Minimum to be good (Recruiting related)

[GTdragons]

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?

I agree that D line is a priority. Pass rush was nonexistent this year. Any secondary’s coverage will break down if the QB can sit in the pocket long enough.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Skeptic]

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

I'm with you. (And the grass-is-greener folks always think that a different recruit can just haul them in. Good luck with that.)

 

[SoCal_GT_Fan]

My take is to always recruit from the inside out: So on the offensive side, Center/Guards, QB should be priorities. We have done a good job at the center/guard position in my opinion. Might not have quite the depth but I think we have a good starting lineup at center/guard where they are typically potential All-ACC team type players. QB position is definitely the most critical position on the offensive side as we saw this year. This is typical of any offense. Look at Texas. Since having Colt McCoy (their last good QB), they've been in the crapper and they have all the resources in the world compared to GT. I would always advocate recruiting 1-3 QBs every year and let them duke it out for the starting position. I think we need to play the numbers game where we try and bring in a good number of players to compete at that position and let the pieces fall in place. If they aren't starting, chances are, they'll transfer and/or switch positions. Like any other offense, it all starts with the QB and when that QB is making the correct reads, able to make the throws, and has great command of the huddle, great things happen. I think our RBs and WRs group is good enough to have a good/great season. Just need to get a QB to get the ball to them. Of course, having a stud WR like D-Thomas would help.

On the defensive side, I think our weakness is at the tackle positions (again, recruit from the inside out).... But that's like almost every school that's not a factory. I guess as others have alluded to, need to have a specific defensive philosophy that is tailored to the recruits we are able to get. Be a bit more aggressive with our undersized DTs.

Would like to get some more hurries/sacks with just our front 4 defensive linemen. Maybe we need to change our recruiting philosophy along the line. Bring in tweener LBs and bulk them up to become defensive ends. Don't know. I think we can always pay a visit to the Wisconsin's and TCU's of the world and see what they do that we can apply. How we can get the best out of what we have.

Personally, I think our recruiting for the back-end of the defensive has been improving steadily and we have some underclassmen who are "athletes" back there that have the ability to play multiple positions.

 

[Jacket in Dairyland]

Really enjoying this thread ! My view on our needs to have a 10+ win season are:
1) Minimal injuries because we will never have great depth.
2) A QB that makes few mistakes , is shifty enough to get 4-5 yards , and is a capable enough passer that the possibility is in the
opposing D's head ( 45-50%).
3) A leader and a stud on the OL . Run behind him to get 4th and 1.
4) A BB that doesn't fumble and hits the hole hard ...... downhill runner.
5) AB with exceptional speed and elusiveness, can also catch a pass.
6) A WR that can block AND get separation.
7) Pass rush specialist at DE
8) Run stopper at DT
9) A LB with excellent mobility in all directions
10) Ball hawking S, anticipating, baiting , aggressively
11) Reliable (90%) FG kicker from 40 yards or less and 70% + kickoffs into the endzone
12) Punter with accuracy and 42 yds plus distance

IN SHORT , we need more PLAYMAKERS ! Guys who can turn it up a notch when the game is on the line. And, especially on D , mindsets and schemes that have them thinking about making a play, not a mistake. Great defense, in my opinion, is about 50% talent and 50% attitude.

 

[iceeater1969]

Sure we need better recruiting help but it's hard to recruit to a declining program (non bowl in 2 of last 3 years) w a coach headed to end of contract.

The sloppy play in last two games are hard to use as a recruiting base.

Watch Every offensive play Gt verses Duke.
In the Duke game which is the second to last game of the year we had 2 long throws go out of bounds by several yards. We don't have and won't have the athletes to compete without a competent passing game - 3 completions out of 16(?). On a simple screen pass to b b , the 5'10 bb just stood in place behind the 6'4" lb rushing the 5'10" q b who tried to dink it over the lb. LB tipped to self and ran to 5 yd line.
It sure wasn't just the qb at fault on the passing game.

Execution wise we are shooting our selves in the foot and it needs to stop.
In 4th (8:00) and did not change the qb . We ran the ball most plays w the clock running down . IMO it was time for a change at qb to hopefully finish strong so uga would have something to think about .

As to the "back ups don't know the offense issue and that's why they don't play. That could be true but for this game, the offense was dumbed down so much almost 3/4 of plays are called plays. Virtually no pure triple option . Called qb follow, fake pass, jet sweep, pass. Count Every offensive play - Ga Tech verses Duke and you will see.

