GTFLETCH
Dodd-Like
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2014
- Messages
- 2,595
The result was an interesting discussion from Tech fans on the state of the program. So let's weigh in:
Q. Does this mean athletics director Todd Stansbury is all in on Johnson?
A. At this point, yes. But it also has become customary in the business for coaches to carry at least four years on their contracts so they will be able to look at recruits and parents and tell them they are signed for the same length of time the recruits will be on campus. It’s a tougher recruiting sell if the coach is carrying less than four years.
Q. Are Tech fans on board with this decision?
A. The fan base is split, but that’s not unusual for any program after having two losing seasons in three years. If there's a wild guess, the Tech split appears to somewhere in the 65-35 range, with 65 percent in favor of the extension. Those who have been with the program for years seem to have a better grasp of reality vs. expectations. And Paul Johnson’s performance at Tech has given him a much longer rope than some of the other coaches who have led the program. Tech fans don’t enjoy losing seasons, but Johnson has given the program two ACC titles (I know, one was taken away), two Orange Bowl appearances and has beaten Georgia three times in Athens. In short, for every bad moment Johnson has had at Tech, he's provided two, sometimes three, good ones.
Q. You mention expectations. Why are they so low?
A. I don't know if low is the right word. It's more reality-based. Because of the academic workload and available curriculum, Nick Saban could take over the Tech program tomorrow, and in three years, still be an underdog against half the schedule. Opposing fans will tell you they don’t want to hear Tech play the “academic card,” but the central factor is this: The Tech program simply cannot recruit many of the athletes our competitors are signing. That is a known fact. There is a reason why Tech sometimes mirrors the football programs at Stanford, Duke, Virginia, Vanderbilt, etc.
Q. But wouldn’t Tech have a better chance recruiting kids who do qualify without the spread-option offense that Johnson runs?
A. Perhaps. Athletes who are considering Tech run into constant negative recruiting by other schools, and much of it is pointed toward Johnson’s offense and Tech’s academic workload. The kids are told they will not make it to the NFL after playing in Johnson’s system. But more than 20 Tech players have been drafted by NFL teams since Johnson arrived at Tech, and a host of others have been invited to NFL camps. Nine of the 22 came through Johnson’s offensive system – linemen, wide receivers and running backs. Oddly enough, most of the negative recruiting has been pointed at those positions.
Q. So you think that Johnson has a better chance to win at Tech than a young coach with a new system?
A. The tendency is to say yes, but after the Virginia-Duke debacles last season, you have to take a second look and wonder if ACC defenses are beginning to catch on. That said, you also have to wonder if Tech’s 3-stars can beat another team’s 5-stars by running the same offense that the other team is running. Would Army and Navy have the success they have had without the spread-option? Would Georgia Tech?
Q. Given the negative recruiting toward the offense and academics, what can Tech do to fix that?
A. The donor who gave $200,000 toward recruiting last week certainly didn't hurt the program. That gift jump-started a donor effort to bolster the overall recruiting effort. I think Stansbury gets it. He’s a former player who went through the athletic-academic gauntlet and knows what a degree from Tech can mean. He believes Tech needs to brand the Tech degree and the football program, rather than shy away from both. The key is identifying the qualified athletes earlier in the process and letting them know there is a perfect fit in Atlanta. The donor program will be a huge help. If you recall, Tech put much-needed resources toward recruiting a few years back, and the results are showing. Some really strong players signed with Tech in the 2017 and 2018 classes.
Q. So you think Johnson’s extension is the right move?
A. I think Georgia Tech has a future Hall of Fame coach on campus and he has earned the right to lead the program. Who are you going to get to replace him? The kids are graduating, and for the most part, have been great citizens. He has given Tech fans some enjoyable, big-time football seasons. There’s one other thing worth mentioning. Each year, TV announcers and opposing coaches go to great lengths to describe how much pressure Johnson’s offense puts on defenses throughout the ACC. They never mention how much pressure the Georgia Tech defense puts on the Georgia Tech offense. If new defensive coordinator Nate Woody can give Tech a top-notch defense, suddenly those 15-play, 9-minute drives and those one-play, 79-yard drives start looking pretty good. And the three-and-outs don’t kill you.
