You can’t get there from here.

Somehow, I don’t think ignoring the triple option offense as a factor in how to fix Georgia Tech’s abysmal in state recruiting (“… since 2013. Over that time, Tech’s home state has been responsible for 8.5% of all four- and five-star recruits in the entire country. That’s a total of 141 players over a five-year period, more than the bottom 30 states combined. That should be an incredibly exciting statistic for Georgia Tech supporters, but it instead stands as a strong indictment on the recruiting done by head coach Paul Johnson and his staff. Of those 141 blue chip players, Georgia Tech has pulled in exactly one…”) is going to help fix things.

Advertisements

21 Comments

Filed under Georgia Tech Football, Recruiting

21 responses to “You can’t get there from here.

  1. Bright Idea

    There’s more things offensive at Tech than the style of play. Johnson’s personality can’t help recruiting. He has a take it or leave it mindset when it comes to selling Tech and figures he’ll win with scheme.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. That statistic is damning about the 2 losses we’ve had to them. It shouldn’t matter one bit about the scheme. We should be able to outathlete them anytime we’re on the field with them. Those two losses were inexcusable, period.

    Like

    • Dawgy

      Yes we should never lose to Tech, yet it happens more than is acceptable

      Like

    • Sherlock

      Well there have been 3 losses to tech since Johnson became the HC there. We have also had 4 DC at Georgia during that time. All 3 losses came during the first game by that DC against tech. 2008 by Martinez, 2014 by Pruitt, and 2016 by Mel Tucker. We won the 2010 game on Grantham’s first attempt, but his defense still gave up 34 points. Luckily, Bobo put up 42.

      The recruiting failures at tech are not a damning statistic about anything. The scheme is really difficult to defend. DCs typically need some experience against it in order to defend it well. One of the real keys is that you have to get the scout team to do a good job imitating the offense. That is not an easy task. I expect Smart and Tucker will do better against them next year.

      Liked by 2 people

      • That’s not an excuse for blowing a 13 point lead this year, a 16 point lead in 2008, or the end game screw-up of 2014. I stand by what I said. We should beat them with our quality of athletes every year. Paul Johnson should be 0 for his career against Georgia,

        Liked by 1 person

        • Sherlock

          The fact that everyone struggles against the offense the first time they face Johnson is not an excuse to struggle against the offense? You just can’t argue with logic like that. Feels != Reals

          Like

          • We had only given up 14 points with 7 1/2 minutes to go in November and had the ball at midfield. We were not struggling against their offense. I hate to say it, but the team and the coaches let it get away.

            The defense was doing the job and then collapsed in what I fear is Mel Tucker’s calling card.

            Tell me what’s not factual about what I posted. I hope Kirby and Tucker learned a lesson in November.

            Like

            • Sherlock

              Your original premise was this:

              It shouldn’t matter one bit about the scheme. We should be able to outathlete them anytime we’re on the field with them.

              You show me any logic, even shitty logic, that reaches that conclusion via deduction. Every word of you original post is simply conjecture. They blew the lead with 7:30 left. Therefore you FEEL like they should have been able to win the game.

              Like

              • I accept your premise about the scheme. It’s tough to defend because it’s difficult to simulate the execution in practice. That’s whether it’s your 1st or 10th time defending it.

                What I don’t accept is that the scheme compensates for talent. The bottom line in all 3 losses to tech under Fish Fry is that they were team losses. Turnovers, failure to play assignments and coaching led to all 3. It was never because tech’s talent was better than ours or their scheme was superior. My opinion based on the facts was that in every loss we did more to lose the game than tech did to win it (2014 was the only possible exception – even then we fumbled twice inside the 5 to prevent being up 21-3 in the first half). My opinion is that the quality of athletes we line up versus them should outweigh the scheme.

                If the scheme were so superior, why doesn’t everyone run it? Why didn’t we hire Paul Johnson away from tech in 2016 because he’s the mastermind of the scheme that ran through Bama like “s*** through a tin horn”? We’ll see what happens in November. Once again, we’ll have superior talent. Can Kirby, Chaney and Tucker learn from their 2016 mistakes? We’ll find out.

                Like

                • Sherlock

                  This was a much more reasonable post. Getting back to my original premise, the difficulty of coaching against the scheme is mostly related to the first time you have to do it. The novelty is the difficulty. There is a reason that the 3 losses were all in the fist year of the DC coaching against the scheme. For every move you make, Johnson has a counter. After a couple of games, you learn the counters and get a feel for the timing of the changes. You end up being like Todd Grantham in that 2 game stretch against GSU and GTU in 2012. Don’t expect Tucker and Smart to continue to struggle against Fishfry. If they do, they will get fired.

                  Why doesn’t everyone run it? You can’t get NFL caliber recruits to play in an updated version of the wishbone, and the novelty wears off. If everyone ran the flexbone, the I-formation or the spread would be novel and no one would be used to defending it.

                  Like

  3. We have lost to gtu 3 times this century and each of those losses were complete gifts. Coaching cost us each of them IMO. Not throwing rocks as coaching costs each team losses along the way but we seem to have more of those than our fair share.

    Like

  4. Nashville West

    Let’s see, an antique offense with virtually no application to the next level, a defensive line that has to practice against cut blocks and db’s who get no practice against a legit passing game; why wouldn’t any 3 or 4 star athlete want that ???

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Thatguy

    “Georgia has become a rich poaching ground for major football factories, and neither Georgia Tech nor UGA has been successful at protecting blue chip recruits within the state.”

    WOOOOAH THERE, Techie. Don’t lump me into the backseat of your broke-ass failwagon.

    Like

    • The Dawg abides

      Yep. We have 42 blue chips from in-state just on the current roster, compared to their one in Johnson’s entire tenure. They probably haven’t had 42 blue chips total in the last 30 years. I guess math can be tricky even for a techie.

      Like

  6. DoubleDawg1318

    I can’t believe the author never mentioned scheme. He also seems to overestimate the amount of “good things” Tech has going for it. If I were Tech, I would find somebody to run the spread option rather than the triple option. They could get some good athletes while also having a scheme that is an equalizer. I think that would be good for Tech’s win total but I also ironically would love it from a Georgia perspective because we wouldn’t have to fool with the risky triple option every year.

    Like

  7. Spike

    “..Tribute to Math..” halftime show? Only at tech..LOL..

    Like

  8. …plus you have to take calculus!*

    at Atlanta Metro College

    Like