Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
Tier 9: Yikes
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="slugboy" data-source="post: 777086" data-attributes="member: 282"><p> <ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Coach/Scheme: From what I understand, a number of coaches that run offenses that were more gradual to transition to declined our overtures. Satterfield, for one, was off the table even knowing that we were coming open. Most of them would have faced the same offensive line adjustment issues, anyway.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Coach/Scheme: I would have liked a more seamless transition too. That horse is out of the barn.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Coach/Scheme: We probably would have faced offensive line issues even if we had stayed in the same offensive scheme entirely. Frankly, I’m sure of it.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Recruiting: This class would have been one of the better ones over the course of the last decade, even without considering transfers. You can look at recruiting rankings over the last decade and check—the best I saw was a 43, and saw 50’s and 60’s occasionally.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Recruiting: While you shouldn’t lump transfers in with the recruiting class rankings, it doesn’t make sense to ignore them, either. This is an unusually large and good class of transfers. We had slots we could have used to bolster our recruiting rankings and we used them on transfers instead. Our class ranking would have been better if we hadn’t done that.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Recruiting: We did well in bringing in players. We could use more in certain positions.</li> </ol></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="slugboy, post: 777086, member: 282"] [LIST=1] [*]Coach/Scheme: From what I understand, a number of coaches that run offenses that were more gradual to transition to declined our overtures. Satterfield, for one, was off the table even knowing that we were coming open. Most of them would have faced the same offensive line adjustment issues, anyway. [*]Coach/Scheme: I would have liked a more seamless transition too. That horse is out of the barn. [*]Coach/Scheme: We probably would have faced offensive line issues even if we had stayed in the same offensive scheme entirely. Frankly, I’m sure of it. [*]Recruiting: This class would have been one of the better ones over the course of the last decade, even without considering transfers. You can look at recruiting rankings over the last decade and check—the best I saw was a 43, and saw 50’s and 60’s occasionally. [*]Recruiting: While you shouldn’t lump transfers in with the recruiting class rankings, it doesn’t make sense to ignore them, either. This is an unusually large and good class of transfers. We had slots we could have used to bolster our recruiting rankings and we used them on transfers instead. Our class ranking would have been better if we hadn’t done that. [*]Recruiting: We did well in bringing in players. We could use more in certain positions. [/LIST] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
How many points did Georgia Tech score against Cumberland in 1916?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
Tier 9: Yikes
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top