2016 Class Analysis + Player Ranking

[dressedcheeseside]

where I disagree is 8-12 (depending on above opinions) of 18 prospects being P5 caliber or P5 offers as well, is not great. If we want to be a top program that needs to be at least 16 or 17 out of 18. So I point to this exactly as an example of how we can do better in recruiting.

IMO there is no reason at tech most of our commits don't have nice P5 offers. Does that mean a gem here or there doesn't become a good NCAA player....no of course not; but by in large gems are exceptions not rules. We are playing a game of numbers and averages....and over years the more top flight competitive recruits you get generally the better you are. I am not talking star ratings. I am talking about fielding a class where 95-100% have competitive D1A P5 offers. If our class is all 3 star, and we never land a 4 star ever again, but all 3 star players have competitive P5 offers...I am happy. We aren't even there yet.

I think its bigtime room for improvement; and why CPJ and his staff deserves recruiting criticism. You combine it with the fact ships go unfilled year over year...The fact remains we are a upper 1/3 P5 school and program. Yet we struggle with quality depth in recruiting. Imagine if we didn't?

What's "a nice P5 offer" exactly? Top 15 school makes an offer, top 20 school, top what? Nearly half meet the very high bar of having offers from top 15 programs. Most of the others have offers from GT comparable programs.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

First. I like this class. Lots of players I am supper high on including Adams, Woods, Brashear, Branch, Woods, Bridges and Jones.

Second. This class was, unfortunately, two top flight recruits away from being a great class. Picking up a couple of big guys that got away would have soothed a lot of fans still hurting from last season.

Three. I have the feeling that this class may not be finished. We are still recruiting, in case anyone has forgotten.

 

[alagold]

I'll push back a hair on Lucas Johnson, as he is intimately familiar with teh quick decision making required in the offense, having played in it his first 2 years of high school.

very interesting, good news to me, my big concern with him was the 7 yd snap and really few run fakes--so if he can take a close snap and do the ball handling,he is a real prospect with his speed and passing

 

[alagold]

where I disagree is 8-12 (depending on above opinions) of 18 prospects being P5 caliber or P5 offers as well, is not great. If we want to be a top program that needs to be at least 16 or 17 out of 18. So I point to this exactly as an example of how we can do better in recruiting.

IMO there is no reason at tech most of our commits don't have nice P5 offers. Does that mean a gem here or there doesn't become a good NCAA player....no of course not; but by in large gems are exceptions not rules. We are playing a game of numbers and averages....and over years the more top flight competitive recruits you get generally the better you are. I am not talking star ratings. I am talking about fielding a class where 95-100% have competitive D1A P5 offers. If our class is all 3 star, and we never land a 4 star ever again, but all 3 star players have competitive P5 offers...I am happy. We aren't even there yet.

I think its bigtime room for improvement; and why CPJ and his staff deserves recruiting criticism. You combine it with the fact ships go unfilled year over year...The fact remains we are a upper 1/3 P5 school and program. Yet we struggle with quality depth in recruiting. Imagine if we didn't?

33,
agree completely, we get good players but not enough esp at WR and DT
the other problem is we lose a bunch sometimes unexpectedly, the weak '13 class became a dumpster fire when several left, and we just lost 2 highly rated guys from last yr, . (one going to art school instead of fball,hmmmm?) can't afford that

 

[33jacket]

What's "a nice P5 offer" exactly? Top 15 school makes an offer, top 20 school, top what? Nearly half meet the very high bar of having offers from top 15 programs. Most of the others have offers from GT comparable programs.

Cheese. I am talking about the totally of GT recruiting right now....over the years....in that statement. I was pointing to this class as an example, but if read you right you are saying 16 or 17 of the 18 have a few P5 offers each. Then I pointed to a bad example for sure and if that is the case its a positive trend we need to maintain. However, I think the 7 prior years I can go back and my general statement of the issue with GT recruiting would hold up for the most part. We get way too many guys with just offers from furman and navy etc. Or maybe vandy and furman and blah blah. Yes I know vandy is P5....but you get my point.

