Roof

[Jacket in Dairyland]

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

We are one of the lowest funded programs in the ACC.

http://spendingdatabase.knightcommission.org/fbs/acc
According to this article, as of 2015, we are THIRD HIGHEST in the ACC in athletic spending per athlete, behind only FSU and Clemson.......

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Can I ask you an honest question? What about Roofs system makes you think it can work here? To make comments that you think he can succeed here (which I haven't really seen happen at his prior stops) you must have an opinion on what he's doing and why it will work.

Good question. First, I'll address the seeming flaw in your premise that he really hasn't been successful as a DC. College football is cutthroat. You don't keep getting jobs if you aren't successful. Secondly, CTR has had some good Ds. He had Minnesota in 2008 as a top 50 D, when the prior year they were one of the worst in FBS. Minnesota gets significantly less talent than we do, and plays a fairly decent B1G schedule. His D at Auburn was trending up from 2009 to 2010 when the wheels fell off of the Auburn bus in 2011. 2011 was ugly for Auburn on more than just the defensive side, and 2012 got the HC fired, so while CTR had a hand in it, I don't blame the Auburn 2011 letdown completely on him. It also ignores the fact that the 2011 Auburn D was a good defense. His 2012 season at Penn ST probably gives me the most hope, though. He took over a team that was going through the NCAA ringer immediately following the Sandusky debacle, and in spite of the reduced scholarships and probation, and free transfers allowed to any player on the team, and guided them to a top 20 defense, second in the B1G.

Now, we don't get the same level of talent that Auburn and Penn St gets, but we get more than Minnesota. Roofs schemes aren't unique to Roof, and in spite of what some posters on this board say, they aren't "outdated." Many other successful DCs in both FBS and the NFL run similar schemes. Our issue has been mostly execution of the scheme, and to some degree, the scheme itself. I attribute the scheme problems to personnel issues. We adapt the scheme to fit the talents of our personnel, as we should, but that also limits somewhat how we play to the scheme. As we continue to grow the talent base of our D, I feel as if the scheme fits will be better and we will see more positive results. I think we are already seeing some of this. Ajani Kerr and Tre Swilling are the CBs of the future. BJS is a revelation at LB. Branch and Adams are only going to get better on the DL. AJ Gray will play in the NFL.

Also, I genuinely believe that one of the dumbest things teams do is continuously play the coaching carousel game. Let me ask you this question: If you had a HC who, through his first six seasons, went 24-40-2, would you want to retain him? And this coach took over a team that had gone 47-20-1 its previous six seasons, with a 10-1-1 record the year before the new coach was hired.

Well, VT had faith in that coach, and Frank Beamer turned out some pretty good teams during his time as HC. The point is that sometimes, you need to understand where we are, and what is really required to get where we want to go. If we fired CTR tomorrow, and hired Venables, we would still have the same problems. Unless and until we commit to funding our programs and facilities, we will forever be hampered in our appeal to both recruits and future coaching hires.

So, I guess I sum this up as I am not really endorsing Ted Roof as much as I am endorsing patience and allowing a coach to continue to improve. If nothing else, this will pay dividends in the next coaching hire, as we won't be viewed as a school that makes rash decisions because of a bad year on the gridiron.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

http://spendingdatabase.knightcommission.org/fbs/acc
According to this article, as of 2015, we are THIRD HIGHEST in the ACC in athletic spending per athlete, behind only FSU and Clemson.......

Contrast that with this list:

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/ 51st in FBS

 

[Jacket in Dairyland]

http://spendingdatabase.knightcommission.org/fbs/acc
According to this article, as of 2015, we are THIRD HIGHEST in the ACC in athletic spending per athlete, behind only FSU and Clemson.......

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/
That previous article was not correct, IMO. This one from USA Today confirms YOUR point. My APOLOGIES Sir, or Madam.

