GT is overrated in the preseason AP poll

[JorgeJonas]

Isn't the issue here that the 16th best team in the country is the 16th best team in the country, regardless of record? I keep hearing that the schedule is a problem, but an 8-4 team could easily be better than a 10-2 team. That people view the schedule as a reason to indict the ranking is simply proof that the ones doing the rankings are lazy.

 

[Legal Jacket]

So Which team ranked below us deserves to be number 16? They ALL have question marks at various positions

Probably Ole Miss. Their offense was bad last year and they return pretty much everyone but the QB, so I think they've got a chance to be better. They return their entire front four, including Nkemdiche, and should win plenty of games on their defense alone.

I think Arkansas is really overrated. I wouldn't have them in the top 25.

Arizona I would probably rank around us. Maybe one spot ahead or behind. They have fewer question marks I think.

I think Boise is going to surprise a lot of people. Plus, combined with an easy schedule, I doubt they lose enough games to drop below the top 15.

I don't know that they will be better than us, but UT returns a ton of people.

Starting with 16, I think I'd go 16. Ole Miss, 17. Arizona, 18. us, 19. Boise, 20. Oklahoma, 21. Wisconsin, 22. UT, 23. ??

 

[Legal Jacket]

You have to compare apples to apples. We were ranked in the Top 10 last year with relatively no 4* players and no 5* players. We're replacing those players with like-ranked players this year. Our players in our scheme trumps their players in their schemes, in my opinion. You can't say we're overrated without saying everyone ranked above us in overrated. No one knows how a team will respond. I hate preseason polls, they're useless for anything other than generating clicks and building a bias for later in the season.

The difference is our players had a ton of experience. Look at the combined number of games by Days, Laskey, Waller, Smelter (to a lesser extent, though his natural ability is probably unmatched by our current guys), Hill, Bostic, Perkins, Zenon, Andrews. All of those guys are gone. We may be replacing them with "like" ranked players, but the experience difference is night and day. Its the experience, to me, that is the most important in bridging the talent gaps between us and some of the other teams.

I certainly can say we are overrated. We are replacing our seniors from last year with literally zero experience. If the season started today, we'd return 1 catch at WR and 0 carries at BB. Outside of Snoddy, we have no AB experience either. First of all, there aren't many schools that have that issue, if any. Second, they are filling those holes with much better talent - at least on paper.

In a vacuum, you have to assume those teams would be better than us on paper, which is all we can look for at this point.

 

[Legal Jacket]

Isn't the issue here that the 16th best team in the country is the 16th best team in the country, regardless of record? I keep hearing that the schedule is a problem, but an 8-4 team could easily be better than a 10-2 team. That people view the schedule as a reason to indict the ranking is simply proof that the ones doing the rankings are lazy.

We all know that isn't how its done. With limited exceptions, typically the teams are ranked by number of losses.

 

[JorgeJonas]

The difference is our players had a ton of experience. Look at the combined number of games by Days, Laskey, Waller, Smelter (to a lesser extent, though his natural ability is probably unmatched by our current guys), Hill, Bostic, Perkins, Zenon, Andrews. All of those guys are gone. We may be replacing them with "like" ranked players, but the experience difference is night and day. Its the experience, to me, that is the most important in bridging the talent gaps between us and some of the other teams.

I certainly can say we are overrated. We are replacing our seniors from last year with literally zero experience. If the season started today, we'd return 1 catch at WR and 0 carries at BB. Outside of Snoddy, we have no AB experience either. First of all, there aren't many schools that have that issue, if any. Second, they are filling those holes with much better talent - at least on paper.

In a vacuum, you have to assume those teams would be better than us on paper, which is all we can look for at this point.

But last year we started a QB with essentially zero experience. I think the issue I have with what you're saying is that you seem to assume the returning starters are static, but the replacement players are dynamic. Perhaps there will be a decline in the performance of the skill position players on offense, but could that be offset by an improvement by the line, QB, and defense as a whole? I don't know the answer, but I do find the idea that simply because we are replacing players at several positions we might be worse a little problematic.

 

[augustabuzz]

... expert at Bleacher Report.

...

