2021 Recruiting Class & Transfers In

AlabamaBuzz

AlabamaBuzz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,020
Location
Hartselle, AL (originally Rome, GA)
Coloradojacket said:
Well we have hit a new low. Arguing about recruiting and a bunch of 18 year olds that we have no idea what they will do. I guess 3 win seasons do that. Recruiting means nothing without winning...ask Fla State and Miami.
Click to expand...
Colorado: We agree on a LOT of things, and I enjoy reading your posts.

And, I do believe a long time ago, the recruiting thing really did not correlate very well with success, back when the recruiting agencies were not as sophisticated as they are now - They don't make near as many mistakes anymore on 4 star and 5 star decisions, although I will say it is NOT a perfect science for sure. And, it is true that there are still special guys located in that large middle group, the 3 stars, that some schools will find. (even a 2 star or no star, but seldom these days)

With that said, the best high school players in the country, per the recruiting services care about ONE thing and one thing only, in general. What gives me the best chance of playing in the league? That is why sa(t)an dominates - Bammer wants to believe it is about kids wanting to play in the Bammer tradition and history, and yes, that is a bonus, but these kids, the best of the best, are going there because they see it as a direct route to the league.

The teams with the most players playing in the NFL, pretty much across the board, ARE the teams that are dominating the CFP. Now, does player development and running a tight ship mean something? Oh yeah, it does, because that is how you "maximize" the potential you have, but I promise the haves, like Bammer, definitely maximized their potential pretty well this past season. I wish that I could believe that player development and finding "diamonds in the rough" would be enough for GT, but I don't. I think we will need a special scheme or advantage - having the smartest guy in the room calling plays on both sides of the ball would be great, but with our budget, that might never happen.

This is why I get frustrated at our fans believing that we can run the same RPO stuff with our recruiting potential (I do believe it might be possible to get us consistently between 20-35 , but the difference from #5 to #25 has never been more real or more variant in the delta) and have the kind of success any of us want. I still want to believe we can figure out a way to be better than 7-5 or 8-4, but maybe not.

I understand we have moved on from the flexbone, but we better have innovators and unbelievable developers as coaches, or we will not see us beating UGAG or other factories for a LONG, LONG time, assuming they don't hire a nimwit for a coach.
 

Deleted member 2897

Guest
Jacketman99 said:
In regards to KW, he did not lead the nation but was only 3.5 behind the national leader. Not too shabby.
Click to expand...

Depends on your definition of leads the nation and tackles for loss per game and individual versus assists.

I just looked up Chase Young so people could compare to Keion White. If you take total tackles for loss, what is the difference at the top? Chase Young averaged 1.8 tackles for loss per game. Keion White averaged 1.6 per game. Its that close, because everyone is almost tied with the same numbers, so often it comes down to games played.

For perspective on Keion's number (19) - the #1 player this year had 12 nationally. 22 gets you into the top 10 all-time record in the ACC.
 

Deleted member 2897

Guest
Updated recruiting class numbers (using Rivals):
Georgia Tech: #45 Nationally, #11 in the ACC with 1305 points.

Including ratings of transfers (7):
Devin: 5.7
Kenyatta: 5.9/112 nationally
Kyric: 5.5
Nick: 5.7
Makius; 5.6
Keion: 5.2 (rated as TE)
Kevin: 5.8/211 nationally
Ayinde: 5.7

That takes us to 1990 points. Before correcting for other teams' transfers, that takes us to #15 Nationally, #3 in the ACC.

After correcting for other team's transfers, that takes us to #18 Nationally, #4 in the ACC (North Carolina passes us in the ACC with their single transfer, a 5.9/10 national RB, and Wisconsin, North Carolina, and Nebraska pass us nationally).

Its really amazing all the name calling and arguments last night when here is all the data on Keion and our class when accounting for transfers (as of today's numbers) and its exactly what we said it was. Jesus.
 

