Untitled

[takethepoints]

I'm not going to comment (though there's lots to argue about) on most of this, But I will make two observations.

I don't and never have seen the fascination with "Brand". The viability of a brand is the result of the product identified with it. Take Apple, for instance. Steve was widely touted for his "reality distortion field" and rightly so. But to get an idea why that worked you have to look at this:



Translate that to football and the baseline is easy: we win and we do it in a program we would be proud to send our sons into. That has pretty much nothing to do with "PR, Colors, Uniforms, … Style, Flare" or any of the rest of what you mentioned except venue upgrades. As an example, look at Wisconsin. Could you have a program with more boring uniforms, simpler colors, and less style and flare? Yet they win. They do it by decent recruiting and good coaching. That's what counts. The hype is just that. It can't substitute for the fundamentals in sports or anything else.

Second, I again find myself pointing out how complex the spread option is as an offense. It is true that there were only about 20 - 25 basic plays that the O was built around. The kicker - and the reason why the thing worked like a Swiss watch - was that you could run those play in about 10 or so variations depending on what the D was going. That's why we did so well on O for 11 years (the team last year averaged 33 points and 408 yards total offense and that was without Benson after 1.5 games). The O we ran this year was simpler; it had to be because we had so little experience running it. But it will only be as complex as the spread option, not more so, in future.

 

[YJMD]

I agree that we did not blow the door down in recruiting during the CPJ tenure (understatement). I think CGC has already shown without a doubt he will do better, but here are some thoughts that could be considered negative, since I do have a very cautionary optimism currently.

• The difference between being in the 20's for recruiting classes and being in the top 5-10 has NEVER been larger - haves vs. have-nots is HUGE - This is why, if we want to beat the UGAGS and Clem's Son's of the world with a very common offense, we will have to have superior coaching - I hope we do.
• GT has always had difficulty recruiting highly touted big nasties out of high school (I realize we have Clayton transfer) - it appears that so far, that has not changed, but I realize it is very, very difficult given the limited numbers - when we break this barrier under CGC with a couple of highly touted high school (DT) guys, then I will get very, very excited. I am not 100% sure that Jones is one of those guys, because if he was, sa(t)an would want him on the DL
• If all we want to do is beat Duke consistently (and "compete" for the coastal), I do believe that the bump in recruiting by CGC will get us there - but, Cutcliffe is a very, very good HC

Is there any reason to expect there's a way for one of the have nots in football to consistently break into the realm of the haves? I don't personally see it. I think the UCFs, Boises, etc. of the world can although will never reach the playoffs only because they play weak schedules so don't have to consistently beat the best and avoid as many upsets from quality but incomplete teams.

Face it. We play Clemson and UGA which for the foreseeable future are somewhere between 1/4 to 1/2 of the playoff picture. Our immediate goal to me should be getting to the top of the rest of the pack on our schedule, and we have the means to shoot for that. If we can get there, maybe we can take the leap. Look at Clemson under Dabo. People forget how much he was disparaged despite steadily climbing to regular 10 win seasons, especially because we were often competitive with them head to head. Suddenly his continual growth, investment in resources and facilities, and recruiting clicked into a dominant force.

We face more challenges in following those footsteps, and knowing what the right model is and executing it even without barriers is nowhere close to a guarantee. But we also have some things they don't. I personally don't expect to make it there, and I want to, and in second place want UGA to fall hard to the ground, but I'm not going to let those things most likely never manifesting keep me from enjoying the ride and a lot of reason to expect top-25+ success in the future.

 

[Silk3]

Well 4/5 months ago that was correct. People were circle-jerking about having the #11 class when we had twice as many commits as everybody else. I think at this point it’s safe to say this is the best class we’ve had (assuming no net loss before NSD) since the last time CGC was here. It’s still pretty close to the 2010 class in terms of top end talent, but has a lot of quality depth. Which is encouraging.

And as mentioned above, now we see if this will equate to more wins. There’s examples of consistent Top 25/30 recruiting programs succeeding and then there’s examples of consistent Top 10 recruiting programs falling on their face (Tennessee).