 

[Jmonty71]

Good question. First, I'll address the seeming flaw in your premise that he really hasn't been successful as a DC. College football is cutthroat. You don't keep getting jobs if you aren't successful. Secondly, CTR has had some good Ds. He had Minnesota in 2008 as a top 50 D, when the prior year they were one of the worst in FBS. Minnesota gets significantly less talent than we do, and plays a fairly decent B1G schedule. His D at Auburn was trending up from 2009 to 2010 when the wheels fell off of the Auburn bus in 2011. 2011 was ugly for Auburn on more than just the defensive side, and 2012 got the HC fired, so while CTR had a hand in it, I don't blame the Auburn 2011 letdown completely on him. It also ignores the fact that the 2011 Auburn D was a good defense. His 2012 season at Penn ST probably gives me the most hope, though. He took over a team that was going through the NCAA ringer immediately following the Sandusky debacle, and in spite of the reduced scholarships and probation, and free transfers allowed to any player on the team, and guided them to a top 20 defense, second in the B1G.

Now, we don't get the same level of talent that Auburn and Penn St gets, but we get more than Minnesota. Roofs schemes aren't unique to Roof, and in spite of what some posters on this board say, they aren't "outdated." Many other successful DCs in both FBS and the NFL run similar schemes. Our issue has been mostly execution of the scheme, and to some degree, the scheme itself. I attribute the scheme problems to personnel issues. We adapt the scheme to fit the talents of our personnel, as we should, but that also limits somewhat how we play to the scheme. As we continue to grow the talent base of our D, I feel as if the scheme fits will be better and we will see more positive results. I think we are already seeing some of this. Ajani Kerr and Tre Swilling are the CBs of the future. BJS is a revelation at LB. Branch and Adams are only going to get better on the DL. AJ Gray will play in the NFL.

Also, I genuinely believe that one of the dumbest things teams do is continuously play the coaching carousel game. Let me ask you this question: If you had a HC who, through his first six seasons, went 24-40-2, would you want to retain him? And this coach took over a team that had gone 47-20-1 its previous six seasons, with a 10-1-1 record the year before the new coach was hired.

Well, VT had faith in that coach, and Frank Beamer turned out some pretty good teams during his time as HC. The point is that sometimes, you need to understand where we are, and what is really required to get where we want to go. If we fired CTR tomorrow, and hired Venables, we would still have the same problems. Unless and until we commit to funding our programs and facilities, we will forever be hampered in our appeal to both recruits and future coaching hires.

So, I guess I sum this up as I am not really endorsing Ted Roof as much as I am endorsing patience and allowing a coach to continue to improve. If nothing else, this will pay dividends in the next coaching hire, as we won't be viewed as a school that makes rash decisions because of a bad year on the gridiron.

At least there is some logic to that... On top, you didn't deflect the question, by asking some off the wall question. I'm not too sure on AJ Gray, however;... His ball awareness needs some honing in. Also, in today's college football, there is a lot of emphasis placed on W's and L's... I think the days of being patient with coaches are over. Too much coaching talent out there waiting to break through.

 

[buzzed]

Contrast that with this list:

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/ 51st in FBS

This reminds me of something CPJ said repeatedly during Bobinski’s tenure. Something like: “successful ADs take care of the revenue sports, football and basketball.”

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

At least there is some logic to that... On top, you didn't deflect the question, by asking some off the wall question. I'm not too sure on AJ Gray, however;... His ball awareness needs some honing in. Also, in today's college football, there is a lot of emphasis placed on W's and L's... I think the days of being patient with coaches are over. Too much coaching talent out there waiting to break through.

I don't know that the coaching talent pool is the reason for a general lack of patience today. Rather, I think it's the obscene amount of money tied to modern P5 football programs. Here's the question I would pose: What schools have seen a dramatic elevation of their program solely due to a coaching hire? I mean, if you look at Oregon and Stanford, both of their programs erupted because of a confluence of coaching hires and a decision to pour money and resources into their programs.

