Paul Johnson time frame.

[TheTechGuy]

that 'attempt' lasted a few games. meanwhile, his offense just got shut down by mighty Pitt. Time for a change!

You continue to misconstrue what causes poor recruiting. Time for some learning!

 

[RamblinWreck92]

You continue to misconstrue what causes poor recruiting. Time for some learning!

this coach and offense cause poor recruiting, along with our academics. stop obfuscating. this offense is a recruiting millstone!

 

[MidtownJacket]

Well ****, it’s too bad the College Football Playoff doesn’t award the National Championship based on academics and how much money you make from your degree. Georgia Tech actually might be relevant then.

I’ll be seeing to you in a moment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MidtownJacket]

Well if he gets no results it's not worth doing...

I think PJ could do minor tweaks to basically shut down all of the negative talk. Throw about 30-35% even when not needed to win. Use a gun package 15% of the time. Use a TE. Use 3 actual WR personnel or heaven forbid 4 WR. None of those significantly change the offense and he's the only coach in his tree that hasn't done something similar. Ivin Jasper does it. Monken does it. Don't know about Bohannon.

As has been previously said in many threads. We need improvements in both special teams and the defense, but Offense is far from being a problem for us. We rank 21st in total offense across NCAA, averaging over 7 yard per play and over 500 yards per game. Where we need help is:

> Red zone offense
> 1st half defense
> Special teams


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TheTechGuy]

this coach and offense cause poor recruiting, along with our academics. stop obfuscating. this offense is a recruiting millstone!

I’m not obfuscating, you’re obviating the systemic issues in favor of a visceral reaction.

 

[RamblinWreck92]

I’m not obfuscating, you’re obviating the systemic issues in favor of a visceral reaction.

I pretty-clearly typed 'along with our academics'.

That ****ty fake-punt call wasn't due to 'systemic issues' nor are the missed PATs, crappy tackling, horrific passing, and blocking.

It's poor coaching.

 

[MidtownJacket]

As to @CuIEgrad2018 I have a couple of things for you:

Option 1:
It’s a real thing..

Option 2:


Option 3:
Google told me everything I need to know, both about our game against you in 2009 and your comment about similar value of degrees

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

You know your football program is absolute **** when you fall back on academics as your saving grace in a discussion regarding your offensive scheme.

I believe that YOU are the one who started this all up by claiming that Clemson was just as academically relevant as Tech is and that they have student athletes every bit as smart as Tech's athletes. You can't have it both ways, bubba. I know plenty of good Clemson fans, and several are close friends. They certainly have more class than you do. You are no different than a mutt from the cesspool.....talking about your butt.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

You know you are replying to a Clemson alum when they cannot comprehend that you are replying to a statement they made.

He's no more a Clemson alum than you or I are. He's just a typical redneck, missing his sheep because of Florence.

 

[RamblinWreck92]

As has been previously said in many threads. We need improvements in both special teams and the defense, but Offense is far from being a problem for us. We rank 21st in total offense across NCAA, averaging over 7 yard per play and over 500 yards per game. Where we need help is:

> Red zone offense
> 1st half defense
> Special teams


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As was evident in the last 5 minutes of the PITT game, we need to work on our hurry-up package too. Still running in plays from the sideline is Jr. High football. Not having a no-huddle/hurry-up package is insanity in the year 2018.

Also, we scored 0 pts the entire first half vs lowly PITT. Not sure I'd be so quick to trot out offensive stats that we mostly got vs Alcorn St. and USF.

I agree on your Other 3 Phases That Need Work too.

 

[smathis30]

Clemson is a UNIVERSITY with tons of majors that virtually any dummy can get a degree in. Tech is not a UNIVERSITY and has only limited fields of study for ALL students, including athletes. And the last I checked, Tech has a higher APR than Clemson, so your point is moot. Plus, I bet Tech athletes who graduate move on to much higher paying jobs than Clemson athletes.

Tech is very much so a university branded as an institute. Hell in the 40s we were the Georgia school of technology. There is no legal difference between an institute and university. Just branding FYI

 

[Buzz*The*Plumber]

You know your football program is absolute **** when you fall back on academics as your saving grace in a discussion regarding your offensive scheme.

Hey ****stick, **** off back to the pasture. That is all.

 

[Vespidae]

Tech is very much so a university branded as an institute. Hell in the 40s we were the Georgia school of technology. There is no legal difference between an institute and university. Just branding FYI

This is not entirely accurate. There is no controlling "legal" definition for what schools call themselves. However, it is common practice that "universities" distinguish themselves from "colleges" by having a graduate program as well as a broader range of majors to pursue. That's because universities almost always consist of a strong liberal arts base of programs. An "Institute" is a four-year program (just like a University), but usually has a specialized focus on technology, arts, or other area of specialization.