CGC has made some gaffes this year in game. But he’s also still pretty new to the HC circle. I’m a lot more sold on Thacker than I am Patenaude. Key has confirmed a lot of street cred for me too watching a patchwork OL hold up decently towards the end of the season. Think there’s reason for hope without blind optimism.

Yeah but these comments were made alot more recently then 4-5 months ago

 

[BainbridgeJacket]

True, but it does not negate the fact.

What were his other offers to play QB?

 

[AlabamaBuzz]

Is there any reason to expect there's a way for one of the have nots in football to consistently break into the realm of the haves? I don't personally see it. I think the UCFs, Boises, etc. of the world can although will never reach the playoffs only because they play weak schedules so don't have to consistently beat the best and avoid as many upsets from quality but incomplete teams.

Face it. We play Clemson and UGA which for the foreseeable future are somewhere between 1/4 to 1/2 of the playoff picture. Our immediate goal to me should be getting to the top of the rest of the pack on our schedule, and we have the means to shoot for that. If we can get there, maybe we can take the leap. Look at Clemson under Dabo. People forget how much he was disparaged despite steadily climbing to regular 10 win seasons, especially because we were often competitive with them head to head. Suddenly his continual growth, investment in resources and facilities, and recruiting clicked into a dominant force.

We face more challenges in following those footsteps, and knowing what the right model is and executing it even without barriers is nowhere close to a guarantee. But we also have some things they don't. I personally don't expect to make it there, and I want to, and in second place want UGA to fall hard to the ground, but I'm not going to let those things most likely never manifesting keep me from enjoying the ride and a lot of reason to expect top-25+ success in the future.

Agree with basically all of this, but when Dabo "broke the glass ceiling" was when he recruited high level DL's, and that was my main point. For GT to make that large leap beyond just winning the Coastal (which we have done 5 times), we need to have these big nasties.

 

[SteamWhistle]

I was told by some “smart” people on here the recruiting class is the same as its always been. Were only ranked high bc we have way more then everyone else. It doesnt matter if we have the #1547 player in the nation thats 3 star or the #350 player in the nation thats 3 star, bc 3 star is a 3 star! Lmao

Yea it was funny the people pretending all 3 stars are alike and saying we are only top 25 because it’s the beginning of the class they are looking silly now, even if we lose Gibbs we finish top 25.

 

[SteamWhistle]

What were his other offers to play QB?

Had a few the other biggest one was probably Cincinnati.

 

[BainbridgeJacket]

Our 3 stars in this class have better offer sheets than some of the 4 stars we've gotten in the past. Do we even have a commit without at least two other P5 offers?

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

What were his other offers to play QB?

All his offers were to play QB. He didn't have a P5 offer except Tech. He was rated by Rivals as the #6 Dual Threat QB in the class. He was never rated as an athlete.

 

[Bogey]

I would like to add a few comments:
- I think this ATL is brilliant. It not only ties well into Atlanta, but fits well into what we want to be and looks after after our kids. Take any 17 or 18 year old that shows FB talent, no one can predict for sure how he will adapt to the speed and talent required to play P5 football. The ATL concept really conveys to our players the likely hood at an early stage of their chances to play P5 FB and gives the SA's meaningful data and an opportunity to make their own life decisions regarding their future.
- I was and still am a great fan of Bobby Dodd and how he treated his players so it was exciting for me to see the same in CGC. This will pay off tremendously with recruiting.
- I am impressed with the caliber of assistants that CGC has put together. I am particularly talking about Key, Thacker, and Choice. These guys would not be here risking their careers if they did not fully believe in CGC and his plans. And having an AD and coaches which have had previous ties to GT is huge and speaks well for us.
- Selling recruits on Tech by putting them first will be a major selling point, if not the most important, in attracting the type of SA's that we want and need. No matter if they ever become ATL, by serious effort and dedication in our program they can walk away from GT set for life (SFL) no matter which direction the football winds blow for them.


Sent from my ASUS_Z01RD using Tapatalk

 

[Bogey]

And as coach Dodd used to tell all the parents of his recruits: "Send me your good kid and I will send you back a better man."