Some how Coach has to get the team to execute.

IMO That must happen in the passing game. We just are a step slow and a few lbs light to just run it w called plays from the sideline. With 60-70% passing G to can hang with the Clemsons, Miami, uga 4/5 time. We are never going to just "run the damn ball against them" unless we are going to suddenly do perfect execution on mesh reads, blocking, etc. with them Drop below 50% and it won't be pretty. At 50 we can be in game against most other teams. At under 30 we are going to have a very rough time against everyone.
IMO start the best passer and early in year run set plays with lots of passing plays. I would start l j to see if he can put life in the passing game and sub t q if we need a spark. We need to know if l j is for real before t q graduates. Remember how confident we all were at our excellent qb depth.!i

Add execution to bigger staff= very good!

 

[Sideways]

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?

An interesting post that summarizes the situation we find ourselves going into the 2018 season. Quite simply, we need more play makers on both sides of the ball. Our perimeter blocking was unsatisfactory, passing was unsatisfactory, as noted by the OP the offensive line play was pretty good but less than what we thought we would get going into the season. Defense remains an area of concern as do special teams. In short, it is time to reorganize the corporation. Recruiting has to get noticeably better because we can no longer fool people with smoke and mirrors on offense. 2018 will be more of the same if these problems are not addressed. The difference next year is that we can no longer delude ourselves that if we just fix one position or two positions we will be better. Nope, it is whole sale improvement across the board that is required.

 

[alagold]

V,
Good analysis.I agree with most of it.
You did not really mention the STs which were a horror this yr (except our punting) and have been other times.So simply getting a guy to kick out the ball in EZ on KO would cover the weakness of depth in LB types that are needed. A harder to fill need is FG kicker with 90% inside 40.If you play close games, he is indespensable.
IDing the killer rush DE as vital is genius.The examples were perfect .
We other thing we need is more size esp on DEF.(I think we are doing that bit now)Either they have to lighter and SUPER quick/fast or bigger.
Having more than one 170ish Aback in game at a time means the blocking is going to suffer.The pass game suffers enough.It can't stand small blockers.
I'm not at all sure the recruiting setup is doing everything possible to uncover candidates.Is there a AT LEAST a regional coordinator for the whole US? Heck he could have an alumni volunteer for almost EVERY STATE. IDing the top 50 in a state and finding out if they have the grades means they could probably hack it here and so not waste a lot of effort..Then we could initiate contact .All they can say is "no interest".Wouldn't need break any rules.

 

[Skeptic]

...The difference next year is that we can no longer delude ourselves that if we just fix one position or two positions we will be better. Nope, it is whole sale improvement across the board that is required.

Interesting, because the book "Legacy" I wrote about attacks that very issue with the New Zealand rugby team in 2004. After a century of sustained excellence it finished last in a big tournament. They didn't start over. They identified problems and problem players and set out a plan of fixing them to attain their goal of "going for the gap". I would agree that a pattern of peaks and valleys we have had is evidence something needs to be fixed, and not just spot-welded, but culturally changed. I just don't know what.

 

[Sideways]

Interesting, because the book "Legacy" I wrote about attacks that very issue with the New Zealand rugby team in 2004. After a century of sustained excellence it finished last in a big tournament. They didn't start over. They identified problems and problem players and set out a plan of fixing them to attain their goal of "going for the gap". I would agree that a pattern of peaks and valleys we have had is evidence something needs to be fixed, and not just spot-welded, but culturally changed. I just don't know what.

I don't know either but this particular situation has the potential to get out of hand in a hurry. I really do not anticipate that happening because we have recruited a little bit better and Coach Johnson can still befuddle opponents but these things have a way of snowballing on a program. (see Tennessee, Texas, Tulane, Arkansas, Missouri, among others)

 

[Skeptic]

I don't know either but this particular situation has the potential to get out of hand in a hurry. I really do not anticipate that happening because we have recruited a little bit better and Coach Johnson can still befuddle opponents but these things have a way of snowballing on a program. (see Tennessee, Texas, Tulane, Arkansas, Missouri, among others)

Sobering, but yes.

 

[southernhive]

Along with 3-5 great Off and Def players, we need an outstanding kicker that can hit 85% of all the chip shot field goals out to 40 and hit 50% outside 45yds. He also must be able to kick for a touchback 90% of the time. I think this would have won us 2 or 3 games this year.

