Virginia postgame discussion

[Lavoisier]

I know outside of QB and BBack Coach Johnson defers to the position coaches for who the starters are. We've had cases where the best guys aren't getting played because of this (OLine took a huge step forward once the freshmen got in after injuries last year, Clinton Lynch didn't get the start in 2015 until injuries forced the coaches to start him). I'm wondering if CPJ needs to be more hands on in picking guys to play. We may have to start burning more redshirts on OLine and rotating more guys at Aback to give our starters a breather and letting them collect themselves mentally. The blocking is killing us and it hurts a lot more with what is essentially a rookie at QB getting flustered.

The drop off in our passing game is on everyone: pass protection is awful, Marshall is over throwing or under throwing everything, and the receivers are running the wrong routes or dropping balls. We need to figure that out.

 

[jacketup]

Reading these comments makes me sick. So many Dave Braine disciples. So many people defending a staff that now has a 51% win rate against FBS opponents over 8 seasons. (2010-2017). So many people who think that is the best we can do.

We finished in the final AP Top 25 for 5 consecutive seasons from 1997-2001---yes, that includes seasons in this century (and we have more liberal arts majors now than we did then). If we can't do better than winning 51%--and as this thread reveals, a high percentage of so called Tech fans don't think we can--then just shut the program down. If the mission of the program is mediocrity, it should no longer have a place at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

Fortunately, our AD is not a Dave Braine disciple. Can he overcome the seeming majority our fans who prefer Dave Braine's excuses to winning? That may be his biggest challenge.

 

[tech_wreck47]

Sometimes it does pay off to see how a player looks in a game.

Agree, some are just better in games.

 

[Vespidae]

What’s left is pure Gold.

Reminds me of two quotes from Bear Bryant:

"If you want to walk the heavenly streets of gold, you have to know the password: "Roll Tide, Roll"

And the second,

“I think the most important thing of all for any team is a winning attitude. The coaches must have it. The players must have it. The student body must have it. If you have dedicated players who believe in themselves, you don’t need a lot of talent.”

Bobby Dodd said the same.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

If we cant compete with UVA, we should hang up the cleats.

I'm not sure what you mean by compete. We lost with a chance to win the game at the last minute. Our overall record against them is pretty competitive. We tend to beat them more often than not. Also of note, with the exception of 2015 and 2017, they generally have higher ranked recruiting classes than us. Up until 2013 or so, UVA was generally recruiting in the top 30. If anything, I think UVA should have the same sentiments you do about GT. While I hate that we lost this game, it's not like we got beat by a team with a bad coach and no talent.

 

[tech_wreck47]

Reading these comments makes me sick. So many Dave Braine disciples. So many people defending a staff that now has a 51% win rate against FBS opponents over 8 seasons. (2010-2017). So many people who think that is the best we can do.

We finished in the final AP Top 25 for 5 consecutive seasons from 1997-2001---yes, that includes seasons in this century (and we have more liberal arts majors now than we did then). If we can't do better than winning 51%--and as this thread reveals, a high percentage of so called Tech fans don't think we can--then just shut the program down. If the mission of the program is mediocrity, it should no longer have a place at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

Fortunately, our AD is not a Dave Braine disciple. Can he overcome the seeming majority our fans who prefer Dave Braine's excuses to winning? That may be his biggest challenge.

Football was WAY different in the 90's and early 2000's. We weren't nearly behind the ball as we are now, money, staff, majors ect are all reasons we aren't competing better like in prior years. We are also playing way better competition. Comparing us to the late 90's early 2000's is like apples to oranges.


Don't get me wrong I think we can do better, but it's going to take some changes that are outside of the football programs hands.

 

[Captain killem]

But but but we have won an orange bowl and acccg lol

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

On defense: still no pass rush. Always a tendency to give up a critical third and long or a game winning opponent drive. Our DB's never play the ball always look at their man and hope to stick out a hand at the last minute and bat down a ball. Poor tackling at key times. Rarely play with any fire in the belly

I agree with almost everything you said but this. We are the 8th best third down D in the NCAA. We harped for years about getting off the field on third down. When we're stopping opponents on third down 73% of the time, I'm not going to gripe about the few that whiff. One of those key times was a circus catch in the rain by a gifted Miami receiver.

But let that stat sink in. We are 8th BEST in the NCAA on 3rd Down D. And yet here we sit at 4-4. EVeryone who always said, if we could just get a couple of stops a game, our O can win it, well, we're getting more than a couple of stops a game, and we're not winning. I'm certain the problem is not the D.

 

[Vespidae]

Reading these comments makes me sick. If we can't do better than winning 51%--and as this thread reveals, a high percentage of so called Tech fans don't think we can--then just shut the program down.

It's always important to calibrate our thinking. Here's a little factoid that might help. Through the end of 2016, 130 teams competed in NCAA FBS (aka, Division 1) football. Eighty percent (80%) of those teams finished with a winning percentage of < 0.600. That's 7 wins. Only 26 teams in the United States finished with a WPCT >0.600.

Georgia Tech was at 0.593.

The fact is, unless you are a factory school ... delivering 7-8 wins a year consistently ... puts you in the Top 25. Given the academics we have, I personally am delighted that we are pretty damn close to being at the top. We talk as if we are the Walking Dead. We aren't. We could easily find ourselves in the Top 25 ... if we wanted it.

 

[jacob]

Reading these comments makes me sick. So many Dave Braine disciples. So many people defending a staff that now has a 51% win rate against FBS opponents over 8 seasons. (2010-2017). So many people who think that is the best we can do.

