Ted Roof's job

[jandrews]

problem is we are giving up more third downs with less possessions if I'm not mistaken. And even if it gets back to previous years I still won't be satisfied, because our D has still been bad.

I briefly looked it over but we are giving up more first downs on fewer possessions but at the same time our opponents are facing more third downs on fewer possessions. Other than Miami we really haven't been giving up the big play or large gainers. Thats what it looks like to me. Offenses have morphed quite a bit since Tenuta was here. Look what happened to him at UVA with higher rated talent. Does Roof play too conservatively...yes. How many close games last year and then this year fumbles and a tipped TD pass. All that matters is whether after the game there is a W or L. What game did the defense exactly lose for us this year? I blame Pitt on both of them but the O spotted Miami points and couldn't get going against Clemson. Until the D just puts up a complete stinker.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

You fire Ted Roof folks should start calling for the heads of position coaches too. Because you complain about damn near every facet of our D play. I guess Pelton and company are moron bad coaches too. Fire the entire D staff and start over!!!!!!!

 

[tech_wreck47]

I briefly looked it over but we are giving up more first downs on fewer possessions but at the same time our opponents are facing more third downs on fewer possessions. Other than Miami we really haven't been giving up the big play or large gainers. Thats what it looks like to me. Offenses have morphed quite a bit since Tenuta was here. Look what happened to him at UVA with higher rated talent. Does Roof play too conservatively...yes. How many close games last year and then this year fumbles and a tipped TD pass. All that matters is whether after the game there is a W or L. What game did the defense exactly lose for us this year? I blame Pitt on both of them but the O spotted Miami points and couldn't get going against Clemson. Until the D just puts up a complete stinker.

So we have been better this year at not giving up the big plays and forcing teams into third downs but worse at giving up third downs? We are just substituting bad for bad imo. I would rather be giving up the big plays so teams don't have the ball for 6 minutes a drive. I want to get our offense on the field to get in a rhythm and imo it's hard to do that when you are sitting on the bench 6 minutes at a time.

 

[PBR549]

Idc where he's coached, his stats as a D coordinator shows me everything I need to see. How many times has he had a top D at any of those schools that he himself built? If he can't do it there what makes you think he can at GT? And did you really use duke as an example lol? They were awful. As far as history goes, you might want to start with checking that CONSISTANTLY GOOD D roof has had at GT because I haven't seen that at all. Unless you mean consistantly bad? We were able to get turnovers in 2014 besides that were were awful, last year and this year we have been awful against spread offenses, awful at allowing teams to hold on to the ball for 6 minutes which does matter because it's hard to get your offense on the field and in a rhythm, we have been awful on third downs. So where has the D been consistently good? We are consistently outside of the 50's in D and we give less possessions than most other teams, how is that good? And yes GT historically has had better D's. So to say someone can't come in and do good after roofs players are gone is a statement that has no facts to back it up with. it is possible to get guys in that can LEARN to understand GT football, it's not rocket science. You say we run the right scheme? You do understand the scheme we run is geared to have big D lines that are very strong and fast strong LB's, like Bama type players, I'm sorry but we don't have that. Go look at smaller Deffense like we have and look at what they run, use VT as an example, they attack and it shows for the good, we don't and it shows for the bad. Would you rather run a D like VT or a D like GT? And by the way they get the same type of players we get, so they obviously are doing something better than we are. So I'm going with SCHEME and COACHING as the issue.

None of this really matter though it just my opinion vs yours, and neither of ours really matter.

Again, Tech has never had a D coordinator who has consistently over 4 or 5 years had a top defense regardless of scheme. Yea we've had Lindsay and Tenuta that have had a good defense for a year or two but not more than 3 over the last 50 years. The reason has nothing to do with schemes which I understand completely. We haven't been able to consistently recruit players that we can compete with against the top schools year in and year out. I think we are getting to a better place talent wise on D over the next couple of years but it remains to be seen whether we can get to a consistent level year after year.

Ted is the reason for our upturn in recruiting over the last few years because he is one of the best recruiters out there bar none. That's one reason he's worked in the top conferences at a high level. Bad coaches don't continue to get those jobs. I guess you've been a head coach at a better program than Duke. He's probably one of the less than one percent of the coaches in this country that has held a head job at a any college much less a major university in a major football conference.

Look at history at least since I started watching and listening to Tech football in the early 70's it's always been this way? We keep changing the coaches but not the problem! Either we accept what we are use Ted who is an asset and the Wishbone offense which is an asset and Paul Johnson which is an asset or something has to change on the hill to allow us to complete for the best players.

Firing coaches and arguing about schemes are just pi$$ing in the wind.

 

[jandrews]

Again, Tech has never had a D coordinator who has consistently over 4 or 5 years had a top defense regardless of scheme. Yea we've had Lindsay and Tenuta that have had a good defense for a year or two but not more than 3 over the last 50 years. The reason has nothing to do with schemes which I understand completely. We haven't been able to consistently recruit players that we can compete with against the top schools year in and year out. I think we are getting to a better place talent wise on D over the next couple of years but it remains to be seen whether we can get to a consistent level year after year.

