Duke Vs Ga Tech Recruiting since 2015

COJacket

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
794
Location
Colorado Springs, CO
DUKE RECRUITING SUPPORT STAFF SINCE 2015: 14

GEORGIA TECH PRIOR TO CGC: 4 (got these 2016 at the earliest)
Idk what it is now.

I hope this clears some things up.
Cannot emphasize this enough. It has been proven with data and good analysis by a number of our members of this site that budget/giving $’s influences staffing that influences recruiting results. Simple casual loop systems thinking. Even with being totally shortchanged $ in this area we recruited similar to Duke. Looking forward to seeing what CGC can do with more resources ( and praying and hoping for better game day coaching)
 

takethepoints

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,897
Coach Key had much more to work with at Bammer. I will hold out my judgement of his coaching acumen until I see him do it with lesser talent. I am happy about the grad transfers - hope we can keep them eligible.
I said in another thread that it was obvious to me that Key was a good recruiter and an average OL coach. To see why, let's go back to those storied days of yesteryear: 2008.

In that year, Tech was playing the entire time with OLs recruited for a pro style O. And, to top everything off, lost both starting OTs (Brown and All-ACC Gardner) to injury during the year. This wasn't so bad for the right side; Nick Clayton stepped in just fine. On the left, Austin Barrick, a former TE, ended up playing for Gardner. Yet this OL was instrumental in getting Tech to the 3rd ranked rushing O in the country. (All this with, in addition, having 11 starters miss time during the season and starting 15 frosh and sophs during the year. And having the team predicted to go 3 - 9 due to the offensive transition and average D play in 2007.)

And who were the OL coaches who achieved the apparent miracle of changing a team built to run a multiple pro offense into a 9 - 3 offensive powerhouse? Why, Todd Spencer and - wait for it - Mike Sewak. And, since Todd was mainly working on recruiting, it was mostly Sewak. Apparently, taking OLs recruited for a (very) different O system didn't pose such a great challenge after all. To a former successful head coach, at least.

Now, before everybody jumps down my throat, I'll be the first to concede that an OL transition back to the pro style from the spread option is more difficult and that the 2008 team had more talent then today's team does. (Shoot, we had Dwyer; enough said.) But I have a hard time believing that our OL transition was a whole lot easier in 2008 then the one we have now. You adapt the OLs you have to the kinds of techniques that will work with their talent. So far, there has been little evidence that Key and co. have been able to do this.

But I also said earlier that we would be running around on offense like chickens with their heads cut off for the first 4 games. That this has continued for 5 is not that surprising, especially with so many scholarship OLs hurt. I'm willing to concede that the above analysis could be off and that we'll slowly come out of our blocking problems. We'll see soon enough.

Source for the above: https://ramblinwreck.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/08-bowlguide.pdf
 

LibertyTurns

Banned
Messages
6,216
We often look at football in a vacuum, which you simply cannot do. [I just re-read thru this post and realized I'm getting on a soapbox, so get ready]

I am quoting your post, @Heisman's Ghost, to make a point, not to call you out. A few posts down after yours, @takethepoints lists a graph that shows average star rankings from GT, VT, Rice, Duke, etc.

What we need to consider is that Duke adding all that support staff GOT them to our level. If you look at @takethepoints 's graph, their average star ranking until 2014 was 2.4. The last few years it's been right on par with ours around 3.0. That is serious improvement. Duke used to be the doormat in the ACC; now, they're nobody's easy out. They aren't the Duke of 2006 (0-12).

The other thing we need to consider is recruiting doesn't offer instant success, particularly for teams like us, and that results, whether good or bad, are typically seen 3-4 years down the road. What it really translates into is Bobinski's Reign of Terror from 2013-2016 hurt us the most the last few years, from 2016-2019. Think about it like this: Bobinski basically put us on probation for 3 years, ergo, the senior classes from the last few years are the hardest hit. Recruiting misses are bad enough, but when you couple it with injuries the last 2 years it's a disaster. Remember: you can't look at football in a vacuum. So when people are screaming, "WE HAVE NO TALENT!!1!! WE SUCK!11!!" just pause for a moment, google Mike Bobinski's picture and take a dump on it. For those who still want to believe that CPJ just sucked at recruiting and only cared about rushing stats ... please go talk to any long-time AD employees and ask them what it was like from 2013-2016. I am not solely blaming Bobinski for our woes, but he is a major factor to consider. Injuries, poor coaching, and a bit of bad luck all combined for some recent bad trends. But it is extremely hard to do your job well when the top guy is sucking the life out of your program.

On the upside: all this new recruiting staff, Catapult, analytics, sports science, etc. can only help us get better. But we won't see immediate results until the next few years: last year's class had a solid 3.0 star rating ... and next year's class may be even better. And 2021 could be even better, so we are already seeing the results of TStan's efforts, but we may not see on-field results until 2021-2023 when those guys are redshirt seniors and juniors. Does that mean that we're bound for 1-11 seasons until 2021? Man, I sure hope not.

