Who would do better at GT than Paul Johnson?

MtownJacket said:
Ha, no being an idiot will get your comment pulled. Stingtalk is about as free as it gets.
Click to expand...

Only an idiot would believe your comment. Anyone, including idiots, can see that GT football is a shambles and not going anywhere with the current situation. We need to be honest first, to start improving. StingTalk needs to let posts alone. There is a lot of stuff on here that should be deleted, but not honest comments like my Fire Peterson thread.
 
alan71 said:
Only an idiot would believe your comment. Anyone, including idiots, can see that GT football is a shambles and not going anywhere with the current situation. We need to be honest first, to start improving. StingTalk needs to let posts alone. There is a lot of stuff on here that should be deleted, but not honest comments like my Fire Peterson thread.
Click to expand...

Don't hijack this thread when your retarded thread gets nuked.
 
alan71 said:
Only an idiot would believe your comment. Anyone, including idiots, can see that GT football is a shambles and not going anywhere with the current situation. We need to be honest first, to start improving. StingTalk needs to let posts alone. There is a lot of stuff on here that should be deleted, but not honest comments like my **** Peterson thread.
Click to expand...
Since your post count is less than 1000 (as is mine), you risk getting banned for using the "f" word (which rhymes with "tire"), as per Beestorm's warning.
 
alan71 said:
Only an idiot would believe your comment. Anyone, including idiots, can see that GT football is a shambles and not going anywhere with the current situation. We need to be honest first, to start improving. StingTalk needs to let posts alone. There is a lot of stuff on here that should be deleted, but not honest comments like my Fire Peterson thread.
Click to expand...

Never been banned and I don't think CPJ is the answer. Hell, I've called the moderator a trannie loving freak. You think the Hill is the problem and I think that coaching is the main problem. We're recruiting in the top 40 to 50 and players simply aren't getting better. That's a coaching problem. We're not going to consistently be in the top 20 in recruiting no matter what and we have to rely on coaching and development. We will be behind most of the SEC, Clemson, FSU, Miami, etc. That has nothing to do with restrictions. We suck because we don't make the most of our advantages like intelligent athletes who could learn more than four plays.
 
GT1992 said:
Never been banned and I don't think CPJ is the answer. Hell, I've called the moderator a trannie loving freak. You think the Hill is the problem and I think that coaching is the main problem. We're recruiting in the top 40 to 50 and players simply aren't getting better. That's a coaching problem. We're not going to consistently be in the top 20 in recruiting no matter what and we have to rely on coaching and development. We will be behind most of the SEC, Clemson, FSU, Miami, etc. That has nothing to do with restrictions. We suck because we don't make the most of our advantages like intelligent athletes who could learn more than four plays.
Click to expand...

" we have to rely on coaching and development"

Alabama doesn't coach and develop? Georgia, Florida, Clemson....(all good coaches here)... How does GT coach and develop better than everyone else who are all doing the same thing/ I don't believe very many blue chip HS athletes want to be an Engineer or a Manager; that cuts down our recruiting base and is just one reason we recruit poorly. If we could find a top coach, chances are he would not stay at GT but take a promotion to a University that has more recruiting freedom.
 
alan71 said:
" we have to rely on coaching and development"

Alabama doesn't coach and develop? Georgia, Florida, Clemson....(all good coaches here)... How does GT coach and develop better than everyone else who are all doing the same thing/ I don't believe very many blue chip HS athletes want to be an Engineer or a Manager; that cuts down our recruiting base and is just one reason we recruit poorly. If we could find a top coach, chances are he would not stay at GT but take a promotion to a University that has more recruiting freedom.
Click to expand...
Would love to see a logical rebuttal... Doubt we will...
 
awbuzz said:
Would love to see a logical rebuttal... Doubt we will...
Click to expand...

Truth is in the numbers. Coaching and development can be easily measured by comparing recruiting ranking to results on the field. Alternately, NFL drafts per year with results on the field. Either works.

GT is routinely in the bottom quarter of ACC teams in recruiting ranking, and only averages 2 NFL draftees per year, yet has been either in the ACCCG or within one game of the ACCCG every year PJ has been here.
 
beej67 said:
Truth is in the numbers. Coaching and development can be easily measured by comparing recruiting ranking to results on the field. Alternately, NFL drafts per year with results on the field. Either works.



GT is routinely in the bottom quarter of ACC teams in recruiting ranking, and only averages 2 NFL draftees per year, yet has been either in the ACCCG or within one game of the ACCCG every year PJ has been here.
Click to expand...


I recall seeing a website several years ago that attempted to do just that, measure overperforming versus underperforming coaches. But it only covered the top 20-40 IIRC. I am almost certain it was linked by someone here.

