Mailbag 11/2

YankeeJacket: When does everyone agree that the triple option is the the best and only way for Georgia Tech to be a relevant football team again... to go into almost every game with a chance to win... to go into every season confident that you will finish in the top three places? When will sanity return?

Ben: Georgia Tech doesn’t need to return to the triple option to be relevant. While I think that was a fun era of Georgia Tech football, that isn’t the only way Tech can find success. Don’t let the last few years convince you that is the case. Georgia Tech isn’t bad because they ran a pro-style spread. They were bad because there was zero development happening among the players. That is why the position players at quarterback, in the secondary, in the offensive line, etc., NEVER GOT ANY BETTER. Georgia Tech has become stagnant, but a turnaround is possible. We just need a coach who actually knows how to develop players (like Jamey Chadwell or Bill Clark).

Chris: I don’t think it’s the best and only way, but the ideas behind it (be creative, scheme around deficiencies) are absolutely our ticket. I think a modernized version of it could be highly successful.

Logan: I think it’s a system that works for teams lacking skill position talent. It’s a offense that can even the field of your players are able to make good decisions. I think it’s a good offense, not the best. It works for us situationally, but if we start recruiting better you want to see a different system that makes the most of the talent.

Jake: It is an equalizer, but I think a coach that can scheme well and develop talent can see similar benefits on the field.

DressHerInWhiteAndGold: Halloween Candy Power Ranking please.

Ben: KitKats and Reeses are the best.

Chris: Tier 1 is anything chocolate and sour gummy worms. Tier 2 is everything else. Tier 100 is candy corn.

Logan: Fun Dip, Nerds, and Crunch bar are top tier for me. Pretty much everything else is in tier 2. Anything that is a fruit, contains coconut, or those giant balls of glued together popcorn go straight into the trash.

Jake:

1. 100 Grand
2. Reese’s
3. Milky Way
4. Pay Day
5. Milk Duds

Jellopacket98: Anybody as psyched about Zach Pyron as I am?! After being handicapped by horribly conservative play calling (or just horrible play calling) in the first half, he looked great in the 2nd half. One dropped pass in the end zone away from 3 straight TD drives. I’d ride him the rest of the way, healthy Sims or not.

Ben: I was very pleased by Pyron’s performance Saturday. But I was also really pleased with Sims’ first appearance. I’m not ready to make any kind of call yet. Further, I would love to see Pyron hang onto his redshirt for the next coach.

Chris: Yup, I am fully on board to name him The Guy moving forward.

Logan: I like him, not super psyched but I think he will be good and I can’t wait to see him in a full game.

Jake: I think he got more comfortable as the game went on, but it was also likely true that FSU was playing more substitutes at the end of the game. I think he definitely flashed some potential and played well as the playbook got more diverse. I’m intrigued.

jabsterjacket: How quickly can our Coach To Be Named Later fix our offense? What can we reasonably expect for 2023? 2024?

Ben: I think that depends on how you define “fix.” This year’s offense is BAD. It would be hard for Tech’s offense to not be better next year. It will ultimately depend on how well the new staff can develop the offensive line in an off season. It can be done, but I’m not ready to commit to a specific date without knowing who the coaching staff is.

Chris: If we hire a guy who’s focus is offense (which feels somewhat likely to me), then I think it’s perfectly reasonable for us to expect at least a serviceable offense (somewhere in the 40-60 range SP+ wise maybe). All the pieces are mostly there and I think it’s largely a matter of doing the right things with them.

Logan: pretty fast depending on what he focuses on.

Jake: I really feel like we have talent, but I definitely don’t think the scheme has been all that good. Honestly, coming in with a solid playbook, a play, and rigorous adoption of said new scheme might be enough for us to go from pretty not good to at least okay.

Frodo Swagginz: Where do y’all stand on Bryan Harsin? Would he be a good hire for Tech?

Ben: I have been critical of coaches who are primarily recruiters because I don’t think recruiting ability is the most important quality in a head coach. That being said, though, recruiting is still important. Let’s take a look at Harsin’s recruiting acumen.

Coach 2 (Mobile area): I gotta be careful because I don’t want to get hung out here, but Bryan Harsin hasn’t been to our school. He’s never been here. That’s been a surprise. They’ve got a lot of outstanding recruiters on their staff, though. I think that (Harsin) has put together a good staff. But I don’t know the head coach there.

