Why do we have so many B-Backs?

[JacketFromUGA]

I think a comparison we should look at is a combination of RB and WR. We use our a-backs like other teams use their WR's so a combination number of both I htink we should be about equal. If not then we should have to look into why.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

There seems to a misconception that we don't recruit the right numbers of players at given positions. By way of comparison, I chose Clemson. Here is a breakdown of our scholarship numbers vs theirs:

Clemson GT
QB 5 4
RB/AB 5 8
FB/BB 0 6
WR 11 7
TE 6 0
OL 14 13
DL 15 17
LB 10 10
S 5 5
CB/DB 12 12
ST 3 3
Total 86 85

A few things of note. Our numbers are similar across the board. We recruit more RB's, but less WR/TE. Go figure. Also, note that Clemson has 86 players listed on their scholarship breakdown. Tigernet has one of those players listed as a greyshirt.

Moral of the story: Our coaches seem to know how to manage a roster.

 

[JacketFromUGA]

RB/AB 5 8
FB/BB 0 6
WR 11 7
TE 6 0

So combined that's Clemson with 22 and GT with 21. I think that's the way to compare our # of offensive skill guys.

 

[Oldgoldandwhite]

Well, I take it back. Just found the season stats and he averaged four yards a clip. I am amazed because I swear I never saw more than two. I thought.

The first two games helped a lot.

 

[SidewalkJacket]

RB/AB 5 8
FB/BB 0 6
WR 11 7
TE 6 0

So combined that's Clemson with 22 and GT with 21. I think that's the way to compare our # of offensive skill guys.

Great point. Since we don't have TEs and only employ 2 WR 95% of the time, I think our overabundance of RBs makes sense.

 

[Skeptic]

There seems to a misconception that we don't recruit the right numbers of players at given positions. By way of comparison, I chose Clemson. Here is a breakdown of our scholarship numbers vs theirs:

Clemson GT
QB 5 4
RB/AB 5 8
FB/BB 0 6
WR 11 7
TE 6 0
OL 14 13
DL 15 17
LB 10 10
S 5 5
CB/DB 12 12
ST 3 3
Total 86 85

A few things of note. Our numbers are similar across the board. We recruit more RB's, but less WR/TE. Go figure. Also, note that Clemson has 86 players listed on their scholarship breakdown. Tigernet has one of those players listed as a greyshirt.

Moral of the story: Our coaches seem to know how to manage a roster.

Good search on the numbers. The only disproportionate one that I see is at WR. Except that in Tech's scheme, both Abacks on the field are also WRs on demand, so the eight might in fact be broken down further to say, six.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Good search on the numbers. The only disproportionate one that I see is at WR. Except that in Tech's scheme, both Abacks on the field are also WRs on demand, so the eight might in fact be broken down further to say, six.

You're slow but quick.

 

[Techster]

Regarding high numbers at certain positions, something the coaches understand but won't acknowledge in public: Not all the players they recruit will develop the way they hope, and they also factor in for eventual attrition. That's not just at GT, that's at all schools.

As fans, we watch a guy's highlight tape and get excited about them, but as good as they may look on tape it doesn't always work out the way we hope. So as coaches, they just recruit the best players possible and let them play. The best ones will play, and the others will have to make the best of the situation or leave. At least at GT, you'll get the opportunity to finish your degree if that's what you want...unlike some of the other schools (Tennessee...ahem...)

 

[dressedcheeseside]

I think there also should be some consideration to depth of class as opposed to just plain depth. We need guys evenly spread out through the classes due to our higher than average time to mastery issue.

There are advantages and disadvantages to running a unique offense designed around precision and timing. One of the disadvantages is how much time is required to master the nuances and the entirety of the playbook as well as developing chemistry with teammates.

Because of this, we need guys in each class working their way up through the ranks cutting their teeth, so to speak. We know all to well what happens when we are forced to throw freshmen into the fire, no matter how physically gifted.

Also, we tend to sign guys who need physical development or are projects or even reaches. All of these reasons point to the need to carry high numbers of skill guys. I find it surprising that our skill guy numbers are actually less than Clemson's. (25 vs 27 if you include qb's)

 

[Jacket prime]

I think there also should be some consideration to depth of class as opposed to just plain depth. We need guys evenly spread out through the classes due to our higher than average time to mastery issue.

This is probably the thing that concerns me more. Our numbers at B back generally look ok to me, but we're awfully heavy on the Freshman and Sophomores. I'm excited by the potential of some of these guys, but I think it will really be fall before we know who is going to live up to the hype.

 

[Skeptic]

You're slow but quick.