 

[RamblinCharger]

If you don't think Lane Kiffin is a great coach and recruiter then idk... Has he made some poor choices? Absolutely, but is he a great offensive mind and fantastic recruiter? Yes. I'd love to have him here.

 

[THWG]

Along with 3-5 great Off and Def players, we need an outstanding kicker that can hit 85% of all the chip shot field goals out to 40 and hit 50% outside 45yds. He also must be able to kick for a touchback 90% of the time. I think this would have won us 2 or 3 games this year.

King was 5-6 for field goals. We do need to be able to get more touchbacks though. We desperately need that, but I think a healthy off season for King will lead to that and more range on field goals.

 

[Skeptic]

If you don't think Lane Kiffin is a great coach and recruiter then idk... Has he made some poor choices? Absolutely, but is he a great offensive mind and fantastic recruiter? Yes. I'd love to have him here.

Well, okay then. As Nixon said, let me say this about that: I don't know if he is an offensive genius or not. he doesn't stay long enough to find out. (A guy being OC for a great team -- Alabama -- doesn't show me near as much as he would have at say, SC or Tennessee.) But worse than that, much worse I think, is that he quits in games. If you can, find a video of the GT-USC Sun Bowl from 2011 or 2012.

Neither team had a great record and in truth neither much wanted to be in El Paso, Texas. People who live in El Paso don't want to be there. Tech was 5-6 and USC about the same after being rated very high to start Kiffin's season. Both teams bombed the season. Johnson took GT in and did the whole bowl scene -- sombrero, salsa, speeches -- and all the players did the player things. (By the way, the only thing goofier than Johnson in shorts is Johnson in a sombrero, but he did it) -- and USC showed their rear ends.

Came the Sun Bowl dinner and USC didn't show. Johnson actually took his team back to the hotel after waiting an hour or so but his guys performed their duties. You might recall that the entire Sun Bowl crowd at the game was loudly Georgia Tech. Those folks were really steamed, as they should have been. USC as much as said the game was beneath them.

And in the game? Check Kiffin in his Hollywood shades on the sideline. Check Kiffin eyeballing the crowd. Check Kiffin looking at the ground. Check Lane Kiffin quitting on his own team. Check Kiffin with his arms crossed, angry at the world for being in a thing called the Sun Bowl when he wanted the Rose Bowl when the season started. He did not coach a lick and was not interested in coaching. He quit, went belly up in the corner, didn't care his team was getting whipped. A classless quitter.

That is the man you want coaching Georgia Tech.

 

[UgaBlows]

Well, okay then. As Nixon said, let me say this about that: I don't know if he is an offensive genius or not. he doesn't stay long enough to find out. (A guy being OC for a great team -- Alabama -- doesn't show me near as much as he would have at say, SC or Tennessee.) But worse than that, much worse I think, is that he quits in games. If you can, find a video of the GT-USC Sun Bowl from 2011 or 2012.

Neither team had a great record and in truth neither much wanted to be in El Paso, Texas. People who live in El Paso don't want to be there. Tech was 5-6 and USC about the same after being rated very high to start Kiffin's season. Both teams bombed the season. Johnson took GT in and did the whole bowl scene -- sombrero, salsa, speeches -- and all the players did the player things. (By the way, the only thing goofier than Johnson in shorts is Johnson in a sombrero, but he did it) -- and USC showed their rear ends.

Came the Sun Bowl dinner and USC didn't show. Johnson actually took his team back to the hotel after waiting an hour or so but his guys performed their duties. You might recall that the entire Sun Bowl crowd at the game was loudly Georgia Tech. Those folks were really steamed, as they should have been. USC as much as said the game was beneath them.

And in the game? Check Kiffin in his Hollywood shades on the sideline. Check Kiffin eyeballing the crowd. Check Kiffin looking at the ground. Check Lane Kiffin quitting on his own team. Check Kiffin with his arms crossed, angry at the world for being in a thing called the Sun Bowl when he wanted the Rose Bowl when the season started. He did not coach a lick and was not interested in coaching. He quit, went belly up in the corner, didn't care his team was getting whipped. A classless quitter.

That is the man you want coaching Georgia Tech.

No thank you

 

[southernhive]

King was 5-6 for field goals. We do need to be able to get more touchbacks though. We desperately need that, but I think a healthy off season for King will lead to that and more range on field goals.

My hope is that King is able to get stronger so he can kick into the endzone with ease. His accuracy was good.

