Mandate For Change: Georgia Tech
The Catalyst: Imagine being a Georgia Tech fan is like being on amusement park ride. From the time Bobby Ross was hired to take over for Bill Curry in 1987, this is your track:

After alternating stretches of exhilirating highs and terror-stricken troughs, you might think a bit of, shall we say, regularity would be exactly what a jittery Wreck wanted. Maybe it was, when Gailey was hired. Turns out no one has much fun on the flat stretch as the car slows to a stop, especially when it keeps losing to Georgia.
You have to say this for Gailey: he held the line. George O’Leary –– who debuted with the 1-10 plunge in 1994, by the way –– averaged about 8.5 wins over his last five years, higher than any other five-year stretch here since the mid-fifties; at the end of Gailey’s six-year run, he’d averaged about 7.5 wins, which was the highest number (other than O’Leary’s) since another run of seven-win seasons in the early sixties.
It’s not that good, either. Not only did Gailey Equilibrium instictively seek seven wins at all costs, like turtles returning to the beaches of their birth to lay eggs; the Jackets finished right at 4-4 in ACC games four years out of six, going as far as losing to Duke by four touchdowns (2003) to get there. Gailey’s recruiting classes were consistently among the worst in the ACC, surpassed in unremarkability only by Duke and Wake Forest. He landed Calvin Johnson but couldn’t get him anyone who could supplant Reggie Ball. It didn’t help that Jim Grobe’s broken through with his collection of mediocre talent two years in a row.
The question –– and this is a very valid question, given the school’s historical norm over the past half-century, which is very Chan-esque –– is whether any other available coaches could have done appreciably better. The only guy with a better record over a comparable period of time is O’Leary. If the ongoing Gailey regime didn’t bode well for the future, precedent doesn’t, either.
The New Guy: Technically, Paul Johnson is a mystery because of the skepticism following his flexbone system, although it’s clear from Tech’s position breakdowns in the spring –– complete with slotbacks and "B-Backs" (fullbacks, with an emphasis on running rather than blocking) –– that the Jackets will be committed to running the triple option from the start.
This is completely out of step with anything anyone outside of the physically overmatched service academies are doing, but Johnson’s track record speaks for itself: he won the Southern Conference championship every year at Georgia Southern, coached in three straight I-AA champonship games and won the last two, then took bottomed-out Navy to five straight bowl games. In eleven years, he only has one losing record (Navy was 2-10 in 2002, his first year); even at the academy, after the rocky start, he won at least eight games every season.

Dywer: won’t be getting outside much.
- - -
There’s nothing wrong with skepticism about the offense’s efficacy against better defenses, though, since Johnson’s Navy teams rarely had much success against teams on a higher level than, say, the Mountain West Conference. Number of Midshipmen victories since 2002 over teams that finished with a winning record: five, against Air Force (2003, 2007), New Mexico (2004), East Carolina (2006) and Colorado State (2005), if you’re willing count the 6-6 Rams. In six years under Johnson, the Middies’ best performance was probably against Boston College in the ‘06 Car Care Bowl, which they lost only because a late pitch in the rain squirted free and set up the winning field goal for BC. None of Navy’s actual BCS conference victims came anywhere near a winning record.
Immediate Impact or Slow Burn?: The preseason consensus has not been kind to the Jackets, which probably has at least as much to do with the reticence of the prognostoscenti to buy into Johnson’s funky scheme as it does the very green set of players preparing to run it –– on both sides, the Jackets lose almost twice as many starters (14) as they return (8), and about 75 percent of last year’s meager total offense.
In terms of the type of player he inherits, there are none of the square pegs Rich Rodriguez has to endure at Michigan: cement-shoed Taylor Bennett transferred after a dreadfully disappointing season as the top quarterback, leaving much more option-friendly Josh Nesbitt as the point man (he, Auburn transfer Calvin Booker or one of a couple of true freshmen expected to be in the mix in the fall are likely to handle most of the carries, if the distribution at Navy is any indication) and Jonathan Dwyer as the between-the-tackles pacemaker at fullback –– he didn’t start a game last year, but nobody who watched Dwyer back up Tashard Choice as a true freshman has any question about his full-time bona fides. Given that Nesbitt and Booker are actual quarterbacks, Johnson may let them throw more often than he did the rag-armed vagabonds who required extreme surprise and wide open targets to complete passes at Navy. Tech has the athletes to run the option and expand the playbook right now.
