Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
GT vs Pitt Postgame
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="YlJacket" data-source="post: 461516" data-attributes="member: 2784"><p>IMHO you are asking the wrong question or rather asking for too far a leap by GT. I don't think GT is going to add majors just for the FB team - and in reality I don't think they should. Somewhere in this thread someone quoted Peterson as saying he isn't going to make decisions for the whole institute just for 400 or so athletes. And as much as I disagree with him on a lot of things, on that one I agree with him.</p><p></p><p>More to the point, the reason I think it is the wrong question is that what we should be looking for is how to get a limited number of key playmakers in school that we don't have the ability to do now. Be that a QB, a running back, LB or DL. We have the ability to get legit 3 star talent in consistently which puts us in the mix with most any team out there (assuming we develop them correctly) but we find ourselves looking for a key guy who can make a play on O or D. That is an achievable goal and one that Stansbury should be able to get out of the hill/Peterson in the short term. Say 5 exceptions to 4 units of math or a slightly lower SAT score that otherwise isn't getting through. We are near perfect on the academic side - probably too perfect - and should have the capital to go get these types of exemptions. May even cost us a ship down the road when some kids mucks up. But that envelope should be pushed. </p><p></p><p>We already have non calculus or light math majors. Ones that fit with the Institute mission. So I personally don't think that is the issue. I think it is a combination of 1) exceptions as described above for key playmaker, 2) popularity or rather image of the offense as you described above and 3) coaching and development of players and scheme and 4) (personal opinion here) beyond offensive scheme I don't get the impression we are recruiting animals even in the waters we can fish in. I could well be wrong on #4 as it is from way afar. </p><p></p><p>If and when Stansbury goes to recruit another coach for GT FB, he is going to have to have the exceptions thing in his pocket or he will not get the coach he wants. We aren't getting Saban or the like regardless but we have to get a legit ACC level coach. Numbers 2,3 and 4 will be up to the coach.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="YlJacket, post: 461516, member: 2784"] IMHO you are asking the wrong question or rather asking for too far a leap by GT. I don't think GT is going to add majors just for the FB team - and in reality I don't think they should. Somewhere in this thread someone quoted Peterson as saying he isn't going to make decisions for the whole institute just for 400 or so athletes. And as much as I disagree with him on a lot of things, on that one I agree with him. More to the point, the reason I think it is the wrong question is that what we should be looking for is how to get a limited number of key playmakers in school that we don't have the ability to do now. Be that a QB, a running back, LB or DL. We have the ability to get legit 3 star talent in consistently which puts us in the mix with most any team out there (assuming we develop them correctly) but we find ourselves looking for a key guy who can make a play on O or D. That is an achievable goal and one that Stansbury should be able to get out of the hill/Peterson in the short term. Say 5 exceptions to 4 units of math or a slightly lower SAT score that otherwise isn't getting through. We are near perfect on the academic side - probably too perfect - and should have the capital to go get these types of exemptions. May even cost us a ship down the road when some kids mucks up. But that envelope should be pushed. We already have non calculus or light math majors. Ones that fit with the Institute mission. So I personally don't think that is the issue. I think it is a combination of 1) exceptions as described above for key playmaker, 2) popularity or rather image of the offense as you described above and 3) coaching and development of players and scheme and 4) (personal opinion here) beyond offensive scheme I don't get the impression we are recruiting animals even in the waters we can fish in. I could well be wrong on #4 as it is from way afar. If and when Stansbury goes to recruit another coach for GT FB, he is going to have to have the exceptions thing in his pocket or he will not get the coach he wants. We aren't getting Saban or the like regardless but we have to get a legit ACC level coach. Numbers 2,3 and 4 will be up to the coach. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
What is the name of Georgia Tech's mascot?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
GT vs Pitt Postgame
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top