Paul Johnson time frame.

[iceeater1969]

By the point:

1. If you look at those games, you will see that, with the exception of last year, they were very close. I don't see a closer competition with Duke as an indicator of "irrelevancy". It is an indicator that the greater resources they have committed to their program have paid off. We need to do the same.

2. I'd like to win more and maybe we will. But, yes, we are on the wrong path. We are spending a lot of time worrying about the coaching staff instead of giving them the support they have asked for for years. Let's do that, shall we, then see if, once we get the table even, we still have problems. Then we can think seriously about a coaching change; there'll be grounds for it.

3. No. I would have started Bryan. I don't know what Sewak was thinking. And, btw, I'm not a premium member on anything.

4. I think the simple answer here is two fold. He's been hurt and others have practiced more. But the real reason is that Marshall has been hurt so much and Lee was needed at center. That means our #1 option at OT is Will. He's a pretty good OT. I'd like to see the Lee, Braun, Cooper, Bryan, Marshall OL we were all expecting, but Cooper's injury and Marshall's in-and-out performance has made that pretty much impossible. Maybe next Thursday.

5. Our problem with our OLs hasn't been transfers; it's been injury. Who would be starting at LT now? Stickler, who had a career ending injury. Then Marshall gets hurt. Then Will. Then add in Benson and Johnson for good measure; the OL would look a lot better with Kirvontae back there. Sometimes you can't get a break. Also, if there is one area where our recruiting seems to have hit stride, it's at OL. The new kids we have coming up are very promising, we have a great recruit (Dowdy) on the way and we'll have good experience coming back. As to Sewak, I don't know enough about the issues up front from week to week to say more then I wish he had more success and that, if he doesn't, he'll get released.

Thanks for responding.
1. So u think us barly losing to Duke ( in the one game we one we won by 3 and jet had a great game) make 4 of 5 losses not indicative of a serious decline. Not irrelevant but imo on the road.

Imo -duke and cross conference games show that good coaches are catching up as we slaughter teams that have average athletes but no experience.
We are like 15-1 in none Clemson cross conference games. Hope u will think Duke verses our cross conference record.
As to giving more to recruiting I totally agree. -After working w todd Spencer- I found out how little we spent so in 12, I sent a Heisman check directing them to spend it on football recruiting.

2. So we agree if only 2 wins in coastal we are clearly on wrong track. I really think we are could win 3 or 4 of last 5. Win 2 and I am good w we go around 1 more time in 19 - with a new ol coach. 3 orc4 and no change.

3. Will played whole usf game - got nicked and then got injured in full speed 1 s verses 1 practice Monday or Tuesday. He has been well for louserville. Will is clearly best r g.
My belief is strength up middle is mandatory. U and sewak disagree.

I would have sent out to rotate in at tackle ="defoor and cquinney out for a c s, b g, l ville.

5 As to stickler (r shirt Jr last year) he had to try to play last year after klock and nascar moved on through attrition. Because he was in not ready - Bryan was moved over . Why were there back up tackles ready. We are still dealing w this. Next year when marshall and Bryan leave we have same thing. TQM s dad agrees that while the backup bb are good, k benson was a beast at blocking for his son U are right as heck about bensen. By way stickler skipped homecoming to go to an apple orchard w his girl friend! Weak sause. You are right and he would be a big help . Someday I will find out what ge injured.

Didn't see an answer to acceptable ol attrition end of 18? More that this would mean we are clearly on decline.
A. 2 = - 2 rs jr
B . 3 = 2 rs jr + 1 jr
C 3 = 2 rs jr + 1 very good jr.
Please think about if u can accept more than 0? We need depth at start of 19.

Sorry I am a pest for getting numbers so we dont talk in general terms.

The last sentence us said if sewak doesn't get more success he will be released. I think he is safe as long as johnson is here.

When johnson sewak leave, they will take thier secrets with them . I hope we get going and it's in 2020 after on Nov 14 we kick ND around!
Vt
VICTORY OR DEATH!
The upward March starts hear.

 

[LawTalkin Jacket]

What about the weed suspensions? I get that this is not a huge deal, but it has affected some of our best players. My understanding is that GTs rules are tougher than ACc or NCAA for week and CPJ seems ok with that, although maybe he is just being a good soldier.

Is CPJ OK with the “tough on weed” stance? And why would GT be tough on weed with science showing it is safer than alcohol, etc? A STEM school with progressive thinkers should be against weed suspensions. And being progressive would attract some young athletes.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[iceeater1969]

What about the weed suspensions? I get that this is not a huge deal, but it has affected some of our best players. My understanding is that GTs rules are tougher than ACc or NCAA for week and CPJ seems ok with that, although maybe he is just being a good soldier.