Sent from my ASUS_Z01RD using Tapatalk

 

[stech81]

I would like to add a few comments:
- I think this ATL is brilliant. It not only ties well into Atlanta, but fits well into what we want to be and looks after after our kids. Take any 17 or 18 year old that shows FB talent, no one can predict for sure how he will adapt to the speed and talent required to play P5 football. The ATL concept really conveys to our players the likely hood at an early stage of their chances to play P5 FB and gives the SA's meaningful data and an opportunity to make their own life decisions regarding their future.
- I was and still am a great fan of Bobby Dodd and how he treated his players so it was exciting for me to see the same in CGC. This will pay off tremendously with recruiting.
- I am impressed with the caliber of assistants that CGC has put together. I am particularly talking about Key, Thacker, and Choice. These guys would not be here risking their careers if they did not fully believe in CGC and his plans. And having an AD and coaches which have had previous ties to GT is huge and speaks well for us.
- Selling recruits on Tech by putting them first will be a major selling point, if not the most important, in attracting the type of SA's that we want and need. No matter if they ever become ATL, by serious effort and dedication in our program they can walk away from GT set for life (SFL) no matter which direction the football winds blow for them.


Sent from my ASUS_Z01RD using Tapatalk

I'm not that crazy about the ATL thingy. Still see player on it that are injured and can't play and still see some ( not many) that are on it that don't get in unless I'm missing them. I like all the assistant coaches but still not happy with the OC. Need to see some Improvement from him next year, at least get the play in and not use timeouts to do it, we may need them next year.

 

[CuseJacket]

Our 3 stars in this class have better offer sheets than some of the 4 stars we've gotten in the past. Do we even have a commit without at least two other P5 offers?

Kootsouradis, Green, Spiers and Boyd, I believe

 

[SOWEGA Jacket]

Green is huge. Collins is taking calculated risks which GT needs to do until we get this thing built up. A guy like Green could be an absolute steal in a couple of years. If not, he’ll portal out to play at a lower level.

 

[Oldgoldandwhite]

. If y’all would stop trying to compare them we could all have some fun on here cheering for Tech again.

Amen!

 

[Deleted member 2897]

I posted it earlier on another thread, so I'm not going to look it up again, but we only have 4 commits on this roster rated 5.5 or lower. In the past its been just about half of our class. Anybody who says recruiting is similar to what its been is drunk. We're actually ranked #19 by Rivals right now after the latest rankings updates and #4 in the ACC. And hang on to your hats, because we're not done yet.

We currently have 1738 points. Each 5.8 we take (for example) drops a 5.4 and then 5.5s. So under that scenario, we would pick up 45 more points each.

I think we could very well finish north of 1900 points. We won't pick up many spots nationally with such a move, but it would keep the other teams behind us off our backs and cement a top 20-ish class.

We don't have to beat Clemson or Georgia to win 10 games a year. But if we're good enough to win 8-10 games, we'll start beating them every so often. There are only 3 ACC teams with higher rated recruiting classes than us right now. And the next team behind us is 250 points back. We do this for a couple years and we'll see the needle on the program move a big chunk.

 

[True2GT]

I posted it earlier on another thread, so I'm not going to look it up again, but we only have 4 commits on this roster rated 5.5 or lower. In the past its been just about half of our class. Anybody who says recruiting is similar to what its been is drunk. We're actually ranked #19 by Rivals right now after the latest rankings updates and #4 in the ACC. And hang on to your hats, because we're not done yet.

We currently have 1738 points. Each 5.8 we take (for example) drops a 5.4 and then 5.5s. So under that scenario, we would pick up 45 more points each.

I think we could very well finish north of 1900 points. We won't pick up many spots nationally with such a move, but it would keep the other teams behind us off our backs and cement a top 20-ish class.

We don't have to beat Clemson or Georgia to win 10 games a year. But if we're good enough to win 8-10 games, we'll start beating them every so often. There are only 3 ACC teams with higher rated recruiting classes than us right now. And the next team behind us is 250 points back. We do this for a couple years and we'll see the needle on the program move a big chunk.