Link
http://thewhiteandgold.com/johnsons...mpts-state-of-the-program-debate-p565-250.htm
Q. Does this mean athletics director Todd Stansbury is all in on Johnson?
A. At this point, yes. But it also has become customary in the business for coaches to carry at least four years on their contracts so they will be able to look at recruits and parents and tell them they are signed for the same length of time the recruits will be on campus. It’s a tougher recruiting sell if the coach is carrying less than four years.
Q. Are Tech fans on board with this decision?
A. The fan base is split, but that’s not unusual for any program after having two losing seasons in three years. If there's a wild guess, the Tech split appears to somewhere in the 65-35 range, with 65 percent in favor of the extension. Those who have been with the program for years seem to have a better grasp of reality vs. expectations. And Paul Johnson’s performance at Tech has given him a much longer rope than some of the other coaches who have led the program. Tech fans don’t enjoy losing seasons, but Johnson has given the program two ACC titles (I know, one was taken away), two Orange Bowl appearances and has beaten Georgia three times in Athens. In short, for every bad moment Johnson has had at Tech, he's provided two, sometimes three, good ones.
Q. You mention expectations. Why are they so low?
A. I don't know if low is the right word. It's more reality-based. Because of the academic workload and available curriculum, Nick Saban could take over the Tech program tomorrow, and in three years, still be an underdog against half the schedule. Opposing fans will tell you they don’t want to hear Tech play the “academic card,” but the central factor is this: The Tech program simply cannot recruit many of the athletes our competitors are signing. That is a known fact. There is a reason why Tech sometimes mirrors the football programs at Stanford, Duke, Virginia, Vanderbilt, etc.
Q. But wouldn’t Tech have a better chance recruiting kids who do qualify without the spread-option offense that Johnson runs?
A. Perhaps. Athletes who are considering Tech run into constant negative recruiting by other schools, and much of it is pointed toward Johnson’s offense and Tech’s academic workload. The kids are told they will not make it to the NFL after playing in Johnson’s system. But more than 20 Tech players have been drafted by NFL teams since Johnson arrived at Tech, and a host of others have been invited to NFL camps. Nine of the 22 came through Johnson’s offensive system – linemen, wide receivers and running backs. Oddly enough, most of the negative recruiting has been pointed at those positions.
Q. So you think that Johnson has a better chance to win at Tech than a young coach with a new system?
A. The tendency is to say yes, but after the Virginia-Duke debacles last season, you have to take a second look and wonder if ACC defenses are beginning to catch on. That said, you also have to wonder if Tech’s 3-stars can beat another team’s 5-stars by running the same offense that the other team is running. Would Army and Navy have the success they have had without the spread-option? Would Georgia Tech?
Q. Given the negative recruiting toward the offense and academics, what can Tech do to fix that?
A. The donor who gave $200,000 toward recruiting last week certainly didn't hurt the program. That gift jump-started a donor effort to bolster the overall recruiting effort. I think Stansbury gets it. He’s a former player who went through the athletic-academic gauntlet and knows what a degree from Tech can mean. He believes Tech needs to brand the Tech degree and the football program, rather than shy away from both. The key is identifying the qualified athletes earlier in the process and letting them know there is a perfect fit in Atlanta. The donor program will be a huge help. If you recall, Tech put much-needed resources toward recruiting a few years back, and the results are showing. Some really strong players signed with Tech in the 2017 and 2018 classes.
Q. So you think Johnson’s extension is the right move?
A. I think Georgia Tech has a future Hall of Fame coach on campus and he has earned the right to lead the program. Who are you going to get to replace him? The kids are graduating, and for the most part, have been great citizens. He has given Tech fans some enjoyable, big-time football seasons. There’s one other thing worth mentioning. Each year, TV announcers and opposing coaches go to great lengths to describe how much pressure Johnson’s offense puts on defenses throughout the ACC. They never mention how much pressure the Georgia Tech defense puts on the Georgia Tech offense. If new defensive coordinator Nate Woody can give Tech a top-notch defense, suddenly those 15-play, 9-minute drives and those one-play, 79-yard drives start looking pretty good. And the three-and-outs don’t kill you.
Link
http://thewhiteandgold.com/johnsons...mpts-state-of-the-program-debate-p565-250.htm
