Previous Offense and Recruiting

[SteamWhistle]

As far as the "losing 4 out of 5 to Duke" issue, let's keep in mind how the scheduling went just before the Duke-GT game over the last 5 years:

2014 @ GT (L) — Duke: bye — GT: vs.Miami
2015 @Duke (L) — Duke: vs.#23 Northwestern — GT: @#11 Notre Dame
2016 @GT (W) — Duke: bye — GT: bye
2017 @Duke (L) — Duke: @Army — GT: vs.#24 VT
2018 @GT (L) — Duke: bye — GT: @ Louisville

In every one of those four losses, the random vagaries of scheduling(*) managed to hand Duke an advantage over us: two flat-out byes, giving them 2 weeks to heal up and game-plan against us; a tuneup game against another option team, again giving them 2 weeks to prepare; and a game where we played a top-15 team on the road while they played a top-25 team at home. Over those five years, every single time they played us in BDS, they came in with two weeks of rest(**). The only time the bye didn't help them was the time when we had the extra week, too. On the flip side, both times we've gone into Somnambulist Stadium, we were coming off a game against a ranked team.

So it's not exactly like we were losing to Duke on a level playing field. If you were to reverse all of those advantages, it's not unreasonable to guess that you'd also reverse the W-L ratio.

(*) a.k.a. Cutcliffe's compromising photographs of someone in the ACC Front Office.
(**) How much do you want to bet that Duke gets another bye before they play us in 2020?

[Edit-1: @iceeater1969: I (respectfully) disagree that coaching was the only factor in all 5 games.]

[Edit-2: looking back even further, I see that Duke also had a bye before they played us in 2012—so that's four consecutive byes before they played us at BDS.]

It’s never ok to use Excuses when you lose to Duke in Football.

 

[UgaBlows]

Those fans are conspicuously silent to my question of "who should we have hired?" I think they're mostly Southern/Navy guys just mad that PJ retired.

They are a$$hurt because we passed on Monken

 

[RickStromFan]

Again, that would depend on the record he would have made. I think either Paul or Moncken would have coasted to 9 - 10 win season next year; all the pieces were in place. And, of course, excitement + recruiting + ticket sales = f (winning). And nothing else.

Your problem is that you never much liked Paul's O and you are apprehensive that it might come back if Coach falls on his face. You're right to be concerned. I think we'll do ok under Coach myself; coaches at Tech have to really try hard to fail outright. But if that happens …

An aside: you never did understand our recruiting under Paul. It is true that our rankings were always lower then some here liked. It is also true that almost no program exceeded - usually greatly - its recruiting rankings and pre-season ratings more regularly then his. If you think about that, you'll probably realize why.

That's pretty arrogant to assume I didn't "understand our recruiting under Paul".

So I'll play along: Your problem is you liked PJ's O so much, you unknowingly overlooked the many downsides to having it for so long. While it's nice that a couple of seasons we were able to "outkick our coverage" (so to speak), the vast majority of the time HS kids made it clear that they weren't interested in playing for PJ regardless of how good we had just played (i.e. no bump after 2009 and 2014). The whole argument I see from those in your corner is that "If PJ could've just gotten better talent, we would've been able to compete.", followed by excuses about the Hill and $$$.

The thing is...as long as we were running PJ's O, the "better talent" was simply not going to come here, regardless of whether we started offering BasketWeaving as a major, etc. The PJ O was itself a recruiting inhibitor and Coach Collins is already proving the fallacy that it was all the fault of The Hill and lack of $$$.

A Monken hire would have done nothing to improve us.

 

[takethepoints]

"recruiting bump"

I highly doubt that. Matter of fact, no.

Like Rick, you have never understood how Paul recruited for the O. A short tutorial:

Look at our D recruiting under him. Pretty good, especially over the last 5 years. Plenty of 4 and high 3 star players. So why was the O recruiting different?

