Recruiting: staff is not the problem

[Northeast Stinger]

Its a simple fact some coaches resonate and have more pull and appeal with recruits than others. Personality. Maybe. Looks maybe. Tone. Maybe. A whole list of things.

Wonder what Saban has besides coaching ability and apparent CEO talent? It certainly is not personality.

Side note to that is that he was offered the job at the University of Texas a few years ago and he turned it down. Why would anyone turn down coaching at a school that has 10 times the number of rich benefactors as Alabama, a football tradition that is second to no one and what some consider the most powerful athletic association in the country? And why would he turn this down when salary wise this would have been a major promotion? To me the answer was clear. Saban has a groovy thing going at Alabama. At Texas the academic standards would jump considerably and the competition for recruits would be far more intense. And he would not be as successful. Period.

Bill Curry instantly became a much better recruiter when he moved from Tech to Alabama. His recruits brought Alabama their first national championship after Bear Bryant.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

It's not the quality of the recruiting staff or the effort that they put in doing their job --- it's the size of the recruiting staff that I think is the problem. At least under MBob that size has increased, but DRad wouldn't allow it. Other schools have many more recruiting staff members than Tech has ever had.

This strikes me as such a rational understanding of the problem that I don't know why some people resist it so much. All one has to do is go to various athletic sites and look at the size of staffs. Some of the factories have from as many as 12 to 50 more people working on this stuff than Tech has.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Good post AE. I just think we need to find that special recruiter, that closer, that monster out there, and it would make a world of difference.

We need Glengarry Glen Ross to come through and give our recruiting staff this motivational speech:

Love that movie. But this is a bad analogy. The speech which, while good, did not change the sales numbers. To paraphrase one character, "You are expecting us to make sales with dead accounts; give me something to work with."

 

[Northeast Stinger]

He's been at Clemson and Alabama, let's face it anybody can recruit at those schools.

Pretty much true. I am hard pressed to think of anyone who "failed" at recruiting at these schools.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

There are super talented studs out there that do care about education, that do care about life after football, and we simply aren't getting enough of those kids.

I think some of us are more sympathetic to your laments over Tech recruiting than we seem to show. For me it is you all or nothing type of arguments. The choice is not "Tech is doing a lousy job recruiting" versus "Tech has mastered the art of recruiting better than anyone."

As for these kids out there who are, let's say, high 4 star and 5 star recruits who want to go to a school as academically challenging as Tech, do we have any way of knowing the circumstances of these kids? Why they did not choose Tech and where they ended up?

And before anyone mentions Stanford, can we just kill that snake once and for all? I do not like having that conversation for one simple reason. To defend Stanford's recruiting I have to say things I do not like to say out loud. So I am only going to say this once and then not repeat it again.

Stanford has a better academic reputation than Tech. Stanford has a more beautiful campus than Tech. Stanford has better weather than Tech. Stanford has a better national reputation than Tech. Stanford has access to more qualified student athletes than Tech because of location. California is known as an innovative, progressive, cutting edge state that has set trends in this country for the last six decades, Georgia not so much. Atlanta is a great city but it does not reside in a region of the country where big dreams happen and where much of the action for young people is taking place. Frankly, if I were a gifted student athlete who stood out from my local Georgia high school class and I was tired of being thought of as slightly strange because academics were important to me, I would strongly consider leaving the state and going somewhere where the student body was more like me, a place where I could thrive rather than always feeling like I was being pressured to dumb down to fit in. I would want to go to a state where it was cool to be me.

There. I do not feel good about putting the worst face on this and I am not going to do that again in the future. But I think some people seriously underestimate the difficulties of trying to be an elite university while existing in a general culture that is almost congenitally predisposed to hate anything that remotely smacks of elitism. To put it another way, Tech is an eyesore and an irritant to a dominant culture that has made mediocrity a virtue.

 

[33jacket]

Who was knocking it out of the park before this staff and were they working under the same constraints (APR, post flunkgate, post probation, competing against SECSPN...)?

I can think of one season: '07 and that was an anomaly, a fluke. Those kids all bonded on the recruiting trail and the stars aligned in our favor. Gailey gets credit for having an eye for talent, but he brought in a lot of dead weight, too. A handful of star players to go with a whole lot of names on a roster. That doesn't win many games, either.

look, cheese. If you can't see a recruiting talent difference post flunkgate, but before your 'fluke' year (which still counts btw) then you are lost IMO and need to take the glasses off.

