Clemson 40, GT 8

[GTNavyNuke]

That's my projection for ....... oh wait the game is over.

Looking back from 2010 to 2014 Scout 4 and 5 star players, Clemson has had 40 and we've had 8. So the loss of one QB shouldn't have hurt that much - they should have had so much skill at other positions to pick up the slack!

Here's what I have for Scout 2010-14:

Total; 4 star; 5 star
Clemson .40; ......38; .......2;
GT ............8; .........8; .......0
UGAg ......63; ......51; .......12
FSU .........61; ......42; .......19

So it ain't gonna get any easier (if we are fortunate enough to play FSU), but we've got nothing to lose!

 

[Js-showman]

That's my projection for ....... oh wait the game is over.

Looking back from 2010 to 2014 Scout 4 and 5 star players, Clemson has had 40 and we've had 8. So the loss of one QB shouldn't have hurt that much - they should have had so much skill at other positions to pick up the slack!

Here's what I have for Scout 2010-14:

Total; 4 star; 5 star
Clemson .40; ......38; .......2;
GT ............8; .........8; .......0
UGAg ......63; ......51; .......12
FSU .........61; ......42; .......19

So it ain't gonna get any easier (if we are fortunate enough to play FSU), but we've got nothing to lose!

Going by stars, we would have lost to VT, Miami and Clemson. Probably Virginia and Pitt too. We would lose to North Carolina every year.

Stars are an over weighted contribution in the formula for winning.

 

[GTNavyNuke]

Maybe stars are over weighted if you think they are more than 40% ............ off season we can talk about ...... the discipline of a team counts for a lot.

I made the post since I was talking to a Clemson fan today who said that the reason they lost was Watson went out. Tomorrow I'll have the 40:8 (or 5:1) ratio for him .......

I think my UGAg score prediction will be ........ out next thursday

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Watson going out had very little to do with the fact that they got a drubbing by Tech. I listed a slew of reasons in another thread to think this way. They were outschemed, outcoached, out-efforted, out "team chemistry-ed" and Tech brought out the sledge hammer (literally) on defense.

A freshman who has been hyped to all get out and even declared a Heisman candidate for next year has in fact been primarily injured this season. How did our QB and offense do against the two NC teams Watson was healthy for and played whole games against? Comparable I would say except we played them on the road and CU got them at home, so that gives us an edge even.

 

[Oldgoldandwhite]

Shows how easy it is to whiff on QB's. Ask LSU and UF. With that said, give PJ Clemson's DL and he would win a NC.

 

[GTrob21]

IF Watson stays healthy, Clemson will be extremely good over the next couple of years.

However so will GT with Thomas, I think that rivalry will be one of the better ones with those two.

Lets just beat UGA, and Tech's brand will rise even higher

 

[GTNavyNuke]

Shows how easy it is to whiff on QB's. Ask LSU and UF. With that said, give PJ Clemson's DL and he would win a NC.

With Clemson's DL this year we'd be undefeated. But I like our guys since they chose the right way! I've noticed this year there seems to be more camaraderie between the players and students. It may be this board; it may be winning more; but it seems to be more solid.

 

[Animal02]

Watson going out had very little to do with the fact that they got a drubbing by Tech. I listed a slew of reasons in another thread to think this way. They were outschemed, outcoached, out-efforted, out "team chemistry-ed" and Tech brought out the sledge hammer (literally) on defense.

A freshman who has been hyped to all get out and even declared a Heisman candidate for next year has in fact been primarily injured this season. How did our QB and offense do against the two NC teams Watson was healthy for and played whole games against? Comparable I would say except we played them on the road and CU got them at home, so that gives us an edge even.

What is interesting is how concerned everyone was about JT staying healthy with all the hits he was going to take. Seems he is far less fragile than many believed.....(he is also playing smarter now too )

 

[AlabamaBuzz]

I understand that our coaches are doing wonders with the talent we do have. I also realize that some of our guys may have been wrongly rated. BUT, with that said, we need more "high 3 star" and a few more 4 star guys ASAP.... Our margin for error is way, way too small right now.....

 

[takethepoints]

Better players would help, but, as usual, you have to remember what the players are recruited to do.

Our players are recruited to run a system offense and one where the players fit their roles more closely then you find in most other offenses. Take Laskey, for instance. He had a great senior year, but was rated a 2 star, no better then so-so. However, three teams were on him like a duck on a June bug: Navy, Air Force, and, since his junior year, Tech. That's because his film simply screamed "BB!" He was – and is – pretty much perfect for the job. So we recruited him and beat out the other two. Too bad he got hurt in his last year, though nobody could complain about how Days has played in his place.

The place we need more "stars" is on D. There is no "system D" that I know of. There we simply need more big, fast, players, especially on the DL. We appear to be working successfully on that.

 

[AlabamaBuzz]

Better players would help, but, as usual, you have to remember what the players are recruited to do.

