We, including myself, thought that our cupboard was pretty full, after reading the top 170 or so NFL picks, it's possible that CG came in with a cupboard that in fact was pretty well empty. That may have been one of the reasons that O'gone opted for ND. So until we can restock the cupboard TECH may be in for some tough times. Not making excuses for CG or anyone else it seems to me that we are expecting miracles where none may exist. We have to rebuild our reputation as the cream of the crop and go from there. I do however, expect CG to make better use of the existing talent and just getting plain meaner on the O and the D.
Cupboard full
- Thread starter oldfoggy
- Start date
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">How many players the NFL drafts from a college team has very little to do with the overall talent level.
The talent level at Ga Tech had nothing to do with Coach O'leary taking what many people consider the dream job in college coaching.
The talent level of the players at Ga Tech is just fine.
The talent level of the coaches is the problem.
The light at the end of the tunnel appears to be a train coming. It didn't have to be this way.
MsTech,
Your central point is correct.
The number of players in the NFL from a given college team is not a barometer of the overall talent level, or the overall success rate, of that college team.
A good example is Joe Hamilton versus QUITsey Carter. Any ugag fan would tell you back then that QUITsey was better than Joe because he was going to play pro ball.
Is there anyone on earth that thinks that QUITsey was a better college QB than Joe?
Case closed.
Your central point is correct.
The number of players in the NFL from a given college team is not a barometer of the overall talent level, or the overall success rate, of that college team.
A good example is Joe Hamilton versus QUITsey Carter. Any ugag fan would tell you back then that QUITsey was better than Joe because he was going to play pro ball.
Is there anyone on earth that thinks that QUITsey was a better college QB than Joe?
Case closed.
MsTechAnalysis
Jolly Good Fellow
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2002
- Messages
- 1,816
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">BW: I remember a UGAG fan telling me that he would rather have a tall NFL type like Quincy then a midget like Joe!!!! I told him if we had ll midgets and we beat you - WHO CARES!!! And we did!!
We cannot depreciate the importance of coaching. Bear Bryant was famous for his saying "I can take our'n and beat your'n and I can take Your'n and beat our'n and I'm convinced he was right. I remember when Vince Dooley came to UGA and took a bunch of losers recruited by Johnny Griffith and
immediately started winning including beating Michigan at Ann Arbor, Michigan. The only coaching experience Dooley had before taking the UGA job was Freshman coach at Auburn and not even the great Dodd was ever able to beat him. Those are facts. It wasn't a matter of rebuilding for a few years but he won as soon as he got there.
That is what exceptional coaches do.
immediately started winning including beating Michigan at Ann Arbor, Michigan. The only coaching experience Dooley had before taking the UGA job was Freshman coach at Auburn and not even the great Dodd was ever able to beat him. Those are facts. It wasn't a matter of rebuilding for a few years but he won as soon as he got there.
That is what exceptional coaches do.
Ahso, I disagree! A team is not always the mirror image of it's coaching. If that were true then many of our players under the Fridge, O'Gone would have gone to the pros. Remember most of the players under CG were O'Gones players. However, if you have good players a few (not even all the Bears players went pro) year end year out would make the grade if not 1st or 2nd round then in the 3rd, 4th or possible in the lower rounds. Lets see if I count right over 170 players projected to be drafted 30 or so teams thats better than 5 rounds of picks not one (Tech) no not one was listed as being in the top 170. So my assertion that our cupboard was pretty bare stands until someone can prove definatively(sp?) that the cupboard was in fact well stocked. Sure there were a few games we might have won with better coaching and conditioning but beat UGa no way, Md no way, FSU maybe, Clemson yes, FState yes, probably WF but they did take us to the wood shed on conditioning. BUT prove definatively that we could have won four or 5 more with our talent.
ramblinwise1
beware the zealot
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2001
- Messages
- 18,349
According to insiders here is a sample of teams with the number of players on NFL rosters....
Ga Tech 15
Nebraska 34
FSU 41
UGa 38
Duke 8
Looks like a pretty good correlation between NFL players and college success to me. What this shows is that GT has actually overachieved some relative to talent in the last 7 years, while UGA probably has underachieved. I would credit this to Friedgen and Donnan, respectively.