The easy answer - it was because of the offense we ran - is, in fact, the correct one. The O demanded a different type of player then most schools were after and we recruited to fit the positions and their requirements. Paul would have liked to get a lot of 4 and 5 star types and he offered. But he really wanted the diamonds in the rough and the players others overlooked because they didn't fit with shotgun spreads. A good example = Connor Hansen. Hansen was a low 3 star OL; he had one other P5 offer from UCF. He came to camp at Tech and was offered halfway through the first day. Why? Because he fit; a 6'2", 325 lb. guy who loves to hit people. It's as if he had been born to drive block. Did Paul care that he wasn't a 4 star? Why, no, he did not. He was what the O needed at guard or center. And getting someone like him handed to us was a - wait for it - recruiting bump.

If you look up and down our present offensive lineup you'll see plenty of people like that. That doesn't mean they aren't good football players; you can hear from our new staff about that. It's that they didn't fit the profile for a 4 star shotgun spread player coming out of high school and they weren't offered by teams that ran a shotgun as a consequence. And we got low overall recruiting rankings as a result.

Now, I'm sure you knew all of this without me having to tell you. You simply don't like the consequences of thinking like Paul did. Well, now we'll have to recruit better and probably a lot better. We are now competing with everyone else and playing like everyone else. I hope we can see a real recruiting bump soon and that it lasts over years because, brother, we are really going to need it. And, as I keep saying, I think Coach can deliver it, if he is given the time and the infrastructure he needs.

 

[takethepoints]

That's pretty arrogant to assume I didn't "understand our recruiting under Paul".

So I'll play along: Your problem is you liked PJ's O so much, you unknowingly overlooked the many downsides to having it for so long. While it's nice that a couple of seasons we were able to "outkick our coverage" (so to speak), the vast majority of the time HS kids made it clear that they weren't interested in playing for PJ regardless of how good we had just played (i.e. no bump after 2009 and 2014). The whole argument I see from those in your corner is that "If PJ could've just gotten better talent, we would've been able to compete.", followed by excuses about the Hill and $$$.

The thing is...as long as we were running PJ's O, the "better talent" was simply not going to come here, regardless of whether we started offering BasketWeaving as a major, etc. The PJ O was itself a recruiting inhibitor and Coach Collins is already proving the fallacy that it was all the fault of The Hill and lack of $$$.

A Monken hire would have done nothing to improve us.

Like I said, you never understood how Paul recruited. See my reply above.

And, btw, you never heard "it was all the fault of the Hill and $$$" from me. More money would sure have helped, but I think you are right in saying that there wouldn't have been as many offensive players with high rankings wanting to come to Tech because of the TO. But that never bothered me. We were doing ok as it was, except for some bad luck with injuries and losing Mills.

Now we're on a new course and, like you, I hope it is a successful one.

 

[ncjacket79]

Again, that would depend on the record he would have made. I think either Paul or Moncken would have coasted to 9 - 10 win season next year; all the pieces were in place. And, of course, excitement + recruiting + ticket sales = f (winning). And nothing else.

Your problem is that you never much liked Paul's O and you are apprehensive that it might come back if Coach falls on his face. You're right to be concerned. I think we'll do ok under Coach myself; coaches at Tech have to really try hard to fail outright. But if that happens …

An aside: you never did understand our recruiting under Paul. It is true that our rankings were always lower then some here liked. It is also true that almost no program exceeded - usually greatly - its recruiting rankings and pre-season ratings more regularly then his. If you think about that, you'll probably realize why.

Nobody coasts to 9-10 wins in the NCAA not named Alabama or Clemson. That’s just silly. I did like Paul’s offense but I really, really hated his defensive record. BTW do you really think he would have stepped down if he though he could coast to 10 wins?

 

[RickStromFan]

Like Rick, you have never understood how Paul recruited for the O. A short tutorial:

Now, I'm sure you knew all of this without me having to tell you. You simply don't like the consequences of thinking like Paul did. Well, now we'll have to recruit better and probably a lot better. We are now competing with everyone else and playing like everyone else. I hope we can see a real recruiting bump soon and that it lasts over years because, brother, we are really going to need it. And, as I keep saying, I think Coach can deliver it, if he is given the time and the infrastructure he needs.

and again you confuse "I don't like being passed by Pitt and Duke in the Coastal" to "not understanding PJ's recruiting".