Is CPJ OK with the “tough on weed” stance? And why would GT be tough on weed with science showing it is safer than alcohol, etc? A STEM school with progressive thinkers should be against weed suspensions. And being progressive would attract some young athletes.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

They fixed it after mills was kicked out. I heard he was way over the limit.

 

[lv20gt]

What about the weed suspensions? I get that this is not a huge deal, but it has affected some of our best players. My understanding is that GTs rules are tougher than ACc or NCAA for week and CPJ seems ok with that, although maybe he is just being a good soldier.

Is CPJ OK with the “tough on weed” stance? And why would GT be tough on weed with science showing it is safer than alcohol, etc? A STEM school with progressive thinkers should be against weed suspensions. And being progressive would attract some young athletes.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Doing something illegal should have consequences. Even if you don't think it should be illegal.

 

[smokey_wasp]

This is insulting. The reasons I've given for keeping Coach - the way his style of football overcomes many of our recruiting problems in particular - have never been refuted by anybody here.

• If we changed coaching staffs we could recruit better. As I pointed out above, there is no systematic evidence offered that this is true; indeed, we had one response that it would be impossible to provide. We have had some convincing anecdotal evidence that some players haven't come to Tech (or haven't considered Tech; two different things) because they don't want to play in our offense. Or, at least, that is what they told some people here. There are so many alternative explanations for these decisions by 18 year olds that nobody here (I hope) would accept them as valid. The challenge is still there.

To your first point, the idea that CPJ's scheme overcomes our recruiting problems is more than questionable at this point. 2015, 2017 and 2018 seem to refute it. CPJ is 1-3 against Narduzzi and has lost 4 of 5 to Duke, and they dont even recruit much better than us, if at all. We lost to UVA last year. We have only beaten 1 P5 team this year and it happened to be one who has never played our offense. I love flexbone option football and have passionately defended it for years, often arguing with RW92. But the evidence is indicating that the schematic advantage has narrowed or disappeared entirely. Shoot, our vaunted offense was shut out for a half against Pitt and nearly shut out for a half against Duke at home.

As for recruiting, you are asking us to provide evidence for something that we will only know when it happens. I have long been skeptical that another coach could be a game changer, but even you admit there is anecdotal evidence that we could get a few more good players.

I get the fear of jumping into the unknown. I have no idea how the next coach will do. But fearing the unknown only makes sense if you are getting acceptable results with what you are doing currently. If we were still making bowl games, I would probably agree with you, but we are a bad football team 3 if the last 4 years now.

Regardless, we all want what is best for GT football. A lot of just think that means a new coach and new concepts on offense.

 

[iceeater1969]

Doing something illegal should have consequences. Even if you don't think it should be illegal.

John Boehner (ex speaker of house) is speaker at a Canadian weed growers conference.

There are still blasphemy laws on the books.

I think the point is with all the academic and course offering restrictions does gt need to have the toughest weed rules.?

I am sad we couldnt help mills more. Sometimes it takes tough love. Fax, I wish he was still here and benson and 24 were ab!

 

[lv20gt]

John Boehner (ex speaker of house) is speaker at a Canadian weed growers conference.

There are still blasphemy laws on the books.

I think the point is with all the academic and course offering restrictions does gt need to have the toughest weed rules.?

I am sad we couldnt help mills more. Sometimes it takes tough love.

At the end of the day I find it hard to be sorry for someone who essentially risked his meal ticket so he could get high, regardless of legality.

 

[Bogey]

GT would wind up getting huge amounts of media coverage with him as head coach and that would have to help with recruiting......................................just sayin'

That is true. But before serious consideration is given, somebody in our prgram would need to perform serious due diligence to make sure he has changed his act, in MHO.


Sent from my ZTE A2017U using Tapatalk

 

[takethepoints]

To your first point, the idea that CPJ's scheme overcomes our recruiting problems is more than questionable at this point. 2015, 2017 and 2018 seem to refute it. CPJ is 1-3 against Narduzzi and has lost 4 of 5 to Duke, and they dont even recruit much better than us, if at all. We lost to UVA last year. We have only beaten 1 P5 team this year and it happened to be one who has never played our offense. I love flexbone option football and have passionately defended it for years, often arguing with RW92. But the evidence is indicating that the schematic advantage has narrowed or disappeared entirely. Shoot, our vaunted offense was shut out for a half against Pitt and nearly shut out for a half against Duke at home.

