GT Roster - Distribution of Years of Experience playin' College Ball

[InsideLB]

I got curious about the class distribution of our team. The above is a pivot table from Excel. It isn't perfect because somehow it only had 84 scholly players (I still included, Hankins, Lamont Simmons, and JJ Green).

Here was the distribution of college football experience in years coming into the season:

30% of team had 0 years of college football experience
24% had 1 year of college football experience
12% had 2 years of experience
20% had 3 years of experience
14% had 4 years of experience

The average player had 1.22 years of experience, the median player had 1 year of experience.

Mostly I am interested in whether there is a positive correlation between avg years experience playing college ball and special teams production. Navy Nuke might be the man for this if he's got some time on his hands and experience data is available somewhere. Of course how kickers perform is a huge modifier, I'd think.

It would also be interesting to compare last year's roster's experience to this year's. Our staff that looks terrible now is the same one that looked like geniuses last year. Since the staff was 100% retained the hypothesis would be either they forgot how to coach or we lost a lot of physical maturity, experience, and leadership.

I'm afraid I'm out of time but maybe somebody can hunt up last year's roster, drop it into excel, and crank out a pivot to compare....

 

[YJAlleyCat]

It would be interesting to see this type of chart done for just the starters, or maybe include 2 deep.

 

[JorgeJonas]

I think one of the issues that continues to linger is the 2013 recruiting class. It only had 14 players to begin with, and only seven remain. Hard to overcome that gap in recruiting. It's a big reason for the numbers you cite above.

 

[33jacket]

But 34 percent had 3 or more. The starting offense has 11 of which 8 were veterans, 7 in this system. The starting defense was all 3 years or more minus one player freeman.

To me. This is not a young team.

 

[JorgeJonas]

But 34 percent had 3 or more. The starting offense has 11 of which 8 were veterans, 7 in this system. The starting defense was all 3 years or more minus one player freeman.

To me. This is not a young team.

Well, given that the majority of the players are redshirted, wouldn't you expect 60% to have 3 years or more?

 

[Boomergump]

It would be interesting to see this type of chart done for just the starters, or maybe include 2 deep.

Ask and you shall receive. If you count this season as .5 years of experience (6 games) for everybody:

First unit offense and defense 22 players @ 59 total years experience
Second team offense and defense 22 players @ 33 total years experience

So, with those numbers in mind, is this an experienced team or a young team? Discuss.

Generally speaking, we are oldest at the OL, Secondary, and DL.

 

[Sideways]

A bit of a contrarian opinion but here it goes. Our problem is not experience so much as a glaring lack of talent especially in both lines. Our recruiting has to improve. It is time to target nationally those positions we cannot fill with instate talent such as offensive tackle and defensive line. It would appear that skill positions, defensive backs, specialists and the rest can be adequately filled using mostly Georgia recruits but we simply have to do better than 2013 and 2012 classes.

 

[takethepoints]

I think this analysis is valuable, but that it misses the point.

What if we fielded today the team that we had anticipated going into fall practice last year? That would have been pretty much the same at the OL, DL, WR, and secondary. But look at the difference at the skill positions in the backfield. Here's where we were in the fall, two-deep:

Left AB: Brod Snoody and Ike Willis

Right AB: Dennis Andrews and Qua Searcey

QB: JT and Tim Byerley

BB: C. J. Leggett and Quaide​

If that backfield had taken the field on opening day and stayed on it, I'm betting we'd be 5 - 2 today instead of the other way around; maybe even better. But look at who's left of that original two deep: JT and Ike Willis. Everyone else is either hurt or has left the program. That's why we are having trouble winning. We're playing too many freshmen at the O skill positions and the other first string players are often people who weren't expected to contribute this year at all. Result: blown blocking assignments, pitch relationship problems (MLD was obviously not paying much attention to where JT was on the "bad" pitch), slower developing plays (hence some of the pass blocking problems), and a massive loss of athletic talent. Some of the new players are coming on - I thought Clinton Lynch had the best game we've had out of a AB since last year and MLD is showing glimpses of talent - but there's a reason why so many of them were buried so deep in the depth chart.

That's a really big hole to dig out of. If we had had Cotrell and Benson at the start of this season it might have helped; speed kills. But no: we lost both of them to season ending injuries right off the bat. Count 'em up: that's 8 backs lost to injury or being fired since last fall. If the Savior Himself was coaching Tech football, he'd have trouble coming back from that kind of a hit.

 

[33jacket]

Well, given that the majority of the players are redshirted, wouldn't you expect 60% to have 3 years or more?

Fine. Point is if we have a problem on this team its not youth. Maybe injuries. Maybe injuries forcing youth. Maybe no leaders. But not pure youth

 

[JorgeJonas]

Fine. Point is if we have a problem on this team its not youth. Maybe injuries. Maybe injuries forcing youth. Maybe no leaders. But not pure youth

These are all contributing factors, plus a schedule that, after next Saturday, will include five ranked teams in eight games, and maybe six. That's pretty rough for a team short on depth and experience.

