GT is overrated in the preseason AP poll

[Wrecking Ball]

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.

There's a difference between being spunky and competitive and dominant. Dominant teams get the top 10. We are right around where we should be for a reason. Even CPJ pointed out that we gave up 600+ yards in the Orange Bowl. The D is not going to make a quantum leap. Will it jump enough to offset a loss of efficiency on O? If it does not, we will not eke out close, nailbiting but exciting wins like over UGA and VT.

The ball bounced our way more last year than it normally does. A regression to the mean would put us at 8-4.

 

[cuttysark]

Stars are proven to take $$$ from folks gullible enough to give them a credit card. I enjoy your Stars knowledge as it's very amusing to read.

 

[Wrecking Ball]

Stars are proven to take $$$ from folks gullible enough to give them a credit card. I enjoy your Stars knowledge as it's very amusing to read.

Yeah, and doctors invented vaccines to poison your kids and make money. UGA also wins about 10 games a year on just pure luck. Couldn't be the easy talent they get.

 

[Legal Jacket]

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.

Fair enough - I took a look at the teams behind us and I could only come up with at most 2 I would swap in front of us. I do agree that the further back you go, the harder it is to make an argument that the other teams are better. I could understand Oklahoma, or Wisconsin, etc., but like you say - at some point there isn't a clear distinction between the teams.

2. Last year was one thing but I think the 3 years before that actually show the opposite. There have been exceptions where we play teams with more talent close (clemson, fsu), but we also play mid-level teams a lot closer than we should - or have every year between 2009 and 2014.

 

[Wrecking Ball]

Fair enough - I took a look at the teams behind us and I could only come up with at most 2 I would swap in front of us. I do agree that the further back you go, the harder it is to make an argument that the other teams are better. I could understand Oklahoma, or Wisconsin, etc., but like you say - at some point there isn't a clear distinction between the teams.

2. Last year was one thing but I think the 3 years before that actually show the opposite. There have been exceptions where we play teams with more talent close (clemson, fsu), but we also play mid-level teams a lot closer than we should - or have every year between 2009 and 2014.

To be fair, we end up winning more of those close games than we did under the previous regime.

 

[forensicbuzz]

There's a difference between being spunky and competitive and dominant. Dominant teams get the top 10, right now. We are right around where we should be for a reason. Even CPJ pointed out that we gave up 600+ yards in the Orange Bowl. The D is not going to make a quantum leap. Will it jump enough to offset a loss of efficiency on O? If it does not, we will not eke out close, nailbiting but exciting wins like over UGA and VT.

The ball bounced our way more last year than it normally does. A regression to the mean would put us at 8-4.

I agree Big Picture, we're not one of the Top 10 programs in the nation. However, I don't think many of the teams ahead of us are Top 10 programs in the nation. I think we could beat many of the teams ahead of us. They seem to get the benefit of the doubt and we don't. That's my gripe (so to speak). I have a major issue with polls that come out before the 5th or 6th week of the season. It gives the teams already in the polls an unfair advantage when it comes to the end of the season.

I remember in 1990 we entered the season unranked. It wasnt' until very deep in the season that we climbed past many 1-loss and some 2-loss teams in the AP Poll. We didn't pass Miami (preseason #1) who had 2 losses until the week before CoFH. They were 8-2 and we were 9-0-1. We never caught Colorado, who started at #5 (note: we passed Colorado after going 5-0 to move to #11 and they were #14 at 5-1-1, but fell back behind them the next week when we tied UNC, falling to #16 and they won, climbing to #10). They were #10 with a 6-1-1 record, while we were #16 with a 5-0-1 record.

Anyway, early polls drive me crazy because it creates an expectation that some teams are better than they may be. Look at USC in 2012. They started #1 preseason and didn't fall from the AP poll until November 18. They ended up 7-5.

 

[up state 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.

Yeah, ask Calvin Johnson!!

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

CPJ said it best......preseason polls are worthless. It's just a damn shame something so worthless actually has an impact on the season.

 

[GTpdm]

The D is not going to make a quantum leap.

Jeez--I hope not. A "quantum" is by definition the minimum measurable amount of a given thing.

(Sorry, pet peeve. Some people nit-pick about grammar. My hot button is misuse of scientific terminology. Anyone who does that gives me serious negative-energy vibes. )

I expect much more from the D than a "quantum" of improvement.

 

[COJacket]

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

Well played ooB! Well played indeed. and now that you say this, I take back everything I said

 

[00Burdell]

Jeez--I hope not. A "quantum" is by definition the minimum measurable amount of a given thing.

ehhhh, true but a quantum increase, when applied to things that can change in almost indiscernibly small increments, suggests a state change several orders of magnitude greater than the smallest measurable increase.

 

[rosebud78]

I don't know how the stars of recruits are given, but from a logical standpoint, it is a steaming pile of crap.
For example:
Marcus Marshall senior stats-
Rushing yards-2,198
Touchdowns-31
Ranking 3 stars and #78 ranked Rb in nation.
Committed to Georgia tech( duh)
5'9 200 lbs

In contrast to:
Damien Harris senior stats-
Rushing yards-1576 yards
Touchdowns-23
Ranking 5 stars #1 ranked Rb in nation.
Committed to Alabama
5'11 205lbs

So being two inches taller, 5 lbs heavier, and the fact he's going to Alabama, and his far inferior stats make him better than MM? thats a tough sell, in my opinion.
It's a popularity contest, not based on any factual accomplishments.
At the end of the day, they're all human beings. If you are a talented three star you are just as able as a five star!
And great coaches will make that three star shine! Which we have.
Nuff said.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

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.

