Collins report card

Techbert said:
Only if we want a roster with no 4th or 5th year players on it.

Sad that we will be close to that.
Click to expand...
This is becoming the norm in college football. The only upper class men that stick around are the ones getting significant PT.
 
C+ even with the penalties, turnovers, game prep, game mgt, and horrid ST play. Recruiting is the key here.
Now, if the probs cited above are with us come late Oct-Nov 2021, we have a problem. As a 5th year HC, if you have what it takes at this level, then your team should play well coached football, even when losing.
It may take a Co-ord or 2 change, but my worthless instinct says, CGC is here for quite awhile.
 
aeromech said:
:facepalm: If it gives you comfort to tell yourself this is the biggest challenge in football history, then hang on to that belief there buddy.
Click to expand...
Actually, I think the label: Biggest turnaround in CFB history, has clouded a very challenging situation. People are reacting to the hyperbole instead of realizing rebuilding lines of scrimmage isn't easy. The absurdness of the label doesn't mean it's not a significant challenge. The label is indefensible, but the difficulty in rebuilding both LOS, should imo be recognized.
 
Techbert said:
Interesting, cuz I give the fans a C-. They say they understand the magnitude of the problem, but they don't. They demand instant gratification. They understand that recruiting is important but they think good recruiting will change win/losses in less than two years. I give them a C-, and am being gracious.
Click to expand...

C- and damn proud of that C

yes you were gracious!
 
Akinji07 said:
Did you also know he won’t win more than 3 games next
Click to expand...
GoldZ said:
Actually, I think the label: Biggest turnaround in CFB history, has clouded a very challenging situation. People are reacting to the hyperbole instead of realizing rebuilding lines of scrimmage isn't easy. The absurdness of the label doesn't mean it's not a significant challenge. The label is indefensible, but the difficulty in rebuilding both LOS, should imo be recognized.
Click to expand...
Then you should be able to give me some examples to refute that fact. If I was CGC I wouldn't actually bring this up all the time because I do think it lends itself to hyperbole but in fact it's pretty much true. In 2008 when the CPJ hire was being both applauded and scrutinized especially because it was a power 5 school switching to a traditional triple option, (only time ever happened), one of the main points against the hire was the day when switch back would occur, (again this has never happened in power 5 football either), the switch back would be a bear and a turnaround could take three to four years. And yes mainly because of the rebuilding of the lines especially the offensive lines. Again I ask, and you say the label is indefensible and absurd, please give me some examples to refute this.

But guess what you're not going to come up with any. What and who sound indefensible and absurd now?
 
Old-Fashioned UGA Hater said:
Then you should be able to give me some examples to refute that fact. If I was CGC I wouldn't actually bring this up all the time because I do think it lends itself to hyperbole but in fact it's pretty much true. In 2008 when the CPJ hire was being both applauded and scrutinized especially because it was a power 5 school switching to a traditional triple option, (only time ever happened), one of the main points against the hire was the day when switch back would occur, (again this has never happened in power 5 football either), the switch back would be a bear and a turnaround could take three to four years. And yes mainly because of the rebuilding of the lines especially the offensive lines. Again I ask, and you say the label is indefensible and absurd, please give me some examples to refute this.

But guess what you're not going to come up with any. What and who sound indefensible and absurd now?
Click to expand...
It's indefensible because those who say that we are in the middle of the biggest turnaround in CFB history are saying by definition that switching from the TO to a spread offense is the biggest turnaround in history. If that is your definition, usually along with the added caveat that we have no players on the roster Collins inherited who would play for other P5 schools, then there is no way to dispute it.

If you look at recruiting rankings, past records, etc.. then Collins should of inherited middle tier ACC talent. I personally think it's somewhere in between, we had some skill players on offense that at least should be competitive with the lower 3rd of the ACC but the OL was a complete rebuild.
Defense and special teams should be on paper mid tier ACC talent, not sure what logic is used to lump the defensive transition in with the offense. Go back and look at the recruiting sites, our defensive recruits had other P5 offers with a few 4 stars mixed in. I honestly have seen any difference thus far with defensive recruiting, other than the transfer portal.
 
goldmember said:
...

If you look at recruiting rankings, past records, etc.. then Collins should of inherited middle tier ACC talent. ...
Click to expand...