But Navy’s example is not a good one: it took the Midshipmen a year in the desert to pick up the intricacies that carried them along the next five years. It still seems unlikely that an athletic, disciplined defense like Virginia Tech’s will have much greater trouble with the flexbone than it will with any other –– the Jackets still have to block and tackle, after all, and that kind of leap is only going to come with improved recruiting. After the last six years, this may not be what Wreck partisans want to hear, but Gailey’s Johnson's first priority has to be just holding the line.
0 recs |
19 comments
Comments
Two things, both nitpicky:
1. By “Gailey’s first priority” (in the final sentence), you mean Johnson’s, right?
2. O’Leary was at the helm only for the last three games of the 1-10 1994 debacle; former East Carolina coach Bill Lewis was running the show for the rest.
Admittedly, I am biased, but I’m not entirely convinced Johnson is ready to hit big-league pitching. The last time a Division I-A school in the Peach State hired a prickly North Carolinian who had been successful as a head coach at a smaller program off the beaten path and had won a Division I-AA national championship, the result was Jim Donnan. Of course, Georgia Tech probably would take 40-19 right about now, but hiring Navy’s coach on Pearl Harbor Day (Johnson was introduced as Georgia Tech’s coach on December 7) likely is not a harbinger of good things to come.
Gailey’s problem wasn’t that he performed poorly, it was that his tenure coincided with a period during which his opposition was upgrading almost across the board. During roughly the same period, Georgia hired Mark Richt, the A.C.C. added three new programs poached from the Big East, and great leaps forward (albeit oftentimes temporary ones) were made by the likes of Maryland, N.C. State, and Wake Forest. Georgia Tech didn’t regress so much as it stood still at a time when many of the teams on the Yellow Jackets’ annual slate were progressing. Chan was a victim of others’ success, not his own failure.
Go 'Dawgs!
by T Kyle King on Jun 26, 2008 10:11 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Couldn’t one say the same thing about Jim Donnan? He managed to coach in the SEC East when Florida and Tennessee both won national titles (and were top 5 programs) while he was attempting to get the Georgia program out of the mediocrity of the Goff years.
Richt takes over in 2001 and Tennessee begins a bit of a decline (not terrible, just not 1996-2001 good) while Florida suffers through the Zook years.
Not counting his first year, Donnan went 22-10 in the conference during his tenure. Not counting Richt’s first year, he has gone 35-13. If you extrapolate Donnan’s tenure out to compare it to Richt’s, his record would be 33-15. It’s only a 2 game difference over 6 years, although I didn’t include any of Richt’s SEC championship game appearances.
by DoubleB on Jun 26, 2008 11:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Johnson is not comparable to Donnan.
Yes, on the surface they’re both from NC, they both won 1AA titles and they are both prickly. But there are a lot of reasons why it’s a bad comparison.
First, in both personality and philosophy Donnan is very different from Johnson.
Donnan is a more conventional type of football coach. He’s essentially an old school football conformist who is a big believer in winning by doing the same things everyone else is doing, but recruiting better horses than the opposition. Donnan loves the stereotypes and cliches of football, which is one reason he’s such a successful analyst. He obviously loved the hype around recruiting (“two words: Charles Grant.”)
Johnson is entirely different. He is ardently non-conformist and has based his entire coaching career on doing things differently than everyone else does them. Johnson does not share Donnan’s worship of NFL caliber talent, and believes that coaching and X’s and O’s play a relatively greater role in football success. Johnson doesn’t care at all about recruiting hype, which is not to say he doesn’t care about recruiting. Another thing this allows him to do is recruit in the niches between the players that everyone else wants.
