2020 Team Talent Composite

[BCJacket]

The 247 Team Talent Composite for 2020 has been posted.

Tech is up to 37th Nationally and 7th in the ACC just behind NCSt. (These rankings are a composite based on players' recruiting rating from high school, so it doesn't account for improvement, experience, or busts.) They clearly are not accurately predictive: 2019 'Coastal Chaos' survivor UVA was 11th in the ACC in the talent rankings. 6-7 FSU was #1. But overall, the more 'talented' teams are the better teams.

I find it interesting that the same media outlets that sell the importance of recruiting [rankings], pretty much unanimously picked Tech to finish last in the ACC. But, by the talent rankings we're mid-pack. (This also challenges the narrative that Tech had/has no talent and CGC and co were starting from scratch.)

There were a lot of reasons Tech struggled in 2019. Personally, I think we're apt to finish 2020 closer to our talent level. Last year, the '7th place' team in the ACC overall was in a big 6-way tie for 5th at 4-4 in conference.

ACC 247 Talent Rank 2020
1 Clemson
2 Florida State
3 Miami
4 North Carolina
5 Virginia Tech
6 NC State
7 Georgia Tech
8 Pittsburgh
9 Louisville
10 Duke
11 Boston College
12 Virginia
13 Syracuse
14 Wake Forest

 

[jacketup]

If we were 7th in offensive and defensive tackle recruiting this ranking might have some credibility.

 

[JacketOff]

If we were 7th in offensive and defensive tackle recruiting this ranking might have some credibility.

It might also have some merit if 28 of our top 50 “most talented” players weren’t freshmen, and 41 of the top 50 weren’t underclassmen. This should provide a lot of hope and excitement for the future, but a lot of our “most talented” players will have little to no impact this year because of their youth.

 

[gtrower]

In the last five seasons, no ACC team with an average talent rating of 86.5+ (like we have this year) has finished worse than 3-5 in conference play.

 

[UpperNorth]

Good stuff.

What was our ranking in 2018? 2019? With 5 4 star transfers coming in plus our 2020 class ranked significantly higher than everybody 8-14, we had to have moved up significantly since the 2018 season.

Would have to think that 5th place is possible after the 2021 class.

Edit - looks like we were 10th or 11th from 2015-2019.

 

[gtrower]

Good stuff.

What was our ranking in 2018? 2019? With 5 4 star transfers coming in plus our 2020 class ranked significantly higher than everybody 8-14, we had to have moved up significantly since the 2018 season.

Would have to think that 5th place is possible after the 2021 class.

Edit - looks like we were 10th or 11th from 2015-2019.

Caveat here is the ranking listed is by total points which can change based on how many players (out of 85) they’re counting. But I like avg better.

2018: 83.84 (10th)
2019: 84.76 (10th)
2020: 86.48 (7th)

Also the overall talent went up a lot this year in the ACC. We would have been 6th in 2019 with the current point total (684.42) and pushing UNC for 4th (697.75). The whole league went from 85.76 avg last year to 87.08 this year. Kind of explains how terrible the ACC was last year (and why UVA was able to capitalize despite having a bad roster).

 

[CuseJacket]

Here are my comments from another thread where this was discussed: https://gtswarm.com/threads/acc-discussion-2020.22036/page-4#post-740463

The first question that jumped in my head when I saw your post was "how many of those are freshmen"?

Here our top 20:

1. Antonneous Clayton... no game reps in GT's system... resuming play after a full year off
2. Jahmyr Gibbs... no game reps in GT's system
3. Derrik Allen... no game reps in GT's system
4. Myles Sims... played last year
5. Bruce Jordan-Swilling... no game reps at current position in GT's system
6. Jeff Sims... no game reps in GT's system
7. Miles Brooks... no game reps in GT's system
8. Ryan Johnson... no game reps in GT's system
9. Jaylon King... played last year
10. James Graham... played last year
11. Jared Ivey... no game reps in GT's system
12. Marquez Ezzard... no game reps in GT's system
13. Jamious Griffin... played last year
14. Bryce Gowdy... RIP
15. Nate McCollum... no game reps in GT's system
16. Khatavian Franks... no game reps in GT's system
17. Ryan King... no game reps in GT's system
18. Tre Swilling... played last year
19. Justice Dingle... played last year
20. Michael Rankins... no game reps in GT's system

Our top talent is not just a skew toward freshmen. It's a skew toward players who don't have a single live game rep at their position for GT. Literally only 6 of our top 20 have played in a game at their current position at GT. Concede BJS, that makes 7.

Said another way, you could argue by the same data point that we're destined for the exception category (one of those teams that ends below .500) rather than the rule. Experience and college-readiness is a hurdle for the talent to play to its full potential.

