Is Collins nasty enough to be a HC ?

[LibertyTurns]

I sure hope we get thru these throwaway seasons soon so we can understand what we’re going to be. Another year & we won’t have any more of those other guy’s guys and we can get down to focusing on GT matching up against our adversaries instead of GT matching up against GT.

 

[forensicbuzz]

I'm happy if we get them. Yay! But that's not my point.

In business, some managers grow profits by focusing on increasing sales, others by maintaining sales and reducing costs. Two ways to reach the same goal.

Many here say Collins is going to recruit like a maniac and we're going to get 7, 8, 10, no 15 four and five stars a year. Natty here we come!

Others (me) refer to TStan and his comments that "no, that is not our game. We will improve recruiting, sure ... but our goal is to recruit great 3-stars and use Georgia Tech science to develop them into five stars". (This is paraphrased, but it's pretty much what he said.)

Which is it?

I've never heard a single fan on here say anything remotely close to this. I've heard people being optimistic about bringing in players we've not been able to get on campus in years. I've heard people getting excited that kids that wanted nothing to do with us are now not just giving us the time of day, but actually expressing real interest in what's going on here. I've heard people optimistically say that we're going to be recruiting better than we ever have. But never have I read anything where someone actually quantified what they thought we'd be getting in the way of 4* and 5* players. Recruiting rankings haven't been around for that long, but if 2006 is the class to emulate, 7 4* players is an achievable goal. We won't hit it every year, and may not even be close some years, but I don't think 5-7 recognized talent a cycle is out of the question. We're not going to get there overnight and it may require additional funding, but I believe it is absolutely achievable. If we do that, we should be competitive with anyone on our schedule.

By the way, you're not being a realist. You're defining a potential future reality and stating that this is the way it will be. You don't know the future, neither do I, neither does Todd Stansbury. Set your expectations low and you'll never be disappointed.

 

[Vespidae]

By the way, you're not being a realist. You're defining a potential future reality and stating that this is the way it will be. You don't know the future, neither do I, neither does Todd Stansbury. Set your expectations low and you'll never be disappointed.

I presented numbers describing the pool of players available. That’s being a realist.

and btw ... this is exactly what TStan teferred to describing the GT football strategy.

Strange how no one it seems, listens to the guy raising the money.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Based on the numbers provided by @Vespidae earlier in this thread, I believe it is entirely possible that we should expect CGC to bring in no less than 4 "blue chip" players per year on average, with the trend line in the next few years getting us to 5-7 routinely. This is not including transfers, which I will discuss in a minute. After looking through the list of P5 teams, there are about 30-40 schools that I believe are in the best position to get more than their "share" of recruits. We are at the bottom of that list. Schools like Bama, Clemson, FSU, and uga will routinely double the "share" of 6 per school. But there are also several P5 schools that will routinely only sign 1-2 per year. Of course, there are a few G5 schools that will sign a couple here and there, but it shouldn't impact the market of what's available to us. Our biggest hurdles in this are that GT has a reputation as a tough academic school, (and that does turn some athletes off), and that we are surrounded by factories who are all competing directly against us in this market. We have numerous advantages as well, chiefly our location in Downtown Atlanta and, when branded properly, our exceptional educational opportunities.

As for transfers, I am leery of putting too much stock into them. Historically, most transfers don't really impact their new teams that much. There are always exceptions, but in reality, few Russell WIlson's or Justin Fields come in and become impact players from day one. Getting a transfer early in their career helps, but we need to get to a point where we are a destination for hot recruits, not transfers who didn't make the two deep at their last school. The upside of transfers is that with JUCO not really being an option for us, this market can help fill depth gaps from year to year.

Now, CGC has so far shown himself as an adept recruiter. While a lot of his schtick drives me batty, I recognize that so far the athletes and recruits are buying in and that's a good thing. As the roster turnover nears completion in the next year or so, and our young guys develop (half our ATL are underclassmen) we should see rapid improvement in the product on the field. I originally said that this rebuild could take 5-7 years, but with the recruiting I am seeing so far, I can easily see us winning 7-8 games in the next 2-3 seasons. We just need to give CGC and his staff time. If by the end of year 5 we are not improved beyond where we are now, then maybe it's time to move on, but for now, I like where we are trending as a team.

 

[ncjacket79]

Why are realists pessimistic? Have you ever heard of reversion to the mean? I went to Tech. I did.

There's a reality that we will get some percentage of good players. Yes. I agree with that. But what is it? There's roughly 400 Blue Chips a year. And 127 teams competing for them. Our historical win average is less than 60% . And even less of getting kids to the NFL. And somehow, we're going to land more than our share of talent.

Pray tell ... show me how. Don't just sit in your pajamas and say, "Boy, you're negative". I've sat in the AD box and hear TStan say this directly. This is NOT Tech's game. Why are you so resistant to the strategy? Or do you just hope for something different?