 

[iceeater1969]

Where are they from
Gt undergrads 10,000 ga kids. 3500 out of state, 1500 international. Total 15000
Texas and California combine for 1000 . Somehow the administration gets kids from texas/calif to PAY big bucks to come to ATLANTA.
GTAA football has 0 from California and Texas. WE ARE DOING WELL IN FLA!
I say not a national scattershot recruiting but a targeted approach to first Texas and then others. Won't be easy but we should be able to find some top talent. Perhaps the large houston and dallas alumni association could help. Perhaps we just focus on real standouts that can cut it at tech and recruit them hard.

 

[InsideLB]

But 34 percent had 3 or more. The starting offense has 11 of which 8 were veterans, 7 in this system. The starting defense was all 3 years or more minus one player freeman.

To me. This is not a young team.

I agree OUR STARTERS are not young. That is irrefutable fact. It's why there were high expectations going into the season--and it's why there is head scratching now, including by me. It is also FACT that our two-deep and special teams are littered with very young players, but last year they were not.

I don't believe in excuses. You have to win with who you have (which is who you recruited) against who you have to play. Winning with the deck is stacked against you is good coaching. I don't think Johnson and Roof think they are doing a good job coaching this year. Johnson at least has said as much. Both are clearly struggling to find what levers to pull. In a good coaching job, the coach finds a way. They found a way to go 11-3 last year, take down a good Georgia team, and maul Miss St. with last year's bunch.

I do think the kids are playing hard and do not quit. Clemson & ND IMO outclassed us. Duke, UNC, and Pitt were all games winnable games against teams with good records. We just aren't pulling the games out of our arse this year that we did last year. WHY? No doubt some of it is our coaches aren't pulling the right levers.

At the same time, I don't think it's unreasonable to posit that youth behind our veteran starters can greatly affect depth, special teams, production of better starters through competition, leadership, and responding to adversity with mental/emotional maturity. This year we have constantly been "a play or two away". Frequently it's been horrid special teams or not playing as clean a game as the other team that's done us in.

I'm not making any definitive claim here that youth is our problem. Do I think it contributes? Well, probably so. Younger players make more mistakes than older players contributing to unclean play. And if your reserves are younger players then that's who is playing ST's for you. At the same time, I hold the staff accountable for not melding the veteran starters and the young guys into a winning combination. In other words, I believe our issues are multifaceted.

 

[Boomergump]

I agree OUR STARTERS are not young. That is irrefutable fact. It's why there were high expectations going into the season--and it's why there is head scratching now, including by me. It is also FACT that our two-deep and special teams are littered with very young players, but last year they were not.

I don't believe in excuses. You have to win with who you have (which is who you recruited) against who you have to play. Winning with the deck is stacked against you is good coaching. I don't think Johnson and Roof think they are doing a good job coaching this year. Johnson at least has said as much. Both are clearly struggling to find what levers to pull. In a good coaching job, the coach finds a way. They found a way to go 11-3 last year, take down a good Georgia team, and maul Miss St. with last year's bunch.

I do think the kids are playing hard and do not quit. Clemson & ND IMO outclassed us. Duke, UNC, and Pitt were all games winnable games against teams with good records. We just aren't pulling the games out of our arse this year that we did last year. WHY? No doubt some of it is our coaches aren't pulling the right levers.

At the same time, I don't think it's unreasonable to posit that youth behind our veteran starters can greatly affect depth, special teams, production of better starters through competition, leadership, and responding to adversity with mental/emotional maturity. This year we have constantly been "a play or two away". Frequently it's been horrid special teams or not playing as clean a game as the other team that's done us in.

I'm not making any definitive claim here that youth is our problem. Do I think it contributes? Well, probably so. Younger players make more mistakes than older players contributing to unclean play. And if your reserves are younger players then that's who is playing ST's for you. At the same time, I hold the staff accountable for not melding the veteran starters and the young guys into a winning combination. In other words, I believe our issues are multifaceted.

I like a lot of this post, but I am one of THOSE people who is sensitive to people calling opinions facts. The facts are stated in post #6 of the thread ( from the depth chart for the PITT game), in terms of years of experience. Deciding whether this is "young" or not is a matter of opinion. I agree with you, in that we are experienced enough to have produced a better record than we have. I have seen younger successful teams before. I really don't know what is going on within the program, but I suspect there is a lack of leadership from the older kids. They may be a little used to "being led" by some guys who have departed. Perhaps JT made a lot of plays last year and was coronated a leader, when really, he was just a humble, quiet, and productive player with leaders around him. That is enough when that is so, but it appears they are gone now.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

I think there is a lot of over analysis going on. There is one big difference between last year and this. One I underestimated a little preseason. But it was probably our biggest concern and has come to fruition.

Wide Receiver.

Last year those guys bailed us out time and time again. It ain't happening this year.

 

[takethepoints]

I don't believe in excuses. You have to win with who you have (which is who you recruited) against who you have to play. Winning with the deck is stacked against you is good coaching. I don't think Johnson and Roof think they are doing a good job coaching this year. Johnson at least has said as much. Both are clearly struggling to find what levers to pull. In a good coaching job, the coach finds a way. They found a way to go 11-3 last year, take down a good Georgia team, and maul Miss St. with last year's bunch.