 

[CuseJacket]

It would also be helpful if our top talent not only had more experience, but was more focused on the OL and DL. There are 5 linemen in our top 20, only 1 of which played in a game for GT last year (Justice Dingle). We really need those units to come together quickly and avoid injuries.

 

[CuseJacket]

I think it's worth bumping this thread, given the arguments around overall roster talent and expected results.

There is a lot of emotion around X's and O's vs. Jimmys and Joes after losses to UCF and Syracuse. Some warranted, some not, in my opinion.

Summarizing my position from two posts up:

• Yes, we have a lot more raw talent this year
• No, we should not expect it to be effective this year
• There are positional variances that are more important and material to W and L any given year i.e., talent on the OL and DL

There is some "conflating" going around that expects a year 1 talent increase to equal year 1 results. That is not how this works at any school, with any coach. Experience and S&C is required outside of surefire 5*, of which we have zero per the 247 composite. This means you'll typically reap the benefits 2-3 years down the road, and I see no reason to believe that GT will be the exception.

In another post referenced I made prior to game 1 here: https://gtswarm.com/threads/acc-discussion-2020.22036/post-740493

I wouldn't want to assume a ton of new pieces, albeit talented, are going to broadly make an impact year 1. Even our 2007 recruiting class didn't do that. So take my comment as more of a hedge to not take overall talent at face value. Certainly a reason to be bullishly optimistic about the future when the talent is seasoned.

And our 2020 class is considered 2nd best in the recruiting ranking era behind the 2007 group.

Of our top 20 players listed above, how many should realistically be making a material impact 3 games into the 2020 season, accounting for age and injuries? My expectation was and continues to be maybe 2 or 3 at best. I'd be interested in hearing other perspectives on this, particularly where others disagree.

 

[billga99]

I think there are very few programs which can be successful (at least national calibre) if more than half of their starters are not upper classmen. You miss so much in terms of being able to adjust on the fly, having the experience to anticipate what is happening (part of this is clearly coaching as well) and consistent reps to get people prepared. I think all true freshmen will struggle far more than in the past based on lack of reps in Spring Practice and Pre-Season contact. Because we are so dependent on underclassmen, we are paying a big price on this. Of course, we do have significant experience in our defensive backfield and that group has really struggled this year. Which is the reason I do think a piece of this schemes and coaching.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

I think it's worth bumping this thread, given the arguments around overall roster talent and expected results.

There is a lot of emotion around X's and O's vs. Jimmys and Joes after losses to UCF and Syracuse. Some warranted, some not, in my opinion.

Summarizing my position from two posts up:

• Yes, we have a lot more raw talent this year
• No, we should not expect it to be effective this year
• There are positional variances that are more important and material to W and L any given year i.e., talent on the OL and DL

There is some "conflating" going around that expects a year 1 talent increase to equal year 1 results. That is not how this works at any school, with any coach. Experience and S&C is required outside of surefire 5*, of which we have zero per the 247 composite. This means you'll typically reap the benefits 2-3 years down the road, and I see no reason to believe that GT will be the exception.

In another post referenced I made prior to game 1 here: https://gtswarm.com/threads/acc-discussion-2020.22036/post-740493

And our 2020 class is considered 2nd best in the recruiting ranking era behind the 2007 group.

Of our top 20 players listed above, how many should realistically be making a material impact 3 games into the 2020 season, accounting for age and injuries? My expectation was and continues to be maybe 2 or 3 at best. I'd be interested in hearing other perspectives on this, particularly where others disagree.

By illustration, Miles Brooks was nearly a top 100 player nationally, one of our higher rated recruited players ever, but hasn't broken into the ATL yet. Time in system and a college level strength and conditioning program matters.

 

[AlabamaBuzz]

I think it's worth bumping this thread, given the arguments around overall roster talent and expected results.

There is a lot of emotion around X's and O's vs. Jimmys and Joes after losses to UCF and Syracuse. Some warranted, some not, in my opinion.

Summarizing my position from two posts up:

• Yes, we have a lot more raw talent this year
• No, we should not expect it to be effective this year
• There are positional variances that are more important and material to W and L any given year i.e., talent on the OL and DL

There is some "conflating" going around that expects a year 1 talent increase to equal year 1 results. That is not how this works at any school, with any coach. Experience and S&C is required outside of surefire 5*, of which we have zero per the 247 composite. This means you'll typically reap the benefits 2-3 years down the road, and I see no reason to believe that GT will be the exception.

In another post referenced I made prior to game 1 here: https://gtswarm.com/threads/acc-discussion-2020.22036/post-740493

And our 2020 class is considered 2nd best in the recruiting ranking era behind the 2007 group.

