Disagree That You Have To Be A Football Factory...

Re: Wilmoo, a quick clarification.

Just curious as to where you would move RB? The only other position he might be able to play is DB and I don't know if he's ever played back there. For better or worse, Reggie has always been a QB, both here and at the HS level. He's limited in what he can do, but that's the only position he's played for quite a while. If we were to move him I don't think he'd see the field.
 
Re: Wilmoo, a quick clarification.

Well NC, I can't get into that because I am not a football coach.
Even though I have been watching football all of my life, I admit that my "expertise" is based more on effect than it is cause. However, for what it's worth I believe my football knowledge is certainly as deep as most! I do recognize the fact that even in this small group on ST, there are some pretty sharp tactical football brains. Up against these guys, I just try to learn something.

All that said, I think he has both tangible and intangible assets that we could certainly use as a situational threat on offense.
I had written a long and boring list of reasons that I think RB could be a great fit on offense, but like I said, I have no business breaking down something like that.

Curious as to why you or anyone else thinks that he is qb or bust on offense.
 
Re: Wilmoo, a quick clarification.

I just think it's his mentality. He's always been a QB far as I can tell. He's not strong or durable enough to play RB. Maybe he could play WR but he's pretty short for that position these days. He's short for QB as well of course, but he's got that take charge mentality that's made for the QB position. To me Reggie's problem is that he's a better QB when he's in the pocket, but he won't stay there. Part of that is his line, but even when things start to break down he's quick to run IMO. You can roll him out, but he still needs to set before the throws...he's simply not accurate on the run.

I just think he would be more of a fit at DB or punt returner if he wasn't a QB. I haven't coached football, although my brother does, but that doesn't mean I know anything more than you either. Just my opinion.
 
Re: Wilmoo, a quick clarification.

Well, I hope it turns out that he has a chance to compete for and win another position.
I just think it's time for a change at the qb position. We have a lot of talent away from the los that needs to be utilized.
 
Re: Wilmoo, a quick clarification.

on another thread we speculated on this and I think he would make a good receiver and punt returner. Probably a slot receiver who would catch the ball underneath and make his yards running the ball. He's a tough nut and would make an impact.
 
Re: Who were our QBs in those years we beat

IM79 - again it is coaching more than players.

Reggie Ball has been in the program for 3 years. His footwork is awful, his mechanics are poor and he is in an offensive system that doesn't fool anyone.

It is coaching that his mechanics and footwork haven't improved by now. It is coaching that they haven't recruited someone more talented in 4 recruiting classes. And obviously it is coaching that our offense is so stagnant.

If you are a subscriber to Scout.com, you should go and read what an NFL scout said about the UT program since Cutcliff left. The guy could just as easily have been talking about us since Ralph left. Bad footwork, mechanics and game planning killed the UT offense. And all of that is coaching.
 
I still think the players have a lot

to do with it.

Maryland's QB has been pretty bad the past 2 years the games I've seen.

Has Raplh forgot how to coach QBs or does the material at hand have a whole lot to do with it?
 
Re: Who were our QBs in those years we beat

How do you decide when it's the player and when it's the coach? Are you saying the coaches don't know what they're doing, or that they can't get the player to do it right?

Also wondering how you decided Reggie's mechanics are bad. No flame, I want to know what you're seeing him do. Personally I think he's got happy feet in the pocket and little touch on his passes. I don't know how much a coach can affect either except by repetition and drill. I would assume we do that, so if a player doesn't improve on what he's being coached does that mean he can't do it or the coaching isn't good? Like I said somewhere else in here, some players end up all-pro and some don't stay in the league at the NFL level. Is that coaching too?
 
Re: I still think the players have a lot

Of course the play of the players determine wins and losses, but it's the head coach that bears the ultimate responsibility for those wins and losses.

It's his job to win football games regardless who plays in the 22 offensive and defensive positions, plus special teams positions.

It's also the head coach's annual responsibility to attract qualified student athletes onto his team. It is with this collection of players that the head coach will either win or lose games.
In order to improve his chances of winning all of the games, the head coach usually teaches and trains his collection of student/athletes in scheduled practice and conditioning sessions.
A typical head coach feels that the combination of highly skilled athletes along with proper teaching, nutrition and conditioning will generally yield a successful football team.
The coach understands that everything football related is his sole responsibility. That is why he is the highest paid employee. The responsibilities are so vast, that the head coach will hire subordinate coaches. These assistants are assigned responsibilities from the head man, but once again, these delegated responsibilities are ultimately within the scope of the head coach's job description.