TStan is the first AD in my lifetime that is realistic. It is so sad so many so called fans can't or won't ... understand what he is doing.

Our historical win % doesn’t matter for one thing. Right now we are limited by recent history so the idea of recruiting high 3 stats and a few 4s, changing the perception of the program and winning more is sound. But if we do that the perception of the program changes and our potential to recruit better increases as well. If that’s not our long term strategy I’m not sure why we are bothering with this.

 

[Vespidae]

Our historical win % doesn’t matter for one thing. Right now we are limited by recent history so the idea of recruiting high 3 stats and a few 4s, changing the perception of the program and winning more is sound. But if we do that the perception of the program changes and our potential to recruit better increases as well. If that’s not our long term strategy I’m not sure why we are bothering with this.

Numbers in isolation are meaningless. Trends, comparisons, and expectations help calibrate what a particular number means.

Recent experience with CPJ was a win rate of 0.57. Win rate with Chan was ... 0.57.


Do I have an expectation that we’re going to improve recruiting? Yes. Get some (4-5, average per yr) 4 stars ... yes. Do I think we will get 10-15? No.

Do I think we can develop 3-stars into 4 or 5 stars? Yes.

 

[AlabamaBuzz]

Numbers in isolation are meaningless. Trends, comparisons, and expectations help calibrate what a particular number means.

Recent experience with CPJ was a win rate of 0.57. Win rate with Chan was ... 0.57.


Do I have an expectation that we’re going to improve recruiting? Yes. Get some (4-5, average per yr) 4 stars ... yes. Do I think we will get 10-15? No.

Do I think we can develop 3-stars into 4 or 5 stars? Yes.

And, to your point, V, that is what the catchphrase "5 star development" means that CGC refers to all the time. Now, we will see if it happens to a reasonable level, but even he knows it has to happen some if we are going to have the success he and many want.

 

[DaDodd]

When did this thread become about recruiting? I thought this thread was about his on field coaching ability. No one is denying that the guy can recruit well but can he coach well. I think that's the real question. Good recruiting is needs to have good coaching to make the system work.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

When did this thread become about recruiting? I thought this thread was about his on field coaching ability. No one is denying that the guy can recruit well but can he coach well. I think that's the real question. Good recruiting is needs to have good coaching to make the system work.

To be fair, the central theme of the last few pages revolves around his ability to develop, or coach, high three stars into 4/5 star talent, or whether we will start recruiting well enough to mitigate the need somewhat.

TBH, I much prefer this discussion to whether CGC is "nasty" enough as a coach to get results. It seems more apropos to future results right now...

 

[MidtownJacket]

When did this thread become about recruiting? I thought this thread was about his on field coaching ability. No one is denying that the guy can recruit well but can he coach well. I think that's the real question. Good recruiting is needs to have good coaching to make the system work.

I think it was off of people saying he can't be mean AND do the personal connection "player's coach" schtick as well. I don't agree with that perspectice, but it was the tangent people were following.

To be fair, the central theme of the last few pages revolves around his ability to develop, or coach, high three stars into 4/5 star talent, or whether we will start recruiting well enough to mitigate the need somewhat.

TBH, I much prefer this discussion to whether CGC is "nasty" enough as a coach to get results. It seems more apropos to future results right now...

Agree that it is a two part question: Getting the kids here THEN getting the most out of them. I always liked playing for coaches, and working for bosses, who were fair and consistently did what they said they would do. Nothing wrong with expecting conformation to clearly defined standards and holding people accountable in whatever way connects with them. Some guys need you yelling in their ear to light the fire, others need a steady hand telling them they have more in the tank. Others like the catch phrases, an old soccer coach of mine used to yell "Get Big" to our defense every time we needed a stop, and frankly for whatever silly reason, it worked.

 

[forensicbuzz]

When did this thread become about recruiting? I thought this thread was about his on field coaching ability. No one is denying that the guy can recruit well but can he coach well. I think that's the real question. Good recruiting is needs to have good coaching to make the system work.

I think the thread question was whether he had what it takes to get in someone's face and pull them up by the short ones. Half of me feels that approach doesn't work anymore and half of me feels we need more of that. Every kid is different. The best coaches know which ones to yell at, which ones to express disappointment to, and which ones to encourage rah-rah style.

 

[DaDodd]

Others like the catch phrases, an old soccer coach of mine used to yell "Get Big" to our defense every time we needed a stop, and frankly for whatever silly reason, it worked.

I like that! Earlier in the thread I said I didn't like catch phrases unless they were backed up. But I wouldn't consider "Get Big" a catchphrase but more of a coaching tool. When you coach said that you knew what it meant. To get big same make a stop. It was practical. Yelling "404" or "Money Down" doesn't really have a good practical meaning. It if money down is meant to motivate you to play well just to get money, I believe that is a selfish mentality instead of a team mentality. You need a rally cry not a selfish motivator. I'd rather them say "swarm" or something because that implies that everyone work together for a common goal.

