Potential Head Coach Hires

Status
Not open for further replies.

vamosjackets

GT Athlete
Featured Member
Messages
2,150
I think he's the best candidate too. I think his floor is the 7-5 we had this year and his ceiling is higher than the Orange Bowl if he can recruit just slightly better.
Absolutely, my thoughts exactly.

But, shhhhhhh ... don't jinx it!!! Let 90% of this thread keep talking and hand-wringing about other possibilities.
 

AlabamaBuzz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,017
Location
Hartselle, AL (originally Rome, GA)
Bring it on. Orange Bowls tend to shut those people up.

I think we have 3 (maybe more) vocal groups, and I respect all of them, as they are GT fans, and EVERY fan is needed.

Group 1 - those that believe keeping our base offense is a tactical advantage, and we would like to keep that going, but we do understand the recruiting has to have an uptick

Group 2 - those that believe any innovative O system will be ok, as long as we improve recruiting (JUST HIRE THE RIGHT GUY)

Group 3 - those that hate the 3O and want an "easier to recruit to" O system (with more passing of course)

All 3 of these groups love GT, and all 3 would agree that if we don't get better defensively, none of our offensive system preferences will matter very much.

Personally, I can identify with groups 1 and 2, but it is hard to understand fully group 3, but I do respect their opinion and preference. I also remember "hating" the 3O when Bammer and Okla, for example, were running rough shod over everyone with it, but since I got to see it from the other side (my team), I became a great admirer of the offense.
 
Last edited:

BCJacket

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
754
Interesting but I don’t want GSU or GSU in the P5

I don't think it's possible. (And I feel your knee jerks kicking me already) But I wouldn't be opposed to a partial merger or 'strategic partnership' between GT and GStU. Wherein the Institute remains as a separate academic entity, but they share the non academic 'overhead' resources like- non-faculty admin staff, facilities, housing, and athletics- So, there's Georgia Tech and State University, where the 'I' and the 'U' are independent academic units...

Fold the GSU athletics into GT (GT has the better conference, brand, etc) All of a sudden the GTSU Yellow Jackets are an ACC program supported by 60,000+ undergrads and a lot of alumni. GSU isn't a great school, but it's a good school, R1 level research university and all that. Long term, I think such a school would end up like Michigan or Cal, a top 5 STEM school inside a major university.

Maybe even do a three-way trade that gets KSU the Perimeter College assets and GSU's Sunbelt spot. The BOR has been all about mergers and restructuring to cut costs and reduce redundancy. But, I know, they'd never go for this, because dwags.
 

upwgdrb

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
199
somewhat of an update:

As I shared yesterday I can confirm Collins interviewed. I have no definitive info on this but I think today is the day for Whiz. If we don't hear anything today I think that ship has sailed. Stansbury will be back at GT today. Still hearing 12/12 is our goal to have coach in place.

Good we don’t need to stretch the process out. Regardless of what board members say prefer that Todd us decisive in his choice and we get our guy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

vamosjackets

GT Athlete
Featured Member
Messages
2,150
I don't think it's possible. (And I feel your knee jerks kicking me already) But I wouldn't be opposed to a partial merger or 'strategic partnership' between GT and GStU. Wherein the Institute remains as a separate academic entity, but they share the non academic 'overhead' resources like- non-faculty admin staff, facilities, housing, and athletics- So, there's Georgia Tech and State University, where the 'I' and the 'U' are independent academic units...

Fold the GSU athletics into GT (GT has the better conference, brand, etc) All of a sudden the GTSU Yellow Jackets are an ACC program supported by 60,000+ undergrads and a lot of alumni. GSU isn't a great school, but it's a good school, R1 level research university and all that. Long term, I think such a school would end up like Michigan or Cal, a top 5 STEM school inside a major university.

Maybe even do a three-way trade that gets KSU the Perimeter College assets and GSU's Sunbelt spot. The BOR has been all about mergers and restructuring to cut costs and reduce redundancy. But, I know, they'd never go for this, because dwags.
That's a "helluva" idea.
 

bobongo

Helluva Engineer
Messages
7,549
I think we have 3 (maybe more) vocal groups, and I respect all of them, as they are GT fans, and EVERY fan is needed.

Group 1 - those that believe keeping our base offense is a tactical advantage, and we would like to keep that going, but we do understand the recruiting has to have an uptick

Group 2 - those that believe any innovative O system will be ok, as long as we improve recruiting (JUST HIRE THE RIGHT GUY)

Group 3 - those that hate the 3O and want an "easier to recruit to" O system (with more passing of course)

All 3 of these groups love GT, and all 3 would agree that if we don't get better defensively, none of our offensive system preferences will matter very much.

