2021 Recruiting Class & Transfers In

[Tadams6599]

i also hear alot of people comparing transfers to people who couldn't get on the field, that is so whack, cochran started 32 games, white was a starter, pendley played four games before entering the portal, kyric played in the big 10 championship, JT Daniels was a starter before his injury the list of transfers in the ncaa who are ball players goes on and on, it is ignorant to act like every transfer leaves because they could not get on the field. smh

 

[lv20gt]

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.

Yes, the recruiting cycle isn't finished for anyone. Unfortunately nobody can predict the future so we can only go by what the current situation is now. And currently when adjusted for transfers, by basically any level of scrutiny, we have a class that is just slightly below last years.

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?

Nonsense. For years people talked about how we couldn't take transfers due to credit transfer issues and it was talked about as secondary issue (usually when people were talking about the limits the academics put on our recruiting). So why the sudden change? Lets see, a global pandemic that disrupted college football so much that the NCAA isn't counting eligibility use for this year and allowing for immediate eligibility to transfers. That alone justifies a rethinking of how to evaluate classes overall, but for a GT specific purpose, when have we ever added 8 transfers in a year, 4 of them freshmen? What reasons are there to NOT make an attempt to adjust for transfers? Laziness and not wanting to put in the legwork? Solved that issue. Only other one I can think of is a desire to depict the situation in a certain way that would be harder to do with adjusting for transfers.

 

[GCdaJuiceMan]

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?

Its an interesting question for sure. I think if the NCAA solidifies a 1 time no penalty transfer rule then the recruiting sites might make an adjustment. As you stated though, their big revenue generators (normal top 10 teams) aren't brining in a whole lot of transfers, so would they allocate resources to include transfers? idk. I think they may try though.

 

[Coloradojacket]

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.

You are pretty much right where I am on this. We will never be able to recruit against Alabama, UGA etc. We just need to find a couple of really good players, develop some guys and find a scheme that can cover our deficiency. And pray we have limited injuries. You are correct that CPJ and his offense will not return, but there are offensive schemes out there we should be running other than the vanilla scheme, which is really a Texas High School scheme, we run today. I look at Coastal Carolina and Georgia Southern and believe we need this scheme.

Because what many fail to see is our recruiting issue is not impacting offense, it is impacting the other side of the ball. We have never been able to recruit numbers of D- lineman and linebackers and as such our defense has always been our problem. CPJ recognized this and that is why when you run his offense you limit the other team to 9-10 possessions. For most teams that score at some where around 40%, that means 28-24 points. Then you just need to score at 45%. Yes Clemson is an exception but it wasn't always that way. When you run an offense like we do going three and out and giving the other team 18-20 possessions....well that is anywhere between 49 and 70 points you have to overcome. Sounds a lot like our scores this year.

I believe CGC has a very big challenge ahead of him but frankly it is a lot of his own making. He will need to change is Offense in order to get back to 6-7 wins and I hope he sees this. And as for Tech being able to recruit at the levels some believe, they point to O'leary and his tenure but lest we forget, when George left we were only graduating about 40% and went on probation. Under todays APR we would be losing numerous scholarships.

 

[Ibeeballin]

It’s funny that defense was GT calling card before CPJ arrived, now suddenly CPJ had this epiphany to run the TO here

 

[Coloradojacket]

It’s funny that defense was GT calling card before CPJ arrived, now suddenly CPJ had this epiphany to run the TO here

Um, under Tenutta it saw some success, because he ran a blitz scheme. We had a lot of success with it but when we met up with a good QB, Boston College, VT, it got carved up with big plays. Chan's offense was anemic at best, 19 points per game. We were a 7-5 team. CPJ brought an offense that was more effective for both sides of the ball. Funny thing was CPJ's first and last D coordinators were probably his best. Never really sure why we go rid of Womack.

And if you are referring to the O'leary years.....1999 we were a sieve.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

by number of wins

Yes, with a lag time of 1-2 years. But before they've even made it onto campus, ratings are traditionally the way of the world.

 

[CuseJacket]

Um, under Tenutta it saw some success, because he ran a blitz scheme. We had a lot of success with it but when we met up with a good QB, Boston College, VT, it got carved up with big plays. Chan's offense was anemic at best, 19 points per game. We were a 7-5 team. CPJ brought an offense that was more effective for both sides of the ball. Funny thing was CPJ's first and last D coordinators were probably his best. Never really sure why we go rid of Womack.