Off the top of my head, I look at Boise St and Chris Peterson, but I also have to acknowledge they played in a much lesser league, and didn't have to play the big boys week in and week out. You can make some arguments about Utah and TCU, but their recent moves to the PAC-12 mean a lot more revenue flowing into their programs. I am struggling to think of a program that has changed the overall trajectory of their program solely through a coaching hire. Almost every time a program changes direction, it's almost always tied to a change in philosophy and additional funding to make it a reality.

 

[tech_wreck47]

Good question. First, I'll address the seeming flaw in your premise that he really hasn't been successful as a DC. College football is cutthroat. You don't keep getting jobs if you aren't successful. Secondly, CTR has had some good Ds. He had Minnesota in 2008 as a top 50 D, when the prior year they were one of the worst in FBS. Minnesota gets significantly less talent than we do, and plays a fairly decent B1G schedule. His D at Auburn was trending up from 2009 to 2010 when the wheels fell off of the Auburn bus in 2011. 2011 was ugly for Auburn on more than just the defensive side, and 2012 got the HC fired, so while CTR had a hand in it, I don't blame the Auburn 2011 letdown completely on him. It also ignores the fact that the 2011 Auburn D was a good defense. His 2012 season at Penn ST probably gives me the most hope, though. He took over a team that was going through the NCAA ringer immediately following the Sandusky debacle, and in spite of the reduced scholarships and probation, and free transfers allowed to any player on the team, and guided them to a top 20 defense, second in the B1G.

Now, we don't get the same level of talent that Auburn and Penn St gets, but we get more than Minnesota. Roofs schemes aren't unique to Roof, and in spite of what some posters on this board say, they aren't "outdated." Many other successful DCs in both FBS and the NFL run similar schemes. Our issue has been mostly execution of the scheme, and to some degree, the scheme itself. I attribute the scheme problems to personnel issues. We adapt the scheme to fit the talents of our personnel, as we should, but that also limits somewhat how we play to the scheme. As we continue to grow the talent base of our D, I feel as if the scheme fits will be better and we will see more positive results. I think we are already seeing some of this. Ajani Kerr and Tre Swilling are the CBs of the future. BJS is a revelation at LB. Branch and Adams are only going to get better on the DL. AJ Gray will play in the NFL.

Also, I genuinely believe that one of the dumbest things teams do is continuously play the coaching carousel game. Let me ask you this question: If you had a HC who, through his first six seasons, went 24-40-2, would you want to retain him? And this coach took over a team that had gone 47-20-1 its previous six seasons, with a 10-1-1 record the year before the new coach was hired.

Well, VT had faith in that coach, and Frank Beamer turned out some pretty good teams during his time as HC. The point is that sometimes, you need to understand where we are, and what is really required to get where we want to go. If we fired CTR tomorrow, and hired Venables, we would still have the same problems. Unless and until we commit to funding our programs and facilities, we will forever be hampered in our appeal to both recruits and future coaching hires.

So, I guess I sum this up as I am not really endorsing Ted Roof as much as I am endorsing patience and allowing a coach to continue to improve. If nothing else, this will pay dividends in the next coaching hire, as we won't be viewed as a school that makes rash decisions because of a bad year on the gridiron.

This is somewhat of what I was looking for, so thank you. Another poster thought I was asking the question to "prove" a point but I was honestly asking a question to see where your point of view is coming from. However, I see things differently, which there is nothing wrong with, it just means we have different opinions.

I look at his stent at Auburn and I don't see a trend up by the D. I don't think going by just one year to the next year you can say they are trending up. To me trending up is a consistent moving forward over 3 years or so. Even here at GT we have been better one year and then worse the next and then better the next, I'm not going to say because we were better on D this year compared to last year that our D is better when that hasn't been a consistent thing, it's been an up and down thing, so wouldn't that be more of a fluctuation in the D? I would expect to see improvements from year 1 to 2 and year 2 to 3 and so on. The D was also better at Auburn the year before he came and that was with less wins.