As for recruiting, you are asking us to provide evidence for something that we will only know when it happens. I have long been skeptical that another coach could be a game changer, but even you admit there is anecdotal evidence that we could get a few more good players.

I get the fear of jumping into the unknown. I have no idea how the next coach will do. But fearing the unknown only makes sense if you are getting acceptable results with what you are doing currently. If we were still making bowl games, I would probably agree with you, but we are a bad football team 3 if the last 4 years now.

Regardless, we all want what is best for GT football. A lot of just think that means a new coach and new concepts on offense.

Point by point:

1. The schematic advantage only works when you have your best players on the field. As I said above, we have lost our starting BB for two years in a row. This has not helped one little bit. Nor have the OL injuries. Nor has losing Johnson before the year started. We have had trouble getting our best on the field. Shoot, with Kirvontae out there, I'm betting we'd be 4 - 3 or (more likely) 5-2 right now. As I keep saying, if we hadn't fired Mills, nobody would be complaining about our recruiting. I think we'll do fine next year, especially if Benson comes back. I understand frustration about losing, but not seeing the big picture here doesn't make sense.

2. Sure. Problem = we also get some quality players - I mention them above - that came to Tech because we would let them play the positions they wanted. And you are right not to swallow the "changing the coach will change everything" mindset. Especially when we haven't given the present staff the resources they need. Let's do that, then see. Btw, I've been thinking about this.

3. We have had trouble in 2015 and 2017. In both years we had extenuating circumstances. In 2015 the worse injury tsunami in recent Tech history. I don't know why anyone cites that year. Look at any list of the players out and be amazed that we did as well as we did. In 2017, we had several very close games where we came up short. Check the stats and you'll see that we played well in most games. I think everybody looks at Duke and Ugag and thinks we were truly bad that year. What we were was discouraged. I've played on teams like that and it's hard to overcome. If we hold on 4th and 12 against Miami, we win at least 7. This kind of thing happens. If you want a good idea of what we can do with the present system, look at 2016. I heard a lot of the same stuff before that season and from pretty much the same crowd of boo-birds. I don't think anyone thought we'd win 9 games and curb-stomp an SEC team in our bowl. But we did. And we can do it again, without a coaching change.

4. "I have no idea how the next coach will do." Then what, exactly, are you asking for? And I have to disagree about the results metric you are using. If you know why you are having trouble, then leaping into the unknown before you try to fix the problems that led to the situation makes no sense at all. See bankruptcy, Sears, Roebuck and co. for a recent example of what abandoning methods that have worked for new, "disruptive" management styles can lead to. Or see the dumpster fire that is the Tennessee football program.

Of course, if we have a losing season this year and can't turn it around next year - even with more resources - we'll have a reason to look at the program again. Frankly, I doubt that will happen and I think that's what is motivating many here who have been waiting for a chance to chase CPJ for years.

 

[smokey_wasp]

Point by point:

1. The schematic advantage only works when you have your best players on the field. As I said above, we have lost our starting BB for two years in a row. This has not helped one little bit. Nor have the OL injuries. Nor has losing Johnson before the year started. We have had trouble getting our best on the field. Shoot, with Kirvontae out there, I'm betting we'd be 4 - 3 or (more likely) 5-2 right now. As I keep saying, if we hadn't fired Mills, nobody would be complaining about our recruiting. I think we'll do fine next year, especially if Benson comes back. I understand frustration about losing, but not seeing the big picture here doesn't make sense.

2. Sure. Problem = we also get some quality players - I mention them above - that came to Tech because we would let them play the positions they wanted. And you are right not to swallow the "changing the coach will change everything" mindset. Especially when we haven't given the present staff the resources they need. Let's do that, then see. Btw, I've been thinking about this.

3. We have had trouble in 2015 and 2017. In both years we had extenuating circumstances. In 2015 the worse injury tsunami in recent Tech history. I don't know why anyone cites that year. Look at any list of the players out and be amazed that we did as well as we did. In 2017, we had several very close games where we came up short. Check the stats and you'll see that we played well in most games. I think everybody looks at Duke and Ugag and thinks we were truly bad that year. What we were was discouraged. I've played on teams like that and it's hard to overcome. If we hold on 4th and 12 against Miami, we win at least 7. This kind of thing happens. If you want a good idea of what we can do with the present system, look at 2016. I heard a lot of the same stuff before that season and from pretty much the same crowd of boo-birds. I don't think anyone thought we'd win 9 games and curb-stomp an SEC team in our bowl. But we did. And we can do it again, without a coaching change.