Another difference between them is that Donnan had no experience in GA, while Johnson has been a HC at GA’s third program and already has a huge cult following in the state, especially among HS coaches, many of whom played for him. Donnan himself was not that good with GA HS coaches, from what I hear.
Speaking of experience, Johnson has a lot more experience than Donnan. Donnan had about 5-6 years as a HC, and Johnson has 11. Donnan also had not built a program from scratch, like Johnson has. Marshall was already a 1AA power before Donnan took over there.
For all of these reasons, Donnan’s approach was much better for UGA than it would be for GT. UGA can admit more kids and is always going to have first dibs on many GA kids, so it isn’t as big a win for UGA to hire a coach with GA HS connections.
It’s true that GT fans would be very happy with the equivalent of Donnan’s record the next five years. .680, one top-10 finish and 3 other top-25 finishes, and 2-3 vs. UGA, VT, and Clemson would slightly better O’Leary from 97-01 to become the best five-year span since the 1950’s.
The thing is, GT ain’t UGA. It’s a hell of a lot harder to win at GT, and Donnan couldn’t go 40-19 at GT.
It’s an entirely different animal. 40-19 at UGA gets you fired. 40-19 at GT gets you Alabama, Notre Dame or the NFL.
Donnan probably couldn’t do better than .500 at GT. Honestly I’m not sure that Richt could go 40-19 here either. What Richt and Donnan have in common is that neither has ever coached without elite talent for the level they were coaching.
The reverse might be true for Johnson at UGA, a school that can always get top-10 talent. It might be that Johnson’s offense would hurt the overall talent pool at UGA. That’s less likely to be the case at GT, where we usually do not win recruiting battles with UGA and other major southern programs and can’t even take some of the kids they recruit. Being able to recruit in the niches between those programs is a major win for GT.
Personally I think Johnson would be extremely successful anywhere he went, but for the above reasons his upside is less at a major power than it is at a school like GT. I am a Bama fan through my wife and I believe that they or Nebraska should have hired him—along with Tennessee they comprise the three top-10 historical powers with the weakest local recruiting bases, so they have the most to gain from unconventional approaches.
But I’m glad GT has him. Johnson has proven that he can win consistently with much less talent than most of his competition, and he’s proven that he can dominate in mid-90’s Nebraska fashion when he is at a school that can draw equal or better talent. GT isn’t UGA but GT can draw mid-level ACC/SEC talent and Johnson can win big with that talent level. He has experience in Georgia, and he’s been successful at a school whose disadvantages make GT look like Texas. He’s been one of my favorite coaches for years and I could not have been more pleased and surprised when he was hired.
by GoldenTornado on Jun 27, 2008 10:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Donnan was a conventional coach?
Yeah, that unimaginative offense he ran as the offensive coordinator at Oklahoma in the mid-’80s was pretty plain vanilla, wasn’t it?
Honestly, GoldenTornado, you may have made some good points after that, but, following such a preposterous opening observation, I couldn’t bring myself to read the rest of it for all the eye-rolling.
Go 'Dawgs!
by T Kyle King on Jun 27, 2008 1:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The wishbone was pretty conventional in the mid-1980s.
Several other Big 8 and SWC schools ran it well into the mid-late 80’s. Auburn and other schools were still running it a lot too—I just watched an 86 Auburn game the other day.
And it ain’t like Donnan was the head coach—Switzer made the ultimate decisions about what the offense at OU would be.
Why didn’t Donnan use the wishbone at UGA and Marshall? I suggest because it went out of style. You can hardly claim that the UGA offenses of the Donnan era were imaginative and successful for their talent levels.
Any level of unconventionality in Donnan can’t be compared to Paul Johnson’s. Probably the only coach in the NCAA who is as unconventional as Paul Johnson is MIke Leach. This isn’t surprising since the other thing they have in common is that neither played college football—so they are not as steeped in the “lore of the game” as most of their peers.
