Transfer Impact 2021

[Heisman's Ghost]

What exactly is the point of this thread?

We needed (and still need) help at various positions? The staff made the obvious decision and turned to the portal.

Some worked well, some not so much and others are still TBA. Calling out players specifically is bad form.

The point is, as far as I can determine, that depending on the transfer portal to pull one's chestnuts out of the fire is a recipe for disappointment. Most of them do not meet the expectations of moving the needle. There are always reasons for players wanting to transfer that may not be readily apparent at first glance. Caveat Emptor should be the watchword for any program using the portal for more than filling a temporary need. Recruiting your own players and taking the time, coaching, and money to invest in their development is a superior way to build a roster.

 

[forensicbuzz]

Not including transfers, which would naturally skew older, or walkons, we currently have

16 first year
20 2nd year
14 3rd year
13 4th year
6 5th year

players that are eligible to play next year. Current transfers would all be 3rd+ year next year, so over 50 players in their 3rd year or later of college football next season. Not as young as you try to make them sound.

Um, that's next year. We're not talking about next year, we're talking about this year. Nice try. That means there are less than 50 players in their 3rd year or later right now. So, you're saying over half the team are in their 1st or 2nd year this year. That would include transfers like Watson and Scott and any others that were class of 2020.

How many of those "upperclassmen" are seeing time on the field this year? How many are injured and not participating?

So, no, I'm not trying to make them sound younger than they are. They're exactly as young as I said they were.

 

[jojatk]

You're right. What I should have said is that our transfers didn't fulfill expectations at the schools they originally chose. It's not that they all failed; more that they didn't meet what their original coaches (and they themselves) thought they could do. So they came to Tech.

I sadi in another thread that this isn't necessarily bad. Many of them came from places where the competition was pretty stiff. But expecting Tech to get a lot better quickly because of transfers strikes me as unrealistic. So far their contribution has not been, imho, as consistent as from players we originally recruited (or, in some cases, - Brooks, Lay - walked on). But, admittedly I was too strong in my original post. It's early days for some of these young men and we'll just have to see.

I didn’t read anything bad into your comments. I think you've taken a fair approach with your views on transfers and I appreciate different viewpoints as they absolutely help shape my own. The question one has to answer when taking transfers is whether or not they make your team better or if that scholarship would be better off in the hands of a high school player or even a deserving walk-on. It seems our strategy is to stay close to the kids who we tried hard to get but went elsewhere in case they change their minds early and want to transfer and have lots of eligibility left but also look for the ones who have limited eligibility who can come in and give us short term help.

With those younger guys I look at them, for the most part, the same way I view redshirt freshmen in terms of physical development. They may or may not be ready to play but we have lots of time for them to grow with the program and become contributors. The older guys need to come in and make an immediate impact. And I think one of our issues is that those guys are also being counted on as leaders. It's great when they can come in and fulfill that role as McGowan clearly has and I think Ace Eley has as well. But we need those leaders to come from within our program more frequently and, if a grad transfer or more experienced transfer comes in and ADDS to the leadership then that's icing on the cake.