NFL by Acc and Colleges similar to Gt

[RonJohn]

And we beat them more when we had NFL talent in 09 and 14. I don't think there is a lot of disagreement here. Its just a matter of what you choose to highlight

Average number of wins for the last 5 years (2014-2018)

Miami 8.0
VT 7.8
Duke 7.2
GT 7.0
UNC 6.0
UVA 5.0

Clemson has averaged 13 wins over that span. According to what @iceeater1969 posted, Clemson and Miami are equivalent in NFL players. Clemson is winning 5 games/year more than Miami. Miami is winning 1 game per year more than GT.

I would say that the evidence shows that GT has been a contender in the ACC Coastal. I didn't include Pitt, because they weren't on the list, but they averaged 6.8 wins per year. The ACC has been very even for the last five years. Average wins for teams 1-5 is within 1.2 games per year.

 

[iceeater1969]

Average number of wins for the last 5 years (2014-2018)

Miami 8.0
VT 7.8
Duke 7.2
GT 7.0
UNC 6.0
UVA 5.0

Clemson has averaged 13 wins over that span. According to what @iceeater1969 posted, Clemson and Miami are equivalent in NFL players. Clemson is winning 5 games/year more than Miami. Miami is winning 1 game per year more than GT.

I would say that the evidence shows that GT has been a contender in the ACC Coastal. I didn't include Pitt, because they weren't on the list, but they averaged 6.8 wins per year. The ACC has been very even for the last five years. Average wins for teams 1-5 is within 1.2 games per year.

As we saw w Mills and Parker- nfl quality players are obvious difference makers in wins, but beyond that arent they FUN FOR THE AVERAGE FAN to watch. I loved watching the scoop blocks . Wife had no idea . To win w o the scheme will need more talent.

As an aside
I wonder why what the past scheme accomplished is relevant for the present or the future.
Perhaps a thread on "Next 4 expectation for acc Coastal" would be interesting. I expect 2 more wins in next 4 than the last 4. (I wish i had the number on tip of tongue so i did not reference the past. ). I expect years 3 and 4 gt to be very good in the coastal. So far recruiting does not make me doubt that being a high probability.

 

[RonJohn]

As an aside
I wonder why what the past scheme accomplished is relevant for the present or the future.

My posts were more aimed at questioning the reasoning that number of NFL players is an accurate measure of the success of a college team. For the teams in the ACC Coastal, the five year and even the ten year average wins per season don't show a large difference. Virginia is the worst team in the Coastal over five years and ten years. According to your numbers, they have more than double the number of players as GT. If players in the NFL is an accurate measure, then Miami should be in total control of the coastal from a recruiting and a players in the NFL perspective.

I would also question how you derived the data you presented. There is an article on the NCAA website that lists the number of players who made 53 man NFL rosters last fall. https://www.ncaa.com/news/football/article/2018-09-11/colleges-most-represented-2018-nfl-rosters The numbers in their list don't appear similar to your list. Did you include practice team players and people who were recently given free agent contracts? If so, those numbers will change significantly between now and September.

 

[iceeater1969]

BC -26 nfl only 3 skill position players. Old matt ryan and 2 wr. Bc has lots of ol and dl plus 6 lb . These positions often have greater nfl longevity which may bias their total higher than expected. They have reputation of smash mouth and it shows in nfl.

 

[GTRX7]

Average number of wins for the last 5 years (2014-2018)

Miami 8.0
VT 7.8
Duke 7.2
GT 7.0
UNC 6.0
UVA 5.0

Clemson has averaged 13 wins over that span. According to what @iceeater1969 posted, Clemson and Miami are equivalent in NFL players. Clemson is winning 5 games/year more than Miami. Miami is winning 1 game per year more than GT.

I would say that the evidence shows that GT has been a contender in the ACC Coastal. I didn't include Pitt, because they weren't on the list, but they averaged 6.8 wins per year. The ACC has been very even for the last five years. Average wins for teams 1-5 is within 1.2 games per year.

I would be curious to see the intra-Coastal win averages for each team over 5 and 10 years. In total win count, we basically start two games down on most of these teams having to play UGA and Clemson each year. I would not be surprised if Georgia Tech had the highest or second highest average intra-Coastal winning percentage over those times.

