The Empty Cupboard at UGA

[jeffgt14]

What evidence do you have that the mutts are not a second tier SEC school? "Talent wise", how many first and second team All-SEC players did they have last year? Were they on par with Alabama, Florida, Mississipi? No, they were in the next tier of teams, just slightly above Vanderbilt and South Carolina.

Dude you have to be kidding. They are loaded with 4 and 5 star talent. It’s not like Florida and LSU are getting the better 4 and 5 star players and UGA’s only getting the overrated ones (according to UGA fans that’s probably the case). The have 100% the same type of players at all these other schools there’s just something lacking in coaching and player development.

 

[RonJohn]

Dude you have to be kidding. They are loaded with 4 and 5 star talent. It’s not like Florida and LSU are getting the better 4 and 5 star players and UGA’s only getting the overrated ones (according to UGA fans that’s probably the case). The have 100% the same type of players at all these other schools there’s just something lacking in coaching and player development.

I am not kidding. When you have a player like Herschel Walker or Marcus Dupree that are as big and fast as college Juniors when they are Sophomores in high school, it is pretty easy to project that they will be good in college.(Even though Dupree only played one year and didn't really try too hard) When you are trying to guess who will put on the correct weight and who will understand systems, etc, it is a crapshoot. If you were to use the same type of rating from college to NFL, then you would have predicted that Jamarcus Russel would be an all-star quaterback and Steve Largent didn't deserve a chance.

Alabama, Florida, Ole Miss, and LSU have better college players that the mutts. I am not saying that the talent level at cesspool is at the level of Vanderbilt and Kentucky, but I am saying that it is not at the top of the country or the SEC. However, the cupboard being bare to the level that the O-Line can't push Nichols is absolutely rubbish. The inbreeding mutt fans can't even remember that less than a year ago, "they had national championship talent, but Richt wasn't able to coach them up". Now it is, "We don't have: O-Linemen, WRs, D-Linemen, or DBs". Last year it was: "Richt is a great recruiter, but a terrible coach". If the talent statements are true, then it would mean that "Richt is a great coach or terrible talent, but a terrible recruiter". Those morons don't even understand that they are contradicting themselves. (I do have to point out that the guys on the radio are just playing shtick. They only want to get people riled up to listen and call in)

 

[RonJohn]

Dude you have to be kidding. They are loaded with 4 and 5 star talent. It’s not like Florida and LSU are getting the better 4 and 5 star players and UGA’s only getting the overrated ones (according to UGA fans that’s probably the case). The have 100% the same type of players at all these other schools there’s just something lacking in coaching and player development.

By the way, I did ask what evidence you have that they are not a second tier team. I provided evidence --All-SEC members -- that they are not. If the only evidence you have is the highly influenced and subjective ratings of practically anonymous people on the internet, I do not put any stock in that.

 

[VolJacket]

I am not kidding. When you have a player like Herschel Walker or Marcus Dupree that are as big and fast as college Juniors when they are Sophomores in high school, it is pretty easy to project that they will be good in college.(Even though Dupree only played one year and didn't really try too hard) When you are trying to guess who will put on the correct weight and who will understand systems, etc, it is a crapshoot. If you were to use the same type of rating from college to NFL, then you would have predicted that Jamarcus Russel would be an all-star quaterback and Steve Largent didn't deserve a chance.

Alabama, Florida, Ole Miss, and LSU have better college players that the mutts. I am not saying that the talent level at cesspool is at the level of Vanderbilt and Kentucky, but I am saying that it is not at the top of the country or the SEC. However, the cupboard being bare to the level that the O-Line can't push Nichols is absolutely rubbish. The inbreeding mutt fans can't even remember that less than a year ago, "they had national championship talent, but Richt wasn't able to coach them up". Now it is, "We don't have: O-Linemen, WRs, D-Linemen, or DBs". Last year it was: "Richt is a great recruiter, but a terrible coach". If the talent statements are true, then it would mean that "Richt is a great coach or terrible talent, but a terrible recruiter". Those morons don't even understand that they are contradicting themselves. (I do have to point out that the guys on the radio are just playing shtick. They only want to get people riled up to listen and call in)

