Minimum to be good (Recruiting related)

[vamosjackets]

These are my contentions:
1. CPJ is a very good coach and that under him we've been a good program.
2. We are on a razor's edge between great and terrible seasons. It seems that each of our seasons, whether they've been very good or bad, could have been the other way around with a few different breaks (injuries, plays, bounces, calls, etc).
3. Recruiting is our biggest weakness for a multitude of reasons that almost all knowledgeable fans are aware of and accept. This is really why CPJ makes so much sense for GT. We don't have to be top 10 recruiting to end up top 10 on the field. But, we do need a bare minimum to have any chance to be good. So, my question to pose for discussion is: what is that minimum?

Break it up into two extra distinctions:

1. What minimum is needed just to be able to have a winning season?

2. What minimum is needed to have a chance for a great season (10+ wins)?

I would say for a winning season, we really don't need much at all. I'd say pretty much what we had this year will do it. A decent QB - like Tevin or Marshall - Marshall can still be better than decent, but this year he was just decent. A decent set of backs - no one this year was above decent in that area, Benson has great tools, but he doesn't hit the hole with authority consistently enough to be above decent this year, AB's same. 1 good WR goes a long way, and we had that this year. June was a good player, maybe very good, not quite great. A good OL - I think our OL was good this year, just above decent, and this was the biggest disappointment/underachievement of the season. They seemed to have the potential to be great going into the season. Injury played a big part in this I think.


Defense has been so lackluster during CPJ's entire tenure that it's hard to even think about what the bare minimum is for us. It seems that we've been living only on less than the bare minimum since '08. I guess a defense that can make just a few key plays per game or that can have 1 or 2 great games a year (which is all we've been able to say in our most optimistic judgments in this era).


For a great season, we need a very good QB, 1 very good WR, and a good BB. Those are the 2-3 biggest, imo. That makes the rest of the offense good. The rest of the guys can be a mixture of good-decent. We've had 3 years when our BB's have been less than good, imo. There are other ways we could be great as well, of course without even having a very good QB and WR. If all 5 OL were GREAT or if we had a GREAT QB and very good BB, then the WR's could succeed even just being good. To have a truly dominant offense, one that would set records, I think it could just be a great QB, BB, WR, and 2 great OL. So, 5 great offensive players, and I think we're looking at the #1 offense in the nation, possibly history.

To be anything close to good on defense, we've got to have a great DE. Period. If we don't have a great DE, we're never going to be good at getting pressure on the QB with Coach Roof. If we do have a great DE, he creates his own plays and also makes the offense make adjustments for him which then allows other decent-good players have more good moments. Other DL can win a one-on-one or have a QB flushed into them every now and then. DB's can get picks or at least won't have to be great in coverage as often because the QB will be under duress. One great DE changes the complexion of our defense, imo. We have been very close to getting a guy like that over the years - Tuitt, Ealy, perhaps Kingsley Enagbare (missed this year). We've had exactly two. Derrick Morgan and Jeremiah Attaochu. DMorg may be the most valuable player to our 2009 ACC championship run. He made just enough plays so that we could outscore opponents. We saw in 2008 that DMorg coupled with V.Walker, D.Richard, and M.Johnson, along with M.Burnett could even give Dave Wommack a top 25 defense. Jerry played on teams that without him would have been historically bad on defense.

I'm not sure what else we need on defense to have a chance to actually be good. Probably a couple of lock-down corners (like All-American level). Then the rest of the D could focus on other things. Again, I'm just talking BARE-Minimum.

If we could be just a little better in recruiting, we could take a BIG jump on the field, imo. And, by just a little better, I simply mean getting 2-3 elite guys per class. The rest can be a mixture of decent-good, if the elite guys were in key positions, as mentioned above.

I'd love to hear others' thoughts on the key positions needed for GT to raise its level. What do we need to be at a good level or a great level?

 

[OldJacketFan]

Quite a succinct post. Given 22 starters having 3-5 playmakers on both sides should portent very good things for s season. As the team presently sit I feel they are very close to hitting the formula/mix @vamosjackets outlines. Not necessarily with proven players but those that we see with the physical attributes to fulfill those playmakers roles. Tech has brought in with the last 2 classes more high level 3* players than in the past and add in the handful of 4* it looks like the pieces are in place. If Tech can add 2-3 4* in each class while maintaining the high 3* players then you should have the players going forward to build on.

