Yet another CPJ vs CGC thread

[bobongo]

I think Fritz and Chadwell were both more reasonable options than Collins/Whisenhunt but they aren’t ones that suggest we’re flush with cash. (Not exactly news, of course.)

If Key was the default fallback because nobody could agree on anyone slightly more expensive, and nobody could pony up cash for someone MUCH more expensive (but more agreeable), that seems like the action of a cash-strapped group.

Hopefully Key works out, I’m personally optimistic, but if we were outsiders watching this happen at NCST or whenever, I think we’d be saying something like “lol they can’t even afford a Chadwell since some of them think they’re too good for him.”

That's what we would say, but we don't always know what we're talking about.

 

[slugboy]

I think Fritz and Chadwell were both more reasonable options than Collins/Whisenhunt but they aren’t ones that suggest we’re flush with cash. (Not exactly news, of course.)

If Key was the default fallback because nobody could agree on anyone slightly more expensive, and nobody could pony up cash for someone MUCH more expensive (but more agreeable), that seems like the action of a cash-strapped group.

Hopefully Key works out, I’m personally optimistic, but if we were outsiders watching this happen at NCST or whenever, I think we’d be saying something like “lol they can’t even afford a Chadwell since some of them think they’re too good for him.”

The two main groups of people who get hired as P5 head coaches are (1) G5 or lower head coaches or (2) P5 assistant coaches. The people we looked at are the normal candidate pool

Money wasn’t the main issue brought up. With Chadwell, it was that he wanted to bring his defensive coaches, who had a weak G5 history. For Fritz, it was contract length—which we didn’t want to do AGAIN.

As for someone more agreeable but much more expensive, how hard is it to find criticism of Mario Cristobal, Brian Kelly, Matt Rhule, or Hugh Freeze on this board? It’s one thing to have an unnamed more expensive candidate, but when you name someone, you start hearing “hell no”.

I think we interviewed who we wanted to interview. Culture fit was probably a bigger filter than money.

(If money was no factor, we’d have gone after Saban, but it’s not the only factor)

 

[jgtengineer]

The two main groups of people who get hired as P5 head coaches are (1) G5 or lower head coaches or (2) P5 assistant coaches. The people we looked at are the normal candidate pool

Money wasn’t the main issue brought up. With Chadwell, it was that he wanted to bring his defensive coaches, who had a weak G5 history. For Fritz, it was contract length—which we didn’t want to do AGAIN.

As for someone more agreeable but much more expensive, how hard is it to find criticism of Mario Cristobal, Brian Kelly, Matt Rhule, or Hugh Freeze on this board? It’s one thing to have an unnamed more expensive candidate, but when you name someone, you start hearing “hell no”.

I think we interviewed who we wanted to interview. Culture fit was probably a bigger filter than money.

(If money was no factor, we’d have gone after Saban, but it’s not the only factor)

Fritz was looking for one to take him to retirement.

 

[stech81]

Fritz was looking for one to take him to retirement.

For someone who has been at Tulane 7 years with losing record with the only good year being last year, I'm glad we didn't go with him. He just reminded me of the time we hired B** L****

 

[ThatGuy]

The two main groups of people who get hired as P5 head coaches are (1) G5 or lower head coaches or (2) P5 assistant coaches. The people we looked at are the normal candidate pool

Money wasn’t the main issue brought up. With Chadwell, it was that he wanted to bring his defensive coaches, who had a weak G5 history. For Fritz, it was contract length—which we didn’t want to do AGAIN.

As for someone more agreeable but much more expensive, how hard is it to find criticism of Mario Cristobal, Brian Kelly, Matt Rhule, or Hugh Freeze on this board? It’s one thing to have an unnamed more expensive candidate, but when you name someone, you start hearing “hell no”.

I think we interviewed who we wanted to interview. Culture fit was probably a bigger filter than money.

(If money was no factor, we’d have gone after Saban, but it’s not the only factor)

Not contradicting or specifically agreeing with your post, but it reminded me -

UGA fired a pretty successful coach after his 10th double-digit winning season, paid a $4.1MM buyout, and brought in an assistant from Saban’s staff at Alabama who was also an alum. They seem to have done alright with the decision.

Not saying the two are the same - but I am saying that Brent Key (an assistant at Alabama and a GT alumnus) was mentioned during the last coaching search as a candidate for GT, and his name was on the short list for several other HC jobs over the years. Just because some people say he’s an alum - and there were rumors that other candidates were considered - doesn’t mean that Tech is ‘settling’ here.

