Time to Bury the Asterisk?

Is it time to bury the asterisk when looking at GT football?

  • Yes

    Votes: 111 64.2%
  • No, give CGC another asterisk year

    Votes: 39 22.5%
  • No, give CGC another 2 asterisk years

    Votes: 11 6.4%
  • No, give CGC another 3+ asterisk years

    Votes: 12 6.9%

  • Total voters
    173

GTRanj2

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
929
Bear with me and forget that this thread is about Collins and GT for a minute.

A 3rd year head coach will have had 2 full recruiting cycles in their rear view mirror. That means that a 3rd year head coach's first full recruiting class will be redshirt freshmen with a smattering of true sophomores heading into their 3rd season.

Under ordinary circumstances, how much of a contribution toward W/L do you expect from a smattering of true sophomores and mostly freshmen (save for a handful of transfers)?

In general, I dislike the premise for any coach that "they have their guys" by year 3.
What is the win total given that his guys are redshirt freshmen/sophomores next year?

Keep in mind, and I'm sure you don't mean this, but what you are suggesting is that none of the inherited players would be recruited/could play for the current coaching staff. For example, people keep stating that the LOS on offense on average was undersized, but what was the average size of scholarship guys there?

I do agree it's only fair to allow a coach to get a full recruiting cycle in before final judgement, but shouldn't we also expect to see some progress along the way? And yes I do agree that we made some progress on offense this year, but the final results were still not nearly where it needs to be for us to get to levels CGC has promised. And defense, one could argue, regressed, but also an arguement could be made that this year, is especially tough on defenses. Either way, defense has still been disappointing.

Hopefully next year with a full spring and fall to further install and without other uncontrollable outside situations, we can see a big jump in terms of progress.
 

CuseJacket

Administrator
Staff member
Messages
15,052
What is the win total given that his guys are redshirt freshmen/sophomores next year?

Keep in mind, and I'm sure you don't mean this, but what you are suggesting is that none of the inherited players would be recruited/could play for the current coaching staff. For example, people keep stating that the LOS on offense on average was undersized, but what was the average size of scholarship guys there?

I do agree it's only fair to allow a coach to get a full recruiting cycle in before final judgement, but shouldn't we also expect to see some progress along the way? And yes I do agree that we made some progress on offense this year, but the final results were still not nearly where it needs to be for us to get to levels CGC has promised. And defense, one could argue, regressed, but also an arguement could be made that this year, is especially tough on defenses. Either way, defense has still been disappointing.

Hopefully next year with a full spring and fall to further install and without other uncontrollable outside situations, we can see a big jump in terms of progress.
The beauty of my post, I think, is that I expect folks will interpret it how they want to.

But my post does not carry any pretense about my thoughts re: CGC nor GT specifically. It simply asks the question “to what degree should Sophs and Frosh impact a team’s roster, and therefore is the premise fair that a 3rd year head coach “finally has his guys”? A 3rd year head coach may have recruited the majority of the roster at that point, but which “guys” are the one’s leading a CFB roster? Just a question about normal circumstances at any fill-in-the-blank college football program. I just don’t like this commonly believed premise for any coach at any program.

From that we can take that data point, along with many others, and fit it to GT’s unique circumstances to form an opinion on whatever this thread is rehashing. I’ll answer your questions in a separate post so that my point here remains agnostic of GT.
 

CuseJacket

Administrator
Staff member
Messages
15,052
@GTRanj2, to respond to your GT specific questions to me:
Keep in mind, and I'm sure you don't mean this, but what you are suggesting is that none of the inherited players would be recruited/could play for the current coaching staff. For example, people keep stating that the LOS on offense on average was undersized, but what was the average size of scholarship guys there?
Correct, I did not mean what you suggested here. To try to answer your question, I think there are a lot of talking points conflated into one here re: "size", so I'll try to simplify my response at the risk of oversimplifying: Generally speaking I do not believe the guys on the LOS were the right body types. Nor do I feel that body type alone is specifically what CGC and crew are looking at (e.g., athleticism - burst, power, etc.), even though that might be the dumbed down talking point that he chooses.

The reason I believe this conversation generally goes nowhere is that folks get hung up on listed height/weight, which already do not necessarily reflect reality, and then conflate that with "coach has everything he needs already." Well, Charlie Clark is listed as 6'4", 305lb. William Lay is 305lb. But every P5 passed on them except GT. And at times that was 2/5 of our OL. There is more to the conversation than "size".

