Paul Johnson time frame.

[slugboy]

IMO, Gailey's only problem was he couldn't beat UGAG and never really understood why that was so important to us and not just considered another game on the schedule ...

That, and it seemed like every time an opposing coach was about to lose their jobs, he threw them a lifeline by losing to them. And being boring on offense. He wasted a lot of talent.

 

[ATL1]

“That’s not to say Tech backers shouldn’t want more. There’s nothing wrong with aiming higher. If the Jackets spend more and dream bigger in football, there is enough talent in this state and those bordering it for a high-profile coach to build something bigger.” ~ where I’m at.

“But there’s also nothing wrong with the football status quo, if that’s what Tech’s advocates want. That might mean the Jackets are pretty good most years and deliver the occasional great campaign. Upset victories over their Athens adversaries are always welcome, of course.” ~ where this board at.

But there’s also nothing wrong with the football status quo, if that’s what Tech’s advocates want. That might mean the Jackets are pretty good most years and deliver the occasional great campaign. Upset victories over their Athens adversaries are always welcome, of course.

 

[LibertyTurns]

That’s not to say Tech backers shouldn’t want more. There’s nothing wrong with aiming higher. If the Jackets spend more and dream bigger in football, there is enough talent in this state and those bordering it for a high-profile coach to build something bigger.

https://www.ajc.com/blog/mike-check...gatech&utm_medium=social&utm_source=gatech_fb

Does someone have the list of the high-profile coaches we might be able to choose from? Maybe some of us would get off the stay the course fence if we knew who was sniffing around.

 

[TheSilasSonRising]

Does someone have the list of the high-profile coaches we might be able to choose from? Maybe some of us would get off the stay the course fence if we knew who was sniffing around.

We have only ever hired a “high profile” coach once in either FB or BB, and that was Pepper Rodgers.

Won’t happen again probably, but that has nothing to do with hiring a successful coach for GT.

JMO

 

[TooTall]

Bobby Petrino is available.

 

[ibeattetris]

“That’s not to say Tech backers shouldn’t want more. There’s nothing wrong with aiming higher. If the Jackets spend more and dream bigger in football, there is enough talent in this state and those bordering it for a high-profile coach to build something bigger.” ~ where I’m at.

“But there’s also nothing wrong with the football status quo, if that’s what Tech’s advocates want. That might mean the Jackets are pretty good most years and deliver the occasional great campaign. Upset victories over their Athens adversaries are always welcome, of course.” ~ where this board at.

But there’s also nothing wrong with the football status quo, if that’s what Tech’s advocates want. That might mean the Jackets are pretty good most years and deliver the occasional great campaign. Upset victories over their Athens adversaries are always welcome, of course.

I think it's interesting your "where I'm at" quote was preceded by

But Johnson has taken Tech places that Chan Gailey and George O’Leary didn’t, and that Bobby Ross did only once. Any fair assessment of Johnson must acknowledge that, if there are higher expectations for Tech football, then Johnson created them.

Also, I can't speak for the board, but my defense of CPJ is based on how much we currently spend. I have posted here that if you can find a donor willing to foot 4-5mil for a hc, 500k+ for an OC, AND you are willing to increase the recruiting budget on top, then I am 100% on board for a new coach. If we continue to spend 3mil for HC and OC combined, we will not do better than CPJ.

 

[Milwaukee]

We should be 9-1. End of discussion.

 

[MikeJackets1967]

We should be 9-1. End of discussion.

Yeah if GT started off playing like they are now they would be at the very least 8-2

 

[AE 87]

“That’s not to say Tech backers shouldn’t want more. There’s nothing wrong with aiming higher. If the Jackets spend more and dream bigger in football, there is enough talent in this state and those bordering it for a high-profile coach to build something bigger.” ~ where I’m at.

“But there’s also nothing wrong with the football status quo, if that’s what Tech’s advocates want. That might mean the Jackets are pretty good most years and deliver the occasional great campaign. Upset victories over their Athens adversaries are always welcome, of course.” ~ where this board at.

But there’s also nothing wrong with the football status quo, if that’s what Tech’s advocates want. That might mean the Jackets are pretty good most years and deliver the occasional great campaign. Upset victories over their Athens adversaries are always welcome, of course.

This is a crap post based on an ignorant opinion imo. No one has been for status quo. No one.

We changed 3 coaches including the DC in the last off season. That is not being satisfied with the status quo.

Only a stupid person would believe that, and you're not stupid.

So, you didn't say that this was the view of people on this board because you believe that. You're not stupid. You said it as a cheap rhetorical shot.

Crap post imo.

 

[Milwaukee]

@AE 87 how do you feel about his post? Don't hold back.

