Brent Key is not the answer

yeti92

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,181
Yeti
The 14 4* DL guys you mention is our haul covering 15 recruiting seasons....to play ALA or UGA or Clemson defense, you must sign 2 EACH year....that is why I am a proponent of playing a 2-5-4 and bringing 6 or 7 on every play. We can never stop anybody for 60 mins playing bend-but-don't-break....oh well...hope Brent gets better. Right now we are unwatchable....
GT signing 2 stud DLs every year for more than a couple years in a row, having them stick around the program, and having these guys actually pan out as good players is about as likely as UNC winning a natty. Never happened before, and not likely to ever happen without insane changes to the program, aka massive amounts of NIL money.

And even if we did manage that, we'd still be trailing. uga has 3 4-star DL committed in their current class, signed 1 5-star and 4 4-star DL in the 23 class, signed 2 5-star and 4 4-star DL in 22, signed 1 5-star and 1 4 star in 21, signed 1 5-star and 2 4-star in 20.... thats 19 4/5 star DL in a 5 year span.
 

stinger78

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,910
I believe it is a very valid question to ask about The Program. Apart from a special connection between recruit and position coach, I consider it to be the most important piece of the recruiting puzzle. I don't think it involves marketing per se, or only marginally. I believe the bedrock of The Program is winning. For some, albeit a shrinking some, another piece is academics. More and more, blue chip HS athletes are convinced they are going to have their payday in the NFL (or NBA, MLB, etc.) and they are looking for the place that will maximize that chance. A winning Program attracts the attention of high-level athletes. At that point, there are institutional Program factors that can negate a place of interest. Coaches, position depth, geographic location, and curriculum used to be main Program factors, however, recently NIL has moved to the top shelf and the Portal has shifted some of the others downward. I believe that curriculum is still a major Program issue for any athlete who is strongly considering GA Tech. You have to want to engage academics to enroll at GA Tech. Sadly, many just don't see that anymore as their ticket to success. Those athletes we will struggle to get.
 

RamblinRed

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
5,901
I know. I was stating that Liberty's defense was worse than ours. It is. My point with the SoS is that it allows a shiny 8-0 record to look like you've actually accomplished something. We'd likely be bowling with Liberty's schedule.
I agree with that.

I'll add, I doubt GT would be 8-0 with Liberty's schedule.
GT has already lost to BG, who Liberty beat, and GT lost to BC who is right in line with Western KY.
 

bobongo

Helluva Engineer
Messages
7,727
I believe it is a very valid question to ask about The Program. Apart from a special connection between recruit and position coach, I consider it to be the most important piece of the recruiting puzzle. I don't think it involves marketing per se, or only marginally. I believe the bedrock of The Program is winning. For some, albeit a shrinking some, another piece is academics. More and more, blue chip HS athletes are convinced they are going to have their payday in the NFL (or NBA, MLB, etc.) and they are looking for the place that will maximize that chance. A winning Program attracts the attention of high-level athletes. At that point, there are institutional Program factors that can negate a place of interest. Coaches, position depth, geographic location, and curriculum used to be main Program factors, however, recently NIL has moved to the top shelf and the Portal has shifted some of the others downward. I believe that curriculum is still a major Program issue for any athlete who is strongly considering GA Tech. You have to want to engage academics to enroll at GA Tech. Sadly, many just don't see that anymore as their ticket to success. Those athletes we will struggle to get.
I've thought that Tech needs to get out of the back yard and focus nationwide on good prospects who are serious students and interested in what Tech has to offer, which is superlative academics in STEM subjects.
I don't know whether that would work, but it might be worth a try. It's just an idea.
 

takethepoints

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,142
" … OR slowly transitioned away from it with a hybrid transition integrating increasing more passing over the years until we completed the cycle.
And we could have done it. However, just as he did with the Temple team Rhule left him, TFG decided to abandon the style of football his entire team was built for. (Btw, Temple fans warned us this would happen.) And the result was the Citadel debacle and three straight 3 - 9 seasons. You want to see what Tech could have been 2019 n the right conditions, here you go:



Yeah, James was injured a lot that year, but if TFG had let Tobias run we could have done a lot better. Sure, the D still sucked, but the O looked like it should have with Graham running and passing. He was absolutely wasted at Tech and he might have been the best QB we ever recruited, then until now. Ah, well. That ship has finally sailed and we can get back to business.

