Moving Up vs Moving Down: Is one better than the other?

[Randy Carson]

From the Pure Speculation Dept:

Is it better to take a player from the portal who is moving up from a smaller school (like Mercer or Ga. So.) who has started and made some real contribution or a player who was all that in high school but only saw limited playing time at a factory (like Clemson or UGA)?

Is there a difference in terms of motivation, development, mental attitude or anything else that would cause you to prefer one player over another? Do you take it on a case by case basis?

Maybe it's six of one, half a dozen of the other, but we're just killing time until the bowl game, right?

So, what's your take?

 

[stinger78]

I think it all depends. If the guy moving up was excelling against lesser competition, then it’s hit or miss. OTOH, if the guy moving over (not down) cannot excel against better competition, then it’s hit or miss. A lot depends on why these events occurred: heart, measurables, and coachability.

Assuming all three are there, I think I’d rather have the guy moving up from achieving success.

 

[4shotB]

Assuming all three are there, I think I’d rather have the guy moving up from achieving success.

I think you also have to look at who the player coming from a factory school was behind on the depth chart at the previous school. The TE we got from Uga (Seither - sp?) looked to be a nice pickup before injury. He was behind a high first round draft pick and another guy who I think was NFL material at the time over in Athens.

 

[Vespid]

5 years ago, probably the overachieving G5 or FCS looking to improve his professional athletic odds or long term academic investment for a school like us. Now, it's all about the Benjamin's. Much more likely to get a very high value P4 transfer prospect or even a P4 starter where they came from. The factories are going to rue the day they lost their under the table $$$ advantage with regards to players. IMHO, the status quo will not continue very much longer, but GT is surprisingly competing and winning in the market that exist.

 

[jojatk]

From the Pure Speculation Dept:

Is it better to take a player from the portal who is moving up from a smaller school (like Mercer or Ga. So.) who has started and made some real contribution or a player who was all that in high school but only saw limited playing time at a factory (like Clemson or UGA)?

Is there a difference in terms of motivation, development, mental attitude or anything else that would cause you to prefer one player over another? Do you take it on a case by case basis?

Maybe it's six of one, half a dozen of the other, but we're just killing time until the bowl game, right?

So, what's your take?

My take is that you go with your case by case basis you listed. You have to find kids who are hungry to show they are better than whatever situation they were in. Are they starting at a lower level and have both the ability and desire to prove they are capable of the same or better at a higher level? Are they stuck behind other players on the depth chart and want the opportunity to get on the field and prove they are worthy of more playing time than they were getting? Are they good players who can help a team at any level and want a chance to play in front of their family and friends in/near ATL instead of wherever they were and are motivated even more by being close to home?

There are just too many factors to evaluate to say one is better than the other. At least in my opinion.

 

[stinger 1957]

Each case has it's own evaluation criteria. Those people we have inside working on all this are important to the overall success of our personnel selection IMO.