 

[GTech63]

Isn't the issue here that the 16th best team in the country is the 16th best team in the country, regardless of record? I keep hearing that the schedule is a problem, but an 8-4 team could easily be better than a 10-2 team. That people view the schedule as a reason to indict the ranking is simply proof that the ones doing the rankings are lazy.

Baylor and TCU play 2 teams in the top 25, each other and Oklahoma and they are ranked in the top 5. Based on their schedule and possible number of wins probably should be. But not necessarily better than teams below them.
Until Sept 19 we will not know what kind of a team we have, unless we fail miserably, in the first two, which I don't see happening. I hope we continue get no respect. Let's earn it on the field where it counts. This team loves to prove the naysayers wrong. Go Jackets!! Charlotte here we come!! THWG

 

[cuttysark]

Folks complain when GT isn't ranked, then nit pick when they are rated in a preseason poll. I don't understand all of the negativity associated with plugging in new players. It happens every year in college football just as it does in high school. It's a reality for coaches every season. Yet for reasons unknown it just brings out the doom and gloom sense of dread in a few folks who seem to think that unless you are a highly ranked "Stars Recruiting Program" year after year that your program is not capable of competing with anyone else in the top 25. TCU; Michigan State aren't killing it on the Four and Five Stars recruiting trail every year yet they are rated quite high. According to some then that must be an abberation or borderline fluke.

Not that I'm a big UCLA fan and don't think much of Jim Mora, Jr., but even after they lost their prized Four (4) Stars WR Recruit he didn't break out the razor blades and go on suicide watch. He moved on. No stars, two stars; three stars; and more stars; until a kid suits up and starts playing some football this social media establishment of must have four and five Stars players philosophy is no better than tossing coins. Give me a dozen more kids from Abbotsford, Australia thank you very much. Or another two dozen guards too short from the State of Tennessee that became All American and an NFL draftee.

Do you think CPJ and his staff are cowering in fear because they have to replace some football players? No stud freshman? Are you serious? If you followed football back in the days when the NFL was worth watching in the 70's maybe this will show how a team with an experienced QB and offensive line can keep on chugging:

The very first pick in the 1977 NFL draft by the Tampa Bay Bucs who had not won a single football game was RB Ricky Bell from USC west. A fabulous RB. The next pick by the Dallas Cowboys who traded up from the 24 slot to pick at # 2 selected Tony Dorsett who had a fabulous rookie season behind an experienced offensive line and QB. Ricky Bell would have been the rookie of the year with Dallas. In fact Zach Laskey would have had success with an experienced offensive line. Oh wait. He did last year. But he also had an inexperienced QB. Not any more!

Time will tell as the season progresses, but I think the B-Back production will be as good as last season. If it's not that will be because of the right reads being made by the QB in this offense which is the true cornerstone of the triple option. Decision making.

I'm expecting the defense to start this season closer to how they played the last five games. I'll easily trade turnovers for more three and outs and punts because putting the ball back into the hands of Justin Thomas and our OC is fun to watch.

So while I for one am expecting another good if not great season on the Flats; here's to the Negative Nancy's and I'll leave some room on the rear bumber of the bandwagon for you.

 

[Boomergump]

Had to look very quickly at the other teams that were called overrated. Ole Miss was one that was ranked too high. The reason? Wait for it........their schedule includes lots of SEC teams.

You just have to chuckle. It is so predictable.

 

[UgaBlows]

Personally I Look for ole miss to be back in the sec west celler this year

 

[Boomergump]

I really don't know what is going on with other teams, so I have no idea where we should be ranked. In addition, I really don't care because I am pretty sure we will show up to play every game. I love the fact that we have good discussion like this leading up to the season. It helps pass the time. I just wonder how much work some of you guys are doing on the side to size up all these programs. It must be a lot more than me because I feel clueless.

If we are intellectually honest, we will admit that analysis limited to who is replacing who, at what positions, on what teams, is just surface skimming. When players get replaced, the bar can go up and it can go down. Team chemistry can also change like crazy as result. If you are in the club that says people were starting for a reason and replacing seniors is never good, I beg you to follow that logic to its conclusion. Every team gets worse every year. Players develop at different rates and at different times. Some never do.

