Post-2016 NFL Draft - GT Players

dressedcheeseside

dressedcheeseside

Helluva Engineer
Messages
14,054
AE 87 said:
Now, if you posted total talent in the NFL as an alternative measure of Program Strength in that thread, it would be an interesting contribution.
Click to expand...

And yet I did exactly that.

To suggest it speaks to the question of talent on our D the last few years, and last year in particular, is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

And yet I did not do exactly that.

If none of our 6 starters on D had been drafted nor signed udfa contracts, that would have been data supporting those arguing against @33jacket when he complained about Roof. That is, it would support the argument that below average performance resulted from below average talent.

The fact that all 6 were either drafted or signed as udfa is data against blaming talent.

Again, it's not proof. It's just data in the talent vs scheme conversation.
Click to expand...
OK, so I agree with the bold part, it's data. So what? It's not a strong argument when you consider:
a) we had a bunch of seniors on d so naturally we'll have a lot of guys get looks. But this varies from year to year and from team to team in any given year.
b) many teams get guys signed as ufa's or get invited to camps. As I said earlier, it is in all intents and purposes, a try out and nothing more.
c) we had two guys off our D drafted. One in the second round and one in the sixth.

In comparison, in '15 Clemson had 4 of their front 7 drafted, two in the first round. The front seven is much more important, imo, that the back 4. Give me a stout front 7 with a pedestrian back 4 all day and all night over the opposite.

Which data set is more compelling... hmm?

Our D had serious weaknesses last year, particularly on the Dline. Lack of talent, lack of depth, lack of experience, and yes, probably lack of scheme and/or instruction all played into it. It's difficult to say which had more effect, I think we are likely splitting hairs in this debate. But to suggest talent was not a factor is, as you like to say, "ridiculous".
 
Last edited:
AE 87

AE 87

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,016
dressedcheeseside said:
And yet I did exactly that.



And yet I did not do exactly that.


OK, so I agree with the bold part, it's data. So what? It's not a strong argument when you consider:
a) we had a bunch of seniors on d so naturally we'll have a lot of guys get looks. But this varies from year to year and from team to team in any given year.
b) many teams get guys signed as ufa's or get invited to camps. As I said earlier, it is in all intents and purposes, a try out and nothing more.
c) we had two guys off our D drafted. One in the second round and one in the sixth.

In comparison, in '15 Clemson had 4 of their front 7 drafted, two in the first round. The front seven is much more important, imo, that the back 4. Give me a stout front 7 with a pedestrian back 4 all day and all night over the opposite.

Which data set is more compelling... hmm?

Our D had serious weaknesses last year, particularly on the Dline. Lack of talent, lack of depth, lack of experience, and yes, probably lack of scheme and/or instruction all played into it. It's difficult to say which had more effect, I think we are likely splitting hairs in this debate. But to suggest talent was not a factor is, as you like to say, "ridiculous".
Click to expand...

But that last sentence gets to the point. I never suggested that. All I said was that it's harder to make the case that talent is the primary thing. That's what I meant when I said you create straw men.

Your comparison to last year's CU team defies serious consideration. They were #1 in ppdvpwr5 D that year. I'm not arguing our talent was good enough for #1. Again, you make a ridiculous comparison and expect to be taken seriously.

As for what you did or didn't do, I made my point.
 
dressedcheeseside

dressedcheeseside

Helluva Engineer
Messages
14,054
AE 87 said:
But that last sentence gets to the point. I never suggested that. All I said was that it's harder to make the case that talent is the primary thing. That's what I meant when I said you create straw men.

Your comparison to last year's CU team defies serious consideration. They were #1 in ppdvpwr5 D that year. I'm not arguing our talent was good enough for #1. Again, you make a ridiculous comparison and expect to be taken seriously.

As for what you did or didn't do, I made my point.
Click to expand...
I'll give you the comparison is not fair. However, how can you say two guys drafted, one in the sixth, says talent was not the primary issue on D last year. Oh yeah, almost forgot, a handful of tryouts.

Also, you had no rebuttal for my first two points, a and b.

And here's another point I haven't made yet. GT holds back our talent to some degree. Even if we have it, much of it may go unrealized. Why? Because GT is a damn hard school that requires many hours of sacrifice on the academic front. This takes a huge toll on our SA's. Just look at our historical record during midterms and finals and you'll see we lose much of the time.

When guys nolonger have that burden to deal with in addition to training and learning football, they typically do better. We have several examples of guys doing better in the NFL than at GT. Some guys attribute that to lack of coaching/scheme at GT. Maybe, but this theory holds water, too.

18183tgkpy8a6png.png
 

33jacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,636
Location
Georgia
Yet tenuta had top 20 ds alot with about the same talent pool.

Its far bigger than players guys. I think some on these boards just like to disagree to play devils advocate with me.

Cheese ALOT is not true with udfa. If you go team by team its only a few. That is a bad perception imo. Do they make the roster alot no. But its not like a team signs 25 Udfa.

But. Some will love leaking ted no matter what. Its fine. They too must own stock in dep hair gel.

Me. Not a fan. His scheme makes no sense at times and i rarely see true gameplanning team to team. It either hits or its a disaster. We have better talent at gt than how his ds have performed or been ranked.

Is that an opinion? I dont know. But i can say in the past 4 years we almost have a full starting d on nfl rosters or still on their squads.
 
AE 87

AE 87

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,016
dressedcheeseside said:
I'll give you the comparison is not fair. However, how can you say two guys drafted, one in the sixth, says talent was not the primary issue on D last year. Oh yeah, almost forgot, a handful of tryouts.

Also, you had no rebuttal for my first two points, a and b.

And here's another point I haven't made yet. GT holds back our talent to some degree. Even if we have it, much of it may go unrealized. Why? Because GT is a damn hard school that requires many hours of sacrifice on the academic front. This takes a huge toll on our SA's. Just look at our historical record during midterms and finals and you'll see we lose much of the time.

When guys nolonger have that burden to deal with in addition to training and learning football, they typically do better. We have several examples of guys doing better in the NFL than at GT. Some guys attribute that to lack of coaching/scheme at GT. Maybe, but this theory holds water, too.

18183tgkpy8a6png.png
Click to expand...

OK, fine. If you actually think that you're scoring points here, you win. smdh
 
dressedcheeseside

dressedcheeseside

Helluva Engineer
Messages
14,054
33jacket said:
Yet tenuta had top 20 ds alot with about the same talent pool.

Its far bigger than players guys. I think some on these boards just like to disagree to play devils advocate with me.

Cheese ALOT is not true with udfa. If you go team by team its only a few. That is a bad perception imo. Do they make the roster alot no. But its not like a team signs 25 Udfa.

But. Some will love leaking ted no matter what. Its fine. They too must own stock in dep hair gel.

Me. Not a fan. His scheme makes no sense at times and i rarely see true gameplanning team to team. It either hits or its a disaster. We have better talent at gt than how his ds have performed or been ranked.

Is that an opinion? I dont know. But i can say in the past 4 years we almost have a full starting d on nfl rosters or still on their squads.
Click to expand...
San Diego signed 20.
Indianapolis 21.
Tampa Bay 21.
Atlanta Falcons 22.
New Orleans 19.
 
AE 87

AE 87

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,016
dressedcheeseside said:
As of May 1, the combined NFL teams signed 434 undrafted free agent contracts.
Click to expand...

LOL. So, is that an apology for suggesting that I was pulling numbers out of my ***
AE 87 said:
No one was suggesting that making a 90 man roster was the same as sticking on 53 man roster for a couple of years. The point was that making the 90-man roster was better than not making it.

Let's look at some numbers. We had 2 guys drafted from our D. If half the 256 players drafted were Defenders, that's a 128. If only players from Pwr 5 teams were drafted, that's 2 per team. Now, in reality, there are 128 FBS schools not just 64 and 125 FCS schools in addition. So, by this back of the envelope calculation, we're over-represented in terms of drafted defenders.

When we expand to include undrafted free agents, we have (by a quick count) an additional 434 players signed or 730. Again, over-assuming that half are defenders, we have 365, which, again, if all came from pwr 5 teams would be 6 per 64 teams. So, we again hit what would've been average if only pwr 5 teams were included. So, when you consider that players are coming from a much larger pool of teams, our number suggests we're over-represented in defenders signing NFL contracts.

That's over half of our starting line-up from last year, and yet our D was #50 in ppd efficiency. Moreover, that is #50 of 78 teams that played more than 2 Pwr 5 opponents. We were above average in representation in the NFL draft and in the whole NFL signing class but below average in efficiency. That was my point.
Click to expand...
 
dressedcheeseside

dressedcheeseside

Helluva Engineer
Messages
14,054
AE 87 said:
It's the same number I gave yesterday back in post 54.
Click to expand...
Ok, upon closer inspection, your numbers are correct, but with the over simplification that half the total numbers are defenders. My off the cuff response (which was to another poster) was off base but it was meant in jest, for the most part. The set up was too good to pass up.

However, the numbers don't necessarily mean the analysis means anything. It shows we were "over-represented" when considering all of college football. Why is that significant? I posted earlier a question of how we compare to teams we play, the ACC Coastal. That is more relevant. Your analysis shows that we are on average when considering P5 teams and I think that is the most relevant thing your analysis shows.

Fwiw, I think we should be doing better with the talent we have, but not sure where the fault lies. There are many factors that affect performance. How your strengths and weakness are dispersed among the 22 man two-deep is a big deal. DL strength trumps all else and that was one of our weaknesses in spite of having a 2nd rounder among them.
 
awbuzz

awbuzz

Helluva Manager
Staff member
Messages
11,537
Location
Marietta, GA
... Don't forget that GT's top draft pick didn't play in most of the games last year... That might have had some effect on the outcome of our final record. Maybe not, then again, maybe so.
 
deeeznutz

deeeznutz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,329
awbuzz said:
... Don't forget that GT's top draft pick didn't play in most of the games last year... That might have had some effect on the outcome of our final record. Maybe not, then again, maybe so.
Click to expand...
Gotsis got hurt early against UVA, so he missed that one, VT, Miami, and UGA. And 3 of those games were within a single score. Based on how the rest of the season went, we probably would have still found a way to blow those games anyways. It was just that type of "kick in the nuts" kind of season.
 
Top