Coaching Acumen of the New Staff...

[GTRX7]

Wholeheartedly disagree. NFL gets the best players end of discussion. They evaluate talent. Scheme hurts, but it hurts who comes to GT more than who goes from GT to the nfl. We have the 4th most ACC wins in the coastal since it expanded to 7 teams and the 5th most since Narduzzi took over and has led Pitt to the 3rd most conference wins since hes been here, trailing just Miami and Clemson. I won’t disagree that our young guys show talent, but it’s the older guys that start and star power is what wins games not depth. If your 3rd WR is great but never plays a down than what difference does it make?

We’ve also been in far and out the worst division in college football, so saying someone who took a division where 5 teams are within 2 games of each other creates a lot of parity. As much as everyone likes to point to GT being .500, Miami post sanctions has been more competitive and both VT and Pitt have each only had 1 sub 500 season in their entire tenures in the ACC. It’s filled with a ton of mediocre teams, which is why it has the longest conference title drought. Not being bad isn’t a sign of a good coach, it can be a sign of other teams being bad too.

Extremely silly to think that the type of offensive lineman, a-backs, and quarterbacks that can be and have been very very good college players at Tech in the option are the same type of lineman, running backs, and quarterbacks that are desired by the NFL.

 

[RickStromFan]

The Coastal has been no where near the worst division in college football over the past decade. That’s just plain ridiculous!

name a P5 division that's been worse.

edit: Pac 12 South is a candidate.

 

[slugboy]

The Coastal has been no where near the worst division in college football over the past decade. That’s just plain ridiculous!

Last year was bad, but even in power 5 there have definitely been weaker divisions.

 

[smathis30]

Extremely silly to think that the type of offensive lineman, a-backs, and quarterbacks that can be and have been very very good college players at Tech in the option are the same type of lineman, running backs, and quarterbacks that are desired by the NFL.

Didn’t know that reflected the other 16 positions at all my bad

 

[smathis30]

Last year was bad, but even in power 5 there have definitely been weaker divisions.

Such as?

 

[slugboy]

name a P5 division that's been worse.

Big 12 North (generally). Pac 12 South (generally, though USC and UCLA should be good teams)

Last year sucked for the Coastal, but the last decade isn't as bad as the last two years.

 

[RickStromFan]

Such as?

Pac 12 South has sucked pretty hard. Big 10 West is similar to the Coastal.

 

[GTRX7]

They have changed how they do it and with now multi million dollar investments from CBS into 247 and Yahoo into Rivals, there is way more information today through camps, funding to go to games, and other things that simply didn’t exist back then. In the era of online recruiting services, we’ve really only had one coach who we can judge as Gailey was there when it was just getting started at the end of his term

There may be some truth to this, but do you think that fully explains the disparity between CPJ coming in with 37 two-star recruits on the roster in 2008 and CGG with only 6 for 2019? After all, the Scout/247 rankings do go back to 1999.

 

[RickStromFan]

Big 12 North (generally). Pac 12 South (generally, though USC and UCLA should be good teams)

VPI and Miami should be good teams. I agree re: Big 12 North

 

[RickStromFan]

The Coastal has been no where near the worst division in college football over the past decade. That’s just plain ridiculous!

disregard my earlier post. I agree with you.

 

[RickStromFan]

Big 12 North (generally). Pac 12 South (generally, though USC and UCLA should be good teams)

Last year sucked for the Coastal, but the last decade isn't as bad as the last two years.

Yeah but VPI and Miami have been mostly weak sisters, in comparison to the top members of other divisions. I don't think the Coastal is the worst division but let's not pretend we're near the top either.

 

[smathis30]

There may be some truth to this, but do you think that fully explains the disparity between CPJ coming in with 37 two-star recruits on the roster in 2008 and CGG with only 6 for 2019? After all, the Scout/247 rankings do go back to 1999.

Yes with a staff of tens of people versus hundreads. I’m not saying they are wrong just better and they did both change the default rating to 3 stars for most power 5 schools in 2010 or so when 247 started using their rankings. You cant really compare two things that are evaluated differently. It’s like looking st modern movie reviews vs old print ones. They inherently do the same thing but we’re done differently

 

[GTRX7]

Yes with a staff of tens of people versus hundreads. I’m not saying they are wrong just better and they did both change the default rating to 3 stars for most power 5 schools in 2010 or so when 247 started using their rankings. You cant really compare two things that are evaluated differently. It’s like looking st modern movie reviews vs old print ones. They inherently do the same thing but we’re done differently

I assume that also explains why the average composite ranking (not star ranking) was higher for 2015-2018 Tech recruits than for 2004-2007 Tech recruits? Oh, and the average class ranking being virtually identical, even taking into consideration 2007. Fairly convenient way to dismiss a huge set of data to support ones narrative I guess. Some folks just have their minds made up before a conversation starts.