 

[MidtownJacket]

I like that! Earlier in the thread I said I didn't like catch phrases unless they were backed up. But I wouldn't consider "Get Big" a catchphrase but more of a coaching tool. When you coach said that you knew what it meant. To get big same make a stop. It was practical. Yelling "404" or "Money Down" doesn't really have a good practical meaning. It if money down is meant to motivate you to play well just to get money, I believe that is a selfish mentality instead of a team mentality. You need a rally cry not a selfish motivator. I'd rather them say "swarm" or something because that implies that everyone work together for a common goal.

Yeah, definitely agree with you about the traceability of the words to a concrete action. I like the swarm concept and think we have seen some marketing buzz around it (but it would be cool to switch money down to a “swarm down”) or reserve it for goal line stands or something.

At the end of the day, game day coaching is as much about psychology as it is about scheme for head coaches. (Granted there are some exceptions where the Head Ball Coach gets hyper involved in playcalling and scheme see CPJ).

 

[Pointer]

I have doubts that developing 3 star only will ever move the needle.
I think I'm more optimistic than you regarding achievability.
I also prefer using the 2020 talent composite for basis (linked below) rather than raw data and averaging.
talent isn't the only thing so we'll need to be above average at coaching,development and scouting the 3 stars.
I think the magic number to consistently be top 25 in talent is 5.5 per year(4 or 5 star talent is assumed)(analysis below)
Note - I'm just looking at % talent. It isn't rocket science.

UGA,Bama,OSU average 80% talent - that ain't gonna be us
Top 10 average 64% talent - thats difficult even for one year
11-25 average 40% talent (that's 8.5/yr assuming no redshirts) - further breakdown is needed
11-15 average 51% talent
16-20 average 42% talent
21-25 average 26% talent (this is where 5.5 is derived)

CGC got 27% talent last year (7 of 26) - and yes i counted transfers where 247 doesn't
21-25 aren't world beaters. It's SC,NC,Miss St,Az St,Neb
Our roster is currently at 16% (13 of 82) We just need to see this keep rising
this year recruiting isn't going as well as last year but there's time to turn it around.
think a recruit,transfer,flip and upgrade and you're there
FSU proves this method of forecasting isn't foolproof.
Bama and Clemson prove that it's pretty darn good.
CGC's hype is recruiting primarily. If he can't achieve this he won't last 7 years.
but we need to be patient.Patience is a Virtue. Virtue isn't always as much fun as the alternatives.

I collected data from the link below to tabulate those averages.forgive errors cuz i didn't use a calculator.

2020 College Football Team Talent Composite

In order to create the most comprehensive Team Recruiting Ranking without any notion of bias, 247Sports Team Recruiting Ranking is solely based on the 247Sports Composite Rating.

247sports.com

I wish more people would read and take in the information from this post. Excellent job.

 

[LibertyTurns]

I wish more people would read and take in the information from this post. Excellent job.

We’re sitting at #33 in talent composite & 6th in the ACC. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect we’d have been the 10th best ACC team this year and next year with this whopper of a recruiting class coming in a middle of the pack team next year. We’re probably going to top out at #4-5, even with UNC which would put us at #20-25 in NCAA talent. Good coaching should result in annual inclusion in the Top 25. Maybe not starting next year, but definitely by the year after. At the point we shouldn‘t be crapping on the talent level of the players any more & it’s all on the staff.

 

[g0lftime]

If our talent level is in the middle of the conference ratings for recruits then at some point the coaches have to do the things to improve the players' skills and be better at game day than the guys across the field.

 

[Sheboygan]

I think the thread question was whether he had what it takes to get in someone's face and pull them up by the short ones. Half of me feels that approach doesn't work anymore and half of me feels we need more of that. Every kid is different. The best coaches know which ones to yell at, which ones to express disappointment to, and which ones to encourage rah-rah style.

That is EXACTLY what I meant when I started the thread, some 20 pages ago.

 

[Vespidae]

That is EXACTLY what I meant when I started the thread, some 20 pages ago.

There are five universal motivators: Achievement, Power, Ego, Social Affiliation and Fear. Fear works, but it’s very short-term. If Collins is smart, he’s doing personality evaluations on his players and trying to appeal to each one individually. Standard motivation approaches aren’t as effective because people differ.

 

[g0lftime]

You want kids that absolutely hate to lose at anything . They have that buring desire to win. Some can be prodded to perform with different methods but ultimately it comes from within. Coaches can help them with improving their skills and motivating them to improve but that desire to win is an intangible.

 

[Milwaukee]

To be fair, the central theme of the last few pages revolves around verbal diarrhea

Fixed.