Ga Tech 15
Nebraska 34
FSU 41
UGa 38
Duke 8
Looks like a pretty good correlation between NFL players and college success to me. What this shows is that GT has actually overachieved some relative to talent in the last 7 years, while UGA probably has underachieved. I would credit this to Friedgen and Donnan, respectively.
Old Foggy, players go to the pros strictly on athletic ability. You can have a very athletic player on a 0-13 team as a better NFL candidate than a player on a team with a 13-0 record.
The quantity of players from a team entering the NFL will tell you only one thing, the quality of exceptional athletes the coach is getting into his program.
The major element in winning is the expertise of the coach. Coaches with the ability to put together good game plans and utilize each players talent to the maximum will prosper much better than coaches with premium players, but poor game plans, and, also does not have the expertise to maximize each players abilities.
Once a good coach becomes established at a given institution, it is natural that he will draw better athletes to play for him. When this happens, he, too, will begin to get the prime players, and he will then have more players entering the NFL.
The good coach then becomes almost unbeatable, until he begins to lose his edge in later years.
There have been many players over the years, entering the pros, with average careers in college, but had great careers in the pros.
Sometimes a great athlete in college will be saddled with a coach, teaching poor techniques, and the player seems average, but becomes all-world in the pros. Many times the better coach in the NFL helps the player maximize his abilities.
There have been great players in college, who are drafted by the pros, but never make the grade. That is why most of the NFL scouts try to downplay a players statistics in college, but takes into consideration his size, height, speed, and other athletic measurements that are generally found in the better athletes.
There have been many a Heisman recipient to fail miserably in the pros.
By the way, why did we beat Georgia three out of four years with Friegden at Tech with the same quality of athletes we have had in the past two years?
Why did, suddenly, lose two straight to Friegden at Maryland, when we had been beating them regularly before he went to Maryland? Did we have better athletes at Tech before Friegden went to Maryland, and, suddenly, the next two years he had better material than us?
Your logic loses me in these areas.
The quantity of players from a team entering the NFL will tell you only one thing, the quality of exceptional athletes the coach is getting into his program.
The major element in winning is the expertise of the coach. Coaches with the ability to put together good game plans and utilize each players talent to the maximum will prosper much better than coaches with premium players, but poor game plans, and, also does not have the expertise to maximize each players abilities.
Once a good coach becomes established at a given institution, it is natural that he will draw better athletes to play for him. When this happens, he, too, will begin to get the prime players, and he will then have more players entering the NFL.
The good coach then becomes almost unbeatable, until he begins to lose his edge in later years.
There have been many players over the years, entering the pros, with average careers in college, but had great careers in the pros.
Sometimes a great athlete in college will be saddled with a coach, teaching poor techniques, and the player seems average, but becomes all-world in the pros. Many times the better coach in the NFL helps the player maximize his abilities.
There have been great players in college, who are drafted by the pros, but never make the grade. That is why most of the NFL scouts try to downplay a players statistics in college, but takes into consideration his size, height, speed, and other athletic measurements that are generally found in the better athletes.
There have been many a Heisman recipient to fail miserably in the pros.
By the way, why did we beat Georgia three out of four years with Friegden at Tech with the same quality of athletes we have had in the past two years?
Why did, suddenly, lose two straight to Friegden at Maryland, when we had been beating them regularly before he went to Maryland? Did we have better athletes at Tech before Friegden went to Maryland, and, suddenly, the next two years he had better material than us?
Your logic loses me in these areas.
ahso,
What a contrast.
The Fridge strengthens what was already the best coaching staff in the ACC....and we end up weakening what is becoming obvious is the weakest coaching staff in the ACC.
Bitter pill to swallow. You are right about the truth coming out. Some of us just saw it much more clearly and much sooner than others.
What a contrast.
The Fridge strengthens what was already the best coaching staff in the ACC....and we end up weakening what is becoming obvious is the weakest coaching staff in the ACC.
Bitter pill to swallow. You are right about the truth coming out. Some of us just saw it much more clearly and much sooner than others.
BeeWare, you have not seen the truth yet. You only have an opinion like the rest of us. The jury is still out on whether the problem was BOB or Gailey last year. It will be settled this year.
Since BOB will not be here, we can give all the glory to Gailey this year if he wins big, and know for sure BOB was the problem.