As for Penn State, I see a D that was already in the top 10 the year before he came. It was already a talented defense that had been coached up.

I have no answer for Minnesota, I do know that things in college football have evolved since then in a major way though, and when that happens you need to evolve as well.

I get we are getting better recruits but my question to you is, what do we do in our scheme that makes you think these guys will produce? Like blitz, coverages ect? I don't mind the 4-2-5, what I don't like is how we run it. Take TCU, thy run a 4-2-5 but they run it differently.

Dan Quinn said something when he was first hired that has stuck with me. He said, we are going to play to our players strengths. I don't see that out of our D. Examples of this, we allows Lb's to stay on the field on 3rd and long that aren't great in coverage. We allows a DB's to choose if they want to play up on the WR or off on 3rd and short when we don't have guys that are good at breaking on the ball really fast on slant routes to break up the pass. As a coach it's your responsibility when you see your guys getting beat to say hey, on 3rd and short you don't have a decision to play off 10 yards. We put a DB in the box to help with run support, I'm sorry but that's not playing to a guys strengths, it's hurting him and idc what DB is on the field, they won't have the size to consistently help in that aspect. We use a DELAY blitz on 3rd and medium when a offense is in their two minute D, but why? They are trying to Get into field goal range, so they aren't trying to throw it deep when at mid field already, the ball is coming out of the QB's hand to fast in a situation like that to run a delay blitz.

I do get you aren't endorsing him, and IMO 5 years has been plenty of time to have seen more improvements. I just don't see with the players we have coming up being able to consistently run what he wants to do and excel. If we had Bama type guys I would be fine, what he does requires you to win the one on ones. IMO we need to get more elaborate with coverages and blitzes, by doing this you confuse the QB on who to throw to, you confuse the OL on who to block so you get guys running free when they don't know who to get. I would love to see some pre snap shifts by the D and then run a twist, or stunt at the snap. I'm not against Roof being at GT, if he were to play more to the players strengths and run more exotic stuff I would be fine. If he stays I'll be glad to be wrong though, I just want GT to win.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

This is somewhat of what I was looking for, so thank you. Another poster thought I was asking the question to "prove" a point but I was honestly asking a question to see where your point of view is coming from. However, I see things differently, which there is nothing wrong with, it just means we have different opinions.

I look at his stent at Auburn and I don't see a trend up by the D. I don't think going by just one year to the next year you can say they are trending up. To me trending up is a consistent moving forward over 3 years or so. Even here at GT we have been better one year and then worse the next and then better the next, I'm not going to say because we were better on D this year compared to last year that our D is better when that hasn't been a consistent thing, it's been an up and down thing, so wouldn't that be more of a fluctuation in the D? I would expect to see improvements from year 1 to 2 and year 2 to 3 and so on. The D was also better at Auburn the year before he came and that was with less wins.

As for Penn State, I see a D that was already in the top 10 the year before he came. It was already a talented defense that had been coached up.

I have no answer for Minnesota, I do know that things in college football have evolved since then in a major way though, and when that happens you need to evolve as well.

I get we are getting better recruits but my question to you is, what do we do in our scheme that makes you think these guys will produce? Like blitz, coverages ect? I don't mind the 4-2-5, what I don't like is how we run it. Take TCU, thy run a 4-2-5 but they run it differently.

Dan Quinn said something when he was first hired that has stuck with me. He said, we are going to play to our players strengths. I don't see that out of our D. Examples of this, we allows Lb's to stay on the field on 3rd and long that aren't great in coverage. We allows a DB's to choose if they want to play up on the WR or off on 3rd and short when we don't have guys that are good at breaking on the ball really fast on slant routes to break up the pass. As a coach it's your responsibility when you see your guys getting beat to say hey, on 3rd and short you don't have a decision to play off 10 yards. We put a DB in the box to help with run support, I'm sorry but that's not playing to a guys strengths, it's hurting him and idc what DB is on the field, they won't have the size to consistently help in that aspect. We use a DELAY blitz on 3rd and medium when a offense is in their two minute D, but why? They are trying to Get into field goal range, so they aren't trying to throw it deep when at mid field already, the ball is coming out of the QB's hand to fast in a situation like that to run a delay blitz.

