Interesting stat

[alagold]

I was curious about what has been the % of recruits lost at Tech in the classes '13 -'16.(too early for 17/18) What do you think is a typical number?
After looking back at who was not here to play the 4 yrs for whatever reason (academics, kicked off, lost interest , dislike coach(es) , etc,and injured, which were very few--the numbers seem to be 56,29,31,28.

For a team that doesn't usually have 85 on scholly all the time ,that seems a large number.Also, these were not chumps .There was some real talent going out the door.

btw-Just for fun, I went back to compare an opponents number.I picked dook '14 because they didn't have coaching change. From that signed class of 18 ,dook had 15 still playing 4 yrs later.That's less than 17% compared to our 29 .A bunch of upperclass talent was there.--maybe a connection to why they beat us -easily.Anybody is welcome to check others. Would be interesting to see them.

So getting the good recruits is tough, keeping them is tougher possibly.

 

[jgtengineer]

I was curious about what has been the % of recruits lost at Tech in the classes '13 -'16.(too early for 17/18) What do you think is a typical number?
After looking back at who was not here to play the 4 yrs for whatever reason (academics, kicked off, lost interest , dislike coach(es) , etc,and injured, which were very few--the numbers seem to be 56,29,31,28.

For a team that doesn't usually have 85 on scholly all the time ,that seems a large number.Also, these were not chumps .There was some real talent going out the door.

btw-Just for fun, I went back to compare an opponents number.I picked dook '14 because they didn't have coaching change. From that signed class of 18 ,dook had 15 still playing 4 yrs later.That's less than 17% compared to our 29 .A bunch of upperclass talent was there.--maybe a connection to why they beat us -easily.Anybody is welcome to check others. Would be interesting to see them.

So getting the good recruits is tough, keeping them is tougher possibly.

pretty much most of the guys you see leave and sign with Jucos are grade issues. Sometimes a kid in good standing just decides they don't like tech ( everyone who went there had those moments). Other times its just the nature of the beast now that people transfer when they don't get the playing time they think they deserve.

 

[Josh H]

We also had quite a few players dismissed for "violation of team rules".

 

[Lavoisier]

I've noticed this before and you are right that the guys leaving are usually some of the better recruits. People harp on not getting 4-5 star guys, but I think we need to do a better job of getting guys who buy into the institute and what we are selling.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

I've noticed this before and you are right that the guys leaving are usually some of the better recruits. People harp on not getting 4-5 star guys, but I think we need to do a better job of getting guys who buy into the institute and what we are selling.

So you have two subsets (great athletes is one and high interest in GT academics, the other) that intersect and that intersection is quite small. Having a small recruiting staff makes it even harder to find that intersection. But I think we have have doubled down on finding this mix. We've seen what happens when you have one or the other but not both.

 

[augustabuzz]

How many graduated and didn't get into grad school?

 

[Coloradojacket]

I would be curios to run stats on those years and see for all the so called 4 star recruits, how many actually saw the field. Leaving could be a result of the fact that they were overrated or did not show the discipline and drive.

 

[Coloradojacket]

Interesting in my studies, the 2010 class. 19 signees 10 were instrumental starters. 2015 11 are starters. So the 2014 graduates, the 2010 class and the injuries in 2015 pushed 11 freshmen into starting roles in 2015.

 

[redmule]

Interesting in my studies, the 2010 class. 19 signees 10 were instrumental starters. 2015 11 are starters. So the 2014 graduates, the 2010 class and the injuries in 2015 pushed 11 freshmen into starting roles in 2015.

Seems like I remember CPJ saying that in the 2015 Miami game he looked on the field at our offense to call a play and there were 9 Fr or R-Fr on the field.

 

[jgtengineer]

Seems like I remember CPJ saying that in the 2015 Miami game he looked on the field at our offense to call a play and there were 9 Fr or R-Fr on the field.

yeah it actually severely limited his play calling. Not so much the actual plays but the short hand he uses to change blocking assignments he couldn't use because they hadn't completley learned it yet. ITs part of the reason for our higher missed assignment rate in general compared to other teams. Our line does more and is more precise. To most teams a trap is a trap is a trap, the uncovered guard traps the 3 tech or 4i tech( if 3-4 over that leaves the center with an angle) in our offense we might call a trap, but johnson will do something like " Spread 33, Y rip, Lucy Crack, Twirl" and that tells the Reciever to head to the safety the A back to take the corner and the guard action to actually switch the trap to a play side trap/ tackle clear with the backside ripping the nose so the center can cut off the mike.

 

[TheSilasSonRising]

I've noticed this before and you are right that the guys leaving are usually some of the better recruits. People harp on not getting 4-5 star guys, but I think we need to do a better job of getting guys who buy into the institute and what we are selling.

I think the Institute needs to do a better job of buying into the welfare of our S/As and how much those kids give to the school as regards fantastic p/r. And the Institute needs to fire scumbags in the Admissions office spitting on our AA. And profs need to be hung out to dry that say "they don't want their classes to have dumb football players infecting the other students (WTTE)

It is the GIT needing to do a better job - not the GTAA.