If he bombs out, we will know last year was also Gailey's fault.
Until this year is played out, no one has the truth, only opinions.
Since BOB will not be here, we can give all the glory to Gailey this year if he wins big, and know for sure BOB was the problem.
If he bombs out, we will know last year was also Gailey's fault.
Until this year is played out, no one has the truth, only opinions.
MsTechAnalysis
Jolly Good Fellow
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2002
- Messages
- 1,816
The barometer for successful college teams to me is not how many players you place in the NFL - Nebraska was on top for years in college football and never had many players go that route. The ones that did get there from Nebraska weren't as successful as others. Their successes were more at the college level.
Tech has had their share but not half as many as other football factories. That being said, I do believe we had enough talent here last season to do better then our outcome. Even with our QB situation and tailback - the Clemson, Wake and FSU games were there for the taking; even Maryland - I would have never believed at halftime that we would lose that game.
The cupboard was full enough to get some of those losses on the win side.
Tech has had their share but not half as many as other football factories. That being said, I do believe we had enough talent here last season to do better then our outcome. Even with our QB situation and tailback - the Clemson, Wake and FSU games were there for the taking; even Maryland - I would have never believed at halftime that we would lose that game.
The cupboard was full enough to get some of those losses on the win side.
MsTechAnalysis
Jolly Good Fellow
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2002
- Messages
- 1,816
The barometer for successful college teams to me is not how many players you place in the NFL - Nebraska was on top for years in college football and never had many players go that route. The ones that did get there from Nebraska weren't as successful as others. Their successes were more at the college level.
Tech has had their share but not half as many as other football factories. That being said, I do believe we had enough talent here last season to do better then our outcome. Even with our QB situation and tailback - the Clemson, Wake and FSU games were there for the taking; even Maryland - I would have never believed at halftime that we would lose that game.
The cupboard was full enough to get some of those losses on the win side.
Tech has had their share but not half as many as other football factories. That being said, I do believe we had enough talent here last season to do better then our outcome. Even with our QB situation and tailback - the Clemson, Wake and FSU games were there for the taking; even Maryland - I would have never believed at halftime that we would lose that game.
The cupboard was full enough to get some of those losses on the win side.
I agree to a certain extent MsTechAnalysis. We had the talent to win 3-4 more games last year, although I believe our QB problems are what held us back. But our talent isn't any better than those teams we could have beaten. We have good college players, and enough to win 8+ games.
The part I disagree with is your assessment of whether players in the NFL is a barometer of talent. Nebraska has always had a lot of players go to the pros. Not QBs or WRs, but they have always sent linemen, defensive playes and RBs to the pros. They might not have the high profile players that grab the headlines but if you look at the top teams over the last 15-20 years, there are always plenty of guys playing pro ball.
The part I disagree with is your assessment of whether players in the NFL is a barometer of talent. Nebraska has always had a lot of players go to the pros. Not QBs or WRs, but they have always sent linemen, defensive playes and RBs to the pros. They might not have the high profile players that grab the headlines but if you look at the top teams over the last 15-20 years, there are always plenty of guys playing pro ball.
MsTechAnalysis
Jolly Good Fellow
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2002
- Messages
- 1,816
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">NC: Read an article in Sports Illustrated about 4 years ago about Nebraska football and they said they had lots of guys drafted high or first 4 rounds - lineman and runningbacks but a lot don't make it and get cut. For the amount of success they have had at the college level - it was way off at the pro level in comparison.
71YellowJacket
Damn Good Rat
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2002
- Messages
- 1,262
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Ahsoisee,Originally posted by ahsoisee:
BeeWare, you have not seen the truth yet. You only have an opinion like the rest of us. The jury is still out on whether the problem was BOB or Gailey last year. It will be settled this year.
Since BOB will not be here, we can give all the glory to Gailey this year if he wins big, and know for sure BOB was the problem.
If he bombs out, we will know last year was also Gailey's fault.
Until this year is played out, no one has the truth, only opinions.
I agree with 90% of your comment. However, I do not think it will take 12 games before we figure out if Gailey is a keeper.
By mid season, we will have a pretty good idea where we are heading and unlike last year, I will not withold judgement till the season is over.