Heck, if I am honest, I am in the camp that says you are a different team every week you take the field, let alone every season with roster change over included.

 

[thocut]

Somebody screenshot the article, I'm sure it'll get taken down if we have a great season. That way we can annoy the writer for the rest of eternity.

 

[Legal Jacket]

But last year we started a QB with essentially zero experience. I think the issue I have with what you're saying is that you seem to assume the returning starters are static, but the replacement players are dynamic. Perhaps there will be a decline in the performance of the skill position players on offense, but could that be offset by an improvement by the line, QB, and defense as a whole? I don't know the answer, but I do find the idea that simply because we are replacing players at several positions we might be worse a little problematic.

A QB with zero experience but who was also a four star and a big time recruit. That's my point - we don't' have any Thomases waiting in the wings this year (at least on paper). The other teams typically have 3-4 of those guys. At the preseason stage you have to look at who is who. Maybe Skov is a beast and runs for 1700 yards. If you are looking at it from an unbiased point of view, however, you have to see that our starting BB is someone who didn't get the ball at Stanford. Everybody else's players improve too. My point is we return only 5 guys on offense, and we don't have anyone who appears to be a dynamic freshmen who is filling the other 6 slots. As a GT fan, I can easily rattle off why I think we have guys who have a chance at breaking out - but for a non-GT fan measuring up team against team, I'm pretty sure none of our guys are that much different than some of the guys at other schools.

 

[cuttysark]

Perhaps you judge a big time recruit based on Stars. I define a big time recruit on his ability to play Football; as does CPJ and the staff. Gotsis was a big time recruit to CPJ; as was AJ Gray. That's what I'm talking about.

You make an assessment on superficial factors; Skov didn't carry the football at Stanford. So what? It was a different offense. It's called being a TEAM PLAYER!

Smelter and Waller didn't have that many catches at WR. The NFL didn't care. They are looking for FOOTBALL PLAYERS!

The one point you did make that I will agree with is: "(at least on paper)."

Do you honestly think that Shaq Mason cared about how many Stars the DT from UGA had when he was knocking him three yards off the line of scrimmage? Or how many offers the OT blocking Freemen had coming out of HS when he was giving up a sack?

Apparently GT was the only school that told Justin he could have a shot playing QB. His Stars numeric wasn't important to CPJ. His HS film and character was though. I bet Nick Saban probably wishes he gave Justin a shot at QB after seeing the passing skills he has shown on the Flats.

 

[Legal Jacket]

Folks complain when GT isn't ranked, then nit pick when they are rated in a preseason poll. I don't understand all of the negativity associated with plugging in new players. It happens every year in college football just as it does in high school. It's a reality for coaches every season. Yet for reasons unknown it just brings out the doom and gloom sense of dread in a few folks who seem to think that unless you are a highly ranked "Stars Recruiting Program" year after year that your program is not capable of competing with anyone else in the top 25. TCU; Michigan State aren't killing it on the Four and Five Stars recruiting trail every year yet they are rated quite high. According to some then that must be an abberation or borderline fluke.

Not that I'm a big UCLA fan and don't think much of Jim Mora, Jr., but even after they lost their prized Four (4) Stars WR Recruit he didn't break out the razor blades and go on suicide watch. He moved on. No stars, two stars; three stars; and more stars; until a kid suits up and starts playing some football this social media establishment of must have four and five Stars players philosophy is no better than tossing coins. Give me a dozen more kids from Abbotsford, Australia thank you very much. Or another two dozen guards too short from the State of Tennessee that became All American and an NFL draftee.

Do you think CPJ and his staff are cowering in fear because they have to replace some football players? No stud freshman? Are you serious? If you followed football back in the days when the NFL was worth watching in the 70's maybe this will show how a team with an experienced QB and offensive line can keep on chugging:

The very first pick in the 1977 NFL draft by the Tampa Bay Bucs who had not won a single football game was RB Ricky Bell from USC west. A fabulous RB. The next pick by the Dallas Cowboys who traded up from the 24 slot to pick at # 2 selected Tony Dorsett who had a fabulous rookie season behind an experienced offensive line and QB. Ricky Bell would have been the rookie of the year with Dallas. In fact Zach Laskey would have had success with an experienced offensive line. Oh wait. He did last year. But he also had an inexperienced QB. Not any more!

