Why do we seem to follow big seasons with letdown seasons?

Northeast Stinger

Helluva Engineer
Messages
10,778
Well, some folks did try to be voices of reason and were utterly vilified.
It was because we were trying something new. It was an attempt to say, "Hey, the old morose, doom and gloom, pessimistic approach to the next season, which utterly spoils the warm after glow of the previous winning season, is something we are going to not do this year. Instead we are going to practice the invincible, immortal, youthful optimism and swagger that the big kids practice every year." Some of us had doubts but we were tying to see what it felt like to not voice those concerns for once and take on a devil may care attitude. After all, if Tech is ever to settle into the big time that is exactly the way the fan base will act.

Anyway, you never know until you run the experiment. And now we have run it. :(
 

Sideways

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,589
I've seen a lot of micro analysis about specific things to this team, but it's way beyond CPJ's 2 minute drill playcalling.

It can't be purely lack of talent. Maybe lack of depth. But I am pretty sure that our QB and OL didn't up and regress talent-wise overnight.

Some of you older folks may remember 1991 being surprisingly disappointing as well.

There are three main reasons for why it is notoriously difficult to maintain success at Tech:
I've seen a lot of micro analysis about specific things to this team, but it's way beyond CPJ's 2 minute drill playcalling.

It can't be purely lack of talent. Maybe lack of depth. But I am pretty sure that our QB and OL didn't up and regress talent-wise overnight.

Some of you older folks may remember 1991 being surprisingly disappointing as well.
There are three main reasons for Tech not being able to sustain success after a great season: In no particular order

Recruiting, Recruiting, Recruiting. It is difficult as Wake, Rice, Tulane, Vanderbilt, SMU and others will attest to consistently recruit great players especially at certain positions. We have to rely on red shirting and player development which can be done but requires patience and absolute commitment to a system and targeting players EARLY. No easy thing to do. We simply cannot afford injuries, busts, or any combination there of. During Coach Johnson's tenure it has been a habitual struggle to find defensive linemen and offensive tackles. It is hard to find tackles that are big and can block in space. Generally, in my humble opinion, we can scheme our way on offense with lesser players but there is no amount of scheming that will work on defense. You just have to have the players on defense and we invariably end up with linebackers trying to become defensive linemen and quarterbacks trying to play safety or linebacker etc. It just does not work out too well.
 

jacketup

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,551
There are three main reasons for why it is notoriously difficult to maintain success at Tech:

There are three main reasons for Tech not being able to sustain success after a great season: In no particular order

Recruiting, Recruiting, Recruiting. It is difficult as Wake, Rice, Tulane, Vanderbilt, SMU and others will attest to consistently recruit great players especially at certain positions. We have to rely on red shirting and player development which can be done but requires patience and absolute commitment to a system and targeting players EARLY. No easy thing to do. We simply cannot afford injuries, busts, or any combination there of. During Coach Johnson's tenure it has been a habitual struggle to find defensive linemen and offensive tackles. It is hard to find tackles that are big and can block in space. Generally, in my humble opinion, we can scheme our way on offense with lesser players but there is no amount of scheming that will work on defense. You just have to have the players on defense and we invariably end up with linebackers trying to become defensive linemen and quarterbacks trying to play safety or linebacker etc. It just does not work out too well.

You are correct that the problems are recruiting times 3 (or more). However, we can recruit better than we have for the past 7 years.

1. Many top teams have head coaches that are salesmen. For example, Dabo and Saban are salesmen. Johnson is not. That can't be fixed, but maybe Johnson could be coached up if he would allow himself to be. I'd argue that GT needs a head coach who is a salesman more than Alabama does.

2. GT has a national reputation and can recruit over a wide area, but it's not happening. I'd guess that about half of the 1990 2-deep was from more than 300 miles from Atlanta. I'd guess that 80% of Johnson's recruits are from within 300 miles of Atlanta. There aren't enough quality players that fit the academic profile to geographically restrict recruiting like this staff does.

