How does this years recruiting class stack up to years past?

[takethepoints]

In fairness, there are also times when the services assign extra stars for measurables alone. Kallon is a great example.

Yet another reason to take what they say about even good players with a boulder of salt.

 

[smathis30]

Well … that cuts both ways, doesn't it? I think we can say of two players who averaged 13 ypc (Malloy) and 9.8 ypc (Griffin) that the films are probably pretty representative.

But you're right about why Griffin is rated higher; he's a 4 star because he was terrific for three straight years. Service ratings are often portrayed here as if they were indicative of sheer talent alone, instead of the player's body of work. If I worked for one of the services, I would have rated Griffin a 4 star before his senior season, no matter what happened. And Malloy a 3 star for the same reason. But if I had to rate them on talent alone, I'd have put them a lot closer the the 247 composite scores. That's why I don't trust anything much but the single digit star ratings for recruits.

But enough.

This is bull****
Malloy started off rated #500 and fell a little bit before the season even started, and continue to gradually slide down.
Griffin started off in a similar boat, fell, but after carrying Rome to the playoffs, rebounded back.
Three straight seasons has nothing to do with it. Senior year performance did.
Malloys rating tanked after the fall heading into his senior year.
As for why the differences?
Malloys max bench was 315
Jamious was 415. He has a video on twitter doing 9 reps of 315. That’s a bruising back.
Malloys best game his senior year wouldn’t have been in the top 5 for yards for Jamious
Malloy averaged between 6-39 YPC his senior year. Part of his higher average comes from the games against lesser competition where he got steam rolled with fewer carries and he struggled more against the Norcrosses of the world.
Jamious was 9-18. Way more consistent, and considering he had twice as many carries, really impressive. Easier schedule at 5A, but with how they played it was almost a knock certainty every play in the fourth quarter was going to be a run.
If you watch the film, you can see a bit of the Khalil Mack effect in Jamious film was well. Look at how many people are in the box for each one.
Ratings are indicative at an attempt to predict talent in college. Body of work isn’t the best way to judge and has much to do with other things outside of a single players control.
Both are great players but ignoring context for how ratings work, how they are derived, and context behind stats and film matter too

 

[Milwaukee]

I agree with all you said, but it'll only work if we get the infrastructure in place. Recruiting staffs are only as good as the people who collect and feed them information about potential recruits. That's especially true about a place like Tech.

And, yes, it'll probably take 2 - 3 years to see what our ceiling really is, if we put enough money behind the staff to be competitive with the rest of the ACC.

Great post imo. Absolutely. We can do this fellas, and this staff can do this. It will be different than what we're used to, but these guys can do it.

 

[Milwaukee]

This is bull****
Malloy started off rated #500 and fell a little bit before the season even started, and continue to gradually slide down.
Griffin started off in a similar boat, fell, but after carrying Rome to the playoffs, rebounded back.
Three straight seasons has nothing to do with it. Senior year performance did.
Malloys rating tanked after the fall heading into his senior year.
As for why the differences?
Malloys max bench was 315
Jamious was 415. He has a video on twitter doing 9 reps of 315. That’s a bruising back.
Malloys best game his senior year wouldn’t have been in the top 5 for yards for Jamious
Malloy averaged between 6-39 YPC his senior year. Part of his higher average comes from the games against lesser competition where he got steam rolled with fewer carries and he struggled more against the Norcrosses of the world.
Jamious was 9-18. Way more consistent, and considering he had twice as many carries, really impressive. Easier schedule at 5A, but with how they played it was almost a knock certainty every play in the fourth quarter was going to be a run.
If you watch the film, you can see a bit of the Khalil Mack effect in Jamious film was well. Look at how many people are in the box for each one.
Ratings are indicative at an attempt to predict talent in college. Body of work isn’t the best way to judge and has much to do with other things outside of a single players control.
Both are great players but ignoring context for how ratings work, how they are derived, and context behind stats and film matter too

Haven't dug back to see what you guys are talking about but Griffin is a Blue Chipper, there's no debating that. Griffin's upside is All-American type stuff...will he pan out?...we'll see. Malloy is not just a good back, but a great back imo. But Griffin is a Blue Chipper, guys. Come on. If Griffin crashes and burns like Bilbo then so be it, but he's the best prospect on our roster and our staff hauled him in less than 4 months. Extremely impressive. Why some try to downplay our biggest recruit is just silly agenda type crap if you ask me. But again I honestly have no idea what this convo is about, I'm just piggy backing blindly off of this single post, so if I'm not even in the same conversation or ballpark then my apologies.

 

[knoxjacket]

Did you watch Malloy's film? He has, like, zero problems making people miss.