4. "I have no idea how the next coach will do." Then what, exactly, are you asking for? And I have to disagree about the results metric you are using. If you know why you are having trouble, then leaping into the unknown before you try to fix the problems that led to the situation makes no sense at all. See bankruptcy, Sears, Roebuck and co. for a recent example of what abandoning methods that have worked for new, "disruptive" management styles can lead to. Or see the dumpster fire that is the Tennessee football program.

Of course, if we have a losing season this year and can't turn it around next year - even with more resources - we'll have a reason to look at the program again. Frankly, I doubt that will happen and I think that's what is motivating many here who have been waiting for a chance to chase CPJ for years.

I get that there have been injuries, but we still have a senior qb in his 2nd year starting, a couple of very good senior A backs and were supposed to have one of the better O lines we have had recently, even if a couple of guys got banged up.

As for the close losses, those look worse in retrospect with the way we have played this year. It is a trend now that we just don't know how to win. I suspect it is poor coaching.

You seem to look at change as always being disastrous when there are plenty of cases where new leadership has let to positive results, too.

I just think that you and I have different assessments of where we are right now. You think we are a couple of tweaks away from another 2014. I don't see it.

I am grateful for CPJ's leadership and decade of contributions to Tech football. I will support the team no matter what and am sure you will too. But my preference would be for both CPJ and us to move on.

 

[RamblinWreck92]

Huh? Go look at the data. Our running backs generally average anywhere from 10 yards/catch to well over 20 yards per catch. Just some examples from 2014 to 2016:
2014
Perkins - 28 yds/catch
Zenon - 20.1 yards/catch
Hill - 17.8 yds/catch
Snoddy 33.3 yds/catch

2015
Skov - 14.7 yds/catch
M. Marshall 14 yds/catch
Lynch - 24.3 yds/catch

2016
M. Marshall - 30.7 yds/catch
Searcy - 18.3 yds/catch
Lynch - 30.6 yds/catch
Green - 13.3 yds/catch

None of these guys are getting tons of catches (the guys I listed are usually between 3 and 11 catches), but when they do it isn't short balls that fail to help open things up.

Passing to RBs out of the backfield doesn't open things up. You do that by throwing to WRs, so that defensive secondary doesn't cheat the LOS and shoot the gaps on running plays because the def. sec. knows it can/will get burnt if it does. Throwing to RBs on wheel routes is a way to get some big plays but it's not a sustainable passing attack, nor does it work well against the Clemsons and mutts, since their LBs can match our RB speed. Like you pointed out, "None of these guys are getting tons of catches" because it's a gimmicky way of passing that only works a few times at most before Ds clamp down. Not ironically, it only works because the D is cheating the LOS because they don't fear our passing attack nor our WRs.

No 2017 stats?

 

[Milwaukee]

Passing to RBs out of the backfield doesn't open things up. You do that by throwing to WRs, so that defensive secondary doesn't cheat the LOS and shoot the gaps on running plays because the def. sec. knows it can/will get burnt if it does. Throwing to RBs on wheel routes is a way to get some big plays but it's not a sustainable passing attack, nor does it work well against the Clemsons and mutts, since their LBs can match our RB speed. Like you pointed out, "None of these guys are getting tons of catches" because it's a gimmicky way of passing that only works a few times at most before Ds clamp down. Not ironically, it only works because the D is cheating the LOS because they don't fear our passing attack nor our WRs.

No 2017 stats?

A-back seams don't open up the run? What planet are you on?

 

[RamblinWreck92]

I wasn't the one who said you wanted Chan back. You just assumed that I thought that. All I was doing was setting you straight.

I agree that we should have beat the Dwags in 2009 and 2013, but that's the way the cookie crumbles sometimes. 2015 is another story. But "a couple of bad mutt teams"? They went 10-3 in 2014 and ended up ranked 9. They went 8-5 in 2016 and won their bowl game. And as to beating Smart coached teams "anytime soon" I refer you to 2016.

Now, as to Duke and Pitt. Duke has had some good luck in close games with us recently and they have improved as a football program, largely because they listened to Cutliffe while two successive ADs ignored CPJ's requests for more resources. So, yes, I do think their program is about (and only that) on a par with ours now. But we can fix that; again, all it takes is money and time. On Pitt, you might recall how badly we beat them last year. I always thought that they had good material and bad coaches. Our overall against both programs, however, is still firmly positive.

