GT is overrated in the preseason AP poll

[DC Bee]

So says an expert at Bleacher Report.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...ed-teams-in-the-2015-preseason-ap-poll/page/5

Should we care? Nah.

 

[Minawreck]

most of the comments that mention us seem to indicate confusion from other fans at our inclusion. I don't understand why people feel replacing skill position players is so terrible. If you look around the country most of the best teams year-in and year-out have stud freshman at the skill positions or are least experienced there.

Pretty sure QB and line play is what dictates college football for the most part.

 

[33jacket]

LOL, can someone go back, and find out, that any Coastal champion is not ranked around 15 or 16 or so by last game of the year? I mean...one year I know we weren't but most of the other years we were at least that, so was VT IIRC. So he says we can repeat as coastal champs but 16 is too high? Makes no sense at all. Division champions of major conferences most times are ranked in the top 20....

what a senseless point.

 

[Lexjacket]

Meh.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Meh.

Exactly.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

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.

 

[Legal Jacket]

most of the comments that mention us seem to indicate confusion from other fans at our inclusion. I don't understand why people feel replacing skill position players is so terrible. If you look around the country most of the best teams year-in and year-out have stud freshman at the skill positions or are least experienced there.

Pretty sure QB and line play is what dictates college football for the most part.

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?

 

[ilovetheoption]

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?

My guess is that he's saying that those losses, when combined with the experience gained at QB and OL mean it's a net positive.

 

[deeeznutz]

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?

Yes, we lose a lot at the skill positions (nobody denies this as a fact), but I think you're looking at us in a bit of a vacuum. Every team in the country is losing a handful of starters. FSU for instance is having to replace all 5 starters along their OL, yet they're just assumed to keep chugging along with only a slight dropoff at QB (also losing Nick O'Leary and Rashad Greene, so I think their passing game is going to take a HUGE hit, plus half of their defense is gone as well).
Also, think about our offense...a lot of the AB/BB yards are generated by the reads made by the QB. Behind a veteran OL and with a year's extra experience for JT I expect him to get the ball to our new starters in good position for them to make something happen. Not saying it'll be seamless, but I don't think it's as bad as you're making it out to be.

 

[COJacket]

From the article:

"Paul Johnson's system is one that relies as much on scheme as it does players, but putting so many new parts into the system at the same time is cause for concern. So is a schedule that includes games at Notre Dame, Clemson and Miami and home games against Florida State and Georgia." Doesn't sound too off to me. Pretty realistic.

"Will the Yellow Jackets be ACC Coastal contenders, and could they repeat their division title? Sure. Are they the No. 16 team in the nation? Not at the moment." Just a pessimistic view of how Coach can put the new parts into the system.

Also, they have some good reasons why they say "The Irish will be better than 8-5 this fall, but No. 11, at least to begin with, is a little optimistic." So, not unrealistic at all.

 

[00Burdell]

FLAG! citing Bleacher Report as a credible source. 5 yards; replay the post.

 

[Minawreck]

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?

I'm confused. If we were top 10 last season and now we're 16 that is a negative. I think we're ranked about right, and poised to move forward. I'm going to go look back at your question regarding replacing running backs and WR. I think you'll be surprised at how often it happens that skill positions are replaced on good teams. We're not necessarily replacing them with True Freshmen either, just non-starters.

In 2014 Ohio State replaced its top running backs, QB, and entire Offensive Line. That's pretty close to us given the relative importance of the WR position to our offense.

I'm fairly certain the 2014 Clemson Tigers replaced their top 2 RB's and Martavis Bryant and Sammy Watkins as well as their QB and did pretty well.

That's pretty much 2 just last year. I'll try to find more, but it's a really specific situation that you're asking for.

 

[Minawreck]

I guess I can't continue to edit things on this board so I'll just rest my case by adding Michigan State this season to the list of teams that replaces its top 2 WR and top 2 RB's and is considered top 5.

 

[Legal Jacket]

My guess is that he's saying that those losses, when combined with the experience gained at QB and OL mean it's a net positive.