I do agree it's only fair to allow a coach to get a full recruiting cycle in before final judgement, but shouldn't we also expect to see some progress along the way? And yes I do agree that we made some progress on offense this year, but the final results were still not nearly where it needs to be for us to get to levels CGC has promised. And defense, one could argue, regressed, but also an arguement could be made that this year, is especially tough on defenses. Either way, defense has still been disappointing.
This one is easy. Yes, we should expect to see improvement next year. I think I've been consistent in this. And I agree I wish we were better on defense as the best proxy of coaching ability. At some level I can forgive the offense and even the randomness of finding a reliable FG kicker, but I expected more on D.

I will just caveat by saying toward the end of the year, when ideally we could better measure progress after a less-than-traditional offseason, we were at times playing with a line of ex: Domineck, Brooks, Griffin and Ryans. With all due respect to those guys, including Domineck who is a very valuable contributor, that is a handful of P5 offers collectively and is less than ideal when comparing their performance to other P5 OL. Throwing in a bunch of freshmen, albeit with P5 offers, does not solve for this issue. Then throw in our LB - they are what they are - and I'm just not sure how a coach can scheme around our limitations. We had one of the worst front 7's in the ACC, in part due to attrition, and coaching can only do so much.

I expect more in all phases next year.
 

gtchem05

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
118
@GTRanj2, to respond to your GT specific questions to me:

Correct, I did not mean what you suggested here. To try to answer your question, I think there are a lot of talking points conflated into one here re: "size", so I'll try to simplify my response at the risk of oversimplifying: Generally speaking I do not believe the guys on the LOS were the right body types. Nor do I feel that body type alone is specifically what CGC and crew are looking at (e.g., athleticism - burst, power, etc.), even though that might be the dumbed down talking point that he chooses.

The reason I believe this conversation generally goes nowhere is that folks get hung up on listed height/weight, which already do not necessarily reflect reality, and then conflate that with "coach has everything he needs already." Well, Charlie Clark is listed as 6'4", 305lb. William Lay is 305lb. But every P5 passed on them except GT. And at times that was 2/5 of our OL. There is more to the conversation than "size".


This one is easy. Yes, we should expect to see improvement next year. I think I've been consistent in this. And I agree I wish we were better on defense as the best proxy of coaching ability. At some level I can forgive the offense and even the randomness of finding a reliable FG kicker, but I expected more on D.

I will just caveat by saying toward the end of the year, when ideally we could better measure progress after a less-than-traditional offseason, we were at times playing with a line of ex: Domineck, Brooks, Griffin and Ryans. With all due respect to those guys, including Domineck who is a very valuable contributor, that is a handful of P5 offers collectively and is less than ideal when comparing their performance to other P5 OL. Throwing in a bunch of freshmen, albeit with P5 offers, does not solve for this issue. Then throw in our LB - they are what they are - and I'm just not sure how a coach can scheme around our limitations. We had one of the worst front 7's in the ACC, in part due to attrition, and coaching can only do so much.

I expect more in all phases next year.
I'm going to piggyback on that last point about the defense. I am not surprised that our defense hasn't improved in a number of statistical areas. The offense under coach Johnson was insanely efficient and held the ball for long periods of time giving the defense rest and fewer opportunities to be scored on. That masked the fact that our defense was really poor for the last few years of the CPJ era. I believe our team's ability to defend has improved somewhat, but it's not easy to measure because the offense still isn't as efficient as CPJ's were. We will probably never have as efficient an offense as we had under CPJ against some of the mid-tier teams that we don't play regularly - like our yearly alternating Atlantic division opponent, for example. However, I think because of the improved passing game, our new offense will eventually be better against some of the more talented defenses and give us a chance in some games that we could not compete in previously. I'm not trying to start any coaching comparison, just point out a reason why we're seeing what we are seeing on defense. I think this is the year we finally start to see some statistical gains on defense.
 
Last edited:

GTRanj2

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
929
@GTRanj2, to respond to your GT specific questions to me:

Correct, I did not mean what you suggested here. To try to answer your question, I think there are a lot of talking points conflated into one here re: "size", so I'll try to simplify my response at the risk of oversimplifying: Generally speaking I do not believe the guys on the LOS were the right body types. Nor do I feel that body type alone is specifically what CGC and crew are looking at (e.g., athleticism - burst, power, etc.), even though that might be the dumbed down talking point that he chooses.