And even if he wasn’t the “first choice”, that in no way means he’s not a damn fine football coach. Last year seemed to show that - and the way he’s conducted himself, the team, and his duties as head coach supports that conclusions to me. I’m excited to see what he does over the next 2 years as HC.

 

[jgtengineer]

For someone who has been at Tulane 7 years with losing record with the only good year being last year, I'm glad we didn't go with him. He just reminded me of the time we hired B** L****

Tulane was infinitely more a greater transition than we were. He's taken a team that couldn't buy a win to one with a pulse but yes he shot his own legacy int eh foot by takign any job that would pay him more vs say staying at southern and tryign to win a few sunbelt conference titles before jumping.

 

[UgaBlows]

Can we quit beating this dead horse?

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Can we quit beating this dead horse?

Which dead horse? Most discussions on this site involve taking a whack at some rotting equine carcass. The rest of the discussions involve prone but still twitching carcasses. Once in a blue moon (August 30?) one gets to flail away on a thoroughbred.

 

[southernhive]

Can we quit beating this dead horse?

I'd rather beat a dead dog.

 

[wesgt123]

For someone who has been at Tulane 7 years with losing record with the only good year being last year, I'm glad we didn't go with him. He just reminded me of the time we hired B** L****

Dude I was *soooo* close to just throwing in the towel on football when I heard we were seriously considering Willie fritz and Jamie Chadwell.

Fritz was far too old and a very lackluster hire imo. Chadwell imo would set us back 10 years. With how the program tried to distance itself from the triple option, the last thing we needed was a coach with some semblance of an option offense back at Tech.

All the while I was screaming inside thinking Brent Key was all around the best decision. Glad we somehow gave him the position

 

[GT33]

Dude I was *soooo* close to just throwing in the towel on football when I heard we were seriously considering Willie fritz and Jamie Chadwell.

Fritz was far too old and a very lackluster hire imo. Chadwell imo would set us back 10 years. With how the program tried to distance itself from the triple option, the last thing we needed was a coach with some semblance of an option offense back at Tech.

All the while I was screaming inside thinking Brent Key was all around the best decision. Glad we somehow gave him the position

Maybe we just need a system we can win with & stop having so much anxiety about running the damn ball?

 

[wesgt123]

Maybe we just need a system we can win with & stop having so much anxiety about running the damn ball?

Can't wait to see what system we have this year then.

 

[GT33]

Can't wait to see what system we have this year then.

Hopefully it’s a scoring system. That is the primary reason they’re on the field. They’re sometimes asked to burn clock, they’re always asked not to turn the ball over, but whatever we do we must score and score often.

 

[TampaBuzz]

Hopefully it’s a scoring system. That is the primary reason they’re on the field. They’re sometimes asked to burn clock, they’re always asked not to turn the ball over, but whatever we do we must score and score often.

I'm with you. I don't give a darn about the "type" of system. Just hold onto the ball and score early and often. If that means passing 80 times a game, do that; if it means running 80 times a game, do that. If it is something in the middle, do that. Be flexible, adapt, and do what is needed to win the game. Whatever is the system, execute it well and score often.

 

[takethepoints]

I'm with you. I don't give a darn about the "type" of system. Just hold onto the ball and score early and often. If that means passing 80 times a game, do that; if it means running 80 times a game, do that. If it is something in the middle, do that. Be flexible, adapt, and do what is needed to win the game. Whatever is the system, execute it well and score often.

Yes. Since this is, in part, a history thread, let's recall that Paul's teams scored. True, they often got scored on a lot, but the one thing you could count on in most games is that Tech would score north of 28 points. We have got to get back to that level if we are to have a chance. I've often compared Paul's approach to Billy Bean's in Moneyball. It was just like that; we wanted a D that could stop the other side three times a game. If Paul got that we had a better then even chance of winning. The reason was simple and the same one that Bean used: the way to win is to score and everything else needed to be subordinated to that, especially in a school that has a hard time recruiting the DLs needed to make a more D oriented approach work.

Let's just hope that Key realizes that and acts accordingly.