Just my luck, when we are looking for speed outside, I am designated quick. The stigma will remain.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

There are advantages and disadvantages to running a unique offense designed around precision and timing. One of the disadvantages is how much time is required to master the nuances and the entirety of the playbook as well as developing chemistry with teammates.

Part of me has debated whether to start a different thread on this point.

My question would be to get everyone's assessment of how realistic CPJ is in understanding how long it takes for his running backs to understand and master the system to the extent that the offense will be effective. It seems like CPJ's first few years it did not matter that running backs did not know every nuance of the system because opposing teams were just so lost when it came to understanding how to defend against this offense.

Now it seems the offense requires that everyone in the backfield needs to be at maximum efficiency and our best running backs have been those who have had a few years apprenticeship before breaking out as upper classmen. I love our talent for next year but I am trying to figure out what a realistic expectation is with regard to how fast they learn the system and how long it will be before they can play all aspects of the offense at full speed without making mistakes.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Part of me has debated whether to start a different thread on this point.

My question would be to get everyone's assessment of how realistic CPJ is in understanding how long it takes for his running backs to understand and master the system to the extent that the offense will be effective. It seems like CPJ's first few years it did not matter that running backs did not know every nuance of the system because opposing teams were just so lost when it came to understanding how to defend against this offense.

Now it seems the offense requires that everyone in the backfield needs to be at maximum efficiency and our best running backs have been those who have had a few years apprenticeship before breaking out as upper classmen. I love our talent for next year but I am trying to figure out what a realistic expectation is with regard to how fast they learn the system and how long it will be before they can play all aspects of the offense at full speed without making mistakes.

I think there are a few factors that determine effectiveness.

The opposition is one. How talented and/or experienced they are vs our scheme. Teams that have played us every year the last 7 yrs have the advantage of having players and coaches with experience against us. That is no small advantage, believe me.

Then there's the OL. A great OL can take a lot of pressure off the skill guys, even younger, less experienced ones.

Then there are the skill guys themselves. Hopefully every skill unit is not chock full of newbies.

Last yr was a perfect storm of newbies in every skill unit plus an underachieving OL. Not a recipe for success.

 

[Milwaukee]

Again, using Clemson as comparison, we are in line. Last year Clemson had 15 scholarship DL. We had 14.

Good post, and good to know. The massive numbers of B-backs just alarmed me. Thanks for that info though; the coaches know more about filling the roster than I do that's for sure. I was just throwing the question out there.

 

[awbuzz]

There seems to a misconception that we don't recruit the right numbers of players at given positions. By way of comparison, I chose Clemson. Here is a breakdown of our scholarship numbers vs theirs:

Clemson GT
QB 5 4
RB/AB 5 8
FB/BB 0 6
WR 11 7
TE 6 0
OL 14 13
DL 15 17
LB 10 10
S 5 5
CB/DB 12 12
ST 3 3
Total 86 85

A few things of note. Our numbers are similar across the board. We recruit more RB's, but less WR/TE. Go figure. Also, note that Clemson has 86 players listed on their scholarship breakdown. Tigernet has one of those players listed as a greyshirt.

Moral of the story: Our coaches seem to know how to manage a roster.

Darn facts

 

[chewybaka]

I would argue the perception was exactly wrong. Last year we had 14 OL on scholarship. By way of comparison, Clemson, who had a pretty successful season, had 14 scholarship OL as well.

Please continue your thought for the defensive line...

 

[chewybaka]

Darn facts

Add the per class breakdown not just numbers...very imbalanced which killed us last year when Gotsis went down...

 

[AE 87]

Add the per class breakdown not just numbers...very imbalanced which killed us last year when Gotsis went down...

That's because the 2013 class et al blew up in us.

It seems people forget we signed some highly regarded DL that didn't cut it at Tech.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Add the per class breakdown not just numbers...very imbalanced which killed us last year when Gotsis went down...

While there is some merit to your concern, it's also something that is somewhat out of our control. CPJ has worked hard to balance the classes, but when you lose almost an entire class to unforeseen attrition, as happened to us a couple of years ago, then you have to make chicken salad out of you know what. Going forward, barring more catastrophic attrition rates within a single recruiting class coupled with unprecedented injuries, we should be better able to cope with the normal bumps and grinds of a season.

 

[FatPat]

Some keep disregarding the un-sung hero's-- we have many walk-ons prior to this class that have contributed and some pretty awesome ones coming in! Most of them could have went anywhere or elsewhere but, "want" the Tech Degree. Some of them will be our plug and play guys in the upcoming years.