Recruiting analysis

[bravejason]

In the Duke press conference CPJ commented on the number of states from which Duke had players. It sounded like they have started casting a much wider net than what perhaps they did previously. Naturally, casting a wider net and having more staff to do the player evaluations enables you to find players that better fit your system and increases your chances of finding diamonds in the rough. I suspect that this is an area where GT has fallen behind with respect to recruiting.

Facilities is certainly an area where I think GT has struggled to keep pace. To be sure, improvements have been made: the indoor facility, a couple of renovations to the weight room, locker room, meeting rooms, etc. At one point the coaches offices were re-done. I think the hard part is that the improvement has to be near continuous. It seems like it needs to be a cycle: locker room improvement one year, meeting rooms the next year, weight room after than, then back to the locker room, etc.

 

[takethepoints]

The offense hurts recruiting. That’s not debatable to me.

As I keep asking and tried to advance in discussion by this thread: WHY?

I keep hearing you and others say this. I keep hearing anecdotes about for the idea and anecdotes (Mills, JT, Graham) against it. But there doesn't seem to be much in the way of systematic evidence - check the tables provided by me and RiseUp - for the proposition. The other factors, especially the curriculum, are demonstrable obstacles, cited by multiple coaches using multiple systems down through the years. (Shoot, even Bobby Dodd used to complain about academic barriers.)

I think the evidence is strong that Tech has occasional good recruiting years and is ok, but no better, most of the time, no matter who is coaching and what offense is being used. Changing the "emphasis" given to football - i.e. letting pretty much anyone the coaches wanted into Tech - would change that. As I said at the start here, that will not happen. We're better off giving the present staff the resources they need and seeing if the situation - and I agree there is one - can be turned around. If not, then start making wholesale changes.

 

[jacketup]

As I keep asking and tried to advance in discussion by this thread: WHY?

I keep hearing you and others say this. I keep hearing anecdotes about for the idea and anecdotes (Mills, JT, Graham) against it. But there doesn't seem to be much in the way of systematic evidence - check the tables provided by me and RiseUp - for the proposition. The other factors, especially the curriculum, are demonstrable obstacles, cited by multiple coaches using multiple systems down through the years. (Shoot, even Bobby Dodd used to complain about academic barriers.)

I think the evidence is strong that Tech has occasional good recruiting years and is ok, but no better, most of the time, no matter who is coaching and what offense is being used. Changing the "emphasis" given to football - i.e. letting pretty much anyone the coaches wanted into Tech - would change that. As I said at the start here, that will not happen. We're better off giving the present staff the resources they need and seeing if the situation - and I agree there is one - can be turned around. If not, then start making wholesale changes.

First, you need to read the recent Sports Illustrated article on the option. One quote was from Lou Holtz and why he stopped running it at Arkansas: because high school coaches told him everyone wants to play wide receiver. The point the article was making is that recruiting is harder. If it's harder for the Hogs, why would it be easier at GT?

Second, Alabama, Texas, Oklahoma and others used to run triple option. They didn't quit running it because it didn't work they quit because it impacted recruiting--although it also limits, pardon the pun, options to attack defenses.

It would not be that hard to put in an RPO offense from where we are right now, although we really don't have the personnel at the moment to run it. However, I'm not sure an RPO offense would look much worse than what we've seen in the last 6 quarters against Duke. Johnson also needs to get rid of the A back and B back designations and use slot receiver and running back. But, I don't see him changing anything. Even if he was willing that ship has probably sailed.

 

[okiemon]

What is the time goal? A 20 year contract? 15 years? 30 years? Would puke, Rice, northwestern, Purdue, vandy, Stanford, give any coach as much time as we do? Would you run your business that way?

No.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[alagold]

Seems like part of that has been bad luck with attrition. I don't think we have worse attrition than average, overall. But we've lost out with guys like Travis Custis, Myles Autry, AJ Gray, Dedrick Mills, Jaylend Ratliffe and others over the years who had the potential to be special. Imagine if this team had a healthy Jaylend Ratliffe as a Senior or RS Junior QB (With LJ backing him up), Dedrick Mills as a Junior RB (with Kirvonte backing him up), AJ Gray leading the Defense, and so on. Some of our best prospects have been lost to injury, health, off-field issues...