Having run the option for 10 years, I care almost not at all about the NFL player metric. It was clear we recruited different types of players, and that we still had lots of success. I think the NFL metric will start becoming much more important four years from now as we run a more typical offense compared to every other team we compete against.

 

[smokey_wasp]

Gosh, only around here is the argument "more talent is good" a controversial opinion. lol

 

[RonJohn]

Gosh, only around here is the argument "more talent is good" a controversial opinion. lol

I am not saying that more talent isn't better. I am only questioning whether more talent is a single indicator of success. Miami would seem to prove that it is not.

 

[smokey_wasp]

I am not saying that more talent isn't better. I am only questioning whether more talent is a single indicator of success. Miami would seem to prove that it is not.

It is not, of course, but I would argue that it is a must if you want to be more than middle of the pack. Again, our 2009 and 2014 teams had some draft picks, whereas the last couple of year, guys aren't even getting combine invites. It's telling.
Also, putting players in the NFL, from a pride and prestige standpoint, is important, in and of itself, in my opinion.

 

[iceeater1969]

My posts were more aimed at questioning the reasoning that number of NFL players is an accurate measure of the success of a college team. For the teams in the ACC Coastal, the five year and even the ten year average wins per season don't show a large difference. Virginia is the worst team in the Coastal over five years and ten years. According to your numbers, they have more than double the number of players as GT. If players in the NFL is an accurate measure, then Miami should be in total control of the coastal from a recruiting and a players in the NFL perspective.

I would also question how you derived the data you presented. There is an article on the NCAA website that lists the number of players who made 53 man NFL rosters last fall. https://www.ncaa.com/news/football/article/2018-09-11/colleges-most-represented-2018-nfl-rosters The numbers in their list don't appear similar to your list. Did you include practice team players and people who were recently given free agent contracts? If so, those numbers will change significantly between now and September.

No nfl count not singly indicative of football wins, but having a genius offensive minded coach has ended at gt..

Check out the data and let me know if its right or wrong. Looks right for ga tech. You may have a better eye at that than eye. Perhaps i should i update the list after nfl sezson starts.

To see data Google search "nfl players by college" and scroll to Espn. Select letter and see teams and named players.


If data mining is your thing have at it.

In next 4-5 years I am saying that having way more nfl players from ga tech will be a good thing . I can assure u , staying at wake forest and Syracuse level will be a very very bad thing.

Imo- We have 11 now and an ok improvement in 4-5 years would plus side of 20.

 

[RonJohn]

It is not, of course, but I would argue that it is a must if you want to be more than middle of the pack. Again, our 2009 and 2014 teams had some draft picks, whereas the last couple of year, guys aren't even getting combine invites. It's telling.
Also, putting players in the NFL, from a pride and prestige standpoint, is important, in and of itself, in my opinion.

GT had zero draft picks after the 2017 and 2018 seasons. Before that: 2016-1, 2015-2, 2014-3, 2013-3, 2012-0, 2011-2, 2010-2, 2009-4, 2008-4, 2007-3, 2006-2, 2005-3, 2004-0, 2003-5, 2002-1, 2001-2, 2000-0, 1999-3, 1998-3, 1997-2: It is unusual for GT to have two years in a row with zero draft picks. However, the average across 20 years and even further back(until you get to time when the NFL had more rounds) GT has 2-3 per year. The 2014 season had right at the average. The 2009 season had about one above the average. If you look at the numbers, the past five years and the past ten years look very similar to the Chan years and the O'Leary years.

I do not disagree that putting players in the NFL looks good for a college team. I am not disagreeing that having highly talented players helps get wins. However, I would argue that the talent level can't be the only thing you look at. Work ethic, football smarts, teamwork, and culture all have to be taken into account. You can have a very talented team, but if they don't work hard and work together, it won't get you very far.

My complaints in this thread are more about iceeater's apparent assumption that more talented players automatically equals more wins. It is definitely a factor, but if you let other things drop off, it won't have much of an effect.

