Is 6-16 acceptable?

GT18YJjr. said:
No I did not. I have seen multiple Tech fans use this Ross argument as proof that any Tech fans who dare question or criticize Collins performance are assholes and any result in the first 2-3 years is acceptable. This is some ‘well we had a similar situation before and it worked out fine’ bullshit. Never said anything about not having patience with Collins either, though it’s concerning that the player fundamentals and play calling issues from last season haven’t been improved.
Click to expand...
If a lot of people think you’re an asshole, maybe there’s a good reason.
 
It doesn't matter if it is "acceptable" or not, it is what we have right now. And my guess is we will have similar results for at least two or three more years. The talent is getting somewhat better, but we are starting to lose some of those players already. Losing takes it toll. And frankly, I've seen very little so far to indicate that the staff knows how to properly utilize the talent we've worked so hard to collect.
 
Techbert said:
Your nonsensical reply is still nonsensical.

I think the only reason you were not demanding Ross's head is if you were too young or not born yet.
Click to expand...
The reason no one was calling for Ross's head was the prevailing opinion was he was the best Tech could get at the time. Except for a couple of bright spots, the decade of the 80's was a time of abysmal everything for football.
 
Yukonwreck said:
The reason no one was calling for Ross's head was the prevailing opinion was he was the best Tech could get at the time. Except for a couple of bright spots, the decade of the 80's was a time of abysmal everything for football.
Click to expand...
There were a lot of people who were calling for Ross's head. More than want Geoff's head by a long shot.

I'm really glad Homer and Bobby ignored them.
 
Yes. Acceptable.

I decided 2 years ago not to care about wins/losses. I've focused on all the good stuff: recruiting, culture change, social media content, Sims, Gibbs, other players, etc so I've enjoyed the last 2 years.

That starts changing in Fall 2021. See you miserable SOBs then. ;-) I'll treat it more like a year 1. Year 1 with a decent/good roster but still a year 1. So I want us to be competitive in most games; but 1 or 2 bad games against the Clemson type team is acceptable. I want us to beat the teams we should like Cuse, Citadel, etc. If we lose late against equally matched teams then I'll be OK.

I would like to not have any unit that is near last in the nation: like OL in 2019 and FG/PAT kicking in 2020.

I want to see the defense make improvements and be middle of the pack.
 
gtrower said:
247sports.com

2020 College ACC Football Team Talent Composite

In order to create the most comprehensive Team Recruiting Ranking without any notion of bias, 247Sports Team Recruiting Ranking is solely based on the 247Sports Composite Rating.
247sports.com 247sports.com

Looks like NCSU slipped in front is us since I checked last. Who in gods name do you think from the ACC is in front of us?

This seems to be a common theme in this fanbase. Thinking that we’re still building from scratch. We’re not. The roster is already better than 2/3 of the conference on paper. We’ll be solidly 5th in 2021. If we’re not winning games it’s not because the roster isn’t good enough.
Click to expand...

I’m hesitant to put much stock into a measurement that gives us credit for a kid who died.

which games this year have you thought any position group on our team (outside of RB or P) was more talented than our oppositions?
 
2014: 54th, 12th in ACC
2015: 44th, 8th in ACC
2016: 60th, 11th in ACC
2017: 48th, 9th in ACC
2018: 44th, 8th in ACC
2019: 50th, 9th in ACC

6-16 from 2019-2020
1607723640485.jpeg
 
knoxjacket said:
I’m hesitant to put much stock into a measurement that gives us credit for a kid who died.

which games this year have you thought any position group on our team (outside of RB or P) was more talented than our oppositions?
Click to expand...

I mean that’s kind of my entire point though. On paper we’re more talented. On the field it doesn’t really look like it. That’s coaching.

And cool. Take Gowdy’s numbers out and we’re still sitting in the same spot.
 
gtchief said:
2014: 54th, 12th in ACC
2015: 44th, 8th in ACC
2016: 60th, 11th in ACC
2017: 48th, 9th in ACC
2018: 44th, 8th in ACC
2019: 50th, 9th in ACC

6-16 from 2019-2020
1607723640485.jpeg
Click to expand...

Are those recruiting or roster rankings. Either idk why you left out 2020. And if it’s the former you’re disregarding transfers.
 
gtrower said:
Are those recruiting or roster rankings. Either idk why you left out 2020. And if it’s the former you’re disregarding transfers.
Click to expand...
It's 247 recruiting class rankings, so I didn't "leave off" or "disregard" anything. That's you trying to add data points that aren't in its calculations. The numbers for what they are speak for themselves and give a rough estimation of what the bulk of our non-Freshman roster looked like for the 2019 and 2020 seasons.

Feel free to fine tune and recalculate as you see fit.
 
gtchief said:
It's 247 recruiting class rankings, so I didn't "leave off" or "disregard" anything. That's you trying to add data points that aren't in its calculations. The numbers for what they are speak for themselves and give a rough estimation of what the bulk of our non-Freshman roster looked like for the 2019 and 2020 seasons.

Feel free to fine tune and recalculate as you see fit.
Click to expand...

...sure, that reasoning checks out.

2014: 0 players on current roster
2015: 1 player on current roster
2016: 2 players on current roster
2020: 23 players on current roster

And yeah, you disregard transfers when looking at only recruiting. 3 of our top 4 most talented players (out of HS) are transfers. Soon to be 5 out of 6.
 
gtrower said:
...sure, that reasoning checks out.

2014: 0 players on current roster
2015: 1 player on current roster
2016: 2 players on current roster
2020: 23 players on current roster

And yeah, you disregard transfers when looking at only recruiting. 3 of our top 4 most talented players (out of HS) are transfers. Soon to be 5 out of 6.
Click to expand...
Cool. Now do the breakdowns for the 2019 season, which is why all the way back to 2014 was included. Good job.

It doesn't really matter where you want to start to explain what our situation looked like. 50ish recruiting rankings, bottom third of a weak ACC
 
gtchief said:
Cool. Now do the breakdowns for the 2019 season, which is why all the way back to 2014 was included. Good job.

It doesn't really matter where you want to start to explain what our situation looked like. 50ish recruiting rankings, bottom third of a weak ACC
Click to expand...

Why the hell would we include 3 years worth of classes with a total of three players on the roster to explain 2020? Why would we ignore roster ratings that include transfer when we have them at our disposal. Because they don’t support your narrative?

We are the 6th most talented team in the conference on paper. No amount of years you decide to go back in recruiting rankings changes that. 7th if you toss in ND. And we went 3-6. That’s coaching.

There are other circumstances in play. Scheme change and COVID (who everybody had to deal with). The roster next year is gonna be something like 90% CGC guys. And it’s gonna be #5 in the conference. Excuses are gone next year. If we can’t at least go .500 in conference with that roster relative to our competition then something is wrong on the staff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top