And if you are referring to the O'leary years.....1999 we were a sieve.

"Chan's offense was anemic at best"... and he had the same win % as CPJ.

So what facet of the game enabled Chan to get to the same record, if not the defense?

I agree with @AlabamaBuzz that the haves vs. the have-nots has widened over time. That said, we can certainly be better on defense, as evidenced by the Chan years. We did not recruit like wildfire, save for Chan's 2007 class, which was too late in his tenure to impact his overall record. We can be much better on D than we have been over the past decade. Chan's recipe did not include a bunch of 4* and 5* talent.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Um, under Tenutta it saw some success, because he ran a blitz scheme. We had a lot of success with it but when we met up with a good QB, Boston College, VT, it got carved up with big plays. Chan's offense was anemic at best, 19 points per game. We were a 7-5 team. CPJ brought an offense that was more effective for both sides of the ball. Funny thing was CPJ's first and last D coordinators were probably his best. Never really sure why we go rid of Womack.

And if you are referring to the O'leary years.....1999 we were a sieve.

Don’t hold me to an exact number but since 1966 to the present I think we have had maybe four or five good defenses. 1970 comes to mind, one of Curry’s teams in the 80s, 2014 and maybe a couple of others.

Good defense at Tech has never been a thing in my memory.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

You are pretty much right where I am on this. We will never be able to recruit against Alabama, UGA etc. We just need to find a couple of really good players, develop some guys and find a scheme that can cover our deficiency. And pray we have limited injuries. You are correct that CPJ and his offense will not return, but there are offensive schemes out there we should be running other than the vanilla scheme, which is really a Texas High School scheme, we run today. I look at Coastal Carolina and Georgia Southern and believe we need this scheme.

Because what many fail to see is our recruiting issue is not impacting offense, it is impacting the other side of the ball. We have never been able to recruit numbers of D- lineman and linebackers and as such our defense has always been our problem. CPJ recognized this and that is why when you run his offense you limit the other team to 9-10 possessions. For most teams that score at some where around 40%, that means 28-24 points. Then you just need to score at 45%. Yes Clemson is an exception but it wasn't always that way. When you run an offense like we do going three and out and giving the other team 18-20 possessions....well that is anywhere between 49 and 70 points you have to overcome. Sounds a lot like our scores this year.

I believe CGC has a very big challenge ahead of him but frankly it is a lot of his own making. He will need to change is Offense in order to get back to 6-7 wins and I hope he sees this. And as for Tech being able to recruit at the levels some believe, they point to O'leary and his tenure but lest we forget, when George left we were only graduating about 40% and went on probation. Under todays APR we would be losing numerous scholarships.

At the risk of insulting and annoying people who don't like anything but the highest expectations, imagine we can never beat Clemson or uGA and can only beat Miami maybe every other year. And same with maybe a Virginia Tech/North Carolina. With bowl games and ACCCG, you're still talking a 9/10-win team if you beat everyone else.

By way of illustration, in the 2020 recruiting class, here is the number of 4-star recruits the teams had who finished ranked in the 20s: 8, 8, 9, 7, 6, 4, 4, 8, 5, 2. The point here is it doesn't take unreasonable/impossible recruiting to materially move the needle. 4-6 guys rated 4-stars each year and we're in the 20s. If you perform to how your recruits are ranked, being ranked in the 20s each year in terms of on-field performance also equates to a 9-win team most years.

I'm not trying to say we should settle for 9 wins as a goal, I'm just saying there's absolutely no reason why we can't get there. And those are very good teams. It will be a completely different fan experience compared to where we've been the last few years.

 

[SWATlien]

Funny all those 7/8 win seasons under Chan must didn’t exist. Cause he ran a very basic offense.

 

[Coloradojacket]

"Chan's offense was anemic at best"... and he had the same win % as CPJ.

So what facet of the game enabled Chan to get to the same record, if not the defense?

I agree with @AlabamaBuzz that the haves vs. the have-nots has widened over time. That said, we can certainly be better on defense, as evidenced by the Chan years. We did not recruit like wildfire, save for Chan's 2007 class, which was too late in his tenure to impact his overall record. We can be much better on D than we have been over the past decade. Chan's recipe did not include a bunch of 4* and 5* talent.