 

[GTRX7]

We have the 4th most ACC wins in the coastal since it expanded to 7 teams and the 5th most since Narduzzi took over and has led Pitt to the 3rd most conference wins since hes been here, trailing just Miami and Clemson.

FYI, my whole point was that Tech basically has average ACC-level talent now (just more normalized to the middle), just as it did in 2007 (when we had both more stars, but also significantly mjore lower rated recruits). I am not sure how pointing out that we averaged finishing in the middle of the Coastal the last 5 years and won 25 ACC games compared to the leader Miami who won 29 games during the same time hurts that point. Particularly where our cross-over is Clemson.

I am ducking out of the conversation as I have made my points.

 

[smathis30]

FYI, my whole point was that Tech basically has average ACC-level talent now (just more normalized to the middle), just as it did in 2007 (when we had both more stars, but also significantly mjore lower rated recruits). I am not sure how pointing out that we averaged finishing in the middle of the Coastal the last 5 years and won 25 ACC games compared to the leader Miami who won 29 games during the same time hurts that point. Particularly where our cross-over is Clemson.

I am ducking out of the conversation as I have made my points.

we literally had the most talent of any team in 2007. We lost a lot of starters, but we had a top 15 recruting class and 9 NFL draft picks on those first two years teams.
FSU- 4 picks
Miami - 5 picks
VT - 6 picks
Clemson - 9 picks
GT - 9 picks.

We literally had the most talented roster IN THE ENTIRE ACC when paul johnson took over, tied with Clemson. Being middle of the pack, would be definition, be worse.
If you have 3 ok receivers and 2 great and one bad, but only need to play 2 WRs, which will you take? Youre straight up telling me to take the latter.

And who exactly has Miami's crossover opponent been?

 

[jojatk]

FYI, my whole point was that Tech basically has average ACC-level talent now (just more normalized to the middle), just as it did in 2007 (when we had both more stars, but also significantly mjore lower rated recruits). I am not sure how pointing out that we averaged finishing in the middle of the Coastal the last 5 years and won 25 ACC games compared to the leader Miami who won 29 games during the same time hurts that point. Particularly where our cross-over is Clemson.

I am ducking out of the conversation as I have made my points.

What exactly were those points as they pertain to the actual subject of the thread which was about the coaching acumen of the new staff? I'm not trying to troll you I just was wondering where you were going with respect to the new coaches.

 

[smathis30]

I assume that also explains why the average composite ranking (not star ranking) was higher for 2015-2018 Tech recruits than for 2004-2007 Tech recruits? Oh, and the average class ranking being virtually identical, even taking into consideration 2007. Fairly convenient way to dismiss a huge set of data to support ones narrative I guess. Some folks just have their minds made up before a conversation starts.

issue is that they are two different data sets collected with two different methods. Not saying its wrong, just pointing out that its apples to oranges with the advancements they have made in scouting. Calvin Johnson was a 4 star back then remember. Camps, actual appearances of coaches, and the creation of a uniform system have improved the rankings dramatically, as well. Starters > depth still.

 

[smathis30]

Big 12 North (generally). Pac 12 South (generally, though USC and UCLA should be good teams)

Last year sucked for the Coastal, but the last decade isn't as bad as the last two years.

Big 12 north can easily be made, but alas it no longer exists.
Pac-12 south is pretty much on par, with having just 1 NY6 bowl victory, and a sole confrence title, and similar merry-go-round.
It can definitely be argued in many ways

 

[knoxjacket]

Seems to pretty much entirely miss the point of the analysis I posted. That may be true that the top 10 players in 2008 were substantially better than in 2018, but can the same be said for the non-stars, the second string, the practice squad, etc.? The data I posted indicates that we were running a huge number of 2-stars to fill in gaps and in backup positions. Today, those players are 3-stars. Again, maybe recruiting ranking has changed, but I would think having 1/3 of your roster average a whole star higher would seem to me to be meaningful difference in terms of overall talent.

The top 10 players? The top 22 players were substantially better. I’m having a hard time thinking of a guy from last years team who starts in 2008. Presley Harvin might be it.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

The top 10 players? The top 22 players were substantially better. I’m having a hard time thinking of a guy from last years team who starts in 2008. Presley Harvin might be it.

Parker says hello. Will Bryan, too.