 

[IEEEWreck]

“That’s not to say Tech backers shouldn’t want more. There’s nothing wrong with aiming higher. If the Jackets spend more and dream bigger in football, there is enough talent in this state and those bordering it for a high-profile coach to build something bigger.” ~ where I’m at.

“But there’s also nothing wrong with the football status quo, if that’s what Tech’s advocates want. That might mean the Jackets are pretty good most years and deliver the occasional great campaign. Upset victories over their Athens adversaries are always welcome, of course.” ~ where this board at.

But there’s also nothing wrong with the football status quo, if that’s what Tech’s advocates want. That might mean the Jackets are pretty good most years and deliver the occasional great campaign. Upset victories over their Athens adversaries are always welcome, of course.

I'm just saying maybe if I saw a credible plan from the AA that I think leads to a better outcome I'd be moved to support? Otherwise I'd be projecting my own thoughts into a meaningless and nihilistic reflexive change. And you know what that gets you? Trump.

And if Trump vs Kim Jong Un is at all indicative, we'll be losing blowouts vs. Mercer.

 

[smokey_wasp]

Agree that it is an unfair characterization to say that anyone is ok with the status quo. We are all dreaming bigger and wanting more. Its just a matter as to how to get there.

I was ready for CPJ to go if we missed a bowl this year because I felt it would hinder efforts to raise money for improvements. As of right now, though, I do not believe an immediate coaching change is the way to get where we all want to go. Roll with CPJ and his offense that keeps us competitive, raise money and make this an attractive enough job that we can actually hire someone who has a good chance to do even better.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

This is a crap post based on an ignorant opinion imo. No one has been for status quo. No one.

We changed 3 coaches including the DC in the last off season. That is not being satisfied with the status quo.

Only a stupid person would believe that, and you're not stupid.

So, you didn't say that this was the view of people on this board because you believe that. You're not stupid. You said it as a cheap rhetorical shot.

Crap post imo.

Those are quotes from an AJC article.

 

[LibertyTurns]

Those are quotes from an AJC article.

Oh, I thought it was just @AE 87 that thought it was crap. I didn’t realize it was bonafide AUC crap.

 

[ibeattetris]

Those are quotes from an AJC article.

They were quotes that he specifically attributed to either himself or to the board. While the quotes were from AJC article, he was insinuating the board feels a certain way.

 

[stech81]

We should be 9-1. End of discussion.

I'll 9 to 1 it is not the end of discussion I know 3 who will see to that not ending.

 

[GTRX7]

OK, first..... full disclosure...I was one of those posters who thought we'd only win two or at most three games this year.

I have NEVER thought GT's problems were CPJ's fault. I have always felt that for GT to be truly competitive in big-time college sports, we'd have to play the game the way the big boys play it with tons of institutional support regarding academics, majors, and tutors. Like Clemson and FSU do it. I know many on this board disagree (some vehemently) with that course of action. In point of fact, I have always liked CPJ. I find him to be gruff but direct and honest and I have always thought he had a much greater grasp of the sport than me (or any other poster) has.

All that is by way of background.

I find myself still disliking this offense. This even KNOWING that (1) CPJ is a master at it, and (2) it works for us (generally)

So, I have been trying to analyze why this emotional response has become so strong within me these last two years. I think the simplest answer is that when we do not have an effective passing threat, that we seem so one dimensional that anyone with a good rush defense can dominate our offense. The frustration of playing a Clemson, or a Miami, when we have no effective passing threat, is an intense frustration because I know that pretty much anyhting we try will fail. NB-in my book, we beat Miami last week precisely because we DID have an effective passing attack. Effective does NOT mean you have to throw it 20 times a game, but you MUST be able to complete it when you do throw it. If we had not completed that TD pass to Brad Stewart in the 3rd quarter, or the 3rd down pass to Camp in the 4th quarter, I believe we would have lost to Miami. And until the Miami game, we had not been effective in our passing. (Also please note, I am well aware that if our O line can beat their D line, we don't ever need to pass. That only happens when we play inferior opponents however, not when we play decent teams.)

So, I guess this is a very long-winded way of saying that this offense sucks when we cannot pass effectively and is dreadful to watch in that circumstance. We now have had one game where we could pass effectively. I guess the question is as we approach the next two games against solid teams....will we continue to pass effectively? Or will we revert to passing form of the last 1 and 1/2 years? Or, asked another way....was last weekend a fluke? Or have we finally figured out how to execute a solid passing attack?

Nice long post. I am not sure if you realize this, but I think virtually every single person on this board agrees with your sentiment. We all, every single one of us, agrees that we need an effective passing game to be elite. The only divide is how to define “effective.”