 

[alagold]

Seems like I remember CPJ saying that in the 2015 Miami game he looked on the field at our offense to call a play and there were 9 Fr or R-Fr on the field.

there were a bunch of problems in '15 but the loss of Dennis Andrews at aback was a PERFECT example of the talent drain by someone going out the door -he was the KEY Aback that was the experience and ability needed--we recruited and developed him and then when needed him most-gone for whatever reason

 

[Skeptic]

I was curious about what has been the % of recruits lost at Tech in the classes '13 -'16.(too early for 17/18) What do you think is a typical number?
After looking back at who was not here to play the 4 yrs for whatever reason (academics, kicked off, lost interest , dislike coach(es) , etc,and injured, which were very few--the numbers seem to be 56,29,31,28.

For a team that doesn't usually have 85 on scholly all the time ,that seems a large number.Also, these were not chumps .There was some real talent going out the door.

btw-Just for fun, I went back to compare an opponents number.I picked dook '14 because they didn't have coaching change. From that signed class of 18 ,dook had 15 still playing 4 yrs later.That's less than 17% compared to our 29 .A bunch of upperclass talent was there.--maybe a connection to why they beat us -easily.Anybody is welcome to check others. Would be interesting to see them.

So getting the good recruits is tough, keeping them is tougher possibly.

These kids go all the time, at every program. We know very little about those situations but some see Tech losing players and conclude it is the coach or the coaching staff. Almost every time it is playing time, when the kid recognizes that while he was highly recruited, the guy ahead of him earned the spot and will keep it. Clemson just lost several for the same reason: kids go to college to play the game, not to sit on the bench, even for as NC. The fun is playing, not sitting. Next man up.

 

[alagold]

These kids go all the time, at every program. We know very little about those situations but some see Tech losing players and conclude it is the coach or the coaching staff. Almost every time it is playing time, when the kid recognizes that while he was highly recruited, the guy ahead of him earned the spot and will keep it. Clemson just lost several for the same reason: kids go to college to play the game, not to sit on the bench, even for as NC. The fun is playing, not sitting. Next man up.

Next man up is ok if you are Clemson but not Tech.We start out with lower-rated talent and the further down you go on the chart to play guys the weaker we are .Little real depth at many positions.

 

[g0lftime]

There are a few positions that we don't rotate. WR, CB, S, C, QB, BB. If you start in those positions you don' miss many snaps.

 

[Skeptic]

Next man up is ok if you are Clemson but not Tech.We start out with lower-rated talent and the further down you go on the chart to play guys the weaker we are .Little real depth at many positions.

My use is in the sense that we have no choice, do we? If the No. 2 guy leaves and No. 1 is hurt, we need the next man. But yes, Clemson is now 2-3 deep deep in most places and I see it is recruiting almost natonwide. (That's from the tweets by prospects, if they can be believed.)

 

[first&ten]

yeah it actually severely limited his play calling. Not so much the actual plays but the short hand he uses to change blocking assignments he couldn't use because they hadn't completley learned it yet. ITs part of the reason for our higher missed assignment rate in general compared to other teams. Our line does more and is more precise. To most teams a trap is a trap is a trap, the uncovered guard traps the 3 tech or 4i tech( if 3-4 over that leaves the center with an angle) in our offense we might call a trap, but johnson will do something like " Spread 33, Y rip, Lucy Crack, Twirl" and that tells the Reciever to head to the safety the A back to take the corner and the guard action to actually switch the trap to a play side trap/ tackle clear with the backside ripping the nose so the center can cut off the mike.

Well, this is why usually in the middleof the season it's reported that tech coaches have to dummy down the assigmentsbecause players have problems executing.Another johnson TO drawback having to use trickery in order to compete.

 

[doug]

Well, this is why usually in the middleof the season it's reported that tech coaches have to dummy down the assigmentsbecause players have problems executing.Another johnson TO drawback having to use trickery in order to compete.

There's never been one instance where Johnson said he had to dumb down the offense because the players couldn't understand it. There was some talk of not fully installing the offense his first season, but ever since 2008 his entire offense has been fully installed and run. He emphasizes certain aspects of the offense based on the talent and skills of the current players, but the whole playbook is installed and can be used at any time.

 

[jgtengineer]

Well, this is why usually in the middleof the season it's reported that tech coaches have to dummy down the assigmentsbecause players have problems executing.Another johnson TO drawback having to use trickery in order to compete.

All offenses use trickery of some kind Johnson's just uses influence on the o line level. Most teams don't have people with the brain power to do more than zone block left or right on the o line

 

[dressedcheeseside]

All offenses use trickery of some kind Johnson's just uses influence on the o line level. Most teams don't have people with the brain power to do more than zone block left or right on the o line

Exactly! So all these RPO teams have to rely on trickery to be successful too? Every single offense uses deception to gain advantage.