And why didn't Tech recruit Castellano? He's from right down the road, you know. I suspect it is because he's 5'11' and likes to run. The staff is looking for QBs over 6'3" who stick in the pocket. And we miss opportunities. Lots of them.
 

takethepoints

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,142
I believe it is a very valid question to ask about The Program. Apart from a special connection between recruit and position coach, I consider it to be the most important piece of the recruiting puzzle. I don't think it involves marketing per se, or only marginally. I believe the bedrock of The Program is winning. For some, albeit a shrinking some, another piece is academics. More and more, blue chip HS athletes are convinced they are going to have their payday in the NFL (or NBA, MLB, etc.) and they are looking for the place that will maximize that chance. A winning Program attracts the attention of high-level athletes. At that point, there are institutional Program factors that can negate a place of interest. Coaches, position depth, geographic location, and curriculum used to be main Program factors, however, recently NIL has moved to the top shelf and the Portal has shifted some of the others downward. I believe that curriculum is still a major Program issue for any athlete who is strongly considering GA Tech. You have to want to engage academics to enroll at GA Tech. Sadly, many just don't see that anymore as their ticket to success. Those athletes we will struggle to get.
Yet … when we have coaches who know how to use the players we get the results are substantial. Ross, O'Leary, Gailey (yes, Gailey), and Johnson all did just fine usually with players not to many other schools were interested in. Even Joe Hamiliton was normally approached as a DB while he was in high school. ("Too short for D1", they said.)

Look, Tech has positively thrived on such players. That's where the program needs to focus; on players who want to come to Tech and want a chance to show what they can do. As for the rest, it's like Paul used to say to recruits, "We'll win with you or without you." That's the attitude the whole staff needs.
 

slugboy

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
11,724
Yet … when we have coaches who know how to use the players we get the results are substantial. Ross, O'Leary, Gailey (yes, Gailey), and Johnson all did just fine usually with players not to many other schools were interested in. Even Joe Hamiliton was normally approached as a DB while he was in high school. ("Too short for D1", they said.)

Look, Tech has positively thrived on such players. That's where the program needs to focus; on players who want to come to Tech and want a chance to show what they can do. As for the rest, it's like Paul used to say to recruits, "We'll win with you or without you." That's the attitude the whole staff needs.
O’Leary had star recruits, and Gailey had stud recruiters on staff (he under recruited linemen, but that’s a side debate)
 

GT33

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,265
O’Leary had star recruits, and Gailey had stud recruiters on staff (he under recruited linemen, but that’s a side debate)
Gomer’s staff could recruit. They were one of the top recruiting staffs certainly we’ve ever had and maybe anyone ever had given the difficulty recruiting here. Vexing how they couldn’t recruit someone to throw Calvin the ball though.
 

stinger78

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,910
Gomer’s staff could recruit. They were one of the top recruiting staffs certainly we’ve ever had and maybe anyone ever had given the difficulty recruiting here. Vexing how they couldn’t recruit someone to throw Calvin the ball though.
They did... finally... the names were Josh Nesbitt, Steven Threet (who left to go back to Michigan), and Sean Renfree (who committed to Dook after CPJ was hired). It took CCG 5 years to do it, but such is the effect of anointing a true FR QB the starter, in your second season as HC, after he was named the 2003 ACC ROY. I thought at the time it was not a good move if we wanted to recruit a top QB. That didn't happen until 2007 after he was slated to graduate.
 

bobongo

Helluva Engineer
Messages
7,727
And we could have done it. However, just as he did with the Temple team Rhule left him, TFG decided to abandon the style of football his entire team was built for. (Btw, Temple fans warned us this would happen.) And the result was the Citadel debacle and three straight 3 - 9 seasons. You want to see what Tech could have been 2019 n the right conditions, here you go:



Yeah, James was injured a lot that year, but if TFG had let Tobias run we could have done a lot better. Sure, the D still sucked, but the O looked like it should have with Graham running and passing. He was absolutely wasted at Tech and he might have been the best QB we ever recruited, then until now. Ah, well. That ship has finally sailed and we can get back to business.

And why didn't Tech recruit Castellano? He's from right down the road, you know. I suspect it is because he's 5'11' and likes to run. The staff is looking for QBs over 6'3" who stick in the pocket. And we miss opportunities. Lots of them.

The QB we have now is 6'3" and likes to run. Throws a good ball, too, if only he'd be a little carefuller with it.
 

takethepoints

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,142
The QB we have now is 6'3" and likes to run. Throws a good ball, too, if only he'd be a little carefuller with it.
He only does it - run, that is - under extreme duress. Maybe the BC game will convince him (and the coaches) to call a few QB sweeps this week.
 

bobongo

Helluva Engineer
Messages
7,727
He only does it - run, that is - under extreme duress. Maybe the BC game will convince him (and the coaches) to call a few QB sweeps this week.
The coaches seem to be anxious that King will get injured, but King isn't afraid to put head and shoulder into it as the situation demands.
But yeah, QB sweeps and draws might move the sticks. He has deceptive speed.
 