 

[tmhunter52]

If we had top 15 recruiting classes year in and year out, and they bought into CPJ's offensive scheme, we would regularly be in the playoffs. We would also rarely lose to UGA. to recruit REALLY better, though, we would need a change of offensive scheme, a bigger football budget, more staff, more majors, less rigorous course loads, bigger stadium and fan base, more social media, good press from the AJC, a more helpful administration and BOR and a proven history of sending players to the NFL. How many of those can we expect TStan to get fixed?

 

[travgt01]

Top 30 recruiting classes would be the min to be really good, as in 8-4 would be a bit of a disappointment. I think the losses to bad acc teams go away (as in lose to bad duke/uva/unc teams once a decade) and we start going at least 2-2 vs miami, clem, vt, and uga. I really don't think that is impossible to achieve but with all of the self imposed handcuffs we put on ourselves I guess it has been. Getting rid of Russell was the first step in the right direction. Adding more recruiting staff would be the next.

 

[GTHOSCHTON]

Money!!!! to have all these bare minimum levels we need to increase the amount of money we put into the program and it doesn't really matter what offense we run.....ask the SA about the amount of clothing they get for free from GT.... its a joke, and thats in all sports..... facilities need major upgrades which we are slowly getting..... increase the size of the recruiting department from 4 to 16 and then double it again.....we also need some youth in the football staff an infusion of energy ... we need to go from 65m to 95m yesterday and work to get to 125 m and more....in the next 5 years.....it can be done I do give what I can to the GTAA not much but some...and am a sidewalk fan....with more money we could begin to recruit nationally and target those kids from outside the southeast one or two a year ..............

or to me the other alternative is to drop down from a power 5 to group of 5....... win 8 to 11 games a year....beat uga once every 4 years...go to a new years bowl every once and a while....have no chance at the playoffs but hey we are happy and winning

or continue on our path and expect 5 to 8 win seasons as the norm and beat uga once every six to seven years, because that gap has gotten huge in a hurry... and go to some low level bowl....look at the history that's what we are

Money talks you know what walks!!!!

 

[Skeptic]

A couple of weekends ago I visited one of my oldest friends in Huntsville -- which is like not even being in Alabama. He is an indifferent football fan, meaning he pays attention, mostly because I do, but doesn't die every Saturday. He is a Georgia Tech graduate, not somebody hiding in the weeds waiting to take pot shots, and actually played a year as a walk-on on the baseball team. (He could throw that speedball by you, just not in the same area code.)

Here is his take, and since he graduated from Georgia Tech I am sure he knows what he's talking about. I mean, after all.

As long as Tech recruits players who really are coming for the education, then maybe eight wins is a good year and nine a very good year, because that recruiting pool is not big enough for Tech and all the other top institutions that are after them. To quote vintage Lee Corso, there's not enough hardnosed smart people.

I leave it at that though I expect he's right.

 

[slugboy]

For a good season,

• an above average center
• two decent guards
• at least one above average tackle.
• one receiver with good hands (and two good blocking receivers)
• two/three good-blocking A-backs
• QB who reads well.
• Defenders who can tackle well on first contact
• decent kicker who can put kickoffs in the back of the end zone or past it

For a great season, the above plus a few items from

• a great center
• a great tackle
• a fearless tough B-back or two (speed is nice to have, but fearlessness rules)
• QB with good passing touch on the ball
• LBs who can get to the edge and outrun their blocks
• CBs who are either tall enough or have enough hops to knock the ball away from tall receivers
• Good enough secondary to get as many turnovers as we give (net positive turnover ratio ideal)
• DT with enough speed/push to attract more than one blocker.
• Edge rusher fast enough to make tackles in the backfield/get sacks.