The reason I believe this conversation generally goes nowhere is that folks get hung up on listed height/weight, which already do not necessarily reflect reality, and then conflate that with "coach has everything he needs already." Well, Charlie Clark is listed as 6'4", 305lb. William Lay is 305lb. But every P5 passed on them except GT. And at times that was 2/5 of our OL. There is more to the conversation than "size".


This one is easy. Yes, we should expect to see improvement next year. I think I've been consistent in this. And I agree I wish we were better on defense as the best proxy of coaching ability. At some level I can forgive the offense and even the randomness of finding a reliable FG kicker, but I expected more on D.

I will just caveat by saying toward the end of the year, when ideally we could better measure progress after a less-than-traditional offseason, we were at times playing with a line of ex: Domineck, Brooks, Griffin and Ryans. With all due respect to those guys, including Domineck who is a very valuable contributor, that is a handful of P5 offers collectively and is less than ideal when comparing their performance to other P5 OL. Throwing in a bunch of freshmen, albeit with P5 offers, does not solve for this issue. Then throw in our LB - they are what they are - and I'm just not sure how a coach can scheme around our limitations. We had one of the worst front 7's in the ACC, in part due to attrition, and coaching can only do so much.

I expect more in all phases next year.
First I'll start with I completely agree that attrition is a legitimate reason for struggles along the LOS. Last year was even more valid on both lines, but especially on O-line. This year, we have the bug especially on D-line, but in my opinion this reason/excuse hold less water because most other teams are struggling with attrition (this year) as well. Year one, our attrition was well above average compared to other teams, this year, I'm not so sure.

Kicker, to me, is rarely a coaching issue, and I think we agree here.

I will say I expected more from our DB's specifically due to the fact they are directly coaches by Collins and were rated fairly highly for GT standards as far as recruits. Again there were outside issues one being riq two weeks off of having casts on both hands before the first game.

Where I disagree, however, is the power 5 offer arguement on offensive line. Firstly, GT has never been a dominant recruiting school, and certainly not on LOS. I'm not sure if you or others expected to have a stable of sought after linemen as the requirement for a new coach to come in and be competitive right away. Is this the requirement?
Second, looking at a team that is well thought of in regards to offensive line, but recruits closer to our level, things get interesting. Boston college has been considered one of the highest output of NFL offensive linemen. I looked though their recruits offers on offensive line back through 2016 and it's really not much different from what we have here (I stopped at 2016 because that is what the new coach is working with this season and he seems to be doing just fine with it, also it's a ton of work doing this on my phone). Including the transfers this and last year for us on offensive line, it's pretty much the same as far as P5 offers goes.

Looking at their offensive line recruits starting 2019 and back:

2019

Jack Conley offers:
Arizona State
Buffalo
Fordham
Indiana

Blerim Rustemi offers:
Army
Buffalo
Connecticut
East Carolina

Christian Mahogany offers:
Pittsburgh
Rutgers
Buffalo
Central Michigan

2018

Finn Dirstine Offers:
Colorado state
Dartmouth
Illinois
Massachusetts

Thomas Shelmore offers:
Army
Colorado state
Fordham
Navy

Tyler Vrabel offers:
Cincinnati
Houston
Ohio (not OSU)
Memphis

2017

Ben Peteula offers: (this one has P5 offers)
South Carolina
North Carolina
Rutgers
Kentucky

Alex Lindstrom offers:
Massachusetts
Kansas

Nathaniel Emer offers:
Seems like BC was his only offer, another 2 star recruit.

2016

Sean Eagan offers: (decent list)
Miami
Connecticut
Maryland
Penn State

Tom Kowalkoski offers:
Cincinnati
Miami (Ohio)
Ball State
Toledo

To me the P5 offers thing on offensive line really doesn't hold much water.
 

Northeast Stinger

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,489
Does anyone know off the top of their heads which Tech defenses were the best over the last 50+ years? Which years did we have a highly rated or ranked defense?Anecdotally, people talk of a few Dodd teams, one of Carson’s teams, the Black Watch, 1990, and a few CPJ teams that were good defensively. But I ask because for most of my time watching Tech I have held my breath when the defense was on the field.

This is not to sidetrack the conversation. Many have expressed disappointment with CGC defenses. What is a past standard that would be a fair comparison beyond “not crappy?”
 