Before your fluke 2007 we had, and post flunkgate in 2002/03 the following D players were recruited; and I am only including players that ACTUALLY played. not practice folks.

Chris Reis, nfl player
Gary Guyton, multi year nfl starter
phil wheeler, multi year nfl starter
Mike Johnson, multi year nfl starter
vance walker, multi year nfl starter
daryl richard, nfl pick
word-daniels, nfl player for a couple years/practice squad

Now, when I include the 2007 class WHICH STILL counts

add in Morgan Burnett, multi year starter
derrick morgan, multi year starter
Brandon Watts...draft pick

These Players were in a 5 year window. Thats it. FIVE YEARS. Paul has had 8 going on 9

Please, PLEASE show me how D recruiting is the same and hasn't fallen off bigtime. PLEASE. I am not even including guys from GOL tenure since that was pre flunkgate.

Under paul johnson, we have had ONE d player a multi year NFL starter. ONE. In 8 years. ONE. And if my facts are correct, only one other that is more than a practice squad signee in lou young.

Sneezy
louis young is a backup

if you can't see the difference, then I can't debate. Sorry.

I don't know how the facts can't be so clear; so clear, that our D recruiting has fallen off, and this be a debate. We do not recruit to even techs ability on the D side of the ball anymore. Its not close. We miss in evaluation. We miss in development. We miss in almost every category. For a coach to be here a decade, and have one NFL starter on D is a poor joke. And let me remind everyone. Guys like McCollum, Speed, have been here for a bit. Roof is newer sure. So is Pelton...but so far nothing worth a spit has hit the field as a recruit where we can go AH HA, he is an NFL player. I may say AJ Gray has that potential....other than that I can't.

stop using the school as the excuse. We are not doing a good job even despite the school. The data shows it. We can do better. We have more admin staff then Chan ever did. We have more resources today and still stink. So I point to the assistants. And thats it. Period IMO

 

[33jacket]

This strikes me as such a rational understanding of the problem that I don't know why some people resist it so much. All one has to do is go to various athletic sites and look at the size of staffs. Some of the factories have from as many as 12 to 50 more people working on this stuff than Tech has.

its a HUGE issue for sure. But that staff has tripled over what it was under Tenuta and our D recruiting is worse than under Tenuta. So its some of that for sure...but we are missing a ton on player. A ton. We have very little prime talent over the past 8 years on D.

So then I look at the assistants. Giff Smith and BJ Marie were awesome recruiters. I would take those two over Speed, Pelton, and McCollum. BTW, I like Pelton and McCollum, but they still are not as good as BJ and Giff

 

[AE 87]

Fwiw, Cummings, Dieke, Barnes, Nealey all made NFL rosters too.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Chris Reis, nfl player
Gary Guyton, multi year nfl starter
phil wheeler, multi year nfl starter
Mike Johnson, multi year nfl starter
vance walker, multi year nfl starter
daryl richard, nfl pick
word-daniels, nfl player for a couple years/practice squad

Etc., etc., etc.....

I have had this conversation on other boards many times so if I am repeating here, forgive me. If this is a new comment for some of you, count to ten before you dismiss it and just consider it for a moment.

The number of people you put in the NFL is not the key factor in determining whether or not you were a good recruiter. The key determining factor is how well they played in college. Period. We could name many schools, Miami and UNC being just too examples, who place lots of players in the pros but which got minimal production out of these players while they were in college. We can admire that Chan Gailey placed a good number of players in the pros but the more telling statistic, to me, is how did these players do in college. That, ultimately, is all we should care about as Tech fans. Putting guys in the NFL has side benefits for sure, perhaps in future recruiting efforts, perhaps in general good PR. But if CCG's over all record of college wins is less than CPJ's, then number placed in the NFL is not a good measuring stick.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

Etc., etc., etc.....

I have had this conversation on other boards many times so if I am repeating here, forgive me. If this is a new comment for some of you, count to ten before you dismiss it and just consider it for a moment.