 

[YJMD]

I don't think it's all about recruiting, but it's part of it. I do believe that CPJ is a very high quality football coach. And that he knows what a program needs to be successful. But he needs an administrative environment and assistant coaches who are willing to provide those needs autonomously. GT as an institute is in poor alignment with providing those needs, but I will highlight 1. this is very common 2. the institute probably has more natural barriers to alignment than any other P5 school 3. CPJ is a football coach and not the type to bridge the gap even if he knows it's there. I do think that Stansbury is a major upgrade for us at the AD spot, but we'll have to see how successful he can be and also be aware that we're going to need to invest for long-term gains. There is not enough $$$ to get the short-term gains.

Dabo is a good contrast to CPJ in style. I think everyone here would agree that Dabo is not a better football coach, but he is at the tippy top of people in the profession that can build a program. He did a ton to bridge gaps between the football program and their administration, and he was able to focus on really high quality coordinators to fill the gaps, and he rewarded them handily -- not just financially, but with a good balance of support and autonomy.

But Clemson has a lot more resources to work with.

I don't think we should can CPJ. We're seeing upward progress with Stansbury in our institutional barriers, and CPJ is still a good football coach who is producing better than average GT coach results. I don't expect him to take us to the top, but it would be a bad gamble to find someone else. I have grown to appreciate option football under him so much that, unless a college football game is of national or GT importance, I don't even enjoy watching it.

 

[Skeptic]

...

Dabo is a good contrast to CPJ in style. I think everyone here would agree that Dabo is not a better football coach, but he is at the tippy top of people in the profession that can build a program. He did a ton to bridge gaps between the football program and their administration, and he was able to focus on really high quality coordinators to fill the gaps, and he rewarded them handily -- not just financially, but with a good balance of support and autonomy.

But Clemson has a lot more resources to work with....

I think that is pretty much on target. I don't think there is a better game day coach in the country than Johnson, and not a better football "CEO" than Swinney. Much of it comes down to "a lot more resources". Because yes he does, a lot more. Some of what Johnson has done with what he has is remarkable. I don't like the losing either, but I don't expect Clemson-like results on Tech-like resources.

 

[RamblinCharger]

Paul is a great coach, but not for this level IMO. He isn't the right personality to recruit, and the offense hurts recruiting even further. Although we can be really good we need a lot of things to go right to get therwe. The recruiting could be top 30 consistently with a slightly better budget and a good recruiter at head coach. The Adidas move will help. If we had a Lane Kiffin for head coach, or someone similar we would be top 30 in recruiting ever year. Not top 10 but 25-35 every year.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

These are my contentions:
1. CPJ is a very good coach and that under him we've been a good program.
2. We are on a razor's edge between great and terrible seasons. It seems that each of our seasons, whether they've been very good or bad, could have been the other way around with a few different breaks (injuries, plays, bounces, calls, etc).
3. Recruiting is our biggest weakness for a multitude of reasons that almost all knowledgeable fans are aware of and accept. This is really why CPJ makes so much sense for GT. We don't have to be top 10 recruiting to end up top 10 on the field. But, we do need a bare minimum to have any chance to be good. So, my question to pose for discussion is: what is that minimum?

Break it up into two extra distinctions:

1. What minimum is needed just to be able to have a winning season?

2. What minimum is needed to have a chance for a great season (10+ wins)?

I would say for a winning season, we really don't need much at all. I'd say pretty much what we had this year will do it. A decent QB - like Tevin or Marshall - Marshall can still be better than decent, but this year he was just decent. A decent set of backs - no one this year was above decent in that area, Benson has great tools, but he doesn't hit the hole with authority consistently enough to be above decent this year, AB's same. 1 good WR goes a long way, and we had that this year. June was a good player, maybe very good, not quite great. A good OL - I think our OL was good this year, just above decent, and this was the biggest disappointment/underachievement of the season. They seemed to have the potential to be great going into the season. Injury played a big part in this I think.


Defense has been so lackluster during CPJ's entire tenure that it's hard to even think about what the bare minimum is for us. It seems that we've been living only on less than the bare minimum since '08. I guess a defense that can make just a few key plays per game or that can have 1 or 2 great games a year (which is all we've been able to say in our most optimistic judgments in this era).