GTRanj2

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
929
Does anyone know off the top of their heads which Tech defenses were the best over the last 50+ years? Which years did we have a highly rated or ranked defense?Anecdotally, people talk of a few Dodd teams, one of Carson’s teams, the Black Watch, 1990, and a few CPJ teams that were good defensively. But I ask because for most of my time watching Tech I have held my breath when the defense was on the field.

This is not to sidetrack the conversation. Many have expressed disappointment with CGC defenses. What is a past standard that would be a fair comparison beyond “not crappy?”
I think what people were getting at is that offense was a given struggle due to transitioning from 3O (I don't personally agree with this), but since CGC's reputation is that he is a defensive guru, the expectation was that we would start seeing better defense.
 
Last edited:

4shotB

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
2,373
This is not to sidetrack the conversation. Many have expressed disappointment with CGC defenses. What is a past standard that would be a fair comparison beyond “not crappy?”
I think the defenses under CCG and Tenuta should be a reasonable measuring stick or benchmark. Those teams did have a few meltdowns (we all know and recall those) but we were respectable and the defense gave us chances in most games. Solid talent that passed the eyeball test on the field.
 

4shotB

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
2,373
To me the P5 offers thing on offensive line really doesn't hold much water.
Just wanted to thank you for doing the research on this. It's an example of doing the legwork to support your opinion that is seen too little on this or most any other internet message board. I was one that put a lot of stock in the "offer sheet" over star rankings but your post has offered a nice counterpoint. kudos.
 

JacketOff

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,417
First I'll start with I completely agree that attrition is a legitimate reason for struggles along the LOS. Last year was even more valid on both lines, but especially on O-line. This year, we have the bug especially on D-line, but in my opinion this reason/excuse hold less water because most other teams are struggling with attrition (this year) as well. Year one, our attrition was well above average compared to other teams, this year, I'm not so sure.

Kicker, to me, is rarely a coaching issue, and I think we agree here.

I will say I expected more from our DB's specifically due to the fact they are directly coaches by Collins and were rated fairly highly for GT standards as far as recruits. Again there were outside issues one being riq two weeks off of having casts on both hands before the first game.

Where I disagree, however, is the power 5 offer arguement on offensive line. Firstly, GT has never been a dominant recruiting school, and certainly not on LOS. I'm not sure if you or others expected to have a stable of sought after linemen as the requirement for a new coach to come in and be competitive right away. Is this the requirement?
Second, looking at a team that is well thought of in regards to offensive line, but recruits closer to our level, things get interesting. Boston college has been considered one of the highest output of NFL offensive linemen. I looked though their recruits offers on offensive line back through 2016 and it's really not much different from what we have here (I stopped at 2016 because that is what the new coach is working with this season and he seems to be doing just fine with it, also it's a ton of work doing this on my phone). Including the transfers this and last year for us on offensive line, it's pretty much the same as far as P5 offers goes.

Looking at their offensive line recruits starting 2019 and back:

2019

Jack Conley offers:
Arizona State
Buffalo
Fordham
Indiana

Blerim Rustemi offers:
Army
Buffalo
Connecticut
East Carolina

Christian Mahogany offers:
Pittsburgh
Rutgers
Buffalo
Central Michigan

2018

Finn Dirstine Offers:
Colorado state
Dartmouth
Illinois
Massachusetts

Thomas Shelmore offers:
Army
Colorado state
Fordham
Navy

Tyler Vrabel offers:
Cincinnati
Houston
Ohio (not OSU)
Memphis

2017

Ben Peteula offers: (this one has P5 offers)
South Carolina
North Carolina
Rutgers
Kentucky

Alex Lindstrom offers:
Massachusetts
Kansas

Nathaniel Emer offers:
Seems like BC was his only offer, another 2 star recruit.

2016

Sean Eagan offers: (decent list)
Miami
Connecticut
Maryland
Penn State

Tom Kowalkoski offers:
Cincinnati
Miami (Ohio)
Ball State
Toledo

To me the P5 offers thing on offensive line really doesn't hold much water.
You missed a lot of offers for a lot of guys.

Christian Mahogany had offers from Syracuse, Vanderbilt, Virginia, and even though they aren’t a P5, a respectable Cincinnati team.

Jack Conley had offers Rutgers, Syracuse, and Virginia.

Blerim Rustemi had offers from Rutgers and Virginia

Finn Dirstine had offers from Miami and Syracuse

Those are just the ones I bothered to check. There’s absolutely a difference between that and the guys Collins inherited.

