Patenaude to be OC

beej67 said:
Let's get back to the thread topic, which I know is against Stingtalk Rules for page 5 of any thread, but I want to posit something.

Our new coach's comments during halftime of the bowl game indicated that he literally wants to come here and run a blend of pro set stuff and standard CFB stuff. He also said his focus was going to be to "prepare players for the NFL." Then he goes and basically transplants his staff from Temple, with a few GT alumni thrown in to appease the boosters. That sounds an awful lot to me like Bobinski basically just let the big money boosters drive the bus on this thing.

I can think of no program in the country where that turns out well, except maybe LSU. It certainly didn't work out for Tennessee post-Fulmer.

Now I'll give him a chance just like I'd give any other coach a chance, but "we want to prepare our student athletes for the NFL" is an almost exact copy of the Paul Hewitt coaching philosophy. Paul Hewitt had one really good year when he managed to land a lot of big recruits at the same time who could bail out his garbage coaching, and outside of that was horrible.

Add to that who we recruit against. The three closest P5 schools to us are UGA, Clemson, and Bama, who are also the #1, #2, and #3 football programs in the entire country for the last two years running. Widen the radius only slightly and you've got Auburn and FSU. Adopting a system which is basically a football factory system, in a market saturated with football factories who are and will always be better football factories than us, doesn't seem smart. It seems a hell of a lot to me like we're just adopting a new path purely because we got sick of the old path, without thinking about which path we're jumping on.

Again, I'll give him a chance just like I'd give anyone else a chance, but this entire experiment has every objective symptom of being doomed before it begins. This is my official "I told you so" post.
Click to expand...

I'm just reading this thread and I wanted to quote this post because it makes more sense than anything else posted here recently.
 
GTCrew4b said:
No your point was that GT would’ve been destroyed by the bad version of Clemson which is untrue. We were hanging in the game while Bryant played.

Your point is that the talent gap between GT and Clemson has grown so great that they would dismantle us even when they weren’t dismantling other teams.
Click to expand...

Ok I am fine with that. If Dabo or Smart had wanted to win 51-7 or 70-7 this year they could have no problem at all. So to your point about what my point was, I agree. Lol
 
sthorfinnr said:
If our whole business model offensively and defensively wasn't built around running the clock and shortening the game, yes Clemson or UGAg not just could have, they definitely WOULD have hung 51 on us. Clemson was only 2 points away.
Click to expand...

If Clemson had got a safety and hung 51 on us, the score would have been 51-21 not 51-7; which just goes to show how stupid this "what if" argument about had CPJ gotten beaten 77-7 four times is. It is like arguing what people's opinion of Curry, Ross, O'leary, and PJ would be if they had never beaten UGA like Gailey never did.
 
johnson vs gailey
6JW8OXm.gif
 
aeromech said:
If Clemson had got a safety and hung 51 on us, the score would have been 51-21 not 51-7; which just goes to show how stupid this "what if" argument about had CPJ gotten beaten 77-7 four times is. It is like arguing what people's opinion of Curry, Ross, O'leary, and PJ would be if they had never beaten UGA like Gailey never did.
Click to expand...
You realize about half your posts are full of "what ifs'.
 
MtownJacket said:
I'm just reading this thread and I wanted to quote this post because it makes more sense than anything else posted here recently.
Click to expand...

Beej also said we were gonna have a recession 2 years ago. He likes to sound like he's the smartest guy in the room by being contradictory.
 
aeromech said:
Temple allegedly had a top 10 pass defense going into the bowl; but Duke shredded it, hung it out to dry, and then rolled it into doobies and smoked it for 440 yards. Hopefully would have been different if Collins had been there. Do we know who the DC will be?
Click to expand...

Not that it matters, and I didn't watch it, but they were able to pick daniel Jones off twice.
 
I have gone back and looked at how this board reacted to the past 3 hires to see if there is any difference between them. It seems we were pumped about oleary, glum about gailey, and 50/50 with cpj. I'm seeing a negative Nancy approach this time around, where nobody is really sure what to think. Including me. People had very sure opinions on previous hires, this time it's a different feel.
 
Guys, are we still going to be debating the merits of Chan vs. Paul when the entering freshman class is too young to remember any Chan coached teams? We're getting dangerously close to that already.
 
Akinji07 said:
Beej also said we were gonna have a recession 2 years ago. He likes to sound like he's the smartest guy in the room by being contradictory.
Click to expand...

Well I don't give props to every post Beej has ever made, just that one. By making a very plain OC hire, Collins is betting the farm on outrecruiting UGA and Clemson (or at least coming close). He talks a good game, but realistically that isn't going to happen. We might do better than Johnson in that area, but if we take two steps backwards in game planning and play calling then we won't be better overall.

My optimistic outlook at this point is that by making noticeable gains in recruiting and defense we might be able to be a bit more consistent than we were under Johnson. If we can be more consistent and occasionally have the 10+ win seasons like what Johnson was able to accomplish then we will look back on this era as a success. But that is my optimistic outlook. My pessimistic outlook is Chan Gailey 2.0
 
MtownJacket said:
Well I don't give props to every post Beej has ever made, just that one. By making a very plain OC hire, Collins is betting the farm on outrecruiting UGA and Clemson (or at least coming close). He talks a good game, but realistically that isn't going to happen. We might do better than Johnson in that area, but if we take two steps backwards in game planning and play calling then we won't be better overall.

My optimistic outlook at this point is that by making noticeable gains in recruiting and defense we might be able to be a bit more consistent than we were under Johnson. If we can be more consistent and occasionally have the 10+ win seasons like what Johnson was able to accomplish then we will look back on this era as a success. But that is my optimistic outlook. My pessimistic outlook is Chan Gailey 2.0
Click to expand...
Who would have been an exciting OC hire?
 
BainbridgeJacket said:
Guys, are we still going to be debating the merits of Chan vs. Paul when the entering freshman class is too young to remember any Chan coached teams? We're getting dangerously close to that already.
Click to expand...
Imagine it’s 1987 and somewhere there’s a tech fan out there saying “yeah I liked what curry did, just thought pepper Rogers had better recruits.” Or something.
 
savbandjacket said:
Who would have been an exciting OC hire?
Click to expand...

Someone from the Urban Meyer coaching tree or Mike Leach coaching tree?

Or more generally, something better than "beat the guy in front of you every time or we punt." Misdirection, uniqueness, numbers advantages, mismatches, etc. I believe that having something unique for other teams to prepare for can be the difference between elite and mediocre for GT. I'm not attached to the option, but it accomplished these goals with the disadvantage that it was bad for recruiting. There are offenses out there that have similar advantages and are still appealing to recruits (see Mike Leach).

I'm pessimistic that we can beat UGA at their own game, but I'll give coach Collins every opportunity to try. Maybe he really is that good at recruiting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top