Why we had a 7-6 record

[TheSilasSonRising]

This will relate to the other recruiting thread and not signing full allotment of "qualified " S/As.

I quickly counted, but looks like 6 from that class did not make it and left. Does that mean the coaches "ran them off"?

Nope, it means this staff has to recruit better and get more, better players.

Has nothing to do with running players off as many would like to whine about instead of holding the staff to their responsibilities .

And back when this class was signed I do not recall any of the GT recruiting experts saying it was a bad class.

 

[IronJacket7]

Well I put credit into star rankings. Star rankings are not a guarantee of success, nor is lack thereof a guarantee of failure.

But if you look at the teams that consistently are in the national championship hunt, they also tend to be the ones who are getting the highest recruiting marks as well.

this

 

[dressedcheeseside]

see post below.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

I don't think anybody argues that if you end up in the top ten to twenty in the recruiting rankings you don't have better players. What people are saying is that there is a TON of players who can make a big difference to a team that aren't in the cream of the crop. GT is not going to be in the top group, so pining about being there is a fool's errand.

We have to be better at evaluating the middle tier, getting them on campus and coaching them up. Notice I didn't say the diamonds in the rough, though getting some of them never hurt, either. We also need a couple of big timers at key positions, qb being of greatest need. A great qb on any of PJ's teams would have made a huge difference. Nesbitt has been the best, but I wouldn't even call him great.

 

[91Wreck]

That 2010 class is one of the biggest reason recruiting star rankings don't mean anything to me anymore. That was supposed to be a class full of guys who were difference-makers, and they turned into one of the most disappointing classes in school history...

No gtdrew, the 2010 class was not made up of difference makers. It was the 41st ranked class according to scout and the 43rd ranked class according to rivals. The problem is that we always hype our recruiting classes and turn them into something they aren't.

Case in point - Charles Perkins. When he was recruited I don't know how many times I heard about how how was the number one back in Ga. But when you look at his offers, the only big time offers were from us, Kentucky, and Wisconsin. None of the major teams in the southeast came knocking on his door. But many hyped him as the next great GT back when in reality he was just supposed to be an average back.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

No gtdrew, the 2010 class was not made up of difference makers. It was the 41st ranked class according to scout and the 43rd ranked class according to rivals. The problem is that we always hype our recruiting classes and turn them into something they aren't.

Case in point - Charles Perkins. When he was recruited I don't know how many times I heard about how how was the number one back in Ga. But when you look at his offers, the only big time offers were from us, Kentucky, and Wisconsin. None of the major teams in the southeast came knocking on his door. But many hyped him as the next great GT back when in reality he was just supposed to be an average back.

Denzel McCoy - Alabama, ND, LSU, FSU, Miami
Louis Young - Iowa, Stanford, VT
Shawn Green - Michigan State, Oklahoma State, FSU
Anthony Williams - FSU, Auburn
Ryan Ayers - Alabama, Auburn, Florida, UGA, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
Morgan Bailey - Clemson, UGA
Isaiah Johnson - UGA, Oklahoma State, Stanford

We had plenty of guys with factory offers in that class. We had a high level of attrition with this class. That is what people are saying. Listen to them.

 

[Techster]

No gtdrew, the 2010 class was not made up of difference makers. It was the 41st ranked class according to scout and the 43rd ranked class according to rivals. The problem is that we always hype our recruiting classes and turn them into something they aren't.

A lot of truth in that. If you look at our recruiting rankings, it pretty much mirrors where we've finished the season in the ensuing years. I would say it takes about 2-3 years AFTER a class is signed to see it's true impact. 2 years is best case scenario (see vaunted 2007 class). Since our staff likes to redshirt, it's more 3 years.

I think we have a solid class this year, there's a few nice pieces, but to me it's more of the same.

 

[91Wreck]

Not trying to start an argument with you cheese, but that does not appear what gtdrew was saying. He was saying the class was made up of difference makers that didn't pan out and that is why he doesn't believe in the rankings. He doesn't mention once anything about attrition.

Secondly - most schools recruit players that have big time offers to other schools. That is not abnormal. You just picked the seven guys for us that had big time offers. But other schools will have 2o plus guys like that because they know guys don't pan out. Having guys not pan out is not exception, it is the rule.