Zach Quinney had an offer list similar to those BC guys.

Kenney Cooper had 2 offers: Georgia Tech and Western Kentucky

Mikey Minihan had no other P5 offers.

Charlie Clark had no other P5 offers.

Michael Maye had 2 offers: Georgia Tech and South Alabama.

Austin Smith had a solid offer list, comparable to the BC guys, but has barely contributed at Tech.

Those are all of the scholarship OL that were ATL against FSU this year. Only 2 of the 6 had other P5 offers, compared to BC, who basically all have other P5 offers. It’s not even the same ballpark.
 

GTRanj2

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
929
Just wanted to thank you for doing the research on this. It's an example of doing the legwork to support your opinion that is seen too little on this or most any other internet message board. I was one that put a lot of stock in the "offer sheet" over star rankings but your post has offered a nice counterpoint. kudos.
Thanks man
 

GTRanj2

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
929
You missed a lot of offers for a lot of guys.

Christian Mahogany had offers from Syracuse, Vanderbilt, Virginia, and even though they aren’t a P5, a respectable Cincinnati team.

Jack Conley had offers Rutgers, Syracuse, and Virginia.

Blerim Rustemi had offers from Rutgers and Virginia

Finn Dirstine had offers from Miami and Syracuse

Those are just the ones I bothered to check. There’s absolutely a difference between that and the guys Collins inherited.

Zach Quinney had an offer list similar to those BC guys.

Kenney Cooper had 2 offers: Georgia Tech and Western Kentucky

Mikey Minihan had no other P5 offers.

Charlie Clark had no other P5 offers.

Michael Maye had 2 offers: Georgia Tech and South Alabama.

Austin Smith had a solid offer list, comparable to the BC guys, but has barely contributed at Tech.

Those are all of the scholarship OL that were ATL against FSU this year. Only 2 of the 6 had other P5 offers, compared to BC, who basically all have other P5 offers. It’s not even the same ballpark.
Where's your source? I admit I didn't go to every recruiting site, but I used the universally accepted one 247 and provided links. If you go to the 247 sheet it shows the offers as I posted.

Edit:
Since you brought up ATL, BC's starting O-Line:
Zion Johnson (non P5)
Christian Mahagony
Alec Lindstrom
Ben Petrula
Tyler Vrabel

Again this is not much different from what we have.
 
Last edited:

IM79

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
219
Does anyone know off the top of their heads which Tech defenses were the best over the last 50+ years? Which years did we have a highly rated or ranked defense?Anecdotally, people talk of a few Dodd teams, one of Carson’s teams, the Black Watch, 1990, and a few CPJ teams that were good defensively. But I ask because for most of my time watching Tech I have held my breath when the defense was on the field.

This is not to sidetrack the conversation. Many have expressed disappointment with CGC defenses. What is a past standard that would be a fair comparison beyond “not crappy?”
The best ones I recall:
69, 70,85,90,09
 

GTRanj2

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
929
Where's your source? I admit I didn't go to every recruiting site, but I used the universally accepted one 247 and provided links. If you go to the 247 sheet it shows the offers as I posted.

Edit:
Since you brought up ATL, BC's starting O-Line:
Zion Johnson (non P5)
Christian Mahagony
Alec Lindstrom
Ben Petrula
Tyler Vrabel

Again this is not much different from what we have.
Ran out of time to edit, this BC starting lineup has about the same P5 offers as ours.
 

JacketOff

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,417
Where's your source? I admit I didn't go to every recruiting site, but I used the universally accepted one 247 and provided links. If you go to the 247 sheet it shows the offers as I posted.

Edit:
Since you brought up ATL, BC's starting O-Line:
Zion Johnson (non P5)
Christian Mahagony
Alec Lindstrom
Ben Petrula
Tyler Vrabel

Again this is not much different from what we have.
The source is 247 lol. You just took the top 4 listed, which are generally listed in alphabetical order unless the player manually goes in a lists his “top interests.”

Zion Johnson was a transfer from Davidson, equivalent to Keion White.

Mahogany and Petrula both had numerous P5 offers.

Lindstrom and Vrabel didn’t have P5 offers, but Vrabel has offers from Cincinnati, Memphis, and Houston, 3 of the top G5 programs. Compared to somebody like Minihan who had offers from service academies, Idaho, San Jose State, and UNLV. Or Charlie Clark who’s best 3 G5 offers were Georgia Southern, Tulane, and FAU, that’s still a big difference.