Time will tell as the season progresses, but I think the B-Back production will be as good as last season. If it's not that will be because of the right reads being made by the QB in this offense which is the true cornerstone of the triple option. Decision making.

I'm expecting the defense to start this season closer to how they played the last five games. I'll easily trade turnovers for more three and outs and punts because putting the ball back into the hands of Justin Thomas and our OC is fun to watch.

So while I for one am expecting another good if not great season on the Flats; here's to the Negative Nancy's and I'll leave some room on the rear bumber of the bandwagon for you.

If you are referring to me you've misread my posts in about every way possible. I'm not nitpicking, I'm not suggesting CPJ is cowering in fear, and I'm certainly not suggesting its wrong to rank us No. 16. I'm just defending this guys opinion that we are overrated at No. 16 - I don't think its unreasonable to think that, even if I personally disagree with it. I just don't see how its unreasonable to recognize that we may take a step back where we have to replace our best two WRs and 6 of our best 7 RBs.

The fact is, stars matter. It's mathematically proven that a five star is more likely to make the NFL than a four star, who in turn is more likely to make the NFL than a three star. Same thing with all conference and all american. I bet you'd find the same thing if you looked at impact freshmen. The guys filling spots on our team are all 3 star guys. I'm glad they are jackets - 100%. But out of all of our freshmen we will be lucky if more than one is an impact player right away.

Nobody is saying "doom and gloom," but you don't hear a lot of people saying we will reload this year, either. In terms of your examples, TCU was 7-6 and 4-8 the two years prior to last one, and before then not in a BCS conference, so let's not pretend like they have been lighting the world on fire the last three years. They have also signed seven four star recruits this year.

As to Michigan State, they were 18th in recruiting ranks last year, with 10 four star guys. The year before they were 19th with a five star and four 4 stars.

From what I can tell both have had significant better recruiting classes than we have the last 4-5 years.

 

[cuttysark]

@Legal Jacket:

JJ Watt and his two Stars says hello; NR-Walkon Clay Matthews send his regards; and I almost forgot; OT Jake Fisher from Central Michigan wanted me to tell you Stars Don't Matter when you are a FOOTBALL PLAYER!

 

[Wrecking Ball]

I don't think its unfair to say we are overrated at all. We return five guys from our offense and our defense was atrocious. "Skill" positions are just that - positions that are thought of as requiring more "skills" than the other positions (whether right or wrong).

We are replacing two WRs (combined for 1157 yards and 13 TDs) who were picked in the NFL draft with two WRs who likely won't (hard to say since we don't even know who are starters will be yet, but with summers out we return a single catch, for 16 yards, at the WR position). SEVEN percent of our WR production is back.

We are replacing two senior BBs (not counting connors), who combined for 1775 yards and 18 TDs. ZERO percent of our BB production is back.

We are replacing four seniors ABs, who combined for 1102 yards, not counting Andrews who was going to start but is no longer on the team. The only person we really return, Snoddy, is coming off a broken leg. We return about twenty percent of our AB production.

Point to me another team in the top 10 in the last decade that has had to replace its top two WRs and top two RBs. There really aren't many, if any at all.

Plus, we don't have "stud" freshmen. Most of the big time players that make an impact right away are 4 or 5 star guys. That's not to say they all are, but I think if you did the math a relatively higher portion of impact freshmen would be the ones who obviously stand out. I hope I'm wrong, and that Stewart and Marshall tear the roof off this year, but losing so many players is certainly not a positive, and its certainly not a neutral. Are you saying its not a negative that we lose so many players and so much production?

Wrong forum for sober, intentional discussion like this. We're going 12-0 and they just discovered unicorns on Mars.

 

[Wrecking Ball]

Also, referencing JJ Watt et al. is kinda pointless, as many of those players took 4-5 years to develop, just as many of our guys last year were RS SRs. We are reloading with underclassmen, not system veterans. If we had a bunch of grizzled veterans with time in the system stepping in, I might be inclined to be more bullish. As it is, 8.5 is still the win number for me. I think we'll hit 9 if we can pull out a close one somewhere.