At the same time, I don't think it's unreasonable to posit that youth behind our veteran starters can greatly affect depth, special teams, production of better starters through competition, leadership, and responding to adversity with mental/emotional maturity. This year we have constantly been "a play or two away". Frequently it's been horrid special teams or not playing as clean a game as the other team that's done us in.

I'm not making any definitive claim here that youth is our problem. Do I think it contributes? Well, probably so. Younger players make more mistakes than older players contributing to unclean play. And if your reserves are younger players then that's who is playing ST's for you. At the same time, I hold the staff accountable for not melding the veteran starters and the young guys into a winning combination. In other words, I believe our issues are multifaceted.

Two things:

"I don't believe in excuses. You have to win with who you have (which is who you recruited) against who you have to play. Winning with the deck is stacked against you is good coaching."

Well, yes, provided that the players you recruited aren't pretty well wiped out by injury. No amount of good coaching will help with that, especially if you don't have the pre-season to coach players up. If you slowly see your entire offensive backfield wiped out game by game and you run a finesse O that depends on your players knowing where to go and what to do under game conditions, you are in coaching Hell and no doubt about it. I don't believe in excuses either and I don't think Coach is making any, but "it is what it is". We are so banged up that all the good coaching in the world is caught playing catch-up with events. That's not an excuse; it's the cold, hard facts.

"At the same time, I hold the staff accountable for not melding the veteran starters and the young guys into a winning combination. In other words, I believe our issues are multifaceted."

Well, yes, provided you have some experienced players around to meld the young ones with. Our problem is that in the one area that has plagued us from the start - offensive execution - we started the year with the cupboard almost bare and things have gotten worse.

To see what I mean take our OL. I hear a lot here about how the OL has underperformed. I don't see much difference myself. In our first 5 games last year the OL did ok, but nobody was touting them as world beaters. Then the O began to speed up. Dramatically. All of a sudden, the OL was the greatest thing since sliced bread. We have pretty much the same OL this year - losing Shaq hurt, but it shouldn't make this much difference - and suddenly they are underperforming. What's the difference? The speed and cohesion of the O hasn't picked up, largely due to a continuing drain of athletes with talent and game experience in our O skill positions. I'm an old OL myself. If I had had to hold blocks as long as our OL did after the UNC game last year, I'd have made - well, maybe all-city. Any old brush or pick would do when the play was going past you in 2 seconds or less. Only more game experience, more emphasis on "the basics" (which the youngsters don't know), and the return of some of our players (unlikely, unfortunately) can fix it. The staff can't hurry this along by leading with leadership.

Well, enough.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Well, yes, provided you have some experienced players around to meld the young ones with. Our problem is that in the one area that has plagued us from the start - offensive execution - we started the year with the cupboard almost bare and things have gotten worse.

To see what I mean take our OL. I hear a lot here about how the OL has underperformed. I don't see much difference myself. In our first 5 games last year the OL did ok, but nobody was touting them as world beaters. Then the O began to speed up. Dramatically. All of a sudden, the OL was the greatest thing since sliced bread. We have pretty much the same OL this year - losing Shaq hurt, but it shouldn't make this much difference - and suddenly they are underperforming. What's the difference? The speed and cohesion of the O hasn't picked up, largely due to a continuing drain of athletes with talent and game experience in our O skill positions. I'm an old OL myself. If I had had to hold blocks as long as our OL did after the UNC game last year, I'd have made - well, maybe all-city. Any old brush or pick would do when the play was going past you in 2 seconds or less. Only more game experience, more emphasis on "the basics" (which the youngsters don't know), and the return of some of our players (unlikely, unfortunately) can fix it. The staff can't hurry this along by leading with leadership.

Well, enough.

Hammer. Nail. Head.

 

[MWBATL]

A bit of a contrarian opinion but here it goes. Our problem is not experience so much as a glaring lack of talent especially in both lines. Our recruiting has to improve. It is time to target nationally those positions we cannot fill with instate talent such as offensive tackle and defensive line. It would appear that skill positions, defensive backs, specialists and the rest can be adequately filled using mostly Georgia recruits but we simply have to do better than 2013 and 2012 classes.

I agree completely, but I do think that while it is most noticeable on both lines, it is a broader problem. Another poster put it down to the WR's and (very rightly) pointed out that last year our WR's bailed us out again and again. So add that tot the recruiting deficit. And frankly, our running backs just are not special either (with the possible exception of Marcus Marshall). They don't slide to the holes or seams that are there but run into people where the hole is supposed to be generally.

As far as the overall youth argument.....tell me what that data is for other teams. I haven't looked, but I seem to recall that FSU graduated 4 of their 5 starting O Linemen and Clemson lost a ton on defense from last year. I am just guessing that in fact we are not any younger than most college teams. If everything were balanced, you would expect 20% in each of the 5 categories (Sr+ R Sr, Jr + R JR, etc) BUT everybody experiences attrition, so this is NOT to be expected on ANY team. Our profile does not strike me as especially young.

Further, as I have said elsewhere, freshmen playing may be more of a reflection of prior poor recruiting classes than outstanding recent ones.