Why we had a 7-6 record

[alaguy]

Since recruiting day is almost here I went back to look at the '10 class and I was stunned. it is amazing that we did as well last yr as we did with this SR class. .The number of little or non-contributors was high esp at the top end where you would think the greater pay-off would come.
Using Phil Steele's list and ratings(a composite of several recr services ratings)-

L Young- 32 (which is the ranking in US by position)- maybe worst as Sr than as Jr ,nuf said
Ryan Ayers-40--transfer
D McCoy- 43-hurt,no return
Bostic- 45 as DB--small contributor so far
Perkins- 56-small contributor so far
A Williams-73-little help-now off team
I Johnson-86-avg player so far but starter til hurt -Sr to be
Holton-93-nothing
S Green-115-limited contributor so far
M Bailey-116- mr.HURT!
J Att-121- tremendous contributor
S Days-122- avg contributor so far,may be starter
Q Neely-128-solid player and may be all-conf in final yr
J skole-baseball
C Alford-183- almost nothing,gone
D Hill-260- contributor and may be solid starter this yr
T Zenon-356- better than 356 but not by much so far,a perfect example of giving a late scholly to another small Aback instead of an OL(notice 2 only OLs) or DLman of which we were somewhat short this yr-several people called this when it happened-lets see if it happens again this yr
J Moore-22 as kicker-avg contributor

so basically we got 2 guys (JAtt ,Neely)out of class so far that played at close to all-conf level,which we would need for a 8+ win team

 

[Bigb]

Recruiting will be Johnson's downfall. I don't think the 2010 class is any different really than his other classes including the current one.

 

[Techster]

They say if you can get 30-40% of a recruiting class to contribute, you've done well. When recruiting, there will be more misses than hits. Just look at our vaunted 2007 class.

That's why you want to rely on scouting, and player development. To me, that's what our staff has lacked much more than recruiting the star guys.

 

[ybeenormal]

Hopefully CTR and co. will help in the development department going forward

 

[collegeballfan]

Recruiting will be Johnson's downfall. I don't think the 2010 class is any different really than his other classes including the current one.

Johnson is recruiting as well or better than the previous 8 head coaches.

That said, I agree that recruiting at GT is a problem. GT has not recruited at a top 25 level, with the 2007 exception, in over 40 years. There is more at play here than recruiting ability, which we have discussed ad nausea-um.

 

[SecretAgentBuzz]

You make a good point--we got little out a class of recruits that should have been leading this year. It doesn't tell the whole story of why we went 7-6, but it was at least a factor.

Some of you might not like this...but a lot of these misses are not CPJ's fault. I am not saying everything is rosy and he is the world's most awesomest recruiter, but can you really blame McCoy, Holton, and Bailey (3 really talented guys) on CPJ and the coaching staff? No, you can't. Sometimes these things just happen.

With our limitations, in order to be successful, we need to hit on a higher percentage than most other teams. We don't have the leeway to "miss" on a bunch of guys and still be effective like some other schools do. So, we need top-notch scouting and development. FWIW, I think CPJ (and Roof, too) is a very good judge of talent. We just have little to no room for players who don't develop or get injured.

 

[Techster]

Johnson is recruiting as well or better than the previous 8 head coaches.

Maybe, maybe not. At the end of the day, the ultimate judge for me of how well a coach recruits is wins and losses.

 

[takethepoints]

The problem here is that soooo many of these young men were injured severely enough to either put them out of the game or greatly reduce their playing time. And it showed up mainly in the OL/DL where we needed players to come through: McCoy (looked like a potentially great one), Bailey (same story), Green (he's looked good to great when he's been healthy). Throw in Holton, who was the safety everyone counted on, and things went very badly on the injury front for this class. That, imho, doesn't have beans to do with recruiting. All the players above were highly sought after by major programs and we got them. Then they had stupendous levels of bad luck.

Every recruiting class has players who don't pan out and it is difficult to predict who they will be. This particular class had problems that really had nothing to do with their willingness or ability to play. I don't think that says too much of anything about our recruiting.

 

[Techster]

The problem here is that soooo many of these young men were injured severely enough to either put them out of the game or greatly reduce their playing time. And it showed up mainly in the OL/DL where we needed players to come through: McCoy (looked like a potentially great one), Bailey (same story), Green (he's looked good to great when he's been healthy). Throw in Holton, who was the safety everyone counted on, and things went very badly on the injury front for this class. That, imho, doesn't have beans to do with recruiting. All the players above were highly sought after by major programs and we got them. Then they had stupendous levels of bad luck.

Every recruiting class has players who don't pan out and it is difficult to predict who they will be. This particular class had problems that really had nothing to do with their willingness or ability to play. I don't think that says too much of anything about our recruiting.

Injuries happen. Good recruiting will take care of that with depth and player development...getting the next guy ready to slot into the injured players spot.

 

[collegeballfan]

Maybe, maybe not. At the end of the day, the ultimate judge for me of how well a coach recruits is wins and losses.

That is what I am talking about - wins and losses. But wins and losses start with the talent available. Consider the numbers:

The last 3 coaches are 143 - 97 - 0. The previous 6 coaches were 146 - 156- -8. Including the Heisman years GT through today has won 59% of its games.
Heisman and Dodd won at over 70% - but that was a long time ago. GOL, CG and PJ have won at 60%.

