If Tech Was Consistently Ranked in Top 25 for Recruiting….

foggy

Georgia Tech Fan
Messages
24
Truthfully I don't remember Nebraska's TO all that much, I remember Texas's TO as I lived in Austin and had season tickets to the Long Horns. I do remember when they dropped it, I would when Texas was out of town drive over to College Station to see A&M. They both dropped it when teams like Baylor/TCU won a few times. If this O was so great (except as a diversion) you would see everyone use it. It's old and worn out, the good to fair teams have it figured out. Sure we will win some but when we play the big boys we are in world of hurt ie 7-6, 7-7, etc.

Mack had it right when we talked and both agreed that we get 500+ yards against a nobody then get 150 against some one like Ole Miss so we have a 300+ yard average but did we really? Take the losses and then average those yards, did we average 300+ yard? Some one do the math I'm curious.
 
Last edited:

Boomergump

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
3,260
I find it curious how when we talk about the value of better recruiting rankings, the conversation always starts to revolve around the offense. I think we need more talent, don't get me wrong, but I am not convinced that the national recruiting service rankings are the metric we should concern ourselves with, ESPECIALLY, when we are talking about offense. IF, IF, IF the rankings had any merit at all, IMHO they would have a lot more relevance to us on the defensive side of the ball. The guys who best suit our offense are likely not going to be ranked in the upper echelon of their position groups anyway, especially the closer you get to the ball. Consider the ideal QB or OT for our offense. Are they likely to be ranked highly? IDTS. We would love to get a highly rated WR I would think, so long as he was not a prima donna and was a good blocker. What is the ideal AB? Those guys could be highly ranked, but not really as important as, say BB.
 

alaguy

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,117
I find it curious how when we talk about the value of better recruiting rankings, the conversation always starts to revolve around the offense. I think we need more talent, don't get me wrong, but I am not convinced that the national recruiting service rankings are the metric we should concern ourselves with, ESPECIALLY, when we are talking about offense. IF, IF, IF the rankings had any merit at all, IMHO they would have a lot more relevance to us on the defensive side of the ball. The guys who best suit our offense are likely not going to be ranked in the upper echelon of their position groups anyway, especially the closer you get to the ball. Consider the ideal QB or OT for our offense. Are they likely to be ranked highly? IDTS. We would love to get a highly rated WR I would think, so long as he was not a prima donna and was a good blocker. What is the ideal AB? Those guys could be highly ranked, but not really as important as, say BB.

Boomer,
I would agree with you but overall our recr classes have been around 50 not 30s per phil steele.With that record ,there is a flat limit on the team capability no matter how "well-suited" the guy is.
.The Oline this yr was an example-we thought it would be great-we have a strong core and some fine depth. er,we then had only fair execution and next to no depth based on quality of replacements. The uga game was another great example of no depth-losing a 21 pt lead AT HOME.That came from poor recruiting 3 yrs ago.The fact that our best OFF player was a WALK-ON and our best WR a WALkON pretty much confirms that.
That doesn't even get to the DEF which has been a disaster for 3-4 yrs before now.
 

PowderSpringsJacket88

Helluva Engineer
Retired Staff
Messages
1,034
Location
West Cobb
I find it curious how when we talk about the value of better recruiting rankings, the conversation always starts to revolve around the offense. I think we need more talent, don't get me wrong, but I am not convinced that the national recruiting service rankings are the metric we should concern ourselves with, ESPECIALLY, when we are talking about offense. IF, IF, IF the rankings had any merit at all, IMHO they would have a lot more relevance to us on the defensive side of the ball. The guys who best suit our offense are likely not going to be ranked in the upper echelon of their position groups anyway, especially the closer you get to the ball. Consider the ideal QB or OT for our offense. Are they likely to be ranked highly? IDTS. We would love to get a highly rated WR I would think, so long as he was not a prima donna and was a good blocker. What is the ideal AB? Those guys could be highly ranked, but not really as important as, say BB.
The trenches are where we need upgrades. Especially on the Oline...We wouldn't need Dwyer if we had the Oline that some of these teams have.