1. Lower middle tier, or upper lower tier. But not average.
2. What has killed our talent level is not the recruiting rankings of the last coach, but the attrition and the better recruits of his that have not panned out. We did not have average ACC talent in aggregate. The tiny number of upper classmen on the roster both years and having to bleed into experienced walk-ons show this.
3. If you do not see the difference in defensive player recruiting, you are not paying attention.
 
goldmember said:
It's indefensible because those who say that we are in the middle of the biggest turnaround in CFB history are saying by definition that switching from the TO to a spread offense is the biggest turnaround in history. If that is your definition, usually along with the added caveat that we have no players on the roster Collins inherited who would play for other P5 schools, then there is no way to dispute it.

If you look at recruiting rankings, past records, etc.. then Collins should of inherited middle tier ACC talent. I personally think it's somewhere in between, we had some skill players on offense that at least should be competitive with the lower 3rd of the ACC but the OL was a complete rebuild.
Defense and special teams should be on paper mid tier ACC talent, not sure what logic is used to lump the defensive transition in with the offense. Go back and look at the recruiting sites, our defensive recruits had other P5 offers with a few 4 stars mixed in. I honestly have seen any difference thus far with defensive recruiting, other than the transfer portal.
Click to expand...
Did you notice a big decline in the defense from the Gailey years too? Guess what? Defensive players didn't want to play for a triple option school either. If there goal was to practice against the best then you don't practice against the triple option and you don't practice against a freaking scout team.
 
Techbert said:
1. Lower middle tier, or upper lower tier. But not average.
2. What has killed our talent level is not the recruiting rankings of the last coach, but the attrition and the better recruits of his that have not panned out. We did not have average ACC talent in aggregate. The tiny number of upper classmen on the roster both years and having to bleed into experienced walk-ons show this.
3. If you do not see the difference in defensive player recruiting, you are not paying attention.
Click to expand...

Sure, I agree with you but I am still not sure how this translates into the worse roster in all of P5. Or even worse than that, having no player who would start for another P5 or ACC school.
 
goldmember said:
Sure, I agree with you but I am still not sure how this translates into the worse roster in all of P5. Or even worse than that, having no player who would start for another P5 or ACC school.
Click to expand...
Are you feeding straw men on purpose?
 
Old-Fashioned UGA Hater said:
Then you should be able to give me some examples to refute that fact. If I was CGC I wouldn't actually bring this up all the time because I do think it lends itself to hyperbole but in fact it's pretty much true. In 2008 when the CPJ hire was being both applauded and scrutinized especially because it was a power 5 school switching to a traditional triple option, (only time ever happened), one of the main points against the hire was the day when switch back would occur, (again this has never happened in power 5 football either), the switch back would be a bear and a turnaround could take three to four years. And yes mainly because of the rebuilding of the lines especially the offensive lines. Again I ask, and you say the label is indefensible and absurd, please give me some examples to refute this.

But guess what you're not going to come up with any. What and who sound indefensible and absurd now?
Click to expand...
Not sure how long you have been around CFB and GT football, but just because situations happened some time ago, does not make them invalid. If you were around in the early 80s, then you would know that Tech football was genuinely on it's deathbed. Do you actually think we will probably play football for the next 3-4 years? If so, you now have one situation close to home that soundly refutes the the absurd label.
Have you heard of Texas, Oklahoma, and Nebraska just to name a few? They all transitioned from the option to a more traditional offense without the HWFO you are going through now, which further refutes the label.
Look, I've been clear that it is a hell of a challenge, especially on the LOS, but alas everything is relative, and relatively speaking, it is my opinion after having attended my first Tech game in '62, that the greatest ever in CFB label is indeed...... absurd.
 
GoldZ said:
Not sure how long you have been around CFB and GT football, but just because situations happened some time ago, does not make them invalid. If you were around in the early 80s, then you would know that Tech football was genuinely on it's deathbed. Do you actually think we will probably play football for the next 3-4 years? If so, you now have one situation close to home that soundly refutes the the absurd label.
Have you heard of Texas, Oklahoma, and Nebraska just to name a few? They all transitioned from the option to a more traditional offense without the HWFO you are going through now, which further refutes the label.
Look, I've been clear that it is a hell of a challenge, especially on the LOS, but alas everything is relative, and relatively speaking, it is my opinion after having attended my first Tech game in '62, that the greatest ever in CFB label is indeed...... absurd.
Click to expand...
I am not saying our transition is the "greatest ever in CFB". That's a straw man. Name three that have said it.