I understood all that all along. What you don't seem to understand is that 7-8 wins was about as good as it was ever going to be with this scheme. That we were never going to have a remotely-competent defense due in large part to this scheme (Another user detailed the exact reasons why in another thread). What you don't get is that these exact types of small'ish athletes simply were never going to get us competitive with the mutts and Clemson again. And that's because you liked this offense and the stats it produced more than you enjoyed winning. That the offense somehow made us Smarter than other teams. Your continued belief that we "just didn't understand" is proof of this strange arrogance for having an offense that avg'd 7 wins.

 

[RickStromFan]

Like I said, you never understood how Paul recruited. See my reply above.

And, btw, you never heard "it was all the fault of the Hill and $$$" from me. More money would sure have helped, but I think you are right in saying that there wouldn't have been as many offensive players with high rankings wanting to come to Tech because of the TO. But that never bothered me. We were doing ok as it was, except for some bad luck with injuries and losing Mills.

Now we're on a new course and, like you, I hope it is a successful one.

And you never understood that it had been passed by Duke and Pitt, 2 teams who don't out-recruit us. You never understood that winning is more important that lots of rushing stats. You never understood that we would never approach being a CFP team by having an offense that could only complete 2 passes/game or by running 35 QB Keepers/game. I also disagree that we were 'doing OK as it was'. 2017 was malaise and 2018 ended with a blowout to the 9th best team in the Big 10, along with blowouts to Clemson and the mutts. If anything, we were bottoming out as teams like Pitt and Duke had figured out how to stop the scheme and others were catching up.

PS: I don't actually think you believe that but frankly your continued insistence that I and others "don't understand" is insulting.

 

[UgaBlows]

Paul retired, who cares at this point what his recruiting philosophy was?

 

[RickStromFan]

Paul retired, who cares at this point what his recruiting philosophy was?

you just don't understand.

 

[takethepoints]

Nobody coasts to 9-10 wins in the NCAA not named Alabama or Clemson. That’s just silly. I did like Paul’s offense but I really, really hated his defensive record. BTW do you really think he would have stepped down if he though he could coast to 10 wins?

You're right. "Coast" was the wrong word. It would have been better to say that a 9 - 10 win record was a good possibility. And, yes, I think Paul had had it with the negative vibes he got from a vocal section of our fanbase and that he was apprehensive about what that might mean for the program in the future. Given that any stumble would have really brought out the boo-birds, I think he decided to give someone else a chance.

 

[takethepoints]

Paul retired, who cares at this point what his recruiting philosophy was?

Uh, I didn't bring up recruiting here. And, yes, the only "recruiting philosophy" (how did something as prosaic as a recruiting program get called a "philosophy"?) that matters now is Coach's.

 

[Milwaukee]

Like Rick, you have never understood how Paul recruited for the O. A short tutorial:

Look at our D recruiting under him. Pretty good, especially over the last 5 years. Plenty of 4 and high 3 star players. So why was the O recruiting different?

The easy answer - it was because of the offense we ran - is, in fact, the correct one. The O demanded a different type of player then most schools were after and we recruited to fit the positions and their requirements. Paul would have liked to get a lot of 4 and 5 star types and he offered. But he really wanted the diamonds in the rough and the players others overlooked because they didn't fit with shotgun spreads. A good example = Connor Hansen. Hansen was a low 3 star OL; he had one other P5 offer from UCF. He came to camp at Tech and was offered halfway through the first day. Why? Because he fit; a 6'2", 325 lb. guy who loves to hit people. It's as if he had been born to drive block. Did Paul care that he wasn't a 4 star? Why, no, he did not. He was what the O needed at guard or center. And getting someone like him handed to us was a - wait for it - recruiting bump.

If you look up and down our present offensive lineup you'll see plenty of people like that. That doesn't mean they aren't good football players; you can hear from our new staff about that. It's that they didn't fit the profile for a 4 star shotgun spread player coming out of high school and they weren't offered by teams that ran a shotgun as a consequence. And we got low overall recruiting rankings as a result.

