We Are All

[Vespidae]

You may be right. The game is moving towards a more pass-friendly and offensive game where it's the O that counts.

Basketball was the same way. It used to involve a lot more defense ... these days, it's more run and shoot.

Sad. If you knew what you were watching, it was great fun.

 

[COJacket]

concerned about the defense and rightfully so, however, I am growing concerned about the habit the offense has gotten into regarding failure to finish drives. We have been getting the minimum out of many drive situations, in terms of points, and compounding our problems by handing balls to the defense. One of Mills' fumble was knocked loose, but besides that, it seems the fumbles have been execution errors. We look like a great offensive team as we are moving up and down the field. It is just too bad the field isn't 80 yards long.

This nearly cost us the DOOK game and did cost us UNC. 48-20 is very one-sided score, but we truly had a game if we cashed in. If if if if...

BTW, did anybody see the DOOK VT score or game. I maintain DOOK was a quality win for us despite their record.

to me one of the key take aways of the DOOK VT game is that VT is beatable. If it wasn't for boomer ball (blocked kick and long run back for TD) they would have lost that game. The stats were dead even in the game in all categories. Also,Syracuse beat down VT bad! So, putting VT on a pedestal and saying they are the over the top good like many on this board suggest is just not right IMHO. They are beatable. Now, we will have to have one of our best D performances of the year to do it. And, hopefully JeT is back.

 

[TampaBuzz]

Yesterday aside, I thought our redzone conversion rate this year has been really good. Is that not true?

The last two weeks I would disagree. Stupid penalties and decisions on the goal line are turning touchdowns into 3 points or less

 

[Yaller Jacket]

The last two weeks I would disagree. Stupid penalties and decisions on the goal line are turning touchdowns into 3 points or less

GTR and Tampa, you're both right. For most of the season we got seven when we got close. Our offense is well suited for short fields and PJ does some of his best play calling down there. I think this is exactly what Boomer was on about when he started the thread. We have gotten error prone down there.

We know where the defense is. But you can close your eyes when the other team has the ball and perk up when we have it. That is, when we are going good. This year's team has potential which we have seldom had under PJ. Big play skill guys and a passing game. But every game some combination of missed blocking assignments, fumbles, and penalties keeps us from reaching our potential. It would be so satisfying to play one complete offensive game.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

I spoke with @OldJacketFan immediately following the Dook game. I told him then that the offense concerned me but I felt like it would be overlooked for two reasons: JeTs outstanding performance and the D/ST implosion in the second half. Our O, while vastly improved over last year, has cost us the Miami game, almost cost us the Dook game, and made the UNC game much worse than it should have been.

 

[MWBATL]

to me one of the key take aways of the DOOK VT game is that VT is beatable. If it wasn't for boomer ball (blocked kick and long run back for TD) they would have lost that game. The stats were dead even in the game in all categories. Also,Syracuse beat down VT bad! So, putting VT on a pedestal and saying they are the over the top good like many on this board suggest is just not right IMHO. They are beatable. Now, we will have to have one of our best D performances of the year to do it. And, hopefully JeT is back.

Duke beat us song the lines of scrimmage and should arguably have beaten us on the scoreboard. We won so good for us. But on the road against another team that will beta us along the lines of scrimmage our only chance will come if they make more mistakes than we do (especially turnovers, but red zone misses will help us too).

When your chance of winning is dependent totally on the other team screwing up...a lot, it is not a good sign.

 

[GTonTop88]

VT is gonna probably be embarrassing. Really good defense and a zone read/ spread offense with a athletic QB that can gash us as Dukes QB did.

 

[stingyoa$$]

We can be competitive in this game. We just have to grind away at them with ball control TD scoring drives.

 

[jacketup]

Definitely words to live by if you are a Tech fan. I'm into 37 years of this and year in year out, it doesn't change much. The early 90s were fun, but we can't sustain it.

The frustrating part is we have a great tradition, alumni who will donate, and smart people.

But we just accept mediocrity. MBob? Please. Did he even know where BDS was?