Still, it is a major major major deal, and the examples you give are all huge state schools that can reload no matter what, and two of them have never gotten back to where they were.

Plus, they all transitioned together, from the vogue wishbone to more traditional attacks, so their situation is totally different from the programs who embraced the option after it went out of style and then came back to a common offense. Those programs had to prove themselves to recruits afterwards, and it is very hard to find success stories. Easy to find programs that have stayed in the mire.

I do not think we will stay in the mire. I think we are building a culture that will lead to success, and we have enough success that we will reach a bowl and then stay in a bowl. The only question to me is which year will we translate potential to win-loss. My current projection is we will be dangerous next year but still inconsistent, and be a clear bowl team from 2022 onward, as far as the eye will be able to see.
 
Techbert said:
Still, it is a major major major deal, and the examples you give are all huge state schools that can reload no matter what, and two of them have never gotten back to where they were.

Plus, they all transitioned together, from the vogue wishbone to more traditional attacks, so their situation is totally different from the programs who embraced the option after it went out of style and then came back to a common offense. Those programs had to prove themselves to recruits afterwards, and it is very hard to find success stories. Easy to find programs that have stayed in the mire.
Click to expand...

Very well said and illustrated. In the modern era of football we are the only ones who have chosen to take the leap back then a decade later decide to jump back forward again. Also as Techbert illustrated, your Oklahoma wishbone teams were a far cry off from what Paul Johnson wanted to run eventually. These teams weren't undersized and it did lend itself to more of a hybrid and the teams were able to adapt together as it was fazed out. They also were football factories. Unfortunately the triple option that Paul brought to Tech was to be a service academy style. His best team arguably was his first when he actually had some bruisers.
 
Old-Fashioned UGA Hater said:
Very well said and illustrated. In the modern era of football we are the only ones who have chosen to take the leap back then a decade later decide to jump back forward again. Also as Techbert illustrated, your Oklahoma wishbone teams were a far cry off from what Paul Johnson wanted to run eventually. These teams weren't undersized and it did lend itself to more of a hybrid and the teams were able to adapt together as it was fazed out. They also were football factories. Unfortunately the triple option that Paul brought to Tech was to be a service academy style. His best team arguably was his first when he actually had some bruisers.
Click to expand...
Back then, very very few offensive linemen were taught how to pass block worth a damn. Colleges ran. They all ran.... just out of different formations.

Today, the college rules favor passing, and all the offensive linemen worth a flip want to show to the pros they can pass block, because the NFL also went from a running league to a passing league. So the transition from a wishbone to a different run-first offense was not nearly as great. And as Hater said, they were all beefy guys back then. In fact they needed at the time to slenderize to be good at pass pro in the NFL. (Not including the steroid mess we also dealt with in the early 80's.)
 
goldmember said:
Sure, I agree with you but I am still not sure how this translates into the worse roster in all of P5. Or even worse than that, having no player who would start for another P5 or ACC school.
Click to expand...

The "worst roster in all of p5" comments are hyperbolic and probably not worth discussing
 
GoldZ said:
Not sure how long you have been around CFB and GT football, but just because situations happened some time ago, does not make them invalid. If you were around in the early 80s, then you would know that Tech football was genuinely on it's deathbed. Do you actually think we will probably play football for the next 3-4 years? If so, you now have one situation close to home that soundly refutes the the absurd label.
Have you heard of Texas, Oklahoma, and Nebraska just to name a few? They all transitioned from the option to a more traditional offense without the HWFO you are going through now, which further refutes the label.
Look, I've been clear that it is a hell of a challenge, especially on the LOS, but alas everything is relative, and relatively speaking, it is my opinion after having attended my first Tech game in '62, that the greatest ever in CFB label is indeed...... absurd.
Click to expand...
It’s the time frame man. When those schools were running the option lots of teams were doing it and many of the top players were fine with playing in it. College football changed and they changed with the times so they were not an outlier and simply continued their recruiting success (maybe not Neb. but for other reasons). We switched to the option when no one else at the P5 level was doing it and it led to a decline in recruiting. The transition back is happening while attempting to turn around our image with HS kids to change the recruiting momentum. It is a bigger change than what you want to admit.

Also would add that most of our higher rated recruits on Paul’s last few classes were DBs if memory serves. While that’s great not having the DL and LBs means the DBs are going to ne
at a huge disadvantage no matter how good they are
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top