Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
Starting QB speculation
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="lv20gt" data-source="post: 750322" data-attributes="member: 2299"><p>Both can be true. We did have injuries last year, and they compounded an already bad situation and made it worse. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>We also don't need to pretend that things were fine just to appease your phobia of any statements that could possibly be taken as a slight to the previous staff. Saying the OL that was inherited wasn't a good fit for the new offense shouldn't be a controversial statement. It should be an obvious, no duh statement. The previous staff recruited for and coached for a very different offense. The qualities they looked for and the things they stressed in practice were for a very different system. As they should have. But that also meant that the OL wasn't prepared to run a very different system that focused heavily on the things that the system they were recruited to and coached for largely ignored. Another example of that is the QB spot. Oliver/Graham/Yates/Jordan would make for a very good QB situation in the option. It didn't not make for a good QB situation in the offense we are trying to run now. It wasn't Johnson's responsibility to recruit for an entirely different system that he didn't know we would switch to, but that doesn't make that situation good for when we did switch to the new system. </p><p></p><p>All of this was known to be likely and talked about online when we made the decision to hire Johnson. Hell, it was constantly used as a point in favor of keeping Johnson because the transition would be so bad.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="lv20gt, post: 750322, member: 2299"] Both can be true. We did have injuries last year, and they compounded an already bad situation and made it worse. We also don't need to pretend that things were fine just to appease your phobia of any statements that could possibly be taken as a slight to the previous staff. Saying the OL that was inherited wasn't a good fit for the new offense shouldn't be a controversial statement. It should be an obvious, no duh statement. The previous staff recruited for and coached for a very different offense. The qualities they looked for and the things they stressed in practice were for a very different system. As they should have. But that also meant that the OL wasn't prepared to run a very different system that focused heavily on the things that the system they were recruited to and coached for largely ignored. Another example of that is the QB spot. Oliver/Graham/Yates/Jordan would make for a very good QB situation in the option. It didn't not make for a good QB situation in the offense we are trying to run now. It wasn't Johnson's responsibility to recruit for an entirely different system that he didn't know we would switch to, but that doesn't make that situation good for when we did switch to the new system. All of this was known to be likely and talked about online when we made the decision to hire Johnson. Hell, it was constantly used as a point in favor of keeping Johnson because the transition would be so bad. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
What is the last name of the current Head Football Coach?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
Starting QB speculation
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top