MWBATL

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,536
bwelbo said:
Its really amazing all the name calling and arguments last night when here is all the data on Keion and our class when accounting for transfers (as of today's numbers) and its exactly what we said it was. Jesus.
Click to expand...
It seems to be a feature of message boards....well, of humans actually.... that we often ignore facts (especially inconvenient ones) and continue with our preconceptions. Witness just about ANY political discussion, or just start a conversation about masks, and you'll see the same thing.
 

WreckinGT

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,159
Recruits and transfers have always been two different things. Im not sure why we have such a need to comingle them now and change rating systems just because we took an abnormally large number of transfers this year.
 

MacJacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,367
bwelbo said:
Updated recruiting class numbers (using Rivals):
Georgia Tech: #45 Nationally, #11 in the ACC with 1305 points.

Including ratings of transfers (7):
Devin: 5.7
Kenyatta: 5.9/112 nationally
Kyric: 5.5
Nick: 5.7
Makius; 5.6
Keion: 5.2 (rated as TE)
Kevin: 5.8/211 nationally
Ayinde: 5.7

That takes us to 1990 points. Before correcting for other teams' transfers, that takes us to #15 Nationally, #3 in the ACC.

After correcting for other team's transfers, that takes us to #18 Nationally, #4 in the ACC (North Carolina passes us in the ACC with their single transfer, a 5.9/10 national RB, and Wisconsin, North Carolina, and Nebraska pass us nationally).

Its really amazing all the name calling and arguments last night when here is all the data on Keion and our class when accounting for transfers (as of today's numbers) and its exactly what we said it was. Jesus.
Click to expand...
Our staff did a good job bringing guys home (Watson, Kyric, Nick, Makus, Devin, and Kevin) through the portal while bolstering our roster and depth. If you can't see that you're blind. The roster transition is close to where it needs to be. 2022 needs to be about hitting on elite major targets.
 
GCdaJuiceMan

GCdaJuiceMan

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,969
WreckinGT said:
Recruits and transfers have always been two different things. Im not sure why we have such a need to comingle them now and change rating systems just because we took an abnormally large number of transfers this year.
Click to expand...
Ask yourself how things have changed on the college football landscape when it comes to players transferring to other teams. I don't think transfers should be weighted the same as incoming (HS) recruits and the time and effort it would take to update ratings and rankings for them would be enormous, but its apart of the todays atmosphere more than it was just 3-4 years ago. I wouldn't be surprised to see recruiting sites attempt to make an adjustment to partially include transfer data to team rankings.
 

Deleted member 2897

Guest
WreckinGT said:
Recruits and transfers have always been two different things. Im not sure why we have such a need to comingle them now and change rating systems just because we took an abnormally large number of transfers this year.
Click to expand...

i’m not sure anybody is suggesting we count things differently. But for those who are disappointed and worried at how low our class is ranked under the traditional measures, it’s important to point out why. We could’ve gone for a much higher ranking by getting seven high school guys instead of transfers, but the coaches felt like this was the better way to improve the quality of our team. For those of us who are close to the program, I think we should put an Asterix by the #45 rating and keep it in proper perspective. That was the purpose for some of us in calculating what the class would’ve been ranked if transfers counted – that’s the only reasonable way to get an alternative perspective for the approach we took for recruiting this year. In other words, how would a casual observer decide how good our class really is any other way?
 

Tadams6599

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
191
Why do people get worked up over rankings, I think that a lot of players weren’t even evaluated correctly with it being a coviid year, gotta trust the coaching staff, which is why they are the coaches and you are the fan
 

lv20gt

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,581
WreckinGT said:
Recruits and transfers have always been two different things. Im not sure why we have such a need to comingle them now and change rating systems just because we took an abnormally large number of transfers this year.
Click to expand...