Which brings me to my last topic: our current coaching staff. I'll just sum up: they are young. Look, I love Tashard Choice. I'd run through a brick wall (and probably hurt myself real bad) for him. I really would. But please consider: before GT, his coaching experience as a position coach was ONE YEAR. At North Texas. Thacker was a D-Coordinator ... for ONE YEAR. Marco Coleman ... I interviewed him when I worked for the Technique ... I love that guy ... but ZERO years experience as a position coach. Nate Burton: ONE YEAR as a DB coach. If you really want to get down to it, the two most experienced guys at the FBS level are Key and Collins. Patenoob, for all his 24 years of coaching, has only 2 years at the FBS level. So while Loki might argue that "I consider experience, experience", I'm pretty sure that the defenses he (Patenoob, not Loki) faced at Holy Cross were probably less sophisticated than the ones Brent Venables or Bud Foster could dial up.

"We're not paying this staff millions to learn on the job."

Yeah, we kind of actually are. And that was TStan's gamble.

That's what happens when you hire a G5 coach with all of 2 years of experience. "But Urban Meyer/Nick Saban/Lincoln Riley* couldn't fix this." I actually believe they could, if they could hire their own staffs. Cale Gundy, who coaches slot receivers at OU, has 16 years of experience as a position coach. He just might know a few drills or teaching points that Kerry Dixon, who has 4 years of experience, might not. It doesn't solve the talent/depth issue, but really good coaches can scheme around issues. No, it doesn't mean Urban Mayer would coach us to a 41-10 upset over Clemson in the opener ... but most likely it means we wouldn't lose to Citadel or get blown out by Temple and Puke.

The reality is we have what we have (a cousin to iiwii): we have a fairly inexperienced coaching staff that's dealing with the aftermath of Bobinski's "leadership", converting to new schemes, and dealing with some really bad injuries at key positions. Remember the whole "vacuum" thing? There isn't one specific thing that's the problem.

I hope the attention and $$$ that TStan is throwing at football will help with recruiting and development.
I hope that the young staff gets better. No more not taking a timeout to prevent a 10-second runoff, please.
I hope that we can avoid any more catastrophic injuries.

I was hopeful that we would actually be better than we are, but again, the non-vacuum-y nature of football has conspired against us and we are where we are (a cousin of we have what we have).

We can continue to gripe and moan about every individual problem - and that's fun to do (well, for some). But when you do ... please keep in mind that there isn't always one specific cause for the current malaise ... and that our boys on the field are doing their best ... and for better or worse, it's going to be a rough few years. Let's see.

Someone get me a gauntlet so I can snap my fingers on this season.



* I still want all of Lincoln Riley's babies.
Hey @steebu looks like Dook went back to their norm for recruiting and CGC delivered a solid class. Is this the year we put Dook back to where they belong?
 

Pointer

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,801
So if my math is correct, the avg national rank over the five years:

Duke - 48.8
Tech - 49.4

Zero difference in recruiting. Especially considering most of the *** clowns that drive the recruiting rankings aren’t qualified for it.

I will concede that duke obviously didn’t change their scheme so their players were recruited for the system but otherwise the recruiting differences are nil.

Our injury rate over the last five years seems to be on the ridiculous level though....
Mic drop
 

slugboy

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
10,800
GT and Duke have relatively even rosters, as supported by 247's Team Talent Composite where they're right next to each other. Though it's worth noting that 5 of our top 10 rated players were recruited by Collins (Clayton, Allen, Sims, Ezzard, and J. Griffin), so Duke has recruited quite a bit better than us in recent years. Also worth mentioning 3 of those top 10 aren't eligible to play.

The key difference is that Duke recruited players to fit Cutcliffe's program, and ours were recruited to fit Paul Johnson's program. Our players are certainly as talented collectively as Duke's, but the skill set fit doesn't seem to be there on offense. It's dumb to compare talent utilization between a program in year 12 to one in year 1.

I liken it to asking a group of electrical engineers to take over a chemical engineering company. Those highly trained EE's could be very skilled in their field, but that company won't run smoothly. Need to keep recruiting more chemical engineers.

I'm not sure how much to weight that Team Talent Composite metric, but we narrowed the gap between us and Duke by 10 places since last year.
 

Cam

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,591
Location
Atlanta, Georgia
I'm not sure how much to weight that Team Talent Composite metric, but we narrowed the gap between us and Duke by 10 places since last year.
It'll widen even further. Duke signed a 2020 class with an average player rating of 85.05 (and no 4* players), which is a tad lower than their 2019 Team Talent 85.35 average. Whereas GT signed a 2020 class with an average player rating of 87.21, which includes 5 freshman 4* and 4* transfer Ryan Johnson. Including Cochran, Johnson, and Casey, 22 of our 26 incoming players have a higher Composite rating than the 84.76 player average last year. In all likelihood, we will jump to possibly a top 35 roster. There may be 15 spots between Duke and GT next season.