We were in the final AP Poll every year from 1997-2001. 5 straight years, and not that long ago. With the right leadership it can happen again and be sustained.

I absolutely agree with the statement about accepting mediocrity. That attitude started with Braine, and has been adopted by far too many fans who seem to like excuses more than winning.

 

[JorgeJonas]

We were in the final AP Poll every year from 1997-2001. 5 straight years, and not that long ago. With the right leadership it can happen again and be sustained.

I absolutely agree with the statement about accepting mediocrity. That attitude started with Braine, and has been adopted by far too many fans who seem to like excuses more than winning.

False. It started with fans who liked not showing up to games and not making generous donations to the athletic association more than winning. See, this is the thing. The fans drive the wins, not vice versa. Unless or until people make their peace with that, they will continue to bang their heads on the proverbial wall.

Me? I'm thrilled I've gotten to see two 11 win seasons the past nine years. That's two more than we deserve.

 

[Vespidae]

I was pleasantly surprised to see a recent survey of the top football programs in the US in terms of coaching desirability. In other words, if a coach, where would you like to work?

Tech was in the mid 40's. Out of 128. We were ahead of many SEC schools.

Great tradition, awesome location, and decent recruiting geography.

Yes, it's different as a school than it was in the 80's, 90's, and even 10 years ago. I am proud that the school has such a great rep.

But, we can be a Top 25 program ... on a sustained level. Jim Collins, author of Good to Great, called it "the genius of the 'and".

You must be "low cost" AND "high quality" ... you must be "global" AND "offer great service" ... you must "be competitive" AND "have decent athletes".

The GTAA is feckless. I hate to say that about my alma mater, but I've seen schools that DID NOT EVEN EXIST 50 years ago doing well on the athletic front.

It is possible and it can be fixed. But I think the entire GTAA needs to be put into a raft, with a limited supply of water and food, and set adrift somewhere in the South Pacific. Only then, in a zen moment, will they understand the situation and respond appropriately.

Until then ... they are happy being average. And when you aspire to be average, to be a 0.580 team ... you usually exert little effort to be more.

 

[Vespidae]

False. It started with fans who liked not showing up to games and not making generous donations to the athletic association more than winning. See, this is the thing. The fans drive the wins, not vice versa. Unless or until people make their peace with that, they will continue to bang their heads on the proverbial wall.

Me? I'm thrilled I've gotten to see two 11 win seasons the past nine years. That's two more than we deserve.

After Tech, I went to a top 20 MBA program. They did not want to offer an elective during the summer session that most of us needed.

A professor told us the following ..."There are fifty kids in this class, each paying $20K a semester to go to class. Trust me. If you ask for a meeting, he'll accept it. Just look around .."

So we did. And he accepted. And we got the elective.

In general, we are not ASKING we are ACCEPTING. I am of the high opinion, that properly motivated, Bud P could marshal the resources needed to field competitive teams. Good grief - Petit did.

 

[jacketup]

I was pleasantly surprised to see a recent survey of the top football programs in the US in terms of coaching desirability. In other words, if a coach, where would you like to work?


The GTAA is feckless. I hate to say that about my alma mater, but I've seen schools that DID NOT EVEN EXIST 50 years ago doing well on the athletic front.

It is possible and it can be fixed. But I think the entire GTAA needs to be put into a raft, with a limited supply of water and food, and set adrift somewhere in the South Pacific. Only then, in a zen moment, will they understand the situation and respond appropriately.

Until then ... they are happy being average. And when you aspire to be average, to be a 0.580 team ... you usually exert little effort to be more.

I agree with your post, but as I posted in another thread yesterday, the problem is the GTAA BOARD, and not the GTAA per se. And who appoints the Board? Peterson. More than half the Board is professors/academics, rather than alums and business people. At UGA, it's the opposite, and not everything they do over there is wrong.

I'm not sure how we change the makeup of the GTAA Board. Kim King had a lot of sway with alumni. He and Homer Rice were a formidable team that not even the President of GT would want to take on. I hope that Todd Stansbury can find the same kind of ally, but it is not apparent to me who that might be. If that person or persons don't appear, they you are correct, get used to mediocrity--or, as things are at the moment--worse.