That is why I believe our strategy of only recruiting 17-20 guys a year and redshirting them is deeply flawed. I would rather recruit 25 two and three star guys and let them compete for spots. We are never again probably going to see a class like 2007. But even in that class there were multiple highly ranked guys that never saw significant time on the flats.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Not trying to start an argument with you cheese, but that does not appear what gtdrew was saying. He was saying the class was made up of difference makers that didn't pan out and that is why he doesn't believe in the rankings. He doesn't mention once anything about attrition.

Secondly - most schools recruit players that have big time offers to other schools. That is not abnormal. You just picked the seven guys for us that had big time offers. But other schools will have 2o plus guys like that because they know guys don't pan out. Having guys not pan out is not exception, it is the rule.

That is why I believe our strategy of only recruiting 17-20 guys a year and redshirting them is deeply flawed. I would rather recruit 25 two and three star guys and let them compete for spots. We are never again probably going to see a class like 2007. But even in that class there were multiple highly ranked guys that never saw significant time on the flats.

What do you mean by "other" schools, schools that recruit in the top 15? That's not us, it never was us, and it's never going to be us. Why harp on trying to be something that we're not and focus on how we can be successful being who we are? That's what I'm trying to do. Contrary to what some believe, I'm not one of those guys who's happy with mediocrity because of our unique challenges. I want us to succeed in spite of them AND think... hold onto your hat... it's possible.

To your last point, so you want to oversign, have tryouts and cut guys like the factories.... No thanks, not me.

 

[91Wreck]

Why were we 7-6? Because our team was comprised of classes that were ranked as follows:

2009 Scout (32) Rivals (49)
2010 Scout (41) Rivals (43)
2011 Scout (46) Rivals (41)
2012 Scout (59) Rivals (57)
2013 Scout (72) Rivals (85)

We can talk about attrition and a whole host of other excuses, but the reality is that we have only signed 71 players over the last four classes. When players don't pan out, like they do at every school, we don't have another guy to make up for it. We only have ourselves to blame. This is why most successful schools average signing 20 plus players every year.

 

[AE 87]

It's because we play on campus in midtown. We need to build a big stadium in Gwinnett.

 

[91Wreck]

What do you mean by "other" schools, schools that recruit in the top 15? That's not us, it never was us, and it's never going to be us. Why harp on trying to be something that we're not and focus on how we can be successful being who we are? That's what I'm trying to do. Contrary to what some believe, I'm not one of those guys who's happy with mediocrity because of our unique challenges. I want us to succeed in spite of them AND think... hold onto your hat... it's possible.

To your last point, so you want to oversign, have tryouts and cut guys like the factories.... No thanks, not me.

I want us to succeed as well. And I am really not sure how I feel about oversigning and cutting players. But let's have an honest discussion about it. Remember when you were a freshman at Tech and they told you to look to your right and then your left because one of the three of you won't graduate? Isn't one of the reasons we are all so proud of our degrees is that we were one of the survivors of this attrition? And don't you believe that it was perfectly OK for our fine Institute to tell kids to go home and not come back because they couldn't handle the academic rigors of Tech? But for some reason we can't apply those same standards to our football team?

And I want to be clear - I am not trying to be sarcastic with my post. I am really interested in your thoughts.

One final thing - we can sign 20-25 guys every year without cutting. Normal attrition will take care of the rest. Redshirting in my mind has not been the cure all to our recruiting problems. We are carrying guys for five years that never pan out.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

I want us to succeed as well. And I am really not sure how I feel about oversigning and cutting players. But let's have an honest discussion about it. Remember when you were a freshman at Tech and they told you to look to your right and then your left because one of the three of you won't graduate? Isn't one of the reasons we are all so proud of our degrees is that we were one of the survivors of this attrition? And don't you believe that it was perfectly OK for our fine Institute to tell kids to go home and not come back because they couldn't handle the academic rigors of Tech? But for some reason we can't apply those same standards to our football team?

And I want to be clear - I am not trying to be sarcastic with my post. I am really interested in your thoughts.

One final thing - we can sign 20-25 guys every year without cutting. Normal attrition will take care of the rest. Redshirting in my mind has not been the cure all to our recruiting problems. We are carrying guys for five years that never pan out.

25 guys a year is 100 guys in 4 years, we're only allowed 85. That means we have to subtract 15 guys every 4 years. That means 3.75 guys a year. That seems doable. However why would you do that when the vast majority of our players are way better in their 5 year than in their first? In a program that doesn't haul in blue chip talent, you must be able to develop kids and take advantage of guys who are playing as 22 yr olds instead of 18 yr olds, especially linemen.

