High school coaches impressed by Collins...

[Dpjacket]

So if they would have fit and they were recruited, why couldn't we get them? For one, kids are attracted to "attractive" schools. That worked out great for Watson; not so great for Fields. There are probably a lot more like Fields out there, who swallow the BS and end up riding the pines, when they could have done great at a "less attractive" school. I don't know for sure, but I highly doubt Winston could have gotten into Tech. And then, as I have said before, the recruiting budget for staffing is miniscule compared to other schools, something which TStan I think is trying to remedy. If Johnson had had the recruiting budget and staff that Clemson has, then maybe we could have gotten Watson; who knows?

Nah, end of the day the “recruiting budget” has nothing to do with it. For Clemson, either. You can’t pay these kids, and there’s far too many intangibles to pin to another $$$$ the kids never sees. The Budget argument as a primary motivator needs to cease, without otherwise proper correlation.

 

[vamosjackets]

Nah, end of the day the “recruiting budget” has nothing to do with it. For Clemson, either. You can’t pay these kids, and there’s far too many intangibles to pin to another $$$$ the kids never sees. The Budget argument as a primary motivator needs to cease, without otherwise proper correlation.

Think again:

Our last two head coaches would not cheat, they simply would not do it (perhaps for different reasons). CGC?

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

Nah, end of the day the “recruiting budget” has nothing to do with it. For Clemson, either. You can’t pay these kids, and there’s far too many intangibles to pin to another $$$$ the kids never sees. The Budget argument as a primary motivator needs to cease, without otherwise proper correlation.

Maybe the recruiting budget can't be used as a reason for not getting any one particular recruit, but it can most certainly be used as a reason for not being able to recruit more players from more regions. If you don't have the money to hire staff to go to Timbuktu and beyond trying to attract players, or even find players who might fit into the Tech mold, whatever that might be, then you are not going to get those players.

 

[Dpjacket]

Maybe the recruiting budget can't be used as a reason for not getting any one particular recruit, but it can most certainly be used as a reason for not being able to recruit more players from more regions. If you don't have the money to hire staff to go to Timbuktu and beyond trying to attract players, or even find players who might fit into the Tech mold, whatever that might be, then you are not going to get those players.

It’s a weird logical argument I know, but Timbuktu doesn’t sit around to be sought, but rather Timbuktu seeks to identify itself. It doesn’t take that much effort with social networking to expand regions. Certainly not the $$$ bantered about today as if it’s free money. No, this is all a fool’s game, and only the fool keeps playing into it without a justified return.

 

[Dpjacket]

Think again:

Our last two head coaches would not cheat, they simply would not do it (perhaps for different reasons). CGC?

Kick this kid to the curb. And anybody around him that supports this. And God bless his soul.

 

[vamosjackets]

Kick this kid to the curb. And anybody around him that supports this. And God bless his soul.

You're probably talking about the majority of kids at factories, the majority of 4 and 5 start type kids.
Read this: https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2014/4/10/5594348/college-football-bag-man-interview

And, watch this (part 1 of 4-part series):

I've got first hand knowledge of this stuff, too. (Well, it was a friend of mine, so does that make it second hand?)

You've really got to ask yourself, "Is this how I want GT to win?", "Is this what I want GT to get into?".

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

It’s a weird logical argument I know, but Timbuktu doesn’t sit around to be sought, but rather Timbuktu seeks to identify itself. It doesn’t take that much effort with social networking to expand regions. Certainly not the $$$ bantered about today as if it’s free money. No, this is all a fool’s game, and only the fool keeps playing into it without a justified return.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

You're probably talking about the majority of kids at factories, the majority of 4 and 5 start type kids.
Read this: https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2014/4/10/5594348/college-football-bag-man-interview

And, watch this (part 1 of 4-part series):

I've got first hand knowledge of this stuff, too. (Well, it was a friend of mine, so does that make it second hand?)