For a great season, we need a very good QB, 1 very good WR, and a good BB. Those are the 2-3 biggest, imo. That makes the rest of the offense good. The rest of the guys can be a mixture of good-decent. We've had 3 years when our BB's have been less than good, imo. There are other ways we could be great as well, of course without even having a very good QB and WR. If all 5 OL were GREAT or if we had a GREAT QB and very good BB, then the WR's could succeed even just being good. To have a truly dominant offense, one that would set records, I think it could just be a great QB, BB, WR, and 2 great OL. So, 5 great offensive players, and I think we're looking at the #1 offense in the nation, possibly history.

To be anything close to good on defense, we've got to have a great DE. Period. If we don't have a great DE, we're never going to be good at getting pressure on the QB with Coach Roof. If we do have a great DE, he creates his own plays and also makes the offense make adjustments for him which then allows other decent-good players have more good moments. Other DL can win a one-on-one or have a QB flushed into them every now and then. DB's can get picks or at least won't have to be great in coverage as often because the QB will be under duress. One great DE changes the complexion of our defense, imo. We have been very close to getting a guy like that over the years - Tuitt, Ealy, perhaps Kingsley Enagbare (missed this year). We've had exactly two. Derrick Morgan and Jeremiah Attaochu. DMorg may be the most valuable player to our 2009 ACC championship run. He made just enough plays so that we could outscore opponents. We saw in 2008 that DMorg coupled with V.Walker, D.Richard, and M.Johnson, along with M.Burnett could even give Dave Wommack a top 25 defense. Jerry played on teams that without him would have been historically bad on defense.

I'm not sure what else we need on defense to have a chance to actually be good. Probably a couple of lock-down corners (like All-American level). Then the rest of the D could focus on other things. Again, I'm just talking BARE-Minimum.

If we could be just a little better in recruiting, we could take a BIG jump on the field, imo. And, by just a little better, I simply mean getting 2-3 elite guys per class. The rest can be a mixture of decent-good, if the elite guys were in key positions, as mentioned above.

I'd love to hear others' thoughts on the key positions needed for GT to raise its level. What do we need to be at a good level or a great level?

The ‘14 offense was great with only 2 great players: JT and Shaq. Everyone else was decent/good/very good. Very good would be Smelter, Days and Butker.

 

[JacketFromUGA]

Paul is a great coach, but not for this level IMO. He isn't the right personality to recruit, and the offense hurts recruiting even further. Although we can be really good we need a lot of things to go right to get therwe. The recruiting could be top 30 consistently with a slightly better budget and a good recruiter at head coach. The Adidas move will help. If we had a Lane Kiffin for head coach, or someone similar we would be top 30 in recruiting ever year. Not top 10 but 25-35 every year.

Gonna pretend I didn’t just read a mention about Lane Kiffin.

 

[D-man44]

Marshall has to get completions up to at least 45% lol defense has to force at least 1 TO a game for us to be a 9 or more win team without a QB who can even scare the defense 37% completion percentage just doesn't cut it in power 5 sorry idc what anyone says but the most important thing Paul needs is a NFL level WR best 2 years had Demaryius and Smelter I can't see us winning more than 8-9 if we can't pass to save our lives

 

[Bogey]

Paul is a great coach, but not for this level IMO. He isn't the right personality to recruit, and the offense hurts recruiting even further. Although we can be really good we need a lot of things to go right to get therwe. The recruiting could be top 30 consistently with a slightly better budget and a good recruiter at head coach. The Adidas move will help. If we had a Lane Kiffin for head coach, or someone similar we would be top 30 in recruiting ever year. Not top 10 but 25-35 every year.

I strongly agree with your first sentence and strongly disagree with the Kiffin sentence.

 

[tech_wreck47]

These are my contentions:
1. CPJ is a very good coach and that under him we've been a good program.
2. We are on a razor's edge between great and terrible seasons. It seems that each of our seasons, whether they've been very good or bad, could have been the other way around with a few different breaks (injuries, plays, bounces, calls, etc).
3. Recruiting is our biggest weakness for a multitude of reasons that almost all knowledgeable fans are aware of and accept. This is really why CPJ makes so much sense for GT. We don't have to be top 10 recruiting to end up top 10 on the field. But, we do need a bare minimum to have any chance to be good. So, my question to pose for discussion is: what is that minimum?