Our players are recruited to run a system offense and one where the players fit their roles more closely then you find in most other offenses. Take Laskey, for instance. He had a great senior year, but was rated a 2 star, no better then so-so. However, three teams were on him like a duck on a June bug: Navy, Air Force, and, since his junior year, Tech. That's because his film simply screamed "BB!" He was – and is – pretty much perfect for the job. So we recruited him and beat out the other two. Too bad he got hurt in his last year, though nobody could complain about how Days has played in his place.

The place we need more "stars" is on D. There is no "system D" that I know of. There we simply need more big, fast, players, especially on the DL. We appear to be working successfully on that.

That is definitely what I meant, although having a few "high star" WR's or RB's would still be o.k. I think PJ could find a place to use them on O.

 

[GTNavyNuke]

@takethepoints I agree we can largely get away with some O positions which are different than other O to get lower ranked players. The O ranking for players is usually for how they would project in a pro style O. But I remember the beating we took from Iowa and LSU in bowls. Ouch. I think that problem is corrected and am looking forward to this year's bowl.

But on D, especially DL, as you point out, we see what has happened. Injuries, dismissals and whatever and we are in awful shape without the depth.

Finally on ST, I think we can do ok too. It only takes a couple of kickers on scholarship and you are in great shape. Plus kickers would seem to be the type who would generally gravitate to a more academic school. And you can coach kids up for ST since there isn't as much trench warfare. That's why Fluke has one of the top STs -- largely because they have a great kicking game and are good are returns. (Too bad their kicker missed two FGs against VT. Here's to hoping for more misses Thursday! )

But all in all, our guys kick ***.

Does anyone have stats on how many players in the NFL came from which schools and which year? I would think that we have a very high ratio of NFL players to recruited 4/5 star players. It would seem that would be a stat which would be very helpful in recruiting.

 

[Animal02]

@takethepoints I agree we can largely get away with some O positions which are different than other O to get lower ranked players. The O ranking for players is usually for how they would project in a pro style O. But I remember the beating we took from Iowa and LSU in bowls. Ouch. I think that problem is corrected and am looking forward to this year's bowl.

But on D, especially DL, as you point out, we see what has happened. Injuries, dismissals and whatever and we are in awful shape without the depth.

Finally on ST, I think we can do ok too. It only takes a couple of kickers on scholarship and you are in great shape. Plus kickers would seem to be the type who would generally gravitate to a more academic school. And you can coach kids up for ST since there isn't as much trench warfare. That's why Fluke has one of the top STs -- largely because they have a great kicking game and are good are returns. (Too bad their kicker missed two FGs against VT. Here's to hoping for more misses Thursday! )

But all in all, our guys kick ***.

Does anyone have stats on how many players in the NFL came from which schools and which year? I would think that we have a very high ratio of NFL players to recruited 4/5 star players. It would seem that would be a stat which would be very helpful in recruiting.

Not by year......but this is by college
http://espn.go.com/nfl/college/_/letter/g

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Wow...GT 14, UGA...38 Maybe Richt should be fired LOLOL

 

[GTNavyNuke]

Wow...GT 14, UGA...38 Maybe Richt should be fired LOLOL

I can work with that .....
GT puts 14 in NFL/8 "elite players last 5 years"=1.75

UGAg puts 38 / 63 = .60

So come to GT if you are an "elite" athlete and you are about 3 times more likely to go into the NFL than if you go to Reverend Richt's Reformatory program!!

Slight problem with the logic is that 2 and mostly 3 stars from GT probably got into the NFL, but if you spent a lot of time and did a rigorous analysis, you'd probably come up with something similar!

 

[iopjacket]

Clemson really seemed to go into a funk when Watson went out. Their resiliency was really poor. Throwing three inceptions; two for TDs didn't help. I was surprised that Clemson didn't try to run the ball down our throat up the middle. UGag probably will try but at least we have Green back.

Go Jackets. THWG

 

[collegeballfan]

That's my projection for ....... oh wait the game is over.

Looking back from 2010 to 2014 Scout 4 and 5 star players, Clemson has had 40 and we've had 8. So the loss of one QB shouldn't have hurt that much - they should have had so much skill at other positions to pick up the slack!

Here's what I have for Scout 2010-14:

Total; 4 star; 5 star
Clemson .40; ......38; .......2;
GT ............8; .........8; .......0
UGAg ......63; ......51; .......12
FSU .........61; ......42; .......19

So it ain't gonna get any easier (if we are fortunate enough to play FSU), but we've got nothing to lose!

I looked at Rivals recruiting team rankings primarily for the up coming UGA game. GT has an average ranking for the 5 classes now on campus
(2010 classes through 2014 class) of 55, UGA is 10.

Then looking at the GT schedule this season, less Wofford and GSU, Rivals has the GT opponents ranked as follows (rounded to highest).

Tulane 92, VT 25, Miami 19, Duke 65, UNC 31, Pitt 44, UVA 38, NC State 50 and Clem 14. Based just on the Rivals ratings GT should have won 2 games.

But we actually play the games don't we?