I feel like most classes we have far too many guys with no P5 offers.....and that is unacceptable to me for our school. Its low hanging fruit we can improve IMO.

Again if we take 20 one year. 19 need to have good competitive P5 offers (more than 1). If we take 15 all 15 should. If we take 25 23-24 should. Its no excuse.

Georgia is the 3rd or 4th biggest state on the planet for recruiting and for use to not be able to land 95% of the class with multiple competitive P5 offer is poor IMO. And I don't care about stars...I just want guys all the other good programs want.

Now, I have to say, my entire opinion is perception based. I haven't taken the time (nor do I care enough) to go back and take a look at each class to prove this. Its just my general perception over the years...I could be way off and if so ok....no problem.

 

[33jacket]

nm

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Now, I have to say, my entire opinion is perception based.

I agree with this statement.

My perception is slightly different. I feel like we often wrap up guys long before they get other offers. In the few rare cases where that does not happen, we either flip guys, get guys with lots of competitive offers, or get guys who are under the radar. It is perhaps those under the radar guys that concern you. One of those under the radar guys helped give us our only quality win last year even though he did not get lots of P5 offers as you put it.

Not trying to be argumentative, just saying that we both have perceptions on this and perhaps someone might want to do the research for us to see which perception is closer to the truth.

As for recruiting in the state of Georgia, we clearly do a lot of that. Georgia is the fourth best recruiting state in the country but when filtering those recruits through the academics needed to be able to handle Tech, then the state is no longer the fourth best place in the country, but rather becomes a place like several other states where one has to scour for particular types of student athletes.

 

[SidewalkJacket]

As for recruiting in the state of Georgia, we clearly do a lot of that. Georgia is the fourth best recruiting state in the country but when filtering those recruits through the academics needed to be able to handle Tech, then the state is no longer the fourth best place in the country, but rather becomes a place like several other states where one has to scour for particular types of student athletes.

Nailed it here. I think we could be better at recruiting, but this statement has a lot of truth.

 

[PBR549]

Cheese. I am talking about the totally of GT recruiting right now....over the years....in that statement. I was pointing to this class as an example, but if read you right you are saying 16 or 17 of the 18 have a few P5 offers each. Then I pointed to a bad example for sure and if that is the case its a positive trend we need to maintain. However, I think the 7 prior years I can go back and my general statement of the issue with GT recruiting would hold up for the most part. We get way too many guys with just offers from furman and navy etc. Or maybe vandy and furman and blah blah. Yes I know vandy is P5....but you get my point.

I feel like most classes we have far too many guys with no P5 offers.....and that is unacceptable to me for our school. Its low hanging fruit we can improve IMO.

Again if we take 20 one year. 19 need to have good competitive P5 offers (more than 1). If we take 15 all 15 should. If we take 25 23-24 should. Its no excuse.

Georgia is the 3rd or 4th biggest state on the planet for recruiting and for use to not be able to land 95% of the class with multiple competitive P5 offer is poor IMO. And I don't care about stars...I just want guys all the other good programs want.

Now, I have to say, my entire opinion is perception based. I haven't taken the time (nor do I care enough) to go back and take a look at each class to prove this. Its just my general perception over the years...I could be way off and if so ok....no problem.

This sounds good but I believe it's an Institute problem rather than a coaching problem.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Cheese. I am talking about the totally of GT recruiting right now....over the years....in that statement. I was pointing to this class as an example, but if read you right you are saying 16 or 17 of the 18 have a few P5 offers each. Then I pointed to a bad example for sure and if that is the case its a positive trend we need to maintain. However, I think the 7 prior years I can go back and my general statement of the issue with GT recruiting would hold up for the most part. We get way too many guys with just offers from furman and navy etc. Or maybe vandy and furman and blah blah. Yes I know vandy is P5....but you get my point.

I feel like most classes we have far too many guys with no P5 offers.....and that is unacceptable to me for our school. Its low hanging fruit we can improve IMO.

Again if we take 20 one year. 19 need to have good competitive P5 offers (more than 1). If we take 15 all 15 should. If we take 25 23-24 should. Its no excuse.