BC,
I agree.You might have seen my analysis of attrition a while back.From '12-15 ,we were AVERAGING losing 35%of class -for WHATEVER reason.For fun ,I picked dook for '12 to see how they lost guys.That yr, they lost 20%.
We can't have a 50th in nation class to start AND attrition at that rate and not be hurt badly.Not only depth lost but there were some key players also.

 

[takethepoints]

First, you need to read the recent Sports Illustrated article on the option. One quote was from Lou Holtz and why he stopped running it at Arkansas: because high school coaches told him everyone wants to play wide receiver. The point the article was making is that recruiting is harder. If it's harder for the Hogs, why would it be easier at GT?

Second, Alabama, Texas, Oklahoma and others used to run triple option. They didn't quit running it because it didn't work they quit because it impacted recruiting--although it also limits, pardon the pun, options to attack defenses.

I did. It contains no systematic evidence at all. But it does contain a number of excuses for coaches to cover up the real reason that teams abandoned the wishbone/veer.

And that wasn't because of the high school kids; I played football in high school and, believe me, nobody came close to asking any of us what offense or defense we were going to play. It took almost an act of Congress to get our coaches to allow our QB - Billy Payne, btw - to call a few plays. So what was the problem?

It's two fold. First, it is hard to find assistant coaches who know how to coach TO offenses. Most football coaches want something simpler to work with, even if what they are using doesn't work as well. That's the reason why the academies and Tech tend to use people who are in Coach's coaching tree; those people know what they are doing. Second, it is hard to find the athletes at the high school level to a) fill all the skill positions and b) who can learn the O. Remember Jaybo Shaw? He ran the spread option at Flowery Branch until his senior year. Then his Dad - the head coach - abandoned it for the shotgun spread because the kid he had playing BB graduated and he couldn't find a replacement. It's a rare high school that can line up a stud at BB and two kids capable of working effectively at AB. So usually they don't. Also, remember Gus Malzahn? Somebody asked him why he ran a shotgun spread. His answer was that it was simpler to coach. It is easier to teach a QB to run a double option scheme then to run a TO. Factor in the scholarship limits - Bama, Texas, and Oklahoma operated the wishbone in the no limit era - and the degree progress regs and it is easy to see why most teams run the shotgun spread or the pro set. It's the easy way out.

So why does Coach run it? An analogy. I played college football for a year in the mid-60s before I hurt my knee again and quit. Our team ran the single wing. Most of our opponents - coaches and players - had never seen it before and had a hard time preparing for it. Further, we were usually not as talented (except at TB; that guy was a moose) then the teams we played. And we won 8 games in a 9 game schedule as a result. This is what we get when the O is clicking, even when we play against teams that have seen it before. An option attack run well can get good results with so-so talent. With just a few good players - sort of like the ones we have coming up - it can be almost impossible to stop. Then all (all, he says) you need is a decent D and everything works well.

 

[Boaty1]

I am not defending where Johnson currently is with the program. But I will call BS on saying Cutcliffe was a "great hire" and Johnson a "poor one". Over 10 years Duke has only had 4 good years (2015, 2014, 2013, and probably this year) GT has had 2 great years, and 3 good years. And the lows have not been as low: 2008 - 2011 were pretty bad for Duke. Overall, I would take Johnson's over all record at GT and his Orange Bowl 2014 win any day of the week over Cutcliffe. It may be time for Johnson to go, but let's not make up stuff. I don't think the facts say that Duke has out recruited us, but the facts certainly do say that Cutcliffe has Johnson figured out and has used his talent against us better than Johnson has recently. Overall Johnson is 7-4 against Cutcliffe with the 4 losses coming in the past 5 years. Hard to swallow, but Cutcliffe was not a "great hire".