I do get you aren't endorsing him, and IMO 5 years has been plenty of time to have seen more improvements. I just don't see with the players we have coming up being able to consistently run what he wants to do and excel. If we had Bama type guys I would be fine, what he does requires you to win the one on ones. IMO we need to get more elaborate with coverages and blitzes, by doing this you confuse the QB on who to throw to, you confuse the OL on who to block so you get guys running free when they don't know who to get. I would love to see some pre snap shifts by the D and then run a twist, or stunt at the snap. I'm not against Roof being at GT, if he were to play more to the players strengths and run more exotic stuff I would be fine. If he stays I'll be glad to be wrong though, I just want GT to win.

I think where we disagree is this line: "...we are going to play to our players strengths. I don't see that out of our D."

I actually think we have played to the strengths of our D, but I am not entirely confident that we have the full complement of talent yet to play the way you want us to.

Look at it this way, even in 2014 & 2016, when our D played well in spurts, we were horrid. In 2014 and the back half of 2016 we got turnovers that bailed us out. We also had an offense that put pressure on the opposing team to play aggressive, which aids in defensive strategy. This year, we didn't have an offense that was able to generate that kind of pressure on opposing teams. When it did, you saw completely different defensive efforts. UNC, Pitt, and VT were taken out of their offensive game plan early, and in all three, the D stepped up and made plays. Throughout most of the UT game we saw the same thing. The first 45+ minutes, the D played lights out, and even near the end got a stop before we fumbled it back to them. I can't remember games prior to this season where I had as much confidence in the D getting a stop when we needed it, and prior to the Duke game, they were getting three and outs and forcing punts routinely.

Sadly, the wheels fell off against Duke, and I really can't explain it. Listening to Sean Bedford on the radio call, he said specifically that it was an execution issue, not a scheme issue. Mitchell spending time hurt and BJS being a true freshman explain some of our issues, but not all. Is there some coaching involved in our defensive problems? Yes. Do I believe the scheme is the issue? No. The main reason I believe that is because this scheme works elsewhere. Sure there are different ways to implement it, and I am willing to bet you'll see some differences next year, as the personnel change and, IMO, become more talented.

But I go back to my point. This was the first time in years where I have watch the defense play well for almost every game until the Duke game. There were collapses, but to me, that can somewhat be attributed to the growth process. I like where I think this D is headed, and I can accept another year of CTR if we keep making progress, and I don't think anyone can really say we didn't make significant progress on D this year. We're just not making it fast enough to satisfy everyone.

 

[Jmonty71]

I don't know that the coaching talent pool is the reason for a general lack of patience today. Rather, I think it's the obscene amount of money tied to modern P5 football programs. Here's the question I would pose: What schools have seen a dramatic elevation of their program solely due to a coaching hire? I mean, if you look at Oregon and Stanford, both of their programs erupted because of a confluence of coaching hires and a decision to pour money and resources into their programs.

Off the top of my head, I look at Boise St and Chris Peterson, but I also have to acknowledge they played in a much lesser league, and didn't have to play the big boys week in and week out. You can make some arguments about Utah and TCU, but their recent moves to the PAC-12 mean a lot more revenue flowing into their programs. I am struggling to think of a program that has changed the overall trajectory of their program solely through a coaching hire. Almost every time a program changes direction, it's almost always tied to a change in philosophy and additional funding to make it a reality.

Well, money talks.... That is a staple in and out of college football. But, you are correct sir... CFP has become more a business than anything else. Which is why having results matter.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

And from BOR regulations could only be used to fund 10% of athletics. The endowment could only be used any if student fees or institutional support we cut. In addition, I don't know what the wording of the endowment documentation is. It is possible that even if the BOR changed the regulations, which won't happen, that the endowment has specific purposes that cannot be changed.