Personally, I can identify with groups 1 and 2, but it is hard to understand fully group 3, but I do respect their opinion and preference.

Put me in group 2. I just want a good coach, period. I don't care if he runs the single wing.
 

vamosjackets

GT Athlete
Featured Member
Messages
2,150
I think we have 3 (maybe more) vocal groups, and I respect all of them, as they are GT fans, and EVERY fan is needed.

Group 1 - those that believe keeping our base offense is a tactical advantage, and we would like to keep that going, but we do understand the recruiting has to have an uptick

Group 2 - those that believe any innovative O system will be ok, as long as we improve recruiting (JUST HIRE THE RIGHT GUY)

Group 3 - those that hate the 3O and want an "easier to recruit to" O system (with more passing of course)

All 3 of these groups love GT, and all 3 would agree that if we don't get better defensively, none of our offensive system preferences will matter very much.

Personally, I can identify with groups 1 and 2, but it is hard to understand fully group 3, but I do respect their opinion and preference.
Well said. I agree, I can deal with group 1 and 2. I'm a card carrying member of Group 1 and like to visit with Group 2 often. It's hard for me to enjoy conversation with Group 3, especially when they just have a shtick rather than a good nature and basic rationality. But, I agree, even Group 3 has my appreciation for being GT fans.
 

kg01

Get-Bak! Coach
Featured Member
Messages
15,134
Location
Atlanta
Option 1: Monken
Option 2: Collins with Ivin Jasper as OC

It threw me off when folks described it as a 'slam dunk'. I'm not against Monken at all but I acknowledge that any of our likely candidates have warts. I've liked Monken and his version of the option but he's by no means a 'slam dunk'.

I'm all for Collins at this point since it seems Elliot isn't an option.
 

bobongo

Helluva Engineer
Messages
7,549
I don't think it's possible. (And I feel your knee jerks kicking me already) But I wouldn't be opposed to a partial merger or 'strategic partnership' between GT and GStU. Wherein the Institute remains as a separate academic entity, but they share the non academic 'overhead' resources like- non-faculty admin staff, facilities, housing, and athletics- So, there's Georgia Tech and State University, where the 'I' and the 'U' are independent academic units...

Fold the GSU athletics into GT (GT has the better conference, brand, etc) All of a sudden the GTSU Yellow Jackets are an ACC program supported by 60,000+ undergrads and a lot of alumni. GSU isn't a great school, but it's a good school, R1 level research university and all that. Long term, I think such a school would end up like Michigan or Cal, a top 5 STEM school inside a major university.

Maybe even do a three-way trade that gets KSU the Perimeter College assets and GSU's Sunbelt spot. The BOR has been all about mergers and restructuring to cut costs and reduce redundancy. But, I know, they'd never go for this, because dwags.

So the two would somehow retain their separate admissions standards? It's always been my understanding that this is the immovable object we can't get around when talking about a merger.
 

wesgt123

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,823
I just watched some footage of Geoff Collins. Seems like a fiery dude and gets a lot out of his players. Would definitely bring a “cool” factor to Tech and could relate to the young dudes.

I did watch the Temple OT win over Cincinnati. I wasn’t blown away but hopefully that was an anomaly. I can kinda dig him being the new coach.

I’d rather take wisenhunt though.

Jk. I lie.
 

kg01

Get-Bak! Coach
Featured Member
Messages
15,134
Location
Atlanta
Me too idk who you guys are talking about.

Apparently Monken ... I think? Not sure why the cryptic-ity.

I'm old also but make up for it being fat. And being old I don't remember things like I did, oh forget it I don't remember what my point was maybe I will after my nap.

Oh, remember you were about to send me some Christmas cash, grandpa. And, yes, $100 bills are ok.
 

Madison Grant

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,276
It's unbelievable how almost every thread on this board that goes more than a few pages turns into a pissing match between fonts regarding academics and Stanford. Mods need to sticky a Stanford/Academics thread so that people can take that crap in there every time the urge hits them to fight about it. It's beyond irritating.
Fwiw, I wasn't trying to have an academics comparison. I was trying to make a football comparison, and then the "You can't do that" arguments ensued.
 

vamosjackets

GT Athlete
Featured Member
Messages
2,150
It threw me off when folks described it as a 'slam dunk'. I'm not against Monken at all but I acknowledge that any of our likely candidates have warts. I've liked Monken and his version of the option but he's by no means a 'slam dunk'.

I'm all for Collins at this point since it seems Elliot isn't an option.
If you were totally unaware of offensive system (or if you thought he ran whatever offense you prefer) and saw his resume, would you think slam-dunk then? If not, what would be the reason and who would realistically be a "slam-dunk" that we could get (ie not Saban or Meyer)?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top