Jordan Yates

User 10337

Guest
Joined
Oct 9, 2012
Messages
0
Both of the last 2 Heisman winners are QBs shorter than Jordan Yates. One just went #1 overall in the NFL Draft, and the other will probably be top 10 in the next draft. I think he'll be fine at 6'1.
He’s 5’11 according to a few sites.
I’m not saying it can’t be done. All I’m saying is the staff isn’t aiming for that in future QB recruits.
 

Jerry the Jacket

Jolly Good Fellow
Joined
Sep 18, 2002
Messages
1,641
As Barry Manilow would say "Looks like we made it". Finally got us a Four star. Now we can feel completed.

Go Jackets!
 

TechRush

Dodd-Like
Joined
Oct 22, 2011
Messages
6,936
Well damn, if Georgia Tech is looking for a 6-foot four pocket passer then maybe we should have hired The Whiz!
 

User 10337

Guest
Joined
Oct 9, 2012
Messages
0
I dont know jack on the specifics for Yates, but I need to add a fact. The top QBs today are absolutely capable of playing at a D1 level including reading defenses on day 1. This is a big change from even a decade ago. The QB instruction at top high schools has made huge strides but more important is the QB academies and personal QB trainers that are being paid to develop these kids much earlier than previously.
It’s been that way for at least 10 years.
 

BainbridgeJacket

F*** Joe Biden
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
16,011
Lots of autism spectrum in this thread...

1) This bump is their latest revision reflecting late season and playoff performance. He played his way to this bump, it's not anything related to coaching change on our end.
2) It's fine to target tall QBs going forward. They're typically more successful. How is that idea even remotely controversial? Just because there are exceptions doesn't mean we should base strategy off of that fact.
 

GTCrew

Patrick Henry
Joined
Jul 25, 2002
Messages
49,873
It’s been that way for at least 10 years.
Perhaps, but not much more than that with occasional exceptions (most always coaches' kids or former pro QB's kids). It is a lot more prominant now. There are a lot more HS kids being heavily groomed and invested in.
 

GTCrew

Patrick Henry
Joined
Jul 25, 2002
Messages
49,873
2) It's fine to target tall QBs going forward. They're typically more successful. How is that idea even remotely controversial? Just because there are exceptions doesn't mean we should base strategy off of that fact.
I think people are just being realistic, because tall spectacular QBs are extremely rare. With our new staff we are going to shoot for 'em. Crossing our fingers. Odds however are more toward us having 6 ft qbs.
 

TampaBayJacket

Dodd-Like
Joined
Feb 26, 2009
Messages
4,258
He’s 5’11 according to a few sites.
I’m not saying it can’t be done. All I’m saying is the staff isn’t aiming for that in future QB recruits.
There's a 5'9" heisman trophy winner and future first round pick that demonstrates QB requirements are evolving. While under 6' will always be at a disadvantage compared to the 6'6 Trevor Lawrence specimens, they can still have a great college career and are no longer below a glass floor barrier into the NFL. Joe Ham had no chance in the league 20 years ago. Joe Ham in 2019 would at least be given a decent look.
 

MeatWrench

Holder of all Moon records
Joined
Dec 30, 2008
Messages
6,912
There's a 5'9" heisman trophy winner and future first round pick that demonstrates QB requirements are evolving. While under 6' will always be at a disadvantage compared to the 6'6 Trevor Lawrence specimens, they can still have a great college career and are no longer below a glass floor barrier into the NFL. Joe Ham had no chance in the league 20 years ago. Joe Ham in 2019 would at least be given a decent look.
Let’s see if he performs or not before we go touting sub 6’ QBs in the NFL
 

GoGATech

Big Dummy
Joined
Aug 26, 2008
Messages
11,811
Lots of autism spectrum in this thread...

1) This bump is their latest revision reflecting late season and playoff performance. He played his way to this bump, it's not anything related to coaching change on our end.
The point is there have already been point revisions since the playoffs and he didn't get the bump until now, when our new coaching staff has been announced. So why now and not then?
 

ncjacket

Dodd-Like
Joined
Jun 17, 2002
Messages
14,639
The point is there have already been point revisions since the playoffs and he didn't get the bump until now, when our new coaching staff has been announced. So why now and not then?
So do people seriously think that there are enough Tech fans to move the needle on recruiting site revenue? If it’s that important to you why not post a question on the recruiting board you are interested in?
 

BainbridgeJacket

F*** Joe Biden
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
16,011
The point is there have already been point revisions since the playoffs and he didn't get the bump until now, when our new coaching staff has been announced. So why now and not then?
They do groups of recruits in each revision. He wasn't included in the previous revisions. Can you provide any evidence that he was reevaluated between the playoffs and this revision?
 

johncu

Dodd-Like
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
9,557
I have no issue whatsoever with tall QBs, and I agree that height is an advantage. But so is mobility. I'd rather have a 5'10 QB that can run than a 6'5 QB that is a statue, if their arm strength and accuracy is the same. Look at our starting QBs since Joe Ham:

Marshall - 5'10
Thomas - 5'10
Lee - 6'1
Washington - 6'0
Nesbitt - 6'1
Bennett - 6'3
Ball - 5'11
Suggs - 6'4
Godsey - 6'2
Hamilton - 5'10

Arguably the 2 best QB's we've had in the modern era were both 5'10. We only had 2 QB's taller than 6'2, and they were the worst QB's we've had in at least 25 years. I just don't understand the fascination with a big QB, especially with our current personnel and our OC's expressed desire to run "multiple" systems. A QB that can't run dramatically reduces what you can do on offense in this day and age. I know tall =/= slow, but there's definitely a correlation.
 

TampaBayJacket

Dodd-Like
Joined
Feb 26, 2009
Messages
4,258
Let’s see if he performs or not before we go touting sub 6’ QBs in the NFL
Yeah I agree. I'm actually not sold on him but I'm intrigued to see if a 5'9, slightly-built, QB can play in the NFL. Russell Wilson is not a good comparison because he is thickly built and has abnormally large hands for his size. Plus, RW was a 4-year starter with a lot of tape to verify he could play at a sustained level.
 

GSOJacket

Varsity Lurker
Joined
May 20, 2016
Messages
111
I have no issue whatsoever with tall QBs, and I agree that height is an advantage. But so is mobility. I'd rather have a 5'10 QB that can run than a 6'5 QB that is a statue, if their arm strength and accuracy is the same. Look at our starting QBs since Joe Ham:

Marshall - 5'10
Thomas - 5'10
Lee - 6'1
Washington - 6'0
Nesbitt - 6'1
Bennett - 6'3
Ball - 5'11
Suggs - 6'4
Godsey - 6'2
Hamilton - 5'10

Arguably the 2 best QB's we've had in the modern era were both 5'10. We only had 2 QB's taller than 6'2, and they were the worst QB's we've had in at least 25 years. I just don't understand the fascination with a big QB, especially with our current personnel and our OC's expressed desire to run "multiple" systems. A QB that can't run dramatically reduces what you can do on offense in this day and age. I know tall =/= slow, but there's definitely a correlation.
Actually I doubt either Hamilton or Thomas was 5'10". We say height is an advantage, but the shorter, more athletic guys also have an advantage. They can run, and they don't have to be in an option oriented offense for this to matter (e.g., Russell Wilson).
 

texstinger

Dodd-Like
Joined
Jul 12, 2002
Messages
8,816
Let's wait a bit and see what develops. I remember seeing Fran Tarkenton in the Tech-Georgia freshman game many years ago. Tarkenton was basically a running QB at that point, barely adequate passer.

Remember who GT frosh QB was by any chance?
 
Top