 

[Legal Jacket]

Perhaps you judge a big time recruit based on Stars. I define a big time recruit on his ability to play Football; as does CPJ and the staff. Gotsis was a big time recruit to CPJ; as was AJ Gray. That's what I'm talking about.

You make an assessment on superficial factors; Skov didn't carry the football at Stanford. So what? It was a different offense. It's called being a TEAM PLAYER!

Smelter and Waller didn't have that many catches at WR. The NFL didn't care. They are looking for FOOTBALL PLAYERS!

The one point you did make that I will agree with is: "(at least on paper)."

Do you honestly think that Shaq Mason cared about how many Stars the DT from UGA had when he was knocking him three yards off the line of scrimmage? Or how many offers the OT blocking Freemen had coming out of HS when he was giving up a sack?

Apparently GT was the only school that told Justiin he could have a shot playing QB. His Stars numeric wasn't important to CPJ. His HS film and character was though. I bet Nick Saban probably wishes he gave Justin a shot at QB after seeing the passing skills he has shown on the Flats.

Let's go over a few things:

Stars are proven to reflect talent. They aren't foolproof, but there is a mathematical correlation between success in reaching the next level and the number of stars. Are there 2 stars who end up being great players? Yes. Are their five stars who bust? Yes. But they are like lotto tickets, and the five star tickets have a better chance of paying off than the two star tickets.

As to Gostis and Gray, we'll see what they do. I think both were three star guys, so its not like they were rated as worst in the world. Plus someone like Gotsis is an international talent, not scouted like other recruits, so its not surprising that someone who didn't play american football didn't get more than four stars (if you remember, he was somewhat of a project when he got here).

Skov didn't carry the football at Stanford because the coach didn't think he was the best option for them to carry the ball. Maybe the coach liked his blocking. Maybe the coach thought they had a better option at RB. That's not a superficial factor - that's saying for whatever reason the coach didn't feel the need to get the ball in Skov's hands more often. I hope I'm wrong, but I take that to be somewhat indicative of his running skills. I'm expecting him to do great in our offense, but I wouldn't be surprised if we find he lacks breakaway speed or vision.

Waller proves my point - remember what he did as a freshman? He blocked kicks. Sophomore? When was the first time Waller made a difference as a Wr? Would you have wanted to rely on freshman Waller to be our main WR?

Mason was a senior last year. He played as a freshman but didn't start. He's also an example of a three star paying off. Same thing with Freeman. He made an impact, but how many DL have we gone through the last few years waiting for someone like him? Are we going to keep our fingers crossed and hope we have Freeman's at four positions on offense?

 

[forensicbuzz]

The difference is our players had a ton of experience. Look at the combined number of games by Days, Laskey, Waller, Smelter (to a lesser extent, though his natural ability is probably unmatched by our current guys), Hill, Bostic, Perkins, Zenon, Andrews. All of those guys are gone. We may be replacing them with "like" ranked players, but the experience difference is night and day. Its the experience, to me, that is the most important in bridging the talent gaps between us and some of the other teams.

I certainly can say we are overrated. We are replacing our seniors from last year with literally zero experience. If the season started today, we'd return 1 catch at WR and 0 carries at BB. Outside of Snoddy, we have no AB experience either. First of all, there aren't many schools that have that issue, if any. Second, they are filling those holes with much better talent - at least on paper.

In a vacuum, you have to assume those teams would be better than us on paper, which is all we can look for at this point.

1. I didn't say you couldn't say we're overrated, I said you can't say we're overrated without saying the teams ahead of us are also overrated. We can agree to disagree here, but #2 below is why I say that...

2. I don't have to assume that those teams are better than us on paper, because our history has shown us that we're competititve with every team we play, every year. There may be individual exceptions, but we have pretty much stood up well against teams that "would be better than us on paper." Our system has been a great equalizer of talent. We've held our own with much more talented teams, even winning our share of those games. Year after year we wonder how we're going to replace the valuable pieces we lose on offense and defense, yet every year, we find a way to do that.

Personally, I think we're more deserving of a Top 10 ranking than most of teams listed there. Does that make us a Top 10 team? Not necessarily, but we have jsut as much a right to be considered one as most of those other yahoos.