Georgia is the 3rd or 4th biggest state on the planet for recruiting and for use to not be able to land 95% of the class with multiple competitive P5 offer is poor IMO. And I don't care about stars...I just want guys all the other good programs want.

Now, I have to say, my entire opinion is perception based. I haven't taken the time (nor do I care enough) to go back and take a look at each class to prove this. Its just my general perception over the years...I could be way off and if so ok....no problem.

I wish we had more guys with top 15 offers, too. But where you and I differ is in assessing our recruiting position. You keep mentioning "no excuse." I wonder where you draw the line between legitimate hurdles and excuses. Are they one in the same? Is there no such thing as a legitimate hurdle?

Here's something else that bugs me about your assessment. When you look back at Gailey's classes, you give him huge props for finding and developing diamonds in the rough. But when CPJ signs 2 stars, and many of them very early in the recruiting season, you say we're settling for low hanging fruit. You can't have it both ways. I know it's easier to look at Gailey's record of finding the diamonds because those guys have played through their careers already and the proof is in the pudding. But I think it is unfair to condemn CPJ's recruits based on their lack of offers alone. Wait and see if they develop and contribute before you label them "low hanging fruit."

If your criticism was more based on you evaluation of their film, I'd be more inclined to see your point. But history has shown that there is a ton of talent that falls through the cracks every year for multiple reasons. GT is in the unfortunate position of having to rely on finding it and developing it. Not the entire class, but a certain portion of it. I think the portion we have now is about right for GT and it's recruiting position. Triple our budget and maybe I'd be less inclined to accept the current ratio.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Me too. I would like to see better classes but also feel lots of good work is being done recruiting the right kind of guys for our program. It strikes me as unrealistic to assume that the majority of guys who get offers from the factories are also guys we need to be recruiting. That just does not square with my understanding of the general quality of secondary education in our state. Not bashing all teachers, not bashing all schools, just saying there are multiple factors that lend themselves to an education system that is not predisposed to creating Tech material. Especially among football athletes who are often treated like kings in the classroom because they are the darlings of the campus community on Friday nights.

 

[GTfan4Life]

Another consideration is outside the academic question. Let's assume 90% of all SAs were academically qualified to meet GT standards and, furthermore, academics played the top priority in their decision. We would still struggle to a higher degree in recruiting. Why? Because the majority of American high school students, even those who are not SAs, are wanting BA degrees not BS degrees. That is why we are struggling to keep up around the globe in math and science fields. That is why we miss out on players who go to other high academic options (re: Stanford, ND, and even Duke, etc.) as opposed to coming to GT.

 

[IronJacket7]

This is one of the better threads I've seen on this site in a long time.

Outstanding original post and excellent followup posts.

I know. What's going on?

 

[33jacket]

I wish we had more guys with top 15 offers, too. But where you and I differ is in assessing our recruiting position. You keep mentioning "no excuse." I wonder where you draw the line between legitimate hurdles and excuses. Are they one in the same? Is there no such thing as a legitimate hurdle?

Here's something else that bugs me about your assessment. When you look back at Gailey's classes, you give him huge props for finding and developing diamonds in the rough. But when CPJ signs 2 stars, and many of them very early in the recruiting season, you say we're settling for low hanging fruit. You can't have it both ways. I know it's easier to look at Gailey's record of finding the diamonds because those guys have played through their careers already and the proof is in the pudding. But I think it is unfair to condemn CPJ's recruits based on their lack of offers alone. Wait and see if they develop and contribute before you label them "low hanging fruit."

If your criticism was more based on you evaluation of their film, I'd be more inclined to see your point. But history has shown that there is a ton of talent that falls through the cracks every year for multiple reasons. GT is in the unfortunate position of having to rely on finding it and developing it. Not the entire class, but a certain portion of it. I think the portion we have now is about right for GT and it's recruiting position. Triple our budget and maybe I'd be less inclined to accept the current ratio.

No i had the same issue with chan. He just did a great and better job of evaluating and developing those gems. But as a recruiter same issue when he had the years he did....in both cases it needs to be better. Chan did a better jon landing more top talent guys and evaluating undercards.

 

[33jacket]

I agree with this statement.