We finished in the final AP Top 25 for 5 consecutive seasons from 1997-2001---yes, that includes seasons in this century (and we have more liberal arts majors now than we did then). If we can't do better than winning 51%--and as this thread reveals, a high percentage of so called Tech fans don't think we can--then just shut the program down. If the mission of the program is mediocrity, it should no longer have a place at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

Fortunately, our AD is not a Dave Braine disciple. Can he overcome the seeming majority our fans who prefer Dave Braine's excuses to winning? That may be his biggest challenge.

PREACH!

 

[OldJacketFan]

It's always important to calibrate our thinking. Here's a little factoid that might help. Through the end of 2016, 130 teams competed in NCAA FBS (aka, Division 1) football. Eighty percent (80%) of those teams finished with a winning percentage of < 0.600. That's 7 wins. Only 26 teams in the United States finished with a WPCT >0.600.

Georgia Tech was at 0.593.

The fact is, unless you are a factory school ... delivering 7-8 wins a year consistently ... puts you in the Top 25. Given the academics we have, I personally am delighted that we are pretty damn close to being at the top. We talk as if we are the Walking Dead. We aren't. We could easily find ourselves in the Top 25 ... if we wanted it.

Very interesting factoid!

 

[4shotB]

. We talk as if we are the Walking Dead. We aren't. We could easily find ourselves in the Top 25 ... if we wanted it.

Everybody wants to be in the top 10 or 25. just like everyone who started with us as freshmen at Gt wanted a GT diploma.Or everyone who is overweight says they want to lose weight. The real issue is not the "want to"...it's a matter of making a plan and sticking to it. This is what separates the "want to's" from the "can do's". BTW, I am not sure if the admin at the school even has the "want to" in this case. I think they are indifferent.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

BTW, I am not sure if the admin at the school even has the "want to" in this case. I think they are indifferent.

I think this might be the single biggest impediment we face.

 

[Captain killem]

Of course they are indifferent they are GT admin screw the rest of it. Kinda like the attitude of a lot of the alumni. You know We are GT we can do that.

 

[4shotB]

Of course they are indifferent they are GT admin screw the rest of it. Kinda like the attitude of a lot of the alumni. You know We are GT we can do that.

This is a paradox of being both a fan of GT athletics and a graduate. As alums, we have the mindset that yes, we do have obstacles but none that are insurmountable. (Yes, we CAN do that). But we watch as the caretakers of a part of the Institution that is near and dear to all of us fans sit and apparently do nothing. Or stick their heads in the sand. We cannot reconcile our training with the behavior of our leadership there. They act as if they were NOT trained at the I.

 

[Vespidae]

BTW, I am not sure if the admin at the school even has the "want to" in this case. I think they are indifferent.

There is a lot of confusion on this, but folks need to realize that the Admin, the Hill, Georgia Tech ... has stated (emphatically at times) that THEY DON'T CARE about sports. That's because Tech, like most (but not all) institutions of higher learning, have an independent Athletic Association that owns the facilities, markets the sports programs, and funds the operations. The only area where Tech participates is ... licensing the name and spirit marks to be used and providing non-cash credits for in-state tuition (which is basically, nothing.)

GTAA runs the show. And except for Homer Rice, most of the AD's have been awful.

 

[Captain killem]

4shotb I read all the time here that we can’t DO that. We don’t have this or that so I’m gonna call bull****.

 

[4shotB]

4shotb I read all the time here that we can’t DO that. We don’t have this or that so I’m gonna call bull****.

Feel free to call whatever you like but I think we are more in agreement than you might think. Do we face obstacles? Certainly. Insurmountable? No. Like any organization, we need leadership. And I am talking above the head FB coach's office. I hope Todd is our next Homer Rice. You may be too young to remember Dr. Rice but he faced larger challenges at Tech "back in the day" than our current AD does.

 

[Captain killem]

Been a Tech fan since 88 and I’m almost 50 I definitely remember Homer Rice

 

[jacketup]

Football was WAY different in the 90's and early 2000's. We weren't nearly behind the ball as we are now, money, staff, majors ect are all reasons we aren't competing better like in prior years. We are also playing way better competition. Comparing us to the late 90's early 2000's is like apples to oranges.


Don't get me wrong I think we can do better, but it's going to take some changes that are outside of the football programs hands.

You are correct that money is a key issue. So many expensive mistakes were made by Braine, Radakovich and Bobinsky, none of whom were good fund raisers. Spend money and don't raise money, and problems will follow. Raising money is not outside of the AA's hands--quite the opposite.

You are not correct about majors. Tech has more majors than ever, including liberal arts majors. When I was there, it was engineering, management, architecture, math or science. Not so these days. And the one year of non-engineering calculus that liberal arts requires is not what is holding back recruiting. That's just another excuse.

Recruiting under Gailey was fine--and things haven't changed that much in 10 years. If you don't believe it, then how did Johnson go 20-7 his first two years with Gailey's staff's recruits, and he hasn't come close to a similar two year record since. Johnson is a much better offensive coordinator than Gailey, who was not good at all at the college game, but Johnson's staff is not as good as Gailey's staff at recruiting Like every other program, we have to have good recruiting and good coaching, something we haven't seen since O'Leary/Friedgen.

More money would help, but you won't convince me that is the only problem. There used to be alumni who would fly assistants on recruiting trips as a donation. I am not as close to the program as I was in the 80's, but I don't know why that would not still be the case. Why is the recruiting footprint so much smaller than it was under O'Leary?