 

[RonJohn]

It is not, of course, but I would argue that it is a must if you want to be more than middle of the pack. Again, our 2009 and 2014 teams had some draft picks, whereas the last couple of year, guys aren't even getting combine invites. It's telling.
Also, putting players in the NFL, from a pride and prestige standpoint, is important, in and of itself, in my opinion.

GT had zero draft picks after the 2017 and 2018 seasons. Before that: 2016-1, 2015-2, 2014-3, 2013-3, 2012-0, 2011-2, 2010-2, 2009-4, 2008-4, 2007-3, 2006-2, 2005-3, 2004-0, 2003-5, 2002-1, 2001-2, 2000-0, 1999-3, 1998-3, 1997-2: It is unusual for GT to have two years in a row with zero draft picks. However, the average across 20 years and even further back(until you get to time when the NFL had more rounds) GT has 2-3 per year. The 2014 season had right at the average. The 2009 season had about one above the average. If you look at the numbers, the past five years and the past ten years look very similar to the Chan years and the O'Leary years.

I do not disagree that putting players in the NFL looks good for a college team. I am not disagreeing that having highly talented players helps get wins. However, I would argue that the talent level can't be the only thing you look at. Work ethic, football smarts, teamwork, and culture all have to be taken into account. You can have a very talented team, but if they don't work hard and work together, it won't get you very far.

My complaints in this thread are more about iceeater's apparent assumption that more talented players automatically equals more wins. It definitely is a factor, but if you let other things drop off, it won't have as much of an effect.

 

[smokey_wasp]

GT had zero draft picks after the 2017 and 2018 seasons. Before that: 2016-1, 2015-2, 2014-3, 2013-3, 2012-0, 2011-2, 2010-2, 2009-4, 2008-4, 2007-3, 2006-2, 2005-3, 2004-0, 2003-5, 2002-1, 2001-2, 2000-0, 1999-3, 1998-3, 1997-2: It is unusual for GT to have two years in a row with zero draft picks. However, the average across 20 years and even further back(until you get to time when the NFL had more rounds) GT has 2-3 per year. The 2014 season had right at the average. The 2009 season had about one above the average. If you look at the numbers, the past five years and the past ten years look very similar to the Chan years and the O'Leary years.

I do not disagree that putting players in the NFL looks good for a college team. I am not disagreeing that having highly talented players helps get wins. However, I would argue that the talent level can't be the only thing you look at. Work ethic, football smarts, teamwork, and culture all have to be taken into account. You can have a very talented team, but if they don't work hard and work together, it won't get you very far.

My complaints in this thread are more about iceeater's apparent assumption that more talented players automatically equals more wins. It is definitely a factor, but if you let other things drop off, it won't have much of an effect.

I don't disagree with you. And certainly, work ethic, development and culture are a huge emphasis by the current staff. Actually, I doubt iceeater disagrees with you, either. I didn't read his post the way you did.

 

[RonJohn]

No nfl count not singly indicative of football wins, but having a genius offensive minded coach has ended at gt..

Check out the data and let me know if its right or wrong. Looks right for ga tech. You may have a better eye at that than eye. Perhaps i should i update the list after nfl sezson starts.

To see data Google search "nfl players by college" and scroll to Espn. Select letter and see teams and named players.


If data mining is your thing have at it.

In next 4-5 years I am saying that having way more nfl players from ga tech will be a good thing . I can assure u , staying at wake forest and Syracuse level will be a very very bad thing.

Imo- We have 11 now and an ok improvement in 4-5 years would plus side of 20.

I wouldn't do it that way. They list everyone who is currently on a roster, up to 90 I believe. The link I posted:
https://www.ncaa.com/news/football/article/2018-09-11/colleges-most-represented-2018-nfl-rosters
:shows the number of players who made a 53 man roster last fall. GT is down to 9 on that list, but Boston College is down to 11. Very different that the total number of players who at this point in time have a chance at making a roster next year.

 

[RickStromFan]

We have no academic peers competing in FBS football. Similar schools to Georgia Tech academically are Cal Tech and MIT.

there's no excuse to be below Wake Forest in anything. Duke's bad enough.

 

[GTRX7]

there's no excuse to be below Wake Forest in anything. Duke's bad enough.