You've really got to ask yourself, "Is this how I want GT to win?", "Is this what I want GT to get into?".

HELL NO !!!

 

[ibeattetris]

Nah, end of the day the “recruiting budget” has nothing to do with it. For Clemson, either. You can’t pay these kids, and there’s far too many intangibles to pin to another $$$$ the kids never sees. The Budget argument as a primary motivator needs to cease, without otherwise proper correlation.

@BCJacket did an analysis that shows there is direct correlation between recruiting budget and recruiting class ranking. I don’t think it’s unfair to suggest increasing budget could help (I definitely don’t see how it could hurt).

 

[Animal02]

@BCJacket did an analysis that shows there is direct correlation between recruiting budget and recruiting class ranking. I don’t think it’s unfair to suggest increasing budget could help (I definitely don’t see how it could hurt).

Anyone that denies that recruiting budgets have an impact on recruiting is fooling himself. Recruiting budgets pay for things like staff, travel costs, analysis etc etc.
How can anybody think that 2 people with a 10k travel budget will have similar recruiting to a staff of 30 and a travel budget of 200k. They must be living in an alternate reality.

 

[Techster]

So if they would have fit and they were recruited, why couldn't we get them? For one, kids are attracted to "attractive" schools. That worked out great for Watson; not so great for Fields. There are probably a lot more like Fields out there, who swallow the BS and end up riding the pines, when they could have done great at a "less attractive" school. I don't know for sure, but I highly doubt Winston could have gotten into Tech. And then, as I have said before, the recruiting budget for staffing is miniscule compared to other schools, something which TStan I think is trying to remedy. If Johnson had had the recruiting budget and staff that Clemson has, then maybe we could have gotten Watson; who knows?

Sorry, but there are SO MANY things wrong and ill informed about your post.

First, Jameis Winston was a valedictorian candidate in HS, and an academic All-ACC member at FSU. He was book smart, but a knucklehead socially off the field. BTW, we were Jameis's first college offer.

Second, DeShaun Watson is probably the primary example of a recruit flat out saying that they didn't want to come to GT because of the offense. We offered him as a 9th grader, but never had a shot because of our offense. Also, Clemson wasn't "Clemson" when Watson was in HS...they just offered him the opportunity to play in the same offense and they were the first to offer him. Believe it or not, the type of system you run DOES mean something.

Third, outside of Tua Tagovoiloa, all those QBs I names were all within a 1-3 hour drive of GT. I believe GT was closer to all the schools they ended up at. Fields and Watson were pretty much in GT's backyard. Recruiting budget isn't an issue there.

I mean, kids flat out saying they don't want to play in this system, HS coaches flat out saying kids don't want to play in the system or practice against it....at some point you actually have to believe them.

 

[TheSilasSonRising]

"Smith, at Cedar Grove, said that some recruits weren’t receptive to Johnson’s offense and their roles in it."
Some, possibly most, would not have found a role in Johnson's offense, regardless of whether they were "receptive" to it or not.
It will definitely help Collins that our rivals won't be able to use the cut-blocking excuse now, but I'm sure they will at least attempt to come up with something else.

And we can’t, or have never, done the same? WTH?

If we haven’t then a lot of the previous staff should have been fired long ago.

“There is more to it than just showing an interest in them, they have to be interested in you to.” Well, duh Eisenstein. That was why it was part of your job.

 

[LibertyTurns]

Negative recruiting pretty much goes on everywhere...………………………………….just sayin'

I like the new coach, but some seem to really think other teams are now telling recruits “GT used to suck so we used to tell you not to go there, but now they’re wonderfully fabulous & I’m not sure we’re a better choice?”. We’re going to get negative recruited like hell now because factories understand if the level of our recruits get anywhere near theirs we’re going to kick their *** up one side of the field & down the other. Don’t underestimate upcoming reactions to a direct threat. There will be a nasty narrative emerging that will be the focal point of negative recruiting & it will get thrown in the face of all top tier recruits in every conversation involving GT, every day, every year from now until we’re no longer here. That much is a fact.