As for Gibbs: if and only if he puts on some weight and height. He is exceptionally cute, but if the weight/height given for him is correct (and, admittedly, it's all over the place), we need to hope he grows some during his senior year. And, of course, that's likely. We'll see.

I did. Almost every play was a dive through a giant hole (hat tip to their OL) and then maybe one cut against against a LB or S. Look at Griffins very first play. Nothing in Malloys tape suggests he can do that. Gibbs makes entire teams miss.

Malloy looks like a snoddy best case but probably more of a Cottrell. Jamious looks like a Tashard. Gibbs looks like a bigger Charlie Rogers with Dwyer top-end speed.

 

[GoldZ]

And as I said, when signing day is all said and done, I would like to see the verifiable top 3 offers of each signee compared to top 3 offers of guys in years past.

Gotcha. Reread my first 2 sentences.

 

[UgaBlows]

Next year is the year you can look for Tech to have a Top 15 class.

Yes, next year after a year of building relationships with rising stud players, and getting to know and in with all the local coaches will start to show significantly next recruiting cycle imo

 

[takethepoints]

For smathis:

Malloy "tanked" because he was hurt. That's also why he had fewer carries. I'd be more impressed with Griffin's benchpress if he was playing LB. For an RB that kind of strength is good but not really necessary. And, yes, Griffin did play an easier schedule, albeit only in the regular season.

You're right that the ratings are an attempt to predict talent. On a gross level (stars) that works. At even one decimal point (that's why I like rivals ratings better - more ties), however, I think they are invalid, except for a few athletes at the very top of the distribution.

 

[LibertyTurns]

I like the new staff but does anyone think that in 6 months they’re supposed to be hitting a bunch of recruiting home runs? Maybe 1-2 wins on kids that would have been an extreme stretch before. Don’t top tier recruits get recruited typically for 2-3 years or more and there’s normally consistent contact with a recruiter over an extended period of time?

CGC was at Temple. No offense but there were probably only so many doors open to him. He has to develop relationships & get going. Key was at Bammer. I expect he’s got his pipeline but needs to sell a kid can come to GT and it will work out the same. Maybe he gets the guys next level down from the top, but still better than what we’re used to. Choice was at North Texas, same deal as CGC. Coleman, same deal except he has few if any HS connections. Thacker, Patenaude, etc same deal as CGC.

If we’re not trending good in 2021, well that will say something. This year should be hold our own, we get a slight bump from everyone being new plus we’re no longer recruiting TO players that got ignored in ratings. Next year a bit higher as we start to get established. Year 3 the results should speak for themselves.

 

[Tbbokey]

I did. Almost every play was a dive through a giant hole (hat tip to their OL) and then maybe one cut against against a LB or S. Look at Griffins very first play. Nothing in Malloys tape suggests he can do that. Gibbs makes entire teams miss.

Malloy looks like a snoddy best case but probably more of a Cottrell. Jamious looks like a Tashard. Gibbs looks like a bigger Charlie Rogers with Dwyer top-end speed.

 

[GTRambler]

Five years. 2023. By that year, CGC will have a good (hopefully) mix of 4-, 3-, and 2-year starters and backups that would determine a trend, either upward, static, or downward.

 

[iceeater1969]

Yes, next year after a year of building relationships with rising stud players, and getting to know and in with all the local coaches will start to show significantly next recruiting cycle imo

May bump this post again. Because it gives me hope.

 

[takethepoints]

Five years. 2023. By that year, CGC will have a good (hopefully) mix of 4-, 3-, and 2-year starters and backups that would determine a trend, either upward, static, or downward.

This is what we should do. But if Coach can't get us to even-steven in 3 years - I doubt that'll happen, but it could - then he won't get any 5 years to do it.

But again, let's hope we do what we should.

 

[GoldZ]

A down year in 2021 will derail da juice.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

What if the new staff does everything right but the job of creating a new football culture at Tech is so difficult that it requires a ten year plan? I know I'm stretching a hypothetical almost to the breaking point but I wonder how patient fans will be if the results are slow and have nothing to do with how hard the staff is working and how much they are accomplishing.

 

[4shotB]

What if the new staff does everything right but the job of creating a new football culture at Tech is so difficult that it requires a ten year plan? I know I'm stretching a hypothetical almost to the breaking point but I wonder how patient fans will be if the results are slow and have nothing to do with how hard the staff is working and how much they are accomplishing.