I am sorry for this ridiculously silly filibuster! My point is that Chan Gailey is responsible for everything football related at Ga. Tech. (No, not buildings and maintenance)
His job is to win every game played. To what degree he accomplishes this job is up to him. That includes players, coaches, nutritionists, teaching, game planning, motivation.....everything. He is the top dog. The buck stops with him. If something isn't working, he has to fix it or find somebody working for him that can.

Using the quarterback as an example, I don't care if he throws off his back foot or has perfect mechanics as long as he is winning every game.
When there are inexplicable losses every year because of similar reasons, the blame goes past the player and lands at the doorstep of the head man.
That's the way it should be.
 
Re: I still think the players have a lot

How does the head coach fix this?

DB prospect #1 likes us, Ala and UNC. Ala and UNC offer. We don't. Why? academics.

DB prospect #2 likes us and VT. He holds off committing to VT, but we haven't offered, so he won't hold off much longer. Why no offer? academics

DB prospect #2 likes us, Ohio State, Clemson and others. Offers from everyone on his list except GT. Why? academics.

Three examples from THIS YEAR alone for DB's ONLY.

It's not a level playing field. It's not a "football factory" issue; we can't even offer the same kids as other good schools in our conference.

What if GT only got 4 points for every TD scored instead of 6 like the other team. Would you hold the coach to the same "buck stops here" standard?

Why would any coach want to risk his career at GT? Before people go calling for Gailey's head, they had better answer that question. Steve Spurrier ain't leaving the Cocks to come to GT.

An amazing percentage of people who post on this board are under the delusion that it is all about coaching, and that talent has nothing to do with success on the field (I am not saying that you are one of those). Coaching can only take you so far, and the handful of proven coaches who might be able to squeeze out another win per year on average are not coming to GT.
 
Re: I still think the players have a lot

<<It's not a level playing field. It's not a "football factory" issue; we can't even offer the same kids as other good schools in our conference.

What if GT only got 4 points for every TD scored instead of 6 like the other team. Would you hold the coach to the same "buck stops here" standard? >>

You're right & wrong. The recruiting coordinators didn't identify academic problems with these particualr recruits until late in the process. If these issues had been identified earlier in the process that then efforts would have been spent recruiting others. That is a failure of the recruiting staff as much as the recruits.

Are you telling me that out of the hundreds of recruits available to sign a letter of intent each year that we can't identify and sell 20 on GT and qualify them academcially?

I agree there are the rare exceptions like leonard Pope that we would have taken in a millisecond to play TE at GT but the guy is functionally illiterate and therfore could never go to Tech. We will lose those all day...
 
Re: I still think the players have a lot

I agree with you overall...the HC has total responsibility for all wins and losses. I also agree that if we can't get the players we need to win, it's his fault or if we don't use them correctly. My question though was specific to posters who claim Reggie has bad mechanics and why they think that. I think Reggie is limited in what he can do, mechanics aren't his issue. It was more of a techinical question I guess.

I would disagree with you somewhat though. In the past when we lost to Duke, or last year to UNC I consider those inexplicable losses. But I don't think we had any this year. Disappointing, yes. But State going into the year was ranked higher than us. They arguably have better personnel than us. We should have won that game because we are a better team, but it's not inexplicable that we could lose to them. Same with UVA. Small point maybe, but we're close to getting where we want now than we were last year IMO. I don't see any reason why next year shouldn't see continued improvement as a program. If not, it's Chan's fault. But if it is, it's to his credit.
 
Re: I still think the players have a lot

Let's say I go to a one acre pond. The pond has 300 fish in it.

You go to a one acre pond. Your pond has 100 fish in it.

Using the same bait, who will catch the most fish in an hour? Your theory says that you will catch as many fish as me. Logic says otherwise, unless you are incredibly lucky.


People who believe that we can be an elite program with our academic restrictions are believing in the triumph of hope over experience. That is nice ideal, but more times than not, that philosophy leads to bad decision making.