Hopefully Ray Goff Jr does such a poor job as head coach in the three seasons or so that he'll be at Georgia that he'll set the program back 5-10 years like Derek Dooley did at Tennessee,

 

[RonJohn]

Hopefully Ray Goff Jr does such a poor job as head coach in the three seasons or so that he'll be at Georgia that he'll set the program back 5-10 years like Derek Dooley did at Tennessee,

If they have mediocre or better seasons, next year, when the mutts come to Atlanta, everyone should bring "Ray Goof Jr" signs to the game.

 

[VolJacket]

If they have mediocre or better seasons, next year, when the mutts come to Atlanta, everyone should bring "Ray Goof Jr" signs to the game.

Excellent idea LOL I think Kirby Smart will be on the Hotseat list on the Coaches Hotseat website when Georgia gets curb stomped two weeks in a row.

 

[jeffgt14]

By the way, I did ask what evidence you have that they are not a second tier team. I provided evidence --All-SEC members -- that they are not. If the only evidence you have is the highly influenced and subjective ratings of practically anonymous people on the internet, I do not put any stock in that.

Second tier "talent" is what I said. Georgia is a perennial top 10 recruiting school I don't give a damn what happens after that. They have the same talent everyone else has which is what makes it funny when they lose. USCw has the same issue. The talent for them to be a good team is 100℅ there.

 

[RonJohn]

Second tier "talent" is what I said. Georgia is a perennial top 10 recruiting school I don't give a damn what happens after that. They have the same talent everyone else has which is what makes it funny when they lose. USCw has the same issue. The talent for them to be a good team is 100℅ there.

I still ask what evidence you have that they have that high of a level of talent other than somebody somewhere on the internet who said so.

 

[jeffgt14]

I still ask what evidence you have that they have that high of a level of talent other than somebody somewhere on the internet who said so.

Recruiting rankings. So you basically believe that UGA's 4 and 5 star guys are actually all the overrated bad 4 and 5 star guys and all the other teams are scooping up the real 4 and 5 star guys. Poor Kirby really does have an empty cupboard.

 

[VolJacket]

Recruiting rankings. So you basically believe that UGA's 4 and 5 star guys are actually all the overrated bad 4 and 5 star guys and all the other teams are scooping up the real 4 and 5 star guys. Poor Kirby really does have an empty cupboard.

He's got a well stocked cupboard but can't coach like pretty much all of Nick Satan's former assistant coaches.

 

[RonJohn]

Recruiting rankings. So you basically believe that UGA's 4 and 5 star guys are actually all the overrated bad 4 and 5 star guys and all the other teams are scooping up the real 4 and 5 star guys. Poor Kirby really does have an empty cupboard.

No, I don't believe that the "stars" actually mean anything. As I stated before, you can see a fully grown man like H Walker in high school and be certain that he will do well. After that level of player, you have to guess who will gain the correct weight, who will mesh with schemes, who will be able to handle being away from home, who will be able to handle the pressure of college classes, etc. The NFL spends tons of money to evaluate college players. They have many people watching all the film they can find for college players. They do psychoanalysis of college players. They do extensive background checks of college players. They do extensive physical testing of college players. Even with all of that money spent on evaluations, there are blog posts that compare the worst first round picks of each NFL team. Every team has at least one first rounder that didn't work out. After the second round, you get to many players that never make a roster. How can ANYONE believe that recruiting ranking sites with less money, no psychoanalysis, no background checks, no real physical testing, much less film, and many times more players to evaluate, can even come close to getting their "stars" correct? The ONLY thing the recruiting sites are good for are selling ads and inciting trash talk among unintelligent fans.