The number of people you put in the NFL is not the key factor in determining whether or not you were a good recruiter. The key determining factor is how well they played in college. Period. We could name many schools, Miami and UNC being just too examples, who place lots of players in the pros but which got minimal production out of these players while they were in college. We can admire that Chan Gailey placed a good number of players in the pros but the more telling statistic, to me, is how did these players do in college. That, ultimately, is all we should care about as Tech fans. Putting guys in the NFL has side benefits for sure, perhaps in future recruiting efforts, perhaps in general good PR. But if CCG's over all record of college wins is less than CPJ's, then number placed in the NFL is not a good measuring stick.

You might also add that Roof's players have not yet completed their eligibility, so we really don't have enough data yet to state how many will go to the NFL or succeed once there. Obviously recruiting under Groh didn't pay off either on the field or in numbers going to the NFL. But wait until Roof's players have finished before judging his ability to recruit using NFL interest or success as a metric. Right now, I am more interested in judging his ability to produce on the field; that is still questionable in my book, although I AM optimistic.

 

[ilovetheoption]

So, my "recruit to the scheme" argument doesn't work on defense. You guys do not play a particularly unique defensive scheme, so if your recruiting has taken a dip on defense, and that dip can be isolated from outside factors (APR kicked in in 2005, correct?), then the "recruiting sucks" folks have a strong argument, IMO. @33jacket @Milwaukee

Then again, my SN is "ilovetheoption" not "ilovethe4-3"

 

[PBR549]

I've known Giff longer than Ted and he's a great guy and good recruiter but not as good as Roof, period.

 

[33jacket]

Etc., etc., etc.....

I have had this conversation on other boards many times so if I am repeating here, forgive me. If this is a new comment for some of you, count to ten before you dismiss it and just consider it for a moment.

The number of people you put in the NFL is not the key factor in determining whether or not you were a good recruiter. The key determining factor is how well they played in college. Period. We could name many schools, Miami and UNC being just too examples, who place lots of players in the pros but which got minimal production out of these players while they were in college. We can admire that Chan Gailey placed a good number of players in the pros but the more telling statistic, to me, is how did these players do in college. That, ultimately, is all we should care about as Tech fans. Putting guys in the NFL has side benefits for sure, perhaps in future recruiting efforts, perhaps in general good PR. But if CCG's over all record of college wins is less than CPJ's, then number placed in the NFL is not a good measuring stick.

I agree a bit. But when u add the nfl players with the overall performance of the D i think its safe to say at tech they recruited better on that side of the ball. So you are proving that point a bit. Those D did well in college and went to nfl. The overall picture is totally obvious we have taken a step back on D with recruiting. Part of it is showing up on the field (so is poor scheme), part of it is showing up with low ALL-ACC numbers and part of it is showing up with little to no nfl talent.

It all together points to the staff. Sorry i just see it this way

 

[33jacket]

I've known Giff longer than Ted and he's a great guy and good recruiter but not as good as Roof, period.

sorry i confess to be tainted in all my opinions of roof due to his consistent poor defenses.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

I agree a bit. But when u add the nfl players with the overall performance of the D i think its safe to say at tech they recruited better on that side of the ball.

Yes. Defense is a puzzle. I was mainly thinking about offense where someone like Johnny Manzel (sp) can be the best college football player in the country but be a below average NFL player, or Tech's 2014 football team which was as competitive as anyone on the college field but which will probably not produce as many pro players as the teams we beat.

On defense another thing that puzzled me was the number of defensive linemen Gailey seemed to put in the NFL and yet Tech's defense was not known as a consistent top ten defense as one might expect with that many NFL bound players. Not arguing, just saying that it puzzles me.

 

[AE 87]

Yes. Defense is a puzzle. I was mainly thinking about offense where someone like Johnny Manzel (sp) can be the best college football player in the country but be a below average NFL player, or Tech's 2014 football team which was as competitive as anyone on the college field but which will probably not produce as many pro players as the teams we beat.

On defense another thing that puzzled me was the number of defensive linemen Gailey seemed to put in the NFL and yet Tech's defense was not known as a consistent top ten defense as one might expect with that many NFL bound players. Not arguing, just saying that it puzzles me.

Hmm, I recall GT having a really good rep for D during those years between talent and Tenuta. Maybe not top 10, as you say, but pretty good.