Duke GT
2017 7 6 5-6
2016 4 8 9-4
2015 8 5 3-9
2014 9 4 11-3
2013 10 4 7-6
2012 6 7 7-7
2011 3 9 8-5
2010 3 9 6-7
2009 5 7 11-3
2008 4 8 9-4

Nobody is making anything up. You put this comparison up as if Duke and GT are remotely similar programs. In the 25 years before Cutcliffe arrived at Duke they had 3 winning seasons. In the 4 years prior to Cutcliffe being hired they had won a grand total of 1 ACC game. Meanwhile, Johnson inherited a program that had made 11 consecutive bowl games and had been ranked in the top 15 at a given point in the previous 3 seasons. Gailey was fired for not being able to get us over the hump and finish strong. (read: beat UGA)

The status of the 2 programs in 08 were entirely different from where they are currently. Duke is much more highly thought of, while we are fighting amongst ourselves as to whether we can even expect to be a mid tier program in the ACC again. A position Duke currently holds.

I stand by my point and am clearly not making anything up.

 

[Gold1]

*

 

[Boaty1]

As I keep asking and tried to advance in discussion by this thread: WHY?

I keep hearing you and others say this. I keep hearing anecdotes about for the idea and anecdotes (Mills, JT, Graham) against it. But there doesn't seem to be much in the way of systematic evidence - check the tables provided by me and RiseUp - for the proposition. The other factors, especially the curriculum, are demonstrable obstacles, cited by multiple coaches using multiple systems down through the years. (Shoot, even Bobby Dodd used to complain about academic barriers.)

I think the evidence is strong that Tech has occasional good recruiting years and is ok, but no better, most of the time, no matter who is coaching and what offense is being used. Changing the "emphasis" given to football - i.e. letting pretty much anyone the coaches wanted into Tech - would change that. As I said at the start here, that will not happen. We're better off giving the present staff the resources they need and seeing if the situation - and I agree there is one - can be turned around. If not, then start making wholesale changes.

Because you are comparing Johnson with the first 5 years Gailey had in recruiting. It was flat out terrible and people were livid because it had fell of so far from where Oleary had built it. In 07 however he brought in a top 20 class and before you say it was an outlier he was 2 months away from bringing in another class that was better than anything Johnson has accomplished since he has been here. My theory is he had finally figured how to recruit to GT at the time we let him go. So that makes the last 2 coaches that had figured out how to recruit to GT before they left. 11 years in Johnson has not.

 

[takethepoints]

Because you are comparing Johnson with the first 5 years Gailey had in recruiting. It was flat out terrible and people were livid because it had fell of so far from where Oleary had built it. In 07 however he brought in a top 20 class and before you say it was an outlier he was 2 months away from bringing in another class that was better than anything Johnson has accomplished since he has been here. My theory is he had finally figured how to recruit to GT at the time we let him go. So that makes the last 2 coaches that had figured out how to recruit to GT before they left. 11 years in Johnson has not.

Well … no, I wasn't. That was RiseUp. And he didn't find much difference. I don't know what Chan would have done in 2008, but I doubt it would have been as good as 2007. But, obviously, the folks at the ADs office and GTAA didn't think he was going to continue that success. I wasn't in favor of firing Chan at first and I thought 2007 was something of an outlier.

As to our recruiting: we've done about as well as we have since George left during Coach's time and with rising NCAA and academic restrictions too boot. I think we know what kids we want and we've gotten them, but we have had attrition problems. We aren't a factory and can't overcome those as easily.

But I've said my piece on this and this will be my last comment. On this thread, at least.

 

[Lavoisier]

For those of y'all that don't follow the basketball program as closely as football, we just missed out on another big time in-state kid and the criticism of CJP's ability to recruit is surfacing. Now this is a guy who was brought in because of his ability to recruit and he harped on how much he values that in his assistants. He runs a "normal" offense, he's in a state packed with talent, we're in the top conference for basketball by a mile, and you can go on to the advantages we have compared to football. Yet he can't get recruits and a place like UGA is recruiting circles around us. Why is that? Maybe there's something about Tech that kids just don't like.

 

[RiseUpATL]

For those of y'all that don't follow the basketball program as closely as football, we just missed out on another big time in-state kid and the criticism of CJP's ability to recruit is surfacing. Now this is a guy who was brought in because of his ability to recruit and he harped on how much he values that in his assistants. He runs a "normal" offense, he's in a state packed with talent, we're in the top conference for basketball by a mile, and you can go on to the advantages we have compared to football. Yet he can't get recruits and a place like UGA is recruiting circles around us. Why is that? Maybe there's something about Tech that kids just don't like.