Some think effective means we have to pass more. I and many others have disagreed with that. I have posted the stats a few times that there is no particular correlation between us passing more and more wins. And most of our big wins under CPJ have actually come when we pass less.

That said, we all agree that, when we pass, we have to do it effectively, even if that is only a handful of times a game (like we did against Miami).

I guess I just don’t understand why you are blaming that on the offensive scheme as oppose to recruiting. I have posted the stats numerous times but, when we have had a decent QB and decent receivers, we have had like 4 or 5 years under CPJ where we were top 5 in the nation in yards per pass and top 20 in the nation in passing efficiently. The scheme is set up perfectly fine to have effective passing. It is just some years we have not had the talent to pull that off. You can say that is a CPJ issue as well, I just don’t see it as a “scheme” issue.

Having Ratliff or Lucas Johnson this year might have made a difference there. Hopefully Johnson or Graham (or maybe Oliver?) can next year.

 

[RonJohn]

I don't agree that the star ratings are purely a product of who wants who. There's some fan base bias, but if that was the predominant factor there wouldn't be the strong correlation between top-ten teams and top-ten recruiting. You'll find exceptions, but in general the correlation is strong.

There isn't a "strong" correlation, it is a direct correlation. If top-ten teams want someone, then they are a top notch recruit. When that top notch recruit(because the top-ten teams want him) goes to a top-ten team, then they get a top-ten recruiting ranking.

I don't see it as only decided by who is recruiting a player. However, the differences are not as great as the recruiting numbers indicate. The top tier are fairly easy to spot. However, is the number 1 ranked OLB actually better than the number 4 ranked OLB? Is it a known and measurable difference? What about the number 4 ranked OLB and the number 8 ranked OLB? Is it a known, measurable, and verifiable difference? Those could make a difference in whether a team is ranked #1, #4, or #5. What about further down the line. Is the #40 OLB in the country verifiably better than the #60 OLB? Those differences can make a team ranking to be either #25 or #45. There is too much variability. The teams in the top ten probably are getting more talent than the teams in the 50s. You can see that without numbers and stars and rankings. I don't buy that rankings can verifiably state that #2 is better than #8, or that #40 is better than #60.

 

[bobongo]

There isn't a "strong" correlation, it is a direct correlation. If top-ten teams want someone, then they are a top notch recruit. When that top notch recruit(because the top-ten teams want him) goes to a top-ten team, then they get a top-ten recruiting ranking.

I don't see it as only decided by who is recruiting a player. However, the differences are not as great as the recruiting numbers indicate. The top tier are fairly easy to spot. However, is the number 1 ranked OLB actually better than the number 4 ranked OLB? Is it a known and measurable difference? What about the number 4 ranked OLB and the number 8 ranked OLB? Is it a known, measurable, and verifiable difference? Those could make a difference in whether a team is ranked #1, #4, or #5. What about further down the line. Is the #40 OLB in the country verifiably better than the #60 OLB? Those differences can make a team ranking to be either #25 or #45. There is too much variability. The teams in the top ten probably are getting more talent than the teams in the 50s. You can see that without numbers and stars and rankings. I don't buy that rankings can verifiably state that #2 is better than #8, or that #40 is better than #60.

By correlation, I mean the top teams in recruiting rankings, generally speaking, are the top teams in the final polls, the best teams in the nation. Of course it's difficult to ferret out who's #1 vs. who's #4, or #4 and #8, but the general drift is strong. Top ten teams get the best players. They aren't highly ranked just because top ten teams want them, the top ten teams want them because they are the best. And exceptions abound, but in general the correlation holds strong. If the top ranked players were only ranked because the top teams wanted them, the top teams wouldn't be top teams. C'mon, just look at the top ten at the end of the season. Almost all have high recruiting rankings over the last four years. As I said there's some bias, but not as much as some would like to believe. The proof is in the results.

 

[684Bee]

By correlation, I mean the top teams in recruiting rankings, generally speaking, are the top teams in the final polls, the best teams in the nation. Of course it's difficult to ferret out who's #1 vs. who's #4, or #4 and #8, but the general drift is strong. Top ten teams get the best players. They aren't highly ranked just because top ten teams want them, the top ten teams want them because they are the best. And exceptions abound, but in general the correlation holds strong. If the top ranked players were only ranked because the top teams wanted them, the top teams wouldn't be top teams. C'mon, just look at the top ten at the end of the season. Almost all have high recruiting rankings over the last four years. As I said there's some bias, but not as much as some would like to believe. The proof is in the results.

I think success is about 60% recruiting and 40% coaching.