 

[sidewalkGTfan]

I haven't read all of the post in this thread and somebody may have already mentioned it but instead of playing the "what if Dabo was at GT" game, lets instead play the "what if PJ and our staff were at Clemson" game?? Do you think they'd be pulling in classes ranked in the top 10? 20? I'll hang up and listen...

 

[iceeater1969]

Rather than sayin they good. No they bad.
Lets discuss the fillowing

We have

Hmm, I recall GT having a really good rep for D during those years between talent and Tenuta. Maybe not top 10, as you say, but pretty good.

Maybe talented kids recruit themselves to teams w aggressive defenses.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

look, cheese. If you can't see a recruiting talent difference post flunkgate, but before your 'fluke' year (which still counts btw) then you are lost IMO and need to take the glasses off.

Before your fluke 2007 we had, and post flunkgate in 2002/03 the following D players were recruited; and I am only including players that ACTUALLY played. not practice folks.

Chris Reis, nfl player
Gary Guyton, multi year nfl starter
phil wheeler, multi year nfl starter
Mike Johnson, multi year nfl starter
vance walker, multi year nfl starter
daryl richard, nfl pick
word-daniels, nfl player for a couple years/practice squad

Now, when I include the 2007 class WHICH STILL counts

add in Morgan Burnett, multi year starter
derrick morgan, multi year starter
Brandon Watts...draft pick

These Players were in a 5 year window. Thats it. FIVE YEARS. Paul has had 8 going on 9

Please, PLEASE show me how D recruiting is the same and hasn't fallen off bigtime. PLEASE. I am not even including guys from GOL tenure since that was pre flunkgate.

Under paul johnson, we have had ONE d player a multi year NFL starter. ONE. In 8 years. ONE. And if my facts are correct, only one other that is more than a practice squad signee in lou young.

Sneezy
louis young is a backup

if you can't see the difference, then I can't debate. Sorry.

I don't know how the facts can't be so clear; so clear, that our D recruiting has fallen off, and this be a debate. We do not recruit to even techs ability on the D side of the ball anymore. Its not close. We miss in evaluation. We miss in development. We miss in almost every category. For a coach to be here a decade, and have one NFL starter on D is a poor joke. And let me remind everyone. Guys like McCollum, Speed, have been here for a bit. Roof is newer sure. So is Pelton...but so far nothing worth a spit has hit the field as a recruit where we can go AH HA, he is an NFL player. I may say AJ Gray has that potential....other than that I can't.

stop using the school as the excuse. We are not doing a good job even despite the school. The data shows it. We can do better. We have more admin staff then Chan ever did. We have more resources today and still stink. So I point to the assistants. And thats it. Period IMO

You mentioned 10 NFL players in a 5 yr window. That's 2 a year on average. A class is 17 to 22 players on average. That leaves 15 to 20 guys NOT making the NFL per class, on average. That's actually fine by me because GT plays college ball not NFL. BUT................. most of the 15 to 20 turned out to be average to poor players.

Now look at CPJ. Sneezy and Lou Young. (Jamal, DJ and Adam probably get picked or make squads, but that's in the future) OK, Chan has him beat hands down for NFL talent. But that's not where the comparison ends. All those other guys who don't make the NFL, compare them. And then there's the young guys who are too young to know. Those are Roof's guys, the jury's still out, but the '15 class was one of our best ever on that side of the ball. We're bound to have 3 or 4 NFL'ers from the last two classes, mark my words, but then again, all I care about is how they do in college. Most guys on here revere wife basher Jon Dwyer who busted big time in the league and why, because he was a stud in college.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Hmm, I recall GT having a really good rep for D during those years between talent and Tenuta. Maybe not top 10, as you say, but pretty good.

To be honest I do not know what the "objective" facts are. My memory is that I was always disappointed in Tenuta's defenses. We have had discussions about him before on this site and I tend to be one of those who was not a fan. It felt like boom or bust with his defense, rather than consistency. And though Tech did not have a top ten defense during that time, and were overall better than they are now, it just seemed like with all that "NFL" talent we did not get our money's worth. Tech should have been at least top 20 every year with those guys and my memory is that we only cracked top 20 once. But I could be wrong. Too lazy to look it up.