You literally answered your own question. This year is extremely unlike most. Most years most teams are looking at two or 3 transfers most, and most of those are likely transfers that have only 1 or 2 years left. Of the ones that have more than 2 years left usually redshirt rules would apply which both dissuaded quantity of transfers but also set a distinction between them and a usual recruit. However this year is different and there are an abnormally large number of transfers overall, and especially for transfers with 3-4 years worth of eligibility who will be eligible to play next year as well. Those transfers are effectively no different than a recruit.

If you don't want to mix them, then fine. But if you're going to talk about our recruiting class and don't want to mix them, then you should also probably talk about how we likely have a top 5 transfer class. Of course that's not what is going to happen and people would just point to the recruiting rankings alone as was done in the comment that sparked this entire thread.
 
Augusta_Jacket

Augusta_Jacket

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
8,099
Location
Augusta, Georgia
lv20gt said:
But regardless, at this point any sticking point is about things that aren't likely to make a significant impact in the overall picture. Even a basic attempt to factor in the transfers leads to pretty much the same conclusion. A fringe top 30 class that is at the top of the second tier in conference standings, slightly worse than last year.
Click to expand...

For the most part, this I can agree with. The factories will probably pick up some transfers after the late signing period, as they always do. They have to wait for the blue chip holdouts to commit on the Feb NSD. For the most part, they were ahead of us in the rankings. Auburn was the only one below us. The real question is going to be will classes in the 30-35 range get us where we want to be, or is this year a one off? If CGC gets us back into the top 25 routinely with occasional top 20, then I think we have a chance.
 

WreckinGT

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,159
GCdaJuiceMan said:
Ask yourself how things have changed on the college football landscape when it comes to players transferring to other teams. I don't think transfers should be weighted the same as incoming (HS) recruits and the time and effort it would take to update ratings and rankings for them would be enormous, but its apart of the todays atmosphere more than it was just 3-4 years ago. I wouldn't be surprised to see recruiting sites attempt to make an adjustment to partially include transfer data to team rankings.
Click to expand...
Has transferring changed things that dramatically? The top 10 teams in the recruiting rankings took 3 incoming transfers total. Most programs dont take more than 2-3 transfers and most top programs take zero. Im not sure recruiting services need to put in effort to rerank middle to lower tier teams just because they went the transfer route instead of the recruiting route. Like you said, properly doing this is not a trivial task. You would have to rerank every player, every year. Even reranking them is difficult. How do you rerank a guy who was ranked high out of HS but couldnt get on the field in college?
 
Augusta_Jacket

Augusta_Jacket

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
8,099
Location
Augusta, Georgia
lv20gt said:
If you don't want to mix them, then fine. But if you're going to talk about our recruiting class and don't want to mix them, then you should also probably talk about how we likely have a top 5 transfer class. Of course that's not what is going to happen and people would just point to the recruiting rankings alone as was done in the comment that sparked this entire thread.
Click to expand...

For years we have pointed to recruiting rankings alone as the single biggest reason GT football couldn't sustain success. Why is there all of a sudden a driving urge to add nuance to defend a ranking in the 40's?
 
Augusta_Jacket

Augusta_Jacket

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
8,099
Location
Augusta, Georgia
bwelbo said:
Depends on your definition of leads the nation and tackles for loss per game and individual versus assists.

I just looked up Chase Young so people could compare to Keion White. If you take total tackles for loss, what is the difference at the top? Chase Young averaged 1.8 tackles for loss per game. Keion White averaged 1.6 per game. Its that close, because everyone is almost tied with the same numbers, so often it comes down to games played.

For perspective on Keion's number (19) - the #1 player this year had 12 nationally. 22 gets you into the top 10 all-time record in the ACC.
Click to expand...

In fairness, I like the addition of White. Do you think he keeps those numbers when he's not facing CUSA OLs most weeks? In his defense, he had a great game against UVA in 2019, so maybe the answer is yes. There's also the possibility that he never cracks the ATL here. Either way, having him on the team is a good thing, and I am hopeful he brings the havoc in the backfield we've been missing.
 
Top