Of our top 20 players listed above, how many should realistically be making a material impact 3 games into the 2020 season, accounting for age and injuries? My expectation was and continues to be maybe 2 or 3 at best. I'd be interested in hearing other perspectives on this, particularly where others disagree.

Just don't think this can be overemphasized.....in bold....I would add "and depth"

 

[GTrob21]

What this tells me is that we are going in the right direction. Give it time, our players will develope, and we will have a great team. Probably very soon.

 

[Heisman's Ghost]

The 247 Team Talent Composite for 2020 has been posted.

Tech is up to 37th Nationally and 7th in the ACC just behind NCSt. (These rankings are a composite based on players' recruiting rating from high school, so it doesn't account for improvement, experience, or busts.) They clearly are not accurately predictive: 2019 'Coastal Chaos' survivor UVA was 11th in the ACC in the talent rankings. 6-7 FSU was #1. But overall, the more 'talented' teams are the better teams.

I find it interesting that the same media outlets that sell the importance of recruiting [rankings], pretty much unanimously picked Tech to finish last in the ACC. But, by the talent rankings we're mid-pack. (This also challenges the narrative that Tech had/has no talent and CGC and co were starting from scratch.)

There were a lot of reasons Tech struggled in 2019. Personally, I think we're apt to finish 2020 closer to our talent level. Last year, the '7th place' team in the ACC overall was in a big 6-way tie for 5th at 4-4 in conference.

View attachment 8962

ACC 247 Talent Rank 2020
1 Clemson
2 Florida State
3 Miami
4 North Carolina
5 Virginia Tech
6 NC State
7 Georgia Tech
8 Pittsburgh
9 Louisville
10 Duke
11 Boston College
12 Virginia
13 Syracuse
14 Wake Forest

Seems about right. Based upon what I have seen of most of these teams last year and this year, the two teams that get the least out of their talent are FSU and Miami. The team that gets the most out of what little it has is Wake Forest. I am surprised that Virginia is not ranked higher at least higher than BC and Duke but I don't keep up with UVA that much.

 

[Heisman's Ghost]

I think it's worth bumping this thread, given the arguments around overall roster talent and expected results.

There is a lot of emotion around X's and O's vs. Jimmys and Joes after losses to UCF and Syracuse. Some warranted, some not, in my opinion.

Summarizing my position from two posts up:

• Yes, we have a lot more raw talent this year
• No, we should not expect it to be effective this year
• There are positional variances that are more important and material to W and L any given year i.e., talent on the OL and DL

There is some "conflating" going around that expects a year 1 talent increase to equal year 1 results. That is not how this works at any school, with any coach. Experience and S&C is required outside of surefire 5*, of which we have zero per the 247 composite. This means you'll typically reap the benefits 2-3 years down the road, and I see no reason to believe that GT will be the exception.

In another post referenced I made prior to game 1 here: https://gtswarm.com/threads/acc-discussion-2020.22036/post-740493

And our 2020 class is considered 2nd best in the recruiting ranking era behind the 2007 group.

Of our top 20 players listed above, how many should realistically be making a material impact 3 games into the 2020 season, accounting for age and injuries? My expectation was and continues to be maybe 2 or 3 at best. I'd be interested in hearing other perspectives on this, particularly where others disagree.

Psst! You, yeah you. You wanna get better? Let me fill you in on a little known secret....its what's up front that counts. No charge, professional courtesy.

 

[alagold]

Psst! You, yeah you. You wanna get better? Let me fill you in on a little known secret....its what's up front that counts. No charge, professional courtesy.

yep, that an QB--you go nowhere fast w/o a decent QB

 

[ChicagobasedJacket]

We are actually 30th overall now. Opt outs and transfers have moved us up further.

 

[takethepoints]

I think the basis for the rankings is faulty. I've long said here that the continuous parsing of differences of ratings is there to draw clicks from fans, not to evaluate players. None of the services have the capacity to do more then pick the 5 stars and some of the 4 stars. They stick out like a sore thumb and everybody can spot them. Otherwise, the only way you can evaluate players that makes any sense if to wait for a couple of years, see who starts, and see what the record of the team in question is in relation to the ratings its players had in high school.

We'll know how good our first two classes under Collins were in a couple of years. Mind, I hope these ratings are in the ballpark and that Tech gets better as a result. It very well could happen.

 

[Buzztheirazz]

I think it's worth bumping this thread, given the arguments around overall roster talent and expected results.

There is a lot of emotion around X's and O's vs. Jimmys and Joes after losses to UCF and Syracuse. Some warranted, some not, in my opinion.