 

[VolJacket]

No, I don't believe that the "stars" actually mean anything. As I stated before, you can see a fully grown man like H Walker in high school and be certain that he will do well. After that level of player, you have to guess who will gain the correct weight, who will mesh with schemes, who will be able to handle being away from home, who will be able to handle the pressure of college classes, etc. The NFL spends tons of money to evaluate college players. They have many people watching all the film they can find for college players. They do psychoanalysis of college players. They do extensive background checks of college players. They do extensive physical testing of college players. Even with all of that money spent on evaluations, there are blog posts that compare the worst first round picks of each NFL team. Every team has at least one first rounder that didn't work out. After the second round, you get to many players that never make a roster. How can ANYONE believe that recruiting ranking sites with less money, no psychoanalysis, no background checks, no real physical testing, much less film, and many times more players to evaluate, can even come close to getting their "stars" correct? The ONLY thing the recruiting sites are good for are selling ads and inciting trash talk among unintelligent fans.

Yeah ratings mean nothing to players like Peyton Manning,Herschel Walker,Earl Campbell etc. They are destined to be great.

 

[AE 87]

No, I don't believe that the "stars" actually mean anything. As I stated before, you can see a fully grown man like H Walker in high school and be certain that he will do well. After that level of player, you have to guess who will gain the correct weight, who will mesh with schemes, who will be able to handle being away from home, who will be able to handle the pressure of college classes, etc. The NFL spends tons of money to evaluate college players. They have many people watching all the film they can find for college players. They do psychoanalysis of college players. They do extensive background checks of college players. They do extensive physical testing of college players. Even with all of that money spent on evaluations, there are blog posts that compare the worst first round picks of each NFL team. Every team has at least one first rounder that didn't work out. After the second round, you get to many players that never make a roster. How can ANYONE believe that recruiting ranking sites with less money, no psychoanalysis, no background checks, no real physical testing, much less film, and many times more players to evaluate, can even come close to getting their "stars" correct? The ONLY thing the recruiting sites are good for are selling ads and inciting trash talk among unintelligent fans.

I think you're missing his point.

You are absolutely right about star-system when looking at individual players, that there will be misses. However, those misses should be independent of the teams they sign with.

When you talk about 4* and 5* guys (who drive the top 10 rankings), you're talking about more of the guys thst jump off the tape. Yes, it's true that some won't pan out, but most should.

So, that's why team rankings become more meaningful than individual rankings. At that level, georgie has recruited at top 5, top 10 level for last decade+. They're def recruiting at a top tier level.

 

[RonJohn]

I think you're missing his point.

You are absolutely right about star-system when looking at individual players, that there will be misses. However, those misses should be independent of the teams they sign with.

When you talk about 4* and 5* guys (who drive the top 10 rankings), you're talking about more of the guys thst jump off the tape. Yes, it's true that some won't pan out, but most should.

So, that's why team rankings become more meaningful than individual rankings. At that level, georgie has recruited at top 5, top 10 level for last decade+. They're def recruiting at a top tier level.

I am most definitely not missing his point. I guess I am not being clear enough how little I respect the rankings services. I believe of the number of guys who "jump off the tape" to a level that you can accurately say they will most definitely be stars in college is VERY low, maybe 20 a year. The mutts DO NOT sign 10-15 of the top 20 players in the country every year. Many people believe there is some sort of magic, or genius level people tirelessly developing the rankings. As I stated before, the NFL uses more people and spends more money on evaluations. They evaluate magnitudes fewer players. They evaluate hours of film for every player they are interested in(and some they don't think they are interested in). They interview the players, the coaches, high school coaches, people who grew up with them, etc. Even with all of that, they still frequently miss predicting which fully grown men will be able to translate college success to the NFL. It absolutely amazes me how so many people actually believe that some guy working out of his house can evaluate several hundred to a few thousand high school kids using: data from a small combine, maybe 5 minutes of film, maybe talking to the kid, maybe talking to the coach, maybe talking to a college recruiting coach, and even get close to evaluating which not fully grown men will be able to translate high school success to college.

Also, I think you might be missing the overall point. I don't believe that the mutts have the same level of talent as the top tier SEC teams. I am not saying that the mutts don't have ANY players. I am not saying that the mutts have the same level of talent as Kentucky and Vanderbilt. I am saying that they do not have the same talent level as: Alabama, Ole Miss, Tennessee.... I don't care what some anonymous guy working out of his basement says about it. They are a second tier SEC team.