We might get lucky occaisonally, but you cannot point to any school in the country that has near the restrictions that GT has that has been as successful as GT for the past 4 years. Yet, people would throw it all out on a crap shoot that we can do better, when there is no empircal or theoretical evidence to suggest that we would do better.

I am glad that you people aren't spending my money.
 
Re: I still think the players have a lot

jacketup,

I think you know I am speaking in theory. And, while winning every game is the goal, that is the lofty place that is strived for.
After each loss I am madder than hell, and think of the things we should have done to win. However, when things settle I certainly realize that we are running uphill when it comes to recruiting the kids that only care about football in college.
However,I am still idealistic enough to think that we are an extremely attractive destination for great student athletes around the country that want the best of both worlds.

I selfishly hope guys like D Bilbo make it in the NFL just so that he can be a spokesman for the feeling of pride and accomplishment of being a Tech Man and playing big time college football.
I will bet that if he makes it, no one will have to wonder what he will say during player introductions on MNF!

At present, I am very happy with the progress of Chan Gailey, but like any bitching fan that thinks we are close I want to see improvement from him.
 
Re: I still think the players have a lot

ncjacket: Let me give you a personal example that shows why I mostly disagree with you.

I was a GT starter, in my sport, in the mid to late 1980's. Our team was consistently ranked 15-25 with our six starters. UGAg was national champion one of those years. One of their starters was more functionally illiterate than Leonard Pope. The other wasn't much better. If GT had had these two players, we probably would have been National champs. However, if we had two of their other four we probably would have been national champs also. These guys were smart enough to make it through GT (and I always thought one should have gone to GT if our coaches had done a better job of recruiting). I knew all of these people personally.

The moral is, it is harder for GT but certainly not impossible. It requires much more recruiting savy and effort than it does at UGAg (who will stoop to any level to win).

Remember that we did it with Ross...

Secondly, if coaching is not the answer then how come Tenuta is able to produce the defense successes that he is able to when Ted Roof was allowing 32 points per game with better players. Coaching has everything to do with teams sports.
 
Re: I still think the players have a lot

I'm not sure we disagree. It is harder to recruit at Tech but not impossible. As you know from experience though there are kids who can do the work at Tech but simply don't want to. They would rather party at ugag than study at Tech. That's just the way it is. But there are enough good athletes out there if we can attract them.

I'm not saying coaching isn't very important, just that it isn't the answer in every case. As I mentioned, there are players in every sport who don't make it. Are all of them the victims of poor coaching? Or, in Goose's jr year, he was basically even with Crenshaw and Hall going into the year and the FSU game. He then became the starter. They all had the same QB coach. Why did he excel and the other two leave the program? Coaching is extremely important but it isn't everything.
 
Re: I still think the players have a lot

I think this conversation, in its later stages can be footnoted back to the lengthy debates being held here about future leadership of the athletic program.

I agree solidly that a desire to be a Yellow Jacket from a young age is the key to building what the optimists here want. We need kids understanding that in order to be at Tech, they need to do their school work in high school.
I know that sounds like a stretch, but what else is the answer?

I will emphasize what I have already said here weeks ago: If not Bill Curry, then someone just like Bill Curry to go grass roots, and get kids saying "I want to be a Yellow Jacket, what do I need to do?".

I know that sounds Beaver Cleaver, but that is what we would love to have, imo.

By the way, I am tired of our academics being seen as a draw back. If sold properly with the same level of winning now, we can attract the kids wherever they are to rebuild the elite football program to go along with their elite education.

We are closer than many people think.
 
Re: I still think the players have a lot

sorry ncjacket. I meant jacketup. One more thing that I think we would all agree on: obviously there comes a point were you can't coach up a player because he just isn't talented enough.

I just don't think the current situation at GT (academic restrictions and all) push us below that point. It just makes it more difficult at GT.

By the way, I am all for some less quantitative courses at GT that athletes could benefit from. But I am not for Sports Studies, Parks & Rec, Consumer Ec, Individual Studies (I think VT has that major and what the heck is that?). We owe it to our SA's to give them a marketable degree upon graduation...
 
Re: I still think the players have a lot

Just a "By the Way": In the clemmons win tonight (good job tiggers) they highlighted a Buff after an interception. His Major? Ethnic Studies! How do you build a usable 4 year degree program dealing with that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top