Summarizing my position from two posts up:

• Yes, we have a lot more raw talent this year
• No, we should not expect it to be effective this year
• There are positional variances that are more important and material to W and L any given year i.e., talent on the OL and DL

There is some "conflating" going around that expects a year 1 talent increase to equal year 1 results. That is not how this works at any school, with any coach. Experience and S&C is required outside of surefire 5*, of which we have zero per the 247 composite. This means you'll typically reap the benefits 2-3 years down the road, and I see no reason to believe that GT will be the exception.

In another post referenced I made prior to game 1 here: https://gtswarm.com/threads/acc-discussion-2020.22036/post-740493

And our 2020 class is considered 2nd best in the recruiting ranking era behind the 2007 group.

Of our top 20 players listed above, how many should realistically be making a material impact 3 games into the 2020 season, accounting for age and injuries? My expectation was and continues to be maybe 2 or 3 at best. I'd be interested in hearing other perspectives on this, particularly where others disagree.

GREAT POST. IMO there’s no reason to worry about this year. We weren’t expected to do well and there was a reason for that. Our OL and DL will take a coup,e years to build. LB will take a huge step in a year or two as well.

We have pieces(skill positions mainly) but a few have been injured so this won’t be the year. 2022 is judgement year.

 

[JacketOff]

GREAT POST. IMO there’s no reason to worry about this year. We weren’t expected to do well and there was a reason for that. Our OL and DL will take a coup,e years to build. LB will take a huge step in a year or two as well.

We have pieces(skill positions mainly) but a few have been injured so this won’t be the year. 2022 is judgement year.

2022 is definitely the year that I’ve got circled. I think it will be the first time that a trip back to Charlotte will be a legitimate goal. Year 3 is when most programs start to show signs of a turn around after a coaching change.

• Minnesota went 12-13 in PJ Fleck’s first 2 years before going 11-2 in year 3
• Dabo went 19-15 in his first 2 full years + his half year as the interim coach at Clemson. Went 10-4 in his 3rd full year and haven’t won less than 10 since.
• Coach O went 6-2 as interim at LSU, 9-4 in his first full year, 10-3 in his 2nd full year, then 15-0 with a natty in his 3rd full year
• Saban won his first natty at Alabama in year 3 after a 7-6 campaign in year 1
• James Franklin went 7-6 in his first 2 years at Penn State, then went 11-3 in year 3
• Jim Harbaugh went 4-8 and 5-7 in years 1 & 2 at Stanford. Then went 8-5 in year 3, and finally 12-1 in year 4.
• Hell, Paul Johnson was 10-15 after his first 2 years at Navy, then he went 10-2 in year 3.

I’m not saying that Tech will win the natty in 2022, or win 10 games next year. But the precedent is set, and programs that have had major turnarounds almost always the biggest differences in years 3 and 4. Keep in mind that most of those coaches I mentioned were traditional powerhouses schools, and were given blank checks to do as they wished. Collins doesn’t have that liberty at Tech. His budget is much more restricted than any of theirs. And whether you like it or not, transitioning out of the 3O plays a huge role in the transition as well. A bowl appearance next season should be well within expectations, and somewhere between 6-8 wins is what I think will be reasonable (I voted for 4-7 in this year’s preseason poll FWIW). Then 2022 in year 4 is when I’m hoping Tech can get back to the 10 win range, and stay at 8+ wins every year following.

Keep in mind that 2 teams within our own division are on this same track as well. Folks can point and laugh and call Miami a dumpster fire all they want, but they’re not going to be terrible forever. I don’t think they’ll ever get back to actually being Da U of the 90s, but they’re going to be a team that you can pencil in for 8+ wins every year with a shot at the ACCCG (like the level I’m hoping Tech gets to). UNC has potential to become a 2nd tier powerhouse as well (Wisconsin, Auburn, Oregon, etc.), but it will be made challenging because it’s known that they’ll have to make another hire sometime soon. They will be a consistent 8+ game winner as long as Mack stays, but they’ll need to make the right hire in order to hold their ground and not take 2 steps back after Mack finally retires for good.

All of that to say this: the road map is there. It’s been followed time and time again, by coaches and programs of all starting points, in all conferences. Some have more advantages than others, but years 3 and 4 are when the changes within the program finally start to take shape. I hope this year ends on a high note, and gives everyone something to build on going into a big year next year. If things don’t take a drastic turn in 2021, then I wouldn’t be opposed to maybe making some changes within the staff. Even if the schemes themselves don’t change that much, getting a new voice with some new ideas can make a world of difference. If we’re not close to winning 8 in 2022 then I’d be comfortable in saying the Collins is not the guy.