3. GT has lots of advantages over other schools. Ever been to Clemson on a non-football weekend? What a depressing place. The GT campus is far nicer and more lively. We have lots to sell. However, we need salesmen. Roof and Pelton are a step in the right direction, but there have been too few recruiters on this staff for most of Johnson's tenure. You are seeing the results on the field.

4. Last year was an anomaly with regard to having few injuries, and there were some very good players who graduated. Anomaly is the key word here--like you can't count on that situation every year, and we don't have quality depth.

5. Lastly, O'Leary had 5 consecutive AP top 25 finishes from 97 to 01. I've posted that stat 3 times now in the last week, but people persist with this errant theme that we can't sustain success. O'Leary understood recruiting, saying that it's like shaving, if you don't do it every day, you look like a bum. Consistent good recruiting is the key to consistent performance--not play calling or scheme.
 

00Burdell

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,298
Location
Parts Unknown
Consistent good recruiting is the key to consistent performance--not play calling or scheme.
I think Auburn has recruited pretty consistently over the years. As has South Carolina. And Oregon. And Penn St.

O'Leary and his mentor (Ross) were great recruiters but when I look up and down our roster, I see a good bit of talent - maybe not O'Leary good but there is no doubt that its trending upward.

This could be a long conversation or a short one. So I'll keep it short.

I don't think the first five games of this year are necessarily a barometer of the health of our program. I think its a reflection of the health of our roster which, at present, is severely depleted with injuries. We have two guys on offense that were on the two-deep last year.

You can't run a Swiss watch offense with no timing and no experience playing together as a unit no matter how good of a salesman you are.
 

Northeast Stinger

Helluva Engineer
Messages
10,778
Many top teams have head coaches that are salesmen. For example, Dabo and Saban are salesmen. Johnson is not.
How do you know this? From the little I can pick up (since I am not privy to private conversations between coaches and recruits) it sounds like Tech does a good job with it talking points and also that recruits pretty much as a rule like CPJ.
Lastly, O'Leary had 5 consecutive AP top 25 finishes from 97 to 01. I've posted that stat 3 times now in the last week, but people persist with this errant theme that we can't sustain success.
What has changed since O'Leary was here? And I don't mean the coaching staff. Academic progress is much more rigidly enforced now. Help with recruiting was cut back through administrative cuts and is just now being built back up. Trust by the administration in academic exceptions has to be earned now one slot at a time rather than the coach having cart blanch on who he wants.

It is harder now. Even at Central Florida which has very low academic standards and which sits in the geographical epicenter of college recruiting heaven O'Leary is having a harder time recruiting now than he did years ago.

As for Tech recruiting off of a national brand, I am all in favor of that and have wished that for some time. CPJ has addressed that somewhat in interviews. The risk / reward has to be worth it to drain the recruiting budget chasing players thousands of miles away who we have only a marginal chance of attracting to Tech. But whenever Tech gets an inroad into an area we work it hard and it pays off, whether in NC or Alabama or Louisiana or the D.C. area. Tech seems to be slowly making those connections nationally. In the meantime, however, not a bad idea to recruit Georgia pretty heavy since it is probably the fourth richest recruiting area in the country.
 

chewybaka

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
909
How do you know this? From the little I can pick up (since I am not privy to private conversations between coaches and recruits) it sounds like Tech does a good job with it talking points and also that recruits pretty much as a rule like CPJ.

What has changed since O'Leary was here? And I don't mean the coaching staff. Academic progress is much more rigidly enforced now. Help with recruiting was cut back through administrative cuts and is just now being built back up. Trust by the administration in academic exceptions has to be earned now one slot at a time rather than the coach having cart blanch on who he wants.

It is harder now. Even at Central Florida which has very low academic standards and which sits in the geographical epicenter of college recruiting heaven O'Leary is having a harder time recruiting now than he did years ago.