My perception is slightly different. I feel like we often wrap up guys long before they get other offers. In the few rare cases where that does not happen, we either flip guys, get guys with lots of competitive offers, or get guys who are under the radar. It is perhaps those under the radar guys that concern you. One of those under the radar guys helped give us our only quality win last year even though he did not get lots of P5 offers as you put it.

Not trying to be argumentative, just saying that we both have perceptions on this and perhaps someone might want to do the research for us to see which perception is closer to the truth.

As for recruiting in the state of Georgia, we clearly do a lot of that. Georgia is the fourth best recruiting state in the country but when filtering those recruits through the academics needed to be able to handle Tech, then the state is no longer the fourth best place in the country, but rather becomes a place like several other states where one has to scour for particular types of student athletes.

Thats fair. Its just my perception. Fyi i do agree with the poster some of the institute makes this harder. But still. We are not where we can be.

 

[SidewalkJacket]

No i had the same issue with chan. He just did a great and better job of evaluating and developing those gems. Chan did a better jon landing more top talent guys and evaluating undercards.

Evidence for this?

 

[33jacket]

Evidence for this?

I think this list is pretty clear on top recruits and gem development. His nfl list is not even comparable to pauls. I dont want to re hash this comparison again. But his top talent was far better in his 5-6 years than pauls has been to now.

Calvin johnson
Bebe
Dwyer
D Morgan
M Burnett
M johnson
D richard

Gem category
Mike cox
Wheeler
guyton
Anoai
Vance walker
Andrew gardner

Wrotto (although not a gem kinda in between)
Mike matthews
Choice all in between guys

I cant recall one 2 star recruit paul made into a multi year starter in the nfl. Or even in the nfl. Maybe jemea thomas? But he hasnt seen a snap or active roster.

Of course chan couldnt coach for crap. So field production was frustrating. But you cant debate his ability to put good guys through our program in his tenure. But even he didnt land enough d1 p5 competitive kids. He did a better job with his gems though. Missed on some too.

 

[InsideLB]

Offers are tricky because good offers are always a good sign but no good offers MAY OR MAY NOT be a bad sign.

Many committed guys dont bother to report offers if they are solid. Some dont even talk to the services or wont take calls from other coaches. And particularly late offers are seldom reported by the services.

Some recruits hit the camp circuit hard and rack up offers like Hunt Days did. Others do not.

You hear about offers all the time that the services dont report in interviews of HS coaches or recruits themselves.

Dont get me wrong....I like good offers as much as anyone. But I'll take a physical beast with wheels and good film anytime.

That's what Camp is and per his coach a lot of folks tried to come in on him late. Only shows per the services we flipped this beast from Liberty. So what...he has a college body, is strong as hell, and has great film. Not gonna pass that up!

 

[Northeast Stinger]

We are not where we can be

I agree with this too.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

I think this list is pretty clear on top recruits and gem development. His nfl list is not even comparable to pauls. I dont want to re hash this comparison again. But his top talent was far better in his 5-6 years than pauls has been to now.

Calvin johnson
Bebe
Dwyer
D Morgan
M Burnett
M johnson
D richard

Gem category
Mike cox
Wheeler
guyton
Anoai
Vance walker
Andrew gardner

Wrotto (although not a gem kinda in between)
Mike matthews
Choice all in between guys

I cant recall one 2 star recruit paul made into a multi year starter in the nfl. Or even in the nfl. Maybe jemea thomas? But he hasnt seen a snap or active roster.

Of course chan couldnt coach for crap. So field production was frustrating. But you cant debate his ability to put good guys through our program in his tenure. But even he didnt land enough d1 p5 competitive kids. He did a better job with his gems though. Missed on some too.

Good list. CCG found some very good talent.

Now here is another part of the equation. CPJ claims that when he arrived at Tech we were only graduating 51% of our players. Now that we graduate over 90% of our players is that also part of the recruiting matrix? My perception is that APR has become increasingly more strict than even a few years ago. We know that O'Leary would not be able to recruit the same way today at Tech that he did back when he was coach. Would the same be true for Gailey now? I don't know, just asking.