Now, I'm sure you knew all of this without me having to tell you. You simply don't like the consequences of thinking like Paul did. Well, now we'll have to recruit better and probably a lot better. We are now competing with everyone else and playing like everyone else. I hope we can see a real recruiting bump soon and that it lasts over years because, brother, we are really going to need it. And, as I keep saying, I think Coach can deliver it, if he is given the time and the infrastructure he needs.

Wow. To give credit to Paul for looking for "under the radar players that fits his system" like it's something that he's ahead of the curve on is a dumb myth. Do you know that all 130 coaches do the exact same thing on a day to day basis? Literally, everyone's looking for under the radar players that fit their system lol. Is Paul good at it? Hell yes, but he's not a pioneer in regards to recruiting tactics like you continually try to make it sound. This is past ridiculous at this point. I promise thats the last time I'll address you in this thread because it's off topic.

 

[Milwaukee]

Uh, I didn't bring up recruiting here. And, yes, the only "recruiting philosophy" (how did something as prosaic as a recruiting program get called a "philosophy"?) that matters now is Coach's.

Who cares who started it, just friggin stop it. Christ I feel like I'm babysitting my sister's kids again.

Last time, I promise lol

 

[takethepoints]

And you never understood that it had been passed by Duke and Pitt, 2 teams who don't out-recruit us. You never understood that winning is more important that lots of rushing stats. You never understood that we would never approach being a CFP team by having an offense that could only complete 2 passes/game or by running 35 QB Keepers/game. I also disagree that we were 'doing OK as it was'. 2017 was malaise and 2018 ended with a blowout to the 9th best team in the Big 10, along with blowouts to Clemson and the mutts. If anything, we were bottoming out as teams like Pitt and Duke had figured out how to stop the scheme and others were catching up.

PS: I don't actually think you believe that but frankly your continued insistence that I and others "don't understand" is insulting.

Well, I'm sorry you took it that way.

Last time, I promise lol

Yet you simply can't get your fingers off the keyboard.

 

[smokey_wasp]

Thanks mods. I may have set that land mine. I am not sure.

 

[Milwaukee]

Thank you mods. Can we also start a "Thank You Paul, please please please come back, why did you quit on us?" thread that 50% of Swarm posts can be funneled to?

 

[slugboy]

Thanks mods. I may have set that land mine. I am not sure.

I got no clue--still moving posts and flipping coins to decide.

Thank you mods. Can we also start a "Thank You Paul, please please please come back, why did you quit on us?" thread that 50% of Swarm posts can be funneled to?

 

[smathis30]

Like Rick, you have never understood how Paul recruited for the O. A short tutorial:

Look at our D recruiting under him. Pretty good, especially over the last 5 years. Plenty of 4 and high 3 star players. So why was the O recruiting different?

The easy answer - it was because of the offense we ran - is, in fact, the correct one. The O demanded a different type of player then most schools were after and we recruited to fit the positions and their requirements. Paul would have liked to get a lot of 4 and 5 star types and he offered. But he really wanted the diamonds in the rough and the players others overlooked because they didn't fit with shotgun spreads. A good example = Connor Hansen. Hansen was a low 3 star OL; he had one other P5 offer from UCF. He came to camp at Tech and was offered halfway through the first day. Why? Because he fit; a 6'2", 325 lb. guy who loves to hit people. It's as if he had been born to drive block. Did Paul care that he wasn't a 4 star? Why, no, he did not. He was what the O needed at guard or center. And getting someone like him handed to us was a - wait for it - recruiting bump.

If you look up and down our present offensive lineup you'll see plenty of people like that. That doesn't mean they aren't good football players; you can hear from our new staff about that. It's that they didn't fit the profile for a 4 star shotgun spread player coming out of high school and they weren't offered by teams that ran a shotgun as a consequence. And we got low overall recruiting rankings as a result.