As for Tech recruiting off of a national brand, I am all in favor of that and have wished that for some time. CPJ has addressed that somewhat in interviews. The risk / reward has to be worth it to drain the recruiting budget chasing players thousands of miles away who we have only a marginal chance of attracting to Tech. But whenever Tech gets an inroad into an area we work it hard and it pays off, whether in NC or Alabama or Louisiana or the D.C. area. Tech seems to be slowly making those connections nationally. In the meantime, however, not a bad idea to recruit Georgia pretty heavy since it is probably the fourth richest recruiting area in the country.
How many of the super 11 in the state did Tech successfully recruit over the past 5 years...
 

Northeast Stinger

Helluva Engineer
Messages
10,778
It's germane to your assertion that we do not need to look far and wide but instead adress the efficaccy of recruiting in " the fourth richest recruiting area in the country...
Sounds like you have a bone to pick with someone.

I did not assert that we do not have a need to look far and wide. You are setting up a straw argument now. I believe we already do that, judging by who we give offers to. The question is whether or not we need to spend a whole lot more resources doing that right now when the return has not been that great. I was a big fan of the migration campaign but right now we cannot expect to build a program on it. I hope one day those connections we have been making pan out. Judging from other programs that recruit nationally, the payoff usually comes over a generation or two of players.

The guys we have gotten closer to home seem to check the right boxes. They want an education. They seem to be Tech material. They have competed at a superior level and they are used to being successful. Beyond that I don't pay much attention to who ranks them or rates them with this beauty pageant or that. Our guys are used to being winners.
 

IronJacket7

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,556
1-Media Hype
2-Inexperience/Loss of leadership
3-Poor Execution
4-Just plain bad luck / no luck at all
5-Multiple Injuries
6-Target on our back

These are the main ones I consider. And after all these we are still only 2-3....
And have had a chance to win each of the 3 losses = Good Coaching/Good System

1 is gone.
2 is getting better by each rep/game.
3 must continue to get better.
4 Only God knows
5 It happens
6 Not much of a factor at this point
 

a5ehren

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
457
You are correct that the problems are recruiting times 3 (or more). However, we can recruit better than we have for the past 7 years.

1. Many top teams have head coaches that are salesmen. For example, Dabo and Saban are salesmen. Johnson is not. That can't be fixed, but maybe Johnson could be coached up if he would allow himself to be. I'd argue that GT needs a head coach who is a salesman more than Alabama does.

2. GT has a national reputation and can recruit over a wide area, but it's not happening. I'd guess that about half of the 1990 2-deep was from more than 300 miles from Atlanta. I'd guess that 80% of Johnson's recruits are from within 300 miles of Atlanta. There aren't enough quality players that fit the academic profile to geographically restrict recruiting like this staff does.

3. GT has lots of advantages over other schools. Ever been to Clemson on a non-football weekend? What a depressing place. The GT campus is far nicer and more lively. We have lots to sell. However, we need salesmen. Roof and Pelton are a step in the right direction, but there have been too few recruiters on this staff for most of Johnson's tenure. You are seeing the results on the field.

4. Last year was an anomaly with regard to having few injuries, and there were some very good players who graduated. Anomaly is the key word here--like you can't count on that situation every year, and we don't have quality depth.

5. Lastly, O'Leary had 5 consecutive AP top 25 finishes from 97 to 01. I've posted that stat 3 times now in the last week, but people persist with this errant theme that we can't sustain success. O'Leary understood recruiting, saying that it's like shaving, if you don't do it every day, you look like a bum. Consistent good recruiting is the key to consistent performance--not play calling or scheme.
George O'Leary also killed a kid and is on his way to an 0-12 season at UCF. So, you know, maybe he doesn't really know what he's doing?
 

chewybaka

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
909
Sounds like you have a bone to pick with someone.