Ted is the reason for our upturn in recruiting over the last few years because he is one of the best recruiters out there bar none. That's one reason he's worked in the top conferences at a high level. Bad coaches don't continue to get those jobs. I guess you've been a head coach at a better program than Duke. He's probably one of the less than one percent of the coaches in this country that has held a head job at a any college much less a major university in a major football conference.

Look at history at least since I started watching and listening to Tech football in the early 70's it's always been this way? We keep changing the coaches but not the problem! Either we accept what we are use Ted who is an asset and the Wishbone offense which is an asset and Paul Johnson which is an asset or something has to change on the hill to allow us to complete for the best players.

Firing coaches and arguing about schemes are just pi$$ing in the wind.

Tenuta had some bad games as well. That Clemson game with the purple uniforms still brings nightmares. I was there and they ran the same exact play over and over again and he couldn't do anything to stop it. Roof is a great recruiter and alum. There are only two remaining offenses that have will be trouble UNC and VPISU if they are on.

 

[tech_wreck47]

Again, Tech has never had a D coordinator who has consistently over 4 or 5 years had a top defense regardless of scheme. Yea we've had Lindsay and Tenuta that have had a good defense for a year or two but not more than 3 over the last 50 years. The reason has nothing to do with schemes which I understand completely. We haven't been able to consistently recruit players that we can compete with against the top schools year in and year out. I think we are getting to a better place talent wise on D over the next couple of years but it remains to be seen whether we can get to a consistent level year after year.

Ted is the reason for our upturn in recruiting over the last few years because he is one of the best recruiters out there bar none. That's one reason he's worked in the top conferences at a high level. Bad coaches don't continue to get those jobs. I guess you've been a head coach at a better program than Duke. He's probably one of the less than one percent of the coaches in this country that has held a head job at a any college much less a major university in a major football conference.

Look at history at least since I started watching and listening to Tech football in the early 70's it's always been this way? We keep changing the coaches but not the problem! Either we accept what we are use Ted who is an asset and the Wishbone offense which is an asset and Paul Johnson which is an asset or something has to change on the hill to allow us to complete for the best players.

Firing coaches and arguing about schemes are just pi$$ing in the wind.

Once again we don't have the players for the scheme we run, if you knew about our scheme you would know that. And if it's not scheme and coaching how can teams like VT do what they do with the same type of players we get? I have an idea, scheme and coaching. I'd take foster and his scheme all day, the real issue if anything would be money to hire who we wanted as cpj has alluded to. I will however agree roof has done good in the recruiting department. And by the way you can get one good coaching job at a major school and after that get hired at others because of the simple fact you were hired at other schools it's kinda like a snow ball affect, if roof was that good his numbers would prove it, but they haven't. So your saying where he's coached makes him a good coach over his stats? Yea, that makes a lot of sense.

 

[awbuzz]

we need Kirby Smart he is doing a fine job at georgia......really folks just get behind the players and coaches we have 5 games left...and if you think CPJ doesn't approve of the def. game plans you don't know squat about how a football team is run...and just because you played doesn't make you a guru....

I'm hoping for 6-8 more games [emoji39]

 

[PBR549]

Once again we don't have the players for the scheme we run, if you knew about our scheme you would know that. And if it's not scheme and coaching how can teams like VT do what they do with the same type of players we get? I have an idea, scheme and coaching. I'd take foster and his scheme all day, the real issue if anything would be money to hire who we wanted as cpj has alluded to. I will however agree roof has done good in the recruiting department. And by the way you can get one good coaching job at a major school and after that get hired at others because of the simple fact you were hired at other schools it's kinda like a snow ball affect, if roof was that good his numbers would prove it, but they haven't. So your saying where he's coached makes him a good coach over his stats? Yea, that makes a lot of sense.

VPI has no where near the limitations we do.

 

[Techster]

Tenuta had some bad games as well. That Clemson game with the purple uniforms still brings nightmares. I was there and they ran the same exact play over and over again and he couldn't do anything to stop it. Roof is a great recruiter and alum. There are only two remaining offenses that have will be trouble UNC and VPISU if they are on.

The BC Matt Ryan game. Yeeesh...Ryan was dropping the football in buckets and his WRs were beating our DBs like rented mules.

 

[tech_wreck47]

VPI has no where near the limitations we do.

What's the difference? I understand GT is more difficult of a school, but fact of the matter is VT and GT recruit the same kind of kid. We are right with them when it comes to recruiting. So how can he take those kids and do what he does but we can't?

 

[jandrews]

What's the difference? I understand GT is more difficult of a school, but fact of the matter is VT and GT recruit the same kind of kid. We are right with them when it comes to recruiting. So how can he take those kids and do what he does but we can't?