A couple of things. Chan was a 7 win guy that only achieved 9 wins once. CPJ had 4 seasons of 9 wins or more. But that said, there were other changes. It was only toward the end of Chan that we had split divisions and Miami, BC and VT were not in the ACC yet, along with Pitt. This made the schedule for us harder as the years went by.

 

[Coloradojacket]

Funny all those 7/8 win seasons under Chan must didn’t exist. Cause he ran a very basic offense.

Chan had one 9 win season, three 7 wins seasons and two 6 win seasons

 

[stech81]

It’s funny that defense was GT calling card before CPJ arrived, now suddenly CPJ had this epiphany to run the TO here

I do think it would be funny on the last offensive series before half time to run a couple of T.O just to see the defensive coordinator think before the second half. Then first play in the second half line up in the T. O formation and pass deep.

 

[Jacketman99]

Don’t hold me to an exact number but since 1966 to the present I think we have had maybe four or five good defenses. 1970 comes to mind, one of Curry’s teams in the 80s, 2014 and maybe a couple of others.

Good defense at Tech has never been a thing in my memory.

If you guys don't think we had good defenses under CCG you will never be satisfied. Of course there are going to be some teams who get the better of you but that does not mean the team was not a good defensive team. The 2014 team forced a lot of turnovers but that was not a good defensive team overall.

 

[Jacketman99]

A couple of things. Chan was a 7 win guy that only achieved 9 wins once. CPJ had 4 seasons of 9 wins or more. But that said, there were other changes. It was only toward the end of Chan that we had split divisions and Miami, BC and VT were not in the ACC yet, along with Pitt. This made the schedule for us harder as the years went by.

CPJ also had 3, 5, and 6 win seasons. 2 of those were in his last 3 seasons here. CPJ was a good coach but he did not walk on water.

 

[cthenrys]

Blah blah blah recruiting rankings blah blah four star blah blah....

unless you’re a CFP contender (about 5-8 schools and we ain’t one of them) it’s about what do you do with what you have. So far not so good. Hope it gets better. Relying on whether we really have the 40th or 20th ranked class isn’t going to be real relevant.

I remember driving through TN and hearing a UT recruiting show on AM radio in winter /
Spring. Yawwwwnnnnnn.... wake me up when we win a significant game again.

 

[Heisman's Ghost]

then what Old Dominion transfer to GT did?

"These transfers are multiple 4-star guys, and even one who isn’t (from Old Dominion) led the nation in tackles for loss."

You did say it. Those are your words.

Edit to add: I see how you are moving the goalposts. You said tackles for loss. You were still wrong.

I don't know about "tackles for loss" I just want to see tackles without defensive players bouncing off running backs like tennis balls.

 

[Heisman's Ghost]

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.

Pretty much. The chasm between the top elite factories and everyone else is getting wider by the minute. Even former "factory" programs that were once respected and feared like Tennessee and Nebraska are being left behind. One of these days, fans of other programs with no chance of ever being relevant will begin to "opt out" and enter the "portal" by finding other things to do with their Saturdays.

 

[jacketup]

A couple of things. Chan was a 7 win guy that only achieved 9 wins once. CPJ had 4 seasons of 9 wins or more. But that said, there were other changes. It was only toward the end of Chan that we had split divisions and Miami, BC and VT were not in the ACC yet, along with Pitt. This made the schedule for us harder as the years went by.

Apples and oranges. Two of Chan's 6 years Tech played an 11 game schedule--not 12. Chan's teams played 3 1-AA/FCS schools in 6 years. Johnson's teams played 13 FCS/I-AA schools in 11 years. Johnson had more chances to get to 9 wins.

And 2 of the 4 9 win seasons you refer to under Johnson were due to Chan's recruiting--and recruiting is a big part of a head coach's job, even though some on this board won't recognize it.

Chan never had fewer than 7 wins, while Johnson had losing seasons almost half the time, and more than half the time after he ran out of Chan's recruits.

Then he left behind the worst talent situation since Pepper--who also ran the TO.

Why some people are so in love with the mediocrity we experienced from 2010 -2018--and it was getting worse--is beyond me.