Yeah, my eyes glaze over with these arguments. It is not that these are not insignificant players to replace. It is not that someone questioning Tech being rated that highly is totally unreasonable. It is simply a matter of asking this. Why is it other teams are said to be reloading at certain positions and Tech is always said to be rebuilding at certain positions? The optimist in me says that maybe Tech has inched its way up to the next level, in which case we are reloading, baby!

 

[Northeast Stinger]

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.

Yes! I am only reading about every fifth comment on this thread because frankly I start getting bored with endless discussions about made up stuff.

 

[Legal Jacket]

I don't know how the stars of recruits are given, but from a logical standpoint, it is a steaming pile of crap.
For example:
Marcus Marshall senior stats-
Rushing yards-2,198
Touchdowns-31
Ranking 3 stars and #78 ranked Rb in nation.
Committed to Georgia tech( duh)
5'9 200 lbs

In contrast to:
Damien Harris senior stats-
Rushing yards-1576 yards
Touchdowns-23
Ranking 5 stars #1 ranked Rb in nation.
Committed to Alabama
5'11 205lbs

So being two inches taller, 5 lbs heavier, and the fact he's going to Alabama, and his far inferior stats make him better than MM? thats a tough sell, in my opinion.
It's a popularity contest, not based on any factual accomplishments.
At the end of the day, they're all human beings. If you are a talented three star you are just as able as a five star!
And great coaches will make that three star shine! Which we have.
Nuff said.

You can definitely spot errors in the rankings on an individual basis (not saying this is one of them) but, as a whole, they generally get it more right than wrong. I don't remember the exact stats but I think 5 stars were something like a 1/7 chance at being drafted in the first round and 3 stars were 1/150 (I could be way off, but that was the gist of it from my memory). The biggest thing they can't take into account is work ethic and drive to succeed. If we can focus on getting those guys, I think ultimately it pays off. The main issue is it pays off 3-4 years down the road, whereas we need some immediate contributions this year.

 

[Legal Jacket]

Yeah, my eyes glaze over with these arguments. It is not that these are not insignificant players to replace. It is not that someone questioning Tech being rated that highly is totally unreasonable. It is simply a matter of asking this. Why is it other teams are said to be reloading at certain positions and Tech is always said to be rebuilding at certain positions? The optimist in me says that maybe Tech has inched its way up to the next level, in which case we are reloading, baby!

Take a look of the video of Florida State's top 15 recruits and then we can talk about the difference between "reloading" and "rebuilding." If we had just five of those guys the buzz around here would be off the charts.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

If we had just five of those guys the buzz around here would be off the charts.

You mean we aren't buzzing around here enough already? I think 3 pages of discussion on someone's day dream about how all the teams in the country will do this year is a pretty significant vibration. But that's just me.

 

[GTech63]

Take a look of the video of Florida State's top 15 recruits and then we can talk about the difference between "reloading" and "rebuilding." If we had just five of those guys the buzz around here would be off the charts.

every time I see a post like this I wonder how many of those 15 top recruits would be accepted at GT, or succeed academically at the I.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

You can definitely spot errors in the rankings on an individual basis (not saying this is one of them) but, as a whole, they generally get it more right than wrong. I don't remember the exact stats but I think 5 stars were something like a 1/7 chance at being drafted in the first round and 3 stars were 1/150 (I could be way off, but that was the gist of it from my memory). The biggest thing they can't take into account is work ethic and drive to succeed. If we can focus on getting those guys, I think ultimately it pays off. The main issue is it pays off 3-4 years down the road, whereas we need some immediate contributions this year.

Sounds like predicting how many hurricanes we will have.

 

[rosebud78]

You can definitely spot errors in the rankings on an individual basis (not saying this is one of them) but, as a whole, they generally get it more right than wrong. I don't remember the exact stats but I think 5 stars were something like a 1/7 chance at being drafted in the first round and 3 stars were 1/150 (I could be way off, but that was the gist of it from my memory). The biggest thing they can't take into account is work ethic and drive to succeed. If we can focus on getting those guys, I think ultimately it pays off. The main issue is it pays off 3-4 years down the road, whereas we need some immediate contributions this year.

I generally agree with you on several of these points, especially the work ethic part. Hate to use this cliche, but, it's not the dog in the fight, but the fight in the dog.
Also, I'm not saying stats alone should be the end all, be all. Using that logic, McDonald's would be the best restaurant in the world, and Michael Jackson is the best singer.
Football being a team sport, really makes individual stats subjective. For example, who was better Tony Dorsett, running behind a great ol, or Barry Sanders running behind non existent ol?

While the star system is flawed, what would be an acceptable replacement? I'm not sure. I just get tired of the if only we had five star athletes argument. You go to battle with the troops and equipment you've got. It's up to the leaders to get them trained up and working as a team.
Dwag fans don't have the 5 star athlete excuse, they have piss poor leadership.