Duke = UGA... what does it mean?

[JJacket]

The main reason we lost today is that the other team was better. It would have taken an amazing effort to beat that team. The main reason we lost to UVA and Duke is poor play and poor coaching. Neither team is superior to us in talent. UVA is terrible on offense. Duke had lost six in a row, including a loss to Army. Those two were inexcusable. Win them and I would be disappointed today,but we would be 8-3, headed to a good bowl, 6-2 in the ACC, and those two division opponents would both have gone 5-7 and likely missed a bowl game.

Or Duke and UVA are better than we are.

 

[gtchief]

Where I'm trying to do is to demonstrate how vacuous the concept of 'talent' is on this board. We need to stop relying on it as an explanation. It is infinitely malleable. It is evidence of mental midgetry. It's basically throwing up your hands and saying 'oh well.' And, of course, it's wrong.

And I'd say common sense — the ol' eye test — is that we played almost identically badly against Duke as we did against UGA. Man, we looked like crap. And the other team, regardless of the jersey color, looked identically strong.

So... what is talent again? If people would use a different word instead of 'talent' to express what they mean, maybe I'd understand differently.

Talent is probably used to mean a mix of measurables (height, weight, speed, etc) and technique for the position. I think our focus should be on measurables first and relying on coaching them up similar to Smelter and Gotsis

 

[BainbridgeJacket]

Talent is probably used to mean a mix of measurables (height, weight, speed, etc) and technique for the position. I think our focus should be on measurables first and relying on coaching them up similar to Smelter and Gotsis

Gotsis and smelter are examples of the exact opposite of what you say. They had impeccable technique on day 1 of being on campus. They were also pretty well fully physically developed due to age.

 

[buzztheflats]

Gotsis and smelter are examples of the exact opposite of what you say. They had impeccable technique on day 1 of being on campus. They were also pretty well fully physically developed due to age.

Were Gotsis and/or Smelter walk-ons? I seem to recall Smelter being a baseball player before he played football.

 

[18in32]

Gotsis and smelter are examples of the exact opposite of what you say. They had impeccable technique on day 1 of being on campus. They were also pretty well fully physically developed due to age.

Were Gotsis and/or Smelter walk-ons? I seem to recall Smelter being a baseball player before he played football.

FWIW, we tried to sign Smelter as a football player (as did many other programs), but he wanted to play baseball. When that didn't work out (injuries played a role, as I recall), he asked if he could try football again.

 

[gtchief]

Gotsis and smelter are examples of the exact opposite of what you say. They had impeccable technique on day 1 of being on campus. They were also pretty well fully physically developed due to age.

I seem to remember a kid switching from baseball to football with good size and hand-eye coordination that helped catch a ball. I'll take your word for it if he was impeccable at blocking, running routes, etc from day 1 back on the football field after his baseball stint of two years or however long. I thought his most valuable asset at the time was size and we could work with it from there since he had some experience.

 

[floridajacket]

Where I'm trying to do is to demonstrate how vacuous the concept of 'talent' is on this board. We need to stop relying on it as an explanation. It is infinitely malleable. It is evidence of mental midgetry. It's basically throwing up your hands and saying 'oh well.' And, of course, it's wrong.

And I'd say common sense — the ol' eye test — is that we played almost identically badly against Duke as we did against UGA. Man, we looked like crap. And the other team, regardless of the jersey color, looked identically strong.

So... what is talent again? If people would use a different word instead of 'talent' to express what they mean, maybe I'd understand differently.

For one thing, my eye test had different results. The TFL on 3rd and 1 in 1st half for example, forcing a punt. We didn't force Duke to punt until their 8th possession.

Not that a TFL on 3rd and 1 is *that* impressive. But against Chubb, Michelle and their OL, it is more impressive than doing it against Duke's offense. And we didn't get a 3rd down stop against Duke before FG range in first 7 possessions.

But basing it on the "ol' eye test" makes it entirely impossible to argue against. Can you argue against my eye test?

Talent doesn't have an exact quantitative measurement, but man, it can be quantified much more than the "ol' eye test." Based on height, weight, speed; NFL draft picks; and recruiting offer lists, you get some pretty good idea for talent.

 

[Yukonwreck]

Yikes, if true that brings back memories of some very bad end-of-regime teams and losses. I'm not sure about that. The D definitely gave up today on UGA's last clock-burning drive, but I'm not sure that explains the rest of the second half.

Many of the bigger, more prestigious programs have recognized the coming storm. Football's days are numbered, whether it lives 12 or 15 more years or 20 or 25 more years, it is on its way out as a revenue stream. Tennessee, Florida, A & M, UCLA are dumping coaches, and trying to line up successful, money-making coaches to grab at least a few more big paydays before the end. I don't think Georgia Tech is in that group. We are probably content to continue the status quo until the sport is either outlawed, or regulated into an activity that none of us will recognize or enjoy. College football is absolutely dependent on head coaching "talent". Having a Spurrier cancels a handful of Hershel Walkers. Make the right head coaching hire, and an explosion of success results. Notre Dame under Kelly can't match Notre Dame under Holtz even though the recruited talent is probably very close. Zook got better players than Urban Meyer but nowhere near the wins.

 

[18in32]

But basing it on the "ol' eye test" makes it entirely impossible to argue against. Can you argue against my eye test?

Talent doesn't have an exact quantitative measurement, but man, it can be quantified much more than the "ol' eye test." Based on height, weight, speed; NFL draft picks; and recruiting offer lists, you get some pretty good idea for talent.

Height, weight and speed measure height, weight and speed.
NFL draft picks and recruiting offer lists *are* the "ol' eye test", in the aggregate, as tested by folks with a lot of experience.
I certainly don't deny that some players are better than others. But I definitely deny that the differential in quality of players is why we lost to UGA.
Maybe I'm making no progress here with you. C'est la vie. Peace!

 

[18in32]

College football is absolutely dependent on head coaching "talent". Having a Spurrier cancels a handful of Hershel Walkers. Make the right head coaching hire, and an explosion of success results. Notre Dame under Kelly can't match Notre Dame under Holtz even though the recruited talent is probably very close. Zook got better players than Urban Meyer but nowhere near the wins.

Agreed — though the word I would use is "leadership" instead of "talent." But I agree it is ineffable, and crucial. And potentially running low at GT.