I do agree that 10 years is a stretch. When you think about guys like Beamer at VT, Bowden at FSU, and Spurrier (plus Cutcliffe) at Duke, those guys went into places that were far, far worse than GT in terms of tradition, location, resources,etc. at the time they took over. (although some will argue the favorable academic environments, esp. at VT and FSU). So they started at a much lower place than CGC is in at GT. In their cases, it only took 6-7 years iirc to elevate their programs up a great deal (not that Duke under Cut is the standard we are aiming for but he has them at a level of respectability that has been rare in the modern era as evidenced by their record against us over the last several years.) I think we will know the direction of the program NLT year 5 but may be given the full 7 if TStan really deems his starting position to be extremely handicapped against him..

 

[Northeast Stinger]

I do agree that 10 years is a stretch. When you think about guys like Beamer at VT, Bowden at FSU, and Spurrier (plus Cutcliffe) at Duke, those guys went into places that were far, far worse than GT in terms of tradition, location, resources,etc. at the time they took over. (although some will argue the favorable academic environments, esp. at VT and FSU). So they started at a much lower place than CGC is in at GT. In their cases, it only took 6-7 years iirc to elevate their programs up a great deal (not that Duke under Cut is the standard we are aiming for but he has them at a level of respectability that has been rare in the modern era as evidenced by their record against us over the last several years.) I think we will know the direction of the program NLT year 5 but may be given the full 7 if TStan really deems his starting position to be extremely handicapped against him..

Yeah, I think that is reasonable.

I stretched it to 10 years because, though far fetched, I could see us being slightly improved in 5 years, then having one of Tech's inexplicable rash of injuries or academic tsunamis where we end up not being where fans want us to be and it takes 5 more years to get us stabilized at a level that fans are satisfied with (before they start screaming for a new coach to "get us to the next level").

 

[ATL1]

I like the new staff but does anyone think that in 6 months they’re supposed to be hitting a bunch of recruiting home runs? Maybe 1-2 wins on kids that would have been an extreme stretch before. Don’t top tier recruits get recruited typically for 2-3 years or more and there’s normally consistent contact with a recruiter over an extended period of time?

CGC was at Temple. No offense but there were probably only so many doors open to him. He has to develop relationships & get going. Key was at Bammer. I expect he’s got his pipeline but needs to sell a kid can come to GT and it will work out the same. Maybe he gets the guys next level down from the top, but still better than what we’re used to. Choice was at North Texas, same deal as CGC. Coleman, same deal except he has few if any HS connections. Thacker, Patenaude, etc same deal as CGC.

If we’re not trending good in 2021, well that will say something. This year should be hold our own, we get a slight bump from everyone being new plus we’re no longer recruiting TO players that got ignored in ratings. Next year a bit higher as we start to get established. Year 3 the results should speak for themselves.

Yep and also win.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

I do agree that 10 years is a stretch. When you think about guys like Beamer at VT, Bowden at FSU, and Spurrier (plus Cutcliffe) at Duke, those guys went into places that were far, far worse than GT in terms of tradition, location, resources,etc. at the time they took over. (although some will argue the favorable academic environments, esp. at VT and FSU). So they started at a much lower place than CGC is in at GT. In their cases, it only took 6-7 years iirc to elevate their programs up a great deal (not that Duke under Cut is the standard we are aiming for but he has them at a level of respectability that has been rare in the modern era as evidenced by their record against us over the last several years.) I think we will know the direction of the program NLT year 5 but may be given the full 7 if TStan really deems his starting position to be extremely handicapped against him..

I think the main difference is that it took these guys 5-7 years to start winning games, but it took longer to really build up to steam. Beamer didn't really turn the program into the juggernaut it was until year 13. Same with Bowden at FSU. He won immediately, but became a powerhouse in year 11. Cutcliffe at Duke has a harder row to hoe, but Duke has been willing to give him resources.

My other issue is that these schools, including Duke, all spend a good bit more on football than we do, so we really can't expect to get the same results unless we are willing to pay the piper.

 

[4shotB]

I think the main difference is that it took these guys 5-7 years to start winning games, but it took longer to really build up to steam. Beamer didn't really turn the program into the juggernaut it was until year 13. Same with Bowden at FSU. He won immediately, but became a powerhouse in year 11. Cutcliffe at Duke has a harder row to hoe, but Duke has been willing to give him resources.

My other issue is that these schools, including Duke, all spend a good bit more on football than we do, so we really can't expect to get the same results unless we are willing to pay the piper.

Augusta, I concede that your post may be more factually correct than mine re: Beamer and Spurrier as I have to confess to being too lazy to do any kind of fact checking or research on any sports message board topic.Just not a productive use of my time although I do value those who bring that kind of passion, integrity and intensity to this endeavor.

With all that being said, and assuming that your post is factually correct, sadly, the days of any coach being given more than 7 years to build a program is long past. I blame it on our quick-fix culture and the $$$ involved. If these guys were drawing $120k plus a company car then things might be different for them.