Coach 6 (Central Alabama): (Offensive line coach) Will Friend does an excellent job. (Running backs coach) Carnell Williams is good. They’ve got a lot of outstanding young coaches. I think they’re going to do well, but I don’t know their head coach at all. Nick Saban comes to our school every year — every year he makes a trip to our school, whether he’s recruiting a guy or not.

Coach 1 (Birmingham): Honestly, they do a poor job in recruiting. I’ve never met the man (Harsin) in person. I do want to meet the guy because I think a lot of my kids could play at Auburn. But just as a rule, they just haven’t done a very good job recruiting our kids.

Boy, you’re going to get me in trouble. The biggest difference I guess between Alabama and Auburn is every time there’s a permissible time for Alabama to be out recruiting, they’re out recruiting. Every permissible time. And I don’t know that Auburn is doing that right now.

Those are some damning statements. Now, like I said, recruiting is not the most important quality in a head coach. However, a coach does need to take recruiting more seriously than this to be successful.

Further, Harsin’s success comes at Boise State, where he won less than 10 games just once (not including the Covid season). Impressive, sure, but all he did was sustain a Boise State team who has won less than 10 games three times from 2000 up to the Harsin era. Each of those seasons, Boise won 8 or 9 games. Boise has not had a losing record since 1997. There is no evidence that he can build a program, which is what Tech needs. Could he be successful? Maybe, but I’m not confident enough to give him a chance. There are several better candidates.

Chris: Ben has way more details here but yeah, I’m not into it. I’m not really sure what he brings to the table other than “has technically been a head coach for an SEC program”.

Logan: not diggin it.

Jake: Nope! Don’t like him as a Tech fit!

Jellopacket98: Ok, hear me out on this one...

UNC loses to Wake and NC St.

Duke loses to either Pitt or Wake.

GT beats Va Tech, Miami, and UNC.

GT wins the Coastal at 5-3 via tie breakers.

Does the defense’s case hold water?

Ben: I don’t see this happening at all, but I’ll gladly drink whatever it is you’re drinking!

Logan: all of that is theoretically possible. Honestly of the things on that list is winning all out remaining ACC games is the least likely to occur. We shall see.

Submitted via email: Hello,

Hope you’re doing good with whatever you are doing. I had a question this week, but then I forgot it... so now I’m thinking up one on the spot.

Thinking... Thinking... Ok I think I have one. If you were given the opportunity to coach a college program would you take it? I was listening to a few podcasts with previous pro football players who are now sportscasters saying they would never coach. It takes too much time and involves to many risk factors and is just too difficult. A great example of a job where you can do everything right and sometimes still fail and where you can do everything wrong and sometimes get away with it. I guess my question is what you guys think. I know many of you were on the staff at one point at GT and have you own opinions on the matter. Maybe it would be better to ask what do you think you would have to give up to be a coach and would it be worth it.

Long and rambling question, I like it. Have a nice rest of your week.

Fluffy Cat

Ben: Absolutely not. Personally, I don’t think I have the temperament to be a football coach. Further, I don’t know much about scheme or player development. I just write my opinions about football on the internet. If I was going to do anything in sports, I would have stayed in journalism and gone into broadcasting or something.

Chris: I have absolutely no clue how to coach football so my answer is no. Putting the lack of experience aside, it’s also a stressful as hell job. It feels like it’s hard to be comfortably successful - you’re either changing schools every 4 years on your own or getting fired.

Logan: I think the key thing is you gotta love the job. My current job I can afford not be at my best everyday and still go home and spend time with the family without worrying about things falling apart at work. Coaching is not like that. You gotta be on all the time and will likely end up spending late hours away from your family preparing for imaginary game plans an opponent might not even use. You have to love coaching to be a college football coach. I love the sport, but I don’t think I could be a coach even if I had the skills. I value my free time and family too much.

Jake: Would I still be making the generational wealth to inevitably have my “just make the plays” plan be entirely too reductive to see success? If so, I might consider it. If not, probably not worth the embarrassment when others who are far more knowledgable than I inevitably turn my team into Cumberland 222.0.