 

[RamblinCharger]

Well, okay then. As Nixon said, let me say this about that: I don't know if he is an offensive genius or not. he doesn't stay long enough to find out. (A guy being OC for a great team -- Alabama -- doesn't show me near as much as he would have at say, SC or Tennessee.) But worse than that, much worse I think, is that he quits in games. If you can, find a video of the GT-USC Sun Bowl from 2011 or 2012.

Neither team had a great record and in truth neither much wanted to be in El Paso, Texas. People who live in El Paso don't want to be there. Tech was 5-6 and USC about the same after being rated very high to start Kiffin's season. Both teams bombed the season. Johnson took GT in and did the whole bowl scene -- sombrero, salsa, speeches -- and all the players did the player things. (By the way, the only thing goofier than Johnson in shorts is Johnson in a sombrero, but he did it) -- and USC showed their rear ends.

Came the Sun Bowl dinner and USC didn't show. Johnson actually took his team back to the hotel after waiting an hour or so but his guys performed their duties. You might recall that the entire Sun Bowl crowd at the game was loudly Georgia Tech. Those folks were really steamed, as they should have been. USC as much as said the game was beneath them.

And in the game? Check Kiffin in his Hollywood shades on the sideline. Check Kiffin eyeballing the crowd. Check Kiffin looking at the ground. Check Lane Kiffin quitting on his own team. Check Kiffin with his arms crossed, angry at the world for being in a thing called the Sun Bowl when he wanted the Rose Bowl when the season started. He did not coach a lick and was not interested in coaching. He quit, went belly up in the corner, didn't care his team was getting whipped. A classless quitter.

That is the man you want coaching Georgia Tech.

Yep. Like I said, if you don’t think the guy is a great coach and recruiter then idk what to say to you. You have the right to your opinion. I think he’ll probably end up winning a national title as a head coach at some point if he keeps his personal life in check. Just my opinion, and yes I’d love to have him at Georgia Tech because I want us to win at a high level. You don’t have to agree with me. Just my opinion. The OP posted that this was about recruiting and how we’d potentially get better and what we needed to be consistently good. Well we need a coach that can recruit his tail off. Chan Gailey and Paul Johnson are not those guys. Paul is a great coach, but not a great recruiter.

 

[Gold1]

Yep. Like I said, if you don’t think the guy is a great coach and recruiter then idk what to say to you. You have the right to your opinion. I think he’ll probably end up winning a national title as a head coach at some point if he keeps his personal life in check. Just my opinion, and yes I’d love to have him at Georgia Tech because I want us to win at a high level. You don’t have to agree with me. Just my opinion. The OP posted that this was about recruiting and how we’d potentially get better and what we needed to be consistently good. Well we need a coach that can recruit his tail off. Chan Gailey and Paul Johnson are not those guys. Paul is a great coach, but not a great recruiter.

The anti kiffin people like to forget he just won the CUSA at FAU!!!

 

[Techster]

The anti kiffin people like to forget he just won the CUSA at FAU!!!

...and he did it primarily running the ball this year!

His offenses (which was primarily Kendall Briles's offense this year) is fun to watch, but I still wouldn't want him at GT.

 

[Skeptic]

Yep. Like I said, if you don’t think the guy is a great coach and recruiter then idk what to say to you. You have the right to your opinion. I think he’ll probably end up winning a national title as a head coach at some point if he keeps his personal life in check. Just my opinion, and yes I’d love to have him at Georgia Tech because I want us to win at a high level. You don’t have to agree with me. Just my opinion. The OP posted that this was about recruiting and how we’d potentially get better and what we needed to be consistently good. Well we need a coach that can recruit his tail off. Chan Gailey and Paul Johnson are not those guys. Paul is a great coach, but not a great recruiter.

As I have said before, you can talk until you are blue in the face but you are not going to get football players in here with the curriculum GT has. It ain't gonna happen and I don't care who is recruiting, even at the point of a gun. Give it up. You guys are not just beating a dead horse your are flaying and barbecuing it. Get real. As to the other, I will again say to make it clear: I didn't go to GT. I don't give them money since I can support only one college at a time, I don't help pay for a coach, it is not my money. I am a sidewalk fan for a long time. That being said, it would turn my stomach to have a human being like Lane Kiffin walking the same sidelines once graced by John Heisman, Bill Alexander and Bobby Dodd. That would be disgraceful. But it will never happen so you will never get to see Kiffin quit on a Tech team.