Actually, I would not be opposed to telling every recruit, "if you sign with us, you have 2 yrs to prove your worth or your out on your ***." Good luck getting anybody to sign then. At least we'd be honest about it.

 

[91Wreck]

I think what I wouldn't be opposed to is telling a recruit, "we will give you a four year scholarship and redshirt you if we feel you need development, but getting the scholarship in year five is totally dependent on your worth to our team". I don't think we lose too many recruits with that strategy, and redshirting will be much more of a benefit for us rather than clogging up spots with guys that aren't helping us.

I would agree that redshirting helps in many cases, but I am just as sure we have carried guys for five years that have little or no impact.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

I think what I wouldn't be opposed to is telling a recruit, "we will give you a four year scholarship and redshirt you if we feel you need development, but getting the scholarship in year five is totally dependent on your worth to our team". I don't think we lose too many recruits with that strategy, and redshirting will be much more of a benefit for us rather than clogging up spots with guys that aren't helping us.

I would agree that redshirting helps in many cases, but I am just as sure we have carried guys for five years that have little or no impact.

I think most guys who haven't contributed in 4 years leave on their own. The way we speed up their academic track, most have graduated in 4 anyways.

 

[AE 87]

I think what I wouldn't be opposed to is telling a recruit, "we will give you a four year scholarship and redshirt you if we feel you need development, but getting the scholarship in year five is totally dependent on your worth to our team". I don't think we lose too many recruits with that strategy, and redshirting will be much more of a benefit for us rather than clogging up spots with guys that aren't helping us.

I would agree that redshirting helps in many cases, but I am just as sure we have carried guys for five years that have little or no impact.

Fwiw, I think that's what we pretty much do. I don't think we'll have a RS Sr not at least on the 2deep.

RS Srs will be iiuc Shawn Green, Q Neeley, D Hill, Perkins, Zenon, Bostic, S Days, I Johnson.

 

[gtdrew]

No gtdrew, the 2010 class was not made up of difference makers. It was the 41st ranked class according to scout and the 43rd ranked class according to rivals. The problem is that we always hype our recruiting classes and turn them into something they aren't.

Case in point - Charles Perkins. When he was recruited I don't know how many times I heard about how how was the number one back in Ga. But when you look at his offers, the only big time offers were from us, Kentucky, and Wisconsin. None of the major teams in the southeast came knocking on his door. But many hyped him as the next great GT back when in reality he was just supposed to be an average back.

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. That class had as many "stars" as any class we've had here. They didn't pan out. But some idiots will say that stars matter. That class is proof positive that they usually don't.

BTW, 46 guys in the Super Bowl were 2-Stars or unranked out of high school...

 

[Techster]

Maybe the discussion needs to be about identifying players better and developing them better rather than 4/5 stars.

 

[91Wreck]

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. That class had as many "stars" as any class we've had here. They didn't pan out. But some idiots will say that stars matter. That class is proof positive that they usually don't.

BTW, 46 guys in the Super Bowl were 2-Stars or unranked out of high school...

I may be wrong, but the facts are much more in my favor than yours. We may have had more stars than normal, but that class was still ranked in the 40's by both services. Granted there were only 18 signed in that class and that certainly is part of the reason for the low ranking. Some panned out and some didn't. When you only recruit 18 players and some don't pan out, you go 7-6. The reality is that class turn out to be exactly what it was supposed to - a mediocre class that led us to a mediocre record.

 

[daBuzz]

I'm not sure if I've posted it on this board before but I know I have on others.

I will say it. I HAVE ZERO PROBLEM WITH TAKING AWAY SCHOLARSHIPS FROM ATHLETES WHO DO NOT PRODUCE IN FOOTBALL. We do it every year in baseball. Baseball gets 11.7 scholarships. Each player receiving a scholarship must receive a minimum of .25 scholarship but it can (but rarely does) go all the way up to a full 1.0 scholarship.

Every single year, players sit down with the coach at the end of the season and their scholarships are either increased, decreased, left the same, or in some cases they don't receive scholarship money the next year.

I really don't get why everyone thinks football players should be treated differently at Tech than baseball players are treated. If a player doesn't produce, find some scholarship money from the "George Costanza Scholarship for Players with Broken Eyelashes" for a player but get him off the 85 man roster IF he wants to stay at Tech. If he still wants to play football somewhere, let him leave and even help him find a spot somewhere else.