Plus, the guys with P5 offers are still there to provide depth. In 2019 Tech had 4 OL total with other P5 offers: Jared Southers, Jack Defoor, Zach Quinney, and Austin Smith. That’s not even close to being on a similar level of talent or depth to what Boston College has/had.
 

Coloradojacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,644
Does anyone know off the top of their heads which Tech defenses were the best over the last 50+ years? Which years did we have a highly rated or ranked defense?Anecdotally, people talk of a few Dodd teams, one of Carson’s teams, the Black Watch, 1990, and a few CPJ teams that were good defensively. But I ask because for most of my time watching Tech I have held my breath when the defense was on the field.

This is not to sidetrack the conversation. Many have expressed disappointment with CGC defenses. What is a past standard that would be a fair comparison beyond “not crappy?”
Well,1972, 1978, 1985, 1989,1990, 1998, 2005, 2006, 2008. Funny thing was the Tenutta years we blitzed a lot and got caught but we had lots of negative plays. 1998, we scored about 6 touchdowns on defensive fumble recoveries.

The worst 1980, 1981, 1999, 2012, 2014, 2020. Again though, this year, when your offense is crap and the defense is on the field most of the game....you are going to look like crap. Give Clemson the ball 20 times and they will score 70 points on you.
 

GTRanj2

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
929
..
The source is 247 lol. You just took the top 4 listed, which are generally listed in alphabetical order unless the player manually goes in a lists his “top interests.”

Zion Johnson was a transfer from Davidson, equivalent to Keion White.

Mahogany and Petrula both had numerous P5 offers.

Lindstrom and Vrabel didn’t have P5 offers, but Vrabel has offers from Cincinnati, Memphis, and Houston, 3 of the top G5 programs. Compared to somebody like Minihan who had offers from service academies, Idaho, San Jose State, and UNLV. Or Charlie Clark who’s best 3 G5 offers were Georgia Southern, Tulane, and FAU, that’s still a big difference.

Plus, the guys with P5 offers are still there to provide depth. In 2019 Tech had 4 OL total with other P5 offers: Jared Southers, Jack Defoor, Zach Quinney, and Austin Smith. That’s not even close to being on a similar level of talent or depth to what Boston College has/had.
I guess we will just see this differently.

Also why would a recruit change their top interests to exclude some of these power 5 offers over the likes of massachusetts and connecticut if they were actual offers?

I'll stick with the way I see it.

Edit: the two guys you mention here, I showed their P5 offers, but again the rest are without. You can say well Vrabel was cincinnati and houston... but they also are not P5. All said, it is still very similar to our line, which was my point.
 

CuseJacket

Administrator
Staff member
Messages
15,052
First I'll start with I completely agree that attrition is a legitimate reason for struggles along the LOS. Last year was even more valid on both lines, but especially on O-line. This year, we have the bug especially on D-line, but in my opinion this reason/excuse hold less water because most other teams are struggling with attrition (this year) as well. Year one, our attrition was well above average compared to other teams, this year, I'm not so sure.

Kicker, to me, is rarely a coaching issue, and I think we agree here.

I will say I expected more from our DB's specifically due to the fact they are directly coaches by Collins and were rated fairly highly for GT standards as far as recruits. Again there were outside issues one being riq two weeks off of having casts on both hands before the first game.

Where I disagree, however, is the power 5 offer arguement on offensive line. Firstly, GT has never been a dominant recruiting school, and certainly not on LOS. I'm not sure if you or others expected to have a stable of sought after linemen as the requirement for a new coach to come in and be competitive right away. Is this the requirement?
Second, looking at a team that is well thought of in regards to offensive line, but recruits closer to our level, things get interesting. Boston college has been considered one of the highest output of NFL offensive linemen. I looked though their recruits offers on offensive line back through 2016 and it's really not much different from what we have here (I stopped at 2016 because that is what the new coach is working with this season and he seems to be doing just fine with it, also it's a ton of work doing this on my phone). Including the transfers this and last year for us on offensive line, it's pretty much the same as far as P5 offers goes.

