Question About Recruiting Improvement

CiraldoForever

CiraldoForever

Damn Good Rat
Joined
Aug 15, 2014
Messages
1,135
This is not designed to criticize anybody or start an argument.

I thought we were really upgrading recruiting. Last year was a noticeable improvement in recruiting. However, since we signed the last class, it seems like every time I see a recruit, he's a three star. It doesn't seem too different from what the last staff did. I don't follow recruiting very closely, so please enlighten me. I know all programs find underrated players, and that's good. But, shouldn't there be more four and five stars, if we really are improving?

I'm sure the players we're recruiting are good young men and good athletes, and our coaches are working very hard, which I respect very much. But, we have spent lot of money on recruiting and sacrificed coaching quality, in my opinion, to emphasize recruiting. Are the results what you expected?
 
There are very few five star recruits out there. In a given year, there are only a few dozen. Where you’ll see improvement is an uptick in four star guys, and in the other schools being beat out for three star players. Better to beat out, just an example, South Carolina and NC State instead of East Carolina and App State.

Need to get the new Edge construction done too. Coaches can only do so much, even at the factories, without competitive amenities.
 
Class is tracking very similar to last year. I think a couple of our guys would be 4's in a normal year with camps and evaluators seeing guys in person. Look at position rankings, state rankings and offer lists.
 
upload_2020-6-6_13-58-14.gif
 
smokey_wasp said:
Class is tracking very similar to last year. I think a couple of our guys would be 4's in a normal year with camps and evaluators seeing guys in person. Look at position rankings, state rankings and offer lists.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your insight. I really want this coaching staff to be very successful. I see a lot of positive signs.
 
gtfan1147 said:
There are very few five star recruits out there. In a given year, there are only a few dozen. Where you’ll see improvement is an uptick in four star guys, and in the other schools being beat out for three star players. Better to beat out, just an example, South Carolina and NC State instead of East Carolina and App State.

Need to get the new Edge construction done too. Coaches can only do so much, even at the factories, without competitive amenities.
Click to expand...

Thank you. I do try to look to see who else was recruiting the players who commit to Tech. That's more important to me than how many stars a player has.

Also, I agree with you about the Edge construction. I just read Kim King's book last night. He has some interesting stories in there about how the original Edge center got funded. It took President Carter meeting in the Oval Office with Coach Dodd to get it started.
 
3* is a huge category, because there arent many 4 stars or 5 stars. So 3 star includes a bunch of dudes who could easily be 4s and a bunch of dudes who could easily be 2 star.

If you are pulling from the top or middle of the cohort it is way better than pulling from the bottom. Rivals stratifies the group with decimals 5.5 to 5.7 I think. And who else offers, quality of film/competition, measureables, and production are also indicators.

I doubt we have a top 20 class but should end up in 20s or 30s which is very good historically for GT.

Also like that we are hitting our targets in the trenches early. Very good sign IMO.
.
 
ElTechelero said:
3* is a huge category, because there arent many 4 stars or 5 stars. So 3 star includes a bunch of dudes who could easily be 4s and a bunch of dudes who could easily be 2 star.

If you are pulling from the top or middle of the cohort it is way better than pulling from the bottom. Rivals stratifies the group with decimals 5.5 to 5.7 I think. And who else offers, quality of film/competition, measureables, and production are also indicators.

I doubt we have a top 20 class but should end up in 20s or 30s which is very good historically for GT.

Also like that we are hitting our targets in the trenches early. Very good sign IMO.
.
Click to expand...

Thanks. People's responses to my question have been helpful to me. Everybody has made excellent points.
 
Another thing to look at is the size of the recruits.

Blackstrain - WR - 6-2, 180
Peery - QB - 6-3, 215
Blackburn - TE - 6-5, 217
Leftwich - OT - 6-6, 302
Richey - OG - 6-5, 291
Biggers - DT - 6-6. 325

There are other, I just didn't feel like typing everything out. This is going to pay dividends for us, especially in the trenches. You can't teach a guy to be 6'6", and from what I've seen Caralla is really good at teaching those guys to be 320+ pounds the right way.

It's not the only factor, but it's important.
 