 

[Vespidae]

If that person or persons don't appear, they you are correct, get used to mediocrity--or, as things are at the moment--worse.

Kim King was the last Tech god. We need a new one. Honestly, I would bring back Curry (maybe) but I think even he struggles with the GTAA. OK, anyone with charisma. (I will say, when Curry coached, any one who listened to him would run through glass.)

Todd will have to convince Bud. Maybe the first objective is to overhaul the board? Tech's initial problem is straightforward ... raise money, build a booster org, and get control of the revenue sports.

Why on earth we are spending anytime on improving Russ Chandler baseball stadium when our primary revenue sports are stalled is beyond me.

 

[JorgeJonas]

After Tech, I went to a top 20 MBA program. They did not want to offer an elective during the summer session that most of us needed.

A professor told us the following ..."There are fifty kids in this class, each paying $20K a semester to go to class. Trust me. If you ask for a meeting, he'll accept it. Just look around .."

So we did. And he accepted. And we got the elective.

In general, we are not ASKING we are ACCEPTING. I am of the high opinion, that properly motivated, Bud P could marshal the resources needed to field competitive teams. Good grief - Petit did.

Someone doesn't capture the difference between a critical mass of individuals paying a ransom for an education and a small number of individuals paying a relatively small amount for a couple of season tickets and the relative bargaining position of each.

Also, who are these schools that didn't exist 50 years ago killing it in Division 1-A football?

 

[Vespidae]

Someone doesn't capture the difference between a critical mass of individuals paying a ransom for an education and a small number of individuals paying a relatively small amount for a couple of season tickets.

If you think a school is built on tuition, you are sadly mistaken with how higher level education works.

Most BS programs break even. The big money is in graduate programs and corporate work. And if you don't have happy alumni who want to book your high margin corporate work, you're not going to go very far.

Tech does very well because there are a LOT of alumni in key positions kicking them R&D grants and corporate education work. That's a winning model.

And re schools that didn't exist 50 year ago, yes some of them have launched Division 1 football. But I didn't say that. They have built winning baseball, basketball, and other sports programs. Starting from zero. With far less alumni. (Based on their success, they launched Div 1 football.)

 

[MWBATL]

Also, who are these schools that didn't exist 50 years ago killing it in Division 1-A football?

You mean, besides Florida State? Technically they started playing football in 1947 but did not start to play "big boy" football until 1957 or 1958.

 

[Vespidae]

You mean, besides Florida State? Technically they started playing football in 1947 but did not start to play "big boy" football until 1957 or 1958.

My brother attended Florida State in 1964. As Bama boys, we all asked, "Who the hell is Florida State?"

My dad bought him a car to drive to school. Drove to campus and on the first day, skipped the curb and hit and tree. My dad was pissed.

"How could you do that?"

"Too many hot chicks to look at Pop."

Never went to a game with the same girl twice.

 

[JorgeJonas]

You mean, besides Florida State? Technically they started playing football in 1947 but did not start to play "big boy" football until 1957 or 1958.

2016 - 1947 =/= 50

 

[JorgeJonas]

If you think a school is built on tuition, you are sadly mistaken with how higher level education works.

Most BS programs break even. The big money is in graduate programs and corporate work. And if you don't have happy alumni who want to book your high margin corporate work, you're not going to go very far.

Tech does very well because there are a LOT of alumni in key positions kicking them R&D grants and corporate education work. That's a winning model.

And re schools that didn't exist 50 year ago, yes some of them have launched Division 1 football. But I didn't say that. They have built winning baseball, basketball, and other sports programs. Starting from zero. With far less alumni. (Based on their success, they launched Div 1 football.)

For someone who (apparently) is mistaken about so much, I was at least able to figure out that the Tech football program wasn't competing with other schools' basketball or baseball programs.

And again, your earlier point is that they contribute to other parts of the school. That was my point. We have chosen not to contribute to or attend games for athletics, yet people expect similar results with schools that do receive larger contributions of money and time.

I have no idea what your point about what schools are built upon even means.