Georgia Tech "chooses" to be an Institute with a limited academic focus on technology and virtually no liberal arts or social studies programs. (Others might be "military institutes or whatever.)

I personally think we should celebrate this - it is what makes Georgia Tech ... Georgia Tech.

In full disclosure, I am semi-retired and presently work for the University System of Georgia.

 

[GTNavyNuke]

This is a tough question to answer: "What gets Paul Johnson fired or encouraged to resign?". I took it from the Stansbury perspective so I said he's here till 2020. The only change to that will be if we start getting 15,000 fans in the seats. But with opposing teams buying up so many seats (UGAg), that won't happen except for BG and similar mismatched games.

But if I take the question from my perspective, it's making a bowl game.

I don't think we'll make a bowl game. We have too many weaknesses on O, D and ST.

We started the year and I thought we'd go 7-5 regular season. Now I think 5-7 is a stretch goal. The O is banged up already, we have no reliable backup for QB, the ST look like they may be as bad as last year (Football Outsiders rankings start after week 7), and the D can't perform in the crunch so far.

BTW, Atomic now has us at 5-7 after starting the year at a 7-5 projection. http://atomicfootball.com/archive/teams/tm_9.html

I don't think a new coach will be that much better or worse overall. All coaches / people have their strengths and weaknesses. So let's just enjoy the games as much as we can. I'll do that by watching the games till it gets ugly and then do something more enjoyable with my life.

Back to the original question. After thinking about it more, I think CPJ's time frame will be established or limited largely by himself. From what I've seen, he does it because he likes it. And he thinks he has enough money that he doesn't have to continue to coach if he doesn't want and has better alternatives (golf, travel, etc).

That said, I changed my answer to making a bowl game since CPJ will probably decide to leave if we don't make a bowl game again.

 

[CUIEgrad21]

I believe that YOU are the one who started this all up by claiming that Clemson was just as academically relevant as Tech is and that they have student athletes every bit as smart as Tech's athletes. You can't have it both ways, bubba. I know plenty of good Clemson fans, and several are close friends. They certainly have more class than you do. You are no different than a mutt from the cesspool.....talking about your butt.

Fine, Tech grads are smarter than every other human being in the world. Now let’s talk about your **** 1-2 footbal team, soon to be 1-3 after we beat you by 30. The game Saturday is just a glorified spring game for us.

 

[Buzz*The*Plumber]

Fine, Tech grads are smarter than every other human being in the world. Now let’s talk about your **** 1-2 footbal team, soon to be 1-3 after we beat you by 30. The game Saturday is just a glorified spring game for us.

Hey cow ****er, I thought I told you to **** off back to the pasture.

 

[GT_05]

Tech is very much so a university branded as an institute. Hell in the 40s we were the Georgia school of technology. There is no legal difference between an institute and university. Just branding FYI

An institute is much different from a university in the UK; institutes are where research is performed. I wonder if this is where the idea of adding “institute” to our name came from. Unfortunately, that word is not reserved in the U.S. and I’ve even seen it used by questionable for-profit, post-secondary training like the Javelin Technical Institute.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[g0lftime]

In the words of coach McKay at USC after a big loss. On Sunday morning 1.5 billion Chinese won't even know this game was played.

 

[smathis30]

An institute is much different from a university in the UK; institutes are where research is performed. I wonder if this is where the idea of adding “institute” to our name came from. Unfortunately, that word is not reserved in the U.S. and I’ve even seen it used by questionable for-profit, post-secondary training like the Javelin Technical Institute.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Institute was literally added as a way to rebrand the school after reconstruction. Georgia School of Technology didn't have the same ring to it. No ifs and or buts GT is a university which pushed the tech side for branding purposes. No attachments otherwise

 

[smathis30]

This is not entirely accurate. There is no controlling "legal" definition for what schools call themselves. However, it is common practice that "universities" distinguish themselves from "colleges" by having a graduate program as well as a broader range of majors to pursue. That's because universities almost always consist of a strong liberal arts base of programs. An "Institute" is a four-year program (just like a University), but usually has a specialized focus on technology, arts, or other area of specialization.

Georgia Tech "chooses" to be an Institute with a limited academic focus on technology and virtually no liberal arts or social studies programs. (Others might be "military institutes or whatever.)

I personally think we should celebrate this - it is what makes Georgia Tech ... Georgia Tech.

In full disclosure, I am semi-retired and presently work for the University System of Georgia.

That's literally what I said. GT branded itself to be an institute. It could be a university of we wanted to but we changed names after reconstruction to try to be the beacon of progress in the south. It's not a restriction, just a name that reflects what people believe to be restrictions.