 

[AE 87]

I am most definitely not missing his point. I guess I am not being clear enough how little I respect the rankings services. I believe of the number of guys who "jump off the tape" to a level that you can accurately say they will most definitely be stars in college is VERY low, maybe 20 a year. The mutts DO NOT sign 10-15 of the top 20 players in the country every year. Many people believe there is some sort of magic, or genius level people tirelessly developing the rankings. As I stated before, the NFL uses more people and spends more money on evaluations. They evaluate magnitudes fewer players. They evaluate hours of film for every player they are interested in(and some they don't think they are interested in). They interview the players, the coaches, high school coaches, people who grew up with them, etc. Even with all of that, they still frequently miss predicting which fully grown men will be able to translate college success to the NFL. It absolutely amazes me how so many people actually believe that some guy working out of his house can evaluate several hundred to a few thousand high school kids using: data from a small combine, maybe 5 minutes of film, maybe talking to the kid, maybe talking to the coach, maybe talking to a college recruiting coach, and even get close to evaluating which not fully grown men will be able to translate high school success to college.

Also, I think you might be missing the overall point. I don't believe that the mutts have the same level of talent as the top tier SEC teams. I am not saying that the mutts don't have ANY players. I am not saying that the mutts have the same level of talent as Kentucky and Vanderbilt. I am saying that they do not have the same talent level as: Alabama, Ole Miss, Tennessee.... I don't care what some anonymous guy working out of his basement says about it. They are a second tier SEC team.

No worries. I apparently did not fully understandd your point and analogy the first time. I thought you were saying that NFL scouts getting it wrong some means recruiting services getting it wrong some, probably some more. Hence my distinction between individuals and classes as a whole.

However, you apparently think that because NFL scouts with all their resources miss occasionally, the recruiting services with less resources will be wrong most of the time. I don't think that logically follows.

Regardless, by removing the only external measure of talent from the conversation, it seems your point boils down to because "RonJohn says so," an anonymous internet guy from his basement who likely hasn't looked at as much film or combine performances as the recruiting services.

By your own standards, you should be less believable to us than the recruiting services.

 

[RonJohn]

No worries. I apparently did not fully understandd your point and analogy the first time. I thought you were saying that NFL scouts getting it wrong some means recruiting services getting it wrong some, probably some more. Hence my distinction between individuals and classes as a whole.

However, you apparently think that because NFL scouts with all their resources miss occasionally, the recruiting services with less resources will be wrong most of the time. I don't think that logically follows.

Regardless, by removing the only external measure of talent from the conversation, it seems your point boils down to because "RonJohn says so," an anonymous internet guy from his basement who likely hasn't looked at as much film or combine performances as the recruiting services.

By your own standards, you should be less believable to us than the recruiting services.

I don't intend to imply that my opinion is the law and can't be wrong. I don't have a basement, so I am posting from my living room. I do understand that I am some poster on an internet site. I do not expect to have credibility with anyone else. But, by the same token, don't expect me to automatically adopt the statements of 24/7, or rivals, or scout.

I don't believe I am removing the "only external measure of talent", because I don't believe there is any accurate "external measure of talent". Those sites have been used as the "standard" of evaluating high school kids for many years. If someone can provide convincing evidence that they actually are accurate, I would review that evidence and potentially change my mind. I would however scrutinize the evidence greatly. My guess is that some large percentage(maybe 70-80) of the 4-5 stars will do well in college. My guess is that some smaller percentage(10-20) of the 3 stars will do well in college. However, my guess is if you look at the number of players who do well in college there will be 50% or higher 3 stars. If the numbers are far off of my guesses(95% of 4-5 stars are stars in college, and 85% of the top players were 4-5 stars), then I would have to reconsider.

Back to the previous discussion: I do not put faith in the ratings services. If that is the only evidence that the mutts have equivalent talent to Alabama, then I discount it. Whether anyone else agrees with me or not, it carries zero weight with me.