Some of the overperformers were obvious, TCU, Boise State,etc.

I think they compared recruiting ranks to actual ranks four years out?

Found it, or something similar.

http://www.footballstudyhall.com/2013/8/19/4635732/college-football-apparent-talent-coaching-effects
 
Why is the rebuttal to the coach being the problem always the hill being the problem? We had a heck of a class in 2007, why should we assume that type of class is irreplacable?

Good recruiting classes are not irreplacable at Tech, in fact they should expected. Sure, sometimes we recruit smaller classes which affects our overall pool of recruits, but largely we do not recruit effectively. Football players that come to Tech do not have to be geniuses, they just have to be able to pass college prep classes and get an 1100 on the SAT. (cue the argument about the major selection here)

The coaching staff is the problem, first and foremost. The hill is changing things to better adapt (more gender parity, more "football" classes). Is that on the request of the coaches? Who knows.

It used to be said that we are doing more with less at GT, but I don't believe that anymore. I just don't think we are shooting for "more" and I define that here as better talent that more effectively gives us advantages in our league. I believe it is a science this coaching staff has not figured out.

Example: South Carolina (#33), Baylor (#34), Michigan State (#35), Mizzou (#36), Nebraska (#37) have all done what we couldn't do this year with relative rankings. USC always battles it out in the East, Baylor, MSU, and Mizzou all won their divisions and/or conferences, and Nebraska beat Georgia. All of these teams are only slightly ahead of us on the rankings (#44)

I can discount USC and Nebraska, sure - they are typically in the teens. But Baylor, Mizzou, MSU (and others)? These are teams that are typically "in our wheelhouse" when it comes to recruiting. Their success is one we cannot replicate because of their coaches. Briles, Pinkel, and D'Antonio have built programs out of pretty much nothing. We've got something, and we attract the same level of talent, but we can't build a program. That falls on the coach.
 
Limited options of majors is a red herring. Doesn't every decent recruit only care about getting to the NFL? Why would they care what they major in, so long as they have capable tutors and/or complicit administrators that make sure they stay eligible?

And therein lies the rub...
 
beej67 said:
Truth is in the numbers. Coaching and development can be easily measured by comparing recruiting ranking to results on the field. Alternately, NFL drafts per year with results on the field. Either works.

GT is routinely in the bottom quarter of ACC teams in recruiting ranking, and only averages 2 NFL draftees per year, yet has been either in the ACCCG or within one game of the ACCCG every year PJ has been here.
Click to expand...

Lol. No. Not even close to being true.
 
2013: 5-3, coastal winner was 6-2
2012: 5-3, coastal winner was 5-3, played in the ACCCG
2011: 5-3, coastal winner was 7-1
2010: 4-4, coastal winner was 8-0
2009: 7-1, won outright
2008: 5-3, coastal winner was 5-3

So the only year that was outside the 1 game threshold was 2010. In 2011, the 1 game would have been a win over VT, which would have made both us and them 6-2 with the next best team at 5-3 and us with the tiebreaker. I'd put that in the realm of 'close' to being true. :lol:
 
In fact, I think if we're looking at just conference games, CPJ has the 2nd best record in the coastal during his tenure here.
 
ThisIsAtlanta said:
In fact, I think if we're looking at just conference games, CPJ has the 2nd best record in the coastal during his tenure here.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but he can't beat the "big 4" (though no one else in the conference seems capable of consistently beating Duke/UNC/UVA).
 
Miami and VT are the real shame out of the big 4. We should have and could have beaten them more than we actually have. Clemson and UGAy are bigger talent mismatches and I don't think anybody you put at HC is going to beat them an appreciable percentage of the time the way recruiting is going. You can lay that at the feet of CPJ if you choose. I'm not here to defend the guy, just offer some commentary and check a few facts.
 
Coupla things.

1. We are going to keep CPJ for a year or two, barring emergency issues. Count on it.

2. Looking at boxscores to judge coaches is a horrible way to select your next coach. Looking at boxscores gave us Bill Lewis. (One hot season where he rode the coattails of a talented OC.) You have to interview them and look at their organizational skills, motivational skills, and whole body of work. Most importantly, their vision. I think David Bailiff would be great here, but I might change my mind in an interview.

3. Listing coaches a year before or a year after you actually search is pretty darn silly. The list of finalists will be completely different each year.

4. There are a lot of good football coaches in the world. Many more than most of us believe. Some need a chance. Some become victims or beneficiaries of circumstance. Some look great at one place but that does not translate. Others seem mired where they are but would shine here.

5. Don't be a boxscore scout. It embarasses you, and by extention us.
 
It might be more productive to simply make a list of what you want in a coach.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top