GT doesn't have an empty case for a national championship trophy.

 

[Fatmike91]

What's the difference? I understand GT is more difficult of a school, but fact of the matter is VT and GT recruit the same kind of kid. We are right with them when it comes to recruiting. So how can he take those kids and do what he does but we can't?

LOL. Really? Our kids are required to take CALCULUS and theirs aren't.

There is absolutely no comparison.

/

 

[Nook Su Kow]

The BC Matt Ryan game. Yeeesh...Ryan was dropping the football in buckets and his WRs were beating our DBs like rented mules.

Ryan isn't some bum, though. Haha.

 

[AE 87]

What's the difference? I understand GT is more difficult of a school, but fact of the matter is VT and GT recruit the same kind of kid. We are right with them when it comes to recruiting. So how can he take those kids and do what he does but we can't?

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University is not really the same sort of school and student body as GT.

 

[tech_wreck47]

LOL. Really? Our kids are required to take CALCULUS and theirs aren't.

There is absolutely no comparison.

/

That's not my point but thank you. I thought I broke it down pretty clearly by saying we are a more DIFFICULT school but at the same time we get the same type of recruits so how does he do what he does with his guys but we don't at GT?

 

[tech_wreck47]

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University is not really the same sort of school and student body as GT.

I'm talking about student athletes, we recruit many of the same kids they recruit. Idk how what I said got twisted to people thinking I'm saying we are the same type of school or student body or whatever else. Not one time did I say that I even said we are a more difficult school to clarify that. But we do recruit a lot of the same kids they recruit and my point is if we are on par with them in recruiting and have the same talent and even size as they do, then why can they do what they do on D but we don't? Imo it's because of coaching and scheme. The guy who I was posting that to was saying we are totally different than VT and when it comes to the actual schools I agree, but when it comes to talent on the field I don't agree with that, I just believe they put their players in a place to succeed better and they play to their players strengths better.

 

[OldJacketFan]

As far as a comparison between the chokies and Tech, one of the recurring issues Tech has had is signing D linemen. Historically D linemen, especially D tackles, are the most academically deficient of all position groups so it if far easier for a high 3*- low 4* d linemen to get in and survive at VPISU that GA Tech and it's not even close. Go look at the D linemen that have come from the chokie program and tell me any of their star D linemen that could have gotten it at Tech. Does "Big Daddy" Nicolas ring a bell? Does scheme and coaching matter? Of course, but quality athletes are as much or more the reason a team has a good D.

 

[tech_wreck47]

As far as a comparison between the chokies and Tech, one of the recurring issues Tech has had is signing D linemen. Historically D linemen, especially D tackles, are the most academically deficient of all position groups so it if far easier for a high 3*- low 4* d linemen to get in and survive at VPISU that GA Tech and it's not even close. Go look at the D linemen that have come from the chokie program and tell me any of their star D linemen that could have gotten it at Tech. Does "Big Daddy" Nicolas ring a bell? Does scheme and coaching matter? Of course, but quality athletes are as much or more the reason a team has a good D.

We have recruited just as good D lineman as VT's current starters minus ken which is one of their DE's. Yet they are still doing pretty good.

 

[OldJacketFan]

We have recruited just as good D lineman as VT's current starters minus ken which is one of their DE's. Yet they are still doing pretty good.

Since PJ has been here? Sorry I disagree. The last 2 years? Possibly, that's still to determined though I like Tech young D linemen.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

To a point. However; if your defense allows 30 a game, that puts enormous pressure on the offense to score on every possession and score TD's not FG's. I think Roof plays too soft and that softness is seen on the field, at times. When the coach asks the players to play soft, they play soft. So, yes... the coaching does affect the players and their mindset. That does not mean they go full on blitz and attack on every play. But, there has to be some mixture there. I was glad to see Roof finally come out in a bump and run coverage. In fact, that caused an in-completion on GSU's first series. I feel that if we would of done that in the game prior, we would be better than where we are. Sadly, I feel that when we play Duke, he'll go back to giving the WR's free breaks and giving up a 8 yard cushion.

I have been anti CTR. Mainly because I just don't feel like his style is what GT needs. He plays too old of a system. Now, if the team was loaded with 4 and 5 star recruits, than yes... It would probably work. Jut because we'd have the size and speed for the read and react to work. Given, that we do not have those skill sets, at that level. You have to mix in smoke and mirrors. I saw some pre snap movement against GSU. Again, it we waiting until now to unleash this. Will Roof continue to do this? Remains to be seen.

But, to your point... It takes players to make plays. But, it takes coaching to allow them to be in the right place, at the right time.

And thank you for proving my point. GT is 33rd in the nation, allowing 21.9 pts per game.Our offense should be able to put up 23 points a game without much pressure. Your assertion earlier was don't look at points per game as a meaningful stat. That's just wrong. It's certainly not the only stat, but it's arguably one of the most important ones.