Tony Elliott: Tech Never Called

Ed Sawyer said:
And ... now y'all know why some of us are pissed with how this went down. The fix was in from about October. It was always going to be Collins. There was no job search. The Whisenhunt trial balloon was just to get everybody worked up over an obviously bad hire, so that when they announced it was Collins it would be seen as a "good" choice rather than the hire of a retread NFL coach.
Click to expand...
Why does that piss you off? If that is true, then Stansbury played his hand incredibly well. Think about our coaching search in contrast with Tennessee or even Bobinski's handling of the basketball search.
 
ScionOfSouthland said:
Who is pissed with the way this went down?
Click to expand...

You saw that I quoted someone who said "now you see why some of us are pissed with how this went down," right? I didn't make it up. I actually quoted the post where someone said it.
 
johncu said:
Why does that piss you off? If that is true, then Stansbury played his hand incredibly well. Think about our coaching search in contrast with Tennessee or even Bobinski's handling of the basketball search.
Click to expand...
Because we don't know what interest Tech had from other coaches out there because we didn't do a competitive search. At the time Paul announced his "retirement," Tech was the top job on the market. Instead of seeing what that could give us, we gave the job to a handpicked candidate that couldn't even win big in the AAC. No one was going to hire Collins before us; he was on no other team's wishlist. It wouldn't have hurt to run a full search process.
 
Ed Sawyer said:
Because we don't know what interest Tech had from other coaches out there because we didn't do a competitive search. At the time Paul announced his "retirement," Tech was the top job on the market. Instead of seeing what that could give us, we gave the job to a handpicked candidate that couldn't even win big in the AAC. No one was going to hire Collins before us; he was on no other team's wishlist. It wouldn't have hurt to run a full search process.
Click to expand...

And Elliot hasn't won big anywhere, since he hasn't been a head coach anywhere. He's excelled as an assistant. Well, so has Collins, and people with no affiliation with Tech at all have largely praised the hire.

Have you stopped to consider that maybe TStan actually did his homework before offering the job to someone? That maybe other candidates, even if not interviewed, actually were considered, with info collected on them?
 
Ed Sawyer said:
Because we don't know what interest Tech had from other coaches out there because we didn't do a competitive search. At the time Paul announced his "retirement," Tech was the top job on the market. Instead of seeing what that could give us, we gave the job to a handpicked candidate that couldn't even win big in the AAC. No one was going to hire Collins before us; he was on no other team's wishlist. It wouldn't have hurt to run a full search process.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I agree that we didn't do a competitive search even if you are correct that TStan made up his mind who was tops on his list way back in October. The way this looks to me is that the process that TStan went through identified Geoff Collins as the guy he wanted to lead this program. Who knows what other coaches were on TStan's list that he put together on paper or in his mind. I can't absolutely guarantee it but I'm pretty confident that TStan must have talked with others whose opinions he valued and vetted his list and who he felt was best for GT. I would also propose that running the search process as a cram session (instead of an earlier process when the pressure was not on) could have hurt. It's entirely possible that running that process, and the time it would have taken, could have hurt our recruiting. Understand I'm not taking what you say lightly nor am I throwing out your points. I taking you seriously and addressing them. I'm not trying to change your opinion. You are welcome to it. But there are other, valid and rational points that perhaps TStan's method (whatever it was) was more well thought out and that he was more prepared than any of the other ADs out there with his wish list and the guy at the top accepted the job.
 
Remember too that Dan Wolken reported that TStan interviewed Mike Norvell and Seth Littrell while on his trip to NY. It very well may be that he was set on Collins and nobody else really changed his mind. But he does appear to have talked to other candidates.
 
JOJATK said:
..... that he did his own due diligence and research a long time prior to having to make a decision. I feel like that's a far better way to do your job than to wait until the last minute and then take a short period of time to evaluate candidates for a multi-million dollar decision.....
Click to expand...

All ADs proactively maintain a list of candidates for all their sports, in prep for losing a guy somewhere. It’s become a normal part of the job. Bama has a list, Clemson has a list, Duke BB has a list etc...
 
  • Like
Reactions: eg1
Dear Todd
I wrote to you, but you still ain't calling!
I left my cell, my pager and my home phone at the bottom
I sent two letters back in Autumn
You must not have got them
It probably was a problem at the post office or something
And sometimes I scribble addresses too sloppy when I jot 'em
 
I can report based on sources knowledgeable about the situation that Tech never called me either.
 