Hope so. Need some big linemen first.

People forget that the needle for recruiting had been improving with the start of Todd's tenure at AD, thanks to more recruiting resources.

Until I see some big linemen, I'm not gonna be doing cartwheels like some on here are. We especially need bigger linemen on offense now that we are running the same stupid stuff as everyone else. Would love for CBK to bring in some big time o line guys like he said when he claimed recruiting at Tech was easier than BAMA.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Hope so. Need some big linemen first.

People forget that the needle for recruiting had been improving with the start of Todd's tenure at AD, thanks to more recruiting resources.

Until I see some big linemen, I'm not gonna be doing cartwheels like some on here are. We especially need bigger linemen on offense now that we are running the same stupid stuff as everyone else. Would love for CBK to bring in some big time o line guys like he said when he claimed recruiting at Tech was easier than BAMA.

Well then I guess you need to start doing some cartwheels. Because we have 6 OL commits. All 6 of them are 6'4" or taller. 2 are 6'6" or taller. 2 are over 300 lbs and the smallest is 270 lbs. We also have 3 DL commits greater than 240 lbs.

From what I can see, we are well committed in this area. We could use at least 1 true DT, but otherwise we're pretty close.

My biggest concern is at the LB position. Of our LBs who were on the field this year, only 1 was an LB in high school. Thats important (in my opinion), because an LB out of high school has likely spent several years growing up through football and learning all the nuances of that position and flows and reacts more naturally during play. We have 1 true LB commit right now, although I think 1 or 2 of the DEs might end up being a flex DE/LB. I think our LB play is a big opportunity for improvement on this team. And yes I realize 2 of our starters were eventually injured and out for the season.

 

[Heisman's Ghost]

I posted it earlier on another thread, so I'm not going to look it up again, but we only have 4 commits on this roster rated 5.5 or lower. In the past its been just about half of our class. Anybody who says recruiting is similar to what its been is drunk. We're actually ranked #19 by Rivals right now after the latest rankings updates and #4 in the ACC. And hang on to your hats, because we're not done yet.

We currently have 1738 points. Each 5.8 we take (for example) drops a 5.4 and then 5.5s. So under that scenario, we would pick up 45 more points each.

I think we could very well finish north of 1900 points. We won't pick up many spots nationally with such a move, but it would keep the other teams behind us off our backs and cement a top 20-ish class.

We don't have to beat Clemson or Georgia to win 10 games a year. But if we're good enough to win 8-10 games, we'll start beating them every so often. There are only 3 ACC teams with higher rated recruiting classes than us right now. And the next team behind us is 250 points back. We do this for a couple years and we'll see the needle on the program move a big chunk.

For the foreseeable future I would like to beat Duke, UNC, UVA, Virginia Tech and Miami then we move on to UGA and Clemson. First things, first. It will take major upgrades on both lines to be competitive with Clemson and UGA. That will take a while and involve much more effort in recruiting than what we have done in the past. Redshirting and player development in strength and conditioning will help with our linemen during the offseason but ultimately the true test will be how much of an upgrade will we see in recruiting linemen on both offense and defense. Serviceable to really pretty good receivers, safeties, and running backs are, while not a dime a dozen, are plentiful. Truly elite linemen are rare as hen's teeth. "Just win, baby"

 

[Heisman's Ghost]

Hope so. Need some big linemen first.

People forget that the needle for recruiting had been improving with the start of Todd's tenure at AD, thanks to more recruiting resources.

Until I see some big linemen, I'm not gonna be doing cartwheels like some on here are. We especially need bigger linemen on offense now that we are running the same stupid stuff as everyone else. Would love for CBK to bring in some big time o line guys like he said when he claimed recruiting at Tech was easier than BAMA.

"...when he claimed recruiting at Tech was easier than BAMA." Did he really say that? Do you think he meant it, or was he just yanking someone's chain? I find it hard to believe he was serious, but maybe he was. Perhaps, he was surprised by something in recruiting when he first got here. I don't know but I never thought of Tech as being some kind of Mecca for linemen although O'Leary seemed to have pretty good offensive lines when he was here.