Now, I'm sure you knew all of this without me having to tell you. You simply don't like the consequences of thinking like Paul did. Well, now we'll have to recruit better and probably a lot better. We are now competing with everyone else and playing like everyone else. I hope we can see a real recruiting bump soon and that it lasts over years because, brother, we are really going to need it. And, as I keep saying, I think Coach can deliver it, if he is given the time and the infrastructure he needs.

lol. Paul Johnson would have taken any 4* or 5* player, they just had 0 interest in playing here for the most part on the offensive side of the ball. Recruiting for scheme is absolutely important, but so is recruiting realistically. Especially after Chip Kelly made it to the NFL, then the other tacky offense became a pro style offense. Recruting is difficult to look at in the past, due to the rise of internet culture in the past 10 years or so, especially with the advent of facebook. Rivals and 247 were each bought for 9 figure deals, and with that money comes more infrastructure, analysis, camps, and whatnot that can provide different amounts of exposure and data than what other coaches had, so looking at past coaches is kind of a null point with how much it has changed.
At the end of the day, CPJ won the division outright twice, the confrence once, and then found a backdoor to the ACC title game a third time when both UNC and miami had to back out due to potential sanctions, giving GT the edge in a tie breaker they otherwise would have lost. No one can and should take that away. However, in Paul Johnsons tenure, some important things happened relative to GTs schedule.
Virginia Tech broke their 10 year 10 win streak, and absolutely fell off a cliff
Miami was on sanctions, rather real or self imposed, for all but the last two years. Now on their 4th coach in 12 years
UNC was under scrutiny for one of the biggest potential academic scandals in NCAA history, and no one knew what was going to come of the programs.
UGA fell off a cliff, relative to where they were at in 2007. Gailey's worst UGA team he played finished 23rd. 6/6 ranked. CPJ had 6/11, which is the lowest percent since the 70s. Last coach to play 5 unranked teams since Dodd. Only one to go winless at home vs multiple unranked uga teams.
Clemson did get better, but it was 3/6 ranked, just like Gailey, for the first 6 years. 5/5 to finish.

In short, there was a huge opportunity gap that arose during the beginning/middle of the tenure of Johnson, and the team to step up and take the coastal crown: absolutely no one. Split evenly across 6 different teams. Fact is, most people aren't too satisfied about that, as GT would seem like the obvious candidate to take over the throne.
So why did we not step up? Really the two big reasons are split between the coaches we both had, when honestly both are correct.
On one hand, we had two not-so-great-while-they-were-here ADs that had GT fall behind in the arms race that is college football. We are under budget, under facilitized, and under staffed relative to everyone else. With the correlation of spending and success in college football, a potential scheme to give an advantadge would be necceasry until GT comes back to at least the middle of the pack. We dont have to be at the top of the ACC, just the coastal.

on the other hand, recruits do value the facilities, but winning and team culture also are a huge driving factors. Atlanta has become the center of the SE for culture, especially in pop culture. Having an old school offense and coaching style isn't wrong, but it doesn't take advandtage of what the off campus offers that GT can provide. As stated above, the changes in recruiting services also makes people wonder if in a post-chip kelly world if having a different offense would allow GT to make up the tiny difference in talent gap that the coastal division has. There isn't a huge correlation for recruiting ranking and end of season ranking, but the one for recuritng ranking and division placement is pretty damn high.
At the end of the day, both play out to be true. But only time will tell which argument ends up being stronger. Anyone not thankfull for CPJ is lieing out of their ***, but to think that the game of football has changed needs to take a step back and really look at the changes.

As for the actual topic of the thread, Feel like we should get a better view of the offense in two weeks or so in the spring game, but until we actually see it in action, this will be nothing but a debate thread as there is nothing tangible to talk about due to the unique situation we are in.

 

[Skeptic]

Desperation hire? "Could have done much better"? Given our $$ restrictions, who exactly was the all-star we passed on that we could've had? The Whiz?

Lots of shade-throwing on a staff that hasn't even been thru a Spring Scrimmage game.

$3 million is real money so don't get blinded by the superstars making $6 or $7 million. I can't be the only one bothered that in the year the AD decided to throw money at the football program, finally, they showered it on an unknown of modest accomplishment. (And I think even Collins' boosters will acknowledge his track record is modest.)