Marco and Michigan State

B said:
I don't think he knows that. Most of these guys just go back to being coordinators. So if the GT job doesn't work out he will be a DC at a P5 school making mid 6 figures. I offer up Ted Roof as just one of many examples. Most of us here would probably consider a $500,000 + gig to be a "big paying" gig.
Click to expand...
Big as in HC gig. He's not going to be getting any multi-million dollar guaranteed contracts ever again. Most of these guys that go back to being coordinators had a lot better record wherever they were than Collins has. Roof had a ööööty record at Duke, sure, but Duke was ööööty before he got there and after. Tech was not, and Collins has sunk us to the lowest levels the program has ever seen.
 
gtchief said:
Two years ago would be absurd from the offense's perspective. We had true freshman QB1 and RB1, abbreviated practice offseason due to covid for those high schoolers, weird scheduling in general, etc.

As far as the defense goes we should have cleaned house after 2020 at the latest, I agree.
Click to expand...

When the announcer for the NCSt game was diagnosing our plays pre-snap in year 2 is when we should have made a change on offense.
 
B said:
I don't think he knows that. Most of these guys just go back to being coordinators. So if the GT job doesn't work out he will be a DC at a P5 school making mid 6 figures. I offer up Ted Roof as just one of many examples. Most of us here would probably consider a $500,000 + gig to be a "big paying" gig.
Click to expand...
True but it’s only a quarter of what he’s making now. Depending on his lifestyle, I know I couldn’t live on a quarter of what I make now.
 
WracerX said:
When the announcer for the NCSt game was diagnosing our plays pre-snap in year 2 is when we should have made a change on offense.
Click to expand...
Vanilla calls for high schoolers and probably 3rd string OL or lower isn’t unreasonable in my opinion. The situation was frustrating for sure. The call out for lack of effort by the receivers jogging around was more damning.
 
Last edited:
gtchief said:
Vanilla calls for high schoolers and probably 3rd string OL or lower isn’t unreasonable in my opinion. The situation was frustrating for sure. The call out for lack of effort by the receivers jogging around was more damning.
Click to expand...

At the very end of year 2, the D team announcers at espn should have a tough time diagnosing your plays. The fact that it carried on through year 3 confirms it wasn’t a personnel issue. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me about 30 times, shame on me.
 
WracerX said:
At the very end of year 2, the D team announcers at espn should have a tough time diagnosing your plays.
Click to expand...
I mean, it is what it is. Your assumption is that play calling was the issue. I'm simply providing the possibility that given the irregularities of the year coupled with inexperience in both age and reps, maybe a very limited set of plays was available. I'm not saying you're wrong.

WracerX said:
The fact that it carried on through year 3 confirms it wasn’t a personnel issue. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me about 30 times, shame on me.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you agree that in hindsight doing it after year two would have been nice, but it took until year three to confirm it was not an issue with the possibilities I discussed. I'm not seeing the disagreement here.
 
WracerX said:
When the announcer for the NCSt game was diagnosing our plays pre-snap in year 2 is when we should have made a change on offense.
Click to expand...
I remember we beat a team like that one season. I think Chan was HC. One of our LB's said post game their QB was giving their plays away pre snap.
 
gtchief said:
I mean, it is what it is. Your assumption is that play calling was the issue. I'm simply providing the possibility that given the irregularities of the year coupled with inexperience in both age and reps, maybe a very limited set of plays was available. I'm not saying you're wrong.


Sounds like you agree that in hindsight doing it after year two would have been nice, but it took until year three to confirm it was not an issue with the possibilities I discussed. I'm not seeing the disagreement here.
Click to expand...

I’m not disagreeing, just discussing.

I don’t think it was the playcalling that was an issue. It was disguising the playcall. It could be personnel, formation, signals, or a handful of other issues that were tipping our hand.

Keeping CDP was a risk for year 3. TStan and CGC gambled and got a resounding ‘meh’. TStan is gambling again this year. We’ll see if he hits it big this time.
 
Gobees said:
Stupid ass, CGC, refused to offer/accept a pay cut to keep his assistants.
He knows he's a dead man walking and just biding his time until the buyout.
Sucks for us and the remaining players who are still committed to Ma Tech.
Click to expand...
$3.5MM a year for coach RahRah. He should be kissing Matt Rhule's ass every morning. Everything he got was Rhule's coattails.
 
gtchief said:
I mean, it is what it is. Your assumption is that play calling was the issue. I'm simply providing the possibility that given the irregularities of the year coupled with inexperience in both age and reps, maybe a very limited set of plays was available. I'm not saying you're wrong.


Sounds like you agree that in hindsight doing it after year two would have been nice, but it took until year three to confirm it was not an issue with the possibilities I discussed. I'm not seeing the disagreement here.
Click to expand...
Every team had the same UNUSUAL covid issues, schedules, etc. Most teams were not 3-9
 
JCTNJacket said:
Every team had the same UNUSUAL covid issues, schedules, etc. Most teams were not 3-9
Click to expand...
If only there weren’t other circumstances discussed that makes singling out one of them irrelevant
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top