Of the 4 recent losses to Duke, 3 have been losses of 20+ pts. That's not 'some good luck' - that's Duke whipping our *** in all 3 phases.
We're 3-3 against PITT since we started playing them again in 2013 (and 5-8 in our history against them). That's 0.500. Neither negative nor positive. We're also 1-3 the last 4 so the trend is downwards.

More money is simply not going to improve recruiting. There is zero evidence that more $$$ will somehow enhance HS kids to suddenly want to start playing in our offense though. The Duke streak will almost certainly continue with CPJ as our HC. Cutcliffe has completely figured us out. Good news is that CNW seems to have a good idea of shutting Duke down too. Had our O bothered to show up last week, we might've gotten a W but instead, it completely lost the game for us with stupid turnovers and dismal scoring.

 

[RamblinWreck92]

A-back seams don't open up the run? What planet are you on?

No they don't. Do you even watch football?

 

[Milwaukee]

No they don't. Do you even watch football?

No, I don't. Is it 6pts for a TD or 4 like Fantasy?

Is that really your response? I'm not trying to be a **** but do you understand football?

 

[RamblinWreck92]

I don't even have to look this up to know that we typically throw way more in our losses than in our wins. Let me just look at our streak against Duke, because this freaks people out.

2014 - lost 25-31 (26 pass attempts)
2015 - lost 20-34 (22 pass attempts)
2016 - won 38-35 (14 pass attempts)
2017 - lost 20-43 (14 pass attempts)
2018 - lost 28-14 (17 pass attempts)

We run it an awful lot in our losses too.

2018 Clemson: 56 rushes vs a whopping 8 passes
2018 Duke: 61 rushes vs 17 passes

 

[RamblinWreck92]

No, I don't. Is it 6pts for a TD or 4 like Fantasy?

Is that really your response? I'm not trying to be a **** but do you understand football?

4 pts for passing TDs is stupid btw.

I understand football. Passing to RBs is gimmicky but it doesn't open up the run and I've already explained why. It's also shut down pretty easily by teams with decent LB talent. Please read what I've already typed - not gonna post it again. Other than a nice play here and there, show me where this sort of approach has worked repeatedly to open up the run. Bonus: Show me where it's worked vs Clemson or mutts.

And if it is as magical as you say, why the hell isn't CPJ throwing more passes to RBs? He's either a stupid coach or more likely, he knows it won't open up the running game.

 

[Milwaukee]

4 pts for passing TDs is stupid btw.

I understand football. Passing to RBs is gimmicky but it doesn't open up the run and I've already explained why. It's also shut down pretty easily by teams with decent LB talent. Please read what I've already typed - not gonna post it again. Other than a nice play here and there, show me where this sort of approach has worked repeatedly to open up the run. Bonus: Show me where it's worked vs Clemson or mutts.

And if it is as magical as you say, why the hell isn't CPJ throwing more passes to RBs? He's either a stupid coach or more likely, he knows it won't open up the running game.

This is weird, you're framing a question so it can't be answered in any manner other than your opinion without you crapping on it.

Good defenses shut us down, it's not just one element of certain defenses. PJ has lost his edge and his "surprise" is no longer there imo. Maybe that's your argument instead of what you're shooting for? Again, I'm just guessing.

Who said Magical? What are you on right now?

 

[tech_wreck47]

No they don't. Do you even watch football?

I read your post above and in a way, the Aback is like a slot WR and definitely opens up the pass when we have someone who is capable of throwing it well. If a LB is to cover an Aback and we can hit an AB with a pass consistently then it does not allow the LB to crash down as fast as he would when we can’t hit a pass. It basically gives a pause to the LB or safety depending on what his assignment is. That’s why over the years we have seen Abacks down the seem with no one around, the LB or Safety crashed down to stop the run and we were able to go over the top. When you do that the LB or Safety are more likely to not crash as often.

 

[Milwaukee]

I read your post above and in a way, the Aback is like a slot WR and definitely opens up the pass when we have someone who is capable of throwing it well. If a LB is to cover an Aback and we can hit an AB with a pass consistently then it does not allow the LB to crash down as fast as he would when we can’t hit a pass. It basically gives a pause to the LB or safety depending on what his assignment is. That’s why over the years we have seen Abacks down the seem with no one around, the LB or Safety crashed down to stop the run and we were able to go over the top. When you do that the LB or Safety are more likely to not crash as often.

Everything you speak of is common sense, and it's also correct. Who in the world that actually knows football doesn't realize that the seams open up the run? I'm super confused right now after hearing from '92.