Very difficult times.

 

[Boaty1]

Well … no, I wasn't. That was RiseUp. And he didn't find much difference. I don't know what Chan would have done in 2008, but I doubt it would have been as good as 2007. But, obviously, the folks at the ADs office and GTAA didn't think he was going to continue that success. I wasn't in favor of firing Chan at first and I thought 2007 was something of an outlier.

As to our recruiting: we've done about as well as we have since George left during Coach's time and with rising NCAA and academic restrictions too boot. I think we know what kids we want and we've gotten them, but we have had attrition problems. We aren't a factory and can't overcome those as easily.

But I've said my piece on this and this will be my last comment. On this thread, at least.

So thr difference between me and you is simple. I believe what Chan did in 07 and was on the verge of doing in 08 was similar to what O’Leary did just 5 years prior to 07. 99, 00, 010, 07 & what was going to a solid class in 08 was where GT was capable of recruiting on a fairly consistent level before the hiring of Johnson. if you give me the 08 class would have been top 35, then that was 5 years in the decade before Johnson was hired that was top 35. In the decade since we haven’t seen a top 35 class.

I’m just baffled because most fan bases have unreasonable expectations where they think too much of their program. Here at GT we fight the exact opposite. We seem to spin our program in the most downtrodden fashion possible. It’s hard for me to understand.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Thanks for doing the work, this tells me what I really didn't want to know. We are not coaching our players up. That is a bad problem.

How so? Vpi has won the coastal 5 times. Tech 3. That’s not a huge difference. No one else in the division has more than one. Although I think someone will get number 2 this year.

 

[stech81]

How so? Vpi has won the coastal 5 times. Tech 3. That’s not a huge difference. No one else in the division has more than one. Although I think someone will get number 2 this year.

I'm only looking at the last 4 years , I know the may not be fair. I'm not saying I don't like CPJ I do but if it's the assistant coaches and you keep them than it is on him. We changed the defensive coordinator and they seem to be doing better. Maybe it's time to look at other coaches.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Hell...I couldn’t make it all the way through the first page of this thread.....shouldn’t have quit before I started.

 

[4shotB]

Maybe there's something about Tech that kids just don't like.

Yes there is....it's called "hard work". Most are allergic to it.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

They go to class because they have to not because they want to.

I honestly believe this is true for a fairly large number of 5 star recruits. Otherwise, you would see them in grad school or skipping the pros to focus on their new start up company. No, they are smart enough to be in college but they don't have to have the same level of drive that some schools require.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

I'm not talking about top 10, or even top 20 (althought it's not unreasonable to think GT should have a top 20 class once every 5 years or so).

I agree with your basic point but every 5 years still seems like a steep climb for Tech. Here are the recruiting rankings according to one source for 2018:
1 Georgia
2 Ohio State
3. Texas
4. USC
5. Alabama
6. Penn State
7. Clemson
8. Miami
9. Oklahoma
10. Notre Dame
11. FSU
12. Auburn
13. Oregon
14. Florida
15. LSU
16. Washington
17. Texas A&M
18. South Carolina
19. UCLA
20. UNC

When I look at most of the teams on this list I see built in recruiting advantages for them that Tech will probably never compete with. If Tech is to crack the top 20 who are the likely candidates that we might be able to beat in head to head recruiting battles? My choices, not based on where they are ranked but because these are teams we ought to out recruit once in a while, are....Texas A&M, South Carolina, UCLA and UNC. So, how many times in a decade should we expect Tech to recruit better than these teams? Top 20 recruiting, in my opinion, is probably not going to be an every five year or so thing.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Maybe not initially but the instant one of those nfl kids starts getting sold on GT they immediately get the calculus fear put in them by everyone else.

If your main ambition in life is to play pro ball you probably are not going to go to Tech. Period. There are way too many faster and easier routes to get to the pros. If your main ambition in life is to play pro ball but you want to hedge your bets in case you get injured or do not make the pros, then Tech is probably still not your first choice. If your main ambition in life is to get a great education with good career opportunities, balanced with playing sports, then Tech is a great choice for you. And you probably don't care what offense is being run.