Ed Sawyer said:
Because we don't know what interest Tech had from other coaches out there because we didn't do a competitive search. At the time Paul announced his "retirement," Tech was the top job on the market. Instead of seeing what that could give us, we gave the job to a handpicked candidate that couldn't even win big in the AAC. No one was going to hire Collins before us; he was on no other team's wishlist. It wouldn't have hurt to run a full search process.
Click to expand...
You have no idea how this went down. TStan did a great job of keeping this low key and quiet. You only think you know because you don’t like the hire and are clearly a conspiracy theory guy.
 
gtfan088 said:
And Elliot hasn't won big anywhere, since he hasn't been a head coach anywhere. He's excelled as an assistant. Well, so has Collins, and people with no affiliation with Tech at all have largely praised the hire.

Have you stopped to consider that maybe TStan actually did his homework before offering the job to someone? That maybe other candidates, even if not interviewed, actually were considered, with info collected on them?
Click to expand...
Every athletic director worth anything has got a plan for replacing the coach, whether that coach is Urban Meyer, Mark Richt, or Hugh Freeze. And not just a short list, a full fledged plan. Look what happened at Tennessee--and they fired their coach, so they should have been better prepared. You never know when the coach is going to retire unexpectedly, get sick, or maybe go "full Petrino" on a Harley.
 
Ed Sawyer said:
And ... now y'all know why some of us are pissed with how this went down. The fix was in from about October. It was always going to be Collins. There was no job search. The Whisenhunt trial balloon was just to get everybody worked up over an obviously bad hire, so that when they announced it was Collins it would be seen as a "good" choice rather than the hire of a retread NFL coach.
Click to expand...

You have no idea "how this went down". They didn't interview Collins until NYC, so how could it all be "fixed" prior to that? You also don't know who we talked to. Stansbury probably had a big list of people that he reduced by talking to all of his contacts in the business between October and December. He probably narrowed it down to 2-3 people based on these discussions, and he probably included "do they have interest" as part of his process.

Why is anyone upset that we had a plan in place and executed it? Schools that don't have a plan in place and wallow around get screwed in the coaching search process. There's no requirement that we have some sort of transparent process so all of our fanbase can feel that their preferred choice (without any actual experience) was given a chance. Why would we do that? What's the point of interviewing Tony Elliott as window dressing - to appease user Ed Sawyer?

If you go back and look at successful hires of assistant coaches with no HC experience, those who are most successful have 20+ years of coaching experience. Elliott has 12. It's very possible that he didn't make an initial screen for our criteria. And I don't think him being an engineer makes him any more knowledgeable about what it takes to be successful at GT. Clemson has engineers.
 
TechPhi97 said:
You have no idea "how this went down". They didn't interview Collins until NYC, so how could it all be "fixed" prior to that? You also don't know who we talked to. Stansbury probably had a big list of people that he reduced by talking to all of his contacts in the business between October and December. He probably narrowed it down to 2-3 people based on these discussions, and he probably included "do they have interest" as part of his process.

Why is anyone upset that we had a plan in place and executed it? Schools that don't have a plan in place and wallow around get screwed in the coaching search process. There's no requirement that we have some sort of transparent process so all of our fanbase can feel that their preferred choice (without any actual experience) was given a chance. Why would we do that? What's the point of interviewing Tony Elliott as window dressing - to appease user Ed Sawyer?

If you go back and look at successful hires of assistant coaches with no HC experience, those who are most successful have 20+ years of coaching experience. Elliott has 12. It's very possible that he didn't make an initial screen for our criteria. And I don't think him being an engineer makes him any more knowledgeable about what it takes to be successful at GT. Clemson has engineers.
Click to expand...
One way of evaluating Tony Elliot and his 12 years of experience is that for four years he has been an assistant on a premier, top five program staff, with 8 or ten years experience, but has NOT BEEN HIRED, or even in the conversation for any big league openings. May be coincidence, bad timing, but it hasn't happened.
 
Elliot not contacted by GT?

Good. We got the right man, so why contact?

Elliot will either fail hard in his first job, succeed wildly, or be somewhere in the middle.

We don't want a coach to fail hard. We shouldn't want a middlin' coach. And if Elliot succeeds wildly he will absolutely use GT as a stepping stone and be gone. So we don't want any of that.

CGC's roots in Atlanta and GT run deep. His grandmother freakin' idolized Bobby Cremins. Cremins was a relentless recruiter that loved his kids. (He once ate newspaper print just to show his players he loved them. No, I can't explain it either, but it was what it was.) You don't think CGC does not want to be the football Bobby Cremins? It is like Cremins was CGC's template, but with better technology.

I think there are probably two schools CGC would move to upwards of Georgia Tech, and if you show him enough love and positive energy he won't even do that. I think Elliot would have 20 schools on his upward mobility list.
 
Techbert said:
And if Elliot succeeds wildly he will absolutely use GT as a stepping stone and be gone. So we don't want any of that.
Click to expand...
I'm very happy with our hire. I will argue all day its a better hire on paper than Elliot. But hiring a coach who is wildly successful and moves on? I would want that just fine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top