Obviously rating a player out to 4 significant figures is basically impossible, but I actually really like the Team Talent Composite given the 80+ population sample size. I would have a tough time arguing the 45th class is better than the 47th, but once you extend out to 10+ spots I think it's fair to say that the talent is noticeably different. Now it's just a matter of developing it.
 

alagold

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,521
Location
Huntsville,Al
So if my math is correct, the avg national rank over the five years:

Duke - 48.8
Tech - 49.4

Zero difference in recruiting. Especially considering most of the *** clowns that drive the recruiting rankings aren’t qualified for it.

I will concede that duke obviously didn’t change their scheme so their players were recruited for the system but otherwise the recruiting differences are nil.

Our injury rate over the last five years seems to be on the ridiculous level though....

It is not only injury rate but general attrition--for whatever reason--is probably higher and it started back aways
 

wesgt123

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,692
You better worry more about Mack at UNC than Cutt. I live 10 miles from both and I absolutely despise Mack Brown. Cutt can actually coach. Mack is the consumate BS artist. I can't believe UNC took him back after the way he left them. They are desperate.
Well which one should i worry about lol you just discredited Mack after telling me to watch out
 

GTFLETCH

Banned
Messages
2,639
It'll widen even further. Duke signed a 2020 class with an average player rating of 85.05 (and no 4* players), which is a tad lower than their 2019 Team Talent 85.35 average. Whereas GT signed a 2020 class with an average player rating of 87.21, which includes 5 freshman 4* and 4* transfer Ryan Johnson. Including Cochran, Johnson, and Casey, 22 of our 26 incoming players have a higher Composite rating than the 84.76 player average last year. In all likelihood, we will jump to possibly a top 35 roster. There may be 15 spots between Duke and GT next season.

Obviously rating a player out to 4 significant figures is basically impossible, but I actually really like the Team Talent Composite given the 80+ population sample size. I would have a tough time arguing the 45th class is better than the 47th, but once you extend out to 10+ spots I think it's fair to say that the talent is noticeably different. Now it's just a matter of developing it.
Spot On!
 

Skeptic

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,372
I think we all agree that Tech should be out recruiting Duke every season, especially now that we have more money, coaches and a different scheme.

.
Now see, that Tech arrogance peeps up again. Why in the world would you think that? Cutcliffe, a coach I do not like because, well, he is Duke, can coach, and Cutcliffe can recruit. And Duke is every bit the beacon of excellence in liberal arts as GT is to technology. Plus they got a better looking campus. Tech needs to look out for itself and stop trying to compare the incomparable. They are not equivalent and can't be made to be. So no, we don't all agree.
 

g0lftime

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,412
Well which one should i worry about lol you just discredited Mack after telling me to watch out
Mack can recruit NC better than Duke. They have easier entrance requirements than Duke. Mack is getting the best kids in NC so far. He will hurt NCSU more than Duke in recruiting NC. Mack will do very well recruiting. His ultimate success will depend on his assistants but he can recruit. Need to keep him away from GA kids. Will be interesting to see how long he coaches . I think UNC has more upside now than Duke.
 

TromboneJacket

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
818
Location
Seattle, WA
Mack can recruit NC better than Duke. They have easier entrance requirements than Duke. Mack is getting the best kids in NC so far. He will hurt NCSU more than Duke in recruiting NC. Mack will do very well recruiting. His ultimate success will depend on his assistants but he can recruit. Need to keep him away from GA kids. Will be interesting to see how long he coaches . I think UNC has more upside now than Duke.
I don’t think Mack will be coaching long. He’s only a couple years younger than Spurrier and Beamer, both of whom have been retired a few years. He’s the same age as Pete Carroll, and Pete’s the oldest head coach in the NFL. With the resumé he built, Mack Brown could have kept coaching after Texas if he’d wanted to. Give him a couple years, and he’ll remember why he retired last time.
 

UgaBlows

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,385
I don’t think Mack will be coaching long. He’s only a couple years younger than Spurrier and Beamer, both of whom have been retired a few years. He’s the same age as Pete Carroll, and Pete’s the oldest head coach in the NFL. With the resumé he built, Mack Brown could have kept coaching after Texas if he’d wanted to. Give him a couple years, and he’ll remember why he retired last time.
I don’t think TX wanted him any more, he killed that program. Hope he does the same for UNC
 

Skeptic

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,372
You better worry more about Mack at UNC than Cutt. I live 10 miles from both and I absolutely despise Mack Brown. Cutt can actually coach. Mack is the consumate BS artist. I can't believe UNC took him back after the way he left them. They are desperate.
Yeah, right. The desperation resulted in seven wins and a bowl game, and a sudden resurgence in recruiting dominance in NC. (By the way, NC did not "take him back". UNC went after him. And now UNC is the Coastal favorite and will contend with Clemson for the ACC title and a spot in the national playoff. Not bad for a BS artist.
 

Ibeeballin

Im a 3*
Messages
6,047
Yeah, right. The desperation resulted in seven wins and a bowl game, and a sudden resurgence in recruiting dominance in NC. (By the way, NC did not "take him back". UNC went after him. And now UNC is the Coastal favorite and will contend with Clemson for the ACC title and a spot in the national playoff. Not bad for a BS artist.

Lmao!!! UNC has to be the most overhyped 7-6 team I may have ever witnessed.
 
Top