CiraldoForever said:
This is not designed to criticize anybody or start an argument.

I thought we were really upgrading recruiting. Last year was a noticeable improvement in recruiting. However, since we signed the last class, it seems like every time I see a recruit, he's a three star. It doesn't seem too different from what the last staff did. I don't follow recruiting very closely, so please enlighten me. I know all programs find underrated players, and that's good. But, shouldn't there be more four and five stars, if we really are improving?

I'm sure the players we're recruiting are good young men and good athletes, and our coaches are working very hard, which I respect very much. But, we have spent lot of money on recruiting and sacrificed coaching quality, in my opinion, to emphasize recruiting. Are the results what you expected?
Click to expand...


Repost.

cc: @Diseqc
 
I would ask CiraldoForever how, exactly, did the recruit in question get the rating in the first place. You've been around for too long not to know how this works. If you look at the actual athletes we have commitments from and can't see past the star rating then I recommend waiting until signing day before passing judgement on this recruiting class.
 
Compared to most here I am not one with a good grasp on recruiting.

But I have to believe all the covid issues, no h.s. spring ball, etc that scouting / recruiting is different this year.

Due to that i am more curious than ever who else our commits got offers from.

But looking at the range/size of our recruits i gotta believe we are heading up.
 
Everyone also needs to understand that the factory schools tend to offer later. Our strategy is to offer earlier to lock up the guys we really want before the factory school offer comes in.

So it is not shocking that some of the kids we like don't have factory offers. If the factory knows he's solid to GT, they may not offer at all just to keep their rejection rate down.

There are a lot of dynamics at play here and with signing day nine months away, the only real measure is what GT thinks and not what you think the factory thinks.
 
CiraldoForever said:
This is not designed to criticize anybody or start an argument.

I thought we were really upgrading recruiting. Last year was a noticeable improvement in recruiting. However, since we signed the last class, it seems like every time I see a recruit, he's a three star. It doesn't seem too different from what the last staff did. I don't follow recruiting very closely, so please enlighten me. I know all programs find underrated players, and that's good. But, shouldn't there be more four and five stars, if we really are improving?

I'm sure the players we're recruiting are good young men and good athletes, and our coaches are working very hard, which I respect very much. But, we have spent lot of money on recruiting and sacrificed coaching quality, in my opinion, to emphasize recruiting. Are the results what you expected?
Click to expand...
Valid question, but I trust the staff's evaluation. If we offered these guys this early, we obviously want them (as do many other big schools).

I think most here know how big of a CPJ fanboy I am, but it's pretty obvious to me that our recruiting has improved dramatically. CGC's culture change has had a positive impact that is fun to watch.
 
1. Thank you for the question. It’s a good topic to discuss here.

2. Thank you to everyone else for answering like adults without accusations, arguments, name calling, or references to OP’s mother.
 
gtphd said:
1. Thank you for the question. It’s a good topic to discuss here.

2. Thank you to everyone else for answering like adults without accusations, arguments, name calling, or references to OP’s mother.
Click to expand...
No reason to mention OP's mom.

It's tacky to do that when you are in line at YOUR mom's house.
 
gtphd said:
1. Thank you for the question. It’s a good topic to discuss here.

2. Thank you to everyone else for answering like adults without accusations, arguments, name calling, or references to OP’s mother.
Click to expand...
OP's mom, bless her heart, ain't no where nears your mom.
 
LaFlavor said:
Another thing to look at is the size of the recruits.

Blackstrain - WR - 6-2, 180
Peery - QB - 6-3, 215
Blackburn - TE - 6-5, 217
Leftwich - OT - 6-6, 302
Richey - OG - 6-5, 291
Biggers - DT - 6-6. 325

There are other, I just didn't feel like typing everything out. This is going to pay dividends for us, especially in the trenches. You can't teach a guy to be 6'6", and from what I've seen Caralla is really good at teaching those guys to be 320+ pounds the right way.

It's not the only factor, but it's important.
Click to expand...

Thank you very much. People like you are giving me a better understanding of how to evaluate our recruiting. I have been a Tech fan a long time, but I didn't understand how to evaluate recruiting as well as many younger fans do, so these answers are very helpful to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top