Cupboard full

I guess the reason I always think of Dodd's first few years as not being so good as I will always remember the Al Tech game. Being much younger as I recall Bama put it to us something like 40 something or 50 something to about 19. Really don't remember the exact score. I just remember Red Drew was coach at Bama and we were taken to the wood shed.
 
Old Foggy, you are referring to the 1950 team that had an awful start but came on strong the last half of the season to start a string of 31 straight games without a loss from midseason 1950
to the Notre Dame game in 1953. Ole Dodd had it cooking and he surely knew what he was doing. A great MAN and a great COACH.
 
"How many players the NFL drafts from a college team has very little to do with the overall talent level."

Your serious?
 
One thing that seems to be overlooked with regards to coaching is that CG (7-6) had essentially the same record as GOL (7-5) the previous year. GOL had an experienced QB and OL and suffered hardly any injuries. I think we overestimated our talent level...

Fridge had a lot more to do with our success than most of us will admit. Over the last 7 years we rarely won a game with our defensive might! Most of our wins came through great offensive scheming and playmaking by our quarterback. That's what's been lacking the last two years. Mostly gone b/c Fridge is...
 
Sfalco, if you are referring to BeeWare's statement, in fairness, I think it is a case of semantics.

You might have a Division II team with two players on the team drafted by the NFL, but a Division I team with no members on it entering the NFL. The division I team, in most cases, has the more talented players overall, but none as highly rated to the scouts as the two players from the Division II team.

We are aware that generally Tech gets more talented players than Division II teams, but some years Tech has no players chosen in the draft, and some of the smaller schools have players highly rated and drafted.

However, if you have a given team with many players drafted year in and year out, the assumption could easily be made for that team's position as a strongly talented team.

You can also have a very talented team, but average talented players. You can also have very talented players on a team, but the team is not a talented team. Sometimes, the individual is not indicative of the team as a whole.

I am not trying to put your argument down, I am just throwing some more sides to the issue into the debate.

Anyhow, things are slow on the board.

wink.gif
 
Originally posted by Sonsir:
GOL had an experienced QB and OL and suffered hardly any injuries.
Click to expand...
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Losing Daryl Smith in 2001 was just as big a blow as Tony in 2002, so injuries played a role both years. You can't really say how O'Leary would have done or what Chan would have done because they are different coaches. I do know we were still in the UGA game at halftime in 2001. This is Chan's team now, not O'Leary's, so let's find out how good he is.
 
I'm not blasting CG. I think he will be a good coach for GT...

I wanted to point out that Chan had similar success to GOL with a less experienced offense, and a defense that was suspect coming into the season.
 
Ahsoisee,

I see your point; and it may have to do with semantics, but I just think using "very little to do with" in his statement was too strong.

But nevertheless, let's not argue over chump change, so to speak.

This argument sounds strikingly similar to the "do recruiting rankings matter?" argument.

Is it August yet?
 
Originally posted by Sonsir:
One thing that seems to be overlooked with regards to coaching is that CG (7-6) had essentially the same record as GOL (7-5) the previous year. GOL had an experienced QB and OL and suffered hardly any injuries. I think we overestimated our talent level...

Fridge had a lot more to do with our success than most of us will admit. Over the last 7 years we rarely won a game with our defensive might! Most of our wins came through great offensive scheming and playmaking by our quarterback. That's what's been lacking the last two years. Mostly gone b/c Fridge is...
Click to expand...
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">O'Leary is the only coach since I have followed recruiting to get Top 25 classes 3 years in a row. I start following recruiting in 1992. Have been a GT fan 29 years. Unless the recruiting services were all wrong in those years - we had/have talent. Some of those kids are still here and will be for a year or two. O'Leary did have to do with our success because it does start with recruiting and building the program, then coaches have to coach them. My feeling in the 2001 season we came up short (like our BBall team this year). In 2002, there was something missing for the get go.
 
I agree with you, MsTech. We went downhill in 01 just like our Basketball this year. In 02 something was missing from the getgo--QB and WR play never really got on track.

It just seems to me that our play deteriorated in the Peach Bowl, and we never got it back, except in a few spurts.
 
O'Leary is probably the first Tech coach to get three top 25 recruiting classes in a row. Of course, classes haven't been ranked that long so how Dodd's recruits would have stacked up is pure conjecture. That said, I would suggest that there is some dividing line between classes that are heads and shoulders about the rest, maybe the top 10? and that once you get to 20+ there isn't too much difference for the next 15-20 classes. I picked those arbitrarily, but my point is the recruiting services can be swayed by one or two recruits between those numbers and as iffy as recruiting is anyway, that seems to be a questionable way to judge a class.

My point is that, everything else being equal, you want a higher ranked class than your opponents. But that if you are 24 and somebody else is 36 there probably really isn't that much difference in real terms.
 
Originally posted by ncjacket:
O'Leary is probably the first Tech coach to get three top 25 recruiting classes in a row. Of course, classes haven't been ranked that long so how Dodd's recruits would have stacked up is pure conjecture. That said, I would suggest that there is some dividing line between classes that are heads and shoulders about the rest, maybe the top 10? and that once you get to 20+ there isn't too much difference for the next 15-20 classes. I picked those arbitrarily, but my point is the recruiting services can be swayed by one or two recruits between those numbers and as iffy as recruiting is anyway, that seems to be a questionable way to judge a class.

My point is that, everything else being equal, you want a higher ranked class than your opponents. But that if you are 24 and somebody else is 36 there probably really isn't that much difference in real terms.
Click to expand...
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">I agree with you. what would be interesting is to take the recruits from top classes and rerank them later when you take out those who left the program for whatever reason. Some reasons are unseen. An example of that is R Johnson. He was a high ranking recruit. Take him alone out of that class and the rankings go down. Take Wolf out of that class and rankings go down, and so on.

While I feel we did a pretty good job recruiting in late 90's and early 2000's the rankings at the time don't have a lot to do with what we put on the field today. Three players can make a huge difference in ranking from say 20 to 60 on these recruiting sites. Take out a QB from Daytona hear. Take out a fb there, who makes it to JC in middle ga. That's enough to change the rankings a great deal.

Go Jackets!
 
FYI...

The Peach Bowl was our first game w/o the Fridge...

The main difference between 2000 and 2001 was lack of discipline. Where as in 2002, We struggled with consistency b/c of inexperience @ the QB and RB Positions. My personal opinion is that we struggled @ QB b/c Fridge was gone. He knew how to prepare QB's , and I gotta believe we missed that in 2001 & 2002...
 
I agree that the Peach Bowl was the 1st without the Fridge. I do wonder had the Fridge been here could he have coached UP Mr. Suggs. Mr Suggs may have been un coachable I sure don't know but it appeared to me that BOB did not coach him up but maybe down. I'm sure that at least our play calling would have been more inovative with the Fridge.
 
Even though I follow recruiting every year and feel better when we get the blue chip athlete, it is well known the recruiting rankings are very suspect.

The real measure is the results from the kids a few years down the road.

wink.gif
 
I'm still waiting for beeware to answer bamareck's question about the greatest staff on earth going 7-5 and the worst staff w/ less talent going 7-5. what say you, beeware?
 
GTechsta - you didn't read the terms of service man. Beeware isn't required to answer any questions.
 
Correct NCJ! He never will unless he thinks it will some how benefits him and his anti Tech message.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top