And what I'm saying is that its not out of the realm of possibility that its a negative, either. The dude I was responding to may personally think its a net positive, but I don't think he was saying that its an absolute fact we will be better. My point is its not unreasonable for someone to think we'll take a somewhat larger step back than dropping to #16.

 

[Treb1982]

Our defense has to improve big time this year. We can't expect the turnover production we had last year.

If we do this we will be a very tough out. I'm never worried about the offense especially with #5 under center

 

[Captain killem]

Get your koolaid here get your SEC is the best conference koolaid here. Everybody else sucks cause they ain't in the SEC. Lol

 

[Legal Jacket]

Yes, we lose a lot at the skill positions (nobody denies this as a fact), but I think you're looking at us in a bit of a vacuum. Every team in the country is losing a handful of starters. FSU for instance is having to replace all 5 starters along their OL, yet they're just assumed to keep chugging along with only a slight dropoff at QB (also losing Nick O'Leary and Rashad Greene, so I think their passing game is going to take a HUGE hit, plus half of their defense is gone as well).
Also, think about our offense...a lot of the AB/BB yards are generated by the reads made by the QB. Behind a veteran OL and with a year's extra experience for JT I expect him to get the ball to our new starters in good position for them to make something happen. Not saying it'll be seamless, but I don't think it's as bad as you're making it out to be.

I don't disagree with you and I definitely don't fully agree with my earlier post. The point is that the dude that wrote the article can easily find a grounds for which he believes we are overrated at #16. FSU should take a step back too, but they aren't ranked that much higher than us (16) and, unlike us, they've had what are perceived as really great recruiting classes recently. It's really not that crazy to think that Florida State will have a much easier time reloading than we will. Yeah, losing Greene is a big teal, but they recruited a 6'3 dude who runs a 4.4 40 in addition to four other 5 star guys in this year's class alone. They've been about a top 5 recruiting class for the last several years, except once where I think they were top 10. They won't miss much of a beat. At the same time, none of the guys we plan on using are that highly touted. Again, to be clear, I'm not saying that our guys are bad, or that they definitely won't do as well. But we are looking at someone else's perspective, and its certainly not unreasonable to think the team with significantly better recruiting rankings will be more likely to reload.

 

[UgaBlows]

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

 

[Legal Jacket]

I'm confused. If we were top 10 last season and now we're 16 that is a negative. I think we're ranked about right, and poised to move forward. I'm going to go look back at your question regarding replacing running backs and WR. I think you'll be surprised at how often it happens that skill positions are replaced on good teams. We're not necessarily replacing them with True Freshmen either, just non-starters.

In 2014 Ohio State replaced its top running backs, QB, and entire Offensive Line. That's pretty close to us given the relative importance of the WR position to our offense.

I'm fairly certain the 2014 Clemson Tigers replaced their top 2 RB's and Martavis Bryant and Sammy Watkins as well as their QB and did pretty well.

That's pretty much 2 just last year. I'll try to find more, but it's a really specific situation that you're asking for.

Good finds. Definitely a bit surprising. That said Ohio State had four 4* RB backups to slot in to replace their RBs, one of whom was a senior. Ezekiel Elliot, for example, was a high four star out of high school who had 262 yards on 30 carries the year before - those are basically Snoddy numbers. And while they lost their lead WR, they returned a guy (Devin Smith) who had only 15 less targets and 100 fewer yards, in addition to a wealth of other talented guys. We don't return anyone with close to Smith's 2013 numbers (44 catches, 660 yards).

For Clemson last year, their team strength was on defense - not offense. They returned their entire front 4 on defense from a unit that was really good to begin with. In terms of RBs, they weren't nearly as stocked as Ohio State. Can't say that I saw Gallman coming. WRs though, Mike Williams was a stud coming out of high school who had 20 catches and 300 yards as a freshman. Artavis Scott was a four star true freshman. If we had those kinds of players on our team we would be expecting big things from them.

I think we are probably ranked about right too, though maybe I would put us closer to 20. The problem is with our schedule its much more likely we finish outside the top 20.

 

[forensicbuzz]

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.