Break it up into two extra distinctions:

1. What minimum is needed just to be able to have a winning season?

2. What minimum is needed to have a chance for a great season (10+ wins)?

I would say for a winning season, we really don't need much at all. I'd say pretty much what we had this year will do it. A decent QB - like Tevin or Marshall - Marshall can still be better than decent, but this year he was just decent. A decent set of backs - no one this year was above decent in that area, Benson has great tools, but he doesn't hit the hole with authority consistently enough to be above decent this year, AB's same. 1 good WR goes a long way, and we had that this year. June was a good player, maybe very good, not quite great. A good OL - I think our OL was good this year, just above decent, and this was the biggest disappointment/underachievement of the season. They seemed to have the potential to be great going into the season. Injury played a big part in this I think.


Defense has been so lackluster during CPJ's entire tenure that it's hard to even think about what the bare minimum is for us. It seems that we've been living only on less than the bare minimum since '08. I guess a defense that can make just a few key plays per game or that can have 1 or 2 great games a year (which is all we've been able to say in our most optimistic judgments in this era).


For a great season, we need a very good QB, 1 very good WR, and a good BB. Those are the 2-3 biggest, imo. That makes the rest of the offense good. The rest of the guys can be a mixture of good-decent. We've had 3 years when our BB's have been less than good, imo. There are other ways we could be great as well, of course without even having a very good QB and WR. If all 5 OL were GREAT or if we had a GREAT QB and very good BB, then the WR's could succeed even just being good. To have a truly dominant offense, one that would set records, I think it could just be a great QB, BB, WR, and 2 great OL. So, 5 great offensive players, and I think we're looking at the #1 offense in the nation, possibly history.

To be anything close to good on defense, we've got to have a great DE. Period. If we don't have a great DE, we're never going to be good at getting pressure on the QB with Coach Roof. If we do have a great DE, he creates his own plays and also makes the offense make adjustments for him which then allows other decent-good players have more good moments. Other DL can win a one-on-one or have a QB flushed into them every now and then. DB's can get picks or at least won't have to be great in coverage as often because the QB will be under duress. One great DE changes the complexion of our defense, imo. We have been very close to getting a guy like that over the years - Tuitt, Ealy, perhaps Kingsley Enagbare (missed this year). We've had exactly two. Derrick Morgan and Jeremiah Attaochu. DMorg may be the most valuable player to our 2009 ACC championship run. He made just enough plays so that we could outscore opponents. We saw in 2008 that DMorg coupled with V.Walker, D.Richard, and M.Johnson, along with M.Burnett could even give Dave Wommack a top 25 defense. Jerry played on teams that without him would have been historically bad on defense.

I'm not sure what else we need on defense to have a chance to actually be good. Probably a couple of lock-down corners (like All-American level). Then the rest of the D could focus on other things. Again, I'm just talking BARE-Minimum.

If we could be just a little better in recruiting, we could take a BIG jump on the field, imo. And, by just a little better, I simply mean getting 2-3 elite guys per class. The rest can be a mixture of decent-good, if the elite guys were in key positions, as mentioned above.

I'd love to hear others' thoughts on the key positions needed for GT to raise its level. What do we need to be at a good level or a great level?

To have a winning record I think what we recruit at right now Is fine. If we wanted 10 plus win seasons consistently I think we could do that with just two extra studs per year on each side of the ball. For instance game changers, not just "solid" players. If we went out and got a Alfred Thomas and Robert Cooper on D and James Graham and Micheal Barrett on O, and maybe even a stud on the OL each year. These are guys who could drastically change the team. Especially if you have 8 on each side of the ball from a 4 year span of recruiting. I'm not sure what this would do for us in recruiting rankings though. Maybe top 30? If we were to 20 though, I wouldn't be surprised to see us in the playoffs.

