Some of you act like PJ is going to be coaching another 10-20 years. Those arguing that getting rid of him is going to do all this harm and it might be true. I’m not here to argue. But PJ has 2 maybe 3 years left. That’s about it. GT will be in the same exact position it’s in today. Maybe even a little worse off given the current trajectory.
So what are those of you so against PJ leaving really arguing for here? 2-3 more years of probably the same? PJ’s “dynasty” is pretty much set. He had some great years, some average years and some really bad years. That’s really all you can sum this up to. 2-3 more years isn’t going to magically give us a great year. GT will not be winning the ACC and does not have a legit shot at a 2014 type season with the roster currently constructed (particularly on OL and DL). If you think we have that shot then it’s time to take the glasses off and be honest with yourselves. So my point remains. What is 2-3 more years of this going to do for our program?
Not a damn thing in my opinion. It won’t help and it could only hurt at this point. At some point we aren’t renewing his contract and you think it’s tough to recruit now think of how handicapped we will be when trying to recruit players knowing the coach is retiring next year. It’s a damn tough decision to be made but hanging on here for both GTs and PJs sake is not in the best interest.
The only time it makes sense to hang onto a coach until the bitter end is if doing so likely results in championships for the program. Do any of you honestly think GT will play for/win any championships in the next 2-3 years? If not, then what’s being accomplished?
Here's the truth of the matter: With or without Paul Johnson, you are not going to be playing for any championships in the near future, unless you make MASSIVE changes to both your academic requirements and your infrastructure.
You have issues at GT. I acknowledge this. They prevent you from competing with the best of the best on a consistent basis.
Hell, Paul Johnson may even prevent you from ABSOLUTE maximization.
That said, he's pretty far down the list, and IMO he actually helps you reach a higher LOCAL maximum than you otherwise would. Yes, his offense limits offensive recruiting. This is probably true, but MANY OTHER THINGS limit your offensive recruiting, defensive recruiting, coaching recruiting, player retention, etc MUCH MORE.
ALSO, Johnson's offense gives you a tactical advantage vs. peer programs (again, please note that you guys had one of the better offenses in the country despite your recruiting rankings).
So lets game theory this:
1) You fire coach johnson, and bring in a more standard offensive coach.
2) You lose the tactical advantage, because suddenly you're doing the same things as everybody else, and you're easy to prepare for.
3) Your recruiting fails to improve to a great degree, because while top notch WR's didn't want to come play Outside Guard for coach Johnson, they ALSO don't want to come do calculus and hang out at sausage parties, and study until 3 am when they could bang hot chicks and get wasted at UGA and play in the exact same offense.
4) You're running the same offense as everybody else, with no better recruits than anybody else. Why would you expect better results than anybody else? (Guess what? YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET BETTER RESULTS THAN ANYBODY ELSE)
5) We have this conversation again in 4 years.
6) MAYBE THEN people figure out that the BIG problem is bigger than X's and O's
7) Probably not, because again, people aren't interested in facts.