The defensive line has had very little depth since the 09 squad. We had D Morgan and Jeremiah but the other guys have been serviceable at best besides Gotis who is improving. The 2nd string is always a huge drop off in talent.
 

dressedcheeseside

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,675
Boomer,
I would agree with you but overall our recr classes have been around 50 not 30s per phil steele.With that record ,there is a flat limit on the team capability no matter how "well-suited" the guy is.
.The Oline this yr was an example-we thought it would be great-we have a strong core and some fine depth. er,we then had only fair execution and next to no depth based on quality of replacements. The uga game was another great example of no depth-losing a 21 pt lead AT HOME.That came from poor recruiting 3 yrs ago.The fact that our best OFF player was a WALK-ON and our best WR a WALkON pretty much confirms that.
That doesn't even get to the DEF which has been a disaster for 3-4 yrs before now.
We had significant injuries to our second team OL as well as the first team. A lot of guys completely miss how debilitating that was.

OT
First, losing Bailey was the worst case scenario. Yes, he has a history of being hurt. But when healthy, he was arguably our BEST OL. With him at full go, I'm certain we win at least 2 more games last year and that's with all the other OL injuries still happening. OT was our least deep spot on the OL. Our backups were just not ready yet, see Bryan Chamberlain for proof. To make matters worse at the position, we lost Beno, the other starting OT for much of the season.

OG
Errin Joe going down killed our depth at the position. He would have played significant minutes backing up both Mason and Jackson. When Beno went down, it forced us to move Jackson to OT which further hurt our depth and talent at guard.

C
Finch made it through the entire year w/o missing signifcant time, kudos to him. However, the time he missed in preseason while rehabbing from surgery was huge, imo. First, he wasn't in game shape to start the season. Second, his absence in preseason killed the unit continuity that's vital to a precision based scheme. To make matter worse, the top backup at the position and future starter Freddie Burden, went down with a season ending injury. Thank goodness we had "Auto parts" as a third option, but he was a step down from the two guys in front of him.

People understimate the significance of losing depth. It forces coaches to play starters longer in games and through injuries that normally put them on the sidelines. If you're gassed or dinged up, you're production suffers. My guess is this has a lot to do with the disappointing performances we saw.

Also, I think the qb being tentative made things much harder on the OL. His inability to master the base offense was the big blow, however. Guys in the trenches were forced to abandon what they did best, blocking for the option, and try to fit what the qb could do better. I bet Tevin would have gotten us at least two more wins last season in spite of all the OL injuries.
 

techman78

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
494
Location
Toccoa, Ga
Sure do wish Bailey would heal up because he was a good one.Doubt he plays another down at Tech. Am looking very forward to Devine and Griffin seeing the field though.
 
Messages
2,077
under CPJ, what would our expected team ranking be? Top 25? Top 20? Top 15? What would be our expectations?

The ranking of recruits is somewhat nebulous, but if you are getting a top 25 class of athletes, you should be a top 25 program. Is there a correlation? I know FSU has recruited very well since Bobby Bowden left, but have they been the best recruiting program? You still have to coach them. Having Demaryius Thomas here with Tevin wouldn't have improved things since he had Stephen Hill and still couldn't get the ball to him. Georgia consistently gets a top 10 group of recruits, but is not in the top 10 every year. We are always going to need to rely on the overachieving kid.
 

techman78

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
494
Location
Toccoa, Ga
The ranking of recruits is somewhat nebulous, but if you are getting a top 25 class of athletes, you should be a top 25 program. Is there a correlation? I know FSU has recruited very well since Bobby Bowden left, but have they been the best recruiting program? You still have to coach them. Having Demaryius Thomas here with Tevin wouldn't have improved things since he had Stephen Hill and still couldn't get the ball to him. Georgia consistently gets a top 10 group of recruits, but is not in the top 10 every year. We are always going to need to rely on the overachieving kid.
I agree you have to coach them but in 2011 Tevin did a fine job of getting the ball to Hill. He had 820 recieving yards and 5 td's. Just think the numbers he could have had if he only caught the damn ball when it was thrown to him. I can remember so many passes that hit that kid right in the dang hands with no one around him and he dropped. He realistically could have have 1,100 yards and 10 td's that season and perhaps made the difference between us being an 8 win and a 10 win team. It wasnt Tevin's fault...
 

dressedcheeseside

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,675
The ranking of recruits is somewhat nebulous, but if you are getting a top 25 class of athletes, you should be a top 25 program. Is there a correlation?
There's a 50% correlation. I did a study a few years back and found that of the final top 25 poll for any given year, about half of them started out in the top 25 and the other half did not.

That sounds pretty good till you actually look at the data and see the average distance between start and finish (preseason poll compared to final poll). Many teams had differences of 50+ spots.
 
Top