 

[J_Trouche]

Marshall has to get completions up to at least 45% lol defense has to force at least 1 TO a game for us to be a 9 or more win team without a QB who can even scare the defense 37% completion percentage just doesn't cut it in power 5 sorry idc what anyone says but the most important thing Paul needs is a NFL level WR best 2 years had Demaryius and Smelter I can't see us winning more than 8-9 if we can't pass to save our lives

Taquan was just 28 percent in the last 7 games

 

[takethepoints]

… to recruit REALLY better, though, we would need a change of offensive scheme, a bigger football budget, more staff, more majors, less rigorous course loads, bigger stadium and fan base, more social media, good press from the AJC, a more helpful administration and BOR and a proven history of sending players to the NFL. How many of those can we expect TStan to get fixed?

Let's do this one by one.

• Change in offensive scheme: Not necessary and not in TS's control anyhow.

• Bigger football budget: He's trying on this and I think he'll get it, if the rest of us cooperate.

• More staff: Ditto.

• More majors: Not within his jurisdiction, but likely, imho. Tech has done a lot in this area recently and will have to do more to keep up with rival tech schools. Example = MIT has a world class political science program. I wouldn't be surprised to see offerings in this and the other social sciences increase. Humanities? Well … not so much.

• Less rigorous course loads: Yeah. Right.

• Bigger stadium and fan base: Not likely. We aren't filling up Grant Field as it is. Also, there was a recent post here that pointed out that the crowds at Tech games were about average for college football.

• More social media: We could and probably will do this, but I doubt it'll have much effect.

• Good press from the AJC: Not impossible. We win more and we'll get better coverage. See 2014.

• More helpful administration: Probable, imho. The folks at the Hill know how much donations to Tech track sports results. They need the money. But they don't need TS to tell them that. The regents won't cooperate; they have an entire system to run. But we don't need them to get this done.

• "… a proven history of sending players to the NFL": Huh? We are ok on this already. Besides, this isn't the main thing that sells Tech to players we're recruiting.

 

[takethepoints]

If we went out and got a Alfred Thomas and Robert Cooper on D and James Graham and Micheal Barrett on O, and maybe even a stud on the OL each year.

Well, yes, it would be great if we got highly ranked players that turned out to be as good as advertised. But, remember, Shaq Mason was a low 3 star recruit. You know the drill: "Too short, short arms, won't be drafted" and so on. We get a lot of players like that who turn out just fine, thanks.

I wish football recruiting was a more certain business, just like everyone else here. But it isn't, unless 1/3rd of your class is 5 star athletes and you recruit 25 a year. Bammer, iow.

 

[tech_wreck47]

Well, yes, it would be great if we got highly ranked players that turned out to be as good as advertised. But, remember, Shaq Mason was a low 3 star recruit. You know the drill: "Too short, short arms, won't be drafted" and so on. We get a lot of players like that who turn out just fine, thanks.

I wish football recruiting was a more certain business, just like everyone else here. But it isn't, unless 1/3rd of your class is 5 star athletes and you recruit 25 a year. Bammer, iow.

I agree with that, but the higher rated guys generally pan out more often than not. And when you add guys like that your chances of being better go up.

 

[GTdragons]

Money!!!! to have all these bare minimum levels we need to increase the amount of money we put into the program and it doesn't really matter what offense we run.....ask the SA about the amount of clothing they get for free from GT.... its a joke, and thats in all sports..... facilities need major upgrades which we are slowly getting..... increase the size of the recruiting department from 4 to 16 and then double it again.....we also need some youth in the football staff an infusion of energy ... we need to go from 65m to 95m yesterday and work to get to 125 m and more....in the next 5 years.....it can be done I do give what I can to the GTAA not much but some...and am a sidewalk fan....with more money we could begin to recruit nationally and target those kids from outside the southeast one or two a year ..............

or to me the other alternative is to drop down from a power 5 to group of 5....... win 8 to 11 games a year....beat uga once every 4 years...go to a new years bowl every once and a while....have no chance at the playoffs but hey we are happy and winning

or continue on our path and expect 5 to 8 win seasons as the norm and beat uga once every six to seven years, because that gap has gotten huge in a hurry... and go to some low level bowl....look at the history that's what we are

Money talks you know what walks!!!!

I think the adidas deal will increase the amount of apparel our players get. Cool factor should be way higher too. On a related note, the adidas football twitter and Instagram accounts were hyping Miami hard this season. Hope we get the same treatment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk