quotes from opposing teams' coaches. Interesting reading that is, of course, given anonymously. Among other tidbits: "...the new coaching staff has brought in a lot of attention. They really needed that because Georgia Tech has been ASLEEP (my emphasis) for a long time..." "...we had some visiting coaches who saw Tech tell us they're a ways off of being even decent"(note they are talking about the offensive line) "Tobias Oliver is their best quarterback but he is definitely a triple guy" "They have no possession receivers and a lot of dudes who block and break out wide open on play actions...lots of work there" "Defensively, a little bit better news -- at least they have the right kind of bodies" "they were bad at creating pressure last year and we'd been watching their defense get slower and less physical for a while" And that is some of the nicer stuff they said about us.

I read a couple dozen of these kind of "opposing coaches size up..." on other teams and with few exceptions the coaches were more negative about Tech than any other school. In all fairness, they were fairly negative about Virginia Tech as well. Stuff like: "Everyone is talking about this program. Something's not right..." They were far more complimentary of say, Duke, "Duke is on a different plane...David Cutliffe is a master tactician" The only other ACC program they dissed anywhere like Tech is poor old Louisville: "This is a total rebuild.. This one might be more difficult than Georgia Tech switching back from a triple option..." Maybe the coaches are right and it will be a long transition. I still think if we can run the table on three winnable games following Clemson, this team will build confidence and have an outside shot at gaining bowl eligibility. God only knows what the melt down will be if we lose to The Citadel.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Make no mistake, it will be a difficult transition. I just finished reading Athlon's take on our team and it is not pretty. Fine, we tend to do better when people think we are going to be terrible. What I found interesting was their little box of quotes from opposing teams' coaches. Interesting reading that is, of course, given anonymously. Among other tidbits: "...the new coaching staff has brought in a lot of attention. They really needed that because Georgia Tech has been ASLEEP (my emphasis) for a long time..." "...we had some visiting coaches who saw Tech tell us they're a ways off of being even decent"(note they are talking about the offensive line) "Tobias Oliver is their best quarterback but he is definitely a triple guy" "They have no possession receivers and a lot of dudes who block and break out wide open on play actions...lots of work there" "Defensively, a little bit better news -- at least they have the right kind of bodies" "they were bad at creating pressure last year and we'd been watching their defense get slower and less physical for a while" And that is some of the nicer stuff they said about us.

I read a couple dozen of these kind of "opposing coaches size up..." on other teams and with few exceptions the coaches were more negative about Tech than any other school. In all fairness, they were fairly negative about Virginia Tech as well. Stuff like: "Everyone is talking about this program. Something's not right..." They were far more complimentary of say, Duke, "Duke is on a different plane...David Cutliffe is a master tactician" The only other ACC program they dissed anywhere like Tech is poor old Louisville: "This is a total rebuild.. This one might be more difficult than Georgia Tech switching back from a triple option..." Maybe the coaches are right and it will be a long transition. I still think if we can run the table on three winnable games following Clemson, this team will build confidence and have an outside shot at gaining bowl eligibility. God only knows what the melt down will be if we lose to The Citadel.

Wonder how many of these coaches who trashed Tech lost games to us. I seem to recall similar comments in past years by coaches who got pasted by us. Cutcliffe used to be the worst. When Duke starting beating us he began to tone it down.

 

[Heisman's Ghost]

Wonder how many of these coaches who trashed Tech lost games to us. I seem to recall similar comments in past years by coaches who got pasted by us. Cutcliffe used to be the worst. When Duke starting beating us he began to tone it down.

My thoughts exactly. My second thought was the negative quotes were probably not from Clemson. I am pretty sure the parameters, inferred from other comments on other teams, were that they were limited to in conference. Thus, no Dwags. So, at least we can't blame this on them. I wonder if Athlon pays a small stipend for their thoughts or maybe they just make it all up. I also wonder if the SID or head coach decides who gets to be quoted or even if the quotes actually might come from the SID and not an assistant at all. We will never know but they are kind of interesting to the casual fan. They do SEEM to have the ring of authenticity. FWIW

 

[GTpdm]

Wonder how many of these coaches who trashed Tech lost games to us. I seem to recall similar comments in past years by coaches who got pasted by us. Cutcliffe used to be the worst. When Duke starting beating us Once the ACC started giving him scheduling advantages against us, he began to tone it down.

FTFY...