One sign of their unconventionality is that they have completely stopped recruiting TE’s and blocking FB’s.
by GoldenTornado on Jun 27, 2008 5:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Probably the only coach in the NCAA who is as unconventional as Paul Johnson is MIke Leach. This isn’t surprising since the other thing they have in common is that neither played college football—so they are not as steeped in the "lore of the game" as most of their peers.
I doubt that’s the reason. Plenty of coaches who did play college football come up with creative offenses. Urban Meyer is just one example. And it isn’t like Johnson and Leach created their respective offenses. They are both using versions of offenses that men before them created.
by gahnki on Jun 27, 2008 11:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Everyone uses a version of offense that someone created before. Noone since at least Heisman and Rockne has created anything in football completely from scratch.
Think about it: the very reason that Johnson didn’t get a job at a D1A power years ago is that he does not conform to the norms of the age!
Johnson’s offense is not exactly the same thing anyone else ever ran before him. Ken Hatfield was the creator of the flexbone, but he used it as a power running attack. Johnson scrapped the TE altogether and widened the OL splits to produce its modern form.
He was ridiculously dominant at the levels he coached— he was by far the dominant coach in D1AA (including over Tressell and Moore who have 8 national titles between them) and he’s the best service academy coach of the modern era (11-1 against the other academies, 7-1 against Deberry and Ross who are great coaches).
The point is—how could a guy with this kind of pedigree not be hired to a major program years ago?
The only reason is that people are scared to take a risk on a guy who won’t change what he does to conform to current trends, and who believes so strongly his system is superior that he would rather let an NFL-bound TE transfer to Alabama than change his basic offensive system.
But GT hired Johnson because we’re in a unique situation. We’ve got a competitive program but GT’s in-state rival is a much larger school that is now a juggernaut finally reaching their potential under a good coach. GT is not going to outwork or outrecruit UGA, so we have to beat them unconventionally by hiring an X’s and O’s genius. GT has very little to lose, and everything to gain, and was able to roll the dice on Johnson. I’m glad we did, because I think his record speaks for itself and his success will translate to the major-college level.
Watching the results of this experiment will certainly add some interest to ACC football, even for non-GT and non-ACC fans.
by GoldenTornado on Jun 28, 2008 2:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not quite sure why you are going on a rant about why he wasn’t previously hired. What I am disagreeing with is why he uses an unconventional offense and the simple answer is because that’s what he knows how to run. It has nothing to do with him not playing college football. Great coaches have been ruined by trying to do something they aren’t good at.
Everyone uses a version of offense that someone created before. Noone since at least Heisman and Rockne has created anything in football completely from scratch.
Depends on how you want to classify innovations. I’d say that the creator of the Run n’ Shoot did a decent job innovating.
by gahnki on Jun 28, 2008 5:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Glenn Ellison, in case you were wondering
Depends on how you want to classify innovations. I’d say that the creator of the Run n’ Shoot did a decent job innovating.
Interestingly enough, Johnson and Leach probably run the closest offenses to the original run and shoot. Johnson’s is probably the closest actually. The formations they run (spread with wide line splits) are Ellison’s. It was designed to be a “run first” offense, hence the name, with the ability to pass all over the place if the defense gives it to you. The QB was also under center, he was supposed to make his reads (on pass plays) while dropping back. A shotgun snap wasted time while the QB watched the snap into his hands.
All of the spread offenses (Johnson, Leach, Rodriguez, etc) are a branch of the run and shoot family. I would say they have all been innovative. If you dont keep innovating, you will get shut down.
by gtne91 on Jun 28, 2008 6:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Glenn Ellison was a great high school coach in Ohio. Mouse Davis learned a lot from him.
by gahnki on Jun 28, 2008 9:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
"Chan= victim of others' success?"
What a lousy response. Of course you think Gailey was a good coach, you’re a dawg. Fact is, he got blown out by HORRIBLE Duke and UNC teams. How is that not his own failure?
by Sting1 on Jun 26, 2008 10:40 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Why would a Dawg be naturally inclined to think Gailey is a good coach? He was, after all, a quarterback for Florida in college. Kyle wasn’t being sarcastic and doing a “Noooooo! He can’t leave!” post, and for that matter, standing still while others progress isn’t a sign of a good coach anyway. I think the point was that Gailey may not have been good, but he wasn’t horrible either.
by Year2 on Jun 27, 2008 10:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thank you, Year2
You get bonus points for intellectual integrity for mentioning Chan’s days as a Gator quarterback, particularly since his fumble against Georgia (in 1972, if memory serves) cost Florida a Cocktail Party victory one year.