Nah, end of the day the “recruiting budget” has nothing to do with it. For Clemson, either. You can’t pay these kids, and there’s far too many intangibles to pin to another $$$$ the kids never sees. The Budget argument as a primary motivator needs to cease, without otherwise proper correlation.

No correlation? 61st in budget, 55th in recruiting. Are you trying to claim we can out-recruit our budget regardless so it really doesn’t matter how poor the budget is?

 

[Animal02]

I like the new coach, but some seem to really think other teams are now telling recruits “GT used to suck so we used to tell you not to go there, but now they’re wonderfully fabulous & I’m not sure we’re a better choice?”. We’re going to get negative recruited like hell now because factories understand if the level of our recruits get anywhere near theirs we’re going to kick their *** up one side of the field & down the other. Don’t underestimate upcoming reactions to a direct threat. There will be a nasty narrative emerging that will be the focal point of negative recruiting & it will get thrown in the face of all top tier recruits in every conversation involving GT, every day, every year from now until we’re no longer here. That much is a fact.


No correlation? 61st in budget, 55th in recruiting. Are you trying to claim we can out-recruit our budget regardless so it really doesn’t matter how poor the budget is?

Of course they will simply find another excuse to negatively recruit . Blaming it on the O was just easy because it was unique. And of course kids will use that as an excuse.....much easier than tellling parents etc No, I don't want to go there because I will have to study.....and of course those that were anti 3O buy into that excuse Hook line and sinker.
There will be "calculus" "no social life" and to the parents "Atlanta is not safe" among several other reasons.

 

[LargeFO]

Sounds like an uninformed opinion based on your perception, not knowledge. I hope CGC recruits very well. I hope he's the most successful recruiter to ever step on Grant Field. But your disparaging comment about the level of effort Coach Johnson put into recruiting reflects very poorly on your intellectual capacity unless you have firsthand knowledge of his efforts.

Johnson himself said plenty of times he didn’t care for recruiting much. Of course you go straight to trying to diss someone’s intellect when they question your guy.

 

[inGTwetrust]

Johnson himself said plenty of times he didn’t care for recruiting much. Of course you go straight to trying to diss someone’s intellect when they question your guy.

I don't care for certain parts of my job. I still do them to the best of my ability.

 

[Animal02]

I don't care for certain parts of my job. I still do them to the best of my ability.

It is amazing how much people will read into someone statements in order to fit their narrative.

 

[ncjacket79]

Nah, end of the day the “recruiting budget” has nothing to do with it. For Clemson, either. You can’t pay these kids, and there’s far too many intangibles to pin to another $$$$ the kids never sees. The Budget argument as a primary motivator needs to cease, without otherwise proper correlation.

All I can assume after reading this is that you simply don’t understand what is meant by “recruiting budget”. No other explanation makes sense.

 

[katlong]

Some on here still won't believe it's true, but let's present exhibit 276,987:

“The biggest thing that I think is going to help Georgia Tech now is the other schools can’t come in and say, ‘Well, you’re going to get cut (blocked) your whole career on defense,’” Maloof said. “I think that’s going to help, if Tech plays their cards right. That’s going to help Tech get that pro-style defensive player that they haven’t been able to get in recent years, especially at linebacker and D-line.”

I really don't mean to sound ignorant, but I don't understand this thought - if it was our offense that was so "offensive" as option offense that used cut blocks, why is it that our defensive recruits had to worry about cut blocks? Because of practice? I guess that type of thought must have worked or coaches wouldn't have used it, but I would think that players eligible to come to GT would be smarter than that...

 

[LargeFO]

It is amazing how much people will read into someone statements in order to fit their narrative.

How many pieces over 11 years were written discussing HS coaches and their relationship with Johnson?