SOWEGA Jacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,109
GT signing 2 stud DLs every year for more than a couple years in a row, having them stick around the program, and having these guys actually pan out as good players is about as likely as UNC winning a natty. Never happened before, and not likely to ever happen without insane changes to the program, aka massive amounts of NIL money.

And even if we did manage that, we'd still be trailing. uga has 3 4-star DL committed in their current class, signed 1 5-star and 4 4-star DL in the 23 class, signed 2 5-star and 4 4-star DL in 22, signed 1 5-star and 1 4 star in 21, signed 1 5-star and 2 4-star in 20.... thats 19 4/5 star DL in a 5 year span.
Which is why we need to over recruit that position every year. Sign 10 three stars every year and hope we get 3 out of them. Then push the others to transfer so we use those roster spots for the next batch. Rinse and repeat. Instead, we sign boat loads of DB’s and WR’s who sit on the roster for years who rarely see the field. It’s all a numbers game and we are team full of WR’s and DB’s. Football is built in to out, not the other way.
 

Techster

Helluva Engineer
Messages
18,388
Gomer’s staff could recruit. They were one of the top recruiting staffs certainly we’ve ever had and maybe anyone ever had given the difficulty recruiting here. Vexing how they couldn’t recruit someone to throw Calvin the ball though.

What Gailey did best, IMO, was find players that weren't that highly regarded, and developed them into NFL level players. Up until the vaunted 2007 class, Gailey was widely panned for his recruiting classes. Outside of Calvin Johnson, Gailey didn't have many highly regarded recruits until 2007, yet if you look at the 2006 team, it was full of future NFL draft picks that went on to long NFL careers.

Remember, during the Gailey years, getting film on players was much harder, and also required and extensive network of volunteer scouts who made recommendations. The prospect camps that litter the country were also not around in the vast numbers that occur now. Not only did a coach back then have to do more leg work to ID players that can perform on this level, a coach also had to make sure that player could be developed. Gailey was outstanding finding players, projecting to this level, and developing them once they got in the program.
 

tmhunter52

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,465
P
I've thought that Tech needs to get out of the back yard and focus nationwide on good prospects who are serious students and interested in what Tech has to offer, which is superlative academics in STEM subjects.
I don't know whether that would work, but it might be worth a try. It's just an idea.
i thought all of those guys were 3-stars.
 

stinger78

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,910
And we could have done it. However, just as he did with the Temple team Rhule left him, TFG decided to abandon the style of football his entire team was built for. (Btw, Temple fans warned us this would happen.) And the result was the Citadel debacle and three straight 3 - 9 seasons. You want to see what Tech could have been 2019 n the right conditions, here you go:



Yeah, James was injured a lot that year, but if TFG had let Tobias run we could have done a lot better. Sure, the D still sucked, but the O looked like it should have with Graham running and passing. He was absolutely wasted at Tech and he might have been the best QB we ever recruited, then until now. Ah, well. That ship has finally sailed and we can get back to business.

And why didn't Tech recruit Castellano? He's from right down the road, you know. I suspect it is because he's 5'11' and likes to run. The staff is looking for QBs over 6'3" who stick in the pocket. And we miss opportunities. Lots of them.

I thought that James Graham never really got the chance he needed to get at QB. If the OC has only known how to, or was willing to, install some option into this O, Graham may have done quite well as a transition QB. Alas, it was not to be.
 

GoldZ

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
930
GT signing 2 stud DLs every year for more than a couple years in a row, having them stick around the program, and having these guys actually pan out as good players is about as likely as UNC winning a natty. Never happened before, and not likely to ever happen without insane changes to the program, aka massive amounts of NIL money.

And even if we did manage that, we'd still be trailing. uga has 3 4-star DL committed in their current class, signed 1 5-star and 4 4-star DL in the 23 class, signed 2 5-star and 4 4-star DL in 22, signed 1 5-star and 1 4 star in 21, signed 1 5-star and 2 4-star in 20.... thats 19 4/5 star DL in a 5 year span.
Yeah, but we have beaten them before when "trailing" them for years on DL signees. Sadly though, your point is valid.
 

Northeast Stinger

Helluva Engineer
Messages
11,127
We’ve been talking about the problem of recruiting on the DL for as long as I can remember. About 20 years ago it became clear that the number of elite DT coming out of high school was perhaps the smallest group of prospects of any position. A percentage of these prospects came from failing school systems, a percentage lacked any kind of stem preparation, and the few that were left were gobbled up by factories.

Non-factory schools responded by finding players with big frames and trying to develop them. Tech did this along with converting offensive linemen and finding players from other countries. Some of these approaches worked but mostly this was making do.

Today you will find lots of teams with 300 pound DTs. But few teams actually have elite athletes at this position. What many teams can hope for is to find DTs who, though not game changers, are not total disasters. They then try to have a combination of scheming and top notch linebackers.
 
Top