People keep trying to push responsibility of funding athletics off to: students, the school, the endowment, the state, alumni who don't care about athletics, etc. If people on this board and fans in general want the GTAA and football specifically to have more money, then people on this board and fans in general should put up the money. If you want things to be done, stop expecting others to do it and work together to do it ourselves.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

We have way less fans. Why does that fact not register?

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

We have way less fans. Why does that fact not register?

Fans are inefficient, as all they do is redirect hot air. Better to invest in a good HVAC system.

I may have just explained half our problem...

 

[RonJohn]

We have way less fans. Why does that fact not register?

It does register. However, I keep seeing posts from people who say:

The school should put up more money so I can be happier watching football.
The students should pay more money so I can be happier watching football.
Some rich alumni people who I don't know should put up more money so I can be happier watching football.


What I haven't heard is anyone saying they were personally going to donate more, or encourage others to donate more, or do anything to help raise funds except moan about nobody else doing anything. In contrast, there are posts about the GTAA needing to reduce ticket prices, reduce concessions prices, and reduce parking prices. It seems that everybody wants someone else to pay for their entertainment.

 

[crl85]

GTSWARM should set up a link that appears like a thread title at the top of each forum page where members can easily donate to GT.

Make it a constant in your face option for everyone who posts here.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

 

[UgaBlows]

I think where we disagree is this line: "...we are going to play to our players strengths. I don't see that out of our D."

I actually think we have played to the strengths of our D, but I am not entirely confident that we have the full complement of talent yet to play the way you want us to.

Look at it this way, even in 2014 & 2016, when our D played well in spurts, we were horrid. In 2014 and the back half of 2016 we got turnovers that bailed us out. We also had an offense that put pressure on the opposing team to play aggressive, which aids in defensive strategy. This year, we didn't have an offense that was able to generate that kind of pressure on opposing teams. When it did, you saw completely different defensive efforts. UNC, Pitt, and VT were taken out of their offensive game plan early, and in all three, the D stepped up and made plays. Throughout most of the UT game we saw the same thing. The first 45+ minutes, the D played lights out, and even near the end got a stop before we fumbled it back to them. I can't remember games prior to this season where I had as much confidence in the D getting a stop when we needed it, and prior to the Duke game, they were getting three and outs and forcing punts routinely.

Sadly, the wheels fell off against Duke, and I really can't explain it. Listening to Sean Bedford on the radio call, he said specifically that it was an execution issue, not a scheme issue. Mitchell spending time hurt and BJS being a true freshman explain some of our issues, but not all. Is there some coaching involved in our defensive problems? Yes. Do I believe the scheme is the issue? No. The main reason I believe that is because this scheme works elsewhere. Sure there are different ways to implement it, and I am willing to bet you'll see some differences next year, as the personnel change and, IMO, become more talented.

But I go back to my point. This was the first time in years where I have watch the defense play well for almost every game until the Duke game. There were collapses, but to me, that can somewhat be attributed to the growth process. I like where I think this D is headed, and I can accept another year of CTR if we keep making progress, and I don't think anyone can really say we didn't make significant progress on D this year. We're just not making it fast enough to satisfy everyone.

I like what your advocating here but you have to remember that multiple times over Roof's current tenure he has been forced to simplify his scheme.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

A little cryptic. What kind of “change”?

 

[Techster]

KCH getting excited about Adidas!!

...or he's going to eat oatmeal for breakfast from now on instead of scrambled eggs.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

I like what your advocating here but you have to remember that multiple times over Roof's current tenure he has been forced to simplify his scheme.

Simplify or adjust? I know CPJ has said in interviews he's asked CTR to change certain things, but I don't recall him saying to simplify. He did say that about Groh quite often.

 

[okiemon]

I think bwelbo placed KCH’s tweet in the right thread.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk