Post-2016 NFL Draft - GT Players

[GaTech4ever]

Sorry. I don't see sufficient evidence to say that the main problem on D is depth. It could be, but my take on the data leads me to put more weight on the foot that says we're not maximizing our talent as the biggest problem.

So what are you saying? Our coaches are bringing in enough talent on D to be successful but they just aren't coaching them to their potential?

And you're basing this off the data that we've had a couple draft picks over the last few years (some of whom don't stick) and even more UDFA who don't stick?

 

[tech_wreck47]

So what are you saying? Our coaches are bringing in enough talent on D to be successful but they just aren't coaching them to their potential?

And you're basing this off the data that we've had a couple draft picks over the last few years (some of whom don't stick) and even more UDFA who don't stick?

I think what he's saying, and I could be wrong, but that our guys on D are better than how they play, because they are atleast getting the looks from the pros, which means the pros see the potential in them. They are just not maximizing that talent and maybe they don't stick because they weren't coached well enough at the college level and they are just to far behind the other guys because of that. Just my take but I could be wrong.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

What numbers do you question?

How do these numbers compare to those of our Coastal brethen and the mutts? Talent is relative to that of your competition. It's nice to say we have more next level players than average, but how many do the teams we play have?

 

[dressedcheeseside]

An invite to a pro camp is equivalent to being given a preferred walkon in college. They think you might be good but they're not gonna risk anything on you.

 

[AE 87]

How do these numbers compare to those of our Coastal brethen and the mutts? Talent is relative to that of your competition. It's nice to say we have more next level players than average, but how many do the teams we play have?

You didn't answer my question. Real smooth. Accuse me of making up numbers and then not back up the accusation.

This kind of bbuzzoff posting style really should have stayed there. Why are you here? Your smart alec personal attacks have a better home there. Your style of asserting opinion as fact without supporting data has a better home there. Your style of misrepresenting another person's opinion to create a straw man to attack has a better home there. So, go there.

Now, in response to this shifting of the goal post, let me explain the obvious. The defensive efficiency stat is rankung all fbs teams who played more than 2 pwr5 teams not just acc coastal. So, I used averages to compare to all pwr5/fbs teams.

Also, it wasn't asserted as a proof but as evidence. If it's not sufficient for you, fine. You can also do your own work and make.your own case. But if you prefer to attack and misrepresent, then take that style back to where you belong.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

You didn't answer my question. Real smooth. Accuse me of making up numbers and then not back up the accusation.

This kind of bbuzzoff posting style really should have stayed there. Why are you here? Your smart alec personal attacks have a better home there. Your style of asserting opinion as fact without supporting data has a better home there. Your style of misrepresenting another person's opinion to create a straw man to attack has a better home there. So, go there.

Now, in response to this shifting of the goal post, let me explain the obvious. The defensive efficiency stat is rankung all fbs teams who played more than 2 pwr5 teams not just acc coastal. So, I used averages to compare to all pwr5/fbs teams.

Also, it wasn't asserted as a proof but as evidence. If it's not sufficient for you, fine. You can also do your own work and make.your own case. But if you prefer to attack and misrepresent, then take that style back to where you belong.

Iow, our "next level talent" lags significantly behind our direct competition. Thanks, thought so.

 

[AE 87]

Iow, our "next level talent" lags significantly behind our direct competition. Thanks, thought so.

No, we are statistically ahead of over half our competition. Man, I hope you don't teach math.

Good gtsportstalk comeback though.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

No, we are statistically ahead of over half our competition. Man, I hope you don't teach math.

Good gtsportstalk comeback though.

Due to the difficulty in parsing out defenders, I did a quick ranking of teams on our schedule, including us, based on number of current NFL players. This is the best estimation of program strength in the specific terms of producing "next level talent", imo.

Clemson/Miami 46
UGA 43

UNC 25
BC 24
GT/Uva 22
VT/Pitt 17

Duke 13
Vandy 12
GSU 4
Mercer 0?

Before you get your panties in a wad again, I know this is not the exactly the same as what we were discussing wrt next level defenders, but it does give us an idea of what we are up against in terms of program strength in producing 'next level talent.'

I would say there are 3 distinct tiers:

A) Clemson,Miami,UGA
B) UNC, BC, GT, Uva, VT, Pitt
C) Duke, Vandy, etc....

GT is not better than average. We are middle of the pack. We are in the middle of the middle tier. Moreover, we are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay below the top teir, not even close.

edit: throw out Mercer and we are in the exact middle of the pack. But I guess you can have your Mercer to get you your lofty "we are statistically ahead of over half our competition," lol.

 

[Buzz776g]

How do these numbers compare to those of our Coastal brethen and the mutts? Talent is relative to that of your competition. It's nice to say we have more next level players than average, but how many do the teams we play have?

I see your point and respect it. I just don't like comparing us solely to Coastal, ACC, or the consistently strongest of the teams we regularly face.

I understand that doing well in those particular arenas is important. It's more meaningful to me personally, though, in talking about broader-scope stuff like the draft, to compare us vs. across P5. MO only.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

I see your point and respect it. I just don't like comparing us solely to Coastal, ACC, or the consistently strongest of the teams we regularly face.

I understand that doing well in those particular arenas is important. It's more meaningful to me personally, though, in talking about broader-scope stuff like the draft, to compare us vs. across P5. MO only.

I respect that. But I'm curious as to why that trumps a comparison to our direct competition? We don't play all those other teams, to me that might be interesting but inconsequential.

 

[GaTech4ever]

I see your point and respect it. I just don't like comparing us solely to Coastal, ACC, or the consistently strongest of the teams we regularly face.

I understand that doing well in those particular arenas is important. It's more meaningful to me personally, though, in talking about broader-scope stuff like the draft, to compare us vs. across P5. MO only.

Why would we not want to compare ourselves to teams in our own division and conference? That's our competition. Seems counter-intuitive imo.

 

[Buzz776g]

I respect that. But I'm curious as to why that trumps a comparison to our direct competition? We don't play all those other teams, to me that might be interesting but inconsequential.

To me it doesn't trump it (nor should it; the best of the teams we regularly play/in our conference are our 'benchmark', for lack of a better way to put it).

The NFL draft is national; to me that should broaden the base of a rough comparison to P5. Again, mo only.

 

[Buzz776g]

Why would we not want to compare ourselves to teams in our own division and conference? That's our competition. Seems counter-intuitive imo.

It's one basis of comparison, and a perfectly legitimate one. I just think since the draft represents drawing from a bigger world, that broadening our basis of comparison has merit in this context.

Our 'competition' in the draft includes consistently superb teams we rarely play. If we did play the Ohio States, Michigans, USCw's of the world, I'd be every bit as thrilled to beat them as FSU or even uga.

 

[AE 87]

Due to the difficulty in parsing out defenders, I did a quick ranking of teams on our schedule, including us, based on number of current NFL players. This is the best estimation of program strength in the specific terms of producing "next level talent", imo.

Clemson/Miami 46
UGA 43

UNC 25
BC 24
GT/Uva 22
VT/Pitt 17

Duke 13
Vandy 12
GSU 4
Mercer 0?

Before you get your panties in a wad again, I know this is not the exactly the same as what we were discussing wrt next level defenders, but it does give us an idea of what we are up against in terms of program strength in producing 'next level talent.'

I would say there are 3 distinct tiers:

A) Clemson,Miami,UGA
B) UNC, BC, GT, Uva, VT, Pitt
C) Duke, Vandy, etc....

GT is not better than average. We are middle of the pack. We are in the middle of the middle tier. Moreover, we are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay below the top teir, not even close.

edit: throw out Mercer and we are in the exact middle of the pack. But I guess you can have your Mercer to get you your lofty "we are statistically ahead of over half our competition," lol.

LOL is right. To suggest, as your last sentence does by quoting me, that total numbers on current rosters says anything about the 2016 defensive talent is ridiculous.

The point of discussion was defense over the last few years. To use total numbers is again ridiculous. To use as your point of comparison teams on this year's schedule is also ridiculous.

Man, I don't know why people are worried about devaluing the GT degree when we already have you out there.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

LOL is right. To suggest, as your last sentence does by quoting me, that total numbers on current rosters says anything about the 2016 defensive talent is ridiculous.

The point of discussion was defense over the last few years. To use total numbers is again ridiculous. To use as your point of comparison teams on this year's schedule is also ridiculous.

Man, I don't know why people are worried about devaluing the GT degree when we already have you out there.

I anticipated this response that's why I included an answer to it in my post. Read it again.

 

[GaTech4ever]

Man, I don't know why people are worried about devaluing the GT degree when we already have you out there.

Holy s*** that was cold haha. Went for the killshot there.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Holy s*** that was cold haha. Went for the killshot there.

It's not a kill shot when it doesn't make any sense.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Baby likes to toss around insults when he has no answers and then he has the nerve to call me bbuzzoff. That's funny.

 

[GaTech4ever]

To use as your point of comparison teams on this year's schedule is also ridiculous.

Eight of the teams he referenced we play every year, including all four ahead of us (UVA makes five which we tied). A team like Mercer can be substituted for the type of team that we play every year (Alcorn State, Wofford, Elon, Presbyterian, Western Carolina, etc.). The remaining three teams are an in-state team, a conference opponent, and a program like Vandy which isn't some random comparison to begin with.

Your point about active rosters has merit, but I don't agree at all with questioning the teams he used as a reference point.

 

[AE 87]

I anticipated this response that's why I included an answer to it in my post. Read it again.

LOL. You started by saying you weren't doing the exact same thing but then ended by quoting me as if we were addressing the same question. My response showed that it's ridiculous to think your data--even if different than mine--was addressing the same question.

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

It really is so simple that I'm surprised you can't get it.

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.