 

[4shotB]

Yes. Since this is, in part, a history thread, let's recall that Paul's teams scored. True, they often got scored on a lot, but the one thing you could count on in most games is that Tech would score north of 28 points. We have got to get back to that level if we are to have a chance. I've often compared Paul's approach to Billy Bean's in Moneyball. It was just like that; we wanted a D that could stop the other side three times a game. If Paul got that we had a better then even chance of winning. The reason was simple and the same one that Bean used: the way to win is to score and everything else needed to be subordinated to that, especially in a school that has a hard time recruiting the DLs needed to make a more D oriented approach work.

Let's just hope that Key realizes that and acts accordingly.

I think Key has a bigger job in front of him than that (imo). I think to accomplish the vision of both the school prez and the AD AND to build the brand in times of dwindling fan interest, he has to be the first coach since Ross to pull off being good (maybe even just competent) at all 3 phases simultaneously. No more 2, 1 or 0 legged stools please.

 

[takethepoints]

I think Key has a bigger job in front of him than that (imo). I think to accomplish the vision of both the school prez and the AD AND to build the brand in times of dwindling fan interest, he has to be the first coach since Ross to pull off being good (maybe even just competent) at all 3 phases simultaneously. No more 2, 1 or 0 legged stools please.

I'd like to see that, but I don't know if Tech's recruiting can deliver it. The main thing about Paul's O is that it delivered points using the kinds of players we could get. Prime example: Robbie Godhigh. Here's a guy who was lights out in high school, but struck most recruiters as a) too small and b) too slow. Tech took a chance with him and it really paid off. Why? Because he fit very well in the spread option. If ever there was an RB who fit at AB, it was him. And Tech got him as a walk on, largely because nobody else was willing to give him a chance. Imho, we need a lot of that.

I think Key will turn more toward a Wake model based on mature 3* players; we can replicate that. Whether we can succeed with it is another story. But … #1 with a bullet is to get the team to score > 28 points a game on average. Or at least that's my take.

 

[4shotB]

I'd like to see that, but I don't know if Tech's recruiting can deliver it.

I have heard that but am skeptical. George and Paul had explosive O's. Gailey's teams were the exact opposite. I have heard others put forth the theory that these coaches funneled (sp?) the best athletes to one side of the ball over the other and that is the reason for the imbalance. I however am of the impression, thanks to CBR, that if you get the right assistants in place you CAN field balanced teams. Ross's staff had an eye for finding and developing talent and were not out recruiting Bama or OSU which has and always will be next to impossible for us.

Everyone since has not had the ability/luck/budget to attract the right coaching staff. I do think GOL, CCG, and CPJ had excellent football IQ's. So I think budget and commitment from above (maybe the same thing?) have kept these coaches handcuffed and therefore us in the football doldrums for the last 2 or 3 decades except for the occasional one off year here and there when the stars aligned just right. Again, just my opinon here.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

I have heard that but am skeptical. George and Paul had explosive O's. Gailey's teams were the exact opposite. I have heard others put forth the theory that these coaches funneled (sp?) the best athletes to one side of the ball over the other and that is the reason for the imbalance. I however am of the impression, thanks to CBR, that if you get the right assistants in place you CAN field balanced teams. Ross's staff had an eye for finding and developing talent and were not out recruiting Bama or OSU which has and always will be next to impossible for us.

Everyone since has not had the ability/luck/budget to attract the right coaching staff. I do think GOL, CCG, and CPJ had excellent football IQ's. So I think budget and commitment from above (maybe the same thing?) have kept these coaches handcuffed and therefore us in the football doldrums for the last 2 or 3 decades except for the occasional one off year here and there when the stars aligned just right. Again, just my opinon here.

I think this is right. Maybe with renewed commitment from the hill we can invest more in staff and overcome these doldrums.

Historical anecdote. Dodd was said to have put his best athletes on offense, for what that’s worth. Many football analysts thought that if Lenny Snow had bulked up some he could have been the premier middle linebacker in the country.

Bud Carson followed and it was said, anecdotally, that he put his best athletes on defense.

If there was an imbalance in the past, based on football philosophy, in my opinion, that imbalance was exacerbated in later years by academic progress requirements. A place like Tech is going to struggle to place all conference players on both sides of the ball as a result.

However, to reiterate your point, the solution is hiring top notch assistants.

 

[ThatGuy]

Hopefully it’s a scoring system. That is the primary reason they’re on the field. They’re sometimes asked to burn clock, they’re always asked not to turn the ball over, but whatever we do we must score and score often.

Agreed.

As a wise man (John Madden) once said, "Usually the team that scores the most points wins the game."