Since 1966 no GT coach has won at a 71% rate.

I do not believe we want to say that GT has had poor coaching and that is the bottom line.

Why has GT not had 3 top 25 recruiting classes in a row in over 50 years?

 

[gtdrew]

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...

 

[Techster]

That is what I am talking about - wins and losses. But wins and losses start with the talent available. Consider the numbers:

The last 3 coaches are 143 - 97 - 0. The previous 6 coaches were 146 - 156- -8. Including the Heisman years GT through today has won 59% of its games.
Heisman and Dodd won at over 70% - but that was a long time ago. GOL, CG and PJ have won at 60%.

Since 1966 no GT coach has won at a 71% rate.

I do not believe we want to say that GT has had poor coaching and that is the bottom line.

Why has GT not had 3 top 25 recruiting classes in a row in over 50 years?

Considering they really only ranked recruiting classes since the early 2000's, there's not much to go by.

Also keep in mind, between 70's and 80's, during the post SEC years, GT was in no man's land. I brought it up in another thread, but not being affiliated with a strong conference like the SEC and ACC really set our program back during those 2 decades.

Is it a coincidence that Ross, O'Leary, to a certain extent Gailey, and now CPJ have had more sustained success than their counter parts during the 70's and 80's?

Anyhow, back to the topic, O'Leary and Ross had some really stout classes that were the backbone of the National Championship team and the Joe Hamilton teams. Recruiting services weren't nearly as sophisticated as they are now, but if you look at the biography of the guys on those teams you'll be amazed at the caliber of recruits they were in High School.

 

[daBuzz]

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.

 

[daBuzz]

Considering they really only ranked recruiting classes since the early 2000's, there's not much to go by.

Also keep in mind, between 70's and 80's, during the post SEC years, GT was in no man's land. I brought it up in another thread, but not being affiliated with a strong conference like the SEC and ACC really set our program back during those 2 decades.

Is it a coincidence that Ross, O'Leary, to a certain extent Gailey, and now CPJ have had more sustained success than their counter parts during the 70's and 80's?

Anyhow, back to the topic, O'Leary and Ross had some really stout classes that were the backbone of the National Championship team and the Joe Hamilton teams. Recruiting services weren't nearly as sophisticated as they are now, but if you look at the biography of the guys on those teams you'll be amazed at the caliber of recruits they were in High School.

The 70's perhaps, but we joined the ACC in 1978 so you cannot say the 80's was no-man's land.

 

[Techster]

The 70's perhaps, but we joined the ACC in 1978 so you cannot say the 80's was no-man's land.

You are correct.

I think it took GT some years to recover after joining the ACC. It's not like GT didn't have any success during the 80's, but we were still getting our financial footing back.

 

[jacketup]

Two words: Homer Rice. Maybe four: Homer Rice, Kim King

The program was on an upward trajectory in the 80's under Rice, and was solid in the 90's--- save one burp that was quickly corrected. Homer left with the program on solid financial footing---that was quickly destroyed by Braine, and not improved by Radakovich.

The trend now is a downward one, but not yet like the 70's. Bobinski has a tough job ahead of him. I don't blame him for going slow--that's a good long term approach. But, we are about to start year 2 of his regime, and demonstrated improvement must start.

 

[wuzjrbuzz]

Yeah, I was looking at the 2010 class the other day, pretty big whiff.

 

[gtdrew]

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.

As someone who's worked for a recruiting service, I can assure you recruiting rankings have FAR more to do with what schools sell the most subscriptions than who's getting the best kids.

We've rehashed this to death, but there are about 100 kids nationwide who are difference makers immediately. The rest are kids who will go one way or another based on a myriad of factors. Strength & Conditioning programs and recruiting to a system are as important, if not more, than how many stars are next to a kids name...

 

[Boomergump]

As someone who's worked for a recruiting service, I can assure you recruiting rankings have FAR more to do with what schools sell the most subscriptions than who's getting the best kids.

We've rehashed this to death, but there are about 100 kids nationwide who are difference makers immediately. The rest are kids who will go one way or another based on a myriad of factors. Strength & Conditioning programs and recruiting to a system are as important, if not more, than how many stars are next to a kids name...

Thank You, Finally! Somebody from the inside. Programs usually rise and fall slowly over time. That gives the tail plenty of time to wag the dog in terms of recruiting rankings. Just give the higher rankings to teams enjoying the current ride. How wrong can you be? I guarantee you, teams like Bammer and FSU and Allbarn will have highly ranked classes for a few years unless the bloom goes off their rose very quickly. Also, has a team like UTENN ever had a badly ranked class? IDK, but with the number of subscriptions they have, I would doubt it. Whatever happens, gotta keep subscribers on the hook.

Oh, and Yes, our 2010 class has turned out badly. This is when you measure such things. Not in Feb 2010.

 

[gtdrew]

I don't doubt that schools like Alabama and FSU usually get the best talent, but it's because they are the best at identifying who is going to best fit their system. They also use their commitment to facilities, S&C, dietary services, et al to turn freshmen with tons of promise into NFL players.