Just as an FYI, here are the ACC records over CPJ's tenure (and last 5 years)
Tech: 51-37 (20-20)
Duke: 31-57 (16-24)
Wake: 30-58 (12-28)

I personally value these numbers over who put the most players in the NFL.

 

[UgaBlows]

We have no academic peers competing in FBS football. Similar schools to Georgia Tech academically are Cal Tech and MIT.

The fact that we are in the ACC and have to play all those teams is really the only thing that matters, we just have to deal it academically.

 

[RickStromFan]

Just as an FYI, here are the ACC records over CPJ's tenure (and last 5 years)
Tech: 51-37 (20-20)
Duke: 31-57 (16-24)
Wake: 30-58 (12-28)

I personally value these numbers over who put the most players in the NFL.

Unfortunately, I doubt HS recruits do but thankfully, I think we're about to put those days behind us. HS recruits could not begin to care less what our W/L record is vs that of Weak Forest.

 

[Techster]

Our best years have coincided with teams that had future NFL talent (2008, 2009, 2014). Everyone knows about the 2008 and 2009 NFL talent.

In 2014, we had 2 NFL WRs picked in the draft (Smelter, Waller), a QB that's played WR for 2 NFL teams (JeT), and NFL OL (Mason), a 2nd round NFL defensive tackle (Gotsis), a RB that converted to FB in the NFL (Laskey), an NFL safety (Jobnson), 2 DBs that played in the NFL (White, Durham). There may be others. but those are the ones that I can remember.

That's a lot of NFL talent for any team for one season. 9 total guys who would spend time in the NFL. 5 of them drafted.

Is having NFL players important in the sense that GT would fail without them? No. But when GT has NFL talent, we tend to do VERY well. Also, the recruiting aspect of having NFL player is also VERY important. Schools who have changed coaches several times over are still getting credit for producing NFL players even though the guys that signed them are no longer there. IMO, the recruiting aspect of having NFL players is just as important as having coaches who can recruit.

 

[iceeater1969]

GT had zero draft picks after the 2017 and 2018 seasons. Before that: 2016-1, 2015-2, 2014-3, 2013-3, 2012-0, 2011-2, 2010-2, 2009-4, 2008-4, 2007-3, 2006-2, 2005-3, 2004-0, 2003-5, 2002-1, 2001-2, 2000-0, 1999-3, 1998-3, 1997-2: It is unusual for GT to have two years in a row with zero draft picks. However, the average across 20 years and even further back(until you get to time when the NFL had more rounds) GT has 2-3 per year. The 2014 season had right at the average. The 2009 season had about one above the average. If you look at the numbers, the past five years and the past ten years look very similar to the Chan years and the O'Leary years.

I do not disagree that putting players in the NFL looks good for a college team. I am not disagreeing that having highly talented players helps get wins. However, I would argue that the talent level can't be the only thing you look at. Work ethic, football smarts, teamwork, and culture all have to be taken into account. You can have a very talented team, but if they don't work hard and work together, it won't get you very far.

My complaints in this thread are more about iceeater's apparent assumption that more talented players automatically equals more wins. It is definitely a factor, but if you let other things drop off, it won't have much of an effect.

Sorry i confused u into thinking a list of nfl players by schools shows i believe it is a direct and perfect correlation to high quality teams without requiring great team work and coaching.

 

[RonJohn]

Sorry i confused u into thinking a list of nfl players by schools shows i believe it is a direct and perfect correlation to high quality teams without requiring great team work and coaching.

I think it was the subsequent post about measuring and tracking a single lagging indicator that lead me to believe that. An athletic department and a head coach should track level of talent coming in to a program and level of talent leaving the program(hopefully after running out of eligibility). However, they should also measure the work ethic of the players(which it appears the staff is doing). They should keep an eye on the culture(which it appears the staff is doing). I have seen several times on projects and in companies where leadership concentrates too hard on one measurement and outright ignores other key factors. It would be extremely hard to win at a high level if you don't maintain work ethic. However, you could probably get a couple of very good years if you bring in top notch players who don't believe in or fit the culture. A couple of good years, but then a dumpster fire and roller coaster like Miami.