Stansbury will own this mess.

Yukonwreck

Yukonwreck

Dodd-Like
Joined
Sep 27, 2007
Messages
6,599
I like Geoff Collins, but if this doesn't get better, and get better fast, Stansbury will be the guy that kept CPJ too long, and hired the coach that has surpassed CBL in incompetence. Recruiting is important, and recruits and their handlers can understand 73-7.​
 
Good grief... you either buy that a significant rebuild was needed or you don’t.

If you do, then you need to mentally prepare for some bad outcomes during the process.

If you don’t, then I can’t really help you.... you aren’t living in reality and you’re probably going to be disappointed.
 
a"Bad outcome" to me is losing 15 points over the line not 39! This is historically BAD.
 
GTLiebs said:
And yet either way it only counts as one loss. If we double our wins from last year, is anyone really gonna care anymore what score Clemson beat us by?
Click to expand...

Yes, of course. That is the way of things. People who think a change wasn't needed will point out everything until CGC wins the ACC or more, and even then it will always be "Well I liked CPJ better". You see it with a lot of subjects, notably politics.

@JoeCakeEater put it pretty well.

IIWII
 
Yukonwreck said:
I like Geoff Collins, but if this doesn't get better, and get better fast, Stansbury will be the guy that kept CPJ too long, and hired the coach that has surpassed CBL in incompetence. Recruiting is important, and recruits and their handlers can understand 73-7.​
Click to expand...

That time of the month, eh? I hope your husband is being extra nice to you.
 
AlaGold said:
a"Bad outcome" to me is losing 15 points over the line not 39! This is historically BAD.
Click to expand...
The roster was historically depleted when CGC took over. When your best players are 18 years old that speaks volumes about your talent level. That being said, I think CGC has a learning curve also. But most young new head coaches do.
 
We shouldn't lose to anyone by 66. I agree with that. But not every game is going to be better than the last, and Clemson was executing on a level that we weren't going to hang within five TDs of them regardless how well we played. Minus the turnovers, they were playing about as sharp as you will see a team, and doing so with more talented and experienced athletes.

I think our guys got deflated and things snowballed in that second quarter. Would've been nice to make the score look more respectable in the 2nd half, but it wouldn't have changed the gulf between the two teams, which was evident to anyone watching.

None of this is letting the coaches off the hook. Our coordinators have not been impressive, and if CGC is going to function in more of a CEO role, it's incumbent upon him to find quality replacements there sooner rather than later. The defense, in particular, has been very disappointing, even when factoring in the injuries.

After FSU, I hoped we were ahead of the curve on the rebuild, but I've returned to my initial expectation of about 4-5 wins this year. 6 would be great.
 
Tampa Jacket said:
The roster was historically depleted when CGC took over. When your best players are 18 years old that speaks volumes about your talent level. That being said, I think CGC has a learning curve also. But most young new head coaches do.
Click to expand...

I'll save the rebuttal for the cupboard being bare s--- for later.
But Collins isn't a young coach. And he had been a FBS head coach for two years prior to coming back to Tech.
Temple is a job where you get your feet.
Tech and other P5 programs are where you better know what you're doing from the jump.
He's getting paid $3M plus a year. For that kind of money, he doesn't get a learning curve.

The replay from Saturday's debacle is on ESPNU right now. Leaving guys wide mother f---ing open, especially Rogers, isn't a talent issue.
 
Tampa Jacket said:
The roster was historically depleted when CGC took over. When your best players are 18 years old that speaks volumes about your talent level. That being said, I think CGC has a learning curve also. But most young new head coaches do.
Click to expand...
I don't think this has sunken in yet for some people. 18-19 year olds are beating out the 22-24 year olds with that many more years of coaching, conditioning, and experience. That should be screaming something to the oblivious
 
swampsting said:
I'll save the rebuttal for the cupboard being bare s--- for later.
But Collins isn't a young coach. And he had been a FBS head coach for two years prior to coming back to Tech.
Temple is a job where you get your feet.
Tech and other P5 programs are where you better know what you're doing from the jump.
He's getting paid $3M plus a year. For that kind of money, he doesn't get a learning curve.

The replay from Saturday's debacle is on ESPNU right now. Leaving guys wide mother f---ing open, especially Rogers, isn't a talent issue.
Click to expand...

I really dislike the whole money argument though. Say we went the route of knowing there was going to be a rough couple years in the transition and hired someone for half that. Or instead say we paid Collins less because he was going to have a learning curve. The view of the program would then be that we aren't willing to put in the resources to be good, that the coach is going to be on thin ice the whole time cause it won't cost much to fire him. In the current times of college football, if you want to be able to play like the big boy teams your coach needs a big boy salary, almost regardless of how good you think he really is. I'm not saying it really make logical sense or is how things should be, but I think that's just how things work in college football right now.

Edit: To highlight this point, Tennessee coach Pruitt had no head coach experience before being hired and got a salary of $3.8M. They also get high ranked recruiting classes every year despite not having accomplished anything substantial in over a decade. If you think college football is ruled by logic and substance, you haven't been paying attention.
 
Last edited:
gtchief said:
I don't think this has sunken in yet for some people. 18-19 year olds are beating out the 22-24 year olds with that many more years of coaching, conditioning, and experience. That should be screaming something to the oblivious
Click to expand...

Are they beating them out, or are we playing for the future? Seems like people want to play both sides of that argument simultaneously.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top