 

[jeffgt14]

I am most definitely not missing his point. I guess I am not being clear enough how little I respect the rankings services. I believe of the number of guys who "jump off the tape" to a level that you can accurately say they will most definitely be stars in college is VERY low, maybe 20 a year. The mutts DO NOT sign 10-15 of the top 20 players in the country every year. Many people believe there is some sort of magic, or genius level people tirelessly developing the rankings. As I stated before, the NFL uses more people and spends more money on evaluations. They evaluate magnitudes fewer players. They evaluate hours of film for every player they are interested in(and some they don't think they are interested in). They interview the players, the coaches, high school coaches, people who grew up with them, etc. Even with all of that, they still frequently miss predicting which fully grown men will be able to translate college success to the NFL. It absolutely amazes me how so many people actually believe that some guy working out of his house can evaluate several hundred to a few thousand high school kids using: data from a small combine, maybe 5 minutes of film, maybe talking to the kid, maybe talking to the coach, maybe talking to a college recruiting coach, and even get close to evaluating which not fully grown men will be able to translate high school success to college.

Also, I think you might be missing the overall point. I don't believe that the mutts have the same level of talent as the top tier SEC teams. I am not saying that the mutts don't have ANY players. I am not saying that the mutts have the same level of talent as Kentucky and Vanderbilt. I am saying that they do not have the same talent level as: Alabama, Ole Miss, Tennessee.... I don't care what some anonymous guy working out of his basement says about it. They are a second tier SEC team.

Talent + Coaching + Scheme makes a player (obviously there are others but these are big ones)
Let's give the following hypothetical grades out of 5 to the players on Ole Miss:
Talent = 5
Coaching = 4
Scheme = 5
Overall Player Grades = 14/15

Now UGA:
Talent = 5
Coaching = 3
Scheme = 3
Overall Player Grades = 11/15

Just because one team performs and another team doesn't, doesn't mean the recruiting services were wrong and Ole Miss had "1st tier" talent and UGA had"2nd tier" talent.

 

[AE 87]

I don't intend to imply that my opinion is the law and can't be wrong. I don't have a basement, so I am posting from my living room. I do understand that I am some poster on an internet site. I do not expect to have credibility with anyone else. But, by the same token, don't expect me to automatically adopt the statements of 24/7, or rivals, or scout.

I don't believe I am removing the "only external measure of talent", because I don't believe there is any accurate "external measure of talent". Those sites have been used as the "standard" of evaluating high school kids for many years. If someone can provide convincing evidence that they actually are accurate, I would review that evidence and potentially change my mind. I would however scrutinize the evidence greatly. My guess is that some large percentage(maybe 70-80) of the 4-5 stars will do well in college. My guess is that some smaller percentage(10-20) of the 3 stars will do well in college. However, my guess is if you look at the number of players who do well in college there will be 50% or higher 3 stars. If the numbers are far off of my guesses(95% of 4-5 stars are stars in college, and 85% of the top players were 4-5 stars), then I would have to reconsider.

Back to the previous discussion: I do not put faith in the ratings services. If that is the only evidence that the mutts have equivalent talent to Alabama, then I discount it. Whether anyone else agrees with me or not, it carries zero weight with me.

Cool. I've got no problem with that.

Fwiw, the recruiting services do provide an external measure of talent, which you consider inaccurate and so dismiss.

 

[jeffgt14]

can provide convincing evidence that they actually are accurate, I would review that evidence and potentially change my mind. I would however scrutinize the evidence greatly.

Give me the last National Champion that didn't have a Top 10 recruiting class according to these sites on their roster. I'd venture to say it may be us.

 

[LibertyTurns]

Hopefully Ray Goff Jr does such a poor job as head coach in the three seasons or so that he'll be at Georgia that he'll set the program back 5-10 years like Derek Dooley did at Tennessee,

If he could wreck that program for a decade I'd vote him into the Georgia College Football Hall of Fame!

I do believe he needs another nickname, Skidmark. He going to remind the Mutt fans of crapping in their britches by the time his tenure is over.