It’s funny to think how close Gailey came to being the coach at Georgia (where he was mentioned as a candidate in 2000) and at Florida (where he likely would have succeeded Steve Spurrier had he not accepted the Georgia Tech job shortly before Spurrier’s abrupt departure for the N.F.L.).
Chan Gailey isn’t a great coach, but he isn’t awful, either. The fact that he got the declining Dallas Cowboys to the playoffs right before they fell off the map entirely for a while surely shows something. I just think he was an average coach, neither terrific nor terrible, and he did win a division championship in the A.C.C. It’s not like the Yellow Jackets were going 1-10 like they did occasionally in the ‘80s and ‘90s.
Go 'Dawgs!
by T Kyle King on Jun 27, 2008 1:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Chan is a pretty good coach.
I was a Chan Gailey supporter.
He did not adapt quite quickly enough to the college game.
Gailey’s biggest problem is that UGA finally got a good coach after a couple of mediocrities, and finally stopped underachieving.
That left GT with no choice but to go in a vastly different direction than most of the rest of CFB.
by GoldenTornado on Jun 28, 2008 1:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was a freshman in 1987
I arrived at GT and became a fan in fall of 1987. It has been a rollercoaster ride. My fandom is your chart. Despite the bad years the highs have been real high. In the last 21 years, how many different schools have won a MNC? Even with split titles, its well under 20. Its part of the problem of the Gailey years, we would have put up with some lows if he had given us some highs (and whipping Auburn and Miami just werent enough).
If OC Patrick Nix had called 22’s number in the 4th quarter against Wake, we would have won the ACCCG, gone to a BCS game (I wanted to see Tenuta’s D against Petrino’s O, and not just because I live in Louisville) and Gailey might possibly still be coaching on the flats.
I wasnt in favor of firing Gailey, mostly because I wasnt sure we could get someone better. Landing Johnson changed my mind.
by gtne91 on Jun 27, 2008 12:17 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Preseason mags
SMQ,
You mentioned the preseason consensus. Im trying to figure out how much weight to put on it (“none at all” is my default) when one of the mags (I forget which, it wasnt Steele) talks about Bennett transferring as a big loss. Im not sure how losing a guy who would be the 3rd string QB AT BEST (he could have easily ended up 6th string, behind Nesbitt, Booker, Dykes, Shaw and Washington) in Johnson’s offense qualifies as any kind of big deal. That kind of shoddy research gives the mags a bad name.
by gtne91 on Jun 27, 2008 12:25 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Losing Bennet WAS a loss.
I’m not sure the context in which the magazine you’re referencing put it, but any time you lose someone with that kind of experience, it will have an impact. Would Taylor Bennett have been the starter, or even gotten significant minutes? Doubtful. But any senior is valuable in the leadership they can show the younger players, and Tech is a pretty young team. Also, having a more “normal” (i.e., non-option) QB around to help teach the quarterbacks a bit about throwing would have been good.
by Ramblin Jeff on Jun 27, 2008 2:21 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with that
It obviously would have been good had Bennett stayed around. I dont remember the exact quote, but he was listed as a loss in the same context as Choice. I remember it being treated in the way you would treat losing a starting QB. Ryan is a loss to BC, but it a completely different way. It seemed to be treated that way (maybe not that extreme, because Bennett was no Ryan).
by gtne91 on Jun 27, 2008 8:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Paul Johnson is a good coach and the flexbone is a fun little offense. Johnson works magic with in game adjustments. I remember watching one of his games and seeing him run the same play three straight times while changing one blocking angle each time. The play worked every time too.
by gahnki on Jun 27, 2008 1:19 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

by 