I did not assert that we do not have a need to look far and wide. You are setting up a straw argument now. I believe we already do that, judging by who we give offers to. The question is whether or not we need to spend a whole lot more resources doing that right now when the return has not been that great. I was a big fan of the migration campaign but right now we cannot expect to build a program on it. I hope one day those connections we have been making pan out. Judging from other programs that recruit nationally, the payoff usually comes over a generation or two of players.

The guys we have gotten closer to home seem to check the right boxes. They want an education. They seem to be Tech material. They have competed at a superior level and they are used to being successful. Beyond that I don't pay much attention to who ranks them or rates them with this beauty pageant or that. Our guys are used to being winners.
I'm responding to the issues posed by this thread...as to why the team has a history of let downs after a good season...simple...lack of talented depth...if you can't replenish it locally with your preferred profile of prospects then expand the recruiting territory or accept the inevitable rollercoaster "letdown"
 

Northeast Stinger

Helluva Engineer
Messages
10,778
I'm responding to the issues posed by this thread...as to why the team has a history of let downs after a good season...simple...lack of talented depth...if you can't replenish it locally with your preferred profile of prospects then expand the recruiting territory or accept the inevitable rollercoaster "letdown"
I guess it is not so simple as that to me.

So don't take this as my wanting to argue the point so much as wanting to make sure that you understand my opinion on "expanded recruiting territory." Keep in mind that I have already said I favor expanding the recruiting territory. Now the analogy.

Let's say you are in a company that sells widgets. Lots of other companies are also selling widgets. How do you command a larger market share? History has shown that, while R&D is good, it is best not to sink too much money into it because innovations in widgets are rare at best and, should there be a true break through innovation, your company has the legal know how to convert quickly to the new innovation and cash in like all the other widget companies.

So the real issue is about looking at territory to expand sales and concentrate your marketing there. The first place you start is your home area. You already control a share of it so it is easier to expand your percentage of the market there. Then you reach out to adjoining markets or markets where you already have a market share and work on expanding those.

The last thing you do is sink a whole lot of money in an area where (1) No one has every heard of you and (2) support for your chief competitor in that region is considered by the locals to be both a Godly and patriotic duty.

It is not that you would not ever consider cracking into that market. It is not that you are not constantly putting out feelers in that market. It is not that you would not exploit in a heart beat any sudden weakness in your competitor's market share. It is that you are wise not to sink the entire companies marketing assets in ventures that are not likely to pay off with improved market performance.
 

WreckinGT

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,159
You are correct that the problems are recruiting times 3 (or more). However, we can recruit better than we have for the past 7 years.
5. Lastly, O'Leary had 5 consecutive AP top 25 finishes from 97 to 01. I've posted that stat 3 times now in the last week, but people persist with this errant theme that we can't sustain success. O'Leary understood recruiting, saying that it's like shaving, if you don't do it every day, you look like a bum. Consistent good recruiting is the key to consistent performance--not play calling or scheme.
Two of those top 25 seasons we finished 7-5. Not only does 7-5 not get you in the top 25 anymore (unless you are SEC) but the fan base wants the coaches head on a stick when it happens.
 

ATL1

Helluva Engineer
Messages
7,377
I'm not gonna lie. I've been so blowed I couldn't even visit this bored. This was tough. Idk
 

bke1984

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,443
"Always" is a bit harsh....but my answer is pretty simple...and some may not like it...

When you win 10+ games...it's hard to win more the next season...

Sounds simple, but it's true. Rarely does a team stay the same...they either get better or they get worse. Tough to get better than 11-3 without winning the National Title or being in the final four...alternative is you get worse.

We replaced our entire senior backfield and two NFL receivers with mostly freshmen. Freshmen bring talent and inexperience...which leads to excitement, losses, and disgruntled fans (myself being one of them).

We had a great recruiting class last year...if we can string 3 or so together then we may be able to string 2-3 excellent seasons together. You need to balance the classes with talent. If you don't then you are stuck developing freshmen and losing close games.

Yeah, it's an excuse...and we know they all stink...but it's probably just correct...
 
Top