Looking at their offensive line recruits starting 2019 and back:

2019

Jack Conley offers:
Arizona State
Buffalo
Fordham
Indiana

Blerim Rustemi offers:
Army
Buffalo
Connecticut
East Carolina

Christian Mahogany offers:
Pittsburgh
Rutgers
Buffalo
Central Michigan

2018

Finn Dirstine Offers:
Colorado state
Dartmouth
Illinois
Massachusetts

Thomas Shelmore offers:
Army
Colorado state
Fordham
Navy

Tyler Vrabel offers:
Cincinnati
Houston
Ohio (not OSU)
Memphis

2017

Ben Peteula offers: (this one has P5 offers)
South Carolina
North Carolina
Rutgers
Kentucky

Alex Lindstrom offers:
Massachusetts
Kansas

Nathaniel Emer offers:
Seems like BC was his only offer, another 2 star recruit.

2016

Sean Eagan offers: (decent list)
Miami
Connecticut
Maryland
Penn State

Tom Kowalkoski offers:
Cincinnati
Miami (Ohio)
Ball State
Toledo

To me the P5 offers thing on offensive line really doesn't hold much water.
Love this reply. Thanks for sharing with data. I wish more would do the same.

I directionally agree with the premise that offers are not the end all, be all, and would only pick nits at what @JacketOff mentioned (i.e., I recall a couple of the names holding Syracuse offers, which appear to be listed in Rivals profiles, not 247, for whatever reason). So it goes with recruiting sources.

Re: Boston College, I'm not as familiar with the quality of their OL play of late. A quick search suggests that unit may be living off past reputation.

That's not to say you can't make hay with developing OL. That's long been a premise that's long held true, caveats and context notwithstanding. And it's not as if CGC inherited an OL absent of P5 offers.

But I think you generally want to increase the floor and ceiling of your potential in a "traditional" offense by grabbing more guys wanted by other "traditional" offenses. Quinney and Defoor are good examples. When you start to get into the reaches, then I think we get into the discussion around "size" + other factors e.g., athleticism, burst, frame, wingspan/reach, etc.
 

Coloradojacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,644
Love this reply. Thanks for sharing with data. I wish more would do the same.

I directionally agree with the premise that offers are not the end all, be all, and would only pick nits at what @JacketOff mentioned (i.e., I recall a couple of the names holding Syracuse offers, which appear to be listed in Rivals profiles, not 247, for whatever reason). So it goes with recruiting sources.

Re: Boston College, I'm not as familiar with the quality of their OL play of late. A quick search suggests that unit may be living off past reputation.

That's not to say you can't make hay with developing OL. That's long been a premise that's long held true, caveats and context notwithstanding. And it's not as if CGC inherited an OL absent of P5 offers.

But I think you generally want to increase the floor and ceiling of your potential in a "traditional" offense by grabbing more guys wanted by other "traditional" offenses. Quinney and Defoor are good examples. When you start to get into the reaches, then I think we get into the discussion around "size" + other factors e.g., athleticism, burst, frame, wingspan/reach, etc.
Interesting points about Olineman and what you look for. In our current scheme, sort of a hybrid Zone scheme, you look for mass and width. Your tackles need to have good feet for the pass protection. In the CPJ scheme, you need faster stronger players that can understand the more complex blocking scheme. Now that being said, Shamire Devine could have played either scheme as he was huge but actually moved pretty well.
 

GTRanj2

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
929
Love this reply. Thanks for sharing with data. I wish more would do the same.

I directionally agree with the premise that offers are not the end all, be all, and would only pick nits at what @JacketOff mentioned (i.e., I recall a couple of the names holding Syracuse offers, which appear to be listed in Rivals profiles, not 247, for whatever reason). So it goes with recruiting sources.

Re: Boston College, I'm not as familiar with the quality of their OL play of late. A quick search suggests that unit may be living off past reputation.

That's not to say you can't make hay with developing OL. That's long been a premise that's long held true, caveats and context notwithstanding. And it's not as if CGC inherited an OL absent of P5 offers.

But I think you generally want to increase the floor and ceiling of your potential in a "traditional" offense by grabbing more guys wanted by other "traditional" offenses. Quinney and Defoor are good examples. When you start to get into the reaches, then I think we get into the discussion around "size" + other factors e.g., athleticism, burst, frame, wingspan/reach, etc.
I can't argue with any of this. We will need to recruit to our new requirements for our new systems. This is why I was saying it's important to give CGC time to get his guys in before final judgement, which I think we can surely agree on. I just would like to see more substantial progress next